Construction and Building Materials 112 (2016) 903–906

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Technical note

Direct tensile testing of Self-Compacting Concrete

Faez Alhussainy, Hayder Alaa Hasan, Sime Rogic, M. Neaz Sheikh, Muhammad N.S. Hadi ⇑
School of Civil, Mining, and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explores a new procedure to determine the stress-strain behaviour of Self-Compacting
Received 8 October 2015 Concrete (SCC) under direct uniaxial tension. Special steel claws were designed, built and installed at
Received in revised form 11 January 2016 both ends of 100  100  500 mm SCC specimens. These claws were used to transfer the applied tensile
Accepted 26 February 2016
forces to the specimens. The cross-section of the specimens was reduced in the middle to ensure that fail-
Available online 9 March 2016
ure would occur in the middle. The specimens were tested at 28 days for direct tensile stress-strain beha-
viour as well as for compressive, splitting and flexural strengths. The test results showed that there was
Keywords:
no slippage or fracture at the ends of any of the specimens. Also, the failure occurred in the middle of
Self-Compacting Concrete
Uniaxial tension
specimens, as expected. The direct tensile strength of the specimens was found to be lower than the split-
Stress-strain behaviour ting and flexural strengths.
Strain rate Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Direct tensile testing

1. Introduction
The mechanical properties of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC)
have been extensively studied over past few years [1–6]. However,
only few studies investigated the direct tensile stress-strain beha-
viour of the SCC. This is mainly attributed to the difficult test setup
and the proper execution of the experiments. Perfect alignment,
secondary flexure, slippage and high stress-concentration at the
ends of specimen due to gripping are considered the main factors
that affect the direct tensile testing of the concrete [7–11]. Accord-
ingly, the direct tensile strength is usually calculated based on the
test results obtained from splitting tensile strength or flexural
strength using conversion factors. However, it was reported that
these conversion factors might not be applicable for SCC [12].
Understanding the direct tensile stress-strain behaviour of the
SCC is significantly important, as it affects the deflections, cracking,
shear and bonding behaviours of reinforced concrete elements
constructed with SCC. This paper proposes a new test setup to
determine the direct tensile testing of the SCC.
2. Description of experimental program
The mix proportion of the Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) used in this study is
shown in Table 1. The standard mechanical properties including compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength (modulus of rupture) and mod-
ulus of elasticity under compression as well as the uniaxial direct tensile strength of
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fama867@uowmail.edu.au (F. Alhussainy), hah966@uowmail.
edu.au (H.A. Hasan), sr528@uowmail.edu.au (S. Rogic), msheikh@uow.edu.au
(M. Neaz Sheikh), mhadi@uow.edu.au (M.N.S. Hadi).
the SCC were determined. The compressive strength of the concrete was deter-
mined by testing three cylinders of 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in height
according to AS 1012.9 [13]. The indirect tensile strength (Brazil or splitting test)
of the SCC was obtained by testing three cylinders of 150 mm in diameter and
300 mm in height according to AS 1012.10 [14]. The flexural strength (modulus
of rupture) of the specimens was determined by testing three 100  100 
500 mm prisms under four point loading according to AS1012.11 [15]. The concrete
modulus of elasticity under compression was obtained by testing three cylinders of
150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in height according to AS 1012.17 [16]. The direct
tensile testing of the SCC specimens was carried out according to the procedure
developed in this study, which has been fully explained below.
3. Direct tensile test setup and loading
Wooden boxes of 100  100 mm in cross-section and 500 mm
in length were used as formwork for the specimens. Two gripping
claws were embedded in both ends of the box which extend
125 mm in the specimen, as shown in Fig. 1. The claws were made
from 20 mm diameter threaded rod which had four 8 mm diameter
pins welded at 90 degrees with spacing of 20 mm, as shown in
Fig. 2. In order to keep the claws level and aligned within the form-
work, a washer was welded to the threaded rod inside the box,
whilst a nut and a washer were used on the outside to dismantle
the box formwork. To induce failure in the middle of the specimen,
two pieces of timber triangles with a base of 20 mm and a height of
10 mm were glued inside the wooden box vertically at the middle
on the opposite sides, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3. In order to test the
specimens, the universal Instron testing machine at the School of
Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wol-
longong, was used. To successfully apply axial tensile loading in
the specimen, two universal joints were designed to hold the ends

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.215
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
904 F. Alhussainy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 112 (2016) 903–906

Table 1
Mix proportion of the SCC used in this study.

Material Quantity
Cement 280 kg/m3
Fly ash 120 kg/m3
Slag 50 kg/m3
Fine aggregate 950 kg/m3
Coarse aggregate 780 kg/m3
Water 182 kg/m3
High Range Water Reducer 3.375 l/m3
Water/Powder ratio 0.4/1 m3

of specimens by the machine. The universal joint allows movement

of the specimen at both ends in order to align the specimen verti-
cally between the jaws of the machine, as shown in Fig. 4. Also, the
Fig. 2. The claw designed for direct tensile testing of SCC specimen.
joints overcome any defects in misalignment of the claws during
the casting of the specimen. One of the universal joint ends had
a diameter suitable for the gripping jaws of the testing machine,
whilst the other end had a welded nut which could be screwed
onto the test specimen claws. The developed universal joints were
used for all the specimens. To ensure adequate safety, the lower
half of the specimen was lightly held in place using a strap to pre-
vent the sudden fall after failure.
Displacement controlled tensile loading have a significant influ-
ence on the overall stress-strain behaviour of the specimen. Yan
and Lin [17] observed that the peak strain within a sample
increased with the increase in the loading rate. The increase in
the applied strain rate also affects the tensile stress, Young’s mod-
ulus, Poisson’s ratio and ultimate strain. In this study, strain rate of
6  10 6 le=s was used to test the specimens. This rate is within Timber Triangles
the range of strain rates applied by Yan and Lin [17] and Chen
et al. [18]. To measure the strain within each specimen, two
120 mm long strain gauges were attached in the middle on the Fig. 3. Completed formwork for the casting of the SCC specimens.
opposite flat sides.

4. Results Reduction of the cross-sectional area of the specimens resulted in

increasing the stress in the middle of the specimens, which
As predicted, failure of all specimens occurred in the middle induced a consistent failure in the middle. The reduction of the
where the cross section was reduced by 20%, as shown in Fig. 5. cross-section also prevented the failure to occur at undesirable

Fig. 1. Details of direct tensile testing of SCC specimen.

 F. Alhussainy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 112 (2016) 903–906 905

Fig. 4. Universal joints designed for direct tensile testing of SCC specimen.

locations along the length of the specimen. No concrete cracking

occurred at either end of the specimens, as the designed claws cre-
ated a strong and evenly distributed bond between the claws and
the concrete. In combination with the universal joints, proper
alignments were achieved avoiding end crushing and slippage.
Table 2 summarises the mechanical properties of the SCC
obtained from standard tests and direct tensile tests. Three speci-
mens were tested to observe the direct tensile stress-strain beha-
viour of the SCC, as shown in Fig. 6. The difference between the
maximum and minimum values of the direct tensile strength of
the SCC specimens was 5.8%. It was observed that the direct tensile
strength of the SCC is less than the flexural strength (modulus of
rupture) and splitting tensile strengths. The average direct tensile
strength of the SCC was found to be 3.5 MPa, whilst the average
flexural strength and splitting tensile strength were found to be
6.5 MPa and 3.8 MPa, respectively. The lower value of the direct
Fig. 6. Direct tensile stress-strain behaviour of the SCC specimens.
tensile strength compared to the splitting and flexural strengths
was similar to the observation reported in Wee et al. [9] for normal
strength concrete.
The direct tensile strength of the SCC specimens tested based on
the designed and developed test setup was approximately equal to
90 percent of the splitting tensile strength, which is consistent
with AS 3600-09 [19] and EC 2 [20]. The average result of the direct
tensile strength was also compared with the model in CEB-FIB [21].
The experimental direct tensile strength of the SCC was within the
limits specified in the CEB-FIB [21]. The predicted value of the
direct tensile strength according to CEB-FIB [21] was found to be
only 0.5 MPa higher than the experimental value. It is noted that

Fig. 5. Failure mode of specimens.

Table 2
Summary of testing results for SCC.

Type of test Standard tests Specimens Average result

S1 S2 S3
Compressive strength (28 days) AS 1012.9 [13] 56.5 57 – 57 MPa
Indirect tensile strength (Brazil or splitting test) AS 1012.10 [14] 3.7 3.78 3.87 3.8 MPa
Flexural strength (modulus of rupture) AS1012.11 [15] 6 6.39 7.1 6.5 MPa
Modulus of elasticity (compressive stress-strain test) AS 1012.17 [16] 29.5 30 31 30 GPa
Modulus of elasticity (direct tensile stress-strain test) Procedure developed in this study 19.5 20.4 21 20 GPa
Direct tensile strength Procedure developed in this study 3.4 3.49 3.6 3.5 MPa
906 F. Alhussainy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 112 (2016) 903–906
Fig. 7. Axial load-axial deformation behaviour of the SCC specimens under uniaxial
tension.
the main objective of this paper is to develop a test procedure to
determine the stress-strain behaviour of the SCC under direct uni-
axial tension. The development of correlation equations for the
direct tensile strength of different types of SCC is beyond the scope
of this paper.
The modulus of elasticity of the SCC was calculated using the
slope of direct tensile stress-strain curves, Fig. 6. The average mod-
ulus of elasticity in direct tension was found to be 20 GPa, which
was equal to the two-thirds of the modulus of elasticity in com-
pression. The average maximum direct tensile load carried by the
specimens was 28 kN with corresponding axial deformation of
1.24 mm, as shown in Fig. 7.
5. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the
experimental program carried out in this study on the direct ten-
sile testing of the Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC). First, the
designed and developed experimental setup was adequate in
ensuring that specimens failed in the middle where the cross-
sectional area was reduced by 20%. Second, due to adequate grip-
ping, slippage and flexural induced cracking did not occurred dur-
ing loading. Third, the average direct tensile strength of the SCC
was found to be less than the average flexural strength (modulus
of rupture) and splitting tensile strength. Similarly, the modulus
of elasticity in direct tension was found to be two-thirds of the
modulus of elasticity in compression. Finally, the developed proce-
dure for applying direct tensile strength to the SCC was found to be
effective and efficient. Further research is needed to apply the
developed procedure to determine the direct tensile strength of
other types of concrete.
References
[1] B. Persson, A comparison between mechanical properties of self-compacting
concrete and the corresponding properties of normal concrete, Cem. Concr.
Res. 31 (2) (2001) 193–198.
[2] K. Holschemacher, Y. Klug, A database for the evaluation of hardened
properties of SCC, Lacer 7 (2002) 123–134.
[3] K. Holschemacher, Hardened material properties of self-compacting concrete,
J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 10 (4) (2004) 261–266.
[4] EFNARC, The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete: Specification,
Production and Use, the European Federation of Specialist Construction
Chemicals and Concrete Systems, 2005, pp. 1–63. <www.efnarc.org>.
[5] P. Domone, A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self-compacting
concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (1) (2007) 1–12.
[6] F. Aslani, S. Nejadi, Mechanical properties of conventional and self-compacting
concrete: an analytical study, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 330–347.
[7] J. Van Mier, M. Van Vliet, Uniaxial tension test for the determination of fracture
parameters of concrete: state of the art, Eng. Fract. Mech. 69 (2) (2002) 235–
247.
[8] T. Wee, H. Lu, S. Swaddiwudhipong, Tensile strain capacity of concrete under
various states of stress, Mag. Concr. Res. 52 (3) (2000) 185–193.
[9] S. Swaddiwudhipong, H. Lu, T. Wee, Direct tension test and tensile strain
capacity of concrete at early age, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (12) (2003) 2077–2084.
[10] S. Choi, K. Yang, J. Sim, B. Choi, Direct tensile strength of lightweight concrete
with different specimen depths and aggregate sizes, Constr. Build. Mater. 63
(2014) 132–141.
[11] E. Roziere, R. Cortas, A. Loukili, Tensile behaviour of early age concrete: new
methods of investigation, Cem. Concr. Compos. 55 (2015) 153–161.
[12] P. Desnerck, V. Boel, B. Craeye, P.V. Itterbeeck, Mechanical properties of self-
compacting concrete, in: K. Khayat, G. De Schutter (Eds.), State-of-the-Art
Report of RILEM Technical Committee 228-MPS, Springer, 2014, pp. 15–71.
[13] AS (Australian Standards), Methods of Testing Concrete – Method 9:
Determination of the Compressive Strength of Concrete Specimens, 2014 (AS
1012.9-2014, Sydney, NSW).
[14] AS (Australian Standards), Methods of Testing Concrete – Method 10:
Determination of Indirect Tensile Strength of Concrete Cylinders (’Brazil’ or
Splitting Test), 2000 (AS 1012.10-2000, Sydney, NSW).
[15] AS (Australian Standards), Methods of Testing Concrete - Method 11:
Determination of the Modulus of Rupture, 2000 (AS 1012.11-2000, Sydney,
NSW).
[16] AS (Australian Standards), Methods of Testing Concrete – Method 17:
Determination of the Static Chord Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio
of Concrete Specimens, 1997 (AS 1012.17-1997, Sydney, NSW).
[17] D. Yan, G. Lin, Dynamic properties of concrete in direct tension, Cem. Concr.
Res. 36 (2006) 1371–1378.
[18] X. Chen, S. Wu, J. Zhou, Y. Chen, A. Qin, Effect of testing method and strain rate
on stress-strain behavior of concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (11) (2013) 1752–
1761.
[19] AS (Australian Standards), Concrete Structures, 2009 (AS 3600-2009, Sydney,
NSW).
[20] EC 2 (Eurocode), Design of Concrete Structures, European Committee for
Standardization, 2004, p. 225 (EN 1992-1-1: Part 1-1).
[21] CEB-FIB, Bulletin 55-Model Code 2010-First Completed Draft, CEB-FIP, vol. 1,
2010, p. 292.