See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339409307

New Approach of Concrete Tensile Strength Test

Article  in  Case Studies in Construction Materials · February 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00347

CITATIONS READS

4 138

4 authors, including:

Sa'ad Fahad Resan Samir Mohammed Chassib

University of Misan University of Misan
26 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sajid Kamil
University of Misan
7 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Academic Lecturers vs Researches View project

Let's Save the World and Humanity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samir Mohammed Chassib on 27 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

New approach of concrete tensile strength test

Sa’ad Fahad Resan*, Samir Mohammed Chassib, Sajid Kamil Zemam,
Mustafa Jabar Madhi
Civil Engineering Department, Engineering College, University of Misan, Amarah, Iraq

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The study aims to develop a new approach of concrete tensile strength test characteristic
Received 14 January 2020 by minimizing the traditional drawbacks such as load eccentricity, stress or strain non-
Received in revised form 17 February 2020 uniformity and stress concentration in traditional test methods and of a distinguished
Accepted 19 February 2020
gauge region which undergoes uniform tensile stress so the determination of the tensile
stress-strain curve is simplified contrariwise of traditional methods. The elementary
Keywords: configuration of biaxial stress state is normalized into introduced model configuration
Concrete tensile strength
under the effect of identical internal forces of specific alignment laid within specific
Flexural test
Brazilian test
compression and tension elements likewise a strut–tie model. Experimental program is
Tensile test model considered to investigate the introduced model, flexural and Brazilian splitting tests are
Strut-tie model conducted to confirm its reliability. The obtained results are quite converged and show
that the tensile strength determined by the proposed model is clearly higher than that
of the Brazilian test with closer deviation and lower than that of the flexural test.
Unique and sudden fracture is observed within assigned gauge length and led to
separation of failed specimens without any deformation associated with loading
mechanism.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The determination of concrete tensile strength and measuring of the tensile stress-strain curve using indirect tests are not
a straight forward affair and become approximate hence there is a necessity for developing direct tensile strength evaluation
of pure tensile stress state and encounters major drawbacks.
The importance of concrete tensile strength is related to its rule in understanding concrete behaviour and pose challenges
for concrete design because of the brittleness associated with influent parameters in failure criterion, in which the limiting
tensile strain serves as a good reference of concrete strength under static loading and can be utilised as a failure indicator of
concrete materials [1]. Concrete tensile strength could be determined using different test methods of various specimen
models, such as direct pull [2–5], flexural, splitting, ring-tensile [6] and double-punch tests [7]. It is difficult to apply direct
tension load to concrete specimens, the traditional tensile testing methods test suffer several major drawbacks associated
with the identified challenges of loading mechanism, such as load eccentricity, stress or strain non-uniformity and stress
concentration at the specimen ends, causing specimens’ end fracture. Considering these shortcomings of direct tension tests,
tensile strength capacity is conveniently evaluated from the tensile fibres in a prism’s section of constant-moment using the
flexural test [1].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sadresan@uomisan.edu.iq (S.F. Resan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00347
2214-5095/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

Nomenclature

fcu cube concrete compressive strength, MPa

Ec concrete modulus of elasticity, MPa
fr concrete tensile strength or modulus of rupture deter-
mined using flexural test, MPa
fs concrete tensile strength determined using splitting test,
MPa
ft concrete tensile strength determined using suggested
model, MPa
e tensile strain measured within tensile gauge region
a tensile gauge region height, mm
b tensile gauge region width, mm
At tensile gauge region area, mm2

The significant core related to direct tensile testing approaches were concerned with measuring concrete tensile
strength by developed models provided by different means like embedded steel bars, lateral gripping, gluing, wings or
truncated cones [1]. All these techniques create non pure tensile stresses and result in an uneven stress application to
specimens [10]. Many experimental studies have attempted to overcome the drawbacks in concrete tensile strength
determination [8–14]. Recently, several models were introduced to investigate concrete’s direct tensile strength.
Mohammad Iqbal Khan proposed the direct tensile strength test shown in Fig. 1.a and compared its results with
compressive and flexural strengths. The obtained results were comparable, and the relationships were similar to those
proposed in previous studies [15]. Vahab Sarfarazi et al. developed a compression-to-tensile load transformer device as a
modern approach to determine the direct tensile strength of concrete, as shown in Fig. 1.b. A Brazilian test was performed
to compare the results of the two methods. The test results were encouraging and showed that the direct tensile strength
was clearly lower than that in the Brazilian test. The difference between the Brazilian and direct tensile strengths was
approximately 33 % [16].
The present study introduces a new and innovative testing approach of concrete tensile strength characteristics by
controlled loading alignment and specific gauge length undergoing pure tensile stress so as to overcome conventional
drawbacks associated with indirect tension tests.

2. Introduced model

2.1. Geometrical description

The elementary configuration of biaxial stress state (illustrated in Fig. 2) is normalized into introduced model
configuration under the effect of identical internal forces of specific alignment laid within specific compression and tension
elements likewise a strut–tie model. The developed stress trajectories within concrete element under compressive force
(shown in Fig. 3) likewise splitting test unit (300
150 mm concrete specimen of cylindrical section) could be conjunction by
alignment compressive and tensile forces within specific elements which are assigned as struts under compressive force and
tie under uniform tension force to be consider as gauge length. The proposed model is derived from a splitting test model by
removing limited parts and modifying the other parts, thereby allowing alignment with flow stress paths and creating a
strut–tie model [17]. Struts are utilised as compression arms that transfer the applied load through relatively rigid nodal
zones to a concrete tie, which is designed as a gauge region undergoing tension force. The similarity with that of strut-and-tie

Fig. 1. Proposed tensile strength determination models.

a.Khan’s proposed model [15]
b. Sarfarazi’s proposed model [16]
 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347 3

Fig. 2. Equivalence insight between considered model and biaxial stress state.

Fig. 3. Typical stress trajectories within concrete element of compression field.

a. Geometrical description
b. Strut–tie simulation and elementary detail
c. Free body force diagrams

model is the presenting of actual truss model of compression and tension elements of specific force direction but not in stress
complexity solving.
The suggested model is briefly described in Fig. 4. In general, its characteristics are as follows.

1 The concrete tie part is utilised as a limited tensile gauge region to induce a pure tensile stress state (a x b).
2 Load is applied using a relatively rigid cylindrical fitting through a frictionless concrete contact surface by a smooth
loading steel plate. The dimensions of loading cylindrical fitting (thickness 10 mm, Dia. 100 mm) are selected so as to avoid
any undesired deformation and so to eliminate any energy dissipation affect the accuracy of applied loading.
3 Loading, geometry and boundaries are symmetrical with respect to the x and y axes to eliminate any possible variation.
4 Tensile stress is developed within gauge length using a traditional loading machine in compression mode.
5 The nodal zone forces action under compression-tension-compression (C-T-C). Thus, steel reinforcement is provided for
rigidity enhancement.
6 The region with applied load is likewise hinged to release model parts from one another except in the considered tensile
gauge region and to avoid any energy dissipation.
7 No lateral boundary conditions exist.

2.2. Force analysis

In accordance with the concept of static equilibrium, the free body diagram of loading fitting and the frictionless contact
surface between loading fitting and concrete surface, the force component along the specimen wings is as follows:
P
Referring to free body diagram of loading fitting (Fig. 4.a.i) and from equilibrium along y axis, F y ¼ 0, so;

P ¼ 2 Rsinu

P
R¼ ð1Þ
2sinu
4 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

Fig. 4. Introduced model of concrete tensile strength prediction.

a. Introduced model
b. Splitting model
c. Flexural test model
S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347 5

Fig. 5. Different model configurations and typical stress distributions.

6 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

However, from the free body diagram of the considered model (Fig. 4.a.ii) and under the effect of applied load (R) and
P
from equilibrium in along x-axis, F x ¼ 0;

Q ¼ 2Rcosu ð2Þ

Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2) and remember that sinu ¼ cosu for u = 45, we obtain the following;
P
Q ¼ 2  cosu ð3Þ
2cosu
So, Q ¼ P
Therefore, concrete tensile strength within the created pure tensile stress state could be determined as follows:
P
ft ¼ ð4Þ
At
which indicates that the tensile force within the gauge region is identical to the applied compression force. This force
distribution is the same as that between pure shear and biaxial stress states relations as equivalent loading cases, Fig. 2.

2.3. Standard test methods

The following standard test methods are performed to compare the results of the suggested model with those of the
following standard test methods:
1. Flexural test, which is coded as ASTM C348 – 18 and termed as Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete
Prism [18];
2. Splitting test, which is coded as ASTM C 496 – 96 and termed as Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens [19].
Flexural test is conducted to estimate concrete modulus of rupture while splitting test is conducted to estimate the
concrete tensile strength, the two test approaches are indirect tensile test and considered in this study for comparative
analysis.
Fig. 3 illustrates the approaches’ descriptions, typical stress distribution along expected failure surface and the stress
state of standard test methods beside the introduced model.
The major difference among the various models presented in Fig. 3 is the tensile stress states created within the failure
surface. A simple stress distribution analysis for the considered model indicates that the stress state within the limited gauge
region is pure tensile stress (Fig. 5.a) without developing any compression stresses in nearby regions as occur in the other
two models (Figs. 5.b and. c) because of the free side boundaries of the considered model’s gauge region.

3. Experimental program

The experimental program aimed to investigate the proposed model’s reliability in predicting concrete tension strength.
Twelve specimens were manufactured and tested. Maximum aggregate size and testing age were the variables to be
investigated.

3.1. Construction materials

Portland cement (Type I) was used; its physical and chemical characteristics conformed to ASTM C150-04 [20]. The
natural fine aggregates used conformed to ASTM C33-03 [21], and the grading of the used washed crushed coarse gravel was
within Iraqi specification requirements no. 45/1984 [22].

3.2. Batch proportions

Two series of samples were manufactured using two concrete batches and casted under different conditions to obtain the
spectrum of compressive strength. Table 1 lists the material proportions of the used batches. Concrete cubes (B.S. 1881: Part
116) [23] were used to determine the compressive strength, whose results are listed in Table 2. The cubes were cured under
the same moisture conditions as in the specimen curing.

Table 1
Batch Material Proportions.

No. Mix type Cement, Sand, Gravel, Gravel Water, W/C, % Cement:Sand: Slump, Mixture
`kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 max. kg/m3 Gravel mm workability [24]
size
1 A 444.75 667 1334 9.6 186.8 42 1:1.5:3 90 Plastic
2 B 444.75 667 1334 20 186.8 42 1:1.5:3 95 Plastic
 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347 7

Table 2
Result Comparison.

Batch type Test age, days Specimen code fcu, MPa fr, Mpa fs, Mpa ft, Mpa ft/fr ft/fs
A 7 A1 25.42 2.50 1.33 1.75 0.70 1.31
A2 26.34 2.59 1.50 2.11 0.81 1.40
A3 27.59 2.69 1.50 2.46 0.92 1.64
Average 26.45 2.59 1.44 2.11 0.81 1.46
28 A4 32.00 4.08 2.00 2.27 0.56 1.14
A5 36.70 4.27 2.00 2.39 0.56 1.20
A6 38.10 4.47 2.40 2.56 0.57 1.07
Average 35.60 4.27 2.13 2.41 0.56 1.13
B 7 B1 16.71 2.38 1.51 1.67 0.70 1.11
B2 16.97 2.57 1.67 1.90 0.74 1.14
B3 17.23 2.78 1.82 2.14 0.77 1.18
Average 16.97 2.58 1.67 1.90 0.74 1.14
28 B4 25.70 3.37 1.82 1.92 0.57 1.06
B5 26.10 3.41 1.92 2.08 0.61 1.08
B6 26.50 3.97 2.01 2.23 0.56 1.11
Average 26.10 3.58 1.92 2.08 0.58 1.08

3.3. Samples details and fabrication

Wooden moulds were fabricated using 12 mm-thick plywood and stuffed with capsulated autoclaved aerated
blocks to form the target model configuration shown in Fig. 6. The fabricated specimens are shown in Fig. 7.
Steel reinforcement (2 f 8 mm) was added along the struts and across the nodal zones for rigidity enhancement within
the nodal zones to exclude any undesired failure mode especially that of expected shear mode in the nodal region of
complex stresses.

Fig. 6. Wooden mould and poured sample setting.

Fig. 7. Fabricated specimens.

8 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

3.4. Apparatus and test arrangement

A seven Ton load capacity testing machine was used for testing. Static load was applied in controlled force mode. A
portable data logger was used to assign tensile strains using 30 mm-long electrical strain gauges within the gauge area
across the expected fracture line. Figs. 8 and 9 show the test settings of the different approaches.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Comparative analysis

The relationships among the compressive, tensile and flexural strengths of concrete of various batches are
evaluated and listed in Table 2. Comparative analysis is conducted between flexural and Brazilian splitting test results
to confirm the considered approach’s reliability. The obtained results are quite converged and show that the tensile
strength determined using the proposed model is higher than that of the Brazilian test (ft/fs always greater than 1)
and lower than that of the flexural test (ft/fr always less than 1). The deviation from the Brazilian results is less than
that obtained from the flexural test.

Fig. 8. Test setup of proposed approach.

a. Splitting test b. Flexural test

Fig. 9. Test setup of customary method.

a. Concrete mixing batch (A)
b. Concrete mixing batch (B)
 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347 9

4.2. Compressive strength effect

The test results show that the specimens with high compressive strength have a low tensile–compressive strength
ratio. The average determined tensile strengths are approximately 8% and 6.8 % of the cubes’ compressive strength at 7 and
28 days, respectively. When the compressive strength is low, the corresponding values tend to be 11 % and 8%, respectively.
Fig. 10 illustrates the variation of the determined tensile strengths versus the compressive strengths for the various
considered test methods. The observed results stay within results domain of flexural test and splitting test and have a
closer evaluation to those determined by splitting model where a small deviation is assigned in respect to the Brazilian test
results. While the measured modulus of rupture assigned by flexural test indicated higher values than those determined
by other models and this observation could be associated with known linear variation of tensile stress distribution along
failure surface.

Fig. 10. Variation of determined tensile strengths versus compressive strengths for various tensile test methods.
10 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

Fig. 11. Variation of determined tensile strength with respect to customary methods for different concrete mixes.

4.3. Maximum aggregate size effect

Concrete cracking strength can be defined as the tensile strength of concrete subjected to pure tension stress [11] and due
to the significant effect of particle size upon cracking forming, the particle size for the gravel is considered as variable to
verify model reliability. Fig. 11 clearly shows the effect of maximum aggregate size within the adopted concrete mixtures.

Fig. 12. Tensile strain determined using proposed approach.

S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347 11

Fig. 13. Splitting test.

Fig. 14. Flexural test.

Fig. 15. Unique failure mode.

12 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347

The determined ratios of determined tensile strength using the proposed model compared with customary methods
(flexural and splitting models) showed more divergent variation when the maximum aggregate size reduced to 9.6, the same
variation is observed for both considered testing age (after 7 and after 28 days). The concrete mixture with the maximum
aggregate size of 20 mm, which has well-graded aggregates and a uniform mixture and exhibits a small ratio variation.
Generally, specimens of mixture (A) exhibited a relatively low tensile strength in spite of its compressive strength, which is
higher than that of the specimens of mixture (B). A small maximum aggregate size translates to low resistance versus
cracking, and vice versa.

4.4. Test age effect

Fig. 11 demonstrates the convergent ratios of the proposed approach in scope of testing ages with respect to the splitting
and flexural models, where the indicated ratios tend to be closer as the concrete tends to have better compressive strength at
28 days than at 7 days. The convergence is logically and associates with bonding improvement of aggregate- mortar strength
by time.

4.5. Tensile stress–strain response

Beside the efficient of considered model to minimize of drawbacks associated with mention test methods, it has a
distinguished region denoted as gauge region which undergoes uniform tensile stress so the determination of the tensile
stress-strain curve is simplified contrariwise of traditional methods.
The determined stress–strain responses are significantly affected by the considered approach, and thus, the applied stress
state. Figs. 12–14 clearly illustrate the tensile stress–strain response for the different considered test methods.
The tensile stress strain determined using the proposed approach demonstrates a shorter plastic portion than that of the
flexural model and longer than that of the splitting model. The same opposite influence of compressive strength on tensile
strength is confirmed upon tensile strain capacity. The determined tensile strain is approximately 30 mm/m for specimens
with high compressive strength (mix type A) against about 55 mm/m for those with low compressive strength (mix type B).
The measured tensile strain obtained by the flexure approach has a larger deviation, given that the concrete exhibits more
ductile behaviour than other models, which have approximately equal strain capacities at identical stress levels.
So, the measured modulus of rupture assigned by flexural test indicated higher values than tensile strengths determined
by other models. This finding is confirmed by stress- strain behaviour (Fig. 14) which exhibited sustainable trend more than
those of other models while the stress- strain measured by suggested model succeeded to clarify concrete brittleness in
comparing with other model as shown in Fig. 12.
Moreover, the tensile strains measured using the Brazilian test is significantly close to those determined by the proposed
approach.

4.6. Failure mode

The specimens of the different test methods, which are of varied stress states, show different fracture mechanisms. The
specimens of the considered approach exhibit rapid fracture as those of flexural test where sudden splitting aligned within
gauge area without any developing initial cracks, it is extremely different from Brazilian test which characteristics by
developing initial cracks. The fashion of failure is definitely associated with the fraction crack across the specimen’s centre
line. Fig. 15 assigns a unique failure mode for the tested specimens, and Fig. 16 denotes the failure surface textures of
specimens with different maximum aggregate sizes for the three considered test approaches. The same failure plane textures

Fig. 16. Fracture surface textures.

 S.F. Resan et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00347 13

are observed in the considered models. Deboning of coarse aggregate and mortar rupturing are denoted in the proposed
model likewise in Brazilian or flexural test.

5. Conclusions

Observations of the experimental data and their comparative analysis confirmed the reliability of the introduced
approach to measure concrete tensile strength. The obtained results are quite converged and show that the tensile strength
determined using the proposed model is clearly higher than that determined using the Brazilian test (ft/fs always greater than
1, with closer deviation) and lower than that determined using the flexural test (ft/fr always less than 1). The test results show
that specimens with high compressive strength have a low tensile–compressive strength ratio, the average tensile strengths
are approximately 8% and 6.8 % of the cubes’ compressive strengths at 7 and 28 days, respectively; while for specimens of low
compressive strength, the corresponding values tend to be 11 % and 8%, respectively. The same finding, but of opposite
influence is assigned upon tensile strain capacity. It is approximately 30 mm/m for specimens with relatively high
compressive strength against about 55 mm/m for those with low compressive strength. The determined stress-strain
responses are significantly affected by the considered approach, and thus, the applied stress state. The tensile- strain
response measured by the flexure approach has a large deviation, given that concrete exhibits more ductile behaviour than in
other models with approximately equal strain capacity at identical stress levels. The stress- strain response measured by
suggested model succeeded to clarify concrete brittleness in comparing with other models, the specimens exhibit rapid
fracture where sudden splitting aligned within the gauge area.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] T.H. Wee, H.R. Lu, S. Swaddiwudhipong, Tensile strain capacity of concrete under various states of stress, Mag. Concr. Res. 52 (June (3)) (2000) 185–193.
[2] ASTM D2936-08, Standard test method for direct tensile strength of intact rock core specimens, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2008.
[3] A. Ghaffar, M.A. Chaudhry, M. Kamran Ali, A new approach for measurement of tensile strength of concrete, J. Res. Sci. Bahauddin Zakariya University,
Multan, Pakistan 16 (2005) 1–9.
[4] N.X. Xie, W.Y. Liu, Determining tensile properties of mass concrete by direct tensile test, ACI Mater. J. 86 (3) (1989) 214–219.
[5] W. Zheng, A.K.H. Kwan, P.K.K. Lee, Direct tension test of concrete, ACI Mater. J. 98 (1) (2001) 63–71.
[6] D.J. Hannant, The tensile strength of concrete: a review paper, Struct. Eng. 50 (7) (1972) 253–257.
[7] W.F. Chen, B.E. Trumbauer, Double-punch test and tensile strength of concrete, J. Mater., ASTM 7 (2) (1972) 148–154.
[8] P.C. Aitcin, A. Neville, High performance concrete demystified, Concr. Int. 15 (1993) 21–26.
[9] J.T. Gomez, A. Shukla, A. Sharma, Static and dynamic behavior of concrete and granite in tension with damage, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 36 (2001)
37–49.
[10] M.I. Khan, Direct tensile strength measurement of concrete, Appl. Mech. Mater. 117–119 (2012) 9–14, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.
net/AMM.117-119.9.
[11] J. Kim, M.R. Taha, Experimental and numerical evaluation of direct tension test for cylindrical concrete specimens, Adv. Civ. Eng. (2014) 1–8, doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/156926.
[12] S. Li, H. Wang, Y. Li, Q. Li, B. Zhang, H. Zhu, A new mini-grating absolute displacement measuring system for static and dynamic geomechanical model
tests, Measurement 82 (2016) 421–431.
[13] J.G.M. Mier, M.R.A. Vliet, Uniaxial tension test for the determination of fracture parameters of concrete, Eng. Fract. Mech. 69 (2002) 235–247.
[14] S. Swaddiwudhipong, H.R. Lu, T.H. Wee, Direct tension test, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 2077–2084.
[15] I.K. Mohammad, Direct tensile strength measurement of concrete, Appl. Mech. Mater. 117–119 (2011) 9–14, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.
scientific.net/AMM.117-119.9 ISSN: 1662-7482.
[16] V. Sarfarazi, A. Ghazvinian, W. Schubert, H.R. Nejati, H. Raouf, A new approach for measurement of tensile strength of concrete, Period. Polytech. Civ.
Eng. 60 (2) (2016) 199–203.
[17] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary ACI 318–14/ACI 318R–14, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, 2015.
[18] ASTM C348-18, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete Prism, American Standard Test Method, West Conshohocken, Penn, USA, 2018.
[19] ASTM C 496-96, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, American Standard Test Method, West
Conshohocken, Penn, USA, 1996.
[20] ASTM C150-04, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, vol. 4.1, American Standard Test Method, West Conshohocken, Penn, USA, 2004, pp. 1–8.
[21] ASTM C33-03, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, vol. 4.2, American Standard Test Method, West Conshohocken, Penn, USA, 2003, pp.
1–11.
[22] Iraqi Standard No. 45/1984, Aggregate From Natural Sources for Concrete and Construction, Ministry of Housing and Construction, Baghdad, 2004.
[23] B.S. 1881: Part 116: 1983, Methods for Determination of Compressive Strength of Concrete Cubes, (1983) , pp. 1–8 January.
[24] American Concrete Associate, Guide for Consolidation of Concrete Reported by ACI Committee 309, (2005) .

View publication stats