Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 5, No.

2, 2014 115

Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete

flexural tensile strength and compressive strength

Mohd. Ahmed*, Khalid Mohammad El Hadi,

Mohammad Abul Hasan, Javed Mallick and
Akil Ahmed
Faculty of Engineering,
King Khalid University,
Abha-61411, KSA
E-mail: moahmedkku@gmail.com
E-mail: kme_hassan@yahoo.com
E-mail: mahasan@jmi.ac.in
E-mail: javnaffi@gmail.com
E-mail: akilhm@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The relationship of flexural tensile strength and compressive

strength for different range of concrete strength proposed by various authors
and country standards indicate diverse and wide variations in recommendations
to predict the concrete flexural tensile strength. This paper presents the
experimental study to predict flexural tensile strength and compressive strength
improved empirical relations using statistical procedures for wide range of
concrete strength (35 to 100 MPa) and for different member depth of concrete
(80 to 250 mm). It is concluded from study that the flexural tensile strength and
compressive strength proportionality equations should be derived in power
model for more precision, and the size of the member should also be included
in the proportionality equations in addition to compressive strength.
Keywords: concrete properties; compressive strength; flexural tensile strength;
modulus of rupture; MOR; country standards; concrete strength; statistical
procedures; co-relationship; concrete depth.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ahmed, M., El Hadi, K.M.,
Hasan, M.A., Mallick, J. and Ahmed, A. (2014) ‘Evaluating the co-relationship
between concrete flexural tensile strength and compressive strength’,
Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.115–131.
Biographical notes: Mohd. Ahmed received his MTech in Structure
from Aligarh Muslim University, India, and his Doctorate in Philosophy
(PhD) in Computation Mechanics from the Indian Institute of Technology
(IIT), Delhi, India. Currently, he is working as an Assistant Professor,
Faculty of Engineering, King Khalid University KSA. His research areas
are in computational mechanics, concrete structure, soil mechanics and
Environmental engineering. He has published about 30 peer reviewed research
paper in national and international journals.
Khalid Mohammad El Hadi received his MSc in Material Engineering from
Zagazig University, Egypt, and his Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD) in Material
Engineering from Zagazig University, Egypt. Currently, he is working as an
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, King Khalid University KSA. His
research areas are in concrete structure, and evaluation of structures, repair and
strengthening of different concrete elements.

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

116 M. Ahmed et al.

Mohammad Abul Hasan received his PhD in Environmental Engineering from

the Civil Engineering Department, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India in
2005. He obtained his Masters in Environmental Science and Engineering in
1998. He has worked in the University Polytechnic, Jamia Millia Islamia, New
Delhi, India as the Head of Civil Engineering and Associate Professor for more
than six years. Presently, he is on extra ordinary leave and working as an
Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since
2011.
Javed Mallick received his MSc in Geoinformatics from the International
Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), The
Netherlands, and his Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD) degree from Jamia Millia
Islamia, India. He has worked as an Environmental Scientist in the School of
Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University and also worked as a
Research Associate with TERI University. Currently, he is working as an
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, King Khalid University KSA. His
research areas are in statistical analysis, RS/GIS, environmental sciences and
water resources. He has published two books and about 36 peer reviewed
research in national and international journals.
Akil Ahmed has been teaching in the Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia
Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India as an Assistant Professor since 2005. He
has also taught in BITS Pilani India and Salman Bin Abdul Aziz University
Saudi Arabia. He is actively involved in research. He has 24 international
publications in journals and conference proceedings. He has been carrying out a
research project sanctioned by DSR, SAU, Saudi Arabia.

1 Introduction

The flexural tensile strength or modulus of rupture (MOR) of concrete generally referred
to as tensile strength is an important parameter for determining deflection, minimum
flexural reinforcement and to compute the on-set of visible cracks in a concrete structure
under flexure. It is generally agreed that the theoretical compressive strength was
approximately ten times the tensile strength, which implies a fixed relation between these
two values. However, it was found that this relation is not a direct proportion. Also, the
ratio of tensile to compressive strengths is lower while the compressive strength increases
to higher level (Mindess et al., 2003). Several empirical equations have been suggested to
relate the flexural tensile strength and compressive strength. Most of these equations are
of the power equation type: flexural tensile strength or MOR, f r = bf cn where fc is the
compressive strength of the concrete and, b and n are correlation coefficients. There is
wide variability in the values of the MOR reported in literature. The value reported for
the flexural tensile strength by various investigators and standards range from 0.3 to
1.0 f c0.5 MPa (Ahmed et al., 2008). The ACI code (ACI Committee 318, 2002) had
specified the MOR as 0.62 f c0.5 MPa and modified it to 0.517 f c0.5 MPa in the latest
edition (ACI Committee 318, 2005). For HSC, the ACI code (ACI Committee 363, 1992)
has suggested to use the equation 0.94 f c0.5 to calculate the flexural strength. Saudi Code
(SBC-304, 2007) and Indian code (IS, 2000) has standardised the value of the flexural
strength as 0.7 f c0.5 MPa and 0.626 f c0.5 MPa respectively and no range is specified for
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 117

applicability of these relations. The current AASHTO-LRFD (2007) has proposed two
equations for MOR, one for minimum reinforcement calculation and another for
deflection calculations. According to standards AS3600 (Standards Association of
Australia, 2001) and CEB-FIP (1993), empirical relationship between compressive
strength and MOR has been established as: MOR = 0.6 f c0.5 and MOR = 0.81 f c0.5 in
MPa. European code (CEN, 2002) standardised the relationship to estimate the MOR as
0.342 f c2/3 MPa for compressive strength less than C50/60 MPa and 2.12 ln(1 + 0.01 fc)
MPa for compressive strength more than C50/60 MPa. It also introduced a factor to
incorporate the concrete member size effect as (1.6–0.001 h), where h is the depth of
member in mm.
Sbarounis (1984) proposed the MOR as 0.62 f c0.5 MPa while Graham and Scanlon
(1986) predicted it as low as 0.33 f c0.5 MPa. Carrasquillo et al. (1981) has proposed
equations for MOR of HSC, which were later included in the ACI 363R-92 (ACI
Committee 363, 1992) report. He proposed the relationship as, MOR = 0.94 f c0.5 in MPa.
The short-term mechanical properties of high-strength concrete (HSC) has been
determined by Logan et al. (2009). They concluded that curing methods and its durations
affect the HSC mechanical properties and also predicted equations for the elastic modulus
and MOR of HSC. They proposed the relationship for MOR as 0.5 f c0.5 MPa. Raphael
(1984) was the first to propose abandoning the square root equation for predicting the
modulus rupture of high strength concrete based on its compressive strength. He
proposed the expression as MOR = 0.342 f c2/3 in MPa. In an experimental study by
Sarkar et al. (1997) and employing statistical analyses, the relationship between flexural
and compressive strength is proposed as 0.564 f c0.55 . Mahdy et al. (2002) has proposed
for heavy weight high strength concrete (up to 140 MPa) compressive and flexural tensile
strength relationship as 0.036 f c1.24 . Ismeik (2009) using local concrete mix ingredients
and employing linear regression analysis based on the least square method has proposed
the equation for flexural strength of concrete as 1.2 f c0.5 MPa. Abdul and Wong (2004)
has conducted test on high performance concrete to evaluate the strength relationship and
concluded that the square-root function recommended by most codes of practice is
inadequate when applied to concretes of higher strength, particularly in the case for
tensile strength prediction. Xiao et al. (2006) have proposed for the prediction of the
relations between the compressive and flexure properties of recycled aggregate concrete
based on the statistical regression analysis as 0.75 f c0.5 . Relation between compressive
strength and flexural tensile strength for manufactured sand in self compacting concrete
proposed by Kothai and Malathy (2012) is given as 0.657 f c0.5 . Bhanjaa and Sengupta
(2005) have proposed the equation to predict the flexural tensile strength as 0.275 f c0.81.
From the collected database, Légeron and Paultre (2000) have proposed three equations
for flexural tensile strength to represent the wide range of experimental values as
fr,mim = 0.68 f c0.5 , fr,avg = 0.94 f c0.5 , fr,max = 1.2 f c0.5 , where fr, mim fr,avg fr,max are the
minimum, average and maximum value of the MOR. They also recommended using fr,max
to behave flexure member in a ductile manner and to use fr,min for deflection check and
crack control of flexure member.
118 M. Ahmed et al.

Many factors have been shown to influence the flexural tensile strength, particularly
size of member, curing conditions, admixture type and the level of concrete strength.
Many researchers have also devoted their study to factors causing variability in flexural
tensile strength of concrete. One of the reasons concluded by Raphael (1984) for
variations between the measured and predicted values of the MOR is that the equation
used, is derived from elastic theory, which assumes elastic behaviour of concrete to the
point of failure. The standard test method for flexural tensile strength of concrete with its
size dependence is proposed by Bazant and Novak (2001). They concluded that the MOR
decreases with increase of structural element size. Légeron and Paultre (2000) have found
significant differences between the MOR of concrete specimens cured under standard
testing conditions and cured under site conditions and this difference is varied from 35%
to 100% for HPC. Silica fume (SF) utilisation in concrete and its effect on concrete
properties are reviewed by Siddiqui (2011). Koksal et al. (2008) have conducted the
flexural strength testing of concrete incorporating hooked steel fibres and SF. They found
significant increases in the flexural strengths of the concretes by adding SF and steel
fibres and found greater flexural strengths of concretes containing 1% steel fibre than that
of the concrete with 0.5% steel fibre with various SF content. Ismeik (2009) has studied
effect of SF and fly ash (FA) on flexural strength of concrete using the local concrete
mix. He concluded that optimum amount of SF is 10 to 15% and of FA is about 15% for
maximum compressive and flexural strength. He observed that the flexural tensile
strength continues to increase with increase of percentage of SF. Similar conclusions
about optimum percentage of SF for maximum flexural strength are also drawn by Khedr
and Abou-Zeid (1994), Bhanja and Sengupta (2003), and Amudhavalli and Mathew
(2012). Bhikshma et al. (2009) have investigated the mechanical properties of high
strength SF concrete. He concluded that SF may be used as a partial replacement to
cement and observed that up to 12% SF replacement, the flexural tensile strength and
other mechanical properties of concrete increases but beyond 12% SF, mechanical
properties decreases. NCHRP (2004) has given equation to determine MOR at different
age, if 28-day MOR is estimated

⎡ ⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞
2
⎤
MOR (t ) = ⎢1 + log10 ⎜ ⎟ − 0.01566 log10 ⎜ ⎟ × MOR28d ⎥
⎣ ⎝ 0.0767 ⎠ ⎝ 0.0767 ⎠ ⎦

where MOR(t) is the MOR at any given time (t, in days), t is the age of concrete (day),
and MOR28d is the MOR at 28 days.
Based on the literature review, it is evident that there is no clear consensus on the
estimation of value of flexural tensile strength of concrete and investigators propose
diverse empirical relations. Also, values reported are applicable to narrow range of
concrete strength and for particular size of the specimen. Therefore, there is a need to
have a systematic study of the flexural tensile strength for a wide range of concrete
strength including the size of concrete element and employing statistical procedures to
asses the reliability of the predicted values. The present study is proposed to investigate
the flexural tensile behaviour of concrete using five concrete mixes having 28-days
compressive strength ranges from 35 MPa to 100 MPa and having different member
depths ranging from 80 mm to 250 mm.
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 119

2 Experimental methodology

2.1 Published database detail (Mhaiskar and Naik, 2012)

In the published database, experimental investigations were taken from 41 construction
sites where rigid pavements were being constructed by local municipality using ready
mixed concrete. At each site 15 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm cube samples and 15 × 15 × 70 cm
beam samples were taken for each day’s concrete work. The sites have used, aggregate
and sand available from around Mumbai (India). The minimum cement content, 53 grade
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), as recommended by the design mix given by the
Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), India was specified as 437 kg/m3. The water
cement ratio of concrete was maintained at 0.39. The samples were cured and tested in
the local laboratories. The compressive strength and flexural tensile strength tests were
carried out conforming to country standard (IS, 2000). The flexural tensile strength
specimens were tested using the three point method. The experimental results for
compressive and flexural tensile strength of concrete of published literature are shown in
Table 1.

2.2 Material and mix proportion of present experimental study

An experimental programme was carried out in the present work to investigate the
flexural tensile strength of concrete taking into consideration the level of compressive
strength of concrete and depth of specimen.

2.2.1 Cement
Type I Ordinary Portland cement with specific gravity 3.15 was used. The initial and
final setting times were found as 60 minutes and 300 minutes, respectively.

2.2.2 Aggregates
Fine aggregate used is ordinary siliceous sand with a fineness modulus and the specific
gravity of 2.61 and 2.45, respectively. Crushed basalt of nominal maximum size of
10 mm was used as coarse aggregate. The specific gravity of coarse aggregate is found to
be 2.75. The coarse aggregates have water absorption of 1.01% in SSD condition.

2.2.3 Admixture
Super plasticizer is used to obtain a constant slump of 10 cm for all concrete mix. SF is
used as a partial replacement for cement on equal weight basis.

2.2.4 Mix proportion

In this study, five different concrete mixes were used. Mix proportion for each mix is
given in Table 2. These mixes were designed to achieve different concrete compressive
strength.
 120

Table 1

Equation lit.
Sl. No. of Experiments (Mhaiskar and Derived equation (1) Derived equation (2) Euro code IS:456 (2000) IRC 58 (2002) SBC-307 (2007)
no. sample Naik, 2012)
fc fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp
1 58 36.5 4.88 5.02 1.02806 5.22 1.06965 4.95 1.01466 3.8292 0.78467 4.23 0.86661 4.59 0.94056 4.73 0.96937
2 46 36.69 5.05 5.04 0.99816 5.23 1.03633 4.97 0.9839 3.84248 0.76089 4.24 0.83962 4.13 0.81876 4.74 0.93917
M. Ahmed et al.

3 123 37.72 5.11 5.17 1.01161 5.31 1.03843 5.06 0.99047 3.91406 0.76596 4.3 0.84132 4.21 0.8243 4.81 0.94108
4 81 37.73 5.07 5.17 1.01983 5.31 1.04676 5.06 0.99846 3.91475 0.77214 4.3 0.84807 4.21 0.83095 4.81 0.94863
5 90 37.74 5.17 5.17 1.00035 5.31 1.02665 5.06 0.97932 3.91544 0.75734 4.3 0.83178 4.21 0.81502 4.81 0.93041
6 39 37.85 5.26 5.19 0.98584 5.32 1.01056 5.07 0.96443 3.92304 0.74583 4.31 0.81874 4.22 0.80264 4.82 0.91582
7 36 37.98 5.17 5.2 1.00613 5.32 1.02991 5.08 0.98346 3.93202 0.76055 4.31 0.83442 4.23 0.81849 4.83 0.93336
8 71 38.01 5.01 5.21 1.03901 5.33 1.06322 5.09 1.01541 3.93409 0.78525 4.32 0.86141 4.23 0.84508 4.83 0.96355
9 54 38.01 5.3 5.21 0.98216 5.33 1.00505 5.09 0.95985 3.93409 0.74228 4.32 0.81428 4.23 0.79884 4.83 0.91082
10 69 38.04 5.07 5.21 1.02745 5.33 1.05106 5.09 1.00392 3.93616 0.77636 4.32 0.85155 4.24 0.83552 4.83 0.95252
11 43 38.43 5.25 5.26 1.00148 5.36 1.02021 5.12 0.97611 3.96302 0.75486 4.34 0.82656 4.27 0.8124 4.85 0.92457
12 35 38.49 5.4 5.27 0.97504 5.36 0.99264 5.13 0.94999 3.96714 0.73466 4.34 0.80423 4.27 0.79066 4.86 0.89958
13 71 38.89 5.34 5.32 0.99532 5.39 1.009 5.17 0.96731 3.99458 0.74805 4.37 0.81748 4.3 0.8051 4.88 0.91441
14 63 38.98 5.14 5.33 1.03623 5.39 1.04947 5.17 1.00649 4.00074 0.77835 4.37 0.85027 4.31 0.83773 4.89 0.95109
15 25 39.28 5.3 5.36 1.01198 5.42 1.0217 5.2 0.98111 4.02124 0.75872 4.39 0.82777 4.33 0.81662 4.91 0.92592
16 14 39.6 5.37 5.4 1.00619 5.44 1.01248 5.23 0.97357 4.04305 0.7529 4.4 0.8203 4.35 0.81037 4.93 0.91756
17 31 39.61 5.65 5.4 0.95655 5.44 0.96243 5.23 0.92548 4.04373 0.7157 4.41 0.77974 4.35 0.77034 4.93 0.8722
18 60 39.62 5.8 5.41 0.93202 5.44 0.93765 5.23 0.9017 4.04441 0.69731 4.41 0.75967 4.35 0.75054 4.93 0.84975
19 50 39.68 5.66 5.41 0.95639 5.44 0.96157 5.24 0.92493 4.0485 0.71528 4.41 0.77905 4.36 0.76989 4.93 0.87143
20 41 39.87 5.66 5.44 0.96056 5.46 0.96387 5.25 0.92788 4.06141 0.71756 4.42 0.78092 4.37 0.77236 4.94 0.87351
Compressive and flexure strength of concrete of published literature

21 62 39.9 5.28 5.44 1.03039 5.46 1.03363 5.25 0.99516 4.06345 0.76959 4.42 0.83743 4.37 0.82836 4.95 0.93673
22 20 40.15 5.81 5.47 0.94174 5.47 0.94228 5.28 0.90816 4.0804 0.70231 4.44 0.76342 4.39 0.75595 4.96 0.85394
23 21 40.22 5.23 5.48 1.04783 5.48 1.04769 5.28 1.01004 4.08514 0.7811 4.44 0.84882 4.4 0.84077 4.97 0.94947
 Table 1
Equation lit.
Sl. No. of Experiments (Mhaiskar and Derived equation (1) Derived equation (2) Euro code IS:456 (2000) IRC 58 (2002) SBC-307 (2007)
no. sample Naik, 2012)
fc fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp fr fr,/ fr,exp
24 30 40.29 5.46 5.49 1.00528 5.48 1.00443 5.29 0.96862 4.08988 0.74906 4.44 0.81377 4.4 0.80629 4.97 0.91026
25 28 40.41 5.54 5.5 0.99345 5.49 0.9914 5.3 0.95652 4.098 0.73971 4.45 0.80322 4.41 0.79623 4.98 0.89846
26 40 40.49 5.58 5.51 0.98811 5.5 0.98527 5.31 0.95092 4.10341 0.73538 4.45 0.79825 4.42 0.79157 4.98 0.8929
27 38 40.64 5.61 5.53 0.98614 5.51 0.98181 5.32 0.94817 4.11353 0.73325 4.46 0.79545 4.43 0.78929 4.99 0.88977
28 45 40.67 5.54 5.54 0.99927 5.51 0.99458 5.32 0.96062 4.11556 0.74288 4.46 0.8058 4.43 0.79966 4.99 0.90134
29 30 40.92 5.42 5.57 1.0271 5.53 1.01972 5.34 0.98591 4.13241 0.76244 4.48 0.82616 4.45 0.82073 5.01 0.92412
30 65 40.92 5.63 5.57 0.98879 5.53 0.98169 5.34 0.94914 4.13241 0.734 4.48 0.79535 4.45 0.79011 5.01 0.88965
31 95 41.22 5.33 5.6 1.05141 5.55 1.04074 5.37 1.00745 4.15258 0.7791 4.49 0.84319 4.47 0.83868 5.03 0.94317
32 48 41.27 5.67 5.61 0.98945 5.55 0.97892 5.37 0.94781 4.15594 0.73297 4.5 0.79311 4.47 0.78903 5.03 0.88715
33 35 41.46 5.68 5.63 0.99185 5.56 0.97945 5.39 0.94904 4.16868 0.73392 4.51 0.79353 4.49 0.79007 5.04 0.88762
34 41 41.8 5.56 5.68 1.02082 5.59 1.00468 5.42 0.97481 4.19144 0.75386 4.53 0.81398 4.51 0.81155 5.06 0.91049
35 52 41.83 5.69 5.68 0.99814 5.59 0.98208 5.42 0.953 4.19345 0.73699 4.53 0.79566 4.51 0.79339 5.06 0.89001
36 26 42.24 5.76 5.73 0.9948 5.62 0.97488 5.46 0.94756 4.2208 0.73278 4.55 0.78984 4.54 0.78889 5.09 0.88349
37 67 42.47 5.56 5.76 1.03569 5.63 1.0127 5.48 0.9852 4.23611 0.76189 4.56 0.82047 4.56 0.82024 5.1 0.91776
38 58 42.78 5.8 5.8 0.99943 5.65 0.97433 5.5 0.94903 4.2567 0.73391 4.58 0.78939 4.58 0.79014 5.12 0.88299
39 47 43.33 5.66 5.86 1.03613 5.69 1.00483 5.55 0.98082 4.29311 0.7585 4.61 0.8141 4.62 0.81665 5.15 0.91063
40 16 43.72 5.72 5.91 1.03365 5.71 0.99875 5.58 0.97635 4.31883 0.75504 4.63 0.80917 4.65 0.81295 5.18 0.90512
41 28 45.22 5.72 6.1 1.06588 5.81 1.01574 5.71 0.99855 4.41706 0.77221 4.71 0.82294 4.76 0.83153 5.27 0.92052
Mean 40.02 5.6 5.45 1.0038 5.46 1.0063 5.26 0.9691 4.07029 0.7494 4.39 0.82 4.43 0.81 4.95 0.912
SD 1.96 0.27 0.24 - 0.13 - 0.18 - 0.13 - 0.14 - 0.11 - 0.12 -
COV 0.0489 0.0458 0.0445 - 0.0244 - 0.0327 - 0.0325 - 0.032 - 0.0244 - 0.0244 -
RPE - - 0.00087 - 0.00104 - 0.00084 - 0.0633 - 0.0105 - 0.0348 - 0.0086 -
R2 - - 0.616 - 0.62 - 0.618 - 0.62 - 0.62 - 0.385 - 0.622 -
SE of est. - - 0.1608 - 0.1599 - 0.1605 - 0.1599 - 0.1595 - 0.2035 - 0.1595 -
Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength

Compressive and flexure strength of concrete of published literature (continued)

121
122 M. Ahmed et al.

Table 2 Mix Ingredients for different mixes

Cement content Sand Basalt Silica fume

Mix w/(c+s)
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (%)
I 350 757 1,135 0 0.52
II 450 760 1,135 0 0.33
III 450 700 1,200 10 0.33
IV 520 777 1,070 0 0.26
V 520 777 1,070 10 0.26

2.3 Concrete properties of present study

Slump test according to American National Standard (1978) was done on the fresh
concrete while tests for compressive strength and flexural tensile strength, were carried
out on the hardened concrete.

Table 3 Compressive and flexural tensile strength from present experimental study

Experimental investigation
Mix Compressive strength Flexural strength Beam dimension,
MPa MPa mm (L × d × b)
I 32.5 6.38 320 × 80 × 60
5.6 480 × 120 × 60
5.14 600 × 150 × 60
4.73 960 × 240 × 60
II 52.5 8.1 320 × 80 × 60
7.5 480 × 120 × 60
6.7 600 × 150 × 60
6.3 960 × 240 × 60
III 62 8.3 320 × 80 × 60
7.9 480 × 120 × 60
7.34 600 × 150 × 60
6.9 960 × 240 × 60
IV 87 9.8 320 × 80 × 60
9.33 480 × 120 × 60
8.86 600 × 150 × 60
8.5 960 × 240 × 60
V 98 9.95 320 × 80 × 60
9.67 480 × 120 × 60
9.4 600 × 150 × 60
9.21 960 × 240 × 60
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 123

2.3.1 Compressive strength test

Compression test on the 150 mm cube specimens was conducted on the 1,000 kN
universal testing machine. The specimens were cured in water for 28-days. The cube
compressive strength is calculated as crushing load per unit area and is presented in
Table 3. For each mix three specimens were tested and average values are reported. The
compression test setup is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Compression test setup

2.3.2 Flexural tensile strength test

The Three-Point bending test is conducted on a loading frame to determine the flexural
tensile strength on beam specimens of four different sizes having equal span-depth ratio.
The depth was chosen to be 80, 120, 150, 240 mm. The width of all specimens was kept
constant at 60mm and all specimens have a constant length-depth (L/d) ratio as 4. The
beam specimens were cured in water for 28-days and tested on universal testing machine.
The beam specimen is simply supported on two rollers of 4.5 cm diameter. The bending
moment (M) on the beam specimen has been calculated from the recorded flexural tensile
load and the flexural tensile strength is calculated as the ratio of the bending moment and
section modulus of the beam specimen and is presented in Table 3. For each mix, three
specimens were tested and average values are reported. The flexure test setup is shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 2 Flexure test setup

124 M. Ahmed et al.

3 Result and discussion

3.1 Published database

The experimental investigations of normal strength concrete taken from site work and
published in literature (Mhaiskar and Naik, 2012) are reanalysed by using linear
regression analysis to propose proportionality equations to relate concrete flexural tensile
strength (fr) to compressive strength (fc) in standard models. The two models namely,
square root model and (2/3) model are common in different country codes for such
relations. Using statistical software SPSS, two proportionality equations are proposed to
know concrete flexural tensile strength (fr) in two standard models.

Flexural tensile strength ( f r ) = 0.864 f c0.5 (1)

Flexural tensile strength ( f r ) = 0.45 f c2/3 (2)

The reliability of proposed equations is assessed using the statistical procedures. The
mean, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (COV) and the ratio of predicted
flexural tensile strength to experimental flexural tensile strength values are calculated. An
error parameter, relative predictive error (RPE), used by others (Hueste et al., 2004) to
know the goodness of fit of predictive equations, is also determined. The RPE is
evaluated as follows:
n 2
1 ⎛ f/ ⎞
RPE =
n ∑ ⎜
k =0 ⎝
f
− 1⎟
⎠

where f is experimental value of flexural tensile strength and f/ is predictive value of

flexural tensile strength.
Linear correlation coefficients (R2) and standard error of estimate (SE of Est.) of the
predictive results and literature experimental results is also calculated to know the
reliability of equations using the linear regression analysis. The predicted flexural tensile
strength with proposed equations is compared with various standard equation given in
square root model and (2/3) model. The codes selected for comparison are Indian, Saudi
Arabia and Euro standards. The predicted flexural tensile strength with proposed equation
is also compared with the power model equation given by Mhaiskar and Naik (2012) as
0.19 f c0.91. The statistical calculations namely, SD, COV, ratio (fr,predictive/fr,experimental), R2
and SE of estimate for derived equations and other code equations for compressive and
flexural tensile strength of concrete are given in Table 1. Assuming that the cylinder
compressive strength is equivalent to 0.8 of the cube compressive strength, equations are
modified into equivalent cube compressive strength of concrete. The best fit curves for
predicting flexural tensile strength of concrete with different relationships are shown in
Figure 3.
From the table, it is seen that the proposed equations reliability is comparable to the
equation given by Mhaiskar and Naik (2012) in (0.91) power model. The values of SD,
COV, ratio (fr,predictive/fr,experimental), RPE, R2, and SE of estimate for proposed predictive
equations are (0.13, 0.0244, 1.0063, 0.00104, 0.62, 0.1599) for equation (1) and
(0.18, 0.0327, 0.9691, 0.0008, 0.618, 0.1605) for equation (2) while these are
(0.24, 0.0445, 1.0038, 0.00087, 0.616, 0.1608) for Mhaiskar and Naik equation. It is
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 125

evident from the overall comparison of SD, COV, ratio (fr,predictive/fr,experimental), RPE,
R2, and SE of estimate for predictive equations of codes and for experimental study
that the equation proposed for flexural tensile strength in this study for existing
data in standard form is more reliable than the other equations. The mean ratio
(fr,predictive/fr,experimental) obtained using proposed equation is 1.003 while it is 0.77221 and
0.82294 for Euro code and Indian code IS: 456, respectively. RPE obtained using
proposed equation is 0.0010 while it is 0.0633 and 0.0105 for Euro code and Indian code
IS: 456, respectively.

Figure 3 Comparative analysis of predicted flexure strength using different equations with
experimental flexure strength

3.2 Present experimental study

The results of flexural tensile strength experimental study are given in Table 3 for
different concrete mixes and specimen depths. For a given specimen depth, it is clear that
the flexural tensile strength increases when the compressive strength. For example, for
specimen depth 240 mm, when the compressive strength increases from 32.5 MPa to
52.5 MPa, the flexural tensile strength increases from 4.73 to 6.3 MPa. This is attributed
to the change in the microstructure of the concrete when its compressive strength
increases. In this case, the cement paste becomes denser and less porous and hence its
resistance to crack propagation increases. Moreover, this increase in the flexural tensile
strength is lower than the corresponding increase in the compressive strength. This may
be attributed to the difference in the mechanism for lower strength and high strength
concrete. Under compressive loading, the crack began in the interface region due to
tensile strain produce by the compressive load and then micro crack extend to the mortar
matrix. The friction between mortar and coarse aggregate resist the failure of the
126 M. Ahmed et al.

concrete. The friction between the two phases depends mainly on the properties of the
two phases and the properties of the interfacial zone. Under the flexure loading, the
cracks are initiated in the interfacial zone at low stresses and extend to the mortar matrix
at high stresses and the resistant to cracks results from the cement paste only. Therefore,
the modification in the microstructure affects the failure process in the flexure loading
case less than the compressive loading case.
The results of Table 3 also show that, for the same compressive strength, the
flexural tensile strength of concrete decreases with the increase of beam depth and effect
of beam depth is reduced as the compressive strength increases. For example, at
compressive strength 32.5 MPa, the flexural tensile strength decreases from 6.38 to 4.73
MPa when the depth increases from 80 mm to 240 mm. Also, at compressive strength 98
MPa, the flexural tensile strength decreased from 9.95 to 9.21MPa when the beam depth
increased from 80 mm to 240 mm. The effect of depth on flexural tensile strength may be
due to the change in the stress gradient along the beam depth. In case of the small depth
beam, the stress gradient is steeper which gives a lower value of mean stress as compared
to that of large depth of beam at the same distance from lower fibre of the beam. The
higher value of mean stress in the case of large depth specimen causes a remarkable
decrease in concrete flexural tensile strength. At higher compressive strength, the
concrete become denser and less void, which result in a less effect of heterogeneous
nature of concrete.
Three relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength (fr) and compressive
strength (fc) has been derived using statistical software SPSS. The derived equations are
in square root and (2/3) form of compressive strength. The third derived equation also
includes the effect of depth of beam on flexural tensile strength.

Flexural tensile strength ( f r ) = 1.055 f c0.5 (3)

Flexure tensile strength ( f r ) = 0.45 f c2/3 (4)

0.827 2/3
Flexural tensile strength ( f r ) = fc , (5)
h0.1

where h is depth of beam in mm.

The reliability of derived relationships is assessed on the basis of statistical
parameters. The mean, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (COV), ratio of
predicted flexural tensile strength to experimental flexural tensile strength values and
RPE has been estimated for the flexural tensile strength values obtained using the
proposed equations. Linear regression analysis is undertaken for the predictive results and
experimental results to know the correlation coefficients (R2) and standard error of
estimate (SE of est.) of different equations. The above proposed equations provide a good
correlation with the experimental values. The R2 value obtained are 0.878, 0.876, 0.962,
respectively for equations (3), (4) and (5). The comparative analysis of the predicted
flexural tensile strength using different equations given in literature and recommended
equation in Saudi Arabia code, Indian code, ACI code and Euro standards is also carried
out and presented in Figures 4 and 5. The statistical parameters namely, mean, SD, COV,
ratio (fr,predictive/fr,experimental), R2 and SE of estimate for proposed equations and other code
equations for compressive and flexural tensile strength of concrete are given in Table 4.
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 127

Figure 4 Comparative analysis of predicted flexure strength using different equations with
experimental flexure strength

Table 4 Statistical comparison of experimental values with predicted values from

investigators/code equations

SE of Ratio
Equation R2 SD Mean COV RPE
est. (fr/fr,exp)
Equation literature 0.871 0.5926 2.882 8.601 0.335 0.0384 1.080
(Mhaiskar and Naik, 2012)
(0.91 power model)
ACI code equation (1) 0.878 0.5757 0.889 4.629 0.192 0.1630 0.599
(ACI Committee 318, 2005)
(0.5 power model)
ACI code equation (2) 0.876 0.5757 1.617 8.418 0.192 0.0153 1.089
(ACI Committee 318, 1992)
(0.5 power model)
Euro code equation (1) 0.943 0.3921 2.085 8.164 0.255 0.0076 1.041
(CEN, 2002) (2/3 power
model with depth)
Euro code equation (2) 0.966 0.3052 1.118 6.696 0.167 0.0199 0.869
(CEN, 2002) (log model)
Indian code (IS, 2000) (0.5 0.878 0.5757 1.077 5.617 0.192 0.0161 1.093
power model with depth)
Saudi Arabia code 0.878 0.5759 1.205 6.271 0.192 0.0161 1.093
(SBC-304, 2007)
(0.5 power model)
Proposed equation (1) 0.878 0.5757 1.623 8.450 0.192 0.0161 1.093
(0.5 power model)
Proposed equation (2) 0.876 0.5807 1.822 7.236 0.252 0.0134 0.925
(2/3 power model)
Proposed equation (3) (2/3 0.962 0.3196 1.799 6.936 0.259 0.0174 0.883
power model with depth)
128 M. Ahmed et al.

Figure 5 Comparative analysis of predicted flexure strength using different equations with
experimental flexure strength with beam depth effect

It can be inferred from the Figure 2, that the derived equations predicted results are
within the bounds of measured results and the predicted results from Indian and Saudi
code are under estimated results. The predicted values from the considered codes
equations are about over 75% less than the values predicted from the present study
equations. Table 4 also shows that the reliability of the predicted results from Indian,
Saudi code and ACI code equation is comparable to the derived equation in the present
study. The mean ratio (fr,predictive/fr,experimental) obtained using proposed equation (square
root form) is 1.093 while it is 1.093, 1.093 and 1.089 for Indian code, Saudi code and
ACI code, respectively. The only code that recommends including the size of concrete
member is Euro code. Therefore, the predicted results from derived equation with beam
depth effect [equation (3)] are separately compared with equation given by Euro code.
The comparative analysis has been presented in Figure 3 and Table 4. It is evident from
Figure 2 and Table 4 that derived equation in present study is more reliable than Euro
code equation with beam depth effect. The statistical parameters such as COV, ratio
(fr,predictive/fr,experimental), RPE, R2, and SE of estimate for proposed predictive equation
[equation (3)] are (0.259, 0.883, 0.0174, 0.962, 0.3196) and same parameters for equation
given by Euro code are (0.255, 1.041, 0.0076, 0.943, 0.3921).
It is clear from the derived equation for flexural tensile strength from published
literature data and experimental work data that published literature equations developed
into 0.5 power or 0.91 power models are applicable to low level of concrete strength or
narrow range of concrete strength. However, if correlation equation for flexural tensile
strength transformed into (2/3) law, the equation will be applicable to wider range of
concrete strength.
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 129

4 Conclusions

This paper presents the flexural tensile strength studies and derived the improved
empirical relations between flexural tensile strength and compressive strength of concrete
employing statistical procedures from published literature data and experimental work
data. The derived correlation equations are applicable for wide range of concrete strength
including member depth of concrete and are framed in standard models. The validity of
the derived equation is checked from the relevant statistical parameters. By using linear
stepwise regression analysis, based on data of present experimental work and from other
literatures, the following equations are derived for predicting flexural tensile strength.

• Derived equations from published data:

f r = 0.864 f c0.5 (6)

f r = 0.45 f c2/3 (7)

• Derived equations from present work:

f r = 1.055 f c0.5 (8)

f r = 0.45 f c2/3 (9)

0.827 2/3
fr = fc (10)
h0.1

where fc is compressive strength and h is depth of beam in mm.

The following conclusions may be drawn from the present study.
1 The empirical relationships for flexural tensile strength and compressive strength of
concrete proposed in literature and standards overly underestimates the flexural
tensile strength and have low validity range of compressive strength. The effect of
depth of concrete member has been not incorporated in most of the previous studies.
2 The present study derived equations to predict the concrete flexure strength in
standard form, based on the published site data, are more reliable than the equation
given in literature (Mhaiskar and Naik, 2012) for the same data and derived
equations are applicable to wide range of level of concrete compressive strength.
3 Based on statistical analysis, the (2/3) power model is more accurate than the square
root model. The power model is more suitable to include the wider range of level of
concrete compressive strength.
4 The proportionality equation to predict the concrete flexure strength should be
derived so that it is applicable to wide range of level of compressive strength.
5 The depth of concrete member has a remarkable effect on flexure strength, so
correlation equations should include the factor to give effect of depth of concrete
member.
130 M. Ahmed et al.

Acknowledgements

Mohd. Ahmed would like to thanks Deanship of Scientific Research, Ministry of Higher
Education, kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Project code: 239, for providing financial support
to carrying out the research work. The author also acknowledge to the Dean, Faculty of
Engineering for his valuable support and help.

References
AASHTO-LRFD (2007) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd ed., including 2005 and 2006
Interim Revisions, Washington, DC.
Abdul Razak, H. and Wong, H.S. (2004) ‘Re-evaluation of strength and stiffness relationships for
high-strength concrete’, Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol. 5,
Nos. 1–2, pp.85–99.
ACI Committee 318 (2002) Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and
Commentary, ACI, MI.
ACI Committee 318 (2005) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (318R-05), p.430, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI Committee 363 (1992) Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92), p.56, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Ahmed, M., Dad Khan, M.K. and Wamiq, M. (2008) ‘Effect of concrete cracking on the lateral
response of RCC buildings’, Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing),
Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.25–34.
American National Standard (1978) Slump of Portland Cement Concrete, ASTM C143, American
Association State.
Amudhavalli, N.K. and Mathew, J. (2012) ‘Effect of silica fume on strength and durability
parameters of concrete’, International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Emerging
Technologies, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.28–35.
Bazant, Z.P. and Novak, D. (2001) ‘Proposal for standard test of modulus of rupture of concrete
with its size dependence’, American Concrete Institute Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 1,
pp.79–87.
Bhanja S. and Sengupta, B. (2003) ‘Optimum silica fume content and its mode of action on
concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 100, No. 5, pp.407–412.
Bhanjaa, S. and Sengupta, B. (2005) ‘Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of concrete’,
Journal of Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.743–747.
Bhikshma, V., Nitturkar, K. and Venkatesham, Y. (2009) ‘Investigation on mechanical properties
of high strength silica fume concrete’, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and
Housing), Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.335–346.
Carrasquillo, R.L., Nilson, A.H. and Slate, F.O. (1981) ‘Properties of high-strength concrete subject
to short-term loads’, American Concrete Institute Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 78, No. 3,
pp.171–178.
CEB-FIB, Model code 90 (1993) Final draft, Lausanne,: Bulletin 203, CH, Switzerland.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2002) ‘Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures
– part 1: general rules and rules for buildings’, pp.26–35 & 132, Brussels.
Graham, C.J. and Scanlon, A. (1986) Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Construction
Loading, SP-86, American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Hueste, M.B., Chompreda, P., Trejo, D., Cline, D.B.H. and Keating P.B. (2004) ‘Mechanical
properties of high strength concrete for pre-stressed member’, American Concrete Institute
Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp.457–465.
 Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength 131

Indian Roads Congress (IRC) (2002) Guidelines for Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for
Highways, IRC, 58-2002, New Delhi.
Indian Standards (IS) (2000) IS: 456-2000, Code of practice for Reinforced Concrete, BIS, Delhi,
India.
Ismeik, M. (2009) ‘Effect of mineral admixtures on mechanical properties of high strength concrete
made with locally available materials’, Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1,
pp.78–90.
Khedr, S.A. and Abou-Zeid, M.N. (1994) ‘Characteristics of silica-fume concrete’, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.357–375.
Koksal, F., Altun, F., Yigit, I. and Sahin, Y. (2008) ‘Combined effect of silica fume and steel fibre
on the mechanical properties of high strength concretes’, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.1874–1880.
Kothai, L. and Malathy, R. (2012) ‘Strength studies on self compacting concrete with manufactured
sand as partial replacement of natural sand’, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 89,
No. 3, pp.490–496.
Légeron, F. and Paultre, P. (2000) ‘Prediction of modulus of rupture of concrete’, American
Concrete Institute Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp.193–200.
Logan, A., Choi, W., Mirmiran, A., Rizkalla, S. and Paul, Z. (2009) ‘Short-term mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete’, Materials Journal, Vol. 106, No. 5, pp.413–418.
Mahdy, M., Speare, P.R.S. and Abdel-Reheem, A.H. (2002) ‘Mechanical properties of
heavyweight, high strength concrete, 2nd Material Specialty Conference of the Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 5–8 June.
Mhaiskar, S.Y. and Naik, D.D. (2012) ‘Studies on correlation between flexural tensile strength and
compressive strength of concrete’, The Indian Concrete Journal, September, Vol. 86, No. 6,
pp.1–6.
Mindess, S., Young, J.F. and Darwin, D. (2003) Concrete, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
NCHRP (2004) ‘Guide for mechanistic-empirical design – of new and rehabilitated pavement
structures’, Final Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, ARA, Inc., ERES
Consultants Division, 505 West University Avenue, Champaign, Illinois.
Raphael, J.M. (1984) ‘Tensile strength of concrete’, American Concrete Institute Journal, Vol. 81,
No. 2, pp.158–165.
Sarkar, S., Adwan, O. and Munday, J.G.L. (1997) ‘High strength concrete: an investigation of the
flexural behavior of high strength RC beams,’ The Structural Engineer, Vol. 75, No. 7,
pp115–121.
Saudi Building Code (SBC-304) (2007) Structural-Concrete Structures, The Saudi Building Code,
Structural Technical Committee (SBC-STC), pp.5/2.
Sbarounis, J.A. (1984) ‘Multi-story flat plate buildings-construction loads and immediate
deflections’, Concrete International, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.70–75.
Siddiqui, S. (2011) ‘Utilization of silica fume in concrete: review of hardened properties,
resources’, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55, No. 11, pp.923–932.
Standards Association of Australia (2001) Concrete Structures – AS 3600, Standards Australia,
Strathfield (NSW).
Xiao, J-Zh., Li, J.B. and Zhang, Ch. (2006) ‘On relationships between the mechanical properties
of recycled aggregate concrete: an overview’, Materials and Structures, Vol. 39, No. 6,
pp.655–664.