Magazine of Concrete Research Magazine of Concrete Research, 2012, 64(12), 1057–1065

Volume 64 Issue 12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/macr.11.00178

Paper 1100178
Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by two Received 26/10/2011; revised 17/04/2012; accepted 09/05/2012
different methods
Thomas Telford Ltd & 2012
Kim, Yi and Zi

Biaxial flexural strength of

concrete by two different
methods
Jihwan Kim Goangseup Zi
Doctoral Candidate, School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Associate Professor, School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural
Engineering, Korea University, South Korea Engineering, Korea University, South Korea
Chongku Yi
Assistant Professor, School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural
Engineering, Korea University, South Korea

The biaxial flexural strength of a concrete panel can be evaluated by two different methods: the centrally loaded
round panel test (ASTM C 1150) and the recently proposed biaxial flexure test (BFT). Twenty-six tests, with 13
specimens for each test method, were performed to verify the effect of the different test methods on the biaxial
flexural strength of concrete. A finite-element analysis of the specimens of two test methods showed that the biaxial
flexure test set-up allows a larger area with a uniform biaxial stress on the bottom surface around the centre of the
specimen than the ASTM C 1550 set-up, indicating that the difference in the test results is attributable to the volume
effects. The test results showed that the biaxial flexure test method gives a more reliable biaxial flexural strength
with a 25% lower coefficient of variation than that from the ASTM C 1550.

Notation of high-performance fibre-reinforced cementitious composites

a radius of support ring
b radius of loading ring
E Young’s modulus
fb biaxial flexural strength of concrete
h thickness
P applied load
R radius of circular panel
ı Poisson ratio of the material
 max maximum tensile stress
Introduction
In concrete structures, the presence of cracks is considered to be
one of the most important factors which influence the durability
and aesthetic quality of the structures. Conventionally, concrete is
utilised in the structure for its compressive strength, and its
tensile strength is neglected, while minimum reinforcement
amounts are required to avoid failure without warning after
cracking under flexure. With the advent of high-performance
concrete (HPC), such as high-strength concrete (HSC) or fibre-
reinforced concrete (FRC), it would appear to be unwise to
ignore the tensile strength of concrete, especially for crack
control of concrete undergoing non-mechanical loads. Thus far, a
few experimental methods have been suggested to determine
tensile strength and they can be classified into two categories:
direct and indirect methods. The direct tensile test method is
rarely used for plain concrete, owing to the difficulties associated
with the gripping and alignment of a specimen, and its use has
been reported almost exclusively to determine tensile behaviour
(Naaman and Reinhardt, 1996) and engineered cement compos-
ites (Li et al., 1996). On the contrary, indirect methods such as
the splitting (or Brazilian) test and the three- or four-point
bending tests are often performed to determine the tensile
strength of concrete because of the simple procedures and ease
of specimen preparation.
The bending test using a beam shaped specimen is being widely
used for quality control of concrete loaded in bending rather than
axial tension. However, an increasing number of thin plate and
shell concrete structures have been exposed to a biaxial stress
state because slabs with a smaller thickness to plane area ratio
are in great demand as structures are becoming larger and taller.
For design of these structures, the rupture strength given by the
bending test may not be a suitable measure. This is because
the strength of the beam specimens under flexure must include
the effect of flaws near the edge, which act as stress concentration
sites and lead to undesirable edge failures (Ban and Anusavice,
1990), rather than comprising a fracture that originates from an
intrinsic flaw of concrete, as required for the design of plate-like
structures.
Determination of the biaxial tensile strength of concrete has been
carried out using a complex test set-up, consisting of more than
one actuator (Kupfer et al., 1969; Muzyka, 2002). Owing to the
scarcity of such test set-ups, limited test data for concrete in a
biaxial stress condition are available in the literature. Although it
is still necessary to use a sophisticated set-up to examine the full

1057
Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 64 Issue 12
biaxial behaviour of concrete, there are simple test methods
which can be adopted, when only the biaxial flexural strength of
a brittle or quasi-brittle material needs to be determined.
In the ceramic community, a round shaped specimen has been
adopted and various biaxial tensile strength test methods, such as
ball-on-ring, ring-on-ring, piston-on three-ball and ball-on three-
ball, are available according to the loading and support system
(Börger et al., 2002; Higgs et al., 2001; Ritter et al., 1980; Shetty
et al., 1980). The round shape specimen provides advantages over
the beam specimen because it allows the formation of a biaxial
tensile stress state during the test with the maximum stresses
within the central loading area while the undesirable stresses at
the stress concentration site, the edge of the round shaped
specimen, remain negligible and therefore do not contribute to
the failure of the specimen.
In the construction industry, however, the use of round shape
specimens is limited as there are only two test methods available
for round shape specimens: the centrally loaded round panel test,
ASTM C 1550 (ASTM, 2008), which was originally developed to
determine the flexural toughness of fibre-reinforced shotcrete and
fibre-reinforced concrete, and the biaxial flexure test (BFT),
which was proposed to measure the biaxial flexural strength of
plain concrete (Zi et al., 2008). Recently, the characteristics of
these two test methods have been discussed (Ekincioglu, 2010).
Despite the advantages offered by the round shape specimen, its
application to concrete material is yet to be established. In this
study, the effect of the two different test methods on the biaxial
flexural strength of a concrete panel was investigated by carrying
out an experimental programme and finite-element analysis.
General descriptions of the biaxial tensile
strength test methods
Centrally loaded round panel test (ASTM C 1550)
ASTM C 1550 was first developed to determine the flexural
toughness, which is expressed as the amount of energy absorbed
in the post crack range, of fibre-reinforced shotcrete and concrete.
The method uses a round panel (˘ 800 3 75 mm), which is
supported on three symmetrically arranged pivots and subjected
to a point load at the centre. A schematic diagram of the test
arrangement for the ASTM C 1550 method is shown in Figure 1.
This method is similar to the piston-on three-ball test, ASTM F
Load
Loading
piston
Specimen Transfer plate
and pivot support
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the ASTM C 1550 method
1058
Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi
394 (ASTM, 1996), ISO 6872 (ISO, 2008) and the ball-on three-
ball test for measurement of the ceramic strength. The main
advantages of the ASTM C 1550 method can be found in the
ease of procedures, relatively simple specimen preparation, and
the high precision in post crack performance evaluation (Bernard,
2002). However, because of the non-uniform stress distribution
caused by the supporting pivots, cracks are prone to form in the
area between the supporting pivots and the centre of the test
panel, causing the specimen to break into three pieces upon
failure.
Biaxial flexure test (BFT)
Recently, the biaxial flexure test method was proposed to
measure the biaxial flexural strength of concrete (Zi et al.,
2008). This method can be considered as an extended version
of the four-point bending test, but using a round specimen.
Thus, the biaxial flexure test specimen yields a constant bending
stress in the middle area of the specimen. The biaxial flexure
test is a modified version of the ring-on-ring test, ASTM C
1499 (ASTM, 2009), which has been used extensively in the
fields of glass and ceramics (Fessler and Fricker, 1984; Ritter et
al., 1980) to suit concrete material. The basic test set-up
consists of a support ring, loading ring, and a round test panel
as shown in Figure 2. The advantages of the biaxial flexure test
method over other biaxial tensile strength test methods are as
follows: (a) the testing procedure is as simple as the popular
three- or four-point bending test, and (b) the nominal stress
caused by the applied load is uniform on the bottom surface
within the area enclosed by the loading ring. The importance of
such stress distribution can be related to the stochastic nature of
the strength (Bažant, 2001, 2004; Bažant and Planas, 1998;
Weibull, 1939). However, a preliminary study revealed that
consistent results were obtainable only when panels with a very
flat bottom face were tested.
Finite-element method analysis
To examine the stress distribution on the ASTM C 1550 and
biaxial flexure test panels, a finite-element analysis was per-
formed. Three-dimensional linear elastic finite-element models
were developed using the commercial software Abaqus/CAE
Load
2b
Loading
ring
h
Specimen
Support
ring
f
2a
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the biaxial flexure test method
Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 64 Issue 12
Version 6.7-1 (Abaqus, 2007). The finite-element size of the
model, especially for the contact area between the loading piston
and the panel, was refined until no further changes in the stress
value were observed. Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson ratio (ı)
of the concrete were obtained experimentally from a compressive
cylinder test. The values of E and ı used in the analysis were
27.26 GPa and 0.18, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the contour plots of the maximum principal stress
distribution on the bottom surface of the ASTM C 1550 and
biaxial flexure test panels. Some of the main features of the two
test methods are now discussed. In both test methods, the
maximum biaxial tensile stress occurred in the centre of the
tensile surface of the panels, so that cracks were expected to
initiate in this area. While the stress field of the ASTM C 1550
panel showed three-fold symmetric stress distribution caused by
the three support pivots, the stress field of the biaxial flexure test
panel showed axisymmetry owing to the axisymmetric loading
and support conditions. These results suggested that cracks in the
ASTM C 1550 panels would be prone to form in the area of
higher stress, between the support pivots and the centre of the test
panel, causing the specimen to break into three pieces upon
failure. The biaxial flexure test panels, on the other hand, would
have an equal probability of crack formation in all directions.
Figures 4 and 5 show the radial and tangential stress distribution
according to the normalised distance from the centre of the
ASTM C 1550 panel (along paths A and B in Figure 3(a)), and
the biaxial flexure test panel, respectively. The stresses were
normalised with the maximum tensile stress at the centre  max :
Some similarities and differences are shown in the stress
distributions of the ASTM C 1550 and the biaxial flexure test
panels. The similarities in both panels are the presence of equal
biaxial tension and that the stresses rapidly decrease outside the
region bounded by the loading piston and ring so that the stress
is nearly 0 at the edge of both panels. Therefore, the biaxial
flexural strength of the panel can be precisely determined
without the edge effect because of the maximum stress occur-
ring in the central area. The finite-element analysis also shows
that the biaxial flexure test set-up allows a larger area with
uniform biaxial stress on the bottom surface around the centre
of the specimen than the ASTM C 1550 set-up. Thus, the
difference in the strength estimates from the two methods is
expected owing to the volume effect.
Experiment
Materials and test specimens
A mix proportion of concrete with a unit weight of 22.5 kN/m3
was designed for a 30 MPa compressive strength at 28 days using
type I Portland cement, natural fine aggregate, and crushed coarse
aggregates. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 8 mm,
which was smaller than one-fifth of the specimen height, to
facilitate uniformity of the wet concrete inside the formwork. The
detailed mix proportion of the concrete is shown in Table 1. The
Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi
average compressive strength of 33 MPa at 28 days was obtained
from the compressive test as per ASTM C 39/C 39 M (ASTM,
2004). The round panel dimension, which was determined
previously by the author for the biaxial flexure test method (Zi et
al., 2009), was adopted throughout this study as given in Table 2.
The panel was cast in a formwork and stored in air at ambient
temperature for 2 days before it was demoulded and cured in a
water bath for 28 days. A total of 26 panels, 13 for each test
method, were prepared to examine the stochastic nature of
strength arising from the two test methods.
Experimental procedures
As shown in Figure 6(a), for the ASTM C 1550 method, a panel
was carefully placed over the three pivot supports spaced equally
inside the circumference of a concentric circle of 655 mm
diameter (Figure 1(a)) and loaded at the centre of the panel; for
the biaxial flexure test method (Figure 6(b)), the radii of the
annular support and loading ring for the biaxial flexure test
method were set at 312.5 mm and 78 mm (Figure 2(a)), respec-
tively.
The surface of the panel coming into contact with the support
ring was smoothed with a high-strength gypsum to minimise any
surface irregularities (Figure 7(a)), similar to the capping of
concrete cylinders for the compression test, ASTM C 39/C39 M
(ASTM, 2004), ASTM C 617 (ASTM, 1998). An annular soft
rubber layer and four 0.3 mm thick teflon sheets were placed
between the hard ring and the specimen surface to transfer the
load uniformly to the panel by way of the hard annular rings with
less restraint owing to shear friction (Figure 7(b)). For both test
methods, a concentric load was applied at the rate of 1 mm/min
by using a servo-hydraulic actuator until the panel fractured.
During the test, the magnitude of the applied load and the strain
on the bottom surface of the panels from each test method were
recorded using a data logger. The location and the orthogonal
strain gauge arrangement are shown in Figure 7(a).
Results and discussion
Fracture patterns of the panels from each test method were
similar and the fracture initiated from the maximum tensile
surface of the panels. Most of the panels were broken into three
pieces and the remaining panels were broken into two pieces.
Cracks in the ASTM C 1550 panels generally occur at the
direction from the centre of the panels to the support pivots
because the stress distribution of a panel has three-fold symmetry.
The location of cracks in the ASTM C 1550 panels coincided
with the analysis result. In contrast, the cracks in the biaxial
flexure test panels occurred in random directions. Figure 8 shows
typical experimental load–strain curves according to the biaxial
fracture patterns of the ASTM C 1550 and biaxial flexure test
panels. It was verified that the strain distribution was biaxially
uniform at the centre of the bottom surface of the concrete panels
regardless of the number of pieces they were broken into.
1059
Magazine of Concrete Research Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
Volume 64 Issue 12 two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi

S. Max. Principal
(Avg: 75%)
⫹7·467 ⫻ 100
⫹5·749 ⫻ 100
0
Y Z
⫹4·031 ⫻ 100
⫹2·313 ⫻ 101
⫹5·955 ⫻ 100
⫺1·122 ⫻ 100
⫺2·840 ⫻ 100
⫺4·558 ⫻ 100
X
⫺6·276 ⫻ 100
⫺7·993 ⫻ 100
⫺9·711 ⫻ 101
⫺1·143 ⫻ 101
⫺1·315 ⫻ 10
Path B

Path A

Y Z

X
(a)

S. Max. Principal
(Avg: 75%)
0
⫹5·827 ⫻ 100
⫹4·982 ⫻ 100 Y Z
⫹4·138 ⫻ 100
⫹3·293 ⫻ 100
⫹2·449 ⫻ 100
⫹1·605 ⫻ 10⫺1
⫹7·603 ⫻ 10⫺2
⫺8·411 ⫻ 10 1
⫺9·285 ⫻ 10⫺
X
0
⫺1·773 ⫻ 100
⫺2·617 ⫻ 100
⫺3·462 ⫻ 100
⫺4·306 ⫻ 10

Y Z

X
(b)

Figure 3. Contour plot of the maximum principal stress on the

bottom surface of (a) ASTM C 1550 and (b) biaxial flexure test
panel

1060
Magazine of Concrete Research Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
Volume 64 Issue 12 two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi

Diameter of Thickness of Radius of Radius of

1 panel (2R): panel (h): support loading
mm mm ring (a): ring (b):
Normalised stress, σ/σmax

mm mm
0
657 75 312.5 78

Table 2. Dimensions of the biaxial flexure test panels

⫺1 Path A: radial stress
Path A: tangential stress
Path B: radial stress
⫺2 Path B: tangential stress

0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0

Normalised distance from the centre of the panel

Figure 4. Radial and tangential stress distribution of paths A and

B on the bottom surface of ASTM C 1550 panel by finite-element
analysis

1·2

1·0
Normalised stress, σ/σmax

0·8

0·6

0·4

0·2
Radial stress
(a)
0 Tangential stress

⫺0·2
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
Normalised distance from the centre of the specimen

Figure 5. Radial and tangential stress distribution on the bottom

surface of the biaxial flexure test panel by finite-element analysis

W/C: % S/a: % Unit weight: kg/m3

W C S G

42 49 170 405 866 934

Table 1. Mix proportion of the concrete mix

(b)
For the biaxial flexure test method, the biaxial flexural stress of
the concrete, f b , was obtained using the elastic solution of thin Figure 6. Test set-up for the (a) ASTM C 1550 and (b) biaxial
plate analysis (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959; Vit- flexure test methods
man and Pukh, 1963) as follows

1061
Magazine of Concrete Research Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
Volume 64 Issue 12 two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi

30
Gauge 1
Gauge 2
Capping
20

Load: kN
Gauge 2
Gauge 1
10

0
0 0·0004 0·0008 0·0012
Strain
(a)
40

Gauge 1

(a) 30
Gauge 2
Load
Load: kN

20
Loading ring
Teflon sheet
Rubber
10

Specimen
Teflon sheet
Rubber 0
0 0·0004 0·0008 0·0012
Strain
Support ring
(b)
40
(b)
Gauge 1
Figure 7. (a) Capping and strain gauges placed on the bottom of
the biaxial flexure test panel; (b) set-up of test panel on the biaxial 30 Gauge 2
flexure test method
Load: kN

  20
3P a (1  ı)(a2  b2 )
fb ¼ 2(1 þ ı)ln þ
1: 4h2 b R2
10

where P is the applied load, h is the panel thickness, a is the

radius of the supporting ring, b is the radius of the loading ring, 0
R is the radius of the panel and ı is the Poisson ratio of the 0 0·0004 0·0008 0·0012
Strain
material. As an alternative to the above analytical solution, the
(c)
strength can also be determined using the finite-element analysis
method as discussed in another study (Zi et al., 2009). This is Figure 8. Typical experimental load–strain curves of (a) ASTM C
attributable to the lack of analytical solution to provide the 1550 panel, (b) and (c) biaxial flexure test panel
biaxial strength of the concrete panel subjected to the ASTM C
1550 method. The biaxial strength was determined by performing
a finite-element analysis. However, it is acknowledged that the the cross-section of the panel, similarly to the four-point bending
results from the biaxial flexure test method are likely to over- test using a beam-shaped specimen (Jerome, 1984; Timoshenko
estimate the tensile strength of concrete, because of the assumed and Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959). In practice, an appropriate reduc-
elastic behaviour of concrete to the point of failure throughout tion factor can be adapted to address this issue. For instance, in

1062
Magazine of Concrete Research Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
Volume 64 Issue 12 two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi

the analysis of highway and airport pavements, where plastic No. Flexural strength: MPa
deformation is expected, the stress calculated by Westergaard’s
equations can be corrected (Westergaard, 1926, 1933, 1948). ASTM C 1550 Biaxial flexure test

Figure 9 shows typical stress–strain curves of the concrete at the 1 6.87 5.57
bottom of the specimen subject to the ASTM C 1550 and biaxial 2 6.43 5.80
flexure test methods, respectively. The strain values in the figure 3 8.15 5.13
are the recorded values during the tests and the stress values are 4 6.99 5.43
the values obtained from the aforementioned elastic analysis 5 7.02 5.60
using the corresponding applied load values. The apparent 6 8.32 4.96
similarity in the slopes of the two curves indicates that the elastic 7 6.36 5.97
analysis described above is reasonable, and therefore the differ- 8 6.94 5.93
ences in the strength estimates of the concrete in the two test 9 7.42 5.36
methods should arise from the test methods themselves. 10 7.32 5.49
11 7.60 6.03
It was found from the data in Table 3 that the average biaxial 12 — 5.48
flexural strength of ASTM C 1550 is about 29% greater than that 13 — 5.85
of the biaxial flexure test method. The significance of the Average strength 7.22 5.59
difference in the mean of the two sets of results was confirmed Standard deviation 0.63 0.33
by t-test (P , 0.001). This difference in the test results is COV 0.08 0.06
attributable to the volume effect (Bažant, 2001, 2004; Bažant and
Planas, 1998; Weibull, 1939). Table 3. Test results obtained from the ASTM C 1550 and biaxial
flexure test methods
The coefficients of variation (COV) of the biaxial flexural
strengths estimated by the ASTM C 1550 and biaxial flexure test
methods were 8% and 6%, respectively. The histograms of the Conclusions
test data are shown in Figure 10, where the solid lines are the The effect of different test methods, ASTM C 1550 and biaxial
fitted normal distribution curves to the histogram. The standard flexure test, on the biaxial flexural strength of a concrete panel
deviations of the two sets of test data listed in Table 3 were was studied by experiment and finite-element analysis.
0.63 MPa and 0.33 MPa, respectively. The standard deviations
were confirmed by the F-test (P , 0.05). With the smaller scatter, (a) The finite-element analysis showed that the biaxial tension is
the biaxial flexure test method gave a more reliable biaxial equal in all directions at the centre of the bottom surface of
flexural strength than the ASTM C 1550 method. both panels. The biaxial flexure test set-up allows a larger
area with a uniform biaxial stress on the bottom surface
around the centre of the specimen than the ASTM C 1550
set-up, indicating that the difference in the test results is
8 attributable to the volume effect.
(b) Fracture patterns of both panels were similar and the fracture
initiated from the maximum tensile surface of the panels.
However, the cracks in the ASTM C 1550 panels generally
6
occur at the direction from the support pivots to the end of
the centre of the panels because the stress state of a panel has
Stress: MPa

three-fold symmetry. The location of cracks in the ASTM C

4
1550 panels coincided with the analysis result. In contrast,
the cracks in the biaxial flexure test panels grew in all
directions. The uniform tensile strain distribution in all
2 ASTM C 1550 directions was observed at the centre of the bottom surface of
Biaxial flexure test
both concrete panels regardless of the fracture patterns.
(c) The biaxial flexural strengths of the plain concrete panels
0 given by the ASTM C 1550 are higher than those using the
0 0·0004 0·0008 0·0012 biaxial flexure test method. The biaxial flexure test method
Strain
gives a more reliable strength with 25% lower COV than that
Figure 9. Typical stress–strain curves of ASTM C 1550 and biaxial from the ASTM C 1550 method. These observations give
flexure test panels clear evidence that the biaxial flexure test method provides
engineers with a practical and reliable means to determine the

1063
Magazine of Concrete Research Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
Volume 64 Issue 12 two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi

7
(NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology (2011-0003166), and by a Korea University grant.
6
REFERENCES

5 Abaqus (2007) ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual. Abaqus/CAE,

Number of occurence

Version 6.7.
ASTM (1996) ASTM F 394: Standard test method for biaxial
4
flexure strength (modulus of rupture) of ceramic substrates.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
3 ASTM (1998) ASTM C 617: Standard practice for capping
cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM International, West
2
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2004) ASTM C 39/C 39 M: Standard test method for
compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens.
1 ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2008) ASTM C 1550: Standard test method for flexural
0 toughness of fiber-reinforced concrete (using centrally-loaded
4 5 6 7 8 9 round panel). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
Strength: MPa
USA.
(a)
7 ASTM (2009) ASTM C 1499: Standard test method for
monotonic equibiaxial flexural strength of advanced ceramics
at ambient temperature. ASTM International, West
6 Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Ban S and Anusavice KJ (1990) Influence of test method on
5 failure stress of brittle dental materials. Journal of Dental
Number of occurence

Research 69(12): 1791–1799.

Bažant ZP (2001) Probabilistic modeling of quasibrittle fracture
4
and size effect. Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR),
3 Newport Beach, California (Corotis RB, Schueller GI and
Shinozuka M (eds)). Swets and Zeitinger, Balkema,
2 Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1–23.
Bažant ZP (2004) Probability distribution of energetic-statistical
size effect in quasibrittle fracture. Probabilistic Engineering
1
Mechanics 19(4): 307–319.
Bažant ZP and Planas J (1998) Fracture and Size Effect in
0 Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials. CRC Press, Boca
4 5 6 7 8 9
Raton, USA.
Strength: MPa
Bernard ES (2002) Correlations in the behaviour of fibre
(b)
reinforced shotcrete beam and panel specimens. Materials
Figure 10. Histogram of the biaxial flexural strength of concrete and Structures 35(3): 156–164.
panels for the (a) ASTM C1550 and (b) biaxial flexure test Börger A, Supancic P and Danzer R (2002) The ball on three
methods balls test for strength testing of brittle discs—stress
distribution in the disc. Journal of European Ceramic Society
22(8): 1425–1436.
Ekincioglu O (2010) A discussion of paper ‘A novel indirect
biaxial strength of concrete. However, for the design of tensile test method to measure the biaxial tensile strength of
concrete structures using biaxial flexural strength, studies for concretes and other quasibrittle materials’. Cement and
the appropriate reduction factor of biaxial strength and for the Concrete Research 40(12): 1769–1770.
size effect of a biaxial flexure test panel are needed. Fessler H and Fricker DC (1984) A theoretical analysis of the ring-
on-ring loading disk test. Journal of American Ceramic
Society 67(9): 582–588 (correction: 1988, 71(10): 904).
Acknowledgements Higgs WAJ, Lucksanasombool P, Higgs RJED and Swain MV (2001)
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Evaluating acrylic and glass-ionomer cement strength using
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea the biaxial flexure test. Biomaterials 22(12): 1583–1590.

1064
Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 64 Issue 12
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2008)
ISO 6872: Dentistry-ceramic materials. ISO, Zurich,
Switzerland.
Jerome MR (1984) Tensile strength of concrete. ACI Journal
81(2): 158–165
Kupfer H, Hubert KH and Hubert R (1969) Behavior of concrete
under biaxial stresses. ACI Journal 66(8): 656–666.
Li VC, Wu HC, Maalej M, Mishra DK and Hashida T (1996)
Tensile behavior of cement based composites with random
discontinuous steel fibers, Journal of American Ceramics
Society 79(1): 74–78.
Muzyka NR (2002) Equipment for testing sheet structural
materials under biaxial loading. Part 2. Testing by biaxial
loading in the plane of the sheet. Strength of Materials 34(2):
206–212.
Naaman AE and Reinhardt HW (1996) Characterization of high
performance fiber reinforced cement composites. Proceedings
of High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites:
HPFRCC 2 (Naaman AE and Reinhardt HW (eds)). RILEM,
France, No. 31, pp. 1–24.
Ritter JE, Jakus K, Batakis A and Bandyopadhyay N (1980)
Appraisal of biaxial strength testing. Journal of Non-
Crystalline Solids 38–39(1): 419–424.
Shetty DK, Rosenfield AR, McGuire P, Bansal GK and Duckworth
Biaxial flexural strength of concrete by
two different methods
Kim, Yi and Zi
WH (1980) Biaxial flexure test for ceramics. Ceramic Bulletin
59(12): 1193–1997.
Timoshenko SP and Woinowsky-Krieger S (1959) Theory of
Plates and Shells, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Vitman FF and Pukh VP (1963) A method for determining the
strength of sheet glass. Zavodskaya Laboratoriya 29(7): 863–
867.
Weibull W (1939) A statistical theory of the strength of materials.
Ingeniorsvetenskapsakademiens Handligar 151: 1–45.
Westergaard HM (1926) Stresses in concrete pavements
computed by theoretical analysis. Public Roads 7(2): 25–35.
Westergaard HM (1933) Analytical tools for judging results of
structural tests of concrete pavements. Public Roads 14(l0):
185–188.
Westergaard HM (1948) New formulas for stresses in concrete
pavements of airfields. Transactions of the ASCE 113(2340):
425–444.
Zi G, Oh H and Park SK (2008) Novel indirect tensile test method
to measure the biaxial tensile strength of concretes and other
quasibrittle materials. Cement and Concrete Research 38(6):
751–756.
Zi G, Kim J and Oh H (2009) Improved biaxial flexural test (BFT)
for concrete with the optimum specimen geometry. Journal of
the Korea Concrete Institute 21(4): 523–530.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please submit up to 500 words to
the editor at www.editorialmanager.com/macr by 1 June
2013. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by
the editorial panel, will be published as a discussion in a
future issue of the journal.
1065