RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN YOUNGS MODULUS, COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, POISSONS R ATIO, AND TIME FOR EARLY AGE CONCRETE

Ryan P. Carmichael ENGR 082 Project Final Report Advisor: Prof. Frederick L. Orthlieb

Swarthmore College Department of Engineering May 2009

ii

Table of Contents
List of Tables....................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ v Abstract ............................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Technical Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 1.2. Personal Background and Goals.......................................................................................................1 1.3. Planning .............................................................................................................................................2

2. Theory .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1. Piezoelectric Correlation...................................................................................................................2 2.2. Youngs Modulus and Compressive Strength .................................................................................3

3. Testing Regimen............................................................................................................... 4 4. Experimental Set-up & Procedure..................................................................................... 4

4.1. Casting................................................................................................................................................4 4.2. Experimental Testing ........................................................................................................................7 4.2.1. Youngs Modulus / Poissons Ratio Tests................................................................................7 4.2.2. Compressive Strength Tests ......................................................................................................8

5. Results & Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8

5.1. KaleidaGraph Fits..............................................................................................................................8 5.2. Youngs Modulus-Compressive Strength Relation.........................................................................9 5.3. Poissons Modulus-Age Relation .....................................................................................................9 5.4. Compressive Strength- and Youngs Modulus-Age Relations.................................................... 10

6. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 11
6.1. Testing Difficulty ........................................................................................................................... 11 6.2. Youngs Modulus-Compressive Strength Relation...................................................................... 12 6.3. Poissons Modulus-Age Relation .................................................................................................. 13 6.4. Compressive Strength- and Youngs Modulus-Age Relations.................................................... 13 6.5. Execution ........................................................................................................................................ 14

7. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 14 iii

7.1. Academic Conclusion .....................................................................................................................14 7.2. Project Assessment..........................................................................................................................15

References...........................................................................................................................16 Appendix A: Summary of Testing Results...........................................................................17 Appendix B: Miniature Version of the Poster Report...........................................................18

List of Tables
Table 1: Concrete mix design [Gu et al, p. 1840] .................................................................. 1 Table 2: Summary of compressive testing results.................................................................17

List of Figures
Figure 1: Specimens immediately after casting ..................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Specimens curing in moist tent for first 24 hours ................................................... 6 Figure 3: Set-up for Youngs modulus & Poissons ratio tests .............................................. 7 Figure 4: Set-up for compressive strength tests ..................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Youngs modulus vs. compressive strength curve fit.............................................. 9 Figure 6: Poissons ration vs. age curve fit............................................................................ 9 Figure 7: Compressive strength vs. age curve fit..................................................................10 Figure 8: Youngs modulus vs. age curve fit........................................................................10

iv

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Fred Orthleib, as well as Professor Faruq Siddiqui for their guidance and support with this project. I would also like to thank Thomas (TK) Kelleher who worked in collaboration with me on a project for ENGR 090: Engineering Design. Without his guidance and the many hours he spent running tests with me, this project would not have been possible.

Abstract
Regular strength concrete specimens were tested for Youngs modulus (E), Poissons ratio (v), and compressive strength (fc) during 16 of the first 25 days of curing. Results of this testing include a refined version of the existing ACI relationship between Youngs modulus and compressive strength that is specified to the batch of concrete used. Likewise, a time-independent Poissons ratio of 0.186--specific to the batch--was found. Further results include a moderately accurate relationship between compressive strength and time as well as a loose relationship between Youngs modulus and time.
Keywords: Youngs modulus, compressive strength, Poissons ratio, early age concrete

vi

1. Introduction
1.1. Technical Introduction
The constant pressure of the construction industry to provide shorter construction schedules leads to the premature removal of concrete forms before concrete has a chance to properly cure. When concrete is put into service before it has developed sufficient compressive strength, disasters ensue.1 One method to protect against such catastrophes is early age concrete strength monitoring. There are currently two main methods for the early age strength monitoring of concrete: the ultrasonic-based monitoring method and the hydration heat-based method. The first requires large equipment and is expensive. The second is inexpensive but inaccurate and unreliable. A third option also exists, and is the focus of TKs 2009 senior design project. His project uses high frequency harmonic excitation of piezoelectrics to determine Youngs modulus, and from it, early age strength. He claims, This non-destructive method has the potential to be cost-effective, accurate, and automated. If successful, it would represent the best option for early age concrete strength monitoring. In order to successfully correlate the piezoelectric signals to compressive strength, the relationship between Youngs modulus and compressive strength as well as the relationship between Poissons ratio and time must be well defined. These relationships are dependent on such things as aggregate properties, richness of the concrete mix, etc. As such, for the former relation, the general ACI equation is only 20% accurate. Using this ACI equation as a base, a more accurate relationship for specific batches of concrete will be found using ASTM standardized tests.

1.2. Personal Background and Goals

I initially became interested in this project when TK sent an e-mail out to everyone in Engineering Materials asking if anyone would be interested in collaborating with his senior design project. I immediately jumped at the opportunity in order to gain my first hands-on experience with concrete. As I currently plan to attend graduate school for structural engineering, this project appeared to provide very useful exposure to a material I will be

One such disaster is the Willow Island cooling tower collapse in West Virginia.

learning a lot about in the next few years. The most useful background readings I did were the ASTMs. While the other readings provided some useful tidbits on early age concrete, the ASTMs gave me a detailed fundamental base for concrete testing. I feel that as I move forward, having this base will be very helpful for future laboratories and projects. As the main goal of my project was to refine existing relationships for a specific batch of concrete, these background readings did not alter the direction of my project, but instead gave me the tools necessary to go ahead with the testing as planned.

1.3. Planning
The needs of TKs design project greatly influenced the planning of this project. The frequency of testing was chosen such to get enough data to successfully correlate Youngs modulus and compressive strength to the piezoelectric data. The number of samples was chosen to allow multiple samples on each required test day, while still remaining feasible to cast in one session. Two samples for each test day best met those requirements. One sample for each test day roughly correlated to one batch of concrete in the Engineering Departments one cubic foot maximum capacity mixer. By making two batches, the batches could feasibly be mixed immediately before casting to produce more uniform results. This would not have been possible with three batches because of the lack of a large enough mixing container. Furthermore 3x6 cylinders were chosen over the industry standard, 6x12 cylinders for feasibility purposes. Testing two cylinders a day at this size would have required sixteen batches of concrete.

2. Theory
2.1. Piezoelectric Correlation
Piezoelectric materials can be used as both sensors and actuators. For TKs project, the one piezoelectric acts as an actuator and sends high frequency stress waves through a concrete test cylinder. A second piezoelectric, acting as a sensor, then picks up a signal due to the propagated stress waves at the opposite end of the cylinder. Based on a relation with the speed of sound in an elastic solid, an approximation of the Youngs modulus, E, can be made from the equation shown below.

v=

E (1 # " ) (1 + " )(1 # 2" ) !

(Pierce, p. 130)

where: v = speed of sound E = Young's modulus ! = Poisson's ratio " = density

Solving for Youngs modulus produces:

E = v2

(1 + " )(1 # 2" ) ! (1 # " )

For concrete, Poissons ratio and density should be relatively constant during all stages of curing, while Youngs modulus and the speed of sound should vary with time. Poissons ratio is generally equal to approximately 0.18 and density of normal weight concrete is typically equal to about 145 lb/ft3. (Oluokun et al, pp. 3-5) Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus are monitored during curing for this experiment, while density and the speed of sound are monitored during curing as part of TKs project.

2.2. Youngs Modulus and Compressive Strength

ACI Committee 318 recommends the following empirical relationship between Youngs modulus and compressive strength of normal strength concrete:
E = 33w1.5 f c'

where: w = weight of concrete lb / ft 3 f c' = 28 day compressive strength

Although this equation is for the 28 day compressive strength, Oluokun et. al. concluded that this equation holds within 20% error for regular strength concrete 12 hours or older. For the w =152 lb/ft3value TK ultimately calculated, the ACI equation becomes E = 62, 025 f c' For TKs project, 20% accuracy is only moderately acceptable. As such, the following adaptation of the ACI equation will be used, with the value of the proportionally constant, k, determined by curve fitting the experimental data.
E = k f c'

where: k = curve fit porportionality constant

3. Testing Regimen
The experimental protocol involved sixteen days of testing spanning over twenty-five days. Forty 3x6 concrete cylinders were cast: thirty-four cylinders for Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, and destructive compressive testing and five for back-up. For the first seven days, two regular cylinders were tested each day to determine the Youngs modulus and Poisson's ratio (test setup shown in Figure 3 on page 6) as well as to determine the compressive strength of the concrete (test setup shown in Figure 4 on page 7). For the last 21 days of testing, two cylinders were tested roughly every other day.

4. Experimental Set-up & Procedure

4.1. Casting
As mentioned, forty 3x6 cylinders were cast for this experiment. The mix design used is summarized in Table 1. This design was taken from Gu et al to allow potential comparison. Because of the limitations in size of the available concrete
Table 1: Concrete mix design [Gu et al, p. 1840]

Component Type I Portland Cement Sand inch CA* Water

lb/cubic yard 580 1535 1697 355

*During testing it was discovered that several specimens had larger CA, as discussed in section 6.

mixer, the concrete had to be mixed in two batches. To create a larger unified test batch, the first batch was mixed with a shovel while the second batch was mixing in the Engineering 4

Departments mixer. When the second batch finished mixing, the two batches were then combined and mixed thoroughly. Test cylinders were then cast and cured according to ASTM C192/C192M. After casting, the specimens were placed in a tent at roughly 100% humidity for 24 hours. After this time period the cylinders were taken out of their molds and placed in room temperature water to cure for the remainder of the experiment. Casting photos can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 below.

6x12 Cylinder w/ Embedded Piezoelectric Transducers for TKs Project

40 3x6 Cylinders for Compressive Tests

Figure 1: Specimens immediately after casting

Figure 2: Specimens curing in moist tent for first 24 hours

4.2. Experimental Testing

For each test day, two 3x6 cylinders were tested. Two compressive tests were performed on each cylinder: the first, to determine Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, and the second, to determine compressive strength. Rubber caps were used for both tests as per ASTM C1231 / C1231M 09 4.2.1. Youngs Modulus / Poissons Ratio Tests Following ASTM C 469-02e1, the Youngs modulus/Poissons ratio tests were performed in a screw-driven Tinius Olsen machine as seen in Figure 3. One tester would operate the Tinius Olsen machine, calling out load readings to a second tester who would record the vertical and horizontal dial readings for each of the called loads.

Figure 3: Set-up for Youngs modulus & Poissons ratio tests

4.2.2. Compressive Strength Tests Following ASTM C39/C39M-05e2, the compressive strength tests were performed in a hydraulic compression machine as seen in Figure 4. The specimens were carefully centered by eye and by ruler before being loaded steadily until failure.

Figure 4: Set-up for compressive strength tests

5. Results & Analysis

5.1. KaleidaGraph Fits
The following plots were all curve fit using KaleidaGraph. To fully understand these plots one must understand the format KaleidaGraph uses to display its curve fit data. A brief summary is provided below. The error column to the right of the parameter values represents the standard error values of said parameters. Each row should be read as, "parameter value error." "Chisq" represents the Chi Square value, which is the sum of the squared error between the original data and the calculated curve fit. The lower the value, the better the fit. "R" represents the correlation coefficient, which indicates how well the curve fit matches the original data. The coefficient ranges from zero to one. The closer the value to one, the better the fit. 8

5.2. Youngs Modulus-Compressive Strength Relation

E = 75,000 (fc ).5

Figure 5: Youngs modulus vs. compressive strength curve fit

5.3. Poissons Modulus-Age Relation

v = 0.186

Figure 6: Poissons ration vs. age curve fit

5.4. Compressive Strength- and Youngs Modulus-Age Relations

fc = 3500 - 2300 e-0.18t

Figure 7: Compressive strength vs. age curve fit

E = 3.3 (106)e0.018t

Figure 8: Youngs modulus vs. age curve fit

10

6. Discussion
6.1. Testing Difficulty
By and large, both the Youngs modulus/Poissons ratio tests and the compressive strengths were preformed with little difficulty. However, on several test days around the end of the first week of testing, a bottom corner cracked off the specimen during the Youngs modulus/Poissons ratio test. When a corner broke, the load was immediately removed, losing anticipated data points. Not only did this cracking result in less data points, and consequently, less accurate values for the Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, but it also caused a reduction of the area receiving the load from the second testing machine. This caused the actual stress experienced in the cylinder to be more than the calculated amount. True compressive strength was subsequently likely to be greater than that recorded. Additionally, the cracked corners provided an uneven surface, which could have introduced some eccentricity to the second loading. As concrete is poor in tension, small amounts of eccentricity can cause the concrete to fail at lower loads than it would have otherwise, again causing the recorded compressive strength to be less than the actual compressive strength. Furthermore, even if the corners did not crack during the first test, the stress concentration would still be present for the second test, causing the concrete to fail at a lower load, once again reducing the result for compressive strength. After this cracking occurred several times, TK and I investigated the issue and discovered that the bottoms of the cylinders were consistently concave, with bottom edges approximately 1/16 inch below the center of the base. This dome was enough such that the rubber caps were not making good contact with the center of the cylinder. This caused stress to be concentrated on the edges, which in turn resulted in edges cracking at low loads. It should also be noted that the tops of the cylinders were not perfectly flat. This was due to how well the top of the cylinder was scraped off during casting and, as such, the flatness of the top greatly varied from cylinder to cylinder. These irregularities were, however, not particularly likely to cause stress concentrations at the edges, but could have

11

created some eccentricity during loading, which would have skewed the results, particularly for compressive strength.

6.2. Youngs Modulus-Compressive Strength Relation

Although the experimental relationship of E=75,000(fc ).5 is barely outside of the 20% error range of the ACI predicted value E=62,025(fc ).5, it does not fit the experimental data particularly well as represented by the large Chi Square value and relatively low correlation coefficient. This poor fit is a result of the several sources of error that affected this experiment, including the corner cracking difficulty previously discussed. Another particularly major source of error is the size of the aggregate used in the cylinders. The mix design required nominal coarse aggregate. However, over one inch nominal aggregate was discovered in some specimens during testing. This violated the ASTM rule that course aggregate must be no larger than 1/3 the diameter of the test cylinder, creating inconsistent results. This error could have been avoided by sieving the aggregate by hand or by using 6x12 cylinders. The larger cylindersthe industry standard certainly would have given more consistent results, but would have been unfeasible with the resources at hand. The large particles were likely a major reason that the specimens to break at nearly half the compressive strengths than those seen by Gu et al for a supposedly identical mix design. Examination of the failed specimens revealed that the larger aggregates did not break, indicating that the specimens instead failed because of bonding failure. While this is likely a significant factor for the specimens being much weaker than those made by Gu et al, it is not likely to be the only factor. Its quite possible that there was another error in executing the mix design that has not been identified. Additionally, TKs piezoelectric data had a strong correlation to Youngs modulus, but this correlation broke down when Youngs modulus was converted to compressive strength. This suggests that more error was present in the compressive strength tests than in the Youngs modulus test. This is logical when one considers the load rates for the two tests. For the Youngs modulus test, a machine-operated load was applied at a more or less constant load rate. The compressive strength test on the other hand was performed on a 12

hydraulic machine that was operated by a hand pump. Regardless of how smooth and steady the operator pumped the load handle, the load rate could be nowhere near as consistent as the automated machine because the machine only loaded on the down stroke and one stroke applies much more load near the point of failure than at the beginning of loading. Ideally all the compressive strength tests would have been performed on an automated machine, but scheduling problems prevented this for the first several test days and desire for consistent testing thereafter kept the tests on the hydraulic machine. A further consideration is the fact that the ACI formula was developed to calculate Youngs modulus from a given compressive strength. In this report, the assumption was made that the equation could be solved for compressive strength in terms of Youngs modulus. However, further investigation is required to validate this assumption.

6.3. Poissons Modulus-Age Relation

Exactly as expected, Poissons ratio stayed nearly consistent at 0.186 with only one outlier. Such accuracy speaks to both the preciseness of the machine-driven Poissons ratio test and to the careful curve fitting. Horizontal displacements typically only reached three or four ten-thousandths on the extensometer over the course of around twenty data points. As such, several stress values were recorded for each given strain. In most tests, the largest strain reached would have fewer data points than previous strains. Were the testing to continue, the missing strains would be recorded with the next several readings. However, as this high strain reading did not have a full set of stress values, it would typically distort the sensitive curve fit. To correct this, the last strain level was omitted from the calculation of Poissons ratio, resulting in accurate and consistent values.

6.4. Compressive Strength- and Youngs Modulus-Age Relations

These two results separate compressive strength and Youngs modulus, allowing for a more in-depth understanding of these two material properties. The curve fits for these two graphs are slightly more accurate than that of the Youngs modulus-compressive strength relationship. More important though, is that these graphs allow observation based on 13

individual test days. From these plots, it can be seen that test days 9, 23, and 25 had particularly strong concrete, while days 11-19 had particularly weak concrete. Ideally, such analysis would provide a correlation to a significant event on that test day that would allow the data to be thrown out or considered with more weight. Unfortunately, however, no such strong correlations were found with this analysis.

6.5. Execution
As I was collaborating with a senior design project, I did not have to ask for, buy, or build any setups or materials. I was, however, able to obtain all the information necessary to perform the tests in a reasonably accurate manor. The only change to the testing protocol was the aforementioned corner cracking issue, which was resolved through filing. Overall, testing ran very smoothly.

7. Conclusions
7.1. Academic Conclusion
In this experiment, a reliable relationship was established between Poissons ratio and age for the batch of concrete used, while a somewhat less reliable relationship was established between Youngs modulus and compressive strength for the batch. The consistent 0.186 result for Poissons ratio matches the expected value of about 0.18, while the relationship of E=75,000(fc ).5 failed to provide a good fit of experimental data. Error in this experiment stemmed largely from the fact that the test cylinders consistently broke below their expected compressive strengths. There are several reasons this could have occurred. The course aggregate violated ASTM standards and was larger than what the mix design called for. Several bottom corners cracked during the Youngs modulus testing before the problem of uneven cylinder ends was solved via filing the concrete. The loading for the compressive strength tests was inevitably jerky. Additionally, there may have been a mistake made when weighing out one or more ingredient for the concrete mix. This is particularly plausible given the quality of the scales in the soils lab.

14

7.2. Project Assessment

My project was very successful in achieving a relationship between Poissons ratio and time, while less successful at achieving an accurate relationship between Youngs modulus and compressive strength. Overall I did extensive and effective background research, got all of the materials I needed for my project in a time-efficient manner, and, with the help of Thomas Kelleher, planned my project with foresight. We got an early and developed a reasonable plan that would work around both of our schedules several times a week. When we had a conflict we had backups (Jing, Prof. Siddiqui, and Prof. Orthleib) prepared to step in. As such, I rate my background research as good and my planning as excellent. Furthermore, although the data was not perfect, TK and I stuck to our schedule week after week, and adjusted quickly to any unforeseen difficulties that arose. As such, I rate my execution of this project as excellent. If I were to do this project again, I would sieve the course aggregate by hand, sand the ends of every cylinder, and find a way to do all of the compressive strength testing on an automated testing machine. From this project I gained a good basic knowledge of concrete and concrete testing. On a more personal level, the most valuable part of this project was spending lab time with TK, picking his brain about graduate school, summer internships, career goals, engineering courses, and the like. While exposure to E90-level research was a monumental benefit, exposure to Thomas Kellers insights have been invaluable.

15

References
American Society for Testing Materials. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (ASTM C39 / C39M - 05e2). V. 4 Pt. 2. ---. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete (ASTM C143/C143M). V. 4 Pt. 2. ---. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory ASTM C192 / C192M 07). V. 4 Pt. 2. ---. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio of Concrete in Compression (ASTM C 469-02e1). V. 4 Pt. 2. ---. Standard Practice for Use of Unbonded Caps in Determination of Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete Cylinders (ASTM C1231 / C1231M 09). V. 4 Pt. 2. The ASTMs were all used to ensure that the tests performed for this project were to standard. As such, they were vital to the success of the project. Gu, H, G Song, H Dhonde, YL Mo, and S Yan. Concrete early-age strength monitoring using embedded piezoelectric transducers. Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 15, Nov. 2006. This article was used for the mix design and to compare compressive strength data. Without this article our error would have been a lot less apparent. Khan, Arshad A., William D. Cook, and Denis Mitchell. Early Age Compressive StressStrain Properties of Low, Medium, and High-Strength Concretes. ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 6, November-December 1995, pp. 617-624. This article served as a cross check on the Oluokun article. It was a nice find, but the least useful source of those cited here. Pierce, Allan D. Acoustics: An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications. Acoustical Society of America, Woodbury, NY. 1989. This text was used for the relation between Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio and the speed of sound through a solid. This source was useful to me only in the sense that it was useful to TKs project. Oluokun, Francis A., Edwin G. Burdette, and J. Harold Deatherage. Youngs modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Compressive Strength Relationships at Early Ages. ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 1, January-February 1991., pp. 3-9. This article was invaluable in my attempt to establish the relationships sought after in this project. This article acted as my main source for the theory of the experiment.

16

Appendix A: Summary of Testing Results

Table 2: Summary of compressive testing results

Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 14 15 17 19 23 25

SPECIMEN1 fc UnitWt. lb psi lb/ft3 10740 1519 153.1 12250 1733 155.3 14360 2032 154.4 14490 2050 154.1 19190 2715 153.0 22510 3185 154.5 19500 2759 153.8 23980 3392 153.5 22900 3240 154.5 22930 3244 154.0 22030 3117 154.1 22170 3136 154.1 26330 3725 154.2 22700 3211 152.4 25580 3619 154.3 27880 3944 154.2

SPECIMEN2 fc UnitWt. lb psi lb/ft3 11390 1611 155.1 13780 1949 154.3 17800 2518 153.6 19960 2824 155.3 19380 2742 155.0 18090 2559 155.2 22920 3243 153.6 23610 3340 154.6 19670 2783 153.9 21360 3022 154.9 23740 3359 154.6 22350 3162 154.8 19830 2805 155.6 24250 3431 151.9 28300 4004 153.4 28770 4070 153.4

fc lb 11065 13015 16080 17225 19285 20300 21210 23795 21285 22145 22885 22260 23080 23475 26940 28325

AVERAGE E psi psi 1565 3079082 1841 3490590 2275 3526864 2437 3641757 2728 3880445 2872 3898696 3001 4012590 3366 3935557 3011 3891686 3133 3980031 3238 4122259 3149 4198048 3265 4314568 3321 4590814 3811 5264952 4007 5359575

in/in NA NA 0.186 0.184 0.183 0.178 0.203 0.174 0.248 0.184 0.194 0.179 0.184 0.188 0.188 0.179

17

Appendix B: Miniature Version of the Poster Report

18