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.

v
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

1
One such disaster is the Willow Island cooling tower collapse in West Virginia.

1
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.

2
 E (1 # " )
v= (Pierce, p. 130)
(1 + " )(1 # 2" ) !
where:
v = speed of sound
E = Young's modulus
! = Poisson's ratio
" = density

Solving for Youngs modulus produces:

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

E = v2
(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

3
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 Table 1: Concrete mix design [Gu et al, p. 1840]
Component lb/cubic yard
were cast for this experiment. The mix
Type I Portland Cement 580
design used is summarized in Table 1. This Sand 1535
inch CA* 1697
design was taken from Gu et al to allow Water 355
potential comparison. Because of the *During testing it was discovered that several
specimens had larger CA, as discussed in
limitations in size of the available concrete 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

5
Figure 2: Specimens curing in moist tent for first 24 hours

6
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

7
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

9
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 Stress-
Strain 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

SPECIMEN1 SPECIMEN2 AVERAGE

Day fc UnitWt. fc UnitWt. fc E
lb psi lb/ft3 lb psi lb/ft3 lb psi psi in/in
1 10740 1519 153.1 11390 1611 155.1 11065 1565 3079082 NA
2 12250 1733 155.3 13780 1949 154.3 13015 1841 3490590 NA
3 14360 2032 154.4 17800 2518 153.6 16080 2275 3526864 0.186
4 14490 2050 154.1 19960 2824 155.3 17225 2437 3641757 0.184
5 19190 2715 153.0 19380 2742 155.0 19285 2728 3880445 0.183
6 22510 3185 154.5 18090 2559 155.2 20300 2872 3898696 0.178
7 19500 2759 153.8 22920 3243 153.6 21210 3001 4012590 0.203
9 23980 3392 153.5 23610 3340 154.6 23795 3366 3935557 0.174
11 22900 3240 154.5 19670 2783 153.9 21285 3011 3891686 0.248
13 22930 3244 154.0 21360 3022 154.9 22145 3133 3980031 0.184
14 22030 3117 154.1 23740 3359 154.6 22885 3238 4122259 0.194
15 22170 3136 154.1 22350 3162 154.8 22260 3149 4198048 0.179
17 26330 3725 154.2 19830 2805 155.6 23080 3265 4314568 0.184
19 22700 3211 152.4 24250 3431 151.9 23475 3321 4590814 0.188
23 25580 3619 154.3 28300 4004 153.4 26940 3811 5264952 0.188
25 27880 3944 154.2 28770 4070 153.4 28325 4007 5359575 0.179

17
Appendix B: Miniature Version of the Poster Report

18