Digest 2007, December 2007 1115-1127

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static

E-Modulus for Dam Concrete Using Composite
Models1
lker Bekir TOPU*
Ali UURLU**
ABSTRACT
In this study, elastic theory of concrete and estimation of static E-modulus for composite
models of dam concrete is investigated. Keeping in mind the nature of concrete as a
composite material, consisting of several phases, a theoretical evaluation of the elasticity
modulus for concrete is attempted. Subsequently theoretical results are supported and
adjusted by empirical formulas and composite modeling to attain a practical model for
calculation of E-moduli for concretes. Although concretes elastic behavior can be
correctly exemplified by composite modeling up to a certain rate of internal stresses, it is
seen that such equations are not totally reliable for all cases. Especially in dam concretes,
keeping in mind the difficulty of carrying out elasticity tests, the investigation focuses on
the possibility of estimating elasticity moduli through composite modeling especially to
attain more reliable results, also keeping in mind the uncertainties imposed by previously
used wet screening methods, other factors that influenced elasticity moduli in bulk
concretes were kept in mind to reach more pertinent results.
1. INTRODUCTION
E-modulus of concrete should be determined in order to decide on rates of strain and
deformation in structural designs based on elasticity. Concrete may strain under various
loads due to its flexural nature. In other words, strain depends on the type and size of the
structure and loading period. E-modulus of concrete is usually determined with 150x300
mm cylindrical specimens tested under various load levels within elastic limits as to
standards. It is not possible to conduct mechanical tests such as compressive strength on
mass concrete owing to the larger grain size it has. Much larger test equipments and press
with a much higher capacity are required for these tests. Such equipment are only available
in a few test laboratories. Thus, some method have been developed to conduct mechanical
tests on mass concrete.
The wet-screening is the most widely used method among these methods. In this method
aggregates larger than 38 (or 32) mm are removed from fresh concrete by wet sieving and
the remaining part is used to prepare specimens for experiments. In practice, this method
has been criticised due to reasons such as disruption of specimen homogeneity, alteration
* Eskiehir Osmangazi University, Eskiehir, Turkey
** General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, Ankara, Turkey - aliugurlu@mynet.com
Published in Teknik Dergi Vol. 18, No. 1 January 2007, pp: 4055-4067

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static E-Modulus

of phase balances, and total area shrinkage of cement paste-aggregate interface. And today,
the results of this method are still dubious for many scientists. In this study experimental
results were obtained in order to minimize the negative effects of these factors, which will
be discussed in detail. As it is known, concrete is a three-phased composite consists of
aggregate, matrix and aggregate-cement paste interface; therefore experimental data were
reviewed vis a vis composite theories throughout this work.
2. ELASTIC THEORY OF CONCRETE
Concrete is defined as a three-phased anisotropic brittle material that behaves differently
under various loads. Total deformation of a structural element that has an elastic property
under P load is directly proportional with applied load and size of the concrete component,
but is inversely proportional with cross sectional area of the element [1]. This situation can
be expressed as L PL/A, or L/L P/A. Concrete is a brittle and a composite material
consisting of various phases. However, it has elastic behavior under low stresses.
Theoretically, this is equal to a value of 30-40 % of its compressive strength [1]. Therefore,
concrete is considered as an elastic material in engineering calculations [2,3]. The
diagrams are used for explaining elastic behavior of concrete determined by
experimental methods.

M
K

Fig. 1. Typical diagram of concrete.

A typical behavior of concrete is shown in Figure 1. It is seen that, initially as the
stress increases deformation also increases in direct proportion. Diagram is linear up to
point A and permanent deformation doesnt occur when this short term elastic load is
removed. The curve deviates from linearity with the application of a greater stress on
specimen at point A, and this situation continues with the increase of curvature up to point
M. Micro cracks rapidly occur with increasing stress after point A and concrete yields at
point M, so the failure or fracture occurs at point K. The k and k demonstrates the
fractural stress and unit deformation at point K, respectively. Static E-modulus of concrete
1116

lker Bekir TOPU, Ali UURLU

is calculated with curve of experimental results. For this purpose, various methods can
be used.

2.1 Methods on calculation of E-modulus of concrete

The experimental method mentioned above is used for calculating static E-modulus of
concrete. In this method, curve is formed by conducting tests on specimens as to TS
3502 and ASTMC 469, moreover static E-modulus is calculated with various methods
applied to the curve [4,5]. The empirical equations were developed by Turkish Institution
of Standards, European Committee of Concrete, American Concrete Institute for
calculating E-modulus of concrete in respect to unit weight and compressive strength. In
Turkey, TS 500 specifies rules for calculation and design of reinforced concrete structures
[6]. Static E-modulus is calculated with equation (1). European Concrete Committee
calculates E-modulus from compressive strength as defined by equation (2) [7]. American
Concrete Institute also developed an empirical equation (3), which uses compressive
strength together with unit weight for calculating static E-modulus of concrete [8]. E
represents the E-modulus calculated with the method of secant and corresponded to 40 % of
concrete compressive strength; W is the unit weight of conventional concrete, is the
compressive strength of standard cylindrical specimens.
E=14000+32501/2
E=9500(+8)

1/3

3/2 1/2

E=0.043W

(1)
(2)
(3)

As it is seen, E-modulus of concrete can be calculated with empirical equations. These

equations give similar results [1]. Apart from empirical equations developed by the
mentioned institutions, E-modulus of concrete can also be calculated by sonic or ultrasonic
methods. Therefore another method called dynamic E-modulus is based on the principle of
transition of ultrasound through concrete. In this method transition speed of ultrasound
through concrete is calculated and, then empirical equations are involved for calculating
dynamic E-modulus. E-modulus calculated with dynamic method is a little larger than Emodulus calculated with the static methods. This situation is related to the fact that load
isnt applied to the specimen during experiment. Static E-modulus which is the most similar
to E-modulus calculated by dynamic methods is obtained by the initial tangent method.
However, in all of these approaches factors such as concrete age, E-modulus and size of
aggregate, which are highly important for correct determination E-modulus, are neglected.
Thus, E-modulus calculated by the mentioned equations never represents the actual Emodulus value.
2.2 Factors affecting E-modulus of concrete
Microstructure of concrete that has a heterogeneous structure, exhibits different behaviors
during loading due to various phases such as aggregate, cement paste matrix, various
1117

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static E-Modulus

cellular systems, aggregate-cement paste interface [9]. Thus, a change in quantity or quality
of one of these may result in very different consequences than expected. For example,
elasticity values of concretes, which have the same compressive strength but different
combination properties and components, may be different. As shown in Figure 2, stressstrain behaviors of concrete and its components are highly different [2]. The compressive
strength of aggregate and hardened cement paste, which is among the phases within
concrete, is higher than the over all strength of concrete and mortar. However, concrete
exhibits more ductile behavior than its own components. In other words, inelastic behavior
of concrete is higher than other phases and components. The deformation of concrete is
higher than deformation of phase and components for an equivalent compressive strength
as seen in figures. All of these facts determine materials behavior during fracture, its
stiffness, E-modulus and deformation capacity. Factors affecting E-modulus can be
classified as in Figure 3. Although all of these basic elements shown in Figure 3 are
important, but aggregate porosity and E-modulus of aggregate, properties of cement paste
matrix, cement paste-aggregate transition area and experimental parameters are the most
important factors.

Coarse aggregate

Hardened cement paste

Concrete
Mortar

Fig. 2. The diagram of concrete and its components.

Porosity and E-modulus of aggregates are important elements in determination of stiffness.
Thus, E-moduli of non-porous aggregates with high density and concrete consisting of such
aggregates are extremely high. E-modulus and properties of cement paste are completely
determined by the water/cement ratio. E-modulus of mortar increases with the decrease of
the water/cement ratio. This situation rises with the increase of mortar phase/E-modulus
ratio of coarse aggregate. This occurs as a decrease on stress in the adherence area of
cement paste and coarse aggregate. Cement paste porosity coming into existence due to
various reasons plays an important role in influencing concrete E-modulus. Cement paste
and aggregate transition area is also an important parameter for concrete E-modulus. In
recent years, SEM (scanning electron microscope) micro structural analysis showed that air
voids, micro cracks and diffused calcium hydroxide crystals have an effect on fracture
behavior and elastic properties of concrete. Properties of aggregate and cement paste play
1118

lker Bekir TOPU, Ali UURLU

an important role in this area. Tensile and shear strengths in aggregates and cement paste
adherence area increase during loading due to different E-moduli of these two different
phases. This situation may result in large cracks and fractures.

Factors affecting the elasticity modulus

Loading
conditions
and
moisture
content of
specimens

E-modulus
of cement
paste matrix

Porosity and
structure of
aggregatecement paste
transition zone

E-modulus of
Aggregate

Aggregate
volumetric
fraction

Porosity

Experimental
parameters

Cement
paste
matrix

Transition
zone

Porosity

Aggregate

Fig. 3. Classification of factors affecting E-modulus of concrete.

3. ESTIMATION OF E-MODULUS FOR MASS CONCRETE

To calculate E-modulus in bulk concrete structures such as in concrete dams, structural
design is needed for estimating strain and deformation. Technical and economical factors
are considered in designing immense structures that are not encountered in building types
of our daily life. Concrete specimens are usually produced with maximum grain size of 80200 mm, and the fact that there are serious concerns about mold sizes, transportation of
specimens, experimental mechanisms and supply of high capacity equipments for tests.
Specimens are obtained from dam or other bulk concrete structures with molds of 450x900
mm to perform on them compressive strength tests. In order to conduct tests upon
specimens in such sizes, high capacity compression presses and equipments to are required
for calculating deformation and strength. It is almost impossible to provide the mentioned
technical conditions in many constructions and laboratories. Thus, E-modulus have been
developed and tested for determination and estimation of bulk concrete considering various
approaches. The common method among these is based on testing specimens obtained from
remaining concrete that is obtained by sieving fresh concrete with a 38 mm screen, and is
called the wet screen method. In this method the maximum grain size of the material sieved
from fresh concrete is reduced and a specimen is prepared by using cylindrical molds in the
size of 150x300 mm, and tests are conducted on these specimens. However, in this
1119

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static E-Modulus

process mortar/coarse aggregate ratio of the remaining concrete after sieving increase due
to removal of coarse aggregates, coarse aggregate concentration in total volume decreases,
water/cement ratio decreases, total area and length of coarse aggregate-cement paste
adherence surface decreases. These factors considerably affect parameters of fracture
mechanism and fractural strain during cracking of wet screened concrete compared to the
conventional concrete.
The decrease in total of coarse aggregate-cement paste adherence length in a certain volume
is evaluated either as the decrease in weakness in microstructure of concrete or as
strengthened micro structure against stress. Furthermore, adherence ruptures emerging due
to increased forces in coarse aggregate surfaces at a certain level of loading decrease and as
a result, cracking decreases. Porosity decreases as the water/cement ratio decreases. Briefly,
all of these factors affect stress-strain behavior of concrete and enable to attain a more
ductile behavior and a lower E-modulus. However, higher compressive strength and lower
E-modulus are obtained by the wet screen method. Investigations indicate that it is more
suitable to consider 85 % of compressive strength obtained through wet screened concrete
[10-12]. As a result estimation of E-modulus becomes more difficult. The decision is based
on the following assumption; the ratio of concrete components will change as coarse
aggregates bigger than 38 mm are removed by wet screening; and hardened concrete
properties will change as a result of increasing mortar/aggregate ratio. It is very
complicated to estimate behavior of concrete that is anisotropic and two-phase composite
during loading. This is directly related to parameters in determining concrete behavior and
effects of parameters on properties of each other. For example, E-modulus of two
concretes, whose compressive strengths are the same but component properties are
different, may not be equal. It has been realized in recent years that aggregate-mortar
interface is as important as mortar and aggregate for fracture or strain. In other words,
deformation index of concrete, whose mortar strength is higher than aggregate strength,
cannot be the same with concrete, whose aggregate strength is higher than mortar strength.
In both situations, function of interface in concrete under load during fracture is different.
In first situation, function of adherence forces is less important than the second situation
[13].
As it is concluded from the explanations, there is a difference between E-modulus obtained
by wet screening and E-modulus determined by conventional specimens. Thus, the results
should be confirmed or tested with different approaches. Classic empirical formulae
enabling estimation of E-modulus in parallel with compressive strength has been
mentioned. It is considered that age of bulk concrete, coarse aggregate and specimen size
which are important for E-modulus are neglected in related equations [14]. The results
obtained through tests or wet screen method should be reevaluated with models and
theories, where parallel, serial and both phases are used and which are based on the
assumption that concrete is a two-phase composite consisting of aggregate and cement
paste matrix and approaches towards E-modulus estimation for mass concrete can be tested
[13]. Another important point that shouldnt be overlooked is the fact that all of these
models are based on the acceptance that concrete is a two-phase composite consisting of
aggregate and mortar. Unfortunately, this acceptance should be reevaluated under todays
conditions as it doesnt consider aggregate-mortar interface, whose existence has been
understood better with SEM in recent years and that has a very important function in
influencing behavior of concrete under load.
1120

lker Bekir TOPU, Ali UURLU

3.1 Calculation of E-modulus with composite models

Simple composite models can be applied in determining E-modulus of concrete which
assumes concrete roughly as a composite material consisting of cement paste and
aggregate. Basic composite models are applied in parallel and serial phases to explain
elastic behavior of two-phased materials as shown in Figure 4 [15,16]. In composite
models, it is accepted that concrete is a three-dimensional combination of two
homogeneous and isotropic phases such as matrix and coarse aggregate. The two phases
behave linearly in the linear elastic zone of concrete [17]. Furthermore, concrete mixture
ratio, unit weight or volume ratio of aggregate and E-modulus of each phase should also be
known. The various composite models on two-phase concrete are shown in Figure 4.
Eb=EchVch + EaVa

(4)

1/Eb=Vch / Ech + Va / Ea

(5)

1/Eb=(1-x) [C/Ea+1-C/Ech] + [1/C Ea+(1-C)Ech]

(6)

The most common composite models are Voights parallel model and Reuss serial model.
In Voights parallel and Reuss serial models, equations (4) and (5) are used for calculating
E-modulus with a constant strain and strength on composite materials, respectively. Emodulus of concrete or composite occurs as a function of cement paste, aggregate,
volumetric quantity of these within concrete as shown in equations. In the Hirsch model,
serial and parallel phases are equally proportioned, in assuming concrete as being a twophased material as shown in equation (6). E-modulus is based on the assumption that
concrete is a two-phase material and volumetric function of aggregate and matrix phase and
empirical constant have an effect upon the E-modulus [2,5].

Fig. 4. Composite models.

1121

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static E-Modulus

4. EXAMPLES FOR E-MODULUS CALCULATIONS WITH COMPOSITE

MODELS
It is seen that E-modulus has only been predicted in extant studies [18]. The microstructure
and behavior of concrete couldnt be explained completely in the past, but recently the
composite equations based on unit cell modeling could be rewritten by practical studies.
Villardell attained various results that clarify some issues in his study as shown in Table 1
[17]. In this study, bulk concrete was produced with the maximum grain size of 120 mm,
and then wet screened concrete was obtained by sieving fresh concrete with a 38 mm
screen. This concrete was also sieved with screen # 4, and mortar specimens were prepared
at the end of this process. According to experimental results, E-modulus increases as the
age of specimen increases as shown in Table 1. Nevertheless, E-modulus of unscreened
concrete known as bulk concrete is higher than wet screened concrete and mortar
specimens. The increasing arrange of E-modulus is unscreened, wet screened concrete and
mortar respectively. As it is seen, results are related to E-modulus of aggregate. E-modulus
increases with increasing E-modulus of aggregate. This is valid for the situations where Emodulus of aggregate is higher than E-modulus of cement paste. The volumetric ratio of a
phase which has a higher E-modulus is also an important parameter.
Table 1. Variation of E-modulus according to cure periods
Cure period

Mortar

E-Modulus, GPa
Wet screened concrete

Mass concrete (unscreened)

7
28
90
180

19.6
23.8
28.2
30.7

24.8
34.5
35.1
37.2

30.3
37.3
43.0
42.2

4.1 Experimental study

This study was carried out in order to evaluate and confirm theoretical synthesis in practice,
and based on the comparison between actual values of elasticity modulus calculated in
practice and the results obtained from model equations regarding composite materials. To
this aim, experimental results and mixture parameters of Villardell were used to create data
for model equations, and static E-modulus was calculated by using composite model
equations [17]. Villardell obtained core specimens consisting of stone at a height/diameter
ratio of 2, to use as aggregate and calculate elasticity modulus individually, and these
values are determined as 35, 50, 60 GPa, respectively. Stones were categorized in 5
different grain groups of (0-1.25), (1.25-5), (5-19), (19-60) and (60-120) mm to be crushed
in a rock crusher and grinded. In concrete mixtures, 130 kg Type I 45A (CEN Class I
42.5R) cement, 89 kg fly ash, 398 kg sand (0-1.25 mm), 234 kg sand (1.25-5 mm), 392 kg
crushed stone (5-19 mm), 646 kg crushed stone, (19-60 mm), 558 kg crushed stone (60-120
mm), 0.55 plasticizer 0.55 liter and 45 kg mixture water were used. Aggregates mainly
1122

lker Bekir TOPU, Ali UURLU

consisting of limestone were obtained from River of Segre around the dam. In addition to
this, mortars without crushed stone that has a maximum grain size of 5 mm, were also
produced in experiments. Initially, concrete mixtures were produced with aggregates that
have a maximum grain size of 120 mm. Fresh bulk concrete was sieved with 38 mm screen
by wet screening method to prepare prismatic and cylindrical specimens in 450x450x450
mm and 150x300 mm molds which has the maximum grain size of 38 mm, and
furthermore the same process was performed before initial setting by screen # 4 in
150x300 mm molds. Specimens were then demolded on the following day and kept in a
cure bath at 232 oC for 90 days. Afterwards, specimens in form of saturated surface dry
were then subjected to experimental tests. Strain of each cylindrical specimen was
calculated with 3 strain-gages located in the middle of vertical axis of the specimen.
Table 2. Volumetric fractions of mortar and aggregate in calculations
Code
M
WS

Vmortar

Vaggregate

0.555

0.445

0.405

0.595

0.725
0.275
D
M: Mortar, WS: Wet screened concrete, D: Dam(mass) concrete

Hirsch-Dougill, (x=0.3)

Hirsch-Dougill, (x=0.5)

Hirsch-Dougill, (x=0.8)

Popovics

Illston

Mehmel-Kern

Counto

Hashin-Hansen

Hobbs

Maxwell

Bache -NepperChristensen

31
32
35
37
41
39
44
50
43

Serial Model

35

Parallel Model

Experimental result
28
33
35
32
43
39
37
48
43

Ea GPa

M
D
WS
M
90 50 D
WS
M
65 D
WS

Cure period

Code

Table 3.E-modulus of mortars, wet screened and dam concretes calculated with composite
models

30
31
35
34
38
38
37
42
40

30
31
35
35
38
38
39
44
41

31
32
35
36
39
38
40
46
41

31
32
35
37
40
39
43
48
42

15
16
17
18
20
19
22
25
21

31
32
35
37
40
39
42
47
42

31
32
35
36
39
38
40
46
41

31
32
35
36
39
38
40
46
41

31
32
35
36
39
38
40
45
41

31
32
35
36
39
38
40
45
41

31
32
35
36
39
38
41
46
41

31
32
35
36
39
38
40
46
41

1123

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static E-Modulus

The strain-gages used in tests were 30 mm in length for mortar and 120 mm for concrete. In
prismatic specimens, strain-gages demonstrating reference points were attached to both
vertical surfaces and strains between adjacent discs were manually calculated with DEMEC
type mechanical extensometer having 15 cm gage length. Strains in strain-gages are
measured with a computer controlled data collection system. Specimens were loaded under
uniaxial compression of 4.5 MN at a servo hydraulic press controlled by MTS 458 closed
circuit. Loading velocity of piston was fixed at 0.004 mm/s for cylindrical specimens and
0.012 mm/s for prismatic specimens to ensure the same axial strain. It was observed that
fracture of cylindrical specimens occurred approximately 4 minutes later. The specimens
were loaded until fracture. E-modulus was calculated by marking two points on the curve
corresponding to 30 % of fractural strength and from the slope of linear line through these
two points. Stress-strain curves of the results were analyzed with mathematical equations in
computer and transformed into numeric. The 14 different elasticity composite models were
calculated with the equations by using volumetric ratio in Table 2, and presented together
with experimental results in Table 3.
In practical tests conducted after 90 days, it was realized that E-modulus obtained from
mortar specimens gave the lowest result considering 3 different E-moduli of aggregates. Emodulus of concrete calculated with the wet screen method was higher than E-modulus of
mortar and lower than E-modulus of bulk concrete as shown in Table 3. In other words,
order is as Emass<Ewet-screen<Emortar. This is directly related to aggregate volume, E-modulus
of aggregate and cement paste within concrete. As E-modulus of aggregate increases 35 to
65 Gpa, E-modulus of mortar, wet screen and mass concrete also increase. This situation is
related to increase in aggregate volume and change of the E-modulus. The result also
indicates that E-modulus of aggregate phase is higher than the E-modulus of mortar phase
in concrete containing two different aggregates that has the E-modulus of 50 and 65 GPa,
except concrete containing aggregate which has the E-modulus of 35 GPa. As it is
concluded from the results, this situation is contrary to concretes produced with aggregate
that has an E-modulus of 35 GPa.
The experimental results of bulk and wet screened concrete and results obtained with
composite models are similar except experimental results of mortar specimens in the
comparison of E-modulus of concretes containing aggregate with 3 different E-moduli and
E-modulus calculated with composite equations. In mortar specimens, it is determined that
the results calculated with composite equations are higher than the experimental results as
shown in Table 3. In confirmation of experimental results performed with composite
models, it is realized that results of Hirsch-Dougill (x:0.8) with equally proportioned
parallel and serial phases and Voights parallel model give closer values to experimental
results. An interesting result of the study is that E-modulus calculated with Popovics
composite model has the greatest deviation from experimental results among the
calculations performed with 11 different composite models as shown in Table 3.
5. CONCLUSIONS
E-modulus of concrete accepted as the numerical expression of strain under various loads
or in reinforced structures is a considerably important parameter for building types such as
1124

lker Bekir TOPU, Ali UURLU

dams, where elasticity calculations are taken into account. As known, it is difficult to
determine the E-modulus of bulk concrete. The estimations of E-modulus through the wet
screen method have always been regarded as unreliable. As it is concluded from theories,
only results of experimental studies can be accepted as reliable due to abundance of
parameters, which should be taken into account for E-modulus estimation or for calculation
of E-modulus from composite equations. It is highly difficult to explain fracture exactly and
strain mechanism of concrete as a multi-phase anisotropic material. Approaches towards
this issue are based on certain acceptances. Thus, E-modulus equations written with
composite unit cell models as a basis are away from representing numerical elasticity
behavior of concrete in real terms. However, equations may be used reliably to a certain
extent for estimation. It is hard to explain the fracture or strain mechanisms exactly due to
the multi-phased anisotropic structure of concrete.
It is seen that how important this area is for concrete behavior considering concrete
morphology which is almost reviewed after the examination of microstructure of concrete
with SEM. This area by its nature can affect concrete behavior before discontinuous limit
and delay plastic deformation process. Nevertheless, during working out of equations with
composite models, porosity and its distribution within concrete and physical properties of
aggregate except E-modulus are also neglected. Thus, the results obtained through using the
mentioned equations should be taken into account only for estimation of E-modulus and
shouldnt be accepted as exact solutions. However, E-modulus of wet screened concrete is
also debatable among experimental results. Therefore, results obtained through this method
for concrete containing aggregate with E-modulus of 50 and 65 GPa, are approximately 1015 % lower than unscreened (bulk) concrete. In experiments of concrete containing
aggregate with E-modulus of 35 GPa, it was seen that the E-modulus obtained through wet
screening is higher than the E-modulus obtained through bulk concrete. This situation is the
same as the results obtained from composite equations. This is related to the changes in
volume of phase after wet screening and interfacial effect. The summary of the study;

E-modulus depends on concrete components and properties. Particularly, E-modulus

and shape of aggregate and cement paste structure have an important effect on the
results.

Phase and its volumetric ratio considerably affect the concrete strain due to anisotropic
structure of concrete. Interface between aggregate and cement paste also plays an
important role in elastic behavior of concrete as well as the phases.

Equations related to E-modulus written in accordance with the principles of composite

models can be used for calculating E-modulus of concrete. However, the results should
not be accepted as exact solutions. Furthermore, concrete age should be considered for
this assumption. Voights parallel and Hirsch-Doughills mixed models can be
accepted as the most reliable in respect of their results.

Equations related to composite models were worked out assuming concrete to be threedimensional and two-phased (homogenous and isotropic) material. In this description;
interface of aggregate-cement paste, which has an important role in deformation and
fracture behavior of concrete, hasnt been considered. Thus, results obtained from
composite equations are never exactly equal to experimental results.

1125

Elasticity Theory of Concrete and Prediction of Static E-Modulus

E-modulus of concrete can not be calculated exactly with composite models. Thus, the
results obtained from the equations shouldnt be used as data except as an approach or
estimation for elasticity calculations.

Order of E-modulus is as Emass<Ewet-screen<Emortar. In this situation, wet screened

specimens used in practice do not represent unscreened specimens. Thus, E-modulus of
concrete obtained through the wet screening method should only be used in simple
elasticity calculations. For critical structures such as dam, coarse aggregate/mortar
phase ratio and interface effect should be considered and tests should be conducted on
specimens at least cured for 90 or 180 days.
References

[1]

Mehta PK. Concrete, Prentice-Hall Inc., USA, 2006.

[2]

Erdoan TY. Beton, Middle East Technical University Press, Ankara, 2003.

[3]

Mindess S, Young JF. Concrete, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, USA, 1981.

[4]

TS 3502, Betonda E-modl ve poisson oran tayini, Trk Standartlar Enstits,

Ankara 1981.

[5]

ASTM C 469, Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and poissons
ratio of concrete in compression, Annual Book of ASTM standards, 1994.

[6]

TS 500, Betonarme Yaplarn Hesap ve Tasarm Kurallar, Trk Standartlar

Enstits, Ankara, 2000.

[7]

Committee Euro-International du Beton, CEB-FIB Model code for concrete

structures, Bulletin vol. 124, April 1978.

[8]

ACI 312-92, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI manual of
concrete practice, part 3, 1994.

[9]

Shah SP, Lange AD, Li Z, Mitsui K. Relationship between microstructure and

mechanical properties of the paste-aggregate interface. ACI Journal 1994; 91 (1): 3039.

[10]

Trejo RS. Quality control of concrete. Report for the committee on materials for
dams, Bulletin 47, ICOLD, Paris, 1983.

[11]

Tuthill LH, Sarkaria GS, Cortright CD. Transactions of the 10. International
Congress on Large Dams, Montreal, vol.4, 181-197, ICOLD, Paris, 1970.

[12]

Topu, .B. Alternative estimation of the modulus of elasticity for dam concrete,
Cement and Concrete Research 2005; 35 (11): 2199-2202.

[13]

Uurlu A. Betonda agrega-imento hamuru aderans, THBB, Hazr Beton Dergisi

2002; 49: 66-74.

[14]

Soares JP, Mora J, Florentine CA. Transactions of the 16. International Congress on
Large Dams, 3, 483-491, ICOLD, Paris, 1988.

1126

lker Bekir TOPU, Ali UURLU

[15]

Topu B. Hafif beton zeliklerinin kompozit malzeme olarak incelenmesi, Ph.D.

Thesis, T Fen Bilimleri Enstits, 126, stanbul, 1988.

[16]

Topu B. Analysis of rubberized concrete as a composite material. Cement and

Concrete Research 1997; 27 (8): 1135-1139.

[17]

Villardell J, Aguado A, Agullo L, Gettu R. Estimation of the modulus of elasticity

for dam concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 1998; 28 (1), 93-101.

[18]

Neville AM. Properties of Concrete, Longman Scientific and Technical, England,

1981.

1127