Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement & Concrete Composites

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete:

Survey of experimental data and structural design codes
Bart Craeye a,b,, Petra Van Itterbeeck c, Pieter Desnerck d,e, Veerle Boel e,f, Geert De Schutter e
a
Faculty of Applied Engineering, Applied Engineering Laboratory for Sustainable Materials, Infrastructure & Buildings (MIB), University of Antwerp, Paardenmarkt 92,
B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
b
HUB-KAHO University College, Association K.U. Leuven, Campus Dirk Martens, Kwalestraat 154, B-9320 Aalst, Belgium
c
Belgian Building Research Institute, Lombardstraat 42, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
d
Concrete and Composite Structures Group, University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, UK
e
Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Department of Structural Engineering, Ghent University, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 904, B-9052 Ghent, Belgium
f
Department of Industrial Technology & Construction, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To enable an overall view on the mechanical performance of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC), a database
Received 1 November 2013 was constructed. Included within this database are informations with regard to: mix-design, fresh and
Received in revised form 29 March 2014 hardened properties. This dataset contains results of more than 250 papers, of researches conducted
Accepted 31 March 2014
worldwide on SCC during the last two decades.
Available online xxxx
In this paper, an in depth analyses is provided on the modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength of
SCC. The SCC results collected within the database are compared with those predicted from the formu-
Keywords:
lations and existing models developed and validated for vibrated concrete (e.g. Eurocode 2 and the Model
SCC
Modulus of elasticity
Code (MC 90 and/or MC 2010)). The inuences of different mix-design parameters (aggregate type, paste
Tensile strength volume, etc.) on the E-modulus and the tensile strength are analysed, and a more detailed view on the
Database performance of SCC, and the different models, is obtained.
Eurocode 2 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Model Code

1. Introduction In the framework of the RILEM technical committee 228 on

For more than 20 years, Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) has
been applied in the construction industry. In this period, a lot of
research has been conducted with regard to the applicability,
mix design, pumpability, durability, rheology, etc. of this self-con-
solidating type of concrete. Recently more and more research pro-
jects dealing with the structural behaviour and the mechanical
performance of the material have been carried out and reported.
The knowledge with regard to the performance of SCC, in fresh
and hardened state, is increasingly required for SCC applications.
One practical question for practical engineers is whether or not
the behaviour of vibrated concrete (VC) mixtures can be translated
to the properties of self-compacting mixtures. More specically, if
the relations proposed by existing design codes, such as Model
Code (MC 90 and/or MC 2010) or Eurocode 2 (EC 2), originally
developed for VC, remain valid and applicable for SCC.
Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete (TC-228
MPS), the data from many research papers often include mechan-
ical properties, e.g. compressive strength, tensile strength, Youngs
modulus, etc. Domone [1] and Holschmacher [2] have summarized
mechanical properties based on existing literature. However, their
studies were based on rather limited sets of data (due to non-avail-
ability of larger sets of test results) and as a result did not include,
neglect or generalise the inuence of some major parameters such
as type of aggregate and paste volume. In this paper an extensive
database, including results on fresh and hardened properties of
SCC is developed from more than 250 journal and conference
papers reported between 1990 and 2011.
The results regarding the modulus of elasticity and the tensile
strength (direct, splitting and exural behaviour) of SCC obtained
from the database are studied.
2. Overview of previous studies on SCC

Corresponding author at: HUB-KAHO University College, Association K.U. 2.1. Database development
Leuven, Campus Dirk Martens, Kwalestraat 154, B-9320 Aalst, Belgium. Tel.: +32
53727170. Over 250 papers international journals were reviewed. Informa-
E-mail address: bart.craeye@hubkaho.be (B. Craeye). tion on the mixture proportion and design, the fresh concrete

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
0958-9465/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
2 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
EC 2 Structural Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) used for the design of
concrete structures
MC1978 First Model Code with design recommendations for con-
crete structures, version of 1978
MC 90 Model Code, version of 1990
MC 2010 Model Code, version of 2010
MFS type of superplasticizer: melamine formaldehyde sul-
phonate
NFS type of superplasticizer: naphtalene formaldehyde sul-
phonate
PCE type of superplasticizer: polycarbolxylic ether
SCC self-compacting concrete, which has an ability to ow
under its own weight, ll the required space or form-
work completely and produce a dense and adequately
homogeneous material without a need for mechanical
compaction
SD standard deviation
VC vibrated concrete, which requires vibration to achieve
adequate compaction or consolidation
Symbols
A conversion factor for converting exural tensile
strength into direct tensile strength
Asp conversion factor for converting splitting tensile
strength into direct tensile strength
properties and the hardened properties of SCC is collected for the
SCC database, which contains a wide range of SCC types (e.g. Pow-
der-type SCC, VMA-type SCC, Combination-type SCC, etc.) [3]. The
collected information on the mixture composition includes water
content, cement content and type (Portland, binary types, etc.), ller
content and type (limestone, y ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume,
etc.), viscosity modifying agent content, superplasticiser content
and type (PCE, MFS, NFS, etc.), air entrainment content and aggre-
gate type, aggregate content and maximum grain size (Fig. 1).
To be able to quantify the self-compacting properties of the
mixtures, the consistency, work-ability, ow-ability and segrega-
tion resistance of SCC results of tests such as slumpow, V-funnel
time, L-Box, U-Box, sieve segregation were also included into data-
base. The information on hardened concrete includes the compressive
strength, direct tensile strength, splitting tensile strength, exural ten-
sile strength, Youngs modulus and test age, adopted testing stan-
dards, and specimens sizes and type (cylinder, cube, prism, etc.).
Based on the data stored in the database, the inuence of
parameters that may be of major interest to the user and designer,
e.g. water-to-cement ratio (W/C-ratio), water-to-binder ratio
(W/B-ratio), water-to-powder ratio (W/P-ratio), cement-to-pow-
der ratio (C/P-ratio), sand-to-aggregates ratio (S/A-ratio), total ller
content, ratio of cylinder to cube compressive strength, compres-
sive strength development, etc. are retrieved.
2.2. Modulus of elasticity of SCC
Due to the considerable contribution of aggregates to the over-
all stiffness of concrete, it is often assumed that SCC with its
higher paste content is characterised by a lower modulus of elas-
ticity (Ec).
Some studies [1,2,4,5] have reported that the modulus of elas-
ticity of some SCC mixes was lower than that of the VC mixes with
a similar compressive strength.
Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
fccub,i cube compressive strength of concrete, with cube side
i = 100150 mm
fccub,150,eq equivalent cube compressive strength of concrete,
with cube side 150 mm
fccyl,i cylinder compressive strength of concrete, with height
of cylinder i = 200300 mm
fccyl,eq equivalent cylinder compressive strength of concrete,
cylinder height 300 mm
fck characteristic cylindrical compressive strength of con-
crete, cylinder height 300 mm
fcm mean cylindrical compressive strength of concrete, with
cylinder height 300 mm
fct direct tensile strength of concrete
fct, exural tensile strength of concrete
fct,min lower bound value of tensile strength of concrete, appli-
cable for direct-splittingexural tensile strength
fct,max lower bound value of tensile strength of concrete, appli-
cable for direct-splittingexural tensile strength
fct,spl splitting tensile strength of concrete
fct,spl,cub splitting tensile strength of concrete, determined on
cubes
fct,spl,cyl splitting tensile strength of concrete, determined on cyl-
inders
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
Ecm mean secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
Pineaus et al. [6] studied the effect of paste volume and
W/B-ratio separately by using a mix design method based on
volumetric substitutions. By varying the paste volume between
359 l/m3 and 452 l/m3, an increase in Ec was found for decreasing
paste volume. The inuence of the W/B-ratio on the modulus of
elasticity was found to be comparable to that observed on the com-
pressive strength.
A survey conducted by Domone [1] indicated that the difference
between SCC and VC in Ec is greater for concrete with lower com-
pressive strengths. According to Klug and Holschemacher [7] the
variation of the SCC results is smaller, causing all results to remain
within an acceptable band for design using Model Code (MC 90).
Therefore the common relationship between the modulus of elas-
ticity and the characteristic compressive strength is still valid. In
the survey by Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] it is also found that Ec tests
results of SCC correlate well with those predicted by EC 2 and the
Model Code (MC 1978). For SCC as well as for VC a similar overall
scatter was observed within this study.
2.3. Tensile strength of SCC
For the evaluation of the tensile strength of concrete, there are
three well-known methods: (i) the direct tensile strength, (ii) the
splitting tensile strength and (iii) the exural tensile strength
(3-point bending or 4-point bending). Due to the high degree of
difculty during execution, direct tensile strength tests are rather
scarce. EC 2 or Model Code (MC 1990 or MC 2010) makes it possi-
ble to convert these test results from one to another. However, it is
not quite clear whether these conversion factors can still be used
for SCC.
Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] studied 6 SCC mixtures with limestone
ller or y ash, with W/C-ratio ranging from 0.45 to 0.61 and
C/P-ratio between 0.50 and 0.67. Their data indicates that the con-
version factor Asp, for converting splitting tensile strength into
 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx 3

Fig. 1. Structure of the database.

direct tensile strength, is slightly lower (0.84 0.04) than the val-
ues proposed by EC 2 and MC 1990 (Asp = 0.9) or by MC 2010
(Asp = 1.0). The conversion factor for bending As (0.59 0.10) [8]
was also signicantly lower than the proposed value of 0.69 of
EC 2 and MC 2010. This study concluded that using the conversion
factors proposed by EC 2, MC 90 or MC 2010 might lead to an over-
estimation of the direct tensile strength.
The authors of [1] found that the cylinder splitting tensile
strength of SCC falls well within the 595% percentile ranges of
that predicted by EC 2 for the predicted splitting tensile strength,
with the majority being in the upper half, and a few above the
upper limit. An explanation for this statement could, according to
[8], be found in a possible underestimation of the used conversion
factor between cylinder and cube compressive strength, which
consequently would lead to an overestimation of the tensile
strength when utilising the equations provided by EC 2 and
expressing the results in function of cube compressive strength,
as is the case in [1].
Anagnostopoulos et al. [10] studied the relationship between
the cylinder splitting tensile strength and the cube compressive
strength of SCC and VC mixtures produced with limestone and sili-
ceous aggregates. The splitting tensile strength of SCC was found to
be slightly lower (with a decrease of 68%) than the splitting ten-
sile strength of VC for mixtures with equal W/C-ratio, cement con-
tent and both containing quartz aggregates. The authors observed a
similar splitting tensile strength for the SCC mixtures and the VC
mixtures when crushed limestone aggregates were used. They con-
cluded that the tensile strength of SCC and VC mixtures with sim-
ilar W/C-ratio is predominantly inuenced by the aggregate type
[10].
A limited amount of test results can be found in literature on
the evolution of the splitting tensile strength with concrete age.
These results can be valuable, e.g. for the evaluation of the early-
age (thermal) cracking behaviour of massive concrete structures.
According to the study performed by Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] a
rather good prediction (small underestimation) of the splitting ten-
sile strength evolution can be obtained for the self-compacting
mixes made with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), using the
model proposed by EC 2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Mix design parameters of SCC
As the database contains results from more than 250 papers
(and is still expanding), it can provide insights in SCC property
ranges. Table 1 summarizes most of the mixture properties and
proportions collected in the database. Besides the maximum and
minimum values, the mean values, the 10% centile and the 90%
centile, and the standard deviations (SD) are also provided.
It can be seen from Table 1 that the applied cement, sand and
coarse aggregate content of SCC are varying in a wide range, which
covers almost the entire ranges found for VC. With respect to the
W/C-ratio, values between 0.19 and 2.73 are observed with a mean
value of 0.54 (SD = 0.19). The maximum applied W/C-ratio is rela-
tively high, but it has to be emphasized that, in general, also other
types of binders are used. Different types of cement were used
throughout the different studies: CEM I, CEM II, CEM III (according
to EN 197-1), ASTM type I and type II, CEM type GU (according to
American standards), etc. The W/B-ratio recorded for SCC ranges
from 0.15 to 1.33 with a mean value of 0.46. The majority of the
mixes present a W/B-ratio between 0.3 and 0.7 (Fig. 2).
Inert as well as puzzolan ller materials are used within the dif-
ferent studies. The most common materials being limestone, y
ash, blast furnace slag and silica fume, but also marble powder,
glass powder, rice husk ash, metakaolin, volcanic ash, granite pow-
der, etc. are used. Cement together with additions (ne-grained
inorganic materials: inert or nearly inert additions and puzzolanic

Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
4 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Table 1
Applied ranges of mix proportion parameters of SCC.

Property Min 10% Centile Mean 90% Centile Max SD

3
Cement content (kg/m ) 83 250 360 490 700 89
Water content (kg/m3) 80 160 187 224 437 30
Sand content (kg/m3) 150 300 420 550 750 147
Coarse aggregate content (kg/m3) 275 410 535 625 1272 223
Powder content (kg/m3) 135 600 800 940 1190 107
Binder content (kg/m3) 283 650 820 1035 1740 93
W/C-ratio (-) 0.19 0.38 0.54 0.80 2.73 0.19
W/B-ratio (-) 0.15 0.33 0.46 0.63 1.33 0.13
W/P-ratio (-) 0.14 0.27 0.36 0.45 0.65 0.08
S/A-ratio (-) 0.10 0.37 0.50 0.60 0.81 0.09
Maximum grain size (mm) 5 10 16 20 25 3.8

Note:
Most common used types of chemical admixtures: MFS, NFS, PCE, lignosulphonate, acrylic copolymers.
Most common used types of binders: Portland cement, y ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume, metakaolin.
Most common used types of aggregates: gravel, limestone, basalt, dolomitic, marble, quartzite, sandstone, recycled.

The most commonly reported being the slumpow. The ranges of

25%
fresh properties as derived from the database are found in Table 2.
As can be seen, the reported slumpow value varies between
20%
320 mm and 933 mm, with a mean value of 690 mm (SD = 60 mm).
Although concretes with a slumpow value of only 320 mm can
Frequency [-]

15% hardly be called self-compacting, authors often claim them to be

self-compacting. The majority of the test results are within the
10% range dened by EN 206-9 for SCC as can be seen in the histogram
presented in Fig. 3a. Most researchers aim for a SF2 slumpow
class. In the analysis of the hardened properties, special care is
5%
taken to include and analyse only those concrete types of which
the fresh properties qualify for a stable self-compacting concrete.
0% As a result only the SCC mixtures with a slumpow value in the
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40

range of 550 mm and 850 mm (slump-ow class SF1, SF2 and

Water-to-Binder ratio [-] SF3 [3]) are included in the analysis of the database (Fig. 3a). In
depth analysis of other fresh properties of SCC (e.g. V-funnel time,
Fig. 2. Histogram of SCC mix design properties, e.g. the applied water-to-binder
density, air content, etc.) is also performed, but the discussion lies
ratios.
out of the scope and content of this paper.

3.3. Hardened properties of SCC

or latent hydraulics) are called powder. As SCC often is composed
of larger quantities of powder than vibrated concrete, the observed
powder content of the mixtures within the database is also gener-
ally higher. According to the database common powder contents
for SCC mixes are situated in the range of 400650 kg/m3. Further
analysis of other mix design parameters of SCC (e.g. mentioned in
Table 1 and Fig. 2) is also conducted. For this study, dealing with
tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of SCC, in depth discus-
sion regarding mix design parameter lies out of the scope of the
paper.
3.2. Fresh properties of SCC
In most studies the fresh properties of the mixture are charac-
terized by several measurements of the slumpow, V-funnel, etc.
In Figs. 3b3e the histogram of the modulus of elasticity, direct
tensile strength, splitting tensile strength and exural tensile
strength respectively of SCC is presented. The majority of the mixes
present a modulus of elasticity between 26 GPa and 42 GPa and a
splitting tensile strength between 2.5 MPa and 5.0 MPa. For the
direct tensile strength and the exural tensile strength less infor-
mation can be found in literature.
3.3.1. Modulus of elasticity of SCC
Since the database includes a large variety of SCC mixes with a
wide range of paste volumes (paste volume range from 151 to
709 l/m3) the results were rst analysed in function of paste vol-
ume (see Fig. 4a). All results were expressed in function of an
equivalent cylinder (diameter 150 mm, length 300 mm) compres-
sive strength (correlation expressed in (Eq. (1)).

Table 2
Ranges of fresh properties of SCC.

Property # Measurements Min 10% Centile Mean 90% Centile Max SD

Slump ow (mm) 1545 320 600 690 780 933 60
V-funnel time (s) 741 1.0 3.5 9.3 16.0 57.2 6.3
L-box ratio () 563 0.20 0.73 0.86 0.97 1.12 0.12
U-box (mm) 55 5 31 294 340 485 111
Sieve-segregation ratio () 141 0.20 2.24 8.35 15.51 29.30 5.4
Density (kg/m3) 469 1960 2250 2345 2430 2590 80
Air content (%) 488 0.4 1.3 3.2 6.1 12.8 0.02

Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx 5

18%
SF1 SF2 SF3
16%

14%

12%
Frequency [-]

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
700
725
750
775
800
825
850
875
900
925
950
975
1000
Slump-flow [mm]
Fig. 3e. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: exural tensile strength.
Fig. 3a. Histogram of SCC fresh properties, e.g. slump-ow values.

To convert compressive test results into the equivalent cylinder

compressive strength (with ratio of cylinder height to diameter
equal to 2) the following conversion factors were used, see Eq. (1)

fcub;150;eq  fccyl;100 =0:9  fccyl;110 =0:9  fccyl;150 =0:9h=d 2 1

These conversion factors are based on an extensive study also
conducted by the means of the abovementioned database and pub-
lished in [12].
A study of the results might perhaps indicate a slight inuence
of paste volume, as indicated by the correlation curves constructed
for paste volumes below or above 370 l/m3. Nonetheless, the scat-
ter on the individual results is more important than the slight shift

Fig. 3b. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: modulus of elasticity.

Fig. 4a. Inuence of paste volume on E-modulus (314 results).

Fig. 3c. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: direct tensile strength.

Fig. 4b. Inuence of aggregate type on E-modulus without taking into account the
Fig. 3d. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: splitting tensile strength. correction factor according to EC2 (276 results).

Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
6 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Fig. 4c. Comparison of E-modulus results from database with Eurocode 2 provi-
sions (314 results).
Fig. 4d. Comparison of E-modulus results from database with ACI31808 provi-
sions (314 results).
recorded in function of paste content. As a result, the authors retain
a certain reservation with regard to an impact (if any) of paste con-
tent on E-modulus.
When analysing the results in function of the coarse aggregate
origin (Fig. 4b) a clear inuence on the E-modulus cannot be
observed. It is even so that using the correction factors prescribed
by EC 2 leads to an even greater scatter on the results. Therefore,
further on in this section no conversion factors for type of coarse
aggregate utilised within the mix-design will be used.
In Figs. 4c and 4d the E-modulus results contained in the data-
base are compared with EC 2, MC 1978 and ACI 318-11 predictions.
Note that the results were not compared with MC 2010 since, in
contrast with EC 2 and ACI 318-11, it provides information with
regards to the tangent E-modulus instead of the secant E-modulus.
The modulus of elasticity of concrete can according to EC2 be
derived by means of Eq. (2):
0:3
Ecm 22  fcm =10
With:
 Ecm the mean secant E-modulus of concrete.
 fcm the mean cylindrical compressive strength, measured on
cylinders with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm.
Within ACI 318-11 another formulation can be found for the
estimation of the modulus of elasticity, see Eq. (3):
0:5
Ec 57000  fc0
Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
With:
 Ec the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete [psi].
 fc0 the specied compressive strength of concrete, in equivalence
to the characteristic compressive strength utilised in EC 2 (see
Section 5.3 of the ACI) [psi].
All results seem to conform to EC 2 predictions and t well into
the bandwidth expected for the secant E-modulus according to the
Model Code (MC 1978: this code being to only document providing
information on the expected scatter range). The general conclusion
which can thus be drawn, based on the results for the modulus of
elasticity of SCC presented in Fig. 4c, is that E-modulus of SCC
seems to be very similar to that observed for VC, with an important
but similar scatter present on the results for both types of concrete.
Fig. 4d seems to indicate that the ACI 318-11 also captures the evo-
lution between compressive strength and E-modulus reasonably
well, but seems to provide an underestimation of the absolute
value of the modulus of elasticity.
3.3.2. Direct tensile strength of SCC
For the evaluation of the direct tensile strength of SCC, a limited
amount of test results can be found in literature (25 data results
originating from 6 studies), mainly due to the complexity of the
test equipment and execution of the experiments. The test results
contained within the database are moreover obtained at different
concrete ages (14 days up to 90 days). Mainly, the shape of the test
specimens is cylindrical.
The correlation between the direct tensile strength and the
equivalent cube compressive strength is expressed, since for a
majority of the results within the database this cube compressive
strength is given. All the compressive test results have been con-
verted into fccub,150,eq by using the conversion factors mentioned
in Eqs. (1) and (4), based on an extensive evaluation of the data-
base [12].
fccub;150;eq  fccub;100  fccub;120  fccub;150 4
According to EC 2 and MC 2010 the direct tensile strength fct can
be derived from the characteristic compressive strength fck accord-
ing to Eqs. (5a) and (5b):
2=3
fct 0:3  fck for conctrete grades 6 C50=60 5a
fct 2:12  ln1 0:1  fck Df for conctrete grades > C50=60
5b
With:
 Df = (fck + 8)/10 according to EC 2.
 Df = 8 MPa according to MC 2010.
The lower and upper bound values of the tensile strength fct,max
and fct,min may be estimated using Eqs. (6a) and (6b), respectively:
fct;min 0:7  fct 6a
2
fct;max 1:3  fct 6b
To convert fck into fccub,150,eq Eq. (7) is used:
fccub;150;eq fck 8=0:9 7
Fig. 5a provides an overview of the direct tensile strength
results contained within the database in function of their equiva-
lent cube compressive strength. For this limited amount of data,
the results tend to follow the mean relationship proposed by EC
2 and MC 2010, especially if crushed coarse aggregates (limestone
3 or calcareous) are being used. On the other hand, the test results
 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx 7

Fig. 5a. Direct tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength of SCC Fig. 6a. Splitting tensile strength (sample shape: cylinder or cube) vs. equivalent
mixtures and the effect of the coarse aggregates (CA) shape (25 results out of 6 cube compressive strength of SCC mixtures and the effect of coarse aggregates
studies). shape (crushed vs. uncrushed) (536 results out of 49 studies).

According to EC 2 and MC 2010 it is possible to convert the

direct tensile strength fct into the splitting tensile strength fct,spl
by using a conversion factor Asp, presented in Eq. (8):
fct Asp  fct;spl 8
With:

 Asp = 0.9 for all concrete grades according to EC 2.

 Asp = 1.0 for all concrete grades according to MC 2010.

The splitting tensile strength results are presented in Fig. 6a in

function of their equivalent cube compressive strength. The behav-
iour of cubes under splitting tensile stress tends to follow the mean
relationship proposed by EC 2 (for fccub,150,eq inferior to 40 MPa),
and the maximum range proposed by MC 2010. A linear trend is
identied between fct,spl,cub and fccub,150,eq (originating from one
study) which can be conrmed by a study of [9].
Fig. 5b. Direct tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength of SCC Although higher splitting tensile strength results can be
mixtures and the effect of C/P-ratio (25 results out of 6 studies). expected in case of cubic samples (10% higher values compared
to cylinders, according to EN 12390-6), this cannot be conrmed
by the data of Fig. 6a. A rather high percentage of the widely scat-
originating from mixtures based on uncrushed coarse aggregates
tered splitting tensile strength results of cylinders lay between the
(gravel) lay at the lower bound, between the 5% percentile range
5% and 95% percentile or maximum ranges (or even above) of EC 2,
and the mean value proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010.
and mostly in the upper half of the MC 2010 range. This might be
No signicant effect of paste volume or ller type on the corre-
due to an improved bond between the paste and the aggregates in
lation between direct tensile strength and compressive strength
the self-compacting mixtures, as often referred to in literature.
could be found by means of the database, this observation could
Splitting tensile strength results of SCC using granite coarse
however also be due to the limited amount of data available in
aggregates lay in the upper half or above the ranges proposed by
the database. However, the effect of the C/P-ratio is noticeable
EC 2 and MC 2010 (Fig. 6b). When limestone or gravel aggregates
for the given results, as depicted in Fig. 5b. Self-compacting mix-
tures with C/P-ratio less than 0.75 tend to lay beneath the mean
values proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010. Due to the very limited
amount of data it remains however very precarious to draw any
denite conclusions. More experimental results are thus necessary
to obtain reliable information with regard to the direct tensile
strength of SCC.

3.3.3. Splitting tensile strength of SCC

For the evaluation of the splitting tensile strength of SCC, a con-
siderable amount of test results can be found in literature (608
data results originating from 60 studies) with concrete ages vary-
ing from 1 to 365 days. In the majority of the papers, the shape
of the test specimen is cylindrical (399 results, 43 studies) or cubic
(137 data, 6 studies). The correlation between splitting tensile
strength (of cubes and cylinders) and cube compressive strength
is given in Fig. 6a. Note that all compressive test results have been Fig. 6b. Cylinder splitting tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength
converted into fccub,150,eq by using the conversion factors proposed of SCC mixtures and the effect of coarse aggregates type (granite vs. limestone vs.
in Eqs. (1) and (4). gravel) (256 results out of 27 studies).

Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
8 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx
are used, this is not the case, this data conforms well to the mean
relation proposed by EC 2.
Further analysis of the database shows that there is not a signif-
icant effect of coarse aggregate size or paste volume on the corre-
lation between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength.
However, according to [11] larger maximum size of aggregates and
higher coarse aggregate volumes (thus: smaller paste volume) lead
to higher splitting tensile strengths. The inuence of C/P-ratio or
ller type is negligible according to the results contained within
the database.
It can be concluded that by using models proposed by EC 2 and
Model Code (MC 2010) for estimating the tensile strength of SCC, a
safe and realistic approach is obtained.
3.3.4. Flexural tensile strength of SCC
For the evaluation of the exural tensile strength of SCC, a lim-
ited amount of test results can be found in literature (4-point
bending: 27 data results originating from 4 studies, 3-point bend-
ing: 78 data results from 7 studies, all data have a ratio specimen
side/span length between 3 and 4). The correlation between ex-
ural tensile strength and fccub,150,eq is given in Fig. 7. Note that all
compressive test results have been converted into fccub,150,eq by
using Eqs. (1) and (4).
According EC 2 it is possible to convert the direct tensile
strength fct into the exural tensile strength fct, by using the rela-
tionship in Eq. (9):
fct;fl max1:6  h=1000  fct ; f ct
According MC 2010 it is possible to convert the direct tensile
strength fct into the exural tensile strength by using a conversion
factor A, presented in Eq. (10):
fct Afl  fct;fl
With:
 A = 0.71 (for beams with depth 200 mm).
As could be expected, higher values are found for fct, in case a
3-point bending test is conducted: most of those results lay above
the mean value and even above the upper range proposed by EC 2
and MC 2010.
When the 4-point bending experiments are considered, the
results tend to follow the mean value proposed by EC 2 and MC
2010 and all of the data are located between the upper and lower
ranges proposed by the codes.
Fig. 7. Flexural tensile strength (3-point or 4-point bending) vs. equivalent cube
compressive strength of SCC and the effect of coarse aggregates shape (crushed vs.
uncrushed) (105 results out of 11 studies).
Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
The determination of fct, by means of 3-point bending testing
methods provides an overestimation of the exural tensile
strength. Therefore, it is advised to use 4-point bending to obtain
realistic values for the exural tensile strength.
No noticeable inuence of the shape of the coarse aggregates
could be observed by means of the results within the database.
Also no signicant tendencies were found with regard to aggregate
type, paste volume, C/P-ratio, or ller type. Due to the very limited
amount of data it remains very precarious to draw any denite
conclusions. More experimental results are necessary to obtain
more reliable information with regard to parametric inuences
on the exural tensile strength of SCC.
4. Conclusions
Self-compacting concrete is a relatively new type of concrete.
Developed in the late eighties, literature concerning this topic only
boomed in the last two decades. Within this period the main focus
of most studies was related to mix-design, rheology, durability, etc.
and less attention was devoted to the mechanical performance of
the material. However, most studies do include information on
compressive strength and, in lesser amount, on tensile strength,
and modulus of elasticity. As part of the deliverables of the RILEM
TC228-MPS an extensive database was constructed, grouping
results from more than 250 scientic papers dealing with SCC.
Within this paper the modulus of elasticity and tensile strength
of SCC was evaluated by means of this database. The inuence of
9
mixture parameters was closely analysed and the applicability of
current design codes was evaluated (Eurocode 2, ACI 318-11,
Model Code 1990 and 2010).
Following conclusions can be drawn with respect to the modu-
lus of elasticity of SCC based on this database:
10
 The modulus of elasticity of SCC seems to be very similar to that
of VC, with an important but similar scatter present on the
results for both types of concrete.
 All results seem to conform to EC 2 predictions and t well into
the bandwidth expected for the secant E-modulus according to
the Model Code 1978. The ACI318-11 also captures the evolu-
tion between compressive strength and E-modulus reasonably
well, but seems to provide an underestimation of the absolute
value of the modulus of elasticity.
 One might argue that a slight effect of paste volume could
be observed on the modulus of elasticity of SCC. However
with the wide scatter present on the results no denite con-
clusions can be drawn with regard to the inuence of paste
volume on modulus of elasticity of SCC. There is no signi-
cant effect of aggregate type on the modulus of elasticity
of SCC.
With respect to the tensile strength following main conclusions
can be drawn using the developed database:
 Due to the very limited amount of data for direct and exural
tensile strength, it remains difcult to state whether the trends
conform with design codes such as EC 2 and MC 2010. More
experimental results are necessary to draw reliable conclusions.
 The results for splitting tensile strength seem to conform to the
relationships proposed by design codes such as EC 2 and MC
2010. The effect of aggregate type was noticed: SCC mixtures
with granite coarse aggregates lay in the upper half or above
the ranges proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010, which is not the case
for SCC mixtures based on gravel or limestone aggregates. No
signicant effect of paste volume, ller type or coarse aggregate
size was observed.
 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of the work of the RILEM technical committee
228 on Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete
(TC-228 MPS), whose contribution and dedication is greatly
acknowledged.
References
[1] Domone PL. A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self-
compacting concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29(1):112.
[2] Holschemacher K, Klug Y. A database for the evaluation of hardened properties
of SCC. LACER 2002;7:12334.
[3] De Schutter G, Bartos PJM, Domone P, Gibbs J. Self-compacting
concrete. Caithness: Whittles Publishing; 2008.
[4] Brite-EuRam. Task 4-properties of hardened self-compacting concrete Final
Report; 2005.
[5] Georgiadis AS, Anagnostopoulos NS, Sideris KK. Mechanical characteristics of
self-compacting concrete produced with different ller materials. In: De
Schutter G, Boel V, editors. Proceedings of 5th international RILEM symposium
on self-compacting concrete. Ghent; 2007. p. 6118.
[6] Pineaus A, Cabrillac R, Rmond S, Pimienta P, Rivillon P. Mechanical properties
of self-compacting concrete inuence of composition parameters. In: Shah
SP, editor. Proceedings of 2nd North-American conference on the design and
Please cite this article in press as: Craeye B et al. Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete: Survey of experimental data and
structural design codes. Cement Concrete Comp (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
9
use of self-consolidating concrete and the 4th international RILEM symposium
on self-compacting concrete. Chicago: Hanley Wood Publications; 2005. p.
8638.
[7] Klug Y, Holschemacher K. Comparison of the hardened properties of self-
compacting and normal vibrated concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors.
Proceedings of 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compacting
concrete. Reykjavik: RILEM Publications S.A.R.L; 2003. p. 596605.
[8] Van Itterbeeck P, Cauberg N, Parmentier B, Vandewalle L, Lesage K. Eurocode 2
predictions vs. mechanical properties of self compacting concrete. In: Khayat
KH, Feys D, editors. CD proceedings of design, production and placement of
self-consolidating concrete (SCC2010). Montreal; 2010.
[9] Topu IB, Uygunoglu T. Effect of aggregate type on properties of hardened self-
consolidating lightweight concrete (SCLC). Constr Build Mater
2010;24:128695.
[10] Anagnostopoulos N, Sideris KK, Georgiadis A. Mechanical characteristics of
self-compacting concretes with different ller materials, exposed to elevated
temperatures. Mater Struct 2009;42:1393405.
[11] Almeida Filho FM, Barragn BE, Casas JR, El Debs ALHC. Hardened properties of
self-compacting concreteA statistical approach. Constr Build Mater
2010;24:160815.
[12] Boel V, Craeye B, Desnerck P, Van Der Vurst F, De Schutter G. Inuence of
specimen shape and dimensions on the compressive strength of self-
compacting concrete. In: Roussel N, editor. Proceedings of the 7th
international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete. Paris, RILEM
Publications S.A.R.L., RILEM Proceedings PRO 90; 2013. p. 596605.