Modulus of Elasticity and

Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete

Engr. Shoiab Ikhlaq

 Introduction
 While the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
continues to provide working standards for the concrete industry,
definitive values for the material’s elastic behavior are not able to be
reported due to the heterogeneous nature of concrete

 This uncertainty of Young’s Modulus makes it difficult to predict a

concrete specimen’s deformation under a given load and known
stress

 The following is an attempt to verify current concrete code standards

in addition to better understanding the elastic behavior of uniaxially
loaded concrete test cylinders
 Project Objective
 The ultimate objective of our testing is to obtain the values
for Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio of concrete

 By graphing and analyzing the data we obtain, we will

quantify the actual values of YM and PR of our specimens
and shall compare it to the calculated theoretical values

 Through comparison, we can identify sources of error in lab

procedure or inconsistencies with theoretical calculations
 Materials / Equipment Used
 Six Test Cylinders
 6” diameter, 12” height
 12 strain gauges, two per cylinder
 gauge factor 2.055  0.05

 12 prepared wires, one wire per strain gauge

 Two Strain Indicators
 to read lateral and longitudinal strain
 SATEC Universal Testing Machine
 Testing Procedure
1. Cap each end of
specimen with sulfur
• levels surface to insure
accurate data acquisition
2. Affix two strain gauges
to each specimen
• affixed in lateral and
longitudinal direction
3. Solder wires to strain
gauges
This is what the test cylinders should look like!
 Testing Procedure (cont)
4. Check wire connection
with ohmmeter
• should read approximately
120 ohms to insure proper
reading from strain indicator
5. Set up strain indicator and
connect wires to
apparatus in a quarter
bridge orientation
 Test Set Up

Test Specimen

SATEC Testing
Machine

Strain Indicators
 Testing Procedure (cont)

6. Compress each
cylinder until failure
7. Record strain and
plot data
8. Analyze results to
quantify Young’s
Modulus and
Poisson’s Ratio
 Equations - Calculations
• Area: pr2 = p(3)2 = 9p = 28.27
• Stress: Load / Area = Load / 28.27

• Yield Stress: 0.4 f’c

• Theoretical Young’s Modulus: E = 57,000 *(f’c)^1/2 psi

• Different values of E are experimentally determined by:
•Secant Modulus – from the graph, draw a line from the origin to 0.4 f’c
the slope of this line is the secant modulus
• Chord Modulus – E = S2 – S1
e2 – 0.00005

where S2 = 0.4 f’c e2 = longitudinal strain at 0.4 f’c

S1 = stress at 0.00005 long. strain e1 = 50.0 x 10-6
 Equations – Calculations (cont)
• Theoretical Poisson’s Ratio: n = lateral strain ex
=
longitudinal strain ey
Desirable Range : 0.20 – 0.21
0.15 – 0.25 (for concrete aged 50 years)
• Poisson’s ratio is experimentally determined by:
n= et2 – et1
e2 – 0.00005

where et2 = lateral strain at 0.4 f’c e2 = longitudinal strain at 0.4 f’c
et1= lateral strain at S1 e1 = 50.0 x 10-6
 Experimental Calculation
Strain vs. Stress
7000

6000
longitudinal strain
lateral strain
5000
Stress (psi)

4000

3000
S2 = 0.4 f’c
2000
E = slope of secant line
1000
S1
et2
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 e1 500 e2 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

et1 Strain (10-6)

 Results: Test Cylinder #1
Figure 1. Strain vs. Stress of Cylinder 1
7000
Ultimate strength = f’c
6000
longitudinalstrain
longitudinal strain
lateral strain
5000
Stress (psi)

4000

3000
Yield strength = 0.4 f’c
2000
E = 3.9454 x 106
1000

0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Strain (10-6)

Graph
 Results: Test Cylinder #1
DATA CALCULATIONS
f’c = 6534psi 0.4f’c = 2613 psi Theor. E = 57,000 *(f’c)^1/2 psi
= 4,607,490
S2 = 2613 psi S1 = 169 psi Secant E = 3.9454

Chord E = S2 – S1
e2 = 648.5 x 10-6 e1 = 50.0 x 10-6 e2 – 0.00005
= 4,083,542

et2 = - 186 x 10-6 et1= - 11.56 x 10-6 Poisson’s Ratio n = et2 – et1
e2 – 0.00005
= 0.29
Data - Calculations
 Project Results
Sample E theoretical E chord E secant n theoretical
Cylinder 1 4,607,490 4,083,542 3,950,000 0.29
Cylinder 2 4,567,201 4,582,633 3,907,500 0.16
Cylinder 3 4,149,924 1,024,589 1,014,000 0.07
Cylinder 4 4,623,473 1,929,096 1,895,900 0.07
Cylinder 5 4,599,924 3,776,279 3,667,400 0.16
Cylinder 6 4,555,234 7,919,949 7,607,900 0.55
Average 4,517,208 3,886,014 3,673,783 0.22
 Project Results / Conclusion
 Average Value for Young’s Modulus = 3.886 x 106
 Average Target Value for Young’s Modulus = 4.517 x 106

 Average Value for Poisson’s Ratio = 0.22

 Target Range for Poisson’s Ratio = 0.15 – 0.25

* From the above results one can conclude that our results
were favorable and comparable to theoretical values,
proving a “successful” project
 Conclusion
 From the data table, we can observe inconsistencies in the
experimental values for Cylinders 3, 4, and 6 compared to the
desired theoretical values

 Taking into account only Cylinders 1, 2, and 5 we get:

 Avg. Young’s Modulus = 4.147 x 106
 Target Young’s Modulus = 4.592 x 106

 Poisson’s Ratio = 0.20

 Target Ranged of Poisson’s Ratio = 0.15 - 0.25

 We feel that this conclusion yields more accurate prediction for the
values of Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio
 Conclusion
 From our graphs it is apparent that concrete has a certain
stress-strain relationship, making the development of
standard values for the material feasible

 However, since only 3 out of our 6 samples performed to

desired theoretical behavior, we conclude that definitive
values for Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio cannot be
discerned

 Accurate ranges for Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

currently in practice are valid and may be developed further
for various strengths and types of concrete.
THANK YOU