ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 88-M37
Prediction of Concrete Tensile Strength from Its
Compressive Strength: Evaluation of Existing Relations for
Normal Weight Concrete
by Francis A. Oluokun
The 0.5 power relation adopted by ACI Committee 318 for predict-
ing the splitting tensile strength of concrete from its compressive
strength has been under scrutiny for a long time. Since its adoption,
many concrete researchers have investigated its prediction accuracy,
that is, how well it correlates with or how well it predicts test data.
Research findings have consistently indicated that the 0.5 power
,relation adopted by ACI Committee 318 in the Building Code Re-
quirements does not agree particularly well with test results. Conse-
quently, concrete researchers have proposed several alternative rela-
tions.
The research for this paper investigated the validity and accuracy
of these alternate relations. Tensile strength predictions from these
relations were compared with test results assembled from various
sources. It was found that the splitting tensile strength is not propor-
tional to the 0.5 power of compressive strength. Although most of the
alternate relations appear to be good, the assembled test data re-
vealed that 0.69 is the most accurate power relation. Thus, 0.69 power
relation is proposed as an alternative to the ACI 318 relation.
Keywords: compressive strength; concretes; evaluation; predictions; splitting
tensile strength.
Tensile strength of concrete is a physical property
that has no absolute meaning; it is always expressed in
terms of a specific test procedure. The direct tension
test, the beam (or modulus of rupture) test, and the
split cylinder (or Brazilian) test are the three kinds of
tests that have been used. In brittle materials like con-
crete, where there is little redistribution of stresses, the
direct tensile test usually results in an underestimation
of tensile strength. The underestimation arises from the
difficulty in insuring that the applied load is truly ax-
ial. 1 In the beam test, because of the development of
minute and invisible microcracks, the load at first crack
is difficult to establish. The ultimate load used in esti-
mating the modulus of rupture is therefore not the
same as the load at which cracking first occurred. Be-
cause of this fact and the nonlinearity of the stress-
strain curve for concrete in tension, the modulus of
rupture has been found to oveFestimate the tensile
strength of concrete. 2 3 In fact,;concrete researchers 24
302
TECHNICAL PAPER
have shown that the true tensile strength, as deter-
mined from the split cylinder test, is between 65 and 75
percent of the modulus of rupture. It has been well
established5-7 that the splitting tensile test of the cylin-
drical specimen gives a more reasonable tensile strength
estimation than the direct tensile test or the modulus of
rupture test. The acceptance of the split cylinder test is
based on the fact that the stress distribution is reason-
ably uniform along the vertical diameter of the cylin-
der, which has been shown to be the plane of principal
tensile stress for about 80 percent of its length. 8-11
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Generally, it has been accepted by concrete research-
ers as well as by the American Concrete Institute that
the splitting tensile strength of concrete is proportional
to the 0.5 power of the cylinder compressive strength.
Section 11.2 of the ACI Building Code (ACI 318-89}12
gives
fc, = 6. 7 (f: )o.s
as the empirical relationship between the splitting ten-
sile strength and the cylinder compressive strength for
concrete with strength between 2000 and 6000 psi (13.79
and 41.38 MPa). Historically, the splitting tensile
strength test on which the ACI relation was based was
independently originated by Akazawa 13 in Japan and
Carniero and Barcellos14 in Brazil. Since the invention
and later the acceptance of this method of tensile
strength evaluation, several relations have been. pro-
posed for the splitting tensile strength relationship to
the compressive strength of concrete. Akazawa 13 rec-
ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No.3, May-June 1991.
Received July 6, 1990, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 1991! American Co~cr~te !nstitut.e. All rights reserve~, includin_g
the making of cop1es unless perm1ss1on IS obtamed from the copynght propn-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 1992 ACI Ma-
terials Journal if received by Dec. I, 1991.
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
ACI member Francis A. 0/uokun is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, where he received his PhD degree. He has worked as a
lecturer at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, and as a structural engineer both
in this country and in Nigeria.
ommended
for 1: in psi, which is equivalent to
for 1: in MPa is proposed as an alternative relation to
that of ACI.
Recent work by N. J. Gardner at the University of
Ottawa in Canada 17 pointed out that the measured
splitting tensile strength of concrete does not conform
accurately with the 0.5 power of compressive strength
relation. It was indicated that the splitting tensile
strength is in fact proportional to the 0.667 power of
the cylinder strength and is in close agreement with the
earlier 0.667 power relation proposed by Raphael 16

let = 0.209 (f; )0 ' 73 let = 1. 73 (f; )0.667

for 1: in MPa. for 1: in psi and

Carniero and Barcellos, 14 originators of the split cyl-
inder test method, recommended let = 0.313 (/;)0' 667

let = 0.69 (f; )0.735 for 1: in MPa was again proposed as a better alterna-
tive to the ACI relation for concrete up to approxi-
for 1: in psi, which interprets to mately 8300 psi.
In a comprehensive investigation of the physical
let = 0.185 (/;)0.735
properties of concrete at early ages carried out at the
University of Tennessee by Oluokun 18 and published by
Oluokun, Burdette, and Deatherage, 19 the relation be-
for 1: in MPa. The Committe Euro-International du
tween the splitting tensile strength and the compressive
Beton (CEB) 15 recommended
strength was studied. The applicability of the ACI 318-
89 equation to tensile strength prediction both at early
let = 1.43 (/;)0 '667 ages and at maturity (conventionally at 28 days) was
investigated. It was revealed in this study that the true
for 1: in psi, which is equivalent to relationship between the tensile strength and the com-
pressive strength of concrete does not conform to the
let = 0.273 (f; )0' 667 0.5 power relation adopted by ACI 318-89. Instead, a
more accurate and more data-representative relation
for 1: in MPa. was proposed as
Recent test results have indicated that the 0.5 power
relation as used in ACI 318-8912 is not necessarily valid. let = 0.584 (/;)0.79
Several alternate relations have been proposed as better
and more representative of test data for the prediction for 1: in psi, which is equal to
of tensile strength from cylinder compressive strength.
Among the most recently proposed alternative relations let = 0.206 (f; )0.79
is
for 1: in MPa for concrete strength up to about 9000 psi
let = 4.34 (/;)0.55 (62.07 MPa).
Carino and Lew 20 re-examined the relation between
for 1: in psi, which is equivalent to splitting tensile and compressive strength of normal
weight concrete. A series of statistical analyses were
let = 0.462 (/;)0' 55 performed on 124 published data points from various
sources. It was concluded that the splitting tensile
for 1: in MPa proposed by Ahmad and Shah4 for con- strength is proportional to the 0.71 power of the com-
crete strength up to 12,000 psi (84 MPa). pressive strength and
In a study of tensile strength of concrete by Ra-
phael, 16 detailed analyses of test data showed that the let = 1.15 (/;)0.71
0.5 power relationship is not representative of test data.
Consequently for 1: in psi, which is equivalent to

let = 0.272 (f; )0 ' 71

let = 1. 7 (f; )0.667
for 1: in MPa. This was proposed as a better alterna-
for 1: in psi which is equivalent to tive relation to that of ACI 318-89.
A thorough review of literature, like the one just dis-
let = 0 313 (/;)0' 667 cussed, revealed that concrete researchers agree that the
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991 303
0.5 power relation as adopted by ACI 318-89 does not
necessarily represent a valid relation between the split-
ting tensile strength and compressive strength of con-
crete. It is evident that most concrete researchers be-
lieve, from analyses of test data, that the true and more
test data-representative power relation is between 0.6
and 0.8. Some concrete researchers have even indicated
that the current ACI relation grossly overestimates the
tensile strength of concrete at early ages. 17 All of these
imply that a re-evaluation of existing alternate relations
along with the current relation in ACI 318-89 is neces-
sary for more efficient use of concrete, particularly in
tension.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RE-EVALUATION
Tensile strength is one of the most important funda-
mental properties of concrete. Although it is usually
assumed in design that concrete behavior is governed by
its compressive capabilities, a knowledge of tensile
strength of concrete is used by designers to resist shear
in unreinforced sections, and to resist shrinkage and
temperature stresses. Tensile strength also has a signif-
icant influence on cracking at prestress release, or even
at any time in the life of a concrete structure. In gen-
eral, cracking can only occur after the tensile capability
of concrete has been exhausted. This concrete property
is therefore important with respect to the appearance
and durability of concrete structural members. An ac-
curate prediction of tensile strength of concrete will
help in mitigating cracking problems, will improve
shear strength prediction, and minimize failure of con-
crete in tension due to inadequate methods of tensile
strength prediction.
METHOD OF RE-EVALUATION
Several sets of data, representing tests spread over 20
years, were used. Sources of data and their respective
key aspects are described next.
Oluokun 18 related splitting tension to compressive
strength of 168 laboratory concrete specimens using
various water-cement ratios (w/c), crushed limestone
aggregates, and Type I cement. All specimens were 6 x
12 in. concrete cylinders moist-cured at 73 F. Twenty-
eight day compressive strengths varied from approxi-
mately 4000 psi (27 .59 MPa) to approximately 9000 psi
(62.07 MPa). Test ages varied from 6 hr to 28 days.
Gardner 17 tested several 6 x 12 in. concrete cylinders
using Type I, Type 1/fly ash, and Type III cements,
various w/c, curing temperatures of 32, 50, 68, and 86
F (0, 10, 20, and 30 C), and various testing ages from 1
to 112 days. Concretes up to approximately 8225 psi
(56. 72 MPa) were tested. Tensile strength was related to
the cylinder compressive strength.
Gardner and Poon 21 studied about 960 6 x 12 in.
concrete cylinders made from Type I and Type III ce-
ments. Curing was done under both varying tempera-
ture conditions of 35, 55, and 72 F (2, 13, and 22 C),
and steadily at 72 F (22 C). Period of cure under 72 F
varied from 1 to 7 days. Some specimens were also
304
continuously moist-cured at 72 F. Test ages varied from
1 to 28 days, and all concretes had a specified cylinder
strength of 4000 psi (27.59 MPa) and a w/c of approx-
imately 0.5.
Grieb and Werner22 reported on tests of more than
6000 specimens, made during a 10-year period (1951 to
1961) utilizing concrete made from natural crushed
stone and lightweight aggregate up to a maximum of
1Y2 in. (data on lightweight concrete were not used in
this study). Test specimens were the usual 6 x 12-in.
cylinders. Testing ages varied from 7 to 365 days.
Lew and Reichard23 tested 156 6 x 12 in. concrete cyl-
inders made from Type I cement, silica sand, and
crushed limestone. Curing was done at 35, 55, and 73 F
(1. 7, 12.8, and 22.8 C). Testing was done at ages from
1 to 42 days.
Walker and Bloem24 related splitting tensile strength
to compressive strength using 576 concrete cylinders.
Test specimens were 6 x 12-in. cylinders made from
various sizes of aggregates and w/c and all moist-cured
at standard conditions.
Other sources include Malhotra and Zoldners, 25 who
used 629 laboratory specimens made from Type I ce-
ment with various (w/c) and aggregate sizes moist-
cured under standard conditions. Concrete strength
varied from 1600 to about 7700 psi (11. 03 to 53.10
MPa). Gruenwald26 tested 6 x 12 in. concrete cylinders
made from Type I and Type III cements with varying
wlc. Tests were done at 7 days. RaphaeP 6 also gener-
ated some data from cylinder cast from some concrete
dam mixes, tested at slow and fast speeds, while
MitchelJ27 produced useful splitting tensile strength data
from testing done in his Master's thesis. Hanson28 was
an additional source of data.
From the foregoing enumeration of data sources, it
is clear that the data sources used in this re-evaluation
cover a wide variation of parameters that have been
found to influence some of the fundamental properties
of concrete. The data assembled included various ag-
gregate sizes from s to 2Y2 in., various wlc, various
testing ages from 6 hr to 365 days, various curing tem-
peratures from 32 F (0 C) to over 86 F (30 C), and var-
ious moisture conditions. The data are therefore con-
sidered to be highly representative of all the variability
that could be reasonably expected in concrete construc-
tion practices.
The effects of various parameters such as age at test-
ing, variation in curing temperature, variation in mois-
ture conditions, and cement types on the development
of physical properties of concrete and their interrela-
tionships have been thoroughly investigated. Gardner
and Poon21 indicated that neither variation in curing
temperature nor type of cement had any significant ef-
fect on the interrelationship of bond strength or split-
ting tensile strength and cylinder strength. Oluokun,
Burdette, and Deatherage 19 have shown that the inter-
relationship between splitting tensile strength and cyl-
inder compressive strength of concrete is essentially in-
dependent of time of cure or age at testing, while
Gardner17 in a recent publication showed that the rela-
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
 tionship between splitting tensile strength and compres-
sive strength is not significantly dependent on temper-
ature of cure or cement type. In fact, he proposed a
single relationship for concretes of various wlc made
from Type I, Type 1/fly ash, and Type III cements
cured at varying temperatures between 32 and 86 F, and
tested at ages between 1 and 112 days. This, certainly,
was a further confirmation that factors such as temper-
ature of cure, age, and cement type have no noticeable
effects on the interrelationship between the splitting
tensile strength and compressive strength. Conse-
quently, it is therefore the opinion of the writer that the
results of the re-evaluation obtained from a collective
analysis of the assembled data is highly representative
of the true relationship between the splitting tensile
strength and the compressive strength of concrete.
Before evaluating the existing relations discussed
earlier in this paper, a regression analysis of the assem-
bled test data was done. This analysis was considered
necessary in view of the fact that none of the existing
relations was derived from such a large number of test
data points (566) assembled from various sources.
Moreover, all of these proposed relations, with the ex-
ception of the relations proposed by Ahmad and Shah,4
Raphael, 16 and Carino and Lew, 20 were derived solely
from test data obtained by the individual authors.
Consequently, it is the opinion of this writer that are-
gression relation obtained from these variety points
should be considered along with the other existing re-
lations highlighted earlier in this paper. As illustrated in
Fig. 1, the regression equation of the assembled 566
data points is
Jet = 1.376 (f; )0.692
in U.S. units, this power relation with 95 percent re-
gression correlation is certainly different from those
just highlighted. From this regression equation
.fc, = 1.38 (!;)0.69
in U.S. units and
.fc, = 0.214 (/;)069
in SI units are suggested by the writer, and they are re-
ferred to as the proposed relations in this study.
Tensile strength predictions from each of the 10 ex-
isting relations were compared to the equivalent test
data values and the errors were calculated using the In-
tegral Absolute Error (IAE), which is statistically con-
sidered more sensitive than the ordinary average error
where Qi is the measured value and Pi is the predicted
value.
Another criteria used for evaluating these relations is
the overprediction potential, the degree of unconsera-
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
600
ie
31:
~
w 400
I!'
...ill"'w
~
200
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN PSI
Fig. 1 - Tensile strength versus compressive strength
tism, which is the number of overpredicted data com-
pared to the total number of data predicted expressed
in percentage. The higher the percentage of overpred-
iction, the lower the degree of conservatism of the re-
lation.
RESULTS OF RE-EVALUATION
The results of the re-evaluation are shown in Table 1
and also illustrated in Fig. 2 through 7.
For concrete with compressive strength between 0
and 3000 psi, 124 data points were used in the evalua-
tion. Percentage of IAE varies from 10.35 in the pro-
posed relation through 10.51 for Gardner's relation,
10.97 for Carino and Lew's relation, 11.00 for Ra-
phael's relation to a maximum of 31.14 for Carniero
and Barcellos's relation with ACI having the percent-
age IAE of 14.38 and an overestimation of 77.5 per-
cent.
For concrete between 3000 and 6000 psi, 343 data
points were used in the evaluation. Percentage of IAE
varies from a minimum of 6.68 for Gardner's relation
through 7.08 for the proposed relation, 7.5 for Carino
and Lew's relation, 7.57 for Oluokun's relation to a
maximum of 28.66 for Carniero and Bacellos's rela-
tion. The ACI relation has 8.80 percentage IAE with
28.30 percentage overestimation.
For concrete with compressive strength between 6000
and 9000 psi, 99 data points were used. Percentage of
IAE varies from a minimum of 7.71 for the proposed
relation through 7. 72 for Oluokun's and Carino and
Lew's relations, 7.84 for Gardner's relation to a maxi-
mum of 25.63 for Carniero and Barcellos's relation.
The ACI relation has 11.3 percent IAE with an under-
estimation of 96.96 percent.
The errors for the three concrete groupings are illus-
trated in Fig. 2 for comparison. Akazawa's, 13 Carniero
and Barcellos's, 14 and CEB equations have consistently
305
 40 40

03000 PSI
30016000 PSI
60019000 PSI

Q..9000PSI
30 30

[ l
.,.ufc 20 .,.ufc 20
a: a:
5la: 0
a:
w lli
~ ~_,
s
c_,
10
~
c_,
~ 10
~
i" ~

0
ACI AKAZ. CARl CANIER CEll GARO OW RAPH SHAH PROP. 0
ACI AKAZ. CARl CAN1ER CEll GARO OW RAPH SHAH PROP.

AUntORS
AUntORS

Fig. 2 - Comparison of integral absolute errors Fig. 3 - Comparison of integral absolute errors (0 to
(group) 9000 psi)

Table 1 - Results of Re-evaluation

Interal absolute error (IAE), percent
0<!:..;;;3000 3000 < J: .:;;; 6000 6000 < J: .:;;; 9000 0 < J:.:;;; 9000
Origin of percent percent percent percent
relation IAE overestimation IAE overestimation IAE overestimation IAE overestimation
ACI" 14.38 77.5 8.80 28.30 11.33 3.04 10.12 37.63
AKAZAWA" 23.57 4.90 20.96 2.40 17.76 5.05 20.56 3.18
CARINO & LEW20 10.97 35.50 7.5 31.00 7.72 45.45 8.01 34.45
CARNIERO & BARCELLOS" 31.14 0.90 28.66 1.50 25.63 0 28.29 10.61
CEB" 17.01 13.80 17.26 3.30 15.90 5.05 16.91 5.83
GARDNER" 10.51 59.70 6.68 50.80 7.84 57.58 7.46 58.89
OLUOKUN ET AL." 13.85 17.8 7.57 31.20 7.72 58.59 8.43 33.04
RAPHAEL 1' 11.00 37.10 9.ll 60.40 9.12 29.3 9.36 25.09
SHAH & AHMAD' 11.74 35.50 9.09 34.50 10.88 21.21 9.85 33.40
PROPOSED 10.35 44.40 7.08 35.90 7.71 53.54 7.43 40.ll

high errors for all concrete compressive strength
groupings.
A thorough study of the percentage of lABs for each
of the relations, as shown in Table 1 and illustrated in
Fig. 2 for all concrete compressive strength groups,
shows that the difference in the values of lABs for each
relation does not vary appreciably (less than 5 percent
maximum) with strength groupings. Therefore, apply-
ing each relation to predict concrete from 0 to approx-
imately 9000 psi collectively will not result in any sig-
nificant difference in prediction errors from the errors
obtained from the group analyses just presented.
From the results of the collective 566 data point
analyses for concrete up to approximately 9000 psi,
percentage of IAE varies from. a minimum of 7.43 for
the proposed relation through 7.46 for Gardner's rela-
tion, 17 8.01 for Carino and Lew's relation, 20 8.43 for
306
Oluokun's relation, 18 and 9.36 for Raphael's relation, 16
to a maximum for 28.29 for Carniero and Barcellos's
relation, 14 with ACI's relation having 10.12 percentage
of IAE with an overestimation of 37.63 percent. Again,
as shown in Fig. 3, Akazawa's, Carniero and Barcel-
los's, and the CEB's relations gave consistently high
prediction errors.
In determining the best power relation for predicting
the splitting tensile strength from the compressive
strength, the following factors were considered: (1) best
test data representative power relation; (2) minimum
prediction error as indicated by minimum IAE; and, to
some degree, (3) conservatism as expressed by per-
centage of overprediction.
Fig. 4, a comparison of the best five prediction rela-
tions (as indicated by their IAE values in Table 1) with
the ACI relation and test data shows that "the ACI re-
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
 G-9000 PSI
CNEAI'REDICT.

so+-----

40+-----

30

20

10

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN PSI 0

AUTHORS
Fig. 4 - Comparison of best five relations with ACI
and test data
Fig. 6 - Comparison of integral absolute errors and
overprediction

800

800

600

600
~
ii5
j!:
"i!i 400
~
ii5
~ j!: 400
~
ffi
I 200
~
_,
w

.~ 200

o+-~--+-~--+-~--+-~--+-~--+-~__,
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN PSI 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN PSI

Fig. 5- Comparison of other relations with ACI and
test data
lation overestimates the splitting tensile strength of
concrete with compressive strength up to about 3000
psi; while it underestimates the splitting tensile strength
for concretes above approximately 4000 psi. Fig. 5
shows a poor correlation between other existing rela-
tions and test data but a very good correlation for the
proposed relation.
A comparison of lAB's along with overprediction
potentials for the best existing, five relations along with
the proposed and the ACI relations is shown in Fig. 6.
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
Fig. 7 - Comparison of proposed and ACI relations
with test data
In terms of lAB's, all the relations (with the exception
of the ACI relation) shown in this figure have predic-
tion errors less than 10 percent and could be reasona-
bly used for tensile strength prediction. All concrete re-
searchers appear to believe that the splitting tensile
strength is proportional to some power (between 0.6
and 0.8) of compressive strength; the question is, which
power relation best represents test data? The proposed
relation with an IAE of 7.43 percent and an overesti-
307
mation potential of about 40 percent and Gardner's re-
lation with IAE of 7.46 percent and an overestimation
potential of about 59 percent are the best two relations.
The major difference is that Gardner used 3 power re-
lation while the proposed relation used 0.69 power.
Gardner's 213 power relation was based on a regression
analysis of J:is own test data, while the proposed 0.69
power relation was derived from data collected from
various sources with very wide variability in mix de-
sign, curing, and test conditions. Moreover, the pro-
posed relation was derived from 566 data points from
several sources compared to about 170 data points from
one source used by Gardner. Considering the wider
coverage of the data used in deriving the proposed re-
lation, it is the opinion of the writer that the proposed
0.69 power relation is most representative of test data.
It therefore appears that the "best" power relation be-
tween the splitting tensile strength and compressive
strength is
let = 1.38 (!;)0.69
in U.S. units for concrete up to at least 8000 psi. Co-
incidentally, the average of the powers in the existing
alternate relations is 0.6886 which is, for all practical
purposes, equal to the proposed 0.69 power!
Finally, the proposed relation and the current ACI
relation are compared with test data in Fig. 7. This fig-
ure clearly emphasizes a gross overprediction for con-
crete with strengths less than 3000 psi and a serious un-
derprediction for concrete with strengths in excess of
about 4000 psi. The overprediction observed for con-
crete with strengths less than 3000 psi is a clear indica-
tion that the application of the current ACI relation to
predict tensile strength of concrete at early ages is un-
conservative and certainly unsafe for our current con-
struction practices as it affects cracking at early ages.
This paper is primarily concerned with the establish-
ment of the best power relation between the splitting
tensile strength and the compressive strength. In the fi-
nal relation proposed, no factor of safety was consid-
ered. The writer believes that the true relationship has
to be established before any safety factor is built in.
The appropriate factor of safety to be used depends on
the level of conservatism desired, which is generally
subject to discussion.
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
Concrete researchers have proposed various alternate
relations to the ACI relation. They have independently
shown beyond doubts that the 0.5 power formulation
adopted by ACI does not conform accurately well to
test results.
One important observation about the availability of
test data relating the splitting tensile strength to the
cylinder compressive strength is the nonuniformity of
data distribution. A lot of test data are available in the
2000 to 7000 psi compressive strength range; whereas,
very scanty test data are available on concrete with
308
compressive strength less than 2000 psi (this corre-
sponds to early age concrete strength) and above 7000
psi, which falls in the high-strength concrete range. So,
there is still nesed for testing to determine the interrela-
tionships of the various physical properties of concrete
(both normal and high strength) at early ages. This will
insure a more accurate knowledge related to predicting
early-age capabilities of concrete structures and possi-
bly help in mitigating some cracking and deflection
serviceability problems.
The use of high-strength concrete is becoming in-
creasingly popular in concrete design and construction.
The use of concretes with strengths up to 14000 psi is
not uncommon in high-rise building construction. A
cursory survey of literature indicates that not much has
been done by way of testing to establish a fundamental
understanding of the development and interrelation-
ships of the various physical properties of high-strength
concrete. In fact, it has not been established whether or
not the prediction relations for tensile strength and
elastic modulus as adopted by ACI are applicable to
high-strength concretes. It is therefore important to
conduct more testing for safer and more efficient use of
high-strength concrete; it is probably because of insuf-
ficient test data that ACI 318-8912 limits the maximum
value of the square root of compressive strength to 100
psi.
CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis presented in this study, the follow-
ing conclusions appear to be logical:
1. The current 0.5 power ACI relation for predicting
tensile strength from compressive strength does not
agree with test data.
2. The proposed 0.69 power relation
for J: in psi is a better relation, and it correlates excel-
lently with test results.
3. The current ACI relation for tensile strength pre-
diction should be reviewed and modified to insure bet-
ter prediction of shear and crack resistance capabilities
of concrete at all ages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to Dr. Edwin G.
Burdette, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Tennes-
see, Knoxville, for the editorial assistance provided during the final
preparation of this research report. His support in this regard is
highly appreciated.
NOTATION
1: = compressive strength
J:, = tensile strength
psi = pounds per square in.
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
 CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in. = 25.4 mm
145 psi = 1 MPa
J;, = aU: ) = J;, = 0.0069a (145) U: ) NAL, Proceedings V. 18, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1984, pp. 158-165.
t, = ( 0 t.-32) /1.8
REFERENCES
1. McNeely, D. J., and Lash, S. D., "Tensile Strength of Con-
crete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No.6, June 1963, pp. 751-
761.
2. Young, J. F., and Mindness, S., Concrete, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1981.
3. L'Hermite R., "Actual Ideas About the Technology of Con-
crete," Annals, Technical Institute of Building and Public Works,
Paris, 1959, pp. 115-116.
4. Ahmad, Shuaib H., and Shah, S. P., "Structural Properties of
High Strength Concrete and Its Implications for Precast Prestressed
Concrete," PC/ Journal, V. 30, No.6, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 92-119.
5. Peltier, R., "Theoretical Investigation of the Brazilian Test,"
RILEM Bulletin (Paris), No. 19, Nov. 1954, pp. 31-69.
6. Wright, P. J. F., "Comments on an Indirect Tensile Test on
Concrete Cylinders," Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V.
7, No. 20, July 1955, pp. 87-96.
7. Efsen, A., and Glarbo, 0., "Tensile Strength of Concrete De-
termined by Cylinder Splitting Test," Benton Og Jernbeton (Copen-
hagen), No. 1, 1956, pp. 33-39.
8. Hondros, G., "Evaluation of Poisson's Ratio and the Modulus
of Materials of Low Tensile Resistance by Brazilian (Indirect Tensile)
Test with Particular Reference to Concrete," Australian Journal of
Applied Sciences (Melbourne), V. 10, 1959, pp. 243-268.
9. Timoshenko, S., and Goodier, J. N., Theory of Elasticity, Sec-
ond Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951, 506 pp.
10. Thaulow, S., Betongkontroll paa Byggeplassen, Norsk Cement
Forening, Oslo, 1953, 224 pp. (Field Testing of Concrete, Abridged
Version in English, 64 pp.)
11. Foppl, A., and Foppl, L., "Dvang und Zwang," Oldenburg
Verlag (Berlin), V. 1, 1941, Section 53.
12. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-89/318R-89)," Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
13. Akazawa, Tsuneo, "Tension Test Method for Concretes,"
RILEM Bulletin (Paris), No. 16, Nov. 1953, pp. 11-23.
14. Carniero, Fernando Luiz Lobo B., and Barcellos, Aguinaldo,
"Tensile Strength of Concretes," RILEM Bulletin (Paris), No. 13,
Mar. 1953, pp. 97-123.
ACI Materials Journal I May-June 1991
15. CEB-F/P Model Code for Concrete Structures, Third Edition,
Comite Euro-Internatiomll du Bet6n, Paris, 1978, 348 pp.
16. Raphael, J. M., "Tensile Strength of Concrete," ACI JouR-
17. Gardner, N. J., "Effect of Temperature on the Early-Age
Properties of Type I, Type III, and Type 1/Fly Ash Concretes," ACI
Materials Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 68-78.
18. Oluokun, F. A., "Investigation of Physical Properties of Con-
crete at Early Ages," PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, May 1989, 207 pp.
19. Oluokun, Francis A.; Burdette, Edwin G.; and Deatherage, J.
Harold, "Splitting Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength Rela-
tionship at Early Ages," ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No.2,
March-April 1991, pp. 115-121.
20. Carino, Nicholas J., and Lew, H. S., "Re-Examination of the
Relation Between Splitting Tensile and Compressive Strength of
Normal Weight Concrete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No.3,
May-June 1982, pp. 214-219.
21. Gardner, N.J., and Poon, S.M., "Time and Temperature Ef-
fects on Tensile, Bond, and Compressive Strengths," ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 73, No.7, July 1976, pp. 405-409.
22. Grieb, W. E., and Werner, G., "Comparison of Splitting Ten-
sile Strength of Concrete with Flexural and Compressive Strengths,"
Public Roads, V. 32, No. 5, Dec. 1962, pp. 97-106.
23. Lew, H. S., and Reichard, T. W., "Mechanical Properties of
Concrete at Early Ages," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 75, No. 10,
Oct. 1978, pp. 533-542.
24. Walker, Stanton, and Bloem, Delmar L., "Effects of Aggre-
gate Size on Properties of Concrete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V.
57, No.3, Sept. 1960, pp. 283-298.
25. Malhotra, V. M., and Zoldners, N. G., "Comparison of Ring
Tensile Strength of Concrete with Compressive, Flexural, and Split-
ting Tensile Strength," Journal of Materials, V. 2, No.1, Mar. 1967,
pp. 160-191.
26. Abeles, P. W. eta!., "Discussion of a Paper of Sven Thaulow
on Tensile Splitting Test and High Strength Concrete Test Cylin-
ders," ACI JOURNAL, ProceedingsV. 29, No.6, Dec. 1957, pp. 1315-
1325.
27. Mitchell, N. B., "Indirect Tension Test for Concrete," ASTM
Materials Research and Standards, V. 1, No. 10, Oct. 1961, pp. 780-
788.
28. Hanson, J. A., "Optimum Steam Curing Procedure in Pre-
casting Plants," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No. 1, 1963, pp.
75-99.
309