The elastic modulus of concrete is required for the design of reinforced concrete structures, including in predicting creep deformation. Current models that estimate the elastic modulus (E), primarily on the basis of concrete compressive strength, vary in their accuracy and have hence proved to be inadequate to apply to the wide range of concretes. In this investigation, the E values of 108 concrete specimens which differed in aggregate type, cementitious material (binder) type, strength and curing age were measured. Seven factors were assessed for their degree of influence on concrete's elasticity, namely, aggregate type, aggregate percentage content, cementitious binder type, curing age, strength, water/cement ratio and density. The aggregate type, in particular, correlated significantly with the E value. In addition, the influence of density on E was highly significant (P = 2.39 × 10 −5 %). Concrete compressive strength, by contrast, was less influential than the aggregate type and density, and did not generally significantly correlate with the E value. This study provided additional confirmation that concrete strength is an unreliable primary factor on which to base concrete E estimations, as is the current common practice. It is therefore recommended that models to estimate E values of concrete should be based primarily on the type of aggregate used and the density of concrete.The Elastic Modulus (E) is the characteristic of a material which particularly describes its deformation response when placed under stresses within its elastic range. In the design of concrete structures, the E of concrete influences the resulting in-service deflections of beams and suspended slabs, to the point where it can even govern the design. However, due to the concrete production process, the E of concrete can vary widely between batches. This is because concrete is a complex material with one complexity being the fact that concrete is heterogeneous in nature, where each sub material differs in elasticity. This alone poses challenges to the estimation of the E of concrete. In the past, attempts were made to simplify E estimation by treating the E of concrete as a function of concrete's strength alone.However, according to a study by Alexander and Davis 3 as well as a relatively recent study by Krizova and Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.
Elastic modulus (E) estimation forms an important element in the methods used to predict concrete creep deformation, which is an important structural design consideration. A variety of different E estimation models for concrete exist but there is uncertainty as to which of the models is the most accurate. This research study assesses the performance of models namely, the ACI 318, ACI 318 Simplified, Mendis et al., Rüsch et al., Carrasquillo et al., ACI 363, AS 3600, Omar et al., AS 3600, BS 8110, Alexander and Davis, SANS 10100, CEB‐FIP, and the EC 2. The included list of models is taken from national codes and includes their superseded and modified versions. The E values of 108 specimens, whose properties differed (in aggregate type, cement type, concrete strength, and curing age), were measured. The actual E value was compared to each model's estimations to determine which were most accurate statistically using the coefficient of variation (ωj). The ACI 363 model was the most accurate out of the 16 models assessed, yielding an overall ωj of 16%. The CEB‐FIP model was found to be the least accurate showing an overall ωj of 31.8%. From the 16 models considered, it was recommended that the ACI 363 model be utilized by creep prediction models. In addition, it was found that not all modified estimate models produced better estimates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.