ACI JOURNAL ~ .
TECHNICAL PAPER
Title No. 81-17
Tensile Strength of Concrete
by Jerome M. Raphael
A limiting factor in the safety of mass concrete structures, such as
concrete arch dams under seismic loadings, is the tensile strength of
the concrete. Tensile strength can be tested three ways: direct ten-
sion, splitting tension, and flexural tests. Results of these tests differ,
and results of tests made on cores taken in the field differ from re-
sults made on laboratory specimens. Some 12,000 individual test re-
sults were examined to find reason for these discrepancies. Low ten-
sile strength of cores from dams was found to be caused by drying
shrinkage and surface cracking. Some tests were discarded because of
flaws in testing technique. A theoretical relationship was found be-
tween tensile strength and modulus of rupture. Values are recom-
mended for true and apparent tensile strength for a wide range of
compressive strengths under static and seismic loadings.
Keywords: compressive strength; concrete dams; dynamic loads; earthquake
resistant structures; flexural tests; mass concrete; measurement; splitting tensile
strength; static loads; structural analysis; tensile strength; tension tests.
In a number of recent investigations of the behavior
of actual concrete dams during earthquakes, it has be-
come apparent that a limiting factor has been that the
tensile strength of any concrete is only a fraction of its
compressive strength. Hence, the concrete will fail in
tension long before it begins to be distressed in
compression. Engineers working with reinforced con-
crete have simply ignored the tensile strength of the
concrete because of its low value and placed steel to
pick up the entire tensile load. Engineers working with
dams must rely on the tensile strength of concrete un-
der earthquake conditions as it is impracticable to
specify the enormous quantities of steel needed to resist
the tensile forces in a dam. Therefore, dams are gener-
ally unreinforced.
Literature has numerous reports of tests of tensile
strength of concrete under different test methods and
conditions, with a confusing variety of results. It is the
purpose of this paper to make order out of this confu-
sion so that tensile strength of a given concrete can be
predicted reliably.
State of the art in analysis
The Koyna earthquake of December 11, 1967, and
the San Fernando earthquake of February 9, 1971, both
resulted in significant advances in the dynamic finite
158
- _- ~.
element analysis of stresses in concrete dams during
earthquakes. In research sponsored by the U.S. Engi-
neers using two-dimensional finite element analyses,
Chopra 1 studied the dynamic response of Koyna Dam,
treating the water as a compressible fluid. Three-di-
mensional finite element analyses of arch dams of the
Los Angeles Flood Control District began after 1971
with reanalyses of the flood control dams of that dis-
trict. 2 The state of the art in 1983 was real-time three-
dimensional analysis of stresses in concrete dams, tak-
ing into account interaction of the reservoir and foun-
dation. From such studies, it is apparent that the key
property in limiting the capacity of concrete dams dur-
ing earthquakes is the tensile strength of the concrete.
This is because while maximum compressive and tensile
stresses under seismic loading are roughly equal, com-
pressive strength is many times the tensile strength of
concrete, and the concrete will always fail in tension
long before it approaches compressive capacity.
The question is: What is the tensile strength of con-
crete, and how should it be measured? A number of
test methods have been used to evaluate this property.
In the direct test for tensile strength, the specimen is
gripped at its ends and pulled apart in tension; tensile
strength is failure load divided by area. In the splitting
tension test, a cylinder is loaded in compression on two
diametrically opposite elements, failing in tension on
the plane between the loaded elements. In the modulus
of rupture test, a rectangular beam is loaded at the
center or third points and fails in bending, with the
computed tensile stress at failure load called the mod-
ulus of rupture. Unfortunately, each method seems to
have its own characteristic result. Many engineers as-
sume that the direct tensile strength of concrete is about
10 percent of its compressive strength; splitting tensile
strength is about the same, perhaps one percent
Received May 5, 1983, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 1984, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 1985 ACI
JOURNAL if received by Oct. I, 1984.
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
Jerome M. Raphe/, FACI, has been a member of ACI since 1934. He has
worked almost exclusively on large concrete dams with the U.S. Engineers and
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation until1953 and since then as a consulting civil
engineer while on the faculty of civil engineering at the University of Califor-
nia at Berkeley. On his retirement in 1979, he was appointed professor emeri- ;;;
tus of civil engineering and continues with research and consultation on studies 1'-
of large concrete dams. He is a past chairman of ACI Committee 209, Creep w
a:
::::l
and Shrinkage in Concrete, and is a member of ACI Committee 207, Mass t-
o._
Concrete. ::::l
a:
lL.
0
(J)
::::l
stronger; and modulus of rupture is about 15 percent of __J
::::l
0
compressive strength. Examination of actual test re- 0
::.
sults from almost 12,000 specimens shows that there is a:
0
little basis for assuming a linear relationship between J:
t-
(!)
tensile and compressive strength, by whatever measure- z
w TENSION RUPTURE

ment means. a: GONNERMAN 8 SHUMAN

t-
(J) WALKER B BLOOM
w GRIEB 8 WERNER
__J
Measurements of tensile strength (J)
HOUK

z
While many results of laboratory tests for tensile w
t-
strength, modulus of rupture, and compressive strength 1200) 1300) 14001 1500) 1600)

of concrete have been published, only a very few in-
stances are available where all three properties of the
same concrete have been tested in one laboratory. Four
sets of data, representing tests spread over nearly 40
years, are described next.
Gonnerman and Shuman, 19283 , tested 1760 moist-
cured 6 in. (152 mm) diameter cylinders and 7 x 10-in.
(178 x 254-mm) beams using concretes with compres-
sive strengths varying from 200 to 9200 psi ( 1.4 to 63
MPa). Tensile strength was determined on 6 x 18-in.
(152 x 457-mm) cylinders held at the ends by bolted
steel strap grips with leather friction surfaces.
Walker and Bloem, 1960\ related splitting tension
and modulus of rupture to compressive strength of 576
laboratory concrete specimens using various sized ag-
gregates and water-cement ratios, all moist cured and
all either 6-in. (152-mm) cylinders or 6 x 6-in. (152 x
152-mm) beams.
Grieb and Werner 5 reported in 1962 on tests of more
than 600 specimens made during a 10-year period
(1951-1961) using concrete made of natural, crushed, or
lightweight aggregates to a maximum size of 1.5 in. (38
mm). Compression and splitting tension specimens were
6 x 12-in. (152 x 254-mm) cylinders, and flexural tests
were made on 6 x 6 x 21-in. (152 x 152 x 533-mm)
beams.
In 1965, Houk 6 studied 324 specimens made from a
variety of mass concrete mixes of somewhat lower
strength, including a number of cements and pozzo-
lanic admixtures, in connection with the concrete for
the construction of Dworshak Dam. His tensile speci-
mens were 6 in. (152 mm) square prisms with the load
applied through Y4 in. (19 mm) diameter steel rods
embedded on the center axis. Compression specimens
were 6 x 12-in. (152 x 254-mm) cylinders, and flex-
ural specimens were 6 in. (152 mm) square prisms.
For all these tests, representing a wide variety of
concretes, values of tensile strength and modulus of
rupture have been plotted against compressive strength
in Fig. 1. In this figure, three distinct families of data
can be seen. First, all the modulus of rupture points are
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- psi (kg/cm 2 )
Fig. ]-Relation between modulus of rupture, tensile
strength, and compressive strength of concrete
distinct from all the tensile strength points, being about
a third higher in value. Next, the Gonnerman and Shu-
man tensile strength data have lower values than those
for the remaining three investigators by about 20 per-
cent. Considering that the end conditions of the Gon-
nerman and Shuman tensile test specimens combine
compression from the bolted grips with tension from
the testing machine, a condition shown by Ri.isch 12 to
result in failure at less than either maximum tensile or
compressive strength, these specimens are eliminated
from further consideration.
Now consider tests of actual concrete from dams. In
the past few years, a number of dams in service have
been reexamined to determine their safety in an earth-
quake. Fig. 2 shows averaged results of over 500 6-in.
(152-mm) cores taken from 14 concrete dams on the
West Coast. The splitting tension tests show strengths
averaging about ten percent of compressive strength
and direct tensile strength about half that value. The
five and ten percent line are not intended to be the ac-
tual functions for these data but give a basis for com-
parison.
When it was first noted that field concrete cores
seemed only half as strong in tension as laboratory
concrete, the test methods were suspected. The earliest
tests at the University of California were made by
bonding steel plates to the ends of the cylindrical core
and applying load to the plates. Considering that the
changes in stiffness between steel and concrete might
somehow have introduced a concentrated stress that
weakened the core, a new test method was tried. Epoxy
was used to build up the ends of the core to a dumbbell
shape, and steel plates were bonded to the enlarged
ends. All these dumbbell specimens broke in the origi-
nal center section, but there was no change in the pre-
159
 BOO
<t
150) I I
700 0 2 3 4
DIRECT TENSION
5 61NCHES
IOfc'
o SPLIT TENSION
00
100
600 w
N" 1401
a:
80 :::>
E 1-
~ 500 60 0
en
=
;;; :::E
?" 130)
40 1-
I 400
t- z
(!)
z .05fc w
20 u
w
a:
t-
300
120) .. a:
w
.. . 0
(J)
0..
w
.J
iii 200
z
~ 110) .. MOISTURE GRADIENT

100

0~--~~~--~L---~L-~--~~--~--~
Fig. 3-Drying shrinkage of a 6-in. cylinder
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1100) 1200) 1300) 1400)

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- psi ( kg/cm 2 )

mens were stored moist and tested moist. No cracks
Fig. 2-Tensile strength versus compressive strength of could have formed, and they tended to show true ten-
concrete cores sile strength.

viously observed result of only half the tensile strength
of laboratory concrete.
The chief difference between the laboratory speci-
mens and the field specimens was in their curing his-
tory. Laboratory specimens were routinely kept in a
moist atmosphere until testing. Field specimens, repre-
senting mass concrete kept moist by virtue of its mass,
seemed to have been allowed to dry out at some time
between removal and testing. The importance of this
drying period is explained below.
Fig. 3 shows three stages in the drying of a 6 in. (152
mm) diameter concrete cylinder. Since drying obeys the
same physical laws as cooling, these curves have been
drawn from plots for variation of temperature with
time published by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/
using the value of 0.0001 ft 2 per day for drying diffu-
sivity as suggested by Carlson. 8 After only one week of
drying, the surface is completely dry, but drying one
inch from the surface has only begun. The relation be-
tween shrinkage and drying is linear; shrinkage is di-
rectly proportional to drying. Thus, the surface con-
crete could attain 100 percent of its ultimate shrinkage
if it were not restrained by the moist concrete at the
center 4 in. (100 mm) of the cylinder. As it is, the cyl-
inder is on the average still 80 percent moist, and the
'l>'U'i~'d~e d\He'ient\'d\ \'i> %(} \)e:,:ce\\t (}{ the \)(}te\\t\a\
shrinkage. Since the potential for drying shrinkage
might be as much as 800 millionths for a concrete with
a natural gravel aggregate, the surface strain could be
640 millionths, which is equivalent to 2500 psi (17 MPa)
tension. Since this far exceeds the tensile strength of the
concrete, minute surface cracks will form extending in-
ward from the surface, perhaps as much as a Yz in. (12
mm). Thus, it is no wonder that the dry cores exhibited
low tensile strength; they were already partially
cracked. On the other hand, all the laboratory speci-
160
Splitting tension test
Now consider the splitting tension test. Prior to fail-
ure, 10 there is a biaxial compression region immediately
below the region of application of the load which, while
highly stressed, has great resistance to failure because
of its confined state. For the greatest part of the loaded
axis, a nearly uniform tensile region exists, and at fail-
ure, the cylinder usually splits neatly on that axis, the
failure going through aggregate as well as mortar. Ten-
sile strength is computed as
2P
1rLD
where
fs splitting tensile stress, psi (or MPa)
P total load at failure, lb (or N)
L length of cylinder, in. (or mm)
D diameter of cylinder, in. (or mm)
Any surface cracks caused by shrinkage are likely to
be in the compression region and are not likely to af-
fect the behavior of the concrete in the tensile region.
Hence, the splitting tension test will not be affected by
surface drying and should give the actual tensile
'i.t"l:ewe,th (}{ the C.(}\\C."I:ete.
Flexural test
Now consider the bending test, standardized by
ASTM as ASTM C 78, Standard Test Method for
Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam
With Third-Point Loading). 9 Looking back at Fig. 1
which shows test results of modulus of rupture and
tension tests plotted against the compressive strength of
concrete, the modulus of rupture is clearly seen to be 30
to 50 percent higher than the tensile strength for all
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
 500

P/2 ~P/2

I
'E
0

'
01
P/2 I--L13----L~3----Lt3---l P/2
~
;;; 300
a.
I MODULUS OF RUPTURE
rn
rn
UJ
a:
\ii
~ (15)
.333d
Vi 200
zUJ 287d
1-
213 d
(10)

STRAIN DISTRIBUTION STRESS DISTRIBUTION

QL-----l..._ ___L__ __;L__ _ j __ _...L__
25 50 75 100 125
MICROSTRAINS
Fig. 4-Stress-strain diagrams for tensile failure
compressive strengths. Both tests measure tensile
strength, so why the discrepancy?
The modulus of rupture is measured by a derivation
of the beam equation f = Mel I. In the case of third-
point loading, which is the loading usually employed
j,.
where
j,. modulus of rupture, psi (or MPa)
p load at failure, pounds (or N)
L span length, in. (or mm)
b width of beam, in. (or mm)
d depth of beam, in. (or mm)
This is an equation derived from elastic theory, as-
suming elastic behavior of concrete to the point of fail-
ure. This is far from the actual state of affairs at the
time of the failure of the concrete beam.
Fig. 4 shows nine stress-strain diagrams for tensile
failure tests of concrete cores from three dams. While
the scales differ by a factor of ten, there is marked
similarity in the shape of the curves to the familiar
stress-strain diagram for compression of concrete. No
diagram is linear to failure, but all are marked by grad-
ually increasing deformations above 50 percent of their
respective tensile strengths. What is needed for flexural
failure is an equation representing the actual failure
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
___.J_ __ J Fig. 5-Flexural failure of a rectangular concrete beam
150
mode in concrete, not the elastic mode. Such an equa-
tion will now be derived.
Fig. 5 shows the general conditions of the third-point
flexural loading test for modulus of rupture, and the
variation of strain over the depth of the beam in the
highly stressed midsection, straight line all the way to
failure. The stress distribution varies linearly in the
compression region of the beam and reflects the stress-
strain diagram for that particular concrete in the tensile
region. This is because the beam is failing in the tensile
region but is stressed to a fraction of its ultimate
strength in the compressive region. The actual shape of
the tensile stress-strain curve reflects to some extent the
strength of the concrete, since stress-strain curves for
higher strength concretes seem to have sharper crests
than for lower strength concretes. Thus, the magnitude
and position of the resultant tensile force will vary
slightly with individual concretes.
While many attempts have been made to quantify the
magniture and position of the resultant force under the
curved stress diagram, the simple rectangular stress
diagram proposed by Whitney'' in 1937 has gained
widest acceptance, at least in the United States.' 5 16
Thus, as a first approximation to evaluating the maxi-
mum tensile stress at failure, assume that the neutral
axis remains at the centroid of the section, as is as-
sumed when computing the modulus of rupture under
elastic conditions, and replace the curvilinear tensile
stress diagram by a simple rectangular stress diagram
with the same dimensional constraints proposed by
Whitney. The magnitude of tensile stress in the stress
block is 0.85 J;, where J; is the maximum tensile stress,
and this block extends over only 85 percent of the ten-
sile region. The magnitude of the tensile force can be
161
 . . .. ,
~ BOO : ;w(. ..
N' 1401 ""'
c>
..:.. . .. ""
.. ::.
E -~ (50)
.f"
0

'Jf 500 w
a:
' 700
"\..
:.:
,
: -:
.,
I
..
. . .~~
.
.. .. ... . ,..-: .-.
:::>
.
in f
f-
';"- (30) a.
I
t-
400 :::>
a: . II
~~

(.!)
z
w
lL.
0
ci 500 ...
: ~ ...
... :
.......
. ... .
a: 300
t; (20) 0
:::;: '\
a:
. .
... ..
w (30)
.J 0 400
(f)
z I
t-
w o TENSILE STRENGTH (.!)
t-
100 3/4 MODULUS OF RUPTURE
z
l;:!
t-
300
(20) .. GONNERMAN a SHUMAN
WALKER a BLOEM
(f) HOUK
0 L_--~~--~--_LL__ __L~--~--l_L__ __
w 200 GRIEB a WERNER
::::!
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 (f)
(100) (200) (300) (400) z (10)
:
w
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- psi (kg/cm 2 ) t- 100

0 ~---L~--~--_LL__ __ L J __ _~--~----~

Fig. 6- Tensile strength versus compressive strength by 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
(100) (200) (300) (400)
two types of test
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- psi (kg/C:TT\2)_

Fig. 7-Modulus of rupture versus compressive

evaluated as T = 0.85 ft x b x 0.425 d = 0.361 ftbd.
The length of arm is 0.333 d + 0.287 d = 0.620 d.
Thus, the internal moment isM = 0.361 ftbd x 0.62 d
= 0.224 ftbd or ft = 4.46 mlbd
2 2
Since
p mum number of tests will fall below the chosen equa-
L PL
M --
X -
2 3
4.46 PL
----
!t
6 bd 2
For the elastic case, as was stated above
In a second approximation for determining the ft!f,
ratio, the neutral axis was allowed to move upward un-
til the tensile and compressive forces were in balance.
For this case, a similar analysis showed that ft = 0.73
f,.
Comparing these equations, it can be seen that ten-
sile strength can be measured in a flexural test, but its
value is about three-fourths of the modulus of rupture,
which is the value derived by the elastic analysis of the
data. With this in mind, Fig. 6 has been redrawn from
Fig. 1 with hollow dots representing tensile strength
measured by the tension test, and solid dots represent-
ing tensile strength as three-fourths the results of the
modulus of rupture tests. It can be seen that the two
families of data merge to a fairly consistent pattern.
162
strength
Equations of curves
When fitting a mathematical function to experimen-
tal data with a wide distribution as in typical concrete
experiments, one has the choice of working either with
the average or choosing a safe value such that a mini-
- tion. In this paper, averages are used for two reasons.
6 In setting the strength of concrete for new construc-
tion, the distribution of test values above and below the
PL mean is taken into account by the concrete mix de-
0.744
bd 2 signer when he sets the average mix strength higher
than the required design strength by a factor depending
on expected quality control. Therefore, to use the safe
value here would compound safety factors. When ana-
lyzing existing structures, average strength and elastic
properties are assumed. Since most concrete structures
are highly indeterminate, any local weakness in the
concrete will be reflected in lower elastic modulus and
lower stress, and vice versa, so the stresses tend to av-
erage out.
The values of modulus of rupture are plotted against
compressive strength for all four sets of data in Fig. 7.
It can be seen that they all merge into one consistent
family of data. A curve that fits these data can be ex-
pressed as
f, 2.3 f/ 13 in psi
and
j, = 0. 95 f/ 13 in kg/ cm 2
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
 Fig. 8 is a plot of tensile strength versus compressive 700
strength for the Walker and Bloem, the Grieb and
Werner, and the Houk data. The Gonnerman and Shu- 600
man data were not plotted because of failure in experi- ;::; (401
E
mental techniques previously described. An equation 0
~ 500
that relates these tensile and compressive tests is ""'
;;;
a. (301
}; = I. 7 f/ in psi
13
~ 400
t-
(.!)
z
and ~ 300
t- (201 go
rn 0 6 0

w
}; = 0.7 j}13 in kg/cm2 ~ 200
z o WALKER S BLOEM
~ (101
It must, therefore, be concluded that direct tensile 6 HOUK

tests are very sensitive to technique in both testing and 100 o GRIEB S WERNER

care of the specimens. The splitting tension test is most

forgiving of slight periods of drying during preparation
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
of specimens for test, seems least dependent on testing (1001 12001 (3001 (4001

technique, and gives reproducible results from a variety
of laboratories.
Dynamic loading
A number of authors have shown that the apparent
compressive strength of concrete varies with the speed
of testing; the faster the test, the greater the load re-
quired to break a concrete cylinder. Perhaps the most
comprehensive series of tests were Hatano's 13 14 in which
concretes were tested to failure in tension and compres-
sion at a number of speeds ranging from a few hun-
dredths of a second to hundreds of seconds. In all
cases, increasing the speed of loading resulted in in-
creases in both strength and elastic modulus. This fac-
tor seems to be more marked in tension tests than in
compression tests.
When the advent of the computer made it possible to
perform dynamic finite element analyses of the behav-
ior of dams during earthquakes, concrete testing was
modified to reflect the actual speed with which con-
crete in a dam could be stressed from zero to maximum
stress.
If a dam were to vibrate at, say 5 Hz, a complete
stress cycle would last only one-fifth of a second, and
concrete would reach its maximum stress in one-fourth
of a cycle, say 0.05 seconds. Testing machines are
available that can load specimens at this rate, and re-
cording oscillographs are used to record stress-strain
diagrams for these rapid tests. Table I shows some re-
sults of tests of cores from five western dams. It can be
seen that the rate of loading characteristic of an earth-
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- psi (kg/cm2)
Fig. 8- Tensile strength versus compressive strength
quake increases compressive strength an average of 31
percent and increases tensile strength an average of 56
percent. These values can be compared with the 33 per-
cent commonly allowed for earthquake loadings by
most American building codes. 15 16
Tensile strength to be used in structural analysis
We now come to the heart of the matter: What ten-
sile strength should be ascribed to mass concrete
stressed in tension under a seismic load? It has been
shown that direct tension tests can be in error by as
much as 50 percent if the cores are not treated very
carefully and kept from drying. Splitting tension tests
are the least subject to modification due to storage
problems. If we are interested in knowing the true ten-
sile strength of concrete, the values from the splitting
tension test are the most reliable.
The next question that arises is: Is this what we need
to compare with the tensile stresses in the dam pro-
duced by the computer? To answer this question re-
quires considering the actual method by which the
maximum stresses in the dam are computed.
Present day stress analyses are nearly all some var-
iant of the finite element method and, for practicabil-
ity, assume a constant modulus of elasticity. The actual
operation of the method involves a strain analysis, since
compatibility of deformation of the individual ele-

Table 1 - Effect of speed of loading on strength

, Direct tensile Splitting tensile Compressive
strength, psi strength, psi strength, psi
Dam Slow Fast Factor Slow Fast Factor Slow Fast Factor
Crystal Springs 203 337 1.66 490 640 1.31 4500 5930 1.32
Big Tujunga A 139 225 1.62 440 - - 3540 4070 1.15
Big Tujunga B 217 397 1.83 5320 5970 1.12
Santa Anita 224 373 1.53 440 650 1.48 4520 5810 1.29
Juncal 462 723 1.56 4420 6740 1.52
Morris 474 694 1.46 5290 7780 1.47
Average 1.66 1.45 1.31
Grand average all tensile factors = 1.56.

ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984 163

 APPARENT
MODULUS OF TENSILE
RUPTURE STRENGTH NE {120)
A ~ 1600 3.4 fc213

="'
01
.><;

(100)
a.
TENSILE I 1200 2.6
I (80)
STRENGTH f- 2.3
(.!)
zw (60)
0:: BOO 1.7
f-
en en
en ~ (40)
w
a: ~ 400
1-
en w
f-

0 2000 4000 6000 6000 10,000

I
(100) (2001 (300) (400) (500) (600)
2
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- psi (kg/cm )

Fig. 10-Design chart for tensile strength

der seismic loading should be the value determined as

STRAIN
Fig. 9-Apparent tensile strength
ments is the key to the analysis. When equilibrium of
forces and deformation is attained, the strains are con-
verted to stress through the elastic modulus.
The important point in concrete dam analysis is that
a linear analysis is being used on a material that be-
haves nonlinearly. As shown in Fig. 9, the linear anal-
ysis will predict stress A at failure, whereas the mate-
rial for the same strain will only be stressed to B. The
Bureau of Reclamation, 1980, 17 postulated a conver-
sion factor based on observed ratios of A to B of 1.20.
This factor has been used in a number of analyses in
setting required concrete strength from computed
maximum tensile stresses. Observed values of tensile
strength augmented by the factor have been termed by
Dungar , 1981, 18 "Apparent Tensile Strength" and
compared directly with tensile stresses computed in
stress analyses.
An experimental method exists by which this appar-
ent tensile strength can be measured directly and accu-
rately. Use of the flexural test, together with its usual
linearly derived modulus of rupture, accomplishes this.
This is essentially a test to failure dictated by the tensile
strength of the concrete but with the strength com-
puted as though the material were elastic, exactly the
conditions of the finite element analysis. This direct
measurement cuts through all the uncertainties of the
relationship between tensile and compressive strength,
and the appropriate multiplier to take care of the non-
linearity of the material. The test can be performed on
cores as well as prisms if reasonable care is taken to
prevent drying out of the cores during transportation.
Thus, it is recommended that the tensile strength of
concrete for judging the safety of a concrete dam un-
164
modulus of rupture, augmented by the multiplier found
appropriate by dynamic tensile tests, or about 1.5.
Fig. I 0 presents four recommended plots of tensile
strength as a function of compressive strength, to be
used depending on need. The lowest plot J; = 1. 7 f/ 13
represents actual tensile strength under longtime or
static loading. The second plot j,. = 2.3 fc 213 is also for
static loading, but takes into account the nonlinearity
of concrete, and is to be used with finite analyses. The
third plot J; = 2.6 fc 213 is the actual tensile strength of
the concrete under seismic loading, and the highest plot
j,. = 3.4 f/ 13 is the apparent tensile strength under seis-
mic loading that should be used with linear finite ele-
ment analyses.
Conclusions
1. Tensile strength of concrete is a constant quantity
that can be measured by three types of tests if care is
taken handling specimens and allowance is made for
the mode of failure.
2. Direct tension test is difficult to accomplish and is
subject to large errors if the specimen is allowed to sur-
face dry.
3. The splitting tension test is easiest to accomplish
and gives the most reliable results.
4. The modulus of rupture test gives consistent re-
sults in a variety of laboratories and gives the value that
can be used directly with results of a finite element
analysis.
5. Tensile strength can be computed from modulus
of rupture by multiplying by a factor which takes into
account the shape of the specimen and the mode of
failure. The factor is 3/4 for rectangular cross sections.
6. All values of tensile strength should be increased
by 50 percent when used with seismic loadings.
7. The apparent tensile strength of concrete under
seismic loading is twice its splitting tensile strength un-
der normal loading.
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
 REFERENCES
1. Chakrabarti, P., and Chopra, A. K., "Earthquake Analysis of
Gravity Dams Including Hydrodynamic Interaction," International
Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, V. 2,
1973, pp. 143-160.
2. Clough, R. W.; Raphael, J. M.; and Mojtahedi, S., "ADAP-
A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Analysis of Arch
Dams," Report No. EERC 73-14, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, June 1973, 170 pp.
3. Gonnerman, H. F., and Shuman, E. C., "Compression, Flex-
ural and Tension Tests of Plain Concrete," Proceedings, ASTM, V.
28, Part II, 1928, pp. 527-564.
4. Walker, Stanton, and Bloem, Delmar L., "Effects of Aggregate
Size on Properties of Concrete," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 57,
No. 3, Sept. 1960, pp. 283-298.
5. Grieb, W. E., and Werner, G., "Comparison of the Splitting
Tensile Strength of Concrete with Flexural and Compressive
Strengths," Public Roads, V. 32, No.5, Dec. 1962, pp. 97-106.
6. "Concrete Aggregate and Concrete Properties Investigations,
Dworshak Dam and Reservoir," Design Memorandum No. 16, U.S.
Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 1965, pp. 203-212.
7. "Cooling of Concrete Dams," Bulletin No. 3, Final Reports,
Boulder Canyon Project-Part VII, Cement and Concrete Investiga-
tions, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1949, p. 73.
8. Carlson, Roy W., "Drying Shrinkage of Large Concrete Mem-
bers," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 33, No.3, Jan.-Feb. 1937, pp.
327-336.
9. "Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Us-
ing Simple Beam With Third-Point Loading)," (ASTM C 78-75),
1981 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 14, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 38-44.
ACI JOURNAL I March-April 1984
10. Carneiro, Fernando L. L. B., and Barcellos, Aguinaldo,
"Tensile Strength of Concretes," RILEM Bulletin (Paris), No. 13,
Mar. 1952, pp. 97-127.
11. Whitney, Charles S., "Design of Reinforced Concrete Mem-
bers Under Flexure or Combined Flexural and Direct Compression,"
ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 33, No. 4, Mar.-Apr. 1937, pp. 483-
498.
12. Kupfer, Helmut; Hilsdorf, Hubert K.; and Riisch, Hubert,
"Behavior of Concrete Under Biaxial Stresses," ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 66, No.8, Aug. 1969, pp. 656-666.
13. Hatano, T., and Tsutsumi, H., "Dynamic Compressive Defor-
mation and Failure of Concrete Under Earthquake Load," Technical
Report No. C-5904, Technical Laboratory of the Central Research
Institute of the Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, Sept. 30, 1959, 30
pp.
14. Hatano, T., "Dynamic Behavior of Concrete Under Impulsive
Tensile Load," Technical Report No. C-6002, Technical Laboratory
of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo,
Nov. 5, 1960, 15 pp.
15. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, 1982, p. 125.
16. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-77), American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1977, p. 29.
17. "Feasibility Design Summary, Auburn Dam, Concrete Curved-
Gravity Dam Alternative (CG-3)," 'Water and Power Resources Ser-
vice, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Aug. 1980, p. 26.
18. Dungar, R., "El Cajon Hydroelectric Power Plant, Arch Dam
Final Design, Static and Dynamic Stress Analysis," Motor Colum-
bus Consulting Engineers, Baden, May 1981, p. 25.
165