ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 111-S68

Stress-Strain Model for Various Unconfined Concretes

inCompression
by Keun-Hyeok Yang, Ju-Hyun Mun, Myung-Sug Cho, and Thomas H.-K. Kang
This study aims to develop a simple and rational stress-strain
model that is applicable to unconfined concretes in compression,
covering a wide range of compressive strengths between 10and
180MPa (1.5 and 26.1 ksi) and concrete densities between
1200and 4500kg/m3 (75 and 280 lb/ft3). In developing the stressstrain model, the modulus of elasticity, the strain at peak stress,
and the strain at 50% of the peak stress on the descending branch
were formulated using regression analysis of 3295, 415, and 96
data points, respectively. Numerical and statistical analyses were
then performed to derive equations for the key parameter determining the shapes of the ascending and descending branches of
the stress-strain curves. The reliability of the developed model
was confirmed by comparisons with actual stress-strain curves
obtained from 100specimens with different compressive strengths
and densities. On the other hand, other existing models were shown
to have limitations for use on lightweight concrete, heavyweight
concrete, and high-strength concrete.
Keywords: compressive strength; density; modulus of elasticity; stressstrain model.

INTRODUCTION
The stress-strain relationship of plain, unconfined concrete
in compression is essential for the analysis of structural
elements. The stress-strain relationship is generally known
to depend on several interrelated test parameters such as the
water-cement ratio, type of binder(s), aggregate properties,
mixture proportions, and rate of loading.1 The post-peak
branch of the stress-strain curve is also affected by testing
conditions, including frictional restraint between the platens
and the specimen, rotation of the spherically-seated platen,
and testing machine stiffness.2,3 A mathematical model
needs to be formulated such that the stress-strain curves
obtained under various conditions can be estimated. The
previous models,1-13 however, have been developed based
only on limited experimental data.
Existing stress-strain models1-11 generally used the basic
expression established by Popovics12 or Sargin et al.13 and
empirically determined the constants in the basic expression.
Some models2,8 consist of separate nonlinear equations for
the ascending and descending branches. The characteristics
of these models differ slightly, particularly in the descending
branch of the curve, and model applicability is limited by
the range of the test data used to establish the empirical
constants. For example, the slope of the descending branch
in Tasnimis model,11 which is similar to Popovics model,
is not accurate if compressive strength fc is greater than
60MPa (8.7 ksi). Additionally, most of the recent models2-10
were developed for normalweight concrete (NWC). The
slopes of the ascending and descending branches are
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

affected significantly by the concrete density wc. Lightweight concrete (LWC) has a lower modulus of elasticity Ec
and a steeper descending branch,11 whereas the heavyweight
concrete (HWC) has a higher Ec and a smaller strain 0 at
the peak stress.14 Hence, a more sophisticated model needs
to be investigated to overcome the limitations of existing
models, expand the application range, and increase prediction accuracy.
The present study aims to propose a simple and rational
model for nonlinear stress-strain curves of unconfined
concretes in compression with a wide range of fc and wc.
For this model, a key parameter that determines the slopes of
the ascending and descending branches is formulated using
a parametric numerical analysis, where different material
properties are considered, including the modulus of elasticity and secant modulus joining the origin and the 0.5fc
point after the peak stress. For the material properties used
to define the stress-strain relationship, a regression analysis
is performed on an extensive amount of test data collected
from a wide variety of concrete specimens. The reliability of
the developed model is examined using a normalized rootmean-square error obtained from a comparison of model
estimates with the experimental data. Finally, the existing
empirical models1,2,4,6,9 are reviewed and compared with the
developed model.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
While most of the previous stress-strain models were
empirically developed based on limited NWC data, a simple
model has been developed that consistently predicts the
stress-strain relationship of unconfined concrete with fc
varying from 10 to 180 MPa (1.5 to 26.1 ksi), and wc varying
from 1200 to 4500 kg/m3 (75 to 280 lb/ft3). A comparison
with an extensive dataset composed of 3806 individual
results has verified that the model reproduces the experimental stress-strain curves of the specimens with a wide
range of fc and wc values quite effectively, and reveals a
decreasing rate of increase of Ec with increasing wc, especially for wc values larger than 2500 kg/m3 (156 lb/ft3).
MATHEMATICAL EQUATION FOR STRESSSTRAINCURVES
The shape of a compressive stress-strain curve of concrete
is generally characterized as a parabola with its vertex at
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 4, July-August 2014.
MS No. S-2012-369.R2, doi: 10.14359/51686631, was received July 7, 2013, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2014, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
is received within four months of the papers print publication.

819

the peak stress. This physically means that the tangential

modulus of elasticity Et has maximum value at the origin,
gradually decreases to zero at the peak stress, and becomes
negative in the descending branch of the curve (Fig. 1). In
this study, the same assumption and the following nonlinear
equation4,11 were applied in generating a complete curve
y=

3 x
(1)
x + 1
2

where y = fc/fc is the normalized stress; x = c/0 is the

normalized strain; and fc is the concrete stress corresponding
to strain c. The physical meaning of the equation gives the
following boundary conditions: 1) y = 0 for x = 0, representing the origin; 2) y = 1 for x = 1, representing the peak
stress; and 3) dfc/dc = Et = 0 for x = 1 at the peak point. From
the first and second conditions, it can be said that 1 should
not be zero, and 3 is equal to 1 + 1. The tangential modulus
at a point, d(fc)/d(c), is as follows
Et =

(
(

dfc
f (1 + 1) x 2 + 1 2 x 2
= c
(2)
2
dc 0
x 2 + 1

The third boundary condition and Eq. (2) show that 2 is

equal to 1 + 1. Therefore, the stress-strain curve of concrete
can be expressed in the following basic form with the key
parameter 1
y=

(1 + 1) x
x 1 +1 + 1

(3)

Note that the slopes of the ascending and descending

branches of the curve depend on the value of 1; however,
the value of 1 differs for each branch. To determine the
slope of the ascending branch, Ec can be regarded as a
more adequate reference parameter than the initial tangent
modulus Eti because of the lack of available test data for
Eti. In general, Ec is defined as the slope of the line joining
the origin and 40% of the peak strength.15 Substituting the
defined Ec into Eq. (3) gives the following equation for the
key parameter 1 of the ascending branch

0.4 ( X a ) 1 + ( 0.4 X a ) 1 X a = 0 for c 0 (4)

+1

where Xa = 0.4fc/Ece0.
In contrast to the ascending branch slope, there is no
consensus on the reference point to determine the slope of
the descending branch. Although some studies11 have used
an inflection point as a reference, it is difficult to identify
the location of the inflection point. Van Gysel and Taerwe8
employed the secant modulus joining the origin and 50% of
the peak stress to derive the descending branch slope. Furthermore, CEB-FIP16 describes the descending branch only up to
0.5fc considering the uncertainty of the descending branch
beyond the 0.5fc point. In light of these, as presented in
Fig.1, the present study selected the secant modulus at 0.5fc
820

Fig. 1Generalization of compressive stress-strain curve

ofconcrete.
as a reference point for evaluating the descending branch
slope, and formulated an equation for the key parameter 1
defining the descending branch as follows
(Xd)1+1 + (1 2Xd)1 2Xd = 0 for c > 0 (5)
where Xd = 0.5/0, and 0.5 is the strain corresponding to 0.5fc
after the peak stress (Fig. 1). The values of 1 in nonlinear
Eq. (4) and (5) can be calculated via numerical analysis,
such as the Newton-Raphson method, using the given values
of fc and wc. Herein, the material properties of Ec, 0, and
0.5 are assumed to be functions of fc and wc, as detailed in
the following subsections. To empirically formulate the relationships for the material properties, separate databases,14
including a total of 3295, 415 and 96 datasets for Ec, 0, and
0.5, respectively, were used (Fig. 2).
Modulus of elasticity Ec
The empirical formulation for Ec was based on 2680datasets for NWC, 370 datasets for LWC with wc ranging from
1200 to 2000 kg/m3 (75 to 125 lb/ft3), and 245 datasets for
HWC with wc ranging from 2500 to 4500 kg/m3 (156 to
280lb/ft3). In the datasets, the actual compressive strength
fcu of concrete varied between 8.4 and 170 MPa (1.2 and
24.7ksi) for NWC, between 11 and 126 MPa (1.6 and
18.3ksi) for LWC, and between 20 and 162 MPa (2.9 and
23.5 ksi) for HWC (Fig. 2). When the mixture proportions or
density were not available, the wc of NWC (145 specimens)
was assumed to be 2300 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3). For LWC and
HWC, the data included such details.
Noguchi et al.17 reported that Ec can be expressed as a
function of fc and wc, and included correction factors to
account for the effects of aggregate type and presence of
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Because the
compiled experimental data for this study include various
unusual aggregates such as artificial lightweight aggregates
and heavyweight magnetite particles, however, a correction
factor for aggregate type was not considered for simplicity.
Furthermore, the correction factor for SCMs can be implicitly included when the empirical constants are obtained from
regression analysis, resulting in negligible errors. In this
study, a lower increasing rate in Ec than in fc was considered
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

Fig. 3Relationship between Ec /(fcu)1/3 and density wc.

(Note: 1000 kg/m3 = 62.4lb/ft3.)

Fig. 2Frequency distribution of main parameters in separate databases. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1000 kg/m3 =
62.4lb/ft3.)
by using a power function of fc, as shown in the following
basic formula for Ec
Ec = A1(fc)a(wc/w0)b (MPa)

(6)

where w0 = 2300 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) is a reference value for

the concrete density. Most of the previous regression analyses
on concrete data were conducted with wc values below
2500kg/m3 (156 lb/ft3), and thus the best-fit values of the
powers a and b in Eq. (6) were obtained to be between 0.3 and
0.5 and between 1.5 and 2.0, respectively.17 These values,
however, are not proper for many cases. For example, the rate
of increase of Ec, normalized by (fc)1/3, with increasing wc is
gradually reduced, particularly for wc greater than 2500kg/m3
(156 lb/ft3), as shown in Fig. 3. This indicates that the equation specified in ACI 318-11,18 which is applicable only for
wc between 1440 and 2560 kg/m3 (90and 160lb/ft3), would
overestimate Ec of the HWC. From the regression analysis
of the concrete test data that include a compressive strength
range of 8.4 to 170 MPa (1.2to 24.7ksi) and wc range of
1200 to 4500 kg/m3 (75 to 280 lb/ft3), the best-fit values of
A1, a, and b in Eq. (6) were 8470 (or 234 for ksi units), 1/3,
and 1.17, respectively (Fig. 4). The value of b was much
lower than the value obtained by Noguchi et al.17 when both
the HWC and NWC data were used.
Strains at peak stress 0 and at 50% of peak stress
of descending branch 0.5
To arrive at simple closed-form equations for 0 and 0.5,
nonlinear regression analyses were conducted to identify
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

Fig. 4Regression analysis for Ec. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

influencing parameters and find the best-fit constants used in
the nonlinear equations until an acceptable correlation coefficient R2 was obtained. The numbers available for LWC,
NWC, and HWC datasets were 76, 268, and 95, respectively,
for 0; and 12, 72, and 24, respectively, for 0.5. Although
considerably fewer datasets were used compared with those
for Ec, they covered wide ranges of concrete compressive
strength and wc, as shown in Fig. 2. Because the test data
were collected from different sources, large scatter of data
points was inevitable. Moreover, no information was available on important influencing parameters such as the type,
strength, and elastic modulus of the aggregates and the
mixture proportions.
For the most part, the existing equations for 0 have been
developed empirically only as a function of fc using limited
NWC test data (Table 1); however, none of these equations
are applicable to HWC and LWC, although Alusallam and
Alsayeds equation1 extends to the case of LWC, as illustrated in Table 1 and Fig. 5. The models by Alusallam and
Alsayed1 and Hsu and Hsu6 overestimate the experimental
values of 0 substantially for concrete compressive strength
greater than 80 MPa (11.6 ksi). Only the model by Lu and
Zhao2 estimates the 0 values of NWC reasonably well, but
not for HWC and LWC.
The general trend for the ascending branch of the stressstrain curve was that the rate of increase in strain decreases
as fc and wc increase. On the other hand, the general trend
821

Table 1Summary of existing models

Researcher

Compressive stress-strain relationship of concrete

fc =

Almusallam and
Alsayed1

Lu and Zhao2

Carreira and Chu4

Hsu and Hsu

Wee et al.9

{(

(E

K p c

1 + E K / f
c
p
c
0

n 1/ n

+ K p c ; n =

1 f 0
ln 2
; f1 = fc[2(1/0) (1/0)2]; 1 =
;
Ec K p
ln f1 / f0 K p / Ec K p

For NWC
1 = 1.0; f0 = 5.6 + 1.02fc Kp0; Ec = 3320 fc + 6900 ; 0 = (0.2fc + 13.06) 104; Kp = 5470 375fc for fc 55 MPa;
Kp = 16,398.23 676.82fc for fc > 55 MPa;
For LWC
1 = 0.65; f0 = 19.1 + 1.3fc Kp0; Ec = 180.9fc + 7770.7; 0 = (0.398fc + 18.147) 104; Kp = 1374.5 871.1fc for fc > 15 MPa.
fc
(E / E ) x x2
fc = fc it 0
1.5 for c > L;
for c L; fc =
1 + 0.25 ( x 1) / ( L / 0 1)
1 + ( Eit / E0 2) x
2

x = c/0; L = 0 ( 0.1Eit / E0 + 0.8) + ( 0.1Eti / E0 + 0.8) 0.8 ; E0 = fc/0; Eti = 21,500 E (fc/10)1/3;
0 = 700(fc)0.31 106; E = 1.2 for basalt and dense limestone, 1.0 for quartzitic aggregates, 0.9 for limestone, and 0.7 for sandstone.

fc = fcx / ( 1 + x); Ec = 0.0736wc1.51(fc)0.3; 0 = (0.71fc + 168) 105; = (fc/ 32.4)3 + 1.55

fc = n fcx/(n 1 + xn) for c d; fc = 0.3fc exp[0.8(x d/0)0.5] for c > d;
= (fc/ 65.23)3 + 2.59 1.0; Eti = 124.31fc + 22,653; 0 = (0.0129fc + 2.114) 103; d = strain at 0.3fc after peak stress;
For 0 c 0, n = 1;
For 0 < c d, n = 1 if 0 < fc < 62 MPa, n = 2 if 62 fc < 76 MPa, n = 3 if 76 fc < 90 MPa, and n = 5 if fc 90 MPa.
fc = k1 fcx/[k1 1 + xk2]; 0 = 780(fc)1/4 106; Eti = 10,200(fc)1/3; = 1/(1 E0/Eti) 0;
For 0 c 0, k1 = k2 = 1;
For 0 < c, k1 = (50/fc)3 1; k2 = (50/fc)1.3 1.

Note: In aforementioned formulas, all dimensions are in SI units (fc is in MPa; 1 MPa = 145 psi).

for the descending branch was that the rate of stress drop
increases as fc increases and/or wc decreases, and that 0.5 is
smaller for high-strength concrete and lightweight concrete.
These trends were revealed from regression analyses of
the datasets used for this study (refer to Fig. 6 for 0, and
Fig.7 for 0.5). As a result, the following best-fit equations
weredeveloped

0 = 0.0016exp[240(fc/Ec)] (7)

0.5 = 0.0035exp[1.2{(f0/fc)(wc/w0)}1.75] (8)

where f0 = 10 MPa (1.5 ksi) is a reference value for the

concrete compressive strength, and Ec is given by Eq. (6).
Key parameter 1
An extensive, analytical parametric study was conducted
to formulate the key parameter 1, which determines the
slopes of the ascending and descending branches. First, the
equations for Ec, 0, and 0.5 (Eq. (6) to (8)) derived in the
preceding subsections were substituted into Eq. (4) and (5).
These two nonlinear equations, which incorporate fc and wc,
were then solved for 1 using the Newton-Raphson method.
In the analytical parametric study, the ranges of the variables fc and wc were selected to be between 10 and 180 MPa
(1.5and 26.1 ksi), and between 1200 and 4500 kg/m3 (75and
280 lb/ft3), respectively. Finally, based on the analytically
obtained results, a statistical optimization was carried out,
as shown in Fig. 8, to derive the following best-fit equations
for 1: Eq. (9) for the ascending branch, and Eq. (10) for the
descending branch.

822

1 = 0.2exp(0.73) for c 0 (9)

1 = 0.41exp(0.77) for c > 0 (10)

where is equal to (fc/f0)0.67 (w0/wc)1.17, which was introduced to simplify the 1 equations. The reference values
of f0 and w0 are equal to 10 MPa (1.5 ksi) and 2300 kg/m3
(144lb/ft3), respectively.
In summary, a stress-strain relationship model for various
unconfined concretes in compression is proposed as follows

(1 + 1) c
0

fc =
1 +1
fc (11)
c
+ 1
0

where c is the strain (variable); 0 is given by Eq. (7); and

1 is given by Eq. (9) or (10). It should be noted that the
size effect on the descending branch is not considered in
the present model, because all datasets were compiled from
cylinder specimens with 100 or 200 mm (4 or 8 in.) diameter
and aspect ratio of 2.0.
COMPARISONS WITH TEST RESULTS
A total of 100 datasets for uniaxial stress-strain curves
measured from cylinder specimens were compiled from the
available literature.1,4-7,9,14,19-29 Of these, 17 specimens were
made of LWC with fcu between 18 and 89.5 MPa (2.6 and
13.3ksi), 57 were made of NWC with fcu between 14.7 and
145 MPa (2.1 and 21.0 ksi), and 26 were made of HWC with
fcu between 25 and 50.5 MPa (3.6 and 7.3 ksi). Using the
experimental data, a direct comparison was made between
estimates obtained with the developed model and the previous
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

Fig. 5Comparisons of experimental 0 and previous

prediction equations for 0. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 6Regression analysis for 0.

five models summarized in Table 1. Figure 9 shows selected
comparisons of the predicted to measured curves7,14,19-22,24
for 10 experimental stress-strain curves that span the various
values of concrete compressive strength and density. The
curves for the comparisons were selected to cover different
strength categories (low, medium, and high strength) in each
concrete type, wherever possible. Table 2 summarizes the
normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE) calculated
for each stress-strain curve, where the NRMSE is defined
in the note of Table 2. The mean e,m and standard deviation
e,s of the NRMSEs for the groups divided according to the
type and strength of the concrete were compared along with
the direct comparisons of the stress-strain curves shown in
Fig.9. Important findings that emerged from the comparisons are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Almusallam and Alsayed1 proposed stress-strain curves of
different types of concrete by using different parameters for
the initial and final slopes of the curve and the curve-shape
factor. For the initial slope of the curve, they modified Ec in
the ACI equation for NWC, and the equations proposed by
Wang et al.19 for LWC. For the final slope of the curve and
0 value, Almusallam and Alsayed performed a regression
analysis on limited test data (17 specimens). Although this
model considers the characteristics of normal, high-strength,
and lightweight concrete, its accuracy fluctuates considerably depending on concrete compressive strength and wc
(Fig. 9(a)), in terms of the following: 1) the predicted slope
for the ascending branch is generally lower than experiACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

Fig. 7Regression analysis for 0.5. (Note: 1 MPa = 145psi;

1000 kg/m3 = 62.4lb/ft3.)

Fig. 8Best-fit equation for key parameter 1 obtained from

numerical analysis of datasets. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi;
1000 kg/m3 = 62.4lb/ft3.)
mental observations for LWC and HWC; 2) for NWC with
a very low or very high strength, the equation overestimates
the stress in the descending branch; and 3) the equation of
0 for NWC and LWC generally overestimates the experimental values for HWC and high-strength concrete (Fig. 5).
Lu and Zhao2 modified the descending branch of the curve
proposed by Van Gysel and Taerwe,8 which was originally
derived using the basic formula of Sargin et al.13 Because
the factors used to fit the curve were determined based on
the NWC data, the predicted stress for the ascending branch
is generally higher than the experimental LWC data, and
slightly lower than the HWC data (Fig. 9(b)). The equation for 0 is inconsistent with the test results with various
concrete densities. Furthermore, this model overestimates the
decreasing rate of stress in the descending branch for NWC,
with an compressive strength value greater than approximately 80 MPa (11.6 ksi). The value of e,m determined from
this model is higher for LWC than for NWC (Table 2).
Carreira and Chu4 estimated the factors in the basic
formula proposed by Popovics12 using limited NWC data.
Similar trends to those of Lu and Zhaos model2 are observed
(Fig. 9(c)), although lower stress values are noted in both
the ascending and descending branches. Most notably, this
model does not adequately represent the descending branch
for high-strength concrete. Table 2 shows that overall the
823

Fig. 9Typical comparisons of predicted stress-strain curves with experimental results. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1000 kg/m3
= 62.4lb/ft3.)
mean e,m and standard deviation e,s are higher than the other
previous models.
Hsu and Hsu6 introduced a correction factor n for the
descending branch of the basic formula proposed by Popovics12; however, this model gives higher stress values in
the descending branch, regardless of concrete strength and
density, compared with Carreira and Chus model.4 Moreover, Hsu and Hsus model6 gives lower stresses in the
ascending branch than those by the other models if wc is
larger than 2300 kg/m3 (143.5 lb/ft3). The overall prediction
trend is similar to that observed in Lu and Zhaos model2
(Table 2 and Fig. 9(b) and (d)).
Wee et al.9 modified Carreira and Chus model4 using
the same test data that Carreira and Chu used. Although
the overall accuracy is improved compared with Carreira
and Chus model,4 disagreement between the predicted and
measured values still exists for high-strength concrete, and
is even larger for LWC (Fig. 9(e)). Also, the equation for
0 tends to give lower stress values at the ascending branch
than the test results.
In summary, the preceding comparisons reveal the
following limitations of the previous models: 1) for the
ascending branch, the calculated stress compared with the
test result changes from an overestimation for LWC, to
an underestimation for HWC. Additionally, the previous
824

models, with the exception of Hsu and Hsus equation,6

overestimate the stresses for high-strength NWC 80 MPa
(11.6ksi) in the ascending branch; 2) for the descending
branch, the disagreement is evident for LWC and highstrength concrete 80 MPa (11.6 ksi); and 3) the accuracy
of the previous equations for Ec or Eti (initial tangential
modulus) and 0 are sensitive to compressive strength and
density of concrete, resulting in large deviations for LWC
and HWC.
On the contrary, the predictions from the model proposed
in this study are in better agreement with test results regardless of compressive strength and density of concrete. The
overall NRMSEs of 0.161 and 0.123 for e,m and e,s, respectively, are the lowest. The calculated stress-strain relationships correspond well with the measured stress-strain
curves, particularly in terms of the following: 1) the value of
Ec increases with increasing compressive strength, density
of concrete, or both; 2) the rate of increase in Ec moderates
as wc becomes larger than 2500 kg/m3 (156 lb/ft3); 3) the
value of 0 increases with the increase of concrete strength
or decrease of concrete density; and 4) lightweight concrete
has a steeper descending branch for the same compressive
strength. Overall, the proposed model provides superior
accuracy in predicting both the ascending and descending
branches of stress-strain curves of various unconfined
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

Table 2Comparisons of normalized root-mean-square error obtained from each stress-strain curve
Researcher
Concrete
type

Range of fcu, MPa

fcu < 30

30 fcu < 50
LWC
50 fcu < 100

Subtotal

fcu < 30

30 fcu < 50

NWC

50 fcu < 100

fcu 100

Subtotal

fcu < 30

30 fcu < 50
HWC
50 fcu < 100

Subtotal

Total

Statistical
value

Almusallam
and Alsayed1

Lu and Zhao2

Carreira and
Chu4

Hsu and Hsu6

Wee et al.9

This study

e,m

0.139

0.449

0.478

0.325

0.396

0.290

e,s

0.015

0.115

0.160

0.022

0.059

0.008

e,m

0.439

0.482

0.320

0.423

0.415

0.217

e,s

0.179

0.093

0.094

0.124

0.099

0.084

e,m

0.147

0.253

0.694

0.438

0.392

0.233

e,s

0.031

0.119

0.216

0.067

0.060

0.341

e,m

0.361

0.439

0.413

0.418

0.412

0.226

e,s

0.202

0.133

0.197

0.112

0.088

0.148

e,m

0.278

0.138

0.124

0.403

0.170

0.117

e,s

0.140

0.047

0.054

0.194

0.082

0.089

e,m

0.201

0.302

0.169

0.238

0.197

0.181

e,s

0.164

0.185

0.130

0.165

0.167

0.147

e,m

0.191

0.236

0.472

0.227

0.260

0.193

e,s

0.122

0.167

0.233

0.119

0.142

0.141

e,m

0.667

0.498

0.810

0.424

0.688

0.212

e,s

0.474

0.297

0.192

0.370

0.378

0.118

e,m

0.288

0.282

0.411

0.289

0.306

0.183

e,s

0.281

0.212

0.298

0.210

0.262

0.131

e,m

0.166

0.230

0.117

0.290

0.134

0.067

e,s

0.034

0.055

0.034

0.096

0.047

0.023

e,m

0.211

0.309

0.258

0.183

0.147

0.104

e,s

0.065

0.083

0.157

0.065

0.061

0.048

e,m

0.186

0.384

0.345

0.162

0.178

0.120

e,s

0.059

0.054

0.091

0.018

0.022

0.042

e,m

0.194

0.293

0.225

0.214

0.146

0.095

e,s

0.058

0.086

0.145

0.088

0.054

0.044

e,m

0.270

0.317

0.348

0.288

0.272

0.161

e,s

0.220

0.173

0.250

0.174

0.208

0.123

Note: Normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE) =

( fc ) m

(f ) (f )
c Exp
c P re.

1/ 2

where (fc)m is mean stress in measured stress-strain curve; (fc)Exp and (fc)Pre are experimental and predicted stresses, respectively; and n is number of points in experimental stressstrain curve. e,m and e,s are mean and standard deviation, respectively, of NRMSE calculated for each specimen; fcu is measured compressive strength of concrete; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

concretes in compression. It should also be noted that one

mathematical equation (Eq. (11)) with two values of the
parameter 1, which is a function of , provides a convenient
way to perform numerical analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research summarized in this paper, the
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The accuracy of the previous stress-strain models is
not guaranteed for LWC, HWC, and high-strength concrete.
Additionally, the previous equations for the modulus of
elasticity Ec and strain 0 at peak stress may not account
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014

correctly for the influences of compressive strength fc and

density wc of concrete.
2. In reality, the rate of increase in Ec with density gradually moderates with increased wc, particularly for wc
greater than 2500 kg/m3 (156 lb/ft3). The regression analysis
revealed that Ec is proportional to (wc)1.17 (rather than (wc)1.5
or (wc)2 as proposed by others).
3. The key parameter 1, which is an exponential function
of (fc)0.67/(wc)1.17, defines the stress-strain curve. Two values
of 1 are established to explain the different slopes at the
ascending and descending branches.

825

4. The proposed stress-strain model predicts the stressstrain curve quite accurately, regardless of compressive
strength and density of concrete, as evidenced by the low
NRMSE compared with other models. The proposed model
provides superior mathematical simplicity, and requires two
input values, fc and w0.
AUTHOR BIOS

ACI member Keun-Hyeok Yang is a Professor at Kyonggi University,

Suwon, South Korea. His research interests include seismic strengthening
of concrete structures and the engineering behavior of new eco-materials
combined with concrete.
Ju-Hyun Mun is a Doctoral Student at Kyonggi University. His research
interests include evaluating the structural response of lightweight or heavyweight concrete members.
Myung-Sug Cho is a Principal Researcher at KHNP-Central Research
Institute, South Korea. His research interests include durability evaluation of concrete structures in nuclear power plants and development of life
management systems.
ACI member Thomas H.-K. Kang is an Associate Professor at Seoul
National University, Seoul, South Korea. He is Vice Chair of ACI
Committee S805, Collegiate Concrete Council-CLGE, and a member of
ACI Committees 335, Composite and Hybrid Structures; 369, Seismic
Repair and Rehabilitation; and the ACI International Advisory Committee.
He is also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and
Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures, and 423, Prestressed
Concrete. He received the 2009 ACI Wason Medal for Most Meritorious
Paper. His research interests include a number of subjects relating to the
design, repair, and materials of structural concrete.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea

(NRF) grant funded by the Korea Government (MEST) (No. 2011-0028983)
and the Nuclear Research and Development program of the Korea Institute of
Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the
Korea Government Ministry of Knowledge Economy (2011T100200161).

Ec
E t
Eti
f0

=
=
=
=

NOTATION

modulus of elasticity
tangential modulus of elasticity
initial tangent modulus
reference value for concrete compressive strength (=10 MPa
[1450 psi])
fc
= concrete stress corresponding to strain c
fc = specified compressive strength of concrete
fcu = measured compressive strength of concrete
n = correction factor to descending branch of basic formula
proposed by Popovics
R2 = correlation coefficient
w0 = reference value for concrete density (=2300 kg/m3 [143.5 lb/ft3])
wc = density of concrete
x
= normalized strain
y
= normalized stress
1 = factor to account for slopes at ascending and descending branch
of stress-strain curve
0 = strain at peak stress
0.5 = strain corresponding to 50% peak stress at descending branch of
stress-strain curve
e,m = mean of normalized root-mean-square errors
e,s = standard deviation of normalized root-mean-square errors

REFERENCES

1. Almusallam, T. H., and Alsayed, S. H., Stress-Strain Relationship of

Normal, High-Strength and Lightweight Concrete, Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 47, No. 170, 1995, pp. 39-44.
2. Lu, Z. H., and Zhao, Y. G., Empirical Stress-Strain Model for Unconfined High-Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 22, No. 11, 2010, pp. 1181-1186.
3. Palmquist, S. M., and Jansen, C., Postpeak Strain-Stress Relationship for Concrete in Compression, ACI Materials Journal, V. 98, No. 3,
May-June 2001, pp. 213-219.

826

4. Carreira, D. J., and Chu, K. H., Stress-Strain Relationship for Plain Concrete
in Compression, ACI Journal, V. 82, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 797-804.
5. Mansur, M. A.; Wee, T. H.; and Chin, M. S., Derivation of the
Complete Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete in Compression, Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 47, No. 173, 1995, pp. 285-290.
6. Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C.-T. T., Complete Stress-Strain Behavior
of High-Strength Concrete under Compression, Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 46, No. 169, 1994, pp. 301-312.
7. Yi, S. T.; Kim, J. K.; and Oh, T. K., Effect of Strength and Age on
the Stress-Strain Curves of Concrete Specimens, Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 33, No. 8, 2003, pp. 1235-1244.
8. Van Gysel, A., and Taerwe, L., Analytical Formulation of the
Complete Stress-Strain Curve for High Strength Concrete, Materials and
Structures, V. 29, 1996, pp. 529-533.
9. Wee, T. H.; Chin, M. S.; and Mansur, M. A., Stress-Strain Relationship of High-Strength Concrete in Compression, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 8, No. 2, 1996, pp. 70-76.
10. Kumar, P., A Compact Analytical Material Model for Unconfined
Concrete under Uniaxial Compression, Materials and Structures, V. 37,
2004, pp. 585-590.
11. Tasnimi, A. A., Mathematical Model for Complete Stress-Strain
Curve Prediction of Normal, Lightweight, and High-Strength Concretes,
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 56, No. 1, 2004, pp. 23-34.
12. Popovics, S., A Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve
of Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3, No. 5, 1973, pp. 583-599.
13. Sargin, M.; Ghosh, S. K.; and Handa, V. K., Effects of Lateral
Reinforcement upon the Strength and Deformation Properties of Concrete,
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 23, No. 75-76, 1971, pp. 99-110.
14. Yang, K. H., Workability and Mechanical Properties of Heavyweight Magnetite Concrete, Technical Report, Department of Plant Architectural Engineering, Kyonggi University, Suwon, South Korea, 2011, 72
pp. (in Korean)
15. ASTM C469-10, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio of Concrete in Compression, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 4 pp.
16. Comit Euro-International du Beton (CEB-FIP), Structural Concrete:
Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance, International Federation
for Structural Concrete (fib), Switzerland, 1999, 224 pp.
17. Noguchi, T.; Tomosawa, F.; Nemati, K. M.; Chiaia, B. M.; and
Fantilli, A. P., A Practical Equation for Elastic Modulus of Concrete, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2009, pp. 690-696.
18. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
19. Wang, P. T.; Shah, S. P.; and Naaman, A. E., Stress-Strain Curves
of Normal and Lightweight Concrete in Compression, ACI Journal, V. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 603-611.
20. Yang, K. H., and Sim, J. I., Modeling of the Mechanical Properties of Structural Lightweight Concrete Based on Size Effects, Technical
Report, Department of PlantArchitectural Engineering, Kyonggi University, Suwon, South Korea, 2011, 89 pp. (in Korean)
21. Mertol, H. C.; Kim, S. J.; Mirmiran, A.; Rizkalla, S.; and Zia, P.,
Behavior and Design of HSC Members Subjected to Axial Compression
and Flexure, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength/High-Performance Concrete, SP-228, H. G. Russell,
ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, pp. 395-420.
22. Zhang, M. H., and Gjrv, O. E., Mechanical Properties of HighStrength Lightweight Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 3,
May-June 1991, pp. 240-247.
23. Liu, X., and Kong, J. T., Experimental Study of Stress-Strain
Curves of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, International Conference on
Structures and Building Materials: Advances in Structures (ICSBM 2011),
Guangzhow, China, V. 163-167, 2011, pp. 1762-1767.
24. Nilson, A. H., High-Strength Concrete: An Overview of Cornell
Research, Proceedings of Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength
Concrete, Stavanger, Norway, 1987, pp. 27-37.
25. Smeplass, S., High Strength Concrete: Mechanical Properties-Normal Density Concretes, SP4-Materials Design, Report 4.4,
SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway, 1992, 17 pp.
26. Jansen, D. C.; Shah, S. P.; and Rossow, E., Stress-Strain Results
of Concrete from Circumferential Strain Feedback Control Testing, ACI
Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 419-428.
27. Hognestad, E.; Hanson, N. W.; and Mchenry, D., Concrete Stress
Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design, ACI Journal, V. 52, No. 12,
Dec. 1955, pp. 455-480.
28. Carrasquillo, R. L.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., Properties of
High Strength Concrete Subject to Short-Term Loads, ACI Journal, V. 78,
No. 3, May 1981, pp. 171-178.
29. Ansari, F.; Shah, S. P.; and Gokoz, U., An Experimental Technique
for Obtaining Complete Stress-Strain Curves for High Strength Concrete,
Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, V. 3, No. 1, 1981, pp. 21-27.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2014