IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol.

3, Issue 05, 2015 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613

Comparison of Various Stress-Strain Models for High Strength Concrete

under Uniaxial Compression
Dr.N. K. Arora1 Piyush P. Makwana2
1
Professor & Head 2P.G Student
1
Department of Applied Mechanics
1
L. E. College of Engineering, Morbi 363642 2L. D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad 380015
Abstract Modified Hognestad model for uniaxial
unconfined stress-strain relationship is universally accepted
for normal grade of concrete. However, several models are
proposed by various researchers for high strength concrete
but none of these is universally accepted as standard model.
This is mainly due to the variation in test conditions and
concrete grades. In present paper, applicability of few of
these models is evaluated by comparing experimental values
and behavior predicted by these models.
Key words: High Strength Concrete, Stress-Strain Relation
I. INTRODUCTION
Now a days, high strength concrete (HSC) is very popular in
the world. Requirement of high strength is to reduce
member size, reduce quantity requirement. Behaviour of
high strength concrete is brittle, as strength of concrete is
increases brittleness of concrete is also increases. Low
strength concrete is more ductile than high strength
concrete. Number of stress-strain models are available in
literature for prediction of stress-strain behaviour of HSC.
Popovics has proposed single equation for
ascending and descending branch in 1973. In 1984, some
modifications are given by Tomaszewicz for descending
branch of curve in Popovics equation as well as in
parameters. In 1985, Popovics model was used by Carreira
and Chu but in this models all the parameters are defined
again with some modifications in original equation. In 1993
Collins has given new values for parameters used in
Tomaszewicz model. Hsu and Hsu (1994) has proposed a
model with addition of a modification factor which varies
with strain and by changing definition of certain parameters.
Wee et.al.(1996) has proposed modification factors for
descending branch, and by changing definition of
parameters.
In 1971, Sargin et.al. has proposed a new model
which consist of single equation for ascending and
descending branch. Wang et al.(1978) has proposed some
modifications with four coefficients, which varies with
ascending and descending branch. In CEB-FIP (1993) two
different equations are given based on strain values. In 1996,
Van Gysel and Taerwe has given modification in CEB-FIP
model with defining different values for parameters.
To understand behaviour of HSC, and to predict
performance of HSC element it is necessary to know stressstrain behaviour. Hence it is necessary to find model which
gives accurate prediction from all the available models.
II. VARIOUS STRESS-STRAIN MODEL
A. Domingo J. Carreira and Kuang-Han Chu[1]
Domingo J. Carreira and Kuang-Han Chu has used equation
proposed by Popovics (1973).But in this, authors proposed

new values of parameters. A general form of the proposed

serpentine curve was
( )
( )
Where,

is the concrete compression stress

is actual compressive strength of concrete cylinder at 28
days
is the concrete strain
strain at peak stress
(
)

B. CEB-FIP Model Code 90, Design Code, 1993 [2]

In CEB-FIP model code 90, two equations were proposed
depending on strain level. Model code 90 introduced a
limiting strain just for application of equation. Compressive
stress-strain relationship was proposed as,
(

)
| |

Where,
is the tangent modulus
[

= characteristic strength of concrete

= 10 MPa
= 8 MPa
is actual compressive strength of cylinder at 28 days
which can be taken as
in absence of actual data
is the compression stress (MPa)
is the compression strain
is the limiting strain for which given equation is
applicable.

=secant modulus from the origin to the

peak compressive stress
Characteristic
Strength
)
(103MPa)
(103MPa)
(10-3)

12

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

27 30.5 33.5 36.5 38.5 41 42.5 44.5

9 12.5 17.5 22 26.5 31 35.5 40
-4.2 -3.7 -3.3 -3.0
-2.6 -2.4
5.0
2.8

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

530

Comparison of Various Stress-Strain Models for High Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 05/2015/124)

Table 1: Values of

,
and
for 12 MPa to 80 MPa
grades of concrete
For the descending part of the stress-strain diagram
above equation is valid only for values of | |
For
, the descending branch of stressstrain diagram described as
(

)(
(

The resulting expression for the descending portion of the

stress-strain curve is
( )
[

]
( )

Where,
is the concrete compression stress
is actual compressive strength of cylinder at 28 days
is the concrete strain
strain at peak stress
(

and

With
(

) (

)
(

C. Michael P. Collins, Denis Mitchell and James G.

MacGregor[3]
Authors used Popovics equation for ascending branch of
stress-strain curve as it describes the behaviour accurately.
Tomaszewicz modified the descending branch by
introducing few parameters. Collins et.al. reexamined the
descending branch and introduced newer set of constants in
Tomaszewicz expression.
For ascending branch of stress-strain curve expression is
( )
Where
is the concrete compression stress
is actual compressive strength of concrete at 28 days
is the concrete strain
is strain at peak stress

Authors proposed that, the model is applicable for

all range of concrete strength.For concrete strength
, k1 and k2was proposed to be taken as unity.
E. M. M. Attard and S. Setunge[5]
In this model a single expression was used to describe
stress-strain relationship with different values of constants
for ascending and descending branch. Authors also
accounted the effect of confinement on stress-strain
behavior of concrete.
The proposed stress-strain relationship was expressed as

Where,
is the concrete compression stress
is actual compressive strength of cylinder at 28 days
is the concrete strain
For ascending branch constants are defined as

n=curve fitting factor

-1
Expression used for descending branch is
( )
When
When
For

,
,

and
For descending branch constants are defined as

and
,
Where

D. T.H.Wee, M.S.Chin, and M.A.Mansur[4]

Authors used equation proposed by Carreira and Chu[5] for
the ascending branch of the stress strain curve, however in
descending branch two correction factors were introduced as
k1 and k2.
Equation used for ascending branch is
( )
( )

, and

is the surface dry unit weight in kg/m3

= Initial tangent modulus varies linearly between 1.17Ec
and Ec for 20 and 100 MPa
For crushed aggregate

For gravel aggregate

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

531

Comparison of Various Stress-Strain Models for High Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 05/2015/124)

(
)

F. Van Gysel and Taerwe[6]

Van Gysel and Taerwe used CEB-FIP model code equation
for the ascending branch of the curve. However, authors
proposed different equation for descending branch and also
proposed different value for strain at peak stress. The
complete stress-strain curve was represented by three
relatively simple equations.
For ascending branch,
________(1)
Where
is actual compressive strength of concrete at 28 days
is the compression stress (MPa)

Fig. 1: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 51.8

=secant modulus from the origin to the peak compressive
stress
= the tangent modulus
is the concrete strain
strain at peak stress
Authors used Tomascewicz[6] equation for finding
strain at peak stress as,
_____(2)
The equation of the softening branch of the stress-strain
curve is proposed as below,
________(3)
(

Values of is given in the Table 2 of research paper [6]

60
70
80
90
100
(MPa) 50
1.327 1.224 1.144 1.079 1.024 1.005
Table 2: Values of
for different concrete grades
III. COMPARISON OF VARIOUS MODELS WITH

Fig. 2: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 60

EXPERIMENTAL

To predict accurately behavior of high strength concrete, it

is necessary to find the best suited model from all the
available models which gives accurate prediction of
behavior of high strength concrete. In this context
experimental stress-strain curves are compared with
predicted behaviour of concrete by various models covering
range from 50-120 MPa.

Fig. 3: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 65.8

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

532

Comparison of Various Stress-Strain Models for High Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 05/2015/124)

Fig. 4: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 70

Fig. 7: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 90

Fig. 5: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 74

Fig. 8: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 100

Fig. 6: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 80

Fig. 9: Comparison of stress-strain models for M 120

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

533

Comparison of Various Stress-Strain Models for High Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression
(IJSRD/Vol. 3/Issue 05/2015/124)

IV. DISCUSSION
In all above graphical representation it is observed that all
the mathematical models which are under this study is able
to predict the ultimate strength more or less correctly,
however there is significant difference in actual and
predicted values of strain corresponding to the peak stress.
The descending branch of these models varies substantially.
Stress-Strain model proposed by CEB-FIP model, Carreira
and Chu and Collins can predict ascending branch quite
accurately, however all these models represents sudden drop
in descending branch, that means concrete loses strength
sharply in post peak region which is not correct. Shape of
Attard et als model and Collin et al.s model are nearly
same but their strain at peak stress is different. Carreira and
Chus model gives nearly equal strain value for peak stress
irrespective of strength of concrete, which is not correct
since it is observed by various scientists that it varies with
concrete strength. In this paper, experimental stress-strain
curve of concrete are taken from literature, it is observed
that there is large variation in strain corresponding to peak
stress. These values do not follow a trend but fluctuates
significantly with increase in compressive strength of
concrete, hence does not represent actual behavior of
concrete. This might be due to non-availability of accurate
instrumentation during early days. It is observed that models
proposed by Collins and, Wee are able to predict the stressstrain behavior in better way than other models.

Materials Journal/September-October 1996, Pages 432441

[6] Analytical Formulation of the complete stress-strain
curve for High Strength Concrete by A. Van Gysel, L.
Taerswe, Materials and Structures, Vol. 29, November
1996, Pages 529-533
[7] Empirical stress-strain model for unconfined high
strength concrete under uniaxial compression by ZhaoHui Lu and Yan-Gang Zhao, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering ASCE, November 2010, pages
1181-1186
[8] Mechanical Properties of Three High-Strength
Concretes Containing Silica Fume by by J. Xie, A. E.
Elwi, and J. G. MacGregor, ACI Materials
Journal/March-April 1995, pages 135-143

V. CONCLUSION
In present work, models for predicting stress-strain behavior
of high strength concrete having strength range 50-120MPa,
proposed by various researchers have been examined by
comparing them with test results. Following conclusion are
drawn,
Almost all the models are able to predict peak stress
accurately. The ascending branch of stress-strain curve
almost matches with experimental values.
None of the above model can predict complete stressstrain behavior of HSC.
In all the tests whose data has been included in present
work, testing control was not same for each curve hence
Stress-strain behavior varies significantly. It is desirable
to have stress-strain data with same testing controls for
better comparison.
REFERENCES
[1] Stress-strain Relationship for Plain Concrete in
compression, by Domingo J. Carreira and Kuang-Han
Chu, ACI Journal, November-December 1985
[2] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Design Code EuroInternational Du Beton Committee, 1993
[3] Structural Design Considerations for High Strength
concrete by Michael P. Collins, Denis Mitchell and
James G. MacGregor, Concrete International, May
1993, Pages 27-34
[4] Stress-Strain Relationship of High Strength Concrete in
Compression by T.H.Wee, M.S.Chin, and M.A.Mansur,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, May 1996.
Pages 70-76
[5] Stress-Strain Relationship of Confined and Unconfined
Concrete by M. M. Attard and S. Setunge, ACI

All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com

534