Advanced Materials Research Vols.

163-167 (2011) pp 1375-1379

Online available since 2010/Dec/06 at www.scientific.net
© (2011) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.163-167.1375

Effect of Specimen Shape and Size on Compressive Strength of

Concrete
Yi Che1, a, Shenglong Ban1, b, Jianyu Cui2, c, Geng Chen1, d and Yupu Song1, e
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Dalian Nationalities University, Dalian, China
a b c
cheyi@dlut.edu.cn, banshenglong_421@163.com, jianyucui2005@yahoo.com.cn,
d
346018812@qq.com, esyupu@dlut.edu.cn

Keywords: Concrete; Compressive Strength; Size Effect

Abstract. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of specimen size and shape on
compressive strength of concrete. Concrete cubes, cylinders and prisms with their size ranging from
150mm to 450mm were tested in unaxial compression. Failure patterns and the effect of specimen
shape and size on compressive strength of concrete were investigated. In addition, theoretical size
effect models, such as the MSEL and MFSL were used to analyze the size effect of concrete strength.
It is shown that for specimens tested in this study, the two models are both applicable to predicting the
compressive strength of specimens in various sizes with a reasonably good accuracy.

Introduction
The compressive strength is one of the most important engineering properties of concrete that are
used in the design of concrete and concrete-based structures. However, previous tests and theoretical
investigation have shown that the strength of concrete tested in the laboratory is strongly influenced
by the shape and size of the specimen, and that as a result, the measured strength of concrete is not an
inherent material property but a combination of material and structural behavior [1, 2].
By far, extensive studies, both experimentally and theoretically, have been conducted on size effect
of concrete strength. The phenomenon of size effect of concrete compressive strength was firstly
demonstrated experimentally by Gonnerman [3] and later was explained by Weibull’s theory [4].
Since 1980’s, a number of theoretical models for size effect of concrete strength have been developed.
Based on the concept of fracture mechanics of concrete, Bazant [5] and Kim and Eo [6] derived so
called size effect law (SEL) and modified size effect law (MSEL), respectively. Carpiteri et al [7]
derived multifractal scaling law (MFSL). These size effect models can explain the size effect of
concrete to some extends. On the other hand, some researchers developed empirical expressions to
account for the decreasing of concrete strength with the increase of specimen size [8, 9].
Despite the fact that quite a lot of studies on size effect on concrete strength have been conducted
as stated above, there is no general agreement on a theory or an empirical-based model describing size
effect of concrete strength. Moreover, systematic study on the effect of specimen shape and size on
concrete strength is not adequate.
The objective of this study is to investigate the influence of the specimen size and geometry on the
compressive strength of concrete. For this purpose, concrete cubes, cylinders and prisms with their
size ranging from 150mm to 450mm were prepared, and tested in uniaxial compression. In addition,
theoretical models for size effect proposed by Kim and Carpinteri were also evaluated, respectively.

Size Effect Models for Concrete Strength

Bazant’s Size Effect Law. Bazant derived the so-called size effect law (SEL) from a dimensional
analysis of the geometrically similar specimens with a notch of the length proportional to the
specimen size considering the energy balance at crack propagation in concrete [5]. The SEL of Bazant
is expressed as

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP,
www.ttp.net. (ID: 143.107.97.106-23/09/11,22:43:43)
1376 Advances in Structures

Bf t
σN (d ) = . (1)
1+ d λd a
where σN(d) = nominal strength of concrete; ft = concrete tensile strength; d = characteristic
dimension; da = maximum aggregate size; and B and λ = empirical constants, respectively.
Modified Size Effect Law. On the basis of the SEL, Kim and Eo [6] developed the modified size
effect law (MSEL). This concept is also proposed by Bazant [10] and Bazant and Xiang [11] with a
different approach. The MSEL is expressed as
Bf t
σN (d ) = + αf t . (2)
1+ d λd a
where B, λ and α = empirical constants.
Multifractal Scaling Law. Carpinteri and his co-workers [7] proposed the multifractal scaling
law (MFSL) for concrete. They assumed that the influence of the disorder of a heterogeneous material
on the mechanical properties depends on the ratio of the size of the largest material defect properties.
The analytical expression of the MFSL is given by
l
σ N ( d ) =f t 1+ ch . (3)
d
where ft = nominal tensile strength of an infinitely large specimen; lch = characteristic length of
concrete.

Experimental Program
Specimen Shapes and Sizes. Concrete cubes, and cylinders and prisms with slenderness (height to
diameter ratio) equal to 2 were used in the test. Each shape of specimen consisted of 4 sizes: 150mm,
250mm, 350mm and 450mm. Three identical specimens were prepared for each size. Detailed
information for specimens is given in Table 1.

Table 1 Shapes and sizes of specimens

Shape Dimension [mm]
Cube 150×150×150, 250×250×250, 350×350×350, 450×450×450
Cylinder Ф150×300, Ф250×500, Ф350×700, Ф450×900
Prism 150×150×300, 250×250×500, 350×350×700, 450×450×900

Materials. The concrete specimens were prepared using commercial concrete supplied by a local
ready-mix plant. The specimens were cast from the same batch of concrete. The concrete mixture is
given in Table 2. The maximum aggregate size is 20mm in the concrete mix.

Table 2 Concrete mix

Material Cement Sand Gravel Water Flyash
[kg/m3] 360 740 1000 195 70

Preparation of Specimens. Steel molds were used for preparation of cubes and prisms, as well as
350mm and 450mm cylinders. These molds were made carefully such that the geometry of the
specimens was satisfied with the requirement of test standard [12]. Plastic tubes were used for
preparation of 150mm and 250mm cylinders.
All specimens have been tested at an age greater than 90 days to ensure that the strength increase
due to ongoing hydration was negligible. Before testing, the ends of cylinders and prisms were ground.
The compressive tests were carried out with specimen and steel loading platens in direct contact with
each other.
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 163-167 1377

Test Results
Measured Compressive Strength. Table 3 summarizes the test results of cubes, cylinders and
prisms with various sizes in terms of average compressive strength. Size effect of concrete
compressive strength of specimens can be observed from the test results. For cubes, cylinders and
prisms, measured compressive strength of specimen decreases with the increase of specimen size.

Table 3 Average compressive strength of specimen

Size, d [mm] Cube, fcu [MPa] Cylinder, fcy [MPa] Prism, fpr [MPa]
150 57.24 39.52 50.00
250 56.97 37.68 42.35
350 44.18 35.85 36.09
450 43.53 29.97 34.68

It can also be observed that concrete strength is strongly affected by specimen shape. For the
specimens with the same size, compressive strength of cubes is larger than that of cylinders or prisms.
This is attributed to the length effect. In cubes, the confined region, as a result of frictional restraint
between specimen and loading platen, extends over almost the whole specimen volume.
Consequently, the internal tensile stresses between aggregate and voids causing failure of concrete are
only reached at substantially higher loads. On the other hand, in cylinders or prisms with height to
depth ratio equal to 2, the middle part of the specimen still remains unconfined. Failure occurs in
these unconfined regions at lower loads.
Crack Patterns. Fig. 1 shows the typical crack patterns of cubes, cylinders and prisms at failure
loads, respectively. The crack patterns of specimens observed after the test were sensitive to the shape
of specimens. The concrete cubes showed the so-called hour-glass failure mode as shown in Fig. 1(a),
while in cylinders and prisms, inclined fracture surface or cone type failure were observed, as shown
in Figs. 1(b) and 1(c), respectively.

(a) Cube (b) Cylinder (c) Prism

Fig. 1 Typical failure patterns of specimens

Analysis of Test Results

The MSEL and MFSL were initially developed based on experimental study on concrete specimens in
tension. By replacing tensile strength in Eqs. 1 to 3 with compressive strength, these size effect
models can be applied to the analysis of the size effect on concrete compressive strength [13, 14].
Size Effect of Concrete Cubes. By regression analysis of test data, the size effect models for
concrete cubes in the forms of MSEL and MFSL were given as follows:
1.55f cu,150
MSEL: f cu (d)= +0.32f cu,150 . (4)
1+d/40
MFSL: f cu (d)=34.5 1+296.5/d . (5)
where fcu(d) = nominal compressive strength of concrete cubes with a size of d; fcu,150 = cubic
compressive strength measured by 150mm×150mm×150mm concrete cubes.
1378 Advances in Structures

Size Effect of Concrete Cylinders. Eqs. 6 and 7 are the size effect models of MSEL and MFSL
for concrete cylinders, obtained by regression analysis of test data, respectively.
0.75f cu,150
MSEL: f cy (d)= +0.36f cu,150 . (6)
1+d/40
MFSL: f cy (d)=28.6 1+144.8/d . (7)
where fcy(d) = nominal compressive strength of concrete cylinders with a size of d.
Size Effect of Concrete Prisms. Eqs. 8 and 9 are obtained by regression analysis of test data using
the MSEL and MFSL for prisms, respectively.
1.28f cu,150
MSEL: f pr (d)= +0.25f cu,150 . (8)
1+d/40
MFSL: f pr (d)=27.2 1+325.1/d . (9)
where fpr(d) = nominal compressive strength of concrete prisms.
Comparison of Size Effect Models and Discussions. The bilogarithmic curves of MSEL and
MFSL for cubes, cylinders and prisms are plotted in Fig 2 together with test data for comparison. It
can be seen that for cubes, cylinder and prisms within the range of sizes of tested specimens, both
models can predict the size effect reasonably good with the correlation coefficient varying from0.75
to 0.87. On the other hand, for specimens with the same geometry, i.e., cube, cylinder or prism, there
is no apparent difference between the predictions by the MSEL and MFSL. Therefore, it can be
concluded that for specimens of sizes ranging between 150mm to 450mm that are commonly used in
engineering practice, the MSEL and MFSL are both applicable and can predict the size effect
reasonably well.

2.5 2.5 2.5

Test data of cubes Test data of cylinders Test data of prisms
MSEL, R=0.87 MSEL, R=0.78 MSEL, R=0.79
MFSL, R=0.85 MFSL, R=0.75 MFSL, R=0.81
2.0 2.0 2.0
log fcy(d)

log fpr(d)
log fcu(d)

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

log d log d log d

(a) Cube (b) Cylinder (c) Prism

Fig. 2 Comparison of size effect models and test results for cubes, cylinders and prisms

From Eqs. 4 to 9, compressive strengths of cube, cylinder and prism of infinitely large size were
calculated. Table 4 gives the ratios of fcy(∞)/fcu(∞) and fpr(∞)/fcu(∞) predicted by MSEL and MFSL. It
is found that the MFSL prediction of asymptotic strength for infinitely large cubes is greater than that
of cylinder or prism. This finding is reasonable, since for cubes, failure occurs in the confined region
induced by the friction between specimen and loading platen; while for cylinders or prisms, failure
occurs in middle part the specimen where is unconfined at lower loads.
Table 4 also indicates that the fpr(∞)/fcu(∞) ratio for prisms by MSEL is close to the prediction by
MFSL, while for cylinders, fcy(∞)/fcu(∞) ratio by the MSEL is 1.13 which is greater than that of MFSL.
This is consistent with the result by Yi et al [2] with a fcy(∞)/fcu(∞) ratio equal to 1.31.
Table 4 Ratios of strength of infinitely large specimens predicted by MSEL and MFSL
Specimen fcu(∞)/ fcu(∞) fcy(∞)/fcu(∞) fpr(∞)/fcu(∞)
MSEL 1.00 1.13 0.78
MFSL 1.00 0.83 0.79
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 163-167 1379

Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:
- Significant size effect was observed in the compressive tests of cubes, cylinders and prisms.
- Due to the confinement caused by the friction between specimen and loading platen, concrete
cubes exhibit higher compressive strength than cylinders and prisms with the same specimen
size.
- For cubes, cylinders and prisms with their ranging from 150mm to 450mm that are commonly
used in engineering practice, the MSEL and MFSL are both applicable to the analysis of size
effect of concrete with reasonably good accuracy.
- MFSL predictions of asymptotic strength for infinitely large cubes are greater than that of
cylinders or prisms. The MSEL also gives the same trend of predictions for prisms. However,
for cylinders, the MSEL predictions are greater than that of cubes with a fcy(∞)/fcu(∞) ratio
equal to 1.13.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research provided by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 50778034 and under grant 50838001.

References
[1] J.R. del Viso, J.R. Carmona, G. Ruiz: Cement and Concrete Res. Vol. 38 (2008), p. 386
[2] S.T. Yi, E.I. Yang and J.C. Choi: Nuclear Eng. and Design Vol. 236 (2006), p. 115
[3] H.F. Gonnerman: ASTM Proc. Vol. 25 (1925), p. 237
[4] W.A. Weibull: Statistical Theory for the Strength of Materials (Swedish Royal Institute for
Engineering Research, Stockholm 1939)
[5] Z.P. Bazant: J. Eng. Mech., Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Vol. 110 (1984), p. 518
[6] J.K. Kim and S.H. Eo: Mag. Concrete Res. Vol. 42-153 (1990), p. 233
[7] A. Carpinteri, B. Chiaia and G. Ferro: Mat. and Struct. Vol. 28 (1995), p. 311
[8] A.M. Neville: ACI J. Vol. 63 (1966), P. 1095
[9] B.S. Liu, J.S. Zhang, Q.Z. Du and J.F. Tu: Chinese J. of Rock Mech. and Eng. Vol. 17-6 (1998),
p. 611
[10] Z.P. Bazant, in: SEM-RILEM International Conference on Fracture of Concrete and Rock,
edited by S.P. Shah and S.E. Swartz (Springer 1987)
[11] Z.P. Bazant and Y. Xiang: J. Eng. Mech. ASCE Vol. 123-2 (1997), p. 162
[12] GB/T50081-2002: Standard for test method of mechanical properties on ordinary concrete
(China Architecture and Building Press Beijing 2003)
[13] A. Carpinteri, G. Ferro and I. Monetto: Mag. of Concrete Res. Vol. 51 (1999), p. 217
[14] J.K. Kim, S.T. Yi, C.K. Park and S.H. Eo: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 96 (1999), p. 88-94
Advances in Structures
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.163-167

Effect of Specimen Shape and Size on Compressive Strength of Concrete

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.163-167.1375