Cite this article Research Article Keywords: compressive strength/stress/

Erdem MM and Bikçe M Paper 1900386 structural analysis

Uniaxial stress–strain relation for low- and normal-strength concrete in compression. Received 06/08/2019; Revised 24/11/2019;
Magazine of Concrete Research, Accepted 29/01/2020
https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.19.00386
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Magazine of Concrete Research

Uniaxial stress–strain relation for low- and

normal-strength concrete in compression
Muhammet Musab Erdem Murat Bikçe
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Iskenderun Technical Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Iskenderun Technical
University, Hatay, Turkey University, Hatay, Turkey (corresponding author: murat.bikce@iste.edu.tr,
muratbikce@yahoo.com)

In the modelling and simulation of reinforced concrete structures, accurate definition of material properties is
important in terms of obtaining precise results. Among the parameters defining the behaviour of concrete in
structural analyses, stress–strain behaviour has great importance. Since the stress–strain behaviour of concrete is
difficult to determine experimentally, many relations have been proposed in which this behaviour is predicted
numerically. However, it is seen that the most commonly used of these stress–strain relations are produced with a
limited number of samples, and that most of the relations are based on test results obtained from a single
laboratory. Accordingly, the stress–strain behaviour relations constituted in different studies for the same concrete
are quite distant from each other. Therefore, there is a need for an inclusive and valid relation for low- and normal-
strength concrete. In this study, a simple and realistic stress–strain relation for low- and normal-strength ordinary
Portland cement concretes in compression was proposed by using stress–strain data obtained from different
laboratories by different researchers. The proposed relation, which predicts stress–strain behaviour with relatively
low error rates when compared with similar relations, is presented, with comparative graphs, to the benefit of
researchers and designers.

Notation In numerical simulations of reinforced concrete members,

f0 compressive strength the whole compressive stress–strain behaviour of unconfined
fc compressive stress concrete may be required to define a concrete material model.
k coefficient that controls the shape of the descending For finite-element solvers, such as ANSYS, ABAQUS and
branch of the curve LS-DYNA (ANSYS, 2013; Hallquist, 2006; Hibbit et al.,
n coefficient that controls the shape of the curve 2012), it is important to define concrete behaviour properly. In
nasc coefficient that controls the shape of the ascending particular, the fact that the uniaxial stress–strain behaviour
branch of the curve of the concrete cannot be accurately reflected causes miscal-
ndesc coefficient that controls the shape of the descending culations of many parameters, such as fracture energy, result-
branch of the curve ing in erroneous results and evaluations.
t number of data points of the stress–strain curve
ε0 strain at peak stress To obtain a proper stress–strain behaviour of unconfined con-
εc compressive strain crete, researchers have two options. One of these is to obtain
σc compressive stress this behaviour experimentally; the other is to use stress–strain
σ(exp,j ) stress value of jth data point of the experimental relations derived from experimental stress–strain data. Of those
stress–strain curve two options, the first is mostly impossible, owing to cost, diffi-
σ(rel,j ) stress value of jth data point of the analytical stress– culty or inadequate experimental facilities. Although it seems
strain curve easy to obtain the concrete stress–strain relation experimen-
tally, it is a complex process that is affected by many factors,
such as the loading rate (Bischoff and Perry, 1991; Fu et al.,
Introduction 1991; Jitsu et al., 1998; Mainstone, 1975; Müller, 2008; Shah
Concrete has been widely used in constructions for many years, and Ahmad, 1985; Kumar et al., 2012), the stiffness of the
owing to its advantageous properties, such as economy, shape- experimental set-up (Hognestad et al., 1955; Whitney, 1943),
ability, durability and good adherence with reinforcing steel. the length–diameter ratio of the specimen (Samani and Attard,
Proper characterisation of the behaviour of concrete is important 2012; Watanabe et al., 2004; Kumar et al., 2012), the loading
in terms of obtaining more accurate results in structure analysis. type (Hussein, 1998; Kumar et al., 2012) and the age of the
One of the most basic parameters in determining concrete specimen (Yi et al., 2003; Kumar et al., 2012). The ascending
behaviour is the stress–strain relation. This relation, which branch of the stress–strain diagram can be observed using
indicates the deformation and strength characteristics of the load-controlled test machines, while the descending branch
concrete, is crucial for structural analyses, such as section ana- of the diagram can only be observed using displacement-
lyses and numerical simulations of reinforced concrete members. controlled test machines (Bineshian, 2014; Hussein, 1998).

1
Magazine of Concrete Research
 Magazine of Concrete Research
Moreover, it is not sufficient to use displacement-controlled
machines to observe the descending branch of unconfined con-
crete specimens. In compression tests, while the concrete speci-
men is loaded, the loading system stores some energy, owing
to the load it is exposed to. In the case where the slope of the
descending branch of the stress–strain curve is equal to the slope
of the stiffness curve of the loading frame, the energy stored
in the loading frame is released and a sudden fracture occurs
in the concrete specimen (Arioĝlu, 1995; Hognestad et al., 1955;
Whitney, 1943). Additionally, as the loading rate increases, it is
reported that a decrease in plastic strain (Dilger et al., 1984;
Glanville, 1938; Soroushian et al., 1986) and an increase in
the gradient of the descending branch (Fu et al., 1991) can be
observed. Specimen geometry is also influential on the shape
of the stress–strain curve. Studies indicate that an increase in
the length–diameter ratio of specimen causes an increase in
the gradient of the descending branch of the curve (Arioĝlu,
1995; Nakamura and Higai, 2001; Samani and Attard, 2012;
Watanabe et al., 2004). These challenges in obtaining the stress–
strain behaviour experimentally and the lack of experimental
opportunities lead researchers to the second option.
Since the 1950s, many stress–strain relations have been pro-
posed for ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC) (Aslani
and Nejadi, 2012; Carreira and Chu, 1985; Desayi and
Krishnan, 1964; Dilmaç and Demir, 2013; Güler et al., 2012;
Han and Xiang, 2017; Hognestad, 1951; Kumar, 2004; Lim
and Ozbakkaloglu, 2014; Popovics, 1973; Saenz, 1964; Sahin
and Bedirhanoglu, 2014; Shah and Ahmad, 1985; Tsai, 1988;
Tulin and Gerstle, 1964; Wee et al., 1996; Yip, 1996). It is also
possible to find relations developed for various types of con-
crete, such as concrete with recycled saturated aggregates
(Belén et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2019; Corinaldesi, 2010; Xiao
et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2019), concrete with
glazed hollow beads (Wang et al., 2014), geopolymer concrete
(Chitrala et al., 2018; Noushini et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2014),
steel-fibre reinforced concrete (Nataraja et al., 1999), expanded
polystyrene concrete (Cui et al., 2016), lightweight concrete
(Cui et al., 2012; Han and Xiang, 2017; Kumar, 2004), coral
concrete (Da et al., 2016) and bacterial concrete (Srinivasa
et al., 2013). However, OPCC is still dominant among the
materials used in the construction sector, despite the fact that
new concretes are produced with different contents by develop-
ing concrete technology (Bhaskara et al., 2018; Humad et al.,
2018; Lynn et al., 2019a; Lynn et al., 2019b; Rashad, 2019;
Wu et al., 2016). The fact that new buildings to be constructed,
and old buildings that are being retrofitted, are mostly con-
structed with OPCC indicates that OPCC is still frequently
modelled in structure analyses.
When the stress–strain relations in literature used to model
uniaxial behaviour of concrete are examined, it is seen that
different relations can give distant stress–strain behaviours for
an OPCC of a certain strength. Such factors as the formation
of relations with a small number of samples or with the results
2
Magazine of Concrete Research
Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe
obtained from a single laboratory, and the composition of
different proportions and ingredients with different mineralogy,
can be considered as reasons for this difference. Considering
the drawbacks of the relations presented for OPCC, such as
being complex and requiring experimentally necessary
parameters to form a curve, a new relation is needed in terms
of simplicity, inclusiveness and usability.
For this purpose, a new relation that gives uniaxial compressive
stress–strain behaviour for OPCC is proposed in this study.
The proposed relation was achieved by considering the follow-
ing objectives.
& Stress–strain data from different laboratories were used to
generate the relation that represents the general behaviour
of the OPCC.
& Experimental data for OPCCs in the 8–52 MPa
compressive strength range were used to represent the
most commonly used type of concrete in the construction
industry.
& This relation, which defines the stress–strain behaviour
of concrete with minimum parameter requirements,
provides ease of use to structural analysts and designers.
The accuracy of the proposed relation is evaluated in terms
of mean square percentage error (MSPE) rates and is shown
with comparison graphs.
Experimental uniaxial stress–strain data of
unconfined concrete
To generate a realistic stress–strain curve, a set of experimental
curves has been selected from various studies. The key feature of
the selected experimental data is that it was obtained from differ-
ent laboratories by different researchers. A total of 34 test curves
consists of six curves in the range 8–20 MPa, 11 curves in the
range 20–30 MPa, nine curves in the range 30–40 MPa and
eight curves in the range 40–52 MPa. Concretes having compres-
sive strength above the range of this study mostly contain special
additives that change the mechanical characteristics of the con-
crete. Hence, concretes with compressive strengths over 52 MPa
are outwith the scope of this study.
The concretes used in this study were selected according to the
following criteria
& only OPCC
& 28 d compressive strength
& specimens with a height–diameter ratio of 2.
The basic terms of the typical stress–strain curve of concrete,
that is, compressive stress ( fc), compressive strain (εc), compres-
sive strength ( f0) and strain at peak stress (ε0), are illustrated in
Figure 1. Relevant information, that is, compressive strength,
sample identification code and references of each experimental
 Magazine of Concrete Research Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe

fc Table 1. Test data of unconfined concrete samples

f0 Specimen Compressive
De No denotation strength Reference
sce
h

nd
c

ing 1 SM-1 8·8 Smith and Young (1956)

bran

bra 2 HO-1 11·4 Hognestad et al. (1955)

nc
ing

h 3 YI-1 14·9 Yi et al. (2003)

end

4 IL-1 16·4 İlki (2000)

5 IL-2 17·0 İlki (2000)
Asc

6 IL-3 17·8 İlki (2000)

7 AL-1 20·0 Mohamad Ali (1983)
8 SM-2 20·7 Smith and Young (1956)
9 HO-2 21·0 Hognestad et al. (1955)
0 10 YI-2 21·1 Yi et al. (2003)
0 ε0 εc 11 IL-4 21·6 İlki (2000)
12 NA-1 19·8 Nakamura and Higai (2001)
Figure 1. Typical stress–strain diagram of concrete 13 IL-5 22·6 İlki (2000)
14 AL-2 25·0 Mohamad Ali (1983)
15 IL-6 28·2 İlki (2000)
dataset used in this study, is shown in Table 1. Owing to the 16 IL-7 28·9 İlki (2000)
17 KU-1 29·1 Kuchma (1996)
quantity of the stress–strain diagrams of the samples, they are
18 AL-3 30·0 Mohamad Ali (1983)
presented together with the proposed relation in the compari- 19 SM-3 30·6 Smith and Young (1956)
son section instead of showing them individually here. 20 IL-8 30·8 İlki (2000)
21 WE-1 31·3 Wee et al. (1996)
Stress–strain relation 22 YI-3 33·8 Yi et al. (2003)
23 AL-4 35·0 Mohamad Ali (1983)
General form of the stress–strain relation 24 HO-3 35·7 Hognestad et al. (1955)
To represent the stress–strain behaviour of concrete, one of the 25 ME-2 36·0 Melek et al. (2003)
most basic relations, which is used by Desayi and Krishnan 26 GA-1 38·5 Gan (2000)
27 AL-5 40·0 Mohamad Ali (1983)
(1964), Popovics (1973), Saenz (1964) and Tulin and Gerstle
28 GA-2 40·1 Gan (2000)
(1964), was utilised (Equation 1), owing to its simplicity. In 29 KU-2 40·5 Kuchma (1996)
Equation 1, n is the empirical coefficient, which controls the 30 JA-1 45·0 Jansen and Shah (1997)
shape of the stress–strain curve. 31 HO-4 46·3 Hognestad et al. (1955)
32 WE-2 46·6 Wee et al. (1996)


εc n 33 SM-4 49·5 Smith and Young (1956)
1: fc ¼ f0   34 HO-5 52·0 Hognestad et al. (1955)
ε0 n  1 þ ðεc =ε0 Þn

To capture the stress–strain behaviour of the concrete in the
most accurate way, different suggestions are presented by
various authors for the empirical coefficient n. While the value
of the empirical coefficient n was proposed as 2 in some
studies (Desayi and Krishnan, 1964; Todeschini et al., 1964), it
was considered to be 3 in other studies (Tulin and Gerstle,
1964). Conversely, Popovics (1973) proposed Equation 2 to
calculate n
2: n ¼ 04  103  f0 ðpsiÞ þ 1
However, since the ascending and descending branches of the
stress–strain curve do not have the same gradient, it is difficult
to predict the behaviour of the entire curve using a single coef-
ficient n. For this reason, Thorenfeldt et al. (1987) modified
this relation by adding a second coefficient, k
ðεc =ε0 Þ  n
3: fc ¼ f0  ðnkÞ
n  1 þ ðεc =ε0 Þ
The value of k in this relation is 1 up to the peak stress of the
curve, but larger than 1 in the descending branch, as the com-
pressive strength of the concrete increases.
Proposed stress–strain relation
The relation proposed in this study and Equation 3
(Thorenfeldt et al., 1987) show similarities in terms of being
controlled by the shape of the ascending and descending por-
tions of the curve independently using empirical coefficients.
However, the general form of the proposed relation is the
same as Popovics’s relation (Popovics, 1973). The proposed
stress–strain relation is composed of two branches. Ascending
and descending portions of the curve are represented by
Equations 4 and 5, respectively. The difference of this relation
from Popovics’s is that the coefficient n governing the shape of
the curve is utilised separately for the ascending and descend-
ing portions, as nasc and ndesc
ðεc =ε0 Þ  nasc
4: 0  εc  ε0 fc ¼ f0 
nasc  1 þ ðεc =ε0 Þnasc

3
Magazine of Concrete Research
 Magazine of Concrete Research Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe

ðεc =ε0 Þ  ndesc nasc = 2·0

5: ε0 , εc fc ¼ f0  ndesc = 2·0
ndesc  1 þ ðεc =ε0 Þndesc ndesc = 3·0
f0 nasc = 2 ndesc = 4·0
ndesc = 5·0

Since the ascending and descending branches of the stress–

strain curve have different characteristics, it has been found

Stress
appropriate to characterise these branches with separate coeffi-
cients. Owing to the nature of the general relation used in
this study, the change of the coefficient n at the peak stress
results in a smooth transition rather than a sudden change
or discontinuity. The fact that the coefficients nasc and ndesc
affect the result of the equation proportionally and that the
0
ratio εc/ε0, which is the multiplier of nasc and ndesc, increases in 0 ε0
small increments as a result of the increase of εc can be shown Strain
as the reason for this situation. (a)

Figure 2 demonstrates the effect of the coefficients nasc and

f0 ndesc = 2
ndesc. In Figure 2(a), the descending portion has been plotted
with constant ndesc (ndesc = 2·0) and the ascending portion has
been plotted with variable nasc (nasc = 1·5; 2·0; 3·0; 4·0).
Conversely, Figure 2(b) has been plotted with constant nasc
Stress

(nasc = 2·0) and variable ndesc (ndesc = 2·0; 3·0; 4·0; 5·0).

The proposed relation is characterised in terms of four par- ndesc = 2·0

nasc = 1·5
ameters, f0, ε0, nasc and ndesc. Of these parameters, f0 and ε0 nasc = 2·0
can be obtained experimentally. The determination of the par- nasc = 3·0
nasc = 4·0
ameters nasc and ndesc, which is the main objective of this 0
study, is explained in the next section. However, if ε0 cannot be 0 ε0
experimentally obtained, it can be utilised from studies (De Strain
Nicolo et al., 1994; Fib, 2013; Müller, 2008; Popovics, 1973) (b)
reported in the literature.
Figure 2. Effect of nasc and ndesc: (a) constant nasc, variable ndesc;
(b) constant ndesc, variable nasc
Fitting the parameters nasc and ndesc
The parameters nasc and ndesc, which govern the ascending and
descending branches of Equation 1, are determined by fitting the 1·0 YI-1
experimental stress–strain data in the literature. For this purpose, YI-2
the experimental data are precisely digitised and transformed 0·8 YI-3
into non-dimensional form for the fitting study. An example of a
non-dimensional stress–strain graph is given in Figure 3. 0·6
fc/f0

The parameters nasc and ndesc of each of the non-dimensional 0·4

stress–strain datasets were obtained for the ascending and des-
cending portions separately. In this process, to obtain the best 0·2
fit values of nasc and ndesc, a method named the ‘Levenberg–
Marquardt’ method, which was proposed by Levenberg (1944) 0
and later modified by Marquardt (1963), and is used fre- 0 1 2 3 4
εc /ε0
quently to adjust constant variables (Dan et al., 2002; Gavin,
2019; Sousa, 2014), was utilised. The fitted empirical values of
Figure 3. An example of a non-dimensional stress–strain graph
nasc and ndesc of each curve are presented in Table 2. (Yi et al., 2003)

The fitted parameters nasc and ndesc for each specimen were
scattered according to their compressive strength (Figures 4(a) strength are given as
and 4(b)), thus, the trend curves of nasc and ndesc were
obtained. The exponential functions of the trend curves for 6: nasc ¼ 09658  e f0 00259
ascending and descending branches in terms of compressive

4
Magazine of Concrete Research
 Magazine of Concrete Research Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe

Table 2. Fitted values of nasc and ndesc 6·0 Hognestad et al. (1955)
Smith and Young (1956)
Specimen Compressive Yi et al. (2003)
No identifier strength nasc ndesc 5·0 İlki (2000)
Mohamad Ali (1983)
Nakamura and Higai (2001)
1 SM-1 8·8 1·3273 1·7562
4·0 Kuchma (1996)
2 HO-1 11·4 1·7241 1·6507 Wee et al. (1996)

nasc
3 YI-1 14·9 1·3497 1·8043 Melek et al. (2003)
Gan (2000)
4 IL-1 16·4 1·5078 1·7700 3·0
Jansen and Shah (1997)
5 IL-2 17·0 1·5812 1·8052
6 IL-3 17·8 1·3730 2·1145 2·0 nasc (Eq. 6)
7 AL-1 20·0 1·7846 2·7396
8 SM-2 20·7 1·6816 2·5687
9 HO-2 21·0 2·2738 2·0113 1·0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10 YI-2 21·1 1·5469 2·2430
f0: MPa
11 IL-4 21·6 1·4550 2·0460
12 NA-1 19·8 2·2393 2·5136 (a)
13 IL-5 22·6 1·5514 2·2046 Hognestad et al. (1955)
6·0 Smith and Young (1956)
14 AL-2 25·0 1·8343 2·2093
Yi et al. (2003)
15 IL-6 28·2 1·9688 2·5452 İlki (2000)
16 IL-7 28·9 2·0998 2·8103 5·0 Mohamad Ali (1983)
Nakamura and Higai (2001)
17 KU-1 29·1 1·6895 2·2311
Kuchma (1996)
18 AL-3 30·0 1·8966 1·9290 4·0 Wee et al. (1996)
ndesc

19 SM-3 30·6 2·0466 3·2031 Melek et al. (2003)

Gan (2000)
20 IL-8 30·8 2·0395 3·1896
3·0 Jansen and Shah (1997)
21 WE-1 31·3 2·2107 2·2337
22 YI-3 33·8 2·3573 2·3146
23 AL-4 35·0 1·9409 1·5045 2·0
24 HO-3 35·7 2·8970 2·5520 ndesc (Eq. 7)
25 ME-2 36·0 2·8823 2·1684 1·0
26 GA-1 38·5 2·4469 2·8555 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
27 AL-5 40·0 1·9623 1·6473 f0: MPa
28 GA-2 40·1 2·2671 3·0438
(b)
29 KU-2 40·5 2·1425 2·6245
30 JA-1 45·0 2·7307 3·3126
Figure 4. Exponential curves of (a) nasc and (b) ndesc
31 HO-4 46·3 3·8019 —
32 WE-2 46·6 2·6068 3·1333
33 SM-4 49·5 3·3040 —
34 HO-5 52·0 4·7237 — proposals, 34 different experimental datasets for the range 8·8
to 52·0 MPa from different studies were plotted with relations
proposed by other authors and the proposal in this study.
7: ndesc ¼ 16733  e f0 001194
According to Figures 5(a)–5( j), the proposed relation mostly
represents the complete stress–strain behaviour well in both
ascending and descending branches. When all of the graphs in
Evaluation and discussion Figure 5 are examined, the relations proposed by other authors
In this study, a stress–strain relation in the general form of give results that are closer to some of the experimental data,
the proposal of Popovics (1973) is proposed. This form was while others provide quite distant results. For example, Desayi
preferred, owing to its simplicity and applicability, and the and Krishnan’s proposal (Desayi and Krishnan, 1964) fits well
need for a small number of parameters. To construct more rea- with the experimental data provided by Mohamad Ali (1983).
listic stress–strain curves, exponential functions were generated However, it gives quite different behaviour, especially in higher
for n coefficients that govern the shape of the curve for ascend- strengths, according to the experimental data reported by
ing and descending branches separately. To evaluate the proxi- Hognestad (1951), Wee et al. (1996), Smith and Young (1956),
mity of the proposals, a comparison was made between Jansen and Shah (1997), Nakamura and Higai (2001) and
experimental (Gan, 2000; Hognestad et al., 1955; İlki, 2000; Gan (2000). Tulin and Gerstle’s proposal (Tulin and Gerstle,
Jansen and Shah, 1997; Kuchma, 1996; Melek et al., 2003; 1964) is relatively better than Desayi and Krishnan’s proposal
Mohamad Ali, 1983; Nakamura and Higai, 2001; Smith and (Desayi and Krishnan, 1964) at higher strengths. However, the
Young, 1956; Wee et al., 1996; Yi et al., 2003) and analytical accuracy of both relations is insufficient, since it is not valid
stress–strain curves proposed by other authors (Desayi and for the entire compressive strength range examined in this
Krishnan, 1964; Popovics, 1973; Tulin and Gerstle, 1964) study. Conversely, Popovics’s approach gives better results,
and the current study (Equations 4–7). Comparison graphs are since the coefficient n that governs the shape of the curve
presented in Figures 5(a)–5( j). To indicate the proximity of the changes according to the compressive strength.

5
Magazine of Concrete Research
 Magazine of Concrete Research Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe

Popovics (1973) HO-5

AL-5 50 HO-4
Popovics (1973)
40 Desayi and Krishnan (1964)
Desayi and Krishnan (1964)
AL-4 Tulin and Gerstle (1964)
Tulin and Gerstle (1964)
AL-3 Experimental 40 HO-3 Experimental
30 Proposed
σc: MPa

σc: MPa
AL-2 Proposed
AL-1 30
20 HO-2
20
10 HO-1
10
0 0
0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0·005
εc: mm/mm εc: mm/mm
(a) (b)
Popovics (1973) Popovics (1973)
SM-4 Desayi and Krishnan (1964) 50 WE-2 Desayi and Krishnan (1964)
50 Tulin and Gerstle (1964) Tulin and Gerstle (1964)
Experimental 40 Experimental
40 Proposed
WE-1 Proposed
SM-3
σc: MPa

σc: MPa 30
30
SM-2 20
20

10 SM-1 10

0 0
0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0·005 0·006
εc: mm/mm εc: mm/mm
(c) (d)
40
50 JA-1
YI-3 Popovics (1973) Popovics (1973)
Desayi and Krishnan (1964) Desayi and Krishnan (1964)
30 Tulin and Gerstle (1964) 40 Tulin and Gerstle (1964)
ME-1
Experimental Experimental
σc: MPa

YI-2 30
σc: MPa

Proposed Proposed
20
YI-1 NA-1
20
10
10

0 0
0 0·002 0·004 0·006 0·008 0 02 04 06 08 ·010 ·012 ·014
εc: mm/mm 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0 0 0
εc: mm/mm
(e) (f)

KU-2 Popovics (1973) GA-2

40 Desayi and Krishnan (1964) 40 Popovics (1973)
Tulin and Gerstle (1964) GA-1 Desayi and Krishnan (1964)
KU-1 Experimental Tulin and Gerstle (1964)
30 30 Experimental
σc: MPa

Proposed
σc: MPa

Proposed
20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0·005 0·006 0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0·005
εc: mm/mm εc: mm/mm
(g) (h)
Popovics (1973) 30 IL-7 Popovics (1973)
IL-8 Desayi and Krishnan (1964) Desayi and Krishnan (1964)
30 IL-6 Tulin and Gerstle (1964) IL-5 Tulin and Gerstle (1964)
Experimental Experimental
IL-4 Proposed 20 IL-3 Proposed
σc: MPa
σc: MPa

20
IL-2
IL-1
10
10

0 0
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0
εc: mm/mm εc: mm/mm
(i) (j)

Figure 5. Comparison of experimental and analytical stress–strain curves: (a) Mohamad Ali (1983); (b) Hognestad (1951); (c) Smith and
Young (1956); (d) Wee et al. (1996); (e) Yi et al. (2003); (f) Jansen and Shah (1997), Melek et al. (2003), Nakamura and Higai (2001);
(g) Kuchma (1996); (h) Gan (2000); (i) İlki (2000); ( j) İlki (2000)

6
Magazine of Concrete Research
 Magazine of Concrete Research Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe

However, it is understood that the descending branches of some seen in higher-strength concretes in the proposal of Desayi and
test data, such as JA-1, IL-8, WE-1 and WE-2 (Figures 5(d), Krishnan and in lower-strength concretes in Tulin and
5(f) and 5(i)) show sudden changes and depart from the trend Gerstle’s proposal. When the linear trend lines of Popovics’s
followed. Although the relation proposed in this study is highly proposal and the proposal of this study are examined, it can be
compatible until the point of sudden changes, it is seen that the observed that closer error rates are obtained in lower-strength
curves of all the proposed relations show inconsistencies with concretes, whereas the proposed relation gives better results in
the rest of the experimental data. These situations are thought higher-strength concretes. In particular, in the zone ranging
to be caused by the challenges described in the introduction. In from 15 to 52 MPa, with an error rate close to 0%, the pres-
this study, it is essential to capture the ideal behaviour of con- ence of the proposed relation is clearly seen.
crete. It is considered that these situations appearing in the test
data in question are due to a separate issue that needs to be
Conclusions
studied comprehensively.
In this study, a compressive stress–strain relation, which has
great importance on the accuracy of numerical analysis of
Conversely, owing to the large amount of data, there is a need
reinforced concrete structures, is proposed for OOPC. The
to evaluate the proximity of experimental data to the relations
proposed relation was compared with experimental data and
proposed in the literature and the current study quantitatively.
other relations. The comments and outcomes of the study can
For this purpose, the MSPE method was utilised. This method
be summarised as follows.
gives the mean of the squared ratio of the difference in the
absolute experimental and numerical errors in the stress to the
& To obtain the most realistic stress–strain relation for OPCC,
experimental stress for the same corresponding strain value as
experimental stress–strain data obtained from different
a percentage. In this study, the MSPE was calculated for each
laboratories and presented by different authors were used.
relation according to each experimental data point as
& The need for a small number of parameters, simplicity
 ! and accuracy in the concrete classes that are frequently
100 Xt σ exp;j  σ rel;j  2 encountered in practice is thought to make this
8: MSPE ¼   
t σ exp;j  relation useful.
j
& Considering the comparative graphs in Figure 5 and the
error rates shown in Figure 6, it seems that the proposed
where n is the number of data points of a curve, σ(exp,j ) is the
relation is quite successful in presenting the compressive
stress value of the jth data point of the experimental curve and
behaviour of OPCC with reasonable accuracy.
σ(rel,j ) is the stress value of the jth data point of the numerical
& The proposed relation can be used for wider compressive
curve. The MSPE calculation results obtained for four
strength range, but it is in good agreement with concretes
stress–strain relations according to each experimental dataset
with compressive strengths in the range 8–52 MPa.
are shown in Figure 6. Furthermore, linear trend lines are indi-
cated for the MSPE of each proposal on the scatter plot.

REFERENCES
According to the MSPEs presented in Figure 6, among the
ANSYS (2013) Ansys Theory Manual. Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA.
four relations, Popovics’s proposal (Popovics, 1973) and the
Arioĝlu E (1995) Discussion of ‘Strain of concrete at peak compressive
relation proposed in this study yield significantly low error stress for a wide range of compressive strengths’ by B. de Nicolo,
rates, which are smaller than Tulin and Gerstle’s (1964) and L. Pani and E. Pozzo, Materials and Structures 1994, 27, 205–210.
Desayi and Krishnan’s (1964) proposals. Large error rates are Materials and Structures 28(10): 611–613, https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02473194.
Aslani F and Nejadi S (2012) Mechanical properties of conventional and
Popovics (1973)
self-compacting concrete: an analytical study. Construction
35 Desayi and Krishnan (1964) and Building Materials 36: 330–347, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Tulin and Gerstle (1964) j.conbuildmat.2012.04.034.
30 Proposed
Popovics (1973) Belén GF, Fernando MA, Diego CL and Sindy SP (2011) Stress–strain
25 Desayi and Krishnan (1964) relationship in axial compression for concrete using recycled
MSPE: %

Tulin and Gerstle (1964)

20 Proposed saturated coarse aggregate. Construction and Building Materials
15 25(5): 2335–2342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2010.11.031.
10 Bhaskara GSV, Rao KB and Anoop MB (2018) Model for compressive
5 strength development of OPC concrete and fly ash concrete with
time. Magazine of Concrete Research 70(11): 541–557, https://doi
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 .org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00203.
Bineshian H (2014) Failure and Post-Failure Aspects of Mechanical
Compressive strength: MPa
Response of Concrete Structures to Compression and Tension.
Figure 6. MSPE of stress–strain relations MPhil thesis, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA,
Australia.

7
Magazine of Concrete Research
 Magazine of Concrete Research
Bischoff PH and Perry SH (1991) Compressive behaviour of concrete at
high strain rates. Materials and Structures 24(6): 425–450,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472016.
Carreira DJ and Chu KH (1985) Stress–strain relationship for
plain concrete in compression. ACI Journal 82(6): 797–804.
Chen Z, Chen J, Ning F and Li Y (2019) Residual properties of recycled
concrete after exposure to high temperatures. Magazine of
Concrete Research 71(15): 781–793 https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr
.17.00503.
Chitrala S, Jadaprolu GJ and Chundupalli S (2018) Study and predicting
the stress–strain characteristics of geopolymer concrete under
compression. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8: 172–192,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.01.010.
Corinaldesi V (2010) Mechanical and elastic behaviour of concretes
made of recycled-concrete coarse aggregates. Construction and
Building Materials 24(9): 1616–1620, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2010.02.031.
Cui HZ, Lo TY, Memon SA et al. (2012) Experimental investigation and
development of analytical model for pre-peak stress–strain curve
of structural lightweight aggregate concrete. Construction and
Building Materials 36: 845–859, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2012.06.041.
Cui C, Huang Q, Li D et al. (2016) Stress–strain relationship in axial
compression for EPS concrete. Construction and Building
Materials 105: 377–383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2015.12.159.
Da B, Yu H, Ma H et al. (2016) Experimental investigation of whole
stress–strain curves of coral concrete. Construction and Building
Materials 122: 81–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2016.06.064.
Dan H, Yamashita N and Fukushima M (2002) Convergence properties of
the inexact Levenberg–Marquardt method under local error bound
conditions. Optimization Methods and Software 17(4): 605–626,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1055678021000049345.
De Nicolo B, Pani L and Pozzo E (1994) Strain of concrete at peak
compressive stress for a wide range of compressive strengths.
Materials and Structures 27(4): 206–210, https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02473034.
Desayi P and Krishnan S (1964) Equation for the stress–strain curve of
concrete. ACI Journal 61(3): 345–350, https://doi.org/10.14359/7785.
Dilger WH, Koch R and Kowalczyk R (1984) Ductility of plain and
confined concrete under different strain rates. ACI Journal 81(1):
73–81, https://doi.org/10.14359/10649.
Dilmaç H and Demir F (2013) Stress–strain modeling of high-strength
concrete by the adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) approach. Neural Computing and Applications 23(1):
385–390, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-013-1489-5.
Fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete) (2013) fib Model
Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &
Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, https://doi.org/10.1002/
9783433604090.
Fu BHC, Erki MA and Seckin M (1991) Review of effects of loading rate
on concrete in compression. Journal of Structural Engineering
117(12): 3645–3659, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1991)117:12(3645).
Gan Y (2000) Bond Stress and Slip Modeling in Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures. MASc thesis,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Gavin HP (2019) The Levenberg–Marquardt Algorithm For Nonlinear
Least Squares Curve-Fitting Problems. Duke University, Durham,
NC, USA. See http://people.duke.edu/~hpgavin/ce281/lm.pdf
(accessed 06/02/2020).
Glanville WH, Grime G, Fox EN and Davies WW (1938) An Investigation
of the Stress in Reinforced Concrete Piles During Driving.
British Building Research Board Technical Paper 20, Department of
8
Magazine of Concrete Research
Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe
Scientific and Industrial Research, His Majesty’s Stationery Office,
London, UK.
Güler K, Demir F and Pakdamar F (2012) Stress–strain modelling of
high strength concrete by fuzzy logic approach. Construction
and Building Materials 37: 680–684, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2012.07.069.
Hallquist JO (2006) LS-DYNA® Theory Manual. Livermore Software
Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, USA.
Han B and Xiang TY (2017) Axial compressive stress–strain relation and
Poisson effect of structural lightweight aggregate concrete.
Construction and Building Materials 146: 338–343, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.101.
Hibbit HD, Karlsson BI and Sorensen EP (2012) ABAQUS user manual,
version 6.12. Simulia, Providence, RI, USA.
Hognestad E (1951) A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in
Reinforced Concrete Members. University of Illinois Bulletin,
Bulletin Series No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering
Experiment Station, Champaign, IL, USA.
Hognestad E, Hanson NW and McHenry D (1955) Concrete stress
distribution in ultimate strength design. ACI Journal 52(12):
455–480.
Humad AM, Provis JL and Cwirzen A (2018) Alkali activation of a high
MgO GGBS – fresh and hardened properties. Magazine of Concrete
Research 70(24): 1256–1264, https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00436.
Hussein AA (1998) Behaviour of High Strength Concrete Under Biaxial
Loading Conditions. PhD thesis, Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada.
İlki A (2000) Betonarme Elemanların yön Değiştiren Tekrarlı Yükler
Altında Doğrusal Olmayan Davranışı. PhD thesis, Istanbul
Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey (In Turkish).
Jansen DC and Shah SP (1997) Effect of length on compressive strain
softening of concrete. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 123(1):
25–35, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:1(25).
Jitsu K, Shirai K, Ito C et al. (1998) Effects of strain rate on concrete
strength subjected to impact load–dynamic compressive strength
test by split Hopkinson pressure bar method. Transactions on the
Built Environment 35: 471–480.
Kuchma DA (1996) The Influence of T-Headed Bars on the Strength
and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Wall Elements. PhD thesis,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kumar P (2004) A compact analytical material model for unconfined
concrete under uni-axial compression. Materials and
Structures/Materiaux et Constructions 37(9): 585–590, https://doi
.org/10.1007/BF02483287.
Kumar M, Ma Z and Matovu M (2012) Mechanical properties of
high-strength lightweight concrete. ACI Materials Journal
88(3): 240–247.
Levenberg K (1944) A method for the solution of certain non-linear
problems in least squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 2(2):
164–168, https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/10666.
Lim JC and Ozbakkaloglu T (2014) Stress–strain model for normal- and
light-weight concretes under uniaxial and triaxial compression.
Construction and Building Materials 71: 492–509, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.050.
Lynn CJ, Dhir RK and Ghataora GS (2019a) Use of incinerated ash as a
cement component in concrete: compressive strength modelling.
Magazine of Concrete Research 71(12): 624–636, https://doi.org/
10.1680/jmacr.18.00069.
Lynn CJ, Ghataora GS and Dhir RK (2019b) Use of incinerated ashes as
aggregate in concrete: a compressive strength mode. Magazine of
Concrete Research 71(23): 1253–1264, https://doi.org/10.1680/
jmacr.18.00375.
Mainstone RJ (1975) Properties of materials at high rates of straining or
loading. Materials and Construction 8(2): 102–116, https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02476328.
 Magazine of Concrete Research
Marquardt DW (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of
nonlinear parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics 11(2): 431–441, https://doi.org/10.1137/
0111030.
Melek M, Wallace JW and Conte JP (2003) Experimental Assessment of
Columns with Short lap Splices Subjected to Cyclic Loads.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (April),
PEER Report 2003/04, p. 192, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Mohamad Ali A (1983) Strength and Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Spandrel Beams. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK.
Müller H (2008) Constitutive Modelling of High Strength/High
Performance Concrete: State-of-the-art Report. International
Federation for Structural Concrete, CEB FIP Bulletin 42,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nakamura H and Higai T (2001) Compressive fracture energy and
fracture zone length of concrete. In Modeling of Inelastic
Behaviour of RC Structures Under Seismic Loads (Shing PB and
Tanabe T (eds)) American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA, USA, pp. 471–487.
Nataraja MC, Dhang N and Gupta AP (1999) Stress–strain curves for
steel-fiber reinforced concrete under compression. Cement and
Concrete Composites 21(5): 383–390, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0958-9465(99)00021-9.
Noushini A, Aslani F, Castel A et al. (2016) Compressive stress–strain
model for low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer and heat-cured
Portland cement concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites 73:
136–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.07.004.
Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete stress–strain
curve of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 3(5): 583–599,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(73)90096-3.
Rashad AM (2019) Effect of nanoparticles on the properties of
geopolymer materials. Magazine of Concrete Research 71(24):
1283–1301, https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.18.00289.
Saenz LP (1964) Discussion of “equation for the stress-strain curve of
concrete” by P. Desayi and S. Krishnan. ACI Journal 61(9):
1229–1235.
Sahin U and Bedirhanoglu I (2014) A fuzzy model approach to
stress–strain relationship of concrete in compression. Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering 39(6): 4515–4527,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1170-z.
Samani AK and Attard MM (2012) A stress–strain model for uniaxial
and confined concrete under compression. Engineering Structures
41: 335–349, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.027.
Shah SP and Ahmad SH (1985) Structural properties of high strength
concrete and its implications for precast prestressed concrete.
Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal 30(6): 92–119.
Smith GM and Young LE (1956) Ultimate flexural analysis based on
stress–strain curves of cylinders. ACI Journal 53(12): 597–609,
https://doi.org/10.14359/11531.
Soroushian P, Choi K and Alhamad A (1986) Dynamic constitutive
behavior of concrete. ACI Journal 83(2): 251, https://doi.org/
10.14359/10423.
Sousa JLAO (2014) A Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for fitting
σ–w curves from three-point bend tests for plain and fiber
reinforced concretes. Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais
4(4): 663–690, https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952011000400010.
Srinivasa VR, Rajaratnam V, Seshagiri Rao M and Sasikala C (2013)
Mathematical model for predicting stress–strain behaviour of
bacterial concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research
and Development 5(11): 21–29.
Thorenfeldt E, Tomaszewicz A and Jensen J (1987) Mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete and application in design. In
Proceedings of the Symposium Utilization of High Strength
Concrete (Holland I, Helland S, Jakobsen B and Lenschow R
(eds)). Tapir, Stavanger, Norway, pp. 149–159.
Magazine of Concrete Research
Uniaxial stress–strain relation for
low- and normal-strength concrete
in compression
Erdem and Bikçe
Todeschini CE, Bianchini AC and Kesler CE (1964) Behavior of concrete
columns reinforced with high strength steels. ACI Journal 61(6):
701–716, https://doi.org/10.14359/7803.
Tsai WT (1988) Uniaxial compressional stress–strain relation of
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 114(9): 2133–2136,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:9(2133).
Tulin LG and Gerstle KH (1964) Discussion of ‘equation for the
stress-strain curve of concrete’ by P. Desayi, and S. Krishnan.
ACI Journal 61(9): 701–716.
Wang W, Zhao L, Liu Y and Li Z (2014) Mechanical properties and
stress–strain relationship in axial compression for concrete with
added glazed hollow beads and construction waste. Construction
and Building Materials 71: 425–434, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.05.005.
Watanabe K, Niwa J, Yokota H and Iwanami M (2004) Experimental
study on stress–strain curve of concrete considering localized
failure in compression. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology
2(3): 395–407, https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.2.395.
Wee TH, Chin MS and Mansur MA (1996) Stress–strain relationship of
high-strength concrete in compression. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 8(2): 70–76, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(1996)8:2(70).
Whitney CS (1943) Discussion of a paper by V. P. Jensen,
‘The plasticity ratio of concrete and its effect on the ultimate
strength of beams’. ACI Journal 39(Suppl.): 584-2–584-6.
Wu X, Wang JF, Xu RQ and Chen YR (2016) Effects of temperature and
loading rate on the compressive behaviour of CA mortar.
Magazine of Concrete Research 68(24): 1240–1252, https://doi.org/
10.1680/jmacr.15.00451.
Xiao J, Zhang K and Akbarnezhad A (2018) Variability of stress–strain
relationship for recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial
compression loading. Journal of Cleaner Production 181: 753–771,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.247.
Yang K, Mun J and Hwang H (2014) Stress–strain relationship of
Ca(OH)2-activated Hwangtoh concrete. The Scientific World
Journal 2014: 846805, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/846805.
Yi ST, Kim JK and Oh TK (2003) Effect of strength and age on the
stress–strain curves of concrete specimens. Cement and Concrete
Research 33(8): 1235–1244, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)
00044-9.
Yip WK (1996) New damage variable in failure analysis of concrete.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 8(4): 184–188,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1996)8:4(184).
Zhao H, Wang Y and Liu F (2017) Stress–strain relationship of coarse
RCA concrete exposed to elevated temperatures. Magazine
of Concrete Research 69(13): 649–664, https://doi.org/10.1680/
jmacr.16.00333.
Zhu P, Mao X and Qu W (2019) Investigation of recycled powder as
supplementary cementitious material. Magazine of Concrete
Research 71(24): 1312–1324, https://doi.org/10.1680/
jmacr.18.00513.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please submit up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
9