The experimental comparison of the uniaxial and biaxial flexural tensile strengths according to the size of specimens

J. Kim, Y. Kwak, Goangseup Zi

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

This paper compared the results of experimental test of the biaxial flexural tensile strength of concretes to that of the uniaxial flexural strength according to the size of specimens. The uniaxial and biaxial flexural strengths in this study were obtained from the classical modulus of rupture (MOR) test and the biaxial flexural test (BFT) recently developed by Zi and Oh. We estimated load-strain relationship on the bottom surface of BFT specimens and three different sizes were considered to investigate the effect of the size of specimens. The average biaxial flexural tensile strength was greater than the classical modulus of rupture test. However, at the same time, the stochastic deviation of the biaxial test was greater than the modulus of rupture test. The load- strain relationships of two strain gages placed in the bottom surface of specimens is almost identical. Selection.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProcedia Engineering
Pages662-666
Number of pages5
Volume14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Event12th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, EASEC12 - Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Duration: 2011 Jan 262011 Jan 28

Other

Other12th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, EASEC12
CountryHong Kong
CityHong Kong
Period11/1/2611/1/28

Fingerprint

Bending strength
Loads (forces)
Tensile strength
Strain gages
Concretes

Keywords

  • Biaxial flexural tensile strength
  • Concrete
  • Experimental data
  • Modulus of rupture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

The experimental comparison of the uniaxial and biaxial flexural tensile strengths according to the size of specimens. / Kim, J.; Kwak, Y.; Zi, Goangseup.

Procedia Engineering. Vol. 14 2011. p. 662-666.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Kim, J, Kwak, Y & Zi, G 2011, The experimental comparison of the uniaxial and biaxial flexural tensile strengths according to the size of specimens. in Procedia Engineering. vol. 14, pp. 662-666, 12th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, EASEC12, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 11/1/26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.084
@inproceedings{ca9df9ba646342bd8ba0126e14df43d2,
title = "The experimental comparison of the uniaxial and biaxial flexural tensile strengths according to the size of specimens",
abstract = "This paper compared the results of experimental test of the biaxial flexural tensile strength of concretes to that of the uniaxial flexural strength according to the size of specimens. The uniaxial and biaxial flexural strengths in this study were obtained from the classical modulus of rupture (MOR) test and the biaxial flexural test (BFT) recently developed by Zi and Oh. We estimated load-strain relationship on the bottom surface of BFT specimens and three different sizes were considered to investigate the effect of the size of specimens. The average biaxial flexural tensile strength was greater than the classical modulus of rupture test. However, at the same time, the stochastic deviation of the biaxial test was greater than the modulus of rupture test. The load- strain relationships of two strain gages placed in the bottom surface of specimens is almost identical. Selection.",
keywords = "Biaxial flexural tensile strength, Concrete, Experimental data, Modulus of rupture",
author = "J. Kim and Y. Kwak and Goangseup Zi",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.084",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "662--666",
booktitle = "Procedia Engineering",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - The experimental comparison of the uniaxial and biaxial flexural tensile strengths according to the size of specimens

AU - Kim, J.

AU - Kwak, Y.

AU - Zi, Goangseup

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - This paper compared the results of experimental test of the biaxial flexural tensile strength of concretes to that of the uniaxial flexural strength according to the size of specimens. The uniaxial and biaxial flexural strengths in this study were obtained from the classical modulus of rupture (MOR) test and the biaxial flexural test (BFT) recently developed by Zi and Oh. We estimated load-strain relationship on the bottom surface of BFT specimens and three different sizes were considered to investigate the effect of the size of specimens. The average biaxial flexural tensile strength was greater than the classical modulus of rupture test. However, at the same time, the stochastic deviation of the biaxial test was greater than the modulus of rupture test. The load- strain relationships of two strain gages placed in the bottom surface of specimens is almost identical. Selection.

AB - This paper compared the results of experimental test of the biaxial flexural tensile strength of concretes to that of the uniaxial flexural strength according to the size of specimens. The uniaxial and biaxial flexural strengths in this study were obtained from the classical modulus of rupture (MOR) test and the biaxial flexural test (BFT) recently developed by Zi and Oh. We estimated load-strain relationship on the bottom surface of BFT specimens and three different sizes were considered to investigate the effect of the size of specimens. The average biaxial flexural tensile strength was greater than the classical modulus of rupture test. However, at the same time, the stochastic deviation of the biaxial test was greater than the modulus of rupture test. The load- strain relationships of two strain gages placed in the bottom surface of specimens is almost identical. Selection.

KW - Biaxial flexural tensile strength

KW - Concrete

KW - Experimental data

KW - Modulus of rupture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80054788611&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80054788611&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.084

DO - 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.084

M3 - Conference contribution

VL - 14

SP - 662

EP - 666

BT - Procedia Engineering

ER -