Measuring Concrete

Modulus of Elasticity
Summary of testing procedure and tips for technicians

by David M. Mante

C
oncrete material stiffness, as represented by the Background
modulus of elasticity Ec, is a critical design parameter Concrete is assumed to exhibit relatively linear-elastic
as it is a load-deformational relationship that serves as behavior through approximately 40% of f cʹ. Beyond that point,
the foundational constitutive relationship for structural interfacial microcracking causes a concave downward
analysis and design. The modulus of elasticity of a given stress-strain relation,14 as shown in Fig. 1.
material represents the ratio of applied stress to instantaneous Further, beyond the range of linear-elastic behavior,
strain within an assumed proportion limit,1 and Ec is typically permanent deformation is exhibited upon loading and
measured for applied compressive loading under static loading unloading. Figure 1 also shows three common representations
conditions.2 of elastic modulus, including initial tangent modulus, chord
For many design applications, prediction equations3-6 are modulus, and secant modulus. The chord modulus is the
employed to estimate the expected Ec as a function of preferable metric for elastic modulus testing in concrete and
compressive strength f cʹ, unit weight, and/or aggregate the method designated by standard test method ASTM C469/
stiffness. Among the most common formulations are C469M. This metric, represented by the slope of a line
Eq. (19.2.2.1.a or b) in ACI 318-147 or Eq. (5.4.2.4-1) in adjoining two predefined points within the elastic portion of a
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.8 The use of stress-strain curve, minimizes the effect of initial nonlinearities
available prediction equations is expected to produce and appropriately characterizes the linear elastic range.
estimates of elastic modulus within ±20% of measured
values.7 While this magnitude of error is of little consequence Testing Procedure
to many design applications, certain applications exist where The testing procedure of ASTM C469/C469M requires a
an error of this magnitude may result in serviceability compression testing machine and a sensing device capable of
problems (that is, excessive deflections in high-rise building
columns,9 slender floor systems,10 geotechnical applications,11
and/or prestressed bridge girders12). For these applications,
direct measurement of Ec is often justified to confirm
adherence to a designer-specified elastic modulus or to
validate design assumptions.
When warranted, measurement of the static Ec is conducted
in accordance with standard test method ASTM C469/
C469M.13 ASTM C469/C469M involves simultaneous
measurement of applied stress and shortening strain through
an arbitrary proportional limit of 0.4f cʹ. Despite the increasing
demand for this test, limited operator training is available, and
this testing procedure is excluded from ACI technician
certification programs. The purpose of this article is to provide
general background information regarding Ec, a summary of
the ASTM C469/C469M testing procedure, and guidance to
help test operators avoid common errors associated with this Fig. 1: Stress-strain curve and elastic modulus depictions (adapted
test method. from Naaman15)

28 AUGUST 2019 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

measuring concrete strain to the nearest 5 millionths.13 The
test method prescribes the use of a compressometer, as
illustrated in Fig. 2, to indirectly measure the longitudinal
strain at the specimen centerline. The lower yoke is rigidly
affixed to the cylinder with three attachment points, while the
upper yoke is secured by two attachment points to allow
rotation under axial shortening of the specimen.
A compressometer mechanically amplifies the desired
measurement quantity (typically by a factor of 2.0) to allow
for increased measurement precision. Common sensing
devices for strain measurement include dial gauges or linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs).
A typical testing sequence for Ec, shown in Fig. 3, includes
determination of f cʹ in accordance with ASTM C39/C39M16
(one test per cylinder, two cylinders minimum) and multiple
cycles of nondestructive ASTM C469/C469M tests (minimum
of three tests per cylinder, number of cylinders determined by
test specifier). All specimens must be prepared and cured in
Fig. 2: Compressometer and test schematic
(a) (b)
Fig. 3: Laboratory testing: (a) concrete compressive strength per ASTM C39/C39M16; and concrete modulus of elasticity per ASTM C469/
C469M13 using: (b) analog dial gauge, and (c) linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)
accordance with ASTM C192/C192M.17
To minimize the number of testing specimens required for
a testing sequence, operators may determine f cʹ by ASTM C39/
C39M destructive testing of an initial test specimen followed
by evaluating each remaining specimen first by ASTM C469/
C469M nondestructive testing and, finally, by ASTM C39/
C39M destructive testing.
The chord modulus of elasticity E for the tested cylinder is
computed using the average measured values from the second
and third loading cycle13:
E = (S2 – S1)/(ɛ2 – 0.000050) (1)
where
S2 is stress corresponding to 40% of ultimate load, psi (MPa);
S1 is stress at specimen centerline corresponding to a
longitudinal strain, ε1, of 50 microstrain, psi (MPa) at
specimen centerline; and
ε2 is longitudinal strain produced by stress S2 (in./in.).
Modulus of elasticity test results are reported to the nearest
50,000 psi (200 MPa) with a single-operator multibatch
precision (repeatability) of ±4.25% (R1S %) maximum for
specimens over the range from 2.5 to 4 × 106 psi (17 to 28 GPa).13
Operators should expect that the results of duplicate cylinders
from different batches should not depart by more than 5%
from the average of the two for measured elastic moduli
within the specified range. ASTM C469/C469M does not
specify repeatability metrics for modulus of elasticity values
exceeding 4 × 106 psi.
Avoiding Common Testing Errors and Pitfalls
While ASTM C469/C469M dictates the formal
requirements for Ec testing, varying means and methods (for
example, preferred laboratory equipment, testing sequences,
(c)
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | AUGUST 2019 29
and data-processing practices) are able to satisfy ASTM C469/
C469M requirements. The following general discussion
highlights common operator errors and pitfalls that may result
in improper test results.
Improper compressometer attachment to specimen
To avoid improper positioning of the compressometer
during attachment to test specimens, the use of a pedestal and/
or metal blocks, as shown in Fig. 4, is a standard practice in
many laboratories.
Such blocks ensure that the bottom of the frame is
positioned parallel to the face of the specimen with sufficient
clearance to accommodate unbonded ASTM C1231/C1231M18
steel retaining rings. Locating pins (as shown in Fig. 4) on the
pedestal may assist with centering of the specimen within the
compressometer. After frame installation and removal of the
side braces, operators can confirm compressometer positioning
by applying light finger pressure to the top of the yoke directly
above the measurement gauge. If no gauge movement is
observed, it is likely that the pivot rod is not properly seated
and the compressometer may need to be reinstalled.
Inadvertent modifications to compressometer
geometry
Prior to testing, operators should confirm the intended
compressometer geometry ratio by measurement and/or by
consulting the manufacturer’s literature. A helpful technique
for measuring the intended compressometer geometry ratio
(which is a function of yoke geometry only) is to trace the
outline of either the upper or lower yoke on a sheet of paper,
noting relevant locations, and folding the paper into quarters
to precisely locate the yoke center point. Most commercially
available compressometers are intended to operate with a
geometry ratio of 2:1 (that is, the horizontal distance between
Locating
Pedestal pins
Fig. 4: Compressometer positioning by pedestal (left/center) or metal blocks (right)
30 AUGUST 2019 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
pivot rod and displacement indicator mounting centerline,
eg + er, is precisely twice the horizontal distance between the
pivot rod and the specimen centerline, eg, as shown in Fig. 5(a)).
Operators are cautioned against inadvertently altering the
intended geometry ratio (unless explicitly measured and
accounted for in calculations) by either positioning the dial
gauge and offset bracket with an outward or inward skew
(marked red in Fig. 5(b)) or retrofitting a compressometer
frame intended for a dial gauge with an offset bracket to a
nonoffset LVDT sensor (marked red in Fig. 5(c)). Note that
the potential geometric errors illustrated in Fig. 5(b) and (c)
could apply to compressometer geometry ratios other than 2:1.
Improper data readings
Operators may initially find it difficult to monitor both the
loading and the compressometer readings, so the readings
needed for Eq. (1) may not be taken correctly. Tables 1 and 2
provide approximate measurements for ASTM C469/C469M
testing of concretes with varying compressive strengths. The
aids were developed using the following assumptions:
compressometers for 6 x 12 in. (150 x 300 mm) or 4 x 8 in.
(100 x 200 mm) cylinders are configured with an 8.0 in.
(200 mm) or 5.33 in. (135 mm) gauge length, respectively;
the compressometer has a 2:1 geometry ratio; and the
modulus varies with the strength per the correlation developed
by Pauw3 for concrete with a unit weight of 145 lb/ft3 (density
of 2330 kg/m3).
Per Table 1, an operator performing ASTM C469/C469M
testing on a 6 x 12 in. specimen with a compressive strength
at the time of testing of 8000 psi (55 MPa) might expect an
initial dial gauge reading of 0.0008 in. (0.02 mm) to occur in
the vicinity of an applied stress of 258 psi (1.8 MPa) and a
dial gauge reading at 0.4 f cʹ of 3200 psi (22 MPa) to occur at
about 0.0099 in. (0.25 mm) displacement.
Side brace
Metal
blocks
Improper loading rate
The specified loading rate for ASTM
C469/C469M testing is 35.0 ± 7 psi/s
(250 ± 50 kPa/s).13 For concrete
strengths between 4000 and 12,000 psi
(28 and 83 MPa), the initial measurement
point (a strain of 0.000050) typically
occurs within the first 7 to 11 seconds
of testing following specimen seating.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5: Compressometer for intended 2:1 frame ratio: (a) proper orthogonal symmetry;
(b) skewed gauge offset (outward shown); and (c) frame designed for offset gauge used with
no gauge offset
Experienced ASTM C39/C39M
operators may be accustomed to
manually advancing well past this point
to expedite testing. Operators will need
to ensure a sufficiently slow loading rate
near this initial measurement point to
ensure that the precise loading
corresponding to a strain of 0.000050
can be recorded. For concrete strengths
(c)
between 4000 and 12,000 psi, the upper
measurement point 0.4f cʹ of a testing
cycle typically occurs between 45 and
140 seconds after initial load application.
Improper reading of high-
precision analog dial gauge
One of the most common confusions
associated with ASTM C469/C469M
testing results from improper reading of
high-precision analog dial gauges.
Whereas a common 0.001 in. (0.025 mm)
precision dial gauge (shown in Fig. 6(a))
is relatively intuitive to read (inner dial
first, followed by outer dial), a dial
gauge with an enhanced precision of
0.0001 in. (0.0025 mm) (Fig. 6(b)), as
required for ASTM C469/C469M
testing, can be a bit more challenging
to interpret.
The analog gauge in Fig. 6(a)
displays a reading of 0.2 [inner dial] +
0.050 [outer dial] = 0.250 in. (6.4 mm),
while the gauge in Fig. 6(b) displays a

Table 1:
Approximate expected measurements for ASTM C469/C469M13 testing (normalweight concrete), 6 x 12 in.
(150 x 300 mm) specimens with 2:1 compressometer geometry
Reading No. 1 (lower range) Reading No. 2 (upper range)
Approximate
Concrete compressive strength compressive stress fc, Compressive stress fc, Approximate dial
fc′ at time of testing, psi psi Dial gauge reading, in. psi gauge reading, in.
4000 182 0.0008 1600 0.0070
6000 223 0.0008 2400 0.0086
8000 258 0.0008 3200 0.0099
10,000 288 0.0008 4000 0.0111
12,000 316 0.0008 4800 0.0122
Note: 1 psi = 0.007 MPa; 1 in. = 25 mm

Table 2:
Approximate expected measurements for ASTM C469/C469M testing (normalweight concrete), 4 x 8 in.
(100 x 200 mm) specimens with 2:1 compressometer geometry
Reading No. 1 (lower range) Reading No. 2 (upper range)
Approximate
Concrete compressive strength compressive stress fc, Compressive stress fc, Approximate dial
fc′ at time of testing, psi psi Dial gauge reading, in. psi gauge reading, in.
4000 182 0.0005 1600 0.0047
6000 223 0.0005 2400 0.0057
8000 258 0.0005 3200 0.0066
10,000 288 0.0005 4000 0.0074
12,000 316 0.0005 4800 0.0081
Note: 1 psi = 0.007 MPa; 1 in. = 25 mm

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | AUGUST 2019 31

reading of 0.09 [inner dial] + 0.0029 [outer dial] = 0.0929 in.
(2.4 mm), with each tick mark indicating a change of 0.0001 in.
Confusion may arise from the printed scale on the face of
Fig. 6(b), which for ASTM C469/C469M testing purposes
might more appropriately read 10, 20, 30, etc., to imply
10/10,000, 20/10,000, 30/10,000, and such, in lieu of the
displayed 1, 2, 3, and such. The maximum anticipated change
in dial-gauge reading within a single cycle will seldom exceed
0.0100 in. (0.25 mm) (refer to Table 1), which corresponds to
one full revolution of the outer dial on the gauge in Fig. 6(b).
Improper calibration of automated apparatus
Laboratories that routinely conduct ASTM C469/C469M
testing to determine Ec often seek to automate the data-
collection effort using a combination of an LVDT-equipped
compressometer, a standalone data logger, or a proprietary
compression testing machine controller with data-logging
capabilities. Limited proprietary options exist for out-of-box
automation of ASTM C469/C469M testing, and available
systems often have pronounced drawbacks. These limitations
can include a lack of means to actively monitor recorded
values during testing; an inability to postprocess the data
(a) (b)
Fig. 6: Analog dial gauge faces with resolutions: (a) 0.001 in.
(0.025 mm); and (b) 0.0001 in. (0.0025 mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 7: Defect in proprietary automated ASTM C469/C469M data-collection system: (a) calibration error; (b) grade markings protruding from
the bolt head surface; (c) gauge block rested atop the protruding bolt-head grade markings; and (d) LVDT conical tip bearing directly on the
furnished bolt-head (between grade markings)
32 AUGUST 2019 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
within the controller/logger; inaccessible factory-configured
programming; or, perhaps most notable, the need for frequent
calibration of LVDTs to ensure proper readings.
In a recent laboratory conversion to automated data
collection for ASTM C469/C469M testing (Fig. 3(c)), our
technical staff noted a calibration error as shown in Fig. 7(a).
It was determined that the grade markings protruding from the
factory-supplied bolt-head surface (Fig. 7(b)) had caused an
incorrect offset of the LVDT gauge during calibration. As
shown in Fig. 7(c), during calibration, the gauge block rested
atop the protruding bolt-head grade markings, whereas during
testing, the LVDT conical tip was able to directly bear on the
furnished bolt head (between grade markings) as shown in
Fig. 7(d).
Operators of LVDT-equipped compressometers are
cautioned to ensure the top surface of the bolt head is
smoothed prior to calibration (if bolt grade markings are
present), compare results of automated measurement setup to
analog setup to ensure accuracy prior to use, and consistently
verify LVDT calibration.
Summary
With increasing frequency, designers of concrete elements
are specifying minimum required values for Ec or becoming
otherwise involved in ensuring that sufficient concrete
stiffness is provided in finished structures to avoid
serviceability issues. As a result, modulus of elasticity testing
in accordance with ASTM C469/C469M is becoming a more
commonly demanded test. The guidance offered in this article
is intended to both highlight the intricacies of this testing
method to the design community as well as provide a resource
to assist novice operators in avoiding common pitfalls
associated with ASTM C469/C469M procedures.
(c) (d)
Acknowledgment of Unbonded Caps in Determination of Compressive Strength of
The author thanks Robert W. Barnes, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, Hardened Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West
for his indirect contribution(s) to this work. Conshohocken, PA, 2015, 5 pp.

References Selected for reader interest by the editors after independent expert
1. Mehta, P.K., and Monteiro, P.J.M., Concrete: Microstructure, evaluation and recommendation.
Properties, and Materials, fourth edition, McGraw-Hill Education, 2014,
704 pp.
2. “ACI Concrete Terminology (ACI CT-18),” American Concrete ACI member David M. Mante is an
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2018, 76 pp. Assistant Professor in the Civil and
3. Pauw, A., “Static Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete as Affected by Environmental Engineering Department
Density,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 57, No. 12, Dec. 1960, pp. 679-688. at Lafayette College in Easton, PA,
4. Noguchi, T.; Tomosawa, F.; Nemati, K.M.; Chiaia, B.M.; and and Director of the Lafayette College
Fantill, A.P., “A Practical Equation for Elastic Modulus of Concrete,” Concrete Laboratory (LCCL). His research
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 2009, pp. 690-696. interests include improving the accuracy
5. Al-Omaishi, N.; Tadros, M.K.; and Seguirant, S.J., “Elasticity, of serviceability predictions for concrete
Modulus, Shrinkage, and Creep of High-Strength Concrete as Adopted structures, the constructability and
by AASHTO,” PCI Journal, V. 54, No. 3, Summer 2009, pp. 44-63. structural testing of large-scale accelerated bridge construction
6. Green, G.; Castrodale, R.W.; and Graybeal, B., “Recent Changes components, concrete sensor development, and engineering
education. He is a member of ACI Committee 435, Deflection of
in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Regarding Lightweight
Concrete Building Structures, and recipient of the 2013-2014 ACI
Concrete,” Proceedings of the National Accelerated Bridge Construction
Presidents Fellowship. He received his MS and PhD from Auburn
Conference, Miami, FL, 2015.
University, Auburn, AL, in 2012 and 2016, respectively.
7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
8. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, eighth edition,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Washington, DC, 2017, 1780 pp.
9. “The High E-Trend Continues,” Prairie Material, 2016, www.
prairie.com/en-us/Pages/Media%20Center/News/The-High-E-Trend-
Continues.aspx. (last accessed July 2019)
10. Boyce, W.H., “Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Case
Studies,” Concrete Floors and Slabs, R.K. Dhir, M.D. Newlands, and
T.A. Harrison, eds., Thomas Telford Publishing, London, UK, 2002,

Career
357 pp.
11. Hayes, J., and Simmonds, T., “Interpreting Strain Measurements
from Load Tests in Bored Piles,” Proceedings—Ninth International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Nice, France, 2002, 397 pp.
12. Tadros, M.K.; Fawzy, F.; and Hanna, K.E., “Precast, Prestressed
Girder Camber Variability,” PCI Journal, V. 56, No. 1, Winter 2011,
Center
pp. 135-154.
13. ASTM C469/C469M-14, “Standard Test Method for Static
Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, 5 pp.
14. Neville, A.M., Properties of Concrete, fifth edition, Pearson
Advance your career.
Education, 2013, 872 pp. The ACI Career Center, specifically targeted to
15. Naaman, A.E., Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design, second the concrete industry, brings together great job
edition, Techno Press, 2004, 1072 pp. opportunities and great candidates. Featuring
16. ASTM C39/C39M-18, “Standard Test Method for Compressive hundreds of job postings across the country and
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West
around the world, ACI’s Career Center is the right
solution for your job search needs.
Conshohocken, PA, 2018, 8 pp.
17. ASTM C192/C192M-18, “Standard Practice for Making and Follow @ACICareerCenter
Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, 8 pp.
18. ASTM C1231/C1231M-15, “Standard Practice for Use
www.concrete.org/careercenter
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | AUGUST 2019 33