Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-18T00:48:10.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fracture Behavior of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Under Multiaxial Compressive Stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

Peter Grübl*
DYWIDAG, Erdinger Landstraße 1, D-8000 München, Federal Republic of Germany
Get access


Lightweight aggregate concrete under triaxial compressive load shows a different failure behavior compared with normalweight concrete. The increase of strength due to confining pressure is not as large as it is with normalweight concrete. It depends on the type of aggregate. The larger the stiffness of the aggregate the larger the increase of strenoth. Under hydrostatic pressure the low strength lightweight aggregate concrete (Bc ∼ 15 N/mm2 ) showed a confining strength which was about 2 to 2,5 times higher than the urfiaxial strength. Concrete with aggregates with high stiffness (E ∼ 14,000 N/mm2 ) and a uniaxial strength between 33 and 48 N/mm2 reached at a confining factor of 25% a strength increasing factor of about 4. The volumetric change curves show two remarkable facts. With confining factors of 0,05 and 0,10 lightweight aggregate concrete has at a stress level of 80% to 90% of the confining strength a volumetric increase which changes into a volumetric decrease shortly before reaching the ultimate load. With a confininn factor of 0.25 the volume decreases constantly until the fracture happens. The temporary volumetric increase is caused by a widening of the cracks. The fracture of lightweight aggregate concrete under confining pressure is mainly caused by an internal collapse of the aggregate grains.

Research Article
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1. Linse, D., DAfStb H. 292 (1978)Google Scholar
2 Gerstle, H. et al, SP 55–5Google Scholar
3 Schickert, K., BAM Forschungsbericht 70 (1980)Google Scholar
4 Karmann, T., VDI-Zeitschrift, H. 42 (1911)Google Scholar
5 Richart, F.E., Brandtzaeg, A., Brown, R.L., Bull. No 185 Engineering Experiment. Station, University of Illinois (1928)Google Scholar
6 Duke, M., Davis, H., ASTM Proceeding, Vol.44 (1944)Google Scholar
7 Gardener, N. J.; ACI Journal, 136 (1969)Google Scholar
8 Lannay, P., Gachon, H., Poitevin, P., FIP Kongreß Prag (1970)Google Scholar
9 Hobbs, D. W., CCR 1, 41 (1971)Google Scholar
10 Kobayashi, S., Koyanagi, W., Department of Civil Engineering Kyoto University 1972 Google Scholar
11 Gerstle, H. et al Proc. Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng. (ASCE) 106, No. EM 6, 1383 (1980)Google Scholar
12 Newman, J. B. in Developments in Concrete Technology, Science Publishers Ltd. London, 1979 Google Scholar
13 Grübl, P., beton 29, 91 (1979)Google Scholar
14 Kupfer, H., DAfStb H. 229 (1973)Google Scholar
15 Linse, D., Beton- und STahlbetonbau 71 (1967)Google Scholar
16 Mibashi, H., Wittmann, F. H., Heron Vol.25 (1980), No. 3Google Scholar
17 Grübl, P., CCR 6, 1 (1976)Google Scholar
18 Criibl, P., CCR 4, 657 (1974)Google Scholar
19 Sell, R., DAfStb H. 245 (1974)Google Scholar