Building and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1 9, 1981.

I
Printed in Great Britain. I i I I
0360-1323/81/010001-09 $02.00/0
~) 1981 Pergamon Press Ltd.

Factors Affecting Poisson's Ratio for

Concrete
ATHEEL E. ALLOS*
L. H. M A R T I N t
The paper presents 58 experimental values of Poisson's ratio related to cylinder strength and
age. Theories are developed based on idealised models of concrete and agree well with
experimental values related to mix proportions from other investigations.

NOMENCLATURE was greatly reduced dependent upon the pre-drying

C a constant
D the age at testing in days
E Young's modulus
f'c cylinder crushing strength
L length dimension
n a constant
P uniaxial load applied to model
R restraining force between layers
V~ volume fraction of total aggregate
e direct strain
# Poisson's ratio.
Subscripts
a aggregate
h horizontal or lateral axis
l layers part of the model
p paste
v vertical or longitudinal axis.
INTRODUCTION
EARLY E X P E R I M E N T A L w o r k [ I - 3 ] on Poisson's
ratio was associated with plain and reinforced concrete
columns, and the methods, measurements and con-
clusions were of a preliminary nature.
In 1929, Davis and Troxell[4] reported an extensive
programme on Poisson's ratio for concrete, and obser-
ved that Poisson's ratio increased with age at a
decreasing rate. This relationship, they concluded, was
only slightly influenced by the richness of the mix.
Poisson's ratio of concrete for different mix pro-
portions was examined by Plowman[5], who observed
that the ratio was independent of strength, age and
humidity of curing. He also concluded that the mix
proportions had no effect on Poisson's ratio. Anson
and Newman[6], analysing available test data, con-
cluded that there was a definite relation between
Poisson's ratio of mortar and concrete and their mix
proportions and is most affected by the volume frac-
tion of aggregate and age. From tests carried out on
hardened cement paste, Anson[7] observed that
Poisson's ratio was independent of the water-cement
ratio. This was confirmed by Parrottl-8], who also
found that Poisson's ratio of hardened cement paste
*Lecturer in the Department of Building and Construction,
University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
tReader in the Civil Engineering Department, University of
Aston in Birmingham, U.K.
moisture loss.
Poisson's ratio is important in the analysis of inde-
terminate structures and the value given in C P l l 0
"The Structural Use of Concrete" is 0.2. This single
value is intended to allow for all possible variables
such as age, strength, mix proportions and stress level,
and it is therefore important to be certain as to the
influence of these factors. The experimental and
theoretical work that follows results in definite con-
clusions and a table of values showing the influence of
mix proportions.
E X P E R I M E N T A L WORK RELA TED T O
S T R E N G T H A N D AGE
The test programme consisted of 82 150x 300-mm
cylinders cast in eight mixes. Three cylinders of each
mix were tested at 28 days as control specimens to
determine the strength of the mix, and the results are
shown in Table l(a). Ordinary typical portland cement
was used for all mixes. The coarse 10mm crushed
aggregate was obtained from the local Perry Common
Pit and the fine aggregate was Packington granular
sand with a fineness modulus of 2.0. The mix pro-
portions were 1:1.5:3.0 by dry weight, with a water-
cement ratio of 0.5.
The cylinders were partially filled and vibrated using
a poker vibrator, up to a level 10ram lower than the
top of the cylinders. When the concrete had set a
cement mortar cap was applied to the cylinders to give
a smooth finish. The concrete cylinders were stripped
the next day and placed in the curing tank under
controlled temperatures of 18°C and a relative hu-
midity of 90 %. On the day of the test the specimen
was removed from curing, cleaned and four electric
strain gauges of 60mm length were fixed on the
surface. Two gauges were fixed in the vertical plane
and two on the circumference of the centre section, to
determine the longitudinal and lateral strains.
A Dennison compression machine was used in test-
ing the specimens, and loading was applied in incre-
ments up to failure with strain readings at each
increment.
The lateral strain was determined from the average
of the two lateral strain gauges and plotted against the
axial stress. The longitudinal strain was obtained from
the average of the two longitudinal strain gauges and
 Atheel E. Allos and L. H. Martin

Table l(a). Results of control tests

Mix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean

*f~ (N/mm 2) 36.25 35.91 40.37 35.28 35.07 35,59 34.24 34.98 35.96 + 1.88

*Average of three cylinders.

plotted against the axial stress. The value of Poisson's

Table l(b). Test results ratio was then o b t a i n e d from dividing the slope of the
best fit lines from these two g r a p h s in the linear elastic
Cylinder range of behaviour. The values are s h o w n in
crushing Elastic Poisson's
Age in strength modulus ratio Table l(b). A typical g r a p h of lateral strain against
days f'~(N/mm 2) E(kN/mm 2) (p) longitudinal strain at different loading increments is
presented in Fig. 1, with the slope of the curve at each
0.98 11.28 17.25 0.145 point representing Poisson's ratio at t h a t point. At low
1.02 8.29 15.50 0.153
values of load the Poisson's ratio is high and decreases
1.14 10.77 18.05 0.130
1.14 13.65 23.60 0.213 gradually to a c o n s t a n t value representing the elastic
2.14 18.75 24.80 0.100 Poisson's ratio of the sample. As the load increases the
2.97 16.01 22.50 0.110 ratio starts increasing at an increasing rate due to the
3.74 24.92 30.60 0.161 formation of longitudinal cracks in the sample.
5.14 27.3 30.30 0.082
7.08 28.42 36.40 0.099
9,18 29.4 32.90 0.124
14,77 34.96 33.40 0.142
14,88 32.70 32.00 0.125
0 002
14,97 33.90 33.40 0.138
15.08 36.09 30.56 0.133
17.20 32.80 35.90 0.160
19.15 33.83 33.40 0.149 o
20.96 37.21 36.63 0.124
22.98 38.34 40.40 0.154
24.85 34.96 33.50 0.163
0001
26.10 38.50 30.80 0.166
27.05 40.10 33.80 0.132 9O
27.83 34.96 33.00 0.143 % of ultimate load 80 J'/
28.10 34.39 34.40 0.150
28.83 38.34 28.75 0.136
31.8 34,96 29.25 0.144
31.96 31.12 34.25 0.129
31.98 33.83 29.53 0.134 I I I
000i 0 002 0 003
34.83 36.09 33.7 0.126 Axial strain
34.87 37.10 30.75 0.133
34,98 38.40 32.00 0.132
35.96 37.21 30.1 0.106 Fig. 1. Typical relationship of axial strain to transverse strain.
37.85 36.37 29.95 0,125
37.98 45.22 35.4 0.129
39.97 42.85 34.05 0.118
40.94 38.34 30.16 0.144
41.02 35.95 30.88 0.158 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
42.88 41.26 33.40 0.179
44.04 38.45 31.25 0.123 The relationship between Poisson's ratio a n d cylin-
44.93 39.47 33.55 0.149 der strength is s h o w n in Fig. 2, a n d confirms
47.80 43.07 34.65 0.163 P l o w m a n ' s [ 5 ] conclusion t h a t there is no relationship.
48.84 37.16 31.50 0.130 The relationship between Poisson's ratio a n d age is
50.00 43.63 36.5 0.150
s h o w n in Fig. 3. Poisson's ratio increases rapidly with
52.00 40.77 26.77 0.112
55.98 40.48 31.75 0.140 age at a decreasing rate up to a n age of one m o n t h ;
56.96 40.60 38.90 0.175 beyond that the increase is minimal a n d could be
58.01 46.12 34.50 0.159 ignored. This contradicts David a n d Troxell's[4] ob-
61.95 39.47 29.38 0.129 servation in which they reported t h a t Poisson's ratio of
64.00 41.72 35.30 0.155
68.96 39.60 36.30 0.157 concrete is d e p e n d e n t o n the elastic properties of its
69.84 37.27 33.50 0.144 constituents[6] and these elastic properties increase
77.89 36.26 41.40 0.138 rapidly up to the age of 28 days, it is reasonable to
78.99 46.46 35.60 0.155 conclude that the Poison's ratio of concrere does not
84.88 39.47 39.40 0.158
increase greatly after that age. The relationship be-
84.97 49.62 36.80 0.152
89.87 40.82 37.50 0.150 tween Poisson's ratio of concrete a n d age can be
96.91 42.46 35.00 0.168 represented empirically for all practical purposes by
101.93 47.36 41.75 0.150
l 15.92 47.03 37.42 0.149 # =//max(1 --e-C°), (1)
 Factors Affecting Poisson's Ratio for Concrete 3

I I I I

020

oo
o o °o
o o 08 o o%o
o 0.15 O0 O0 0 0 0
0
o O~ 0 _ 0
.Itl
0
0 0
o R~ 80°
~0 0
o
0
0
0
0
0
g 0,10 0 0

0,05

2O 4O ,ry.)

Cylinder crushing strength fc; N/ram z

Fig. 2. Cylinder crushing strength related to Poisson's ratio for concrete.

I I I I I

O2

ii
o
o
o o
•~ o o g o R o
u ~ ~ o o --

°°~ o
o o o

o o
o
o
o o o o

I I I I
20 40 60 80 I00

A g e i n days

Fig. 3. Effect of curing age on Poisson's ratio for concrete.

where ]-/max is the maximum Poisson's ratio attained by
concrete at infinite age, c is a constant and D is the age
at testing in days. This equation is plotted in Fig. 3
with the constant c=0.15 and P.max=0.154. For fresh
concrete Poisson's ratio is high and this ratio decreases
to a m i n i m u m as the concrete sets hard[6], which
explains the high Poisson's ratio of the few initial
results. Ignoring these few results, the equation pre-
sented overestimates, the experimental results by 3.1%
with a coefficient of variation of 11.16%. Equation (1)
can also be arranged in terms of the Poisson's ratio of
concrete at 28 days,
# = #2s(1 - e - ¢0)/(1 - e - 2a~).
The effect of age on the Poisson's ratio of cement paste
with a w/c=0.3 had been examined previously[9] and
is plotted in Fig. 4. Equation (1) with c=0.1 and #max
=0.327 is also plotted, which shows that the equation
is also applicable for cement paste. Ignoring the initial
two results, the equation underestimates the experi-
mental results by 3.7 % with a coefficient of variation of
9.06 %.
T H E O R Y F O R MIX P R O P O R T I O N S
Anson and Newman[6] concluded that Poisson's
ratio is related to mix proportions and that experimen-
tal results can be expressed by the empirical equation
# = #p(1 - V~)" (2)
(la)
where #p is the Poisson's ratio of the paste, V~ is the
volume fraction of total aggregate and n is a constant.
The value of the constant is influenced by the type of
cement used and the elastic properties of aggregate.
They also presented an analytical model to predict the
4 Atheel E. Allos and L H. Martin

04.

I
I o I

03 o o o

I
20 4J0 I00

Age in days

Fig. 4. Effect of curing age on Poisson's ratio for cement paste.

Poisson's ratio of concrete when the mix proportions

and properties of paste and aggregate are known, but IP
did not apply it to the experimental results. Comparing • • . . . •

this model to Anson's results[7], the model under- P • . . • . .

estimates the Poisson's ratio of mortar by 11% with a pp ~a-Rp

coefficient of variation of 11.2 ~ and overestimates the
Poisson's ratio of concrete by 5 % with a coefficient of
variation of 6.7 %. Considering the test results of the
mortar and the concrete specimens together, the model
Method A
underestimates the Poisson's ratio by 7% with a
• • / .'.L . i ." i
coefficient of variation of 12.4%. In an attempt to
improve the accuracy of the theoretical results two • • . . . . ...

models are presented and analysed as follows.

Model I . • • . • . • , . . . .

~ R

MODEL 1
Model I consists of a layer region of paste and ~Poste
aggregate in vertical layers and a horizontal paste
region, as shown in Fig. 5. As the load is applied to the ~A~regete Method B

model it reduces in height and changes in width, but

because there are two different zones with different
lateral expansions a restraining force is introduced at Part B Part A PB
the interface.
The analysis of the model is based on the following
assumptions. Lt+Lp ~
1. The layer and the paste regions undergo the same
lateral deformation due to the internal restraint.
2. In the layer region the paste and aggregate layers
undergo the same vertical deformation.

(L t ~Lp) JE(Lt ÷L.~)

METHOD A Model ~
The lateral strain in the model is equal to the lateral
strain in the paste, which is equal to the lateral strain Fig. 5. Models to evaluate Poisson's ratio.
in the layer region

P#p R. - Rp The vertical strain in the layer region is

eh = Ep(Lp + L t ) LpEp
1 [-Pa~a R. Ppttp RpLpl P~ Rd~~ Pp Rp~tp
(3) (4)
-Lp+L, LE~+E~ ÷ Ep L,EpJ" LzE. LtE. Lpgp LtEp '
 Factors Affecting Poisson's Ratio for Concrete 5

where strain
P = P. + P r (5)

The three equations presented involve four unknowns L,+ L. \Lp \ ~ - E/

and, therefore, in order to produce a solution an x( (Ll + Lp)EoL l
additional assumption is required. There are four pos- \LiLp(E.+Ep)+E.(L2+L2p~) ). (9)
sible assumptions that can be made.
1. The forces resisted by the paste and by the The longitudinal strain in the model
aggregate in the layer region are equal, P, = Pp.
2. The restraining forces on the paste and on the e~= - -1 ( Lp( P
R .p ~
L, + L, \ \Ep(L, + Lp) LpEp)
aggregate in the layer region are equal, R, = Rp = R.
3. The restraining force on the paste layer is zero, P . R#,'~'~
+L, - -- (10)
Rp=0.
4. The restraining force on the aggregate layer is
+ 77
zero, R a = O. Rearranging and substituting R from equation (8a), the
Each one of these assumptions appeared to be reason- longitudinal strain
able, and each was therefore tested using the experi-
mental results. The fourth assumption gave the best ~v
._ (".-#'V
results. (L,+L.)2\ E,E. rE. Et)
Assuming R , = 0 , equations (3) through (5) can be ×( (L, ÷ L)EoEpL,
solved for Pa, Pp and R r Back substituting into (11)
\L,L. (Eo + e.) + E° (L~ + L ~ ) / /
equation (3) will give the lateral strain in the model in
terms of the properties of paste and aggregate. The
and the Poisson's ratio can be found by dividing the
vertical strain can be calculated from
lateral strain by the longitudinal strain. To be able to
solve for the Poisson's ratio, the elastic modulus and
1 (Pa PLp . Rplap~ the Poisson's ratio of the layer region are required.
e~-Lt+L p ~-t Ep(Li+Lp) ~ - W ) (6) Applying a longitudinal strain of e to the layer region
would cause a lateral strain of e (l~pLr + ~aL~)/(L~+ Lp)
and, therefore, the Poisson's ratio of the layer region is
and the Poisson's ratio of the model can be repre-
sented as, /tpLp +/.t.L l
% #,= Lt~p . (12)
U= - - . (7)
%
Applying a load to the layer region, then the longitu-
dinal strain caused by the load is

METHOD B Pp Pa
In this method of analysis it is assumed that the e~'t= LpEp - LIEa ' (13)
layer region acts as a single material within the model. where
Analysing the model the following equations can be P=P.+Pp. (14)
deduced.
The lateral strain in the paste region is equal to the Solving these equations gives the longitudinal strain
lateral strain in the layer region
P
evz- (15)
P/~p R E,,Lz + EpLp
Ep(LI + Lp) LpEp
and the modulus of elasticity of the layer region can be
1 fP#, R/L, Lp'~'~ expressed as
(8)
P
Ez - e,a(Lp+ Lz)" (16)

Rearranging and solving for the restraining force

Substituting equation (15) into (16), therefore

E,,Lt + EpLp
E,- (17)
R =LI + Lp \Ep E,.I L, + Lp

( (Lt+Lp)E"EpLiLp "~
(8a)
x \L~Lp(Ea+Ep)+E.(L2 +L~p)j. M O D E L II
This model consists of two parts vertical layers of
Substituting into either sides of equation (8) the lateral paste and aggregate and horizontal layers of paste and
6 Atheel E. Allos and L. H. Martin

aggregate (see Fig. 5). There are two assumptions and the Poisson's ratio of the horizontal layers is
made in analysing this model.
1. Both parts of the model undergo the same verti- #lB = F'hB/~'vB" (27)
cal strain.
2. The paste and aggregate in the horizontal layer
region undergo the same lateral strain due to the C O M P A R I S O N O F MODELS WITH
internal restraint. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The longitudinal strain of the model is % and, there- The models presented in the previous section are
fore, the lateral strain of the model is analysed and plotted in Figs. 6-8 for different ag-
gregates, where the Poisson's ratio varies. Anson's[7]
~h =½%(#~a + ~B). (18) experimental results are compared to the theoretical
Dividing the lateral strain by the longitudinal strain
would give the Poisson's ratio of the model I I I I

I z = ½(fhA + #lB)' (19)

0.30 -- F~s5oo's
Part A ratio of
Longitudinal strain of eva will cause a lateral strain
_ °ggreg°t 7
of
0 26
13hA= ,£vA(#pLp + #.Lt)/(Ll + Lp). (20) o
o

Therefore. the Poisson's ratio of the vertical layer

region is
§ 022

#1A= (#~Lp + #aLi)/(Ll + Lp). (21)

0.18

Part B
The lateral strain in the paste layers is equal to the
014 -

lateral strain in the aggregate layers

PBPp R
0.1 1 I 1 I
ebb =½(Ll + Lp)Ep LpEp 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 IO

PB#. R Volume fraction of total aggregate

- { ( L , +Lp)E. F L ~ (22) Fig. 6. Poisson's ratio Model I, Method A.

Rearranging and resolving for the restraining force

I I I
R = 2PBLpLI ~ E , , - #,,E,) (23)
(Ll + Lv)(L~E, + LsE,,)'
0.30
substituting into equation (22) ratio of
2Ps(#pLp + #,,Lt) oooro9ote
%B= (Ll + Lp)(LpEp+ LIE,,)" (24) 0.26
0.3
The vertical strain is
o
((
1 2P B R#p~Lp 0.22
~va = L, + L; \ \Ep(Lp + L,) LpEp /

f 2P, +R_a_.~L'~. (25)

LiEa,] / 018

Rearranging and substituting for R from equation (23),

the vertical strain would be 0.14
0.15

/ 2 /E. Ep'X
O/
I I I I I
0 02 04 0.6 0.8 IO
2 / 2 E"
Volume fraction of total o~r~ote
evB - -
(Lt + Lt,)Z(LIE. + L~Ep) Fig. 7. Poisson's ratio---Model I, Method B.
(26)
 Factors Affecting Poisson's Ratio for Concrete 7

I I results in Table 2. Experimental results of concrete

with various mix p r o p o r t i o n s a n d a fixed water to
cement ratio of 0.51-9] are also c o m p a r e d to the
0.3 theoretical results in T a b l e 3, by a d o p t i n g 0.2 as the
F~SSOn'S Poisson's ratio of aggregate. I n general M o d e l I pro-
ratio of
oggcegate duces slightly better results t h a n M o d e l II. M e t h o d A
is generally preferred in M o d e l I because of the lower
0.2~
coefficient of variation values. M o d e l I M e t h o d A
0
0.5 appears to give the correct shape of the curve as
related to the concrete test results[9] as s h o w n in
o.s2 Fig. 9.
Iterating the model twice by taking fine aggregate
a n d paste as the constituency of the first iteration a n d
0.18 taking course aggregate a n d the m o r t a r matrix as the
second iteration would give slightly different results as
those analysed by taking the total volume of aggregate.
0.15 T h e difference is less t h a n 5 % and, therefore, would
O.14
not influence the results greatly; hence could be
ignored.
Table 4 gives the theoretical Poisson's ratio of con-
0.1
crete for various ratios of cement to total aggregate by
Volume fraction of tofol aggre~te
dry weight a n d a w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio of 0.3-0.6, which
are considered to be in the practical range. T h e results
Fig. 8. Poisson's ratio---Model II. are based o n a Poisson's ratio of aggregate of 0.2 a n d

Table 2. Comparison of Anson's[7] results with theoretical results

Model I

Volume Method A Method B Model II

Number fraction
of of Poisson's /z #expt # /aexpt /~ /-texpt.
specimens aggregate ratio //theory #theory ~theory

Mortar
3 0.387 0.193 0.200 0.97 0.218 0.89 0.211 0.91
4 0.486 O.185 O.193 0.96 0.212 0.87 0.207 0.89
4 0.352 0.219 0.194 1.13 0.211 1.04 0.200 1.10
3 0.449 O.196 O.183 1.07 0.202 0.97 O.195 1.01
3 0.52 0.188 0.178 1.06 0.197 0.95 0.193 0.97
4 0.576 0.178 0.175 1.02 0.194 0.92 0.192 0.93
6 0.322 0.222 0.188 1.18 0.203 1.09 0.187 1.19
4 0.417 0.210 0.173 1.21 0.191 1.10 0.181 1.16
4 0.487 0.186 0.166 1.12 0.184 1.01 0.179 1.04
6 0.544 0.171 0.161 1.06 0.179 0.96 0.178 0.96
4 0.589 0.168 0.158 1.06 0.177 0.95 0.177 0.95
4 0.298 0.227 0.188 1.21 0.201 1.13 0.182 1.25
4 0.389 0.209 0.172 1.22 0.188 1.11 0.176 1.19
3 0.459 0.197 0.162 1.22 0.180 1.09 0.173 1.14
4 0.515 0.181 0.157 1.15 0.175 1.03 0.172 1.05
4 0.561 0.168 0.153 1.10 0.171 0.98 0.172 0.98

Mean 1.11 1.01 1.04

% coefficient of variation 7.7 8.1 10.7

Concrete
6 0.625 0.172 0.158 1.09 0.176 0.98 0.177 0.97
6 0.657 0.152 0.157 0.97 0.175 0.87 0.178 0.85
6 0.673 0.160 0.15"7 1.02 0.175 0.91 0.178 0.90
6 0.682 0.156 0.158 0.99 0.175 0.89 0.178 0.88
6 0.704 0.145 0.158 0.92 0.175 0.83 0.179 0.81
6 0.725 0.153 0.159 0.96 0.175 0.87 0.180 0.85

Mean 0.99 0.89 0.88

% coefficient of variation 5.9 5.7 6.3

Total mean 1.08 0.98 1.00

Total % coefficient of variation 8.8 9.2 12.6
 Atheel E. Allos and L. H. Martin

Table 3. Comparison of test results[9] with theoretical results

Model I

Volume Method A Method B Model II

Number fraction
of Mix of Poisson's /~cxvt //expt flexpt
specimens cement : sand : gravel aggregate ratio ,/ttheory fltheory ~theory

1:0 :0 0 0.238 0.238 1.00 0.238 1.00 0.238 1.00

1:0.1:0.2 0.16 0.225 0.208 1.08 0.216 1.04 0.194 1.16
1:0.25:0.5 0.3 0.167 0.181 0.92 0.195 0.86 0.177 0.94
1:0.5:1 0.45 0.167 0.159 1.05 0.176 0.95 0.168 0.99
1:0.8:1.6 0.56 0.137 0.149 0.92 0.166 0.83 0.165 0.83
1:1.0:2.0 0.62 0.155 0.146 1.06 0.163 0.95 0.165 0.94
l : 1.5:3.0 0.75 0.132 0.148 0.89 0.162 0.81 0.167 0.79
1:2:4 0.8 0.143 0.152 0.94 0.165 0.87 0.169 0.85
l : 3:6 0.84 0.155 0.156 0.99 0.168 0.92 0.172 0.90
1 : 5:10 0.9 0.190 0.168 1.13 0.176 1.08 0.178 1.07

Mean 1.00 0.93 0.95

~,,, coefficient of variation 8.0 9.4 11.9

Table 4. Poisson's ratio of concrete (Model I Method A)

Poisson's ratio of aggregate =0.2 Poisson's ratio of aggregate =0.25

C e m e n t ~ w/c
to total ~
aggregate ~ 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1.0:1.0 0.193 0.190 0.184 0.186 0.211 0.203 0.194 0.194

1.0:2.0 0.180 0.170 0.159 0.158 0.205 0.190 0.175 0.172
1.0:3.0 0.177 0.164 0.150 0.146 0.207 0.189 0.170 0.163
1.0:4.0 0.177 0.164 0.148 0.142 0.210 0.192 0.171 0.162
1.0:5.0 0.178 0.165 0.148 0.141 0.213 0.195 0.173 0.163
1.0 : 6.0 0.179 0.166 0.149 0.141 0.216 0.199 0.177 0.163
1.0 : 7.0 0.181 0.168 0.151 0.142 0.219 0.202 0.180 0.168
1.0:8.0 0.182 0.169 0.153 0.144 0.222 0.204 0.183 0.171
1.0 : 9.0 0.183 0.171 0.155 0.146 0.223 0.207 0.186 0.174
1.0:10.0 0.183 0.172 0.157 0.148 0.224 0.209 0.190 0.178

0 26
I I I I CONCLUSIONS

1. There is no experimental evidence which relates

Poisson's ratio of concrete to its strength.
0.22
o Theory Model I Method A 2. Poisson's ratio increases rapidly with age at a
o decreasing rate up to an age of one m o n t h ; any
u~
increase after that is very small.
o 0.18
3. The relation between Poisson's ratio of concrete
and age can be expressed in an empirical form as

o
0.14 -- o -

o =flmax(l --e-CD).

0.10 I I I I This equation also applies to cement paste.

02 04 0.6
Volume fraction of total
Fig. 9. Comparison of theory and experiment for Poisson's
ratio related to volume fraction of total aggregate.
Experimental results[9].
0.25 which is within an acceptable range, and
Poisson's ratio of 0.249 for cement paste[6].
08 I0
4. The Poisson's ratio of concrete can be calculated
aggregate satisfactorily from the mix p r o p o r t i o n s and the proper-
ties of the material involved in the mix by using one of
the models presented. Model I M e t h o d A is preferred.
5. Model I M e t h o d A gives a mean and a coefficient
of variation of 1.08 and 8.8 ~o for Anson's[7] results
and 1.00 and 8.0 ~o for test results[9].
a 6. The variation of Poisson's ratio for practical mix
p r o p o r t i o n s may be seen from Table 4.
 Factors Affecting Poisson's Ratio f o r Concrete 9

REFERENCES
1. A.N. Talbot, Tests of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Columns. Engineering Experiment Station,
University of Illinois, Bulletin No. 20 (1907).
2. M . O . Withey, Tests of ReinJorced Concrete Columns. University of Wisconsin, Bulletin No. 466
(1911).
3. Report of Committee on Reinforced Concrete and Building Laws--Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Columns. J. Am. Concr. Inst. (July 1915).
4. R. E. Davis and G. E. Troxell, Modulus of elasticity of Poisson's ratio of concrete, and the
influence of age and other factors upon these values. Proc. A S T M 29 (II) 678-701 (1929).
5. J.H. Plowman, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of concrete cured at various humidities. Mag.
Concr. Res. 15 (44), 77-82 (July 1963).
6. M. Anson and K. Newman, The effect of mix proportions and method of testing on Poisson's ratio
for mortar and concretes. Mag. Concr. Res. 18 (56), 115 130 (September 1966).
7. M. Anson, An investigation into a hypothetical deformation and failure mechanism for concrete.
Mag. Concr. Res. 16 (47), 73 82 (June 1964).
8. L . J . Parrot, Lateral strains in hardened cement paste under short- and long-term loading. Mag.
Concr. Res. 26 (89), 198-202 (December 1974).
9. H. Sadegzadeh and J. Close, Poisson's ratio of cement paste and concrete, The University of Aston
in Birmingham, Final Year Project (April 1976).