Reducing the Specimen Size of

TECHBRIEF Concrete Flexural Strength

Test for Safety and Ease of
Handling
Publication No. FHWA-HRT-17-119 - December 2017

FHWA Contact: Ahmad Ardani, HRDI-10, 202–493–

3422, [email protected]

This TechBrief provides an executive summary of a

study that was conducted by the Federal Highway
Administration’s Concrete Laboratory at Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center (TFHRC) related to
miniaturization of flexural strength test specimen size.
The study was conducted in two separate phases; the
first examined the feasibility of miniaturizing modulus of
rupture (MR) specimen size, with the main goal of
making the test safer and easier to conduct simply
through reduction in geometry and associated mass.
The second phase of the study commenced as a
collaborative effort with ASTM and 22 laboratories in
conducting a comprehensive interlaboratory study to
determine the test precision.

INTRODUCTION
Flexural strength, also known as modulus of rupture, is
an important parameter in the design of concrete
pavement. As shown in figure 1, MR is measured by
applying load to an unreinforced concrete beam with the
intention of inducing failure in accordance with American
Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) and ASTM standards for third-point
loading (T97 and C78/C78M) and center-point loading
(T177 and C293/C293M), respectively.(1) The focus of
this study was on the third-point loading since it is the
most prevalent method used by practitioners.

Figure 2 shows the relationship between MR and

degree of predicted cracking for a typical jointed plain
concrete pavement using the AASHTO mechanistic-
Research, Development, and empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG).(2) As
Technology
Turner-Fairbank Highway shown, predicted cracking dramatically increases once
Research Center the MR falls below 690 psi. For a 95 percent design
6300 Georgetown Pike reliability, when the flexural strength drops from 690 to
McLean, VA 22101-2296
600 psi (a 13 percent decrease), the estimated cracking
www.fhwa.dot.gov/research changes from 15 to 60 percent (a 300-percent-increase
in cracking. This shows how critical Figure 1. ASTM C78/C78M and
flexural strength is to concrete’s ability to C293/C293M Standards. (Source: FHWA)
resist bending stresses due to load.

Because of the size and heavy weight of

the standard beams, some State
departments of transportation (DOTs) try
to avoid using them for quality assurance
(QA) purposes and instead, replace
flexural strength testing with compressive
strength testing, i.e., establishing a
correlation between compressive and a. AASHTO T97/ASTM C78/C78M – Third point
flexural strength test results for their loading
specific concrete mixture. But flexural
strength and compressive strength are
affected by different factors. Changes in
aggregate gradation, mineralogy, or
water-to-cement ratios during construction
could lead to unconservative estimation of
the flexural strength.(3,4) In addition, and
more importantly, concrete pavements
primarily fail in bending (as occurs in
flexural strength testing) and not in b. AASHTO T177/ASTM C293/C293M – Center
compression (as in compressive strength point loading 
testing).

Figure 2. Influence of the modulus of rupture (flexural strength) on the

percentage of slabs cracked.(2)

TTC: truck traffic classification; ESAL: equivalent single axle load; PCC: portland cement concrete.

2
Standard size concrete specimens cast in referred to as standard beams and small
6- by 6- by 21-inch (152- by 152- by 533- beams for the rest of this TechBrief.
mm) molds in accordance with AASHTO
or ASTM procedures weigh approximately PHASE I
65 lb (30 kg), assuming a concrete
density of 150 lb/ft3 (2400 kg/m3). When OBJECTIVE
metal molds are used, the combined total The primary objectives of the first phase
mass of the beams can exceed 100 lb (45 of the study were to examine the
kg). A specimen of this size and weight is feasibility of using small beams for flexural
hard to handle, cumbersome, and can strength testing in the laboratory and in
become a safety hazard to the testing the field, and to recommend changes for
personnel. the current AASHTO and ASTM
standards (see reference 5 for more
To make the concrete flexural strength details).
determination safer for the testing
personnel and to streamline quality EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
assurance testing, this study proposed the A total of 22 concrete mixtures were
use of smaller, 4- by 4- by 14-inch (100- prepared with water-to-binder ratios
by 100- by 355-mm) beams. A 4- by 4- by varying from 0.37 to 0.47. The
14-inch concrete beam weighs cementitious content ranged from 521 to
approximately 19 lb (8.5 kg), with a 643 lb/yd3 (309 to 381 kg/m3), the coarse
concrete density of 150 lb/ft3 (2400 aggregate content ranged from 1699 to
kg/m3). 1823 lb/yd3 (1008 to 1082 kg/m3), and the
fine aggregate content ranged from 1089
Figure 3. View of small and standard to 1581 lb/yd3 (646 to 938 kg/m3).
molds. (Source: FHWA) Concrete constituents were comprised of
portland cement type I/II and natural sand;
type F fly ash was used in one of the
mixtures. Four different coarse
aggregates were used; these included
gravel, limestone, granite, and diabase,
with nominal maximum size varying from
¾ to 1½ inches (19 to 38 mm). A variety
of air-entraining admixtures and water-
reducing agents were used.(5)
For each of the 22 mixtures, 6 standard
beams, 6 small beams, and 3 cylinders of
4 by 8 inches (100 by 200 mm) were cast
for a 28-day compressive strength test.
Overall, a total of 264 beams were cast, of
In this case, the combined mass of the which 132 were small beams and 132
concrete specimen and the mold is were standard beams. The flexural
approximately 45 lb (20.5 kg), i.e. less strength for six specimens was
than 50 percent of the total mass of the determined in accordance with ASTM
standard size beam. This is a dramatic C78/C78M and individual test results were
reduction in total mass and makes the averaged. The compressive strength
smaller size specimens much easier and measurements are the average of three
safer to use. Figure 3 visually compares specimens.
the mold for both beam sizes. For the
sake of brevity, the two sizes will be
RESULTS Since the correlations in figure 4 are not
Figure 4 shows the relationship between mixture dependent, they can be used by
the flexural strength of small and standard the practitioner or a relationship specific to
beams. Although there is a very good the job mixture can be determined.
correlation between the flexural strength Because of this study, in 2014 both
of the two beam sizes, the ratio between AASHTO T23 and AASHTO T97
the MR of the standard beams and the standards were modified to accommodate
MR of the small beams is not constant. It the use of the small beams for flexural
depends on the nominal maximum size strength testing.(8,9) In the following year,
(NMS) of the aggregate, as shown by the ASTM correspondent standards
different line slopes in figure 4 and C31/C31M and C78/C78M were also
confirmed by other studies.(6,7) modified.(10,11)
PHASE I SUMMARY During the balloting process for these
This study examined the feasibility of changes, it was observed that the
using smaller size concrete beam precision statement in the previous
specimens for conducting flexural strength versions of AASHTO T97 and ASTM
of concrete testing, using simple beam C78/C78M was based on a study that
with third-point loading, according to involved a single brand and model of the
AASHTO T97 and ASTM C78/C78M testing machine and two specimen sizes:
procedures. The use of the small beam 6 by 6 by 20 inches (150 by 150 by 508
proved viable. Analysis of the test data mm) and 4.5 by 4.5 by 15.5 inches (114
revealed a very good correlation between by 114 by 394 mm).(7) The use of a single
the smaller and standard size beams.

Figure 4. Relationship between modulus of rupture of small and standard

beams as a function of the aggregate nominal maximum size (NMS).

Source: FHWA

4
model and brand equipment could have  Prevent a high acceptance probability
resulted in nonrepresentative precision of unacceptable materials for QA
and no precision statement was available processes.
for the smaller 4- by 4-inch (100- by 100-  Specifying the number of
mm) beam size—therefore, an ASTM determinations (e.g., number of beams
interlaboratory study (ILS # 1265) was to be tested) necessary to obtain an
initiated. TFHRC led this study, also average test result, so that the
known as phase II. producer establishes neither an
excessive nor an insufficient testing
PHASE II program.
OBJECTIVE Precision between laboratories, on the
Phase II consisted of an interlaboratory other hand, can be used to determine if
study with the main objective of providing the differences in the test results obtained
data to establish a precision for the by the DOT or third party laboratory
Standard Test Method for Flexural compared with the producer’s or
Strength of Concrete (using simple beam contractor’s test results are within an
with third-point loading). acceptable range.
IMPORTANCE OF PRECISION OVERVIEW OF THE ILS PROGRAM
STATEMENTS This interlaboratory study (ILS)
Precision refers to the closeness of commenced as a collaborative effort
agreements between independent test between TFHRC and ASTM. TFHRC
results obtained under stipulated provided most of the funding, with partial
conditions, in this case a standard test funding provided by ASTM. In addition,
method. Precision measurement can have TFHRC provided technical expertise,
profound consequences for the made and prepared the samples,
industry.(12) delivered or shipped the beams to other
laboratories, and was responsible for: all
Many factors contribute to variability. In coordination with the laboratories
the case of the modulus of rupture of involved, data analysis, report
concrete, variability can be inherent to the preparation, precision statement
testing procedure and can relate to preparation, and balloting.
casting, preparing, and curing samples.
The interlaboratory study (ILS #1265) Laboratories were selected based on their
tried to avoid the variability caused by experience in running Test Method
these other factors that are not addressed C78/C78M and their testing machines.
in ASTM C78/C78M.(11) Accuracy relates Various brands and models were
to bias and not to precision. Accuracy considered, so that a wide range of
measures the difference between a mean equipment manufacturers could be
and a reference value, which doesn’t exist included in the program. A total of 22
for ASTM C78/78M.(11) laboratories were selected, representing
government agencies (3 Federal agency
There are two types of precision: within labs and 4 State DOTs), industry,
laboratory (i.e., repeatability) and between associations, and commercial
laboratories (i.e., reproducibility). From a laboratories. See reference 13 for details.
State DOT perspective, repeatability is
important to: TESTING PROGRAM
 Determine the validity of the test results The testing plan and data analysis for this
obtained by any laboratory. study were based on ASTM Practice
C802 and Practice C670.(14,15) Three
mixtures with different flexural strengths Each laboratory was asked to test three
(covering the range found in practice) replicates per size per mixture, using the
were prepared at a Vulcan Materials same testing machine and the same
ready-mix facility; then samples were American Concrete Institute (ACI)-
transported by a transit concrete truck and certified technician.
cast and cured at a laboratory at the same
facility. The targeted flexural strength for Figure 7. Testing machine
these mixtures were 450, 600, and 800 configuration. (Source: FHWA)
psi (3.0, 4.0, and 5.5 MPa) at 56 days.
Four standard beams and four small
beams were cast per laboratory per
mixture. All the samples of a specific
mixture were cast from a single batch of
concrete to minimize the variability
unrelated to the test method. To
accommodate the 658 beams prepared
for this project, beams were cured in 14
lime water curing tanks with 3 or 4 tier a. Testing machine setup for standard
shelves, as shown in figures 5 and 6. beams
Tanks were interconnected so that the
same curing temperature was maintained
for all the samples, avoiding variability not
related to the test method.

Figure 5. Beams placed on grid

panels. (Source: FHWA)

b. Testing machine holding small beam

(before modification).

TESTING MACHINES
Testing was carried out on a variety of
testing machines with different brands,
Figure 6. View of specimens being models, and loading capacities. The use
cured in interconnected lime water of small beams was only recently included
tanks. (Source: FHWA) in the AASHTO and ASTM standards (see
references 8, 9, 10, and 11). Therefore,
most of these commercial testing
machines required modifications of spans
and distance between loading head and
supports, to accommodate these smaller
specimens (figure 7). TFHRC built parts
and prepared tutorial videos on how to
install these parts for 15 of the
participating laboratories. For instructions

6
on the equipment modification, contact Modified top mounting plates were
[email protected] necessary to decrease the distance
between the loading blocks and the
TESTING MACHINE MODIFICATIONS support blocks, as well as to move the
RAINHART BEAM TESTER support blocks closer together to
accommodate the smaller span (figures 8
Rainhart beam testers are hand operated
and 9).
testing machines with chart papers. These
testers required the most significant FORNEY AND TEST MARK TESTING
modifications of all brands in this study. MACHINES
Regardless of the model, all Forney
Figure 8. Modified Rainhart beam testing machines used in this study
tester (Source: FHWA). required the same kind of modification: (a)
New top
drilling extra holes on lower and upper
mounting platens for positioning the loading support
plate for fixtures and (b) installation of 2-inch (50-
support
blocks mm) thick spacers (figures 10 and 11).
(see figure 9) The Test Mark CM-3000 used by one of
12-inch the laboratories was modified the same
apart
support way as the Forney units.
blocks
Figure 10. Forney Machine – Closeup
New modified
4 inch loading block of loading blocks (Source: FHWA).
apart assembly
loading (see figure 9)
blocks
The modifications included installation of
new modified blocks, a top mounting
assembly for the support blocks, and
recording charts.

Figure 9. Modified top mounting

assembly and loading blocks on
Reinhart beam tester (Source:
FHWA).
New modified New top
Figure 11. Modified Forney setup for
loading block mounting small beam (Source: FHWA).
assembly plate for
supports

1
In addition, some testing machine manufacturers
already sell the necessary loading and support
blocks for testing smaller specimens.
7
OTHER TESTING MACHINES or when the maximum applied load during
Each laboratory was responsible for testing surpassed the laboratory’s testing
modifications to the other testing machines’ rated capacity.
machines.
STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The calculated statistics were checked by
The data consistency of each individual
also carrying out an analysis of variance
laboratory was checked in accordance
(ANOVA), as described in an appendix of
with Practice C802 in terms of the
the ASTM Practice C802.(14) Tables 1 and
average, using the h-value statistic, and
2 show summaries of the test results for
the dispersion of the results, using the k-
the small and standard beams,
value statistic.(14) If the h-value or the k-
respectively.
value calculated in accordance with
Practice C802 surpassed the critical h- In addition to the analysis described
value or the critical k-value obtained from above, a Bartlett test of homogeneity of
Practice E691, laboratory data was variances, with a 95 percent confidence
considered as an outlier and removed level, was carried out. This test allows the
from the final statistical analysis.(12) comparison of variance of two or more
samples to determine whether they are
In addition, laboratories were removed
drawn from populations with equal
from analysis when the maximum applied
variance.(16) This test was used to
load during testing was lower than the
establish whether the pooled single-
laboratory’s testing machines’ capability to
operator standard deviations listed in
provide accurate load readings (1 percent
tables 1 and 2 are statistically different.
of the maximum equipment load capacity)

Table 1. Summary of the standard deviations obtained for the

small beam specimens. (Source: FHWA)
Comparison of 
MR standard Deviation (psi)  Variability (COV)  
Average 
Mixture  (%) 
MR (psi) 
Single  Multi‐  Single  Multi‐
operator  laboratory  operator  laboratory 
A  986  37  112*  3.8  11.4 * 
B  816  44  49  5.4  5.9  
C  609  39  39  6.4  6.3  
Average  40  44  5.2  6.1  
314**  31.8 ** 
d2s  112  14.6 
123†  17.1 † 
1,000 psi = 6.9 MPa  
* The multilaboratory standard deviation and COV of mixture A was more than double 
that of the other two mixtures, so it was treated separately.  
** Calculated only for mixture A, with the highest strength. 
† Calculated for mixtures B and C. 

8
 Table 2. Summary of the standard deviations obtained for the
standard beam specimens. (Source: FHWA)
COV  
MR standard Deviation (psi) 
Average  (%) 
Mixture 
MR (psi)  Single  Multi‐  Single  Multi‐ 
operator  laboratory  operator  laboratory 
A  943  38  67  4.3  7.1 
B  785  35  52  4.5  6.6 
C  580  30  39  5.1  6.7 
Average  34  53  4.6  6.9 
d2s  95  149  12.9  19.3 
1,000 psi = 6.9 MPa 

Because the calculated t value obtained with the standard beams. Thus, the
was lower than the critical Chi-square difference between two test results
value, the variance for the different (average of three determinations)
mixtures and specimen sizes can be obtained by two different laboratories
considered equal. The combined single- should not exceed 16.7 percent of the
operator standard deviation was average value. For concretes with
calculated as 37 psi (0.26 MPa). Thus, the modulus of rupture of 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa),
modulus of rupture from two properly the multilaboratory coefficient of variation
conducted determinations by the same was found to be 11.4 percent.
operator on the same material is not Consequently, the difference between two
expected to differ by more than 104 psi test results (average of three
(0.73 MPa), independently of the beam determinations) obtained by two different
size used and the modulus of rupture of laboratories should not exceed 31.8
the concrete. percent of the average value.
But the multilaboratory coefficient of This high multilaboratory coefficient of
variation was different for the two beams variation obtained for the small beams
sizes. The multilaboratory coefficient of with 1,000 psi MR is believed to be a
variation for the standard beams was consequence of the inclusion of
found to be 6.7 percent for mixtures with laboratories that used hand-operated
an MR between 600 and 1000 psi (4.1 to testing machines with chart papers. Table
6.9 MPa), close to the 7 percent obtained 3 shows that these testing machines
by Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo using presented much higher single-operator
only Rainhart Beam testers.(7) So, the variability and multilaboratory variability
difference between two test results (an for all three mixtures. Some of the
average of three determinations) obtained reasons include:
by two different laboratories should not  Reading accuracy: These testing
exceed 18.7 percent of the average value. machines did not have an electronic
readout to indicate the maximum load.
On the other hand, for the small beams, Figure 12 shows the chart used to read
the multilaboratory coefficient of variation the failure load for one of the tests
varied with the range of modulus of carried out in this ILS. Each subdivision
rupture measured. For concretes with in the chart represents 200 lb; the
modulus of rupture between 600 and 800 thickness of the line created by the pen
psi (4.1 and 5.5 MPa), the coefficient of is almost equivalent to the subdivision,
variation was found to be 6.0 percent, i.e., 200 lb. So, in the best-case
which is lower than what was obtained scenario, assuming an experienced
 technician with good vision, it is not machines can affect the testing results
possible to read more accurately than obtained with them.
200 lb.
 Effect of size: The impact of the
PHASE II SUMMARY
reading accuracy was greater for small A comprehensive interlaboratory study
beams compared to standard beams (ILS #1265) was carried out in
because a difference of 200 lb for a collaboration between TFHRC, ASTM,
lower maximum load (as in small State DOTs and the industry. A total of 22
beams) is more significant than for a laboratories participated and a wide range
larger load (as in standard beams). of testing machines were included in the
program. The results obtained in this ILS
 Calibration: These testing machines will provide the basis for the adoption of
can be easily transported to job sites the new precision statements for both
and from one laboratory to another. ASTM C78/C78M and AASHTO T97. For
This is common practice and the a copy of the full report contact
machines are commonly used for [email protected].
quality assurance testing in the field. In
such cases, the machine is not The precision statements have been
calibrated after being moved from one balloted and approved by ASTM C09 and
site to another, because the current the AASHTO sub-committee on materials.
C78/C78M does not require verification
after relocation.(11) Relocating testing

Table 3. Comparison of variability for hand operated testing machines with

paper charts and non-hand-operated testing machines for 4- by 4- by 14-inch
beams. (Source: FHWA)
All labs not using hand‐operated testing  Only Labs using hand‐operated testing 
 
machines with paper charts  machines with paper charts 
Single  Multi‐  Single  Multi‐ 
operator  laboratory  operator  laboratory 
# of  MR  # of  MR 
Mix 
deviation 

deviation 

deviation 

deviation 
Standard 

Standard 

Standard 

Standard 

labs  (psi)  COV  COV  labs  (psi)  COV  COV 

(psi) 

(psi) 

(psi) 

(psi) 

(%)  (%)  (%)  (%) 

A  12  971  36.7  3.8  85.4 8.8 5 1021 38.5 3.8  166.2 16.3
B  11  811  40.6  5.0  47.0 5.8 4 830 52.1 6.3  52.3  6.3
C  8  611  32.1  5.3  33.2 5.4 2 603 58.1 9.6  58.1  9.3
Average COV  4.7  6.7  Average COV 6.6  10.7 
 
(%)  (%) 
  d2s (%)  13.1  18.7  d2s (%)  18.4  30.1 

10
 Figure 12. Closeup of a chart used for testing small beams.

Source: FHWA

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TFHRC would like to thank ASTM for partnering in the ILS program. The assistance of
Nick Carino on the statistical analysis is greatly appreciated. The participation of the
following laboratories is greatly acknowledged: Amec Foster Wheeler, American
Engineering Testing, Braun Intertec, EBA Engineering, ECS Mid-Atlantic, Engineering
and Materials Technologies, Falcon Engineering, NextGen Pavement Materials
Laboratory (FAA), Mobile Concrete Trailer (FHWA), GET Solutions, Martin Marietta
Materials Laboratory, Minnesota DOT, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
North Carolina DOT, Oklahoma DOT, Specialized Engineering, WDP & Associates
Consulting Engineers, Wisconsin DOT, and Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates.

REFERENCES
1. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA), “Concrete in Practice - What, Why &
How? – CIP 16 Flexural Strength Concrete”, 2000.
2. ARA, Inc., ERES Division, “Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,” Final Report NCHRP 1-37A, p. K-54, March 2004.
3. Richardson, D.N. and Whitwell, B.A. “Concrete Production Plant Variables Affecting Flexural
Strength Relative to Compressive Strength” ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
Volume 23, Issue 8, August 2014.
4. Bentz, D., Arnold, J., Boisclair, M., Jones, S., Rothfeld, P., Stutzman, P., Tanesi, J., Beyene,
M., Kim, H., Mu~noz, J., and Ardani, A. Influence of Aggregate Characteristics on Concrete
Performance. NIST Technical Note 1963, May 2017. http://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1963
5. Tanesi, J; Ardani, A. Leavitt, J. "Reducing the Specimen Size of Concrete Flexural Strength
Test (AASHTO T97) for Safety and Ease of Handling," Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2342, Transportation Research Board of
National Academies, Washington, DC, 2013.

11
6. Bazant, Z. and Novak, D. "Proposal for Standard Test of Modulus of Rupture of Concrete
with its Size Dependence," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 11, January-February 2001,
pp. 79–87.
7. Carrasquillo, P.M. and Carrasquillo, R. L. “Improved Concrete Quality Control Procedures
Using Third Point Loading”, Research Report 119-1F, Project 3-9-87-1119, Center for
Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, November 1987.
8. AASHTO T23-14. Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Field. Washington, D.C., 2014.
9. AASHTO T97-14. Standard Method of Test Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple
beam with Third-Point Loading). Washington, D.C., 2014.
10. ASTM C31 / C31M-15ae1, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Field, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, www.astm.org
11. ASTM C78 / C78M-15b, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using
Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org
12. ASTM E691-16, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the
Precision of a Test Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016,
www.astm.org
13. Tanesi, J. “Interlaboratory Study to Establish Precision Statements for test method
C78/C78M-15b, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple
Beam with Third-Point Loading)”, Research Report RR #, ASTM 2017, under review.
14. ASTM C802-14, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Test Program to
Determine the Precision of Test Methods for Construction Materials, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org
15. ASTM C670-15, Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test
Methods for Construction Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015,
www.astm.org
16. Bartlett, M.S. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, pp. 268–282, 1937.

Researchers—This study was performed by J. Tanesi and J. Leavitt, SES Group

and Associates and A. Ardani, FHWA.
Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard
distribution. Direct distribution is being made to the Divisions and Resource Center.
Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution
Center by e-mail to [email protected], by fax to (814) 239–2156, phone to
(814) 239–1160, or online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research.
Key Words—flexural strength, modulus of rupture, specimen size, precision.
Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S.
Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this
document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are
considered essential to the objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a
manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to
ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information.
FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to
ensure continuous quality improvement.
12