BAZANT 1
Fracture mechanics of concrete: Mechanics of fracture and progressive
Structural application cracking in concrete structures
and numerical calculation
Edited by 1.1 Introduction
(a) (b)
intr<:>ducing an energy criterion. This approach will be described in detail, tz
along with the finite element implementation, comparisons with fracture z Section AA
i
I
A
tests, and some examples of .application. Considered will be the conse
quence for the structural size effect, and how this effect should be
manifested in code formulas for brittle failures, such as the diagonal
shear failure of beams. Furthermore, the stability aspects of fracture will
be analyzed focusing attention on the strain localization instability as
well as crack spacing. Finally, the conclusion will center on a more representative
volume
fundamental study of strainsoftening triaxial constitutive relations for
the fracture process zone.
The principal intent of this work* is to highlight various new research
directions, rather than present a systematic review and description of all (c) (d)
the existing knowledge. Iz ~
l;. :J l I'

"
""
"
"..I! /oJ ""
.' " ..!
Ii
Fig. 1.2. Gradual strainsoftening and sudden stress drop (ac). and biaxial failure envelope
" M(SH .. (,"_6. n_l)
"I o
o
_,l'~~.
M(5H B (m_ 11. n. Il)
(m_ 16, ".1~)
(d). MiSH C
here, Figure 1.3 shows some of the numerical results for a line crack (left) Q " ' . , .. A
.
A ....... I
= i +
and crack band (right) [6]. The finite element mesh covers a cutout of an o .... " (.
exact stresses in the infinite medium at that location. Westergaard's exact F~~;'T~G .'K~
solution is shown as the solid curve. The data points show the calculated _".~A
Me,,, a
results for the square mesh shown (mesh A), as well as for meshes Band  "e,.. ,
C (not shown) in which the element size is reduced to 1/2 and 3/8,
respectively. Each element consisted of two constantstrain triangles (and Fig. 1.3. Finite element results of Balan! and Cedolin (1979) for sudden stress drop (a. b).
showing equivalence of blunt crack band and sharp crack modeling. and results of BaZant
calculations were made for (j = 0.981 a (MPa). Eo = 2256 MPa, P = 0.2, and Oh (c. d). showing the results for gradual stress decrease and meshes of different size.
and stress intensity factor 0.6937 MNm 3/ 2 ).
A similar equivalence of line crack and blunt crack band may be
expected when a gradual stress drop is considered (Figure 1.2). This is should realize that the nonuniform stress distribution implied in a
confirmed in Figure 1.3c by the fact that a reduction of mesh size does singularity element is meaningful only if this element is many times
not affect the results. The reason for this equivalence is the fact that larger than the representative volume. i.e. is at least 20 aggregate pieces
fracture propagation depends essentially on the flux of energy into the in size. which is too large for most applications.
fracture process zone at the crack front, which represents a global Because the line crack and the crack band models are essentially
characteristic of the entire structure and depends little on the detailed equivalent. the choice of one or the other is principally a question of
distributions of stress and strain near the fracture front. computational convenience. The line crack model appears to be less
h may be also noted that the results for the stress intensity factor [6] convenient. When a line crack extends through a certain node, the node
obtained with nonsingular finite elements agree with the exact elasticity must be split into two nodes. This increases the total number of nodes
solution quite closely, usually within 1 % for typical meshes. There is no and changes the topological connectivity of the mesh. Unless one renum
need to use singularity elements in fracture analysis. Moreover, one bers the nodes. the band structure of the structural stiffness matrix is
6 7
destroyed. All this complicates programming. Furthermore. when the (al Linear Fracture (bl Metals (c 1 Concrete
direction in which a Mode I crack should extend is not known in
advance, one must make trial calculations for various possible locations
of the node ahead of the crack front through which the crack should
pass. in order to determine the location which gives the maximum energy
release rate.
The smeared cracking approach. introduced by Rashid [8] avoids these
difficulties. The cracking is modeled simply by changing the isotropic
elastic moduli matrix to an orthotropic one. reducing the material Fig. 1.4. Shape of nonlinear zone (N) and fracture process zone (F).
stiffness in the direction normal to the cracks in the band. This is easily
implemented by finite elements. Moreover. a crack propagation in an
arbitrary direction with respect to the mesh lines. or a crack following a visible microcracks. Measurements of Cedolin et al. [10,11] appear to
curved path. may be easily modeled as a zigzag crack band (Section 1.3) support this view. However. because of the foregoing justifications. the
whose overall path through the mesh approximates the actual crack path. question of the actual shape of the microcrack zone is unimportant for
Another advantage of the crack band model is that the known properties the macroscopic continuum modeling.
of stressstrain relations and failure envelopes can be applied to fracture; In ductile fracture of metals. there is a large plastic zone in which the
this includes. e.g. the effect of the compressive normal stress parallel to metal is yielding but does not undergo strainsoftening. and the strain
the crack. or the effect of creep. Still another advantage of the crack band softening zone itself (i.e . the fracture process zone) is only a small part of
model is the fact that. as it will be shown in the sequel. one can treat the the yielding zone (Figure 1.4). On the other hand, in concrete. the
case when principal stress directions in the fracture process zone rotate nonlinear zone is not much larger than the strainsoftening zone (Figure
during the progressive fracture formation. i.e .. during the strain soften 1.4) since concrete in tension is not capable of plastic deformation. Thus
ing. one may consider that the concrete outside the fracture process zont::
Ahead of the tip of a propagating major crack in concrete. there is behaves as nearly elastic.
always a relatively large zone of discontinuous microcracks. Formation of If the relation of the normal stress 17= and the relative displacement Sr
microcracks at the fracture front has recently been observed experimen across a line crack is identical to the relation of 17= to the displacement 8r
tally [911]. From measurements of tensile strain fields by Moire inter obtained by accumulating the strains Er due to microcracking over the
ferometry [10.111, it appears that there is at the fracture front a zone of width we of the crack band [1], then, according to the above reasoning.
microcracks whose width is about the aggregate size. From microscopic the line crack model and the crack band model are essentially equivalent.
observations. it seems that the larger. easily discernible microcracks are Line crack models with softening stressdisplacement relations were
not spread over a band of a large width but are concentrated essentially proposed in many previous works [1218]. These include especially the
on a line. However. the line along which the microcracks are scattered is works of Knauss [16], Wnuk [17]. and Kfouri, Miller and Rice [14.15] on
not straight but is highly tortuous (Figure 1.1). deviating to each side of polymers and metals. which considered a gradual release of the forces
the overall fracture axis by a distance equal roughly to the aggregate size, between the opposite surfaces as the opening displacements grow, and
as the crack is trying to pass around the harder aggregate pieces. In the modeled it by a gradual decrease of the internodal force as one node in a
equivalent, smoothed macroscopic continuum which is implied in struct finite element grid is being separated by fracture into two nodes. For
ural analysis, the scatter in the locations of visible microcracks is char concrete, the concept of a gradually decreasing stressdisplacement rela
acterized by a microcrack band better than by a straight row of micro tion was first applied in the outstanding original work of Hillerborg.
cracks. Further, it should be realized that the boundary of the fracture Modeer and Petersson [18.19] in their model of fictitious sharp interele
process zone should not be defined as the boundary of visible micro ment crack. Their pioneering work provided inspiration for developing
cracks but as the boundary of the strainsoftening region. i.e., the region the present blunt crack model with gradual strainsoftening.
in which the maximum stress decreases with increasing maximum strain.
Since the strainsoftening is caused not just by microcracking but also by Stressstrain relation for fracture process zone. Cartesian coordinates
unobservable bond ruptures and submicroscopic flaws, the fracture pro XI = X. X 2 = Y. and x) = z will be introduced with the cracks being
cess zone is probably much wider (as well as longer) than the region of assumed to be normal to the axis z. The normal stress and strain
8 9
components may be grouped iuto the column matrices 0 = (ox, 0Y' 0=) T, cracks at constant stresses increases only the overall strain Ez normal to
E = (Ex' Ey ' Ez)T, where T denotes the transpose. The strains are assumed the cracks and has no effect on the lateral strains Ex and Ey Therefore,
to be linearized or small. The elastic stressstrain relation for the normal the compliance matrix after appearance of partial discontinuous cracks
components may then be written as a = DE, in which D is the stiffness should have the form [1,3]:
matrix of the uncracked material,
ell
DlI
C(p.) = (1.5)
D (1.1 ) [ sym.
[
sym.
where p. is a certain parameter, called cracking parameter, which in
If the elastic material is intersected by continuously distributed parallel creases e33 This formulation must, in the limit, be equivalent to the
cracks normal to z, the stressstrain relation has the form [8,20J a = D fr E, wellknown generally accepted stiffness matrix D fr for a fully cracked
in which material (Eq. 1.2). Indeed, as generally proved in [1], the matrix in Eq.
1.2 results as
D~3D331,
~l
DII  D12  D13 D23 D lil,
D fr
= (1.2) D fr = lim CI(p.). (1.6)
[
D22  D23 D;/ ' ,.0
sym.
In writing a computer program, it is convenient for the programmer to
This matrix, representing the stiffness matrix of a fully cracked material, note that instead of setting p. = 0, one may assign in the program p.  I as a
may be derived from the condition that strain E~ of the material between very large number (e.g., lO4O) and let the computer carry out the
the crack is unrelated to Ez (except for E~ < Ez ) and that the stress normal inversion of the matrix numerically; the result is a stiffness matrix like
to the cracks must be zero, assuming that the material between the cracks that in Eq. 1.2 except that extremely small numbers (lO4O) are obtained
behaves as an uncracked elastic material in a plane stress state. This, of instead of O.
course, is a simplification, because the material between the cracks A characteristic feature of the compliance matrix for progressive
becomes damaged by discontinuous microcracks. microcracking (Eq. 1.4) is the fact that cracking has no effect on lateral
To describe progressive development of microcracks in the fracture strains. This can be true only if all microcracks are normal to axis z,
process zone, it is necessary to formulate a stiffness matrix which which is certainly a simplification. In reality, a certain distribution of the
continuously changes from the form given in Eq. 1.1 to that in Eq. 1.2. orientations of the microcracks is expected, the orientation normal to axis
This objective is hard to achieve by direct reasoning, since every element x being just the prevalent one, not the only one. If inclined microcracks
of the 6 X 6 stiffness matrix changes. It was found [1,3], however, that the were considered, than it would be necessary to also introduce a gradual
task becomes easier if the compliance matrix, C, is used. For a crackfree change of the offdiagonal terms in Eq. 1.4 as the formation of micro
material, cracks advances.
Comparing now the compliance matrices in Eqs. 1.5 and 1.6, it is seen
E= Co, (1.3) that a continuous transition from a crackfree state to a fully cracked
state may be very simply obtained by continuously varying the cracking
where parameter p. between the limits
strain. Tests of strainsoftening are stable only if the loading frame is Eq. 1.9 is substituted. In a finite element program, it is also necessary to
much stiffer than the specimen and if the specimen is not too long. The enlarge the compliance and stiffness matrices to a 6 X 6 form, including
observed stressstrain relation appears [21,22,24,26] to be smoothly the rows and columns for shear strains and stresses. Most simply, these
curved. Although a curved 'strainsoftening can be easily implemented may be considered to be the same as for a crackfree material, except that
with parameter Il, we assume, for the sake of simplicity, a bilinear the shear stiffness in the diagonal term needs to be reduced by an
stressstrain relation (Fig. 1.2), the declining (strainsoftening) branch of empirical shear stiffness reduction factor [27,20]. More accurately, the
which is characterized by negative compliance C~3.For uniaxial tension Oz columns and rows for the shear behavior should reflect the frictionaldi
it follows that latant properties of cracks; see, e.g., [28,29]. The question of shear terms
is, however, often unimportant since fracture is geomaterials usually
or Oz = C331l 1 Ez (1.8) occurs in principal stress directions.
During the passage of the fracture process zone through a fixed
which must be equivalent to the relation Oz = (E z  EO)Q3 for the station, the principal stress directions usually do not rotate significantly.
straightline softening in which Q3 is negative and Eo represents the This justifies another simplifying assumption which has been implied in
terminal point of the strainsoftening branch at which the tensile stress the preceding formulation. It is the fact that we use total stressstrain
vanishes (Fig. 1.2). This point is related to the strain Ep at the peak stress relations (Eqs. 1.3 and 1.5) which are pathindependent. In reality, all
point, EO = Ep + ( Q3)f;. Comparing the foregoing two expressions for inelastic behavior is pathdependent. Nevertheless, the assumption of
0z' the following result is obtained [1]: pathindependence of the stressstrain relation in the vicinity of the
fracture front may be adequate for many situations. Note that the
(1.9) microplane model outlined in the sequel provides the possibility to take
into account the pathdependence if one is willing to accept a more
complicated method of analysis (Eq. 1.93 in the sequel).
as the law governing the variation of cracking parameter Il. Substituting The difference of the total strain Ez at the strainsoftening branch from
Eq. 1.9 and Eq. 1.5 and inverting the matrix, the stiffness matrix D to be the strain predicted for an uncracked material, i.e., Ef = Ez  oz/E, repre
used in the finite element program is then obtained. sents the strain which is caused by microcracking. If this strain is
Concrete may be considered to be isotropic. It follows that integrated over the width of the crack band, i.e., 8f = EfWc ' one may
obtain from our stressstrain relation a stressdisplacement relation. For
(1.10)
models in which the fracture is treated as a sharp interelement crack, this
where E = Young's modulus, and the compliance matrix for partially displacement is analogous to the opening displacement, 8r , of such a
cracked concrete takes the following special form: crack. In this sense, the present theory is equivalent to previous models
based on stressdisplacement relations, especially the model of Hillerborg
p et al. [18,19].
1[ 1 The blunt crack band approach lends itself logically to describing the
C(Il) =E p 1 (1.11)
effect on fracture of the triaxial stress state in the vicinity of the crack
p p
front. From extensive testing, it is known that in the presence of
and the limit of its inverse at Il + 0 is transverse normal compression stresses, the tensile strength is diminished
[27,30,31,1,32]. The measured biaxial failure envelope (Figure 1.2d) seems
p to consist approximately of a straight line which connects the failure
1 (1.12) point for uniaxial tensile failure to that for uniaxial compression failure
o in the (ox,Oy) plane. Accordingly, we may suppose that transverse
compressive stresses reduce the peak stress It' to the value It~ given as:
in which E = Young's modulus and p = Poisson's ratio.
In computer finite element analysis, it is most convenient to use the
incremental loading technique. For tbis purpose, the incremental stress
strain relations may be obtained differentiating Eq. 1.3 in which Il from It > O.
for .Ill' I'
Jlc = JtI' (1.13)
12 13
I:
where ft' = uniaxial tensile strength, = uniaxial compression strength, expression for the size of the yielding zone [3941], in which the yield
and k = ft'If:. stress appears instead of ft'.
It is worth noting that if p. is replaced by 1  w, then W resembles the Because of the aforementioned approximate equivalence of the frac
damage parameter used in the socalled continuous damage mechanics, ture models utilizing stressdisplacement relations for sharp cracks [18], it
which has recently been applied to concrete [3337]. There is, however, a seems that the precise width we of the fracture process zone should not
fundamental difference in that the damage due to microcracking is matter, provided that correct energy dissipation due to crack formation is
considered to be inseparable from a zone of a certain characteristic assured. In other words, we should get essentially the same results
width, we' which is a fixed parameter, a material property. utilizing different widths of the crack band, provided we adjust the
softening compliance Cj3 so as to assure that the energy consumed in the
Fracture characteristics. The fracture energy is defined as the energy fracture process zone equals the given value Gr. Thus, we may choose the
consumed by crack formation per unit area of the crack plane. It may be value we' and then we may calculate Cj3 from Eq. 1.15, thereby assuring
calculated as the energy consumption to be correct. It has been numerically demon
strated [1] (Figure 1.3) that indeed the analyses with different we yield
essentially the same numerical results. If insistance is made on using the
(1.14)
correct experimentally observed softening compliance Cj3' then, of course,
only one value of the crack band width we is correct. It has been from this
in which We is the width of the crack band (fracture process zone) and we condition that the value of we has been determined (Eq. 1.17 below).
the work of tensile stress per unit volume which is equal to the area Although the stress intensity factor, K., cannot be defined here as a
under the tensile stressstrain curve (Figure 1.2). limiting property of the stress field, one may introduce an "effective" K.
In theory, it should be possible to determine the crack band width we employing the relation known from linear fracture mechanics: K.
by analyzing the strainlocalization instability that leads to fracture. It = .,jGrE' where E' = E for plane stress, and E' = E/(1  ,,2) for plane
should be possible to do this by extending the previous simple analysis of strain. All the subsequent expressions involving Gr could be stated in
this instability [4,5]. The practical calculation would be, however, quite terms of K., but there is no need for this.
complicated in case of a large fracture process zone with a nonhomoge
neously stressed specimen. Aside from that, if both we
and Gr are Comparison with Iracture test data. Most of the important test data from
considered as constants, we should also be a constant. This constant may the literature [25,4357] have been successfully fitted in report [1] with
be determined empirically. For the bilinear tensile stressstrain relation the present nonlinear fracture model. Some of the fits, obtained in [1] by
(Figure 1.2), one has finite element analysis using square meshes, are shown in Figures 1.5 and
1.6 by the solid lines. The best possible fits obtainable with linear
2G r 1 fracture mechanics are shown for comparison in these figures as the
or we = 1'21 C C1 (1.15) dashed lines (these fits were calculated also by the finite element method
33  33
using square meshes). In computations, the loading point was displaced
in small steps. Reaction, representing the load P, was evaluated at each
in which q3 is negative. For isotropic material, C33 = I/E, q3 = I/E1
loading step. The same stressstrain relation was assumed to hold for all
This equation indicates that the width of the fracture process zone,
finite elements. However, only some elements entered nonlinear behavior.
precisely, the effective width corresponding to a uniform transverse
A plane stress state was assumed for all calculations.
distribution of tensile strain over the crack band, may be determined by
In optimizing the data fits, it was discovered that the optimum width
measuring the softening compliance, the tensile strength, and the fracture
on the crack band front was for all cases between 2da and 5da and that
energy. To ensure that C313 be negative, Eq. 1.15 requires that
the crack band front width
(1.16) (1.17)
where d a = maximum aggregate size, was nearly optimum for all calcula
l!.lote that the expression for Wo is similar to the wellknown Irwin's tions. It was for this width we that the area under the stressstrain curve
14 0.5 "",,(0)Nonhn.O'Theory' 1.0 ,,.....::~=.., 15
o \ (b) Nonlinear Theory
, Linear Theory \ Linear Theory
" Minden, Lawrence, Kaplan (1961'
2000',, 04 '~, Kesler (1977) 08
025.~~,_.
10)
o '~
025.~~_.
Ib) Nonlinear Theory 
Ie) Po 935 lb. , (Beam 6a6a20in)
, Po 2960lb .
\ Linear Theory 
\. Naul (1971) 0 'or p .... 4350Ib. o
"
o
020 020 " Po '5,120 lb
o \
0..
.
o
03
0..
o
. 06 ,,
,,
0..0 Ol~ 0.00.15
r1 o.E ,
.... Po 19,800 lb. \. .... Yf '\. 02 04 ,,
o
,,
o.E
010 T,c        ,
J 010
b=:::3
____ ~ ,0
~
_ ............... ++<
0.7
',Pol2930Ib
" po.' 4883 Ib
08
07
"
',P POI36251b
OJ 60411b
08',
07 ~ P::'
p 23021b
38361b rf
\
025 025
06 06 '~1 06 '~ o
, \
,
~ O~ 05 05 p
o  Llneor Theory
0~:0~.2:0~.4:0~.6::0~.8 0':0":.2:0,..,.4:0,...6:0,...8~IO
u Wal,h (1972)
'"'" 04
o
a
d. 2
dSu'\
In
04 \ 04
.______________________R_e_I_._I_n_il_',ot C'Ock,D_e~p_th
__(_o~o~/__H_'___________________,
E 6 drO.n
125 \ (e) Nonlinear 1heory (f I Nonlinear Theory
o
6 8 10 12 16 20 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 \
\
Linear Theory
1.50
Linear Theory
o
09._,09._.09., Carpln'e,. (980) o \ Corplnferl (1980)
,
J 08 ,,
lell POI e031t1
POI 2410 Ib 08
(1'1 POI 1391 Ib
F:loJ:  41721b. 08 \
,
(t I F:l Ot 1163 Itl
F:lOI  3490 Itl
100 o \
\
Po t819Ib.
1.25
\
\
\
\
Po 20671b
, 2 , 2 0.. 0.
0.6 , 2 075
06 06 " 1.00
'l.1, 'ql ~~
,
"oE
05 05 ,, ,,
0.. 0.50 ,, ,, o
04 04
, ,
04 050
"
025
6 8 10 12 16 20 6 8 10 12 16 20 4 e 10 12 16 20
025
dido (log scale)
Fig. 1.5. Comparison of theory with maximum load test data of Naus (1971) and Walsh
0~~0~.~I~0~2~~0~.3~0~.~4~0.5 0~0~.I~0~.2~~0~.3~0~.~4J0.5
(1972) (Po = max. load according to strength concept).
ReI. Iniliol Flow Depth (Oa/H' Rei. Inillol Flow Depth (oo/H)
\.0 (01 Ibl
1.4
yielded the correct value of the fracture energy needed to obtain good fits
,,
of the test data. It thus appears that, at least for plain concretes, the 1.2
width of the crack band front may be predicted from the maximum  '"D
c 1.0 
aggregate size. However, we must caution that the foregoing simple '"g. 06
  l Ineor Theory
 !
u; 
relation might not hold for high strength concretes, in which the crack ~ a Shah and McGarry (1971)
01
C
0.8
 Nonlinear Theory
III
.6 G"rw, S,renun, Arnuen(1977) g   Linear Tneory
band is, no doubt, more concentrated, since the difference between the g
.;;
Q4 ~ 0.6 _._ Model of Hlilerboro, MOdeer, Peferuan(l976)
c: 1 a Tests of
strengths of aggregate and matrix is less. ! iliiiii iiiiilli iii iiiilliiil! ~ 0.4
In view of Eq. 1.17, the present fracture theory is essentially a two
parameter theory. The two material parameters to be determined by
: 0.2
02 (,Iii_H;_ _ J)
experiment are Gc and f:. o
o 0.2 0.4 0.6
O~~":,",~J
0 10 15 20 25
As for the length of the fracture zone (the strainsoftening zone), its ReI. I",tlol Notch Depth (Og/H) ReI. Seam Depth (H/w e I
value is not constant. A typical value is roughly 12 d a , but it can be as Fig. 1.6. Comparison of theory with maximum load test data by Kaplan (1961). Mindess et
al. (1977). Huang (1981). Carpinteri (1980). Shah and McGarry (1971). Gj0TV et aI. (1971).
and Hillerborg et aI. (1976).
16 17
4r~ 1.0r~
(a)
a
a
x a
.S
1,2'" ,,0
o
 Nonlinear Theory
  LlOear Theory
o SOk,80ron, Fron~olS (979)
"'
.0 06
04
Q

Wu
Nonlinear Theory
   Linear Theory
0 Jl. W~choro'ona and Shah (l9BO)
3 ... ~,  area OP3A 0~~5~1~0~'5~~202~5~ 020~~~4~8~~~'2~
/C_. ""
4 . . . . ~I _ . 0P4Ii C
Rei. Crock Exten .. on:...:(71!.'7/'W"'')___________..:.R:.:e.:.;.I.~C:.:.r::.:oc:.:;k ExlenSlon (I!. lWeI
5,6,7" ~,  ~ B .. , 0.81 (e)
Fig. 1.7. Finite element results of BaZant and Oh (1983) on stress distribution (1,2, ... 7)
ahead of fracture front at successive loading stages, and corresponding states on stressstrain
; n,
curves.
c * * * * * * * * * * * * *
~~~~~~~;~~88~~~~~~8~~~~
Colorado oil shale, and Westerly granite, it was found that nearly
optimum fits are achieved for all these rocks with We = 5dg where
.... ..0
d = grain size of rock. These studies involved the measurements of
_ _ ONN_f''''lO\O_OO\O\O
~""""''''''''''N.,......._f''I''}NO
~cddddddddddddddddd~dddd
';aximum load, as well as of the resistance curves (Rcurves). Statistical
regression analysis for the test data for various rocks also indicated a
* * * * *. *
significant improvement. The coefficient of variation of the deviation
~=~~~:~~~88$~~~g~~~~~~
__
\O_~~OOOO~~_~~NNN ~\O~~M~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~N~~
from the regression line for the plot of relative maximum load values was
...... N ............
found to be 10.6%. This is to be compared with the value 15.2% for linear
fracture theory, and the value 79.6% for strengthbased predictions.
c
C * * * * * * * * *
~~~:~~~~~g~~~~~~8~~~~~~
The test data on concrete fracture available in the literature are
sufficiently numerous for a statistical regression analysis of the errors.
:: .... .0 'II:t N ......................... _ ..... ~ 0  f"I"} N ..... N ..... 0\ ..... 00 r \0
~cdddddddddddddddddNdddd Figure 1.9 shows a regression analysis of the maximum load data for
twentytwo different concretes [1]. In this plot, the abscissa is X = Ptl Po
and the ordinate is Y = Pml Po, in which Pm = measured maximum load
* *
I,f')"'** * * *. ___ * *
*tn *\0.,.......
* \0 ..... 0
* 0
0
*
__ "''''''''''V''i'''
NNOOOOOONNNOOON~~~~~~~
",1.1\",*.
'''V''IV''I_N~~_~MM
Pmax' PI = theoretical value of Pmax' and Po = failure loads calculated
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~OdNN according to the strength theory. If the theory were perfect, then the plot
of Y vs. X would have to be a straight line of slope 1.0, passing through
the origin. Thus, the vertical deviations of the data points from the
"'''' "''''V''I "'NrNrO~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~ regression line characterize the errors of the theory. The coefficient of
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d.c;; d d
variation, w, of the vertical deviation from the regression line in Figure
1.9 is [1]:
c * * * * *.
,~~~~~M~M~~~~~~~OOON~~~ * * * * *
For the present fracture theory w = 0.066
.0 ~g~~~::;~:;:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~cdddddddddddddddddNdddd For linear fracture theory w = 0.267 (1.18)
For strength criterion w = 0.650
These results confirm that the improvement achieved with the present
nonlinear fracture theory is quite significant.
The test data available in the literature on the Rcurves may be
analyzed similarly [1]. In this regression analysis, the fracture energy
values were normalized with regard to the product h' d a , and the
theoretical values of Grl/(d a were plotted against the measured values of
this ratio. Again, if everything worked perfectly, this plot would have to
be a straight line of slope 1.0 and intercept 0.0. The standard errors for
the vertical deviations from this regression line have been calculated for
the sets of various test data available in the literature,
For the present fracture theory: s = 0.083
(1.19)
For linear fracture theory: s = 0.317
The values of the fracture energy obtained for the optimum fits of
various fracture data on concrete were further examined to see whether
the fracture energy could be approximately predicted from the elemen
20
.
21
1.80~....,.,
1. 80 r, oj c)
......
/ 7 /
t,,~z
<a) NONLINEAR
"
(b) LINEAR
THEORY THEORY /
/
/ / /
., .,
1.44 1.44 /
f)
f'
., eq
......
1.08
/
.,'. Ez Ez
]~1_
0.72
., /
/
t LJ_
.... 0.014
b'"
III'"
1.02]
0.066
0.36
., /
/
/
/
/
/
 0.093
b 0.144
M ... 0.267
1++ 1
0.0 .jL.~t++~r__~ 0.0 ~~r___+_+_t___I
0.0 0.36 0.72 1.08 1.44 1.80 0.0 0.36 0.12 1.08 1.44 1.01)
X ... P,IP
O I'" Pt/PO Fig. 1.10. Change of stressstrain relation for fracture process zone needed to ensure correct
energy dissipation.
1.35 , . . .                     r  7 1
(c) rwUtAA
TIOO
68 0.020
= 0.734
0.731
b' 1.023
u = 0.035 E = elastic modulus, and Gr is in lb/in. The values Gr predicted from Eq.
1.14 0.240
1.20 are listed in Table 1.1. The coefficient of variation of the errors
G r  Gr is ab9ut 16% [1].
It must be emphasized, however, that Eq. 1.20 yields only the fracture
0.93 energy values for the present nonlinear theory, and not the apparent
fracture energy values determined according to linear fracture mechanics
or those determined from other theories.
Noting that Gr :::: 3dJ/~(E~1  E;I)/2, the following prediction for
0.72
1 0 10
mula for E t further ensues:
2
3 0
11
12
69.9 E
6.
4 13
56 14
Et :::: f; + 56.7 (1.21)
0.51 15
70 16
B 17 ..
9
Fig. 1.9. (a) Statistical regression analysis of maximum load data from Figs. 5~6 based on Effect of element size. Eq. 1.16 gives the upper bound on the finite
present theory (Pm = measured maximum load, Pf = theoretical maximum load); (b) same.
element size for the present formulation. However, for large structures
but for linear fracture mechanics; (c) same as (a) but in a different scale (data set numbers
~ see Table 1).
such as dams or reactor vessels, much larger finite elements need to be
used and should be sufficient. This is indeed possible if the correct value
of fracture energy Gr is preserved. To preserve it, the strength limit f;
tary characteristics of concrete. The following approximate formula was needs to be reduced to a lower value f~, called the equivalent strength
found [1] [6,59,60]. We may either consider a vertical stress drop (Figure 1.10a) or
keep the correct declining slope E t (Figure 1.10b).
(1.20) Consider a vertical stress drop and assume a uniform stress distribu
tion across the crack band. The condition of preserving the correct
in whichf; must be in psi (psi = 6895 Pa), d a = maximum aggregate size, fracture energy for crack band advance fla is flU = flU2  flUI = GIlla
22 23
where llUI = (CfWeflla/2E')[ 0l( 1  v'(3) + 03( 03  V'OI)] = strain energy lytschko's optimal orth~gonal (elastic) hourglas~ con.trol [61], c f = 0.74,
in the frontal element before its cracking, llU2 = (kwM,~flla/2E')o'f = determined by P. Pfeiffer at Northwestern Umverslty.
strain energy in this element after cracking; 3 ,2 = initial transverse and as If the finite element size wer is up to a few hme . h ' . best to
We t en It IS
longitudinal normal stresses'in the element, o{ = longitudinal normal modify the stressstrain diagram in such a manner that both Gr and /.' are
stress after cracking; wer = h = element side if the crack band runs in a
square mesh parallel to a mesh line; C f = empirical coefficient (close to 1)
taking into account the actual nonuniform stress distribution in the finite
r I
eserved. This may be achieved by replacing the actual downward slope
by an effective one Et (Figure 1.10d). The condi_tion of equal energy
dissipation IS.
WJ'I2 (E  I  E t1 )/2 = Wer 1,2(E
I
1

E
I
1 )/2
' W
hiCh Yle
. ld s
element; and for plane stress E' = E, v' = v, while for plane strain
the rule
E' = E/(l v 2 ), v' = v/(l  v) where E = Young's modulus of concrete
and v = its Poisson ratio. The formation of cracks has no effect on stress _ E
parallel to cracks, and assuming that no loading change occurs which = ) (1.22a)
1
would change 1 during the crack advance, it follows that o{ = al' Also,
set a3 = /.' = equivalent strength, and substitute Gf = wJ'~( E I 
EI W
_c
wef
(1  1
E
E,
E t I )/2 a~determined from a uniaxial test. From the condition llU2 
llUI = Grlla, it is found that Thus, the downward slope E, must be made steeper as the finite element
is made larger. There is a limit for this; a vertical stress drop, for which
liE = 0, and Eq. 1.22a indicates that this happens when wer = we(l
E/ E,).SO. a change of downward slope (Eq. 1.22) can be used to achieve
correct energy dissipation only if
I:
The strength value q used in analysis must be increased as the element If the finite element needs to be made larger, then one must keep a
sl'ze , Wef' decreases . Furthermore, a compressive normal stress parallel to vertical stress drop and adjust the strength limit according to Eq. 1.22;
I:
the crack plane causes a reduction of q or the effective fracture energy. see Figure 1.10a.
This result agrees with experience. However, the decrease of I:q due to r For relatively small structures it may be sometimes desirable to use
might be too strong since, at v=::: 1/6, a compression a 1 =  6a3 would finite elements smaller than We = 3da (Figure 1.lOf). Leaving aside (for
reduce the tensile strength to zero, while biaxial failure test data indicate lack of data) the question of how important it is to keep a blunt fracture
that the tensile strength is nonzero for any ratio a3/11 1 This means that front, the correct fracture energy may then be preserved by using a
the effective fracture energy is probably also variable, as a function of downward slope E, that is milder (less steep) than the actual one, E ,. This
a l /113 , which is neglected in Eq. 1.22 (cf. Eq. 1.13). Nevertheless, for slope may again be calculated from Eq. 1.22a, in which We/Wef > 1.
a l /a 3 ':;;;  6, the tensile strength is, no doubt, greatly reduced and so Eq. Obviously, there is now no mathematical limit on how small Wer can get.
1.22 might be acceptable for practical purposes. In previous works Note that if one reduces only the width of the finite elements in the crack
[6,59,60], coefficient rf was not used (rr = 1); the effect, however, was band, permitting these elements to become elongated rectangles (Figure
almost nil since a l /113 was negligible in the examples solved. 1.10f), then a reduction of Wer to a very small volume makes this
Coefficient cr , which takes into account the nonuniformity of strain approach equivalent to that of Hillerborg et al. [18], in which one uses a
distribution enforced in the frontal finite element by its shape function, stress displacement relation, the displacement being 8 = WerE:.
may be calibrated empirically, so that the results would agree with those Another possibility of preserving the correct fracture energy is to keep
obtained from the energy criterion (Eq. 1.33 in the sequel). For a square the actual downward slope E, and change the peak stress value from It' to
element consisting of two identical constant strain triangles, crf2 = 0.921 /eq (Figure 1.10b). This may be less realistic than the previous method
[6), while for that consisting of four identical constant strain triangles (Eq. 1.22a) for wef':;;; Wo, but is simpler and avoids the limitation in Eq
(with a central node condensed out), crfi = 0.826 [59]. For a fournode 1.22b. In this approach the stressstrain diagram remains geometrically
square with a singlepoint numerical integration and FlanaganBe similar. and so this approach is easier to implement if one uses a curved
24 25
stressstrain diagram. The energy balance condition remains the same as x,~
before except that l/E' must now be replaced with (1  E/EJ/E'. lalal pI6101~,_ A H B
I , ~ : , : I: ,,~, H + I I
rrrl7b trt; 1
Making this replacement in Eq. 1.22, one obtains ,'L tt 111: :1: ' r  , ~.
,
' 1+ J } ~ __ l +iL 1
I
'  c I ( 1 + 
E

)1/2( 2GrE' )1/2 _c J.,(~)1/2 (correct slope E t )
Co) 
I III
XI ...
r.t  ~ti ._ : iL.J
I
~
I
/.eq _ E WerTr f t WerTr ~. ~)
~, ~,~ ~ <r'' l __ ~
" '" 1 I I
t da d. c
+ ::
1
(1.23) 1
lalol.I"I"I
/,
//
STEEL
R
~EMENTS
CONCRETE ELEMENTS A:'::::'.':
MIQ::"h'+
~ __ :':':'::':':'
, t :2..+
::::::. ::::::
~ ~+
't:
~. I
__ L_
,
_CAB
II
where again Tr = 1  2v'03/ol' In contrast to Eq. 22, this equation should ..
p/
,
D
f NL...J
L~=
~ , I
di"' I : __ +____ ~
I I
apply even for small structures (nonlinear fracture range). One should
also realize that the sudden stress drop is an inappropriate assumption
"'
/
~ ;++:"4 'r' :
t=t~ ~ T.J... N"  I+: I I
IIV
l. ~  r : :t ++ ...& +
for dynamic finite element programs since it generates spurious shock IV ,',
:t .: t i ~+ t.+: :
...""
waves [62,63,64]. x, L __
+" 41 J..L
G:1. ____ .1.: __ E
(b) :r F 1. __ __ 1 __ __ l. __ __ L ____
exact solutions for sharp cracks, and approximate these solutions just as "" ,R
1        ABEF  MESH B (m.12, n.'3)
"s
well as the method of sharp interelement cracks. This has been demon  AHGL  MESH C (m.16, n. 25)
strated by BaZant and Cedolin [59,6,60,7] and one of these demonstra Fig. 1.11. Numerical example of centercracked rectangular panel and finite element meshes
tions is shown in Fig. 1.12 in which a nondimensionalized load parameter used (after BaZant and Cedolin, 1980).
is plotted versus the crack length, a. The specimen is a rectangular panel
with a center crack, loaded by a uniform normal stress at top and
bottom. The calculation has been carried out for three different meshes a multipleelement cracking front. Cracking of one finite element relieves
shown in Fig. 1.11, with finite element sizes in the ratios 4: 2: 1. (Note the stress from its neighbor element on the side, and for this reason this
that the exact solutions are slightly different for each mesh because the neighbor element can never be made to crack in subsequent loading
boundary of each mesh was not exactly the same.) We see that, with finer steps. One can get both finite elements to crack only if the loading step is
meshes, the present method can be used to obtain linear fracture mecha sufficiently large.
nics solutions. In the currently existing large finite element codes, propagation of
The energy actually dissipated per unit extension of the crack band in distributed (smeared) cracking from one element to another is being
the finite element mesh is W' = wf'~(El  E~I)/2, which is propor determined on the basis of the tensile strength criterion. It is well known
tional to the width W of the frontal finite element. So, by reducing the that such a calculation cannot converge to correct results, since refine
element size to zero (w  0), the energy that needs be supplied to ment of the element size to zero leads to infinite stress concentrations just
produce the fracture becomes vanishingly small if ft, E and E t are ahead of the front cracked element, causing that the load needed for
constant. This conspicuously demonstrates the irrationality of using the further extension of the crack band tends always to zero. It has not been
same complete stressstrain diagram regardless of the element size. however generally recognized that the use of the strength criterion can
The foregoing deductions regarding the effect of element size are lead to very large errors. According to the numerical results of BaZant
based on the premise that the cracking front is singleelement wide. This and Cedolin [6,59,60], the differences in the results can be as large as
premise is justified by two reasons: 100% when the finite element sizes differ as 4: 2: 1. To demonstrate it,
1) If the fracture front is considered to be two or more elements wide, some of these results are reproduced in Fig. 1.11, in which the failure
then one finds that a deformation increment of localization type (see Sec. load needed to cause further extension of the crack band is plotted for
4.2 in the sequel) consumes negative energy, i.e. the multielement width the same panel as in Fig. 1.11 against the length of the crack band. The
of the cracking front is unstable. curves obtained for meshes A, B, C of finite element sizes 4: 2 : 1 are seen
2) If the loading step is so small that the strain in only one element to be very far apart, whereas the curves for the finite element results on
oes over the peak stress point within this step, it is impossible to obtain the basis of the equivalent stren2th annroach for the ahnmt stres" dron
26 27
a
a) p.O.cn.
b)
p.0.8 ...
(as well as those obtained on the basis of energy criterion in Eq. 1.33
below) agree with each other well; see Figure 1.12. The difference
 ,................ ,, ,
.... ...
 ' ........ ., between the curves is negligible and tends to zero as the mesh is refined.
.,
\
__ ._ Ia .... _ . ,
\
The curves for the equivalent strength criterion closely agree with those
\ '\\
\
\
\
for the energy criterion .
,
,'
\ \
\
\
\
\
, The calculation results in Figure 1.2c further demonstrate that also in
'. the case of gradual strain softening, the finite element results strongly
\
\
... ~
" c
... depend on the chosen mesh size, and thus are unobjective. When,
\
1
\ "'" however, the downward slope is varied to preserve the same energy, the
" \
,
''',
~
............  ... _ . ._   . .
results for various meshes are about the same; see Figure 1.12c.
,
.........., The foregoing examples demonstrate that strength criteria are
... ~., ............
.......... ........... fundamentallly at fault, except for plastic failures, characterized by
~~"
~
~  ...'
,
constant rather than decreasing stress during failure. This is true not only
of tensile failure of plain concrete but also of reinforced concrete, and of
shear and compression failures whenever they exhibit strain softening.
Eventually, it will be necessary to develop fracture mechanics for com
pression and shear failures of concrete if consistent results, independent
0  I  ;     ;     ,  ; _ . , .7 .!. ,+_o,_.,.~_r'..... of the chosen mesh size, should be achieved.
1 .5
Cr.... LefttI' (e..)
C,ack length (em) On the other hand, the use of strength criterion in the literature often
yielded results that agreed well with measurements. This must have been
a C)
ENERGV VAftlAnON WITH due to one of the following two reasons:
FREE SLIP LENGTH (1) The measurements were made on laboratory specimens the size of
  ME. . II which was the minimum possible with regard to the aggregate size. In this
case,j~ =ft' and the strength analysis is correct (see the discussion below
  MElIt.
. ME . . C
Eq. 1.46). However, engineers need to extrapolate from such laboratory
structures to much larger real structures, and this is in question.
(2) Many concrete structures are fractureinsensitive, i.e., the tensile
strength of concrete has very little effect on the failure load. These
include the bending failure of beams or plates (which must be designed,
according to ACI Standard 318 [65], so that steel fails plastically before
concrete fails in compression), or failure of spiral or tied columns, in
which the confinement makes concrete relatively ductile. To determine
whether the structure if fractureinsensitive, the analyst needs to analyze
his structure twice  once for the actual strength value, and once for a
zero strength value. If the results of both analyses are not approximately
the same, fracture mechanics analysis is required.
As the size of the structure, and thus the size of the finite element,
becomes very large, the value of the equivalent strength (Eq. 1.22 or 1.23)
obviously tends to zero. In the limit, the notension material is obtained.
Fig. 1.12. Results for different mesh sizes for the panel from Fig. 1.11 (a) unrein forced, (b) This approach was pioneered in the mid1960's by Zienkiewicz et a1. as a
reinforced, no bond slip, (c) various reinforcements, bond slip (after BaZant and Cedolin,
method for the cracking analysis of large rock masses.
1980), (p = reinforcement ratio).
I tol steps I1x, l1y, I1z. the equivalent width of a threedimensional zigzag
band may be shown to be
(1.25)
tbl
where PI' P2 , P3 are the direction cosines of the normal of the fracture
plane (overall fracture direction) wit~ regard to the me~h coordinate~.
Instead of Eq. 1.24 for effective wIdth, a somewhat dIfferent equatiOn.
namely, Wef = h/cos a, was used in previous work based on a different
argument. For a = 0 and a = 45, this equation gives the same values of
W f as Eq. 1.24, and between 0 and 45 it gives slightly smaller values of
we (not smaller by more than 17%). However for a close to 90, the
ef
equation Wef = h/cos a is inapplicable; it cannot be correct when a . 90
Fig. 1.13. (a) Zigzag crack band propagation in finite element mesh in skew direction; (b) since it would give wef  . 00, which in turn, would yield f:q .0, causing
False bias in crack direction caused by a slightly slanted mesh. the equivalent strength criterion to always incorrectly indicate that a
crack band parallel to the mesh would always jump to the side, per
pendicular to the crack direction [66]. Eq. 24 or 25 avoids this problem.
crack or crack band may then be conveniently represented as a zigzag Although the foregoing equations give correct overall energy dissipa
crack band through the finite element mesh; see Fig. 1.13. Numerical tion by a zigzag crack band, they do not completely avoid a directional
studies indicated that the equivalent strength and energy criteria may still bias due to the mesh as far as determining the direction of individual
be used but must be modified. jumps of the crack band front is concerned. For example, if a square
Consider a rectangular mesh of mesh sizes I1x and l1y (Figure 1.13). mesh in the centercracked rectangular panel is slanted, but only mod
Let aF be the orientation angle of the zigzag crack band (overall fracture erately so (Figure 1.13b), then the criterion in Eq. 1.24, used in compari
direction), aM be the orientation angle of mesh lines x, and a c be the son with the maximum principal stress, indicates the crack band to run
direction of the cracks (microcracks) within the finite element (Figure straight along the mesh line, i.e. in the inclined direction, while correctly
1.13). To be determined is the effective width Wef of a smooth crack band it should zigzag so as to conform to an overall horizontal direction. It
which is equivalent to the zigzag band. Consider one cycle, of length I, appears rather difficult to avoid this type of bias. On the other hand, for
on the line connecting the centroids of the elements in the zigzag band. a 45 slant of a square mesh, this problem does not occur and the crack
The number of elements per cycle I in the xdirection is Nx = I cos a/l1x, band propagates zigzag in an overall horizontal direction. Various
and the number of those in the ydirection is Ny = I sin a/l1y where methods to avoid the bias due to the slant of the mesh are being studied
a = la F  aMI (0 ~ a ~ 90) (Figure 1.13). The area of the zigzag band [6668].
per cycle I is (Nx l1y)l1x + (Ny l1x)l1y. This area must equal the area IWef The calculation results must be also objective not only with regard to
of the equivalent smooth crack band, in order to assure the same energy the choice of the element size but also with regard to the choice of mesh
content (assuming same stresses). This condition yields inclination. To demonstrate it, the example shown in Figure 1.11 has
been calculated [60] for a square mesh whose sides are inclined at 45
with regard to the side of the rectangular panel. The results of this
calculation are shown in Figure 1.15, in which case Ib corresponds to this
where the second equation applies to a square mesh (fiX = 11 Y = h). inclined mesh and case la to a square mesh whose sides are parallel to
Thus, we see that the value of wef to be substituted into Eqs. 1.22 or 1.23 the sides of the panel. An excellent agreement of these two calculations is
for the equivalent strength depends on the inclination a of the mesh with seen. Similar agreement has been found for the inclined meshes when the
regard to the fracture direction. Note also that the correction factor due element size is varied [60]. A 26.6 inclination of the square mesh has
to a is always between 1.0 and 1.41. also been considered, and the results were again satisfactory, although
By a similar argument, for a threedimensional orthogonal mesh of the scatter was larger than for the 45 inclination [60].
30 31
1
, free slip connection provided by the steel bars crossing the crack band would be
bond
I', l
, 1 roughly correct and independent of the finite element mesh .
'f''~
f~ t 1
, 1 1 Thus, to simplify the formulation, the actual curvilinear variation of
1
i f
i ~
1
2
+.
I
1
I
1. . .
f
1 the bond forces and the axial forces in the bars may be replaced by an
idealized piecewise constant variation of the bond force and the corre
I=
1
4j ,~
l ~
no slip
J
E.~. :=.:~ 2ls ~= i:== =~~
1:==
8
4~t+
1 I'
5, \
====
1
,+:~'
I
I
,
I
j
2l
e
s
sponding piecewise linear variation of the actual axial force in the bars
(Figure 1..14). The latter may further be replaced by a piecewise constant
variation of the axial force, such that the overall extension of the bar over
the distance of the bond slip would be roughly the same .
An estimate of Ls will be made. Let A b = cross section area of bar.
~Ab Since the bar force AbO"s must equilibrate the remote bar force AbO";, plus
the bond force U~Ls' the bond slip length is Ls = (O"s  O";)AbjU~ (Figure
1..14) where U~ = ultimate bond force per unit length of bar, as de
Fig. 1.14. Illustration of bond slip and equivalent free bond slip length L: (after BaZant and termined by pullout tests; O"s, 0"; = tensile stress in the steel bar at the
Cedolin, 1980). point where it crosses the crack band, and at the end of the slipping
segment, respectively. Furthermore, 0"; may be approximately related to
O"s; AbO"s must equal the force per bar carried jointly by steel and concrete
Effect of reinforcement and bond slip. It has been customary in finite at the end of the slipping segment where the strain, Es = 0"; j E s ' is the
element analysis of reinforced concrete to assume that the steel bars are same for concrete and steel. Thus [Esp + Ec(1  p)]O";jEs = pO"s or 0"; =
rigidly attached to concrete in the nodes of the mesh. This treatment is, O"sn'pj(I. P + n'p) in which n' = EjEc = ratio of elastic moduli of steel
however, not only physically unjustified but also unobjective with regard and concrete, and p = Aj(Ac + As) = steel ratio. The following result is
to the choice of mesh, and causes incorrect convergence. The bars obtained [59]:
connecting the nodes on the opposite sides of the crack band represent
an elastic connection, the stiffness of which varies inversely as the As ,Ab 1 P
Ls = U' (O"s  U' 1 _ + ' O"s
O"s ) ::::: (1.26)
distance between the nodes, i.e., the width w of the crack band. Thus, as b b P nP
the mesh size is refined to zero (and the crack band width tends to zero),
the stiffness of the connection across the crack band increases to infinity, This equation gives the bondslip length as a fixed property characteristic
which prevents opening of the crack band. So it is clear that no cracking of the steelconcrete composite.
can be obtained in the limit of a zero element size. For the purpose of finite element analysis, the actual bondslip length
The effect of the mesh size on the results is demonstrated in Figure Ls may be replaced by some modified length Li such that the steel stress
l..12b where the load parameter is plotted vs. crack length a for a over this length is uniform and the slip of steel bar within concrete may
rectangular panel [59]. The panel is the same as before, but is reinforced be considered as free. The length Li is determined from the condition
by regularly and densely spaced vertical bars of various reinforcement that the extension of the steel bar over the length Ls would remain the
ratios p. We see that the results for the three meshes of sizes 4: 2: 1 differ same. In this manner, the following expression for the equivalent free
greatly, not only for the constant strength criterion but also for the bondslip length can be derived [59]:
energy criterion.
To obtain an objective and properly convergent formulation, one must
take into account the bond slip. The bond slip occurs over a certain L*= At(lp) [L + (I_i)] (1.27)
s 2[A b (lp+pn)pnAt] s Wo 4Ls
length, Ls (Figure 1..14). The most realistic treatment of bond slip would
call for using separate nodes for concrete and steel connected by some
nonlinear linkage elements representing forces transmitted by bond. where w = width of the elementwide crack band, Sc = spacing of cracks
However, this approach would be too cumbersome. In the spirit of the within the crack band (sc::::: d a ) and At = the crosssection area of bar
32 33
chosen for computations. One may conveniently choose such Ab that Eq. CASE
1.27 give a length which coincides with a distance between two nodes of
the mesh. As a crude approximation
(1.28)
reinforcing bars with this normal, p' = p* cos 2a s where cos 2a s represents
a correction of stiffness of the steel bars due to their inclination (satisfy
ing the condition that the stiffness be zero when as = 0), and c p =
empirical correction factor introducing the effect of deformation of
L:.
,
Cr=k
,
Creek
.,_ . (em'
concrete outside the element that cracks but lies within length The II CASE 2.
.. .._..
CAllE 2.
I .
a u ....
M "
I
i .
a
..... I
From the condition l:q/C1 = leg/Co, the following expression for I:q for
sudden stress drop may be obtained after algebraic rearrangements:
D
(1.29)
. ,c,... .
'" (c.,
. . ,c,... ........ , ,...,.
if 1  P is replaced by 1 (normally p 1). This formula is the same as Fig. 1.15. Results for various finite element sizes for zigzag crack band in a 45 inclined
that derived in [60]. by using the expression for the asymptotic displace mesh and parallel mesh. both for energy criterion and equivalent strength (after Baiant and
ment field near the tip of an equivalent sharp crack [40]. except for one Cedolin, 1983).
difference: The dependence on as. By solving a number of examples for
reinforced panels on the basis of the energy criterion, and requiring that A more realistic continuum treatment of reinforcement and bond slip
the use of I:q would yield approximately the same results, a table of would be to approximate the reinforcing net by a continuum that. is
optimum values of cp for various a p was set up [60]; approximately. allowed to slip against the continuum representing concrete, and consid
c p "'" 0.7 for all as. Note that Eq. 1.29 satisfies the obvious condition that er that the distributed (volume) forces transmitted between the two
I~ must become the same as given by Eq. 1.22 when as = 90, or p = 0, continua depend on the relative slip displacement. This would be, how
or E = 0 or L * ~ 00. ever, more com licated.
32 33
(1.28)
t ,. ..
Using Eq. 1.27, the finite element analysis of the centercracked '(' 1~1. '(:
.~"'BII~""~.. I, ,
rectangular panel, the same one as before (Figure 1.11), yields consistent
. '(
results when finite elements of different sizes are used (Figure 1.12c) [60]. ...~
Further, it h~s been demonstrated [60] that the use of different mesh sizes
for a reinforced panel yields consistent results even when the mesh is a 0) CASE 1. a b) CASE hi
inclined; see Figure 1.15 for a 45 mesh inclination and Figure 1.16 for a o Me ... A a ...... .
u .... .
26.6 inclination. 6
reinforcing bars with this normal, p' = p* cos 2a s where cos 2a s represents
a correction of stiffness of the steel bars due to their inclination (satisfy
ing the condition that the stiffness be zero when as = 0), and c p =
empirical correction factor introducing the effect of deformation of 1 ,
L:.
1
C,.clc Cr.:" &..net" (em,
concrete outside the element that cracks but lies within length The a CASE 2_
deformation f:q/C1 should equal the deformation fe~/Co where fe~ = t a M .... It
a M_ A
AM . . . . .
equivalent strength in absence of reinforcement, as given before, and j 6 M .... .
Co = Ec(l  p')jwc = stiffness of concrete across the band width wc. r ~M."', C ~M hC
From the condition f:q/C1 = fe~/Co, the following expression for f:q for
sudden stress drop may be obtained after algebraic rearrangements:
a
(1.29)
'O~r~r,r~.r~,r~.r?~r~
C,MlIl Length Celli'
,
Cra
.
Una'
,
RIfI'
.
if 1  P is replaced by 1 (normally p 1). This formula is the same as Fig. 1.15. Results for various finite element sizes for zigzag crack band in a 45 inclined
that derived in [60]. by using the expression for the asymptotic displace mesh and parallel mesh, both for energy criterion and equivalent strength (after BaZant and
ment field near the tip of an equivalent sharp crack [40], except for one Cedolin, 1983).
difference: The dependence on as. By solving a number of examples for
reinforced panels on the basis of the energy criterion, and requiring that A more realistic continuum treatment of reinforcement and bond slip
the use of f:a. would yield approximately the same results, a table of would be to approximate the reinforcing net by a continuum that, is
optimum values of c p for various a p was set up [60]; approximately, allowed to slip against the continuum representing concrete, and consid
cp ::or: 0.7 for all as. Note that Eq. 1.29 satisfies the obvious condition that er that the distributed (volume) forces transmitted between the two
f:a. must become the same as given by Eq. 1.22 when as = 90, or p = 0, continua depend on the relative slip displacement. This would be, how
or Es = 0, or L *  00. ever, more complicated.
34 35
.
<>
CASE MESH
I
I .,
'e
":. ~Vj ':4.5
D /0.
'e I

f: , ,
I~ I
!
:!
I .)'.1
i '0=' ~;;; '_;:::::_1
1 3
! ~S
d) Surloco to,coo on e) Interfac. fot~. within &Y ,) Nodal forc in &V
c) lx,
'@".:.
D
.~~ ... : x,
, S
C fee. Lan,tt,
~
2layer 'yatam
Fig. 1.16. Results for various finite element sizes for zigzag crack band in a 26.6 inclined
Fig. 1.17. Assumed stages of extension of crack band to explain energy criterion (after
mesh, both for energy criterion and equivalence strength (after BaZant and Cedolin, 1983).
Bafant and Cedolin, 1980).
inside dV are varied. Thus, the corresponding stress changes in concrete expressed as
. AV areglven
InL.l . b YL.lall=a
A e CO
ll  E'eEll=0 Ell + PeE22
(0 ' 0 )E'/(1
e Pc o.
'2)  E'cEll'
CO H
A e CO A e
L.la22 = a 22 ; L.la 12 = a12' ere, a ijCO d enotes the stress f '
ractlOn . d b ef ore
carne dU= Grdd'  dW  dL  dWb > 0 stable
cracking by concrete alone, defined as force in concrete per unit area of
the steelconcrete composite; Ee and Pc are the Young's modulus and = 0 critical
Poisson's ratio of concrete. The conditions E~ = Ee and P~ = Pc apply to
plane strain and E~ = Ee/(1  Pe2 ) and P~ = Pe/(l  pc) to plane strain. > 0 unstable (1.33)
Assuming that cracks in concrete propagate in the direction of the
principal stress just ahead of the crack, one has daf2 = af; = 0 in the where dU = energy that must be externally supplied to the structure to
above expressions. The change in potential energy of the system during extend the crack band of width h by length da. (dU = total energy in the
Stage I in Figure 1.17b is given by the elastic energy initially stored in dV case of rapid, or adiabatic, fracture, and dU = Helmholtz's free energy in
and released by cracking, i.e., the case of slow, or isothermal, fracture.) If dU> 0, then no crack
extension can occur without supplying energy to the structure, and so the
(1.30) crack band is stable, does not propagate. If dU < 0, crack band extension
provokes a spontaneous energy release by the structure, which is an
unstable situation, and so the crack extension must happen; the crack
The change in potential energy during Stage II in Figure 1.17 is given then extends in a dynamic manner, and the excess energy  dU is
by the work done by the forces d1'.o? and die? while they are being transformed into kinetic energy. If dU = 0, no energy needs to be
released, i.e., supplied and none is released, and so the crack band may extend in a
static manner; in this case Gr + dWb/da = (dW + dL)/da = finite dif
(1.31 ) ference approximation to the energy release rate of the structure. For this
approximation to be secondorder accurate, the corresponding crack
band length a should be considered to reach up to the centroid of the
Coefficients 1/2 must be used because, for a sufficiently small da, the frontal element that undergoes cracking.
forces 1'.0, and Ie, vary almost linearly during Stage II and reduce to zero For practical calculation, the volume integral in Eq. 1.30 needs to be
at the end of Stage II. expressed in terms of nodal displacements using the shape functions of
Not all of the energy that is supplied to the element that cracks from the finite element. The boundary integral in Eq. 1.31 is evaluated from
the rest of the structure and from the unloading of concrete between the the change of nodal forces acting on volume dV from the outside [59].
cracks is available for producing new crack surfaces. Part of this energy is Among the terms in Eq. 1.33, dWand dWb normally are relatively small
consumed by the bond slip of reinforcing bars during cracking within and often may be neglected, yielding dL/da = Gr as the approximate
volume dV. This part may be expressed [60] as: energy criterion [70].
The energy dL released from the surrounding body into dV may be,
(1.32) alternatively, also calculated as the difference between the total strain
energy contained in all finite elements of the structure before and after
the crack advance. According to the principle of virtual work, the result
where 8 b represents the relative tangential displacement between the bars is exactly the same as that from Eq. 1.31 [6,59]. This calculation is
and the concrete, U~ is the average bond force during displacement 8 b possible, however, only if the structure is perfectly elastic whereas Eq.
per unit length of the bar (force during the slip) and s is the length of the 1.31 is correct even for inelastic behavior (assuming da to be so small
bar segment within the fracture process zone We (and not within volume that Te, and fc, vary almost linearly during Stage I). It should also be
dV since the energy consumed by bond slip would then depend on the mentioned that Y.T. Pan, A. Marchertas and coworkers at Argonne
chosen element size and would thus spoil the objectivity and proper National Laboratory [66,71] calculate dL in their finite element analyses
convergence of the fracture criterion). Approximately, U~!:::: ultimate (using the crack band approach) by means of the lintegral. They keep
bond force. the integration contour the same for various crack lengths. Their calcula
The energy criterion for the crack band extension may now be tion yields the same dL because their integration contour passes only
38
39
through the elastic part of the structure (except for crossing the crack (e)
tal
F'~+l
(J
band behind the front where. however. the stresses are almost zero).
In the case of a zigzag, inc:lined crack band, the value of !:1a in Eq. f, (dl
(J
1.33 must be replaced by the effective extension !:1a ef in the direction of
the equivalent smoothed crack band. The notation from Figure 1.13a will
be adopted. Similarly to the derivation of Eq. 1.24, assume that !:1a ef is
lbl
the same for each crack band advance within the cycle I, whether the
advance is in the x or ydirection. Then !:1a ef = IjN where N = N x + N"
= number of elements per cycle I (Figure 1.13a). This condition yields'
Fig. 1.18. (ac) Strainlocalization in a tensile specimen serving as model for fracture
process zone; (d) possible effect of size on stressstrain diagram.
(1.34)
!:1a= 1 in which the front of the crack band moves from the left face to
where the first equation applies to any rectangular mesh, and the second the right face of the specimen (Fig. 1.18). For a uniaxial stress state of an
one to a square mesh (!:1x =!:1y = h). unrein forced specimen of length L, Eqs. 1.30 and 1.31 take the form
Various numerical examples confirm the use of Eq. 1.34 (or some
similar equation) is objective in that it gives results that are essentially
independent of the choice of the mesh [6668]. (1.35)
plot of log ON versus log i\ is a horizontal line (Figure 1.19), and the only
difference between elasticity and plasticity is the level at which this line is
drawn.
For linear fracture mechanics, this plot is completely different. It is
ELASTICITY OR
PLASTICITY
known that ON varies inversely as Id for all linear fracture mechanics
LINEAR
FRACTURE
solutions. and so the slope of the plot of log ON vs. log i\ is a straight line
MECHANICS of slope 1/2; see Figure 1.19.
The finite element solutions for the crack band theory with gradual
U>
U>
strainsoftening represent a gradual transition from the horizontal line
...'"a:
U>
for the strength criterion to the downward sloping straight line for the
~ MOST EXISTING TESTS linear fracture mechanics; see Figure 1.19. With the exception of very
Z
large and massive concrete structures, such as dams, most concrete
~
NONLINEAR
FRACTURE structures fall into this transition range, in which neither the linear
MECHANICS
fracture mechanics nor the strength criterion is applicable. Failures in
LOG (SIZE Hl this transition range are obviously more difficult to analyze than those
for the two limiting cases, and this is the main challenge in failure
Fig. 1.19. Structural size effect.
analysis of concrete structures.
In laboratory testing, the model structures have normally been made
the smallest size possible with regard to the aggregate size (cross sections
strain must localize, and a constant width we of the strainlocalization of 5 to 15 aggregate diameters). Thus, most of the laboratory tests of
zone may be a good approximation. beams, plates, panels, slabs, shells, etc. carried out thus far around the
A related question, raised by some experimentalists, is whether not world fall into the initial, nearly horizontal range of the diagram in
only the failure point, but also the shape of the stressstrain diagram Figure. 1.19. Obviously, such tests miss the size effect. Present methods
(Figure 1.18d) is affected by the stiffness of the loading frame. In a of design embodied in the codes are all based on strength criteria, elastic
deterministic analysis, the stressstrain diagram should be considered as or plastic, and therefore they give an incorrect, unsafe extrapolation to
unique, unaffected by the loading frame. The analysis in [5] shows that larger sizes characteristic of actual structures. This fact is certainly a
observed variations of peak stress up (tensile strength) as a function of matter of concern, and calls for reexamination of existing design proce
machine stiffness can be explained by the effect of statistical inhomo dures for those failures that are of brittle nature; e.g. the diagonal shear
geneity of the material on strain localization. These effects are significant failure and torsion failure of beams, punching failure of slabs or shells,
only when the material is very inhomogeneous (poor quality concrete). shear failure of deep beams and panels, cryptodome failure of top plate
in a reactor vessel, etc. Recently it has become popular to apply to these
Structural size effect. The main purpose of fracture mechanics is to failures plastic analysis, even though the failure is caused by concrete
correctly capture the size effect in the ultimate load capacity of a cracking. This trend is, in the writer's opinion, dubious and has led to
structure. The size effect may be illustrated by considering structures of successful comparisons with test data only because a wide range of sizes
different sizes but the same shape (e.g., beams of the same crack has not been tested in the laboratory.
lengthtodepth ratio, and the same spantodepth ratio), and plotting the The case of punching shear failure of slabs might be a good illustra
logarithm of nominal stress at failure, log aN' versus log i\ where i\ = d/d a , tion. Plasticity analysis can be made to agree with the existing laboratory
d = structure size (characteristic dimension), d a = maximum aggregate data only if the tensile strength is considered to be aboutf:/200, which is
size; see Figure 1.19. ON may be defined as P /bd (P = failure load, about 20times less than the correct value of tensile strength. The proper
b = thickness), possibly times some constant characterizing the shape of conclusion from such an agreement should not be that plasticity of
the structure. According to all strength criteria (i.e., stressbased failure concrete works, but that it does not work, and that fracture mechanics, is,
criteria), such as those used in elastic, plastic or elastoplastic design (as therefore, necessary. Obviously, the small value of nominal stress at
well as viscoelastic or viscoplastic design), ON is independent of d (see the failure must be due to the fact that the existing laboratory test data do
examples of beam bending, shear or torsion in Figure 1.19). Thus, the not pertain to the initial horizontal portion of the diagram in Figure 1.19.
44 4S
101 \dl
where
(1.47)
r~
j
A and C are constants when geometrically similar beams are considered.
They are independent of the size. /.* may be called the sizereduced
strength. It is a characteristic of the entire structure (and must be
Ibl distinguished from feq' which is a characteristic of one finite element).
As a second example. consider a crack band of length a and width
We = nda (n :::: 3) in a rectangular unrein forced beam of thickness band
CI
A=
6
J 1+E
Et
4ko d  a
C=3d (1.49)
(1.52)
Eq. (1.46) can be derived for various other situations, e.g., edgecracked
panels, crack band in infinite medium, doublecantilever specimen, etc. where A and C are constant as the structure size is varied.
The solutions are approximate in the evaluation of energy release; To sum up, the essential property which has led to Eq. 1.46 is the
however, this causes uncertainty only in the constants kl and k o, but not dependence of energy release on both the crack band area and the crack
in the form of Eq. 1.46. . band length. If the energy release depended only on the crack band
It appears that Eq. 1.46 might be of general applicability. This can be length (/2 = 0), one would get ON = (2G rE /11 }1/2 / {d, which is the size
verified by a dimensional analysis. Let the geometry of a given twodi dependence of linear fracture mechanics. If it depended only on the c~a.ck
mensional structure of thickness b be characterized by some set of band area (/1 = 0), one would get the size dependence of plasticity
dimensions d, 11 , /2 , 13 , ,/ n , and consider all geometrically similar (ON = const.).
structures such that the ratios ~i = 1;/d (i = 1, 2, ... ,n) are the same, so It may be concluded that Eq. 1.46 is of general applicability, as long as
that size of the structure may be characterized by one characteristic the two nondimensional parameters a l and a 2 (and no further parame
dimension d. From the preceding examples, note that fracture needs to ters) are needed, and suffice, to characterize fracture.
be described by two independent parameters  length a of the crack For a small size relative to the size of aggregate, A + 0,/1* + It', and
band, and width nd a of the cracking front. It may be noted further (e.g., ON = Alt'. For a very large size, A + 00, the relation
from Eq. 1.45) that the strain energy relieved by cracking may be
expressed as W = WI + W2 where WI is the strain energy relieved from (1.53)
the outside of the crack band, which is proportional to a 2 (e.g., strain
energy contained in triangular areas 136 and 245 in Figure 1.20a), and holds. Thus, Eq. 1.46 asymptotically approaches the size effect of linear
W 2 is the strain energy relieved from within the area anda occupied by the fracture mechanics. Fractureinsensitive behavior is also a special case of
crack band. To nondimensionalize these variables, one may set a 2 = a;d 2 Eq. 1.46; C = O.
and and a = 0:2d2 where a l and 0: 2 are the non dimensional parameters Eq. 1.46 may be checked against the test data of Walsh [56] who tested
geometrically similar threepoint bent specimens of various beam depths
and
a =  a (1.50) d. His test results for six different concretes are plotted in Fig. 1.21 as Y
2 d2
vs. A where Y = (/(/ON )2. In such plots Eq. 1.46 is a straight line of slope
C/A 2 and Yintercept 1/A2. The regression lines corresponding to Eq.
representing the nondimensional length and the nondimensional area of 1.46 are plotted in Fig. 1.21. It is seen that they agree reasonably well
the crack band. The energy release by crack band formation may now be with the data. For strength theory, the regression lines would have to be
generally expressed as horizontal, which is certainly not the case, and for linear fracture
mechanics, the regression lines would have to pass through the origin,
(1.51) which is also evidently not the case.
Reinforcement located near the fracture front may have influence, too.
To examine it, consider the same centercracked rectangular panel as
where P is the given applied force or loading parameter, and function I
before (Figure 1.20d), reinforced by vertical steel bars which are spaced
depends on the shape of the structure and of the crack band, but is
uniformly and so closely that a smeared modeling is possible. The panel
independent of size d. The condition of crack band propagation is
is loaded on top and bottom by uniform normal stress 0. Before cracking,
48 49
10. 10.
WoISh.1972
Sen t 5,....,2 .# S.,.... 3
0
where Ha = 1 if kla > 2L:, and Ha = 0 if kla ~ 2L:.
0.8 c. 0.8
A2576 ... 5345 In the energy balance, the energy consumed by bond slip should be
C.O II" C0800
CS 0.6 0.6
included. The maximum slip of bars is at the crack axis and is roughly
0.
O. 0.4
0.
0.4 0.
([.'IEe)L s' At the ends of length 2Ls the slip is zero, and so the mean
02 0.2 0.2 slip is about /,,'L./2Ee. The bond stress is roughly U~ per unit length of
co.
0 ,0. 20. .0.
co.
0. 10. 20 .0.
0..0
0. 10. 20 30
bar, as determined from pullout tests. The number of steel bars per unit
b"
'10. 10 10 cross section of panel is piA b where A b = crosssection area of one bar,
0
Serl" 5 s...1oa 6
and Ls =:: 2L;. So the work of bond stresses over length Ls per unit
;. 08 08 0./ 0..8
"2as3 A3899
0.6 0..6
C 0077 C/A
2
0..6
C c...a advance of the crack band is
0
0.4 0.4 0.4
0
j, 'L* U'b
W,=L_I_S
0.2
Co.
O_At'(ltC.!f
'" t d.
llZ 0.2
CO
... y. iz~). b Ab Ee b
(1.56)
0. 10. 20. .0. 0. '0. 20. .0. .0.
X did. where b = panel thickness. In Eqs. 1.56 and 1.55, further substitution
Fig. 1.21. Regression analysis of Walsh's (1972) fracture data. leads to L; = L./2 = cLAb/2U~ where c L = as  a; as defined in Eq.
1.26.
The energy balance condition for crack band advance may now be
the stress in concrete is ac = "ca where ICc = Ec/[ Ec (1  p) + Es P 1; p =
written as bGf + W~ = aWlaa, where Gf = nda (1  EeIE t )!';/2Ee. Dif
steel ratio; Ec' Es = Young's elastic moduli of concrete and steel. When
ferentiating Eq. 1.55 and substituting, we obtain ac = A'/t' where ae = "ea
cracks form, the steel bars slip near the cracks, as discussed before (Eq. and
1.27). For the same reasons as before, the frictional slip may be replaced
over the actual bondslip length 2Ls by free (frictionless) slip over a
modified, free bondslip length 2L: (Eq. 1.27), and assume perfect bond /,t*  VI +[.'C'A' A d (
= d a ~ n =::
3) (1.57)
beyond this length (Figure 1.20d). Consider that L: = L./2.
Formation on fracture relieves the stress in concrete from the region
1254361 in Figure 1.20(d), in which the "stressdiffusion" lines 16, 25, 36, A' = vAIIB! ,
35 have a certain constant slope kl' The stress relief is, however, complete
only if this region is entirely within the free bond slip length 2L:; Figure
I.20( d). If crack band length a is so large that this region reaches beyond (1.58)
the free bond slip length, then the tensions in the steel bars introduce
tensile stress into concrete within the triangular regions 5ab and 6cd in
Consider now geometrically similar panels (same aid), with same
Figure 1.20(d). The value of stress in steel within the slip region, a.L' is
steel ratio p, and same bars, i.e., same Ab (also, c L =:: constant). Then, Eq.
less than (but probably close to) the stress that the steel carried before
1.57 indicates the same type of dependence on structure size, A, as Eq.
cracking, i.e., a sL < "sa where "s = L./[ Ec(I  p) + Esp 1. Thus, the stress
1.46, except that coefficient C' is larger than C. This shifts the asymptotic
resultant per unit area, applied on these triangular regions is < p"sa,
declining straight line in the plot of log f t* versus log A to the right; see
which produces in concrete within the triangular regions the stress a: Figure 1.22a. If the steel bar size is increased with the structure size, the
such that a: < "e( p"sa). This gives
size effect becomes somewhat more pronounced since /,.* decreases as Ab
(1.54) Increases.
The size effect in reinforced structures is seen to be less pronounced
where C l is a coefficient less than 1 but probably close to 1. The strain for smaller sizes of the structure, but for large enough structure sizes the
energy release from the panel of thickness b may now be expressed as size effect becomes just as significant as for unrein forced structures since
the asymptotic slope remains 1/2. This is, however, true only if the
(
"ca ) 2 H a * 2_c_ a,2] reinforcement remains elastic. For a long enough crack band, the opening
W= [ (k!a +anda)~k;(k!a2Ls) 2Ee b
2
(1.55)
in the center of its length becomes sufficiently large to cause the steel to
51
50
concrete structures. For example, the ACI or CEBFIP code formulas for
101 IbI the diagonal shear failure of beams with longitudinal reinforcement but
100 aN'~ \~, lOQ 0 N 2
...'\1'
without web reinforcement involve no size effect. In an ongoing study at
  '\'
'\ 
'\
~
st"noth
     , Itrenoth
'<
\
Northwestern University, 1.K. Kim and BaZant analyzed failure data for
\ reinforc:ed "0" over 300 beams which have been tested in various laboratories throughout
yields
the world and were reported in the literature. After determining and
optimizing an approximate semiempirical formula (similar to that in ACI
'00)..
hoehne Code) for the nominal shear stress aN at failure as a function of the shear
span and of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, the dependence of aN
Fig. 1.22. (a) Structural size effects in reinforced concrete structures, and (b) statistical size on the size parameter A = djd a has been analyzed statistically, using Eq.
effect of strength in structures.
1.46 for regression analysis of existing data of diagonal shear failure of
beams without web reinforcement, notably the data by Kani, Leonhardt,
yield, and that will completely alter the size effect. If the steel bars are Bhal, Walraven, Taylor, Rusch and Swamy [7783].
yielding, the strains are so large that all resistance of concrete is lost, and Although most existing test data involve very small beam depths, there
the load is resisted by reinforcement alone. In that case, the value of 0 exist a few data which involve beams of various depths. One result of the
becomes size independent. Therefore, in reinforced structures, the plot of ongoing study is the diagram in Figure 1.23 [84]. It is seen that the data
log It* versus log A eventually stops decreasing and approaches a horizon points are not well approximated by a horizontal line, which would mean
tal line. However, this limiting plastic value might be too low for the absence of fracture mechanics type size effect; the data points agree
practical purposes. well with the function in Eq. 1.46, plotted as the solid curve. This is
Finally, it is instructive to compare the results to the wellknown better illustrated by statistical regression analysis in Figure 1.24, in which
statistical size effect. Concrete is heterogeneous, and the strength varies Y = a N2 is plotted versus A. Function fl*(A) appears in this plot as a
randomly throughout a concrete structure. This variation is independent straight line of the equation Y = a + bA where a = (AI()2, b = Ca.
of structure size. The stress gradient, on the other hand, normally varies Absence of the size effect would mean a horizontal regression line in
inversely with the structure size, and the region of peak stress becomes Figure 1.24, and this is clearly contradicted by the data. Despite a large
larger in a larger structure. Therefore, the chance of encountering low scatter, the data points exhibit an upward straightline trend. Thus, the
strength in the peak stress region is higher in a larger structure, and so existing data clearly confirm a significant size effect and justify Eq. 1.46.
the apparent strength must decline with structure size. However, the Based on this analysis, it seems that most of the code formulas for
decline stops when the peak stress region becomes much larger than the predicting the strength of structural members would be improved by
low strength regions. Therefore, all theories of the statistical size effect replacing in them It' with It. A more detailed investigation is needed,
produce a plot of log ON versus log A which tends to a horizontal however, and coefficient C needs to be determined for each case.
asymptote. This is completely different from the fracturemechanics size Reinhardt [85,86] has recently studied some of these data, and found
effect (Fig. 1.22b), except when yielding of reinforcement makes the that they reasonably agree with a linear fracture mechanics size effect
response plastic. (CA 1). This type of size effect would correspond in Figure 1.24 to a
It seems that many observed size effects in concrete structures should straight regression line passing through the origin, and in Figure 1.23,
have been explained by fracture mechanics rather than statistical varia this would correspond to an inclined straight regression line rather than a
tion of strength. The dependence of the apparent bending strength on the curvilinear regression. It is seen from this figure that such trends are not
depth of plain concrete beams is a blatant example. If the test data do confirmed when all available test data are considered. The size effect of
not cover a very large range of A, both theories seem to work. This may linear fracture mechanics would be too strong. Clearly, the bulk of
be misleading for extrapolations. existing lest results for diagonal shear failure indicates the need for a
nonlinear fracture theory.
As an example of finite element fracture analysis, the results obtained
1.S Applications and practical analysis by Cedolin and BaZant [60] may be presented for the shear failure of the
panel sketched in Figure 1.25, which is reinforced only by horizontal steel
Diagonal shear failure of beams. Eq. 1.46 may be applied to introduce bars concentrated near the bottom of the panel, and is loaded by a
the size effect into various existing strengthbased formulas for failure of
vo
N
a/d=3.0
Kanl (1967) a/d=I.O
Loonhardl (1962) Konl a/d=2.0
.4
Walravon (1978) a/d=2.S
~
Leonhardt
Taylor (1972) Walraven a/d=.1.0
Rusch (1962) Taylor a/d=4.0
Bhal (1968) Bhal a/d=S.O
Swamy' (1971) Swamy a/d=6.0
.3~1~~~~~ I
.6 1.0
I 1'4 '  J
.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 .6 1.0 1.4 1.8
lag (did.) log (did.) log (did.) . 1.8
."
'>0 . ...r ... .. ? _._ Ub.I0 4 1 ~ ."
qo' ca/v,,'
0000
!".
t.
'>Ovo
'r T
t.
0
8 ..
0
N ..
00 ~
J1
w."
':" e: til
~
3
x ..
n 0 ~~~:ot~~oi::'
!!. of> .. '"P o D II ~  :.
~
3~~~~~;:
'"3 ..., ~ '<.;~,::,~a.;
a'"
~
~
'"5'
N
0
"":::,atlDlO
ID~O'I"""::_.:::!
...... NNID
_0'1
_   ...... &0
E. =:. DIOl
~~
~'"
qo
~.
'"0
.
;.
~
Co>
...
6 .....
w
~
"0
'
n
P
1'1.
0
..
0
g: '"I
,~
~.
I
5'
i:' Ii I uo
..
~ 0
~ 0
"\., ~~
1:1:1:
g, " ...'"
~
P
777
n,"~ ... 0>
'"'"
"0
..T '"
~
0
~
g
n
'"'"'"o
II> ,I
~ ~ ?
0;
...~
i:I:'
g
~
0
P
Ii
~
l'
.......
54
55
vertical force at midspan. The crack band path is not known is advance
40 60
but is to be found. Among the elements sharing a side with the crack
front element, the crack band was assumed to spread into that element in
which the principal tensile stress is the largest. The analysis was carried
out both for the actual tensile strength h' and for the equivalent strength
f:q The displacement at the loading point was introduced in small
i20 c:.. 30
increments. At each load step, NewtonRaphson iterative procedure was E
o E
used to redistribute the unbalanced nodal forces due to cracking until a :I ~
stable crack band configuration was reached. Linear elastic behavior was  Theory
..  ...... Sinha, Gert"e, Tulln (19641
assumed for concrete in compression. .. ........ Agrawal, Tunn, Gerstle (965)
The analysis was carried out for three different meshes (A, Band C in
Figure 1.25), in which the finite element sizes are in the ratio 4: 2: 1. The o.OOO2~ O.OOO~ 0.0OO7~
o.OOO2~ o.OOO~ o.OOO7~ 0.001
Curvature (in.I ) Curvature (in.I)
loaddeflection curves obtained for these three meshes are plotted in 20r~
2Or.
Figure 1.25. Even though this problem is less sensitive to the value of aeom "'11
tensile strength than others, the deflection curves are more consistent for 16
Theory
16
the equivalent strength criterion. The element size effect is largest for the
value of the load at which the cracking zone reaches a certain fixed
distance from the top. This distance was fixed as onehalf of the size of
...
~r2
..,
the element in the crudest mesh (A), which then equals a distance of one g 6
..J
element for mesh B, and of two elements for mesh C. The loads for which
the cracking zone reaches this distance from the top are indicated in
Figure 1.25 by horizontal arrows. For the equivalent strength criterion,
they differ from each other much less than they do for the fixed tensile
0.2 o.~ 0.4 o.~ 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 o.~ 0.6
strength criterion. Furthermore, it was found (see Closure of [59]) that Delleclion 01 Midspan (in.) Oelleclion 01 Midspan lin.)
the crack patterns for meshes A, Band C are rather different and, in 10 10
particular, the cracking zone for the finest mesh is not diffuse but aeom 58 aeam T9 ,=
__=_~_
e e
localizes into narrow, separate crack bands of single element width at the
front. This behavior is obtained, however, only when the loading steps :!'
.. 6 ,
,,
e"
10'1
,
121~
are taken to be so small that no more than one element cracks during the .S
.S
2  Theory
Deflections of cracking beams. As another application, consider deflec _ ... Burns, Sle" (1966'
0
tions of unprestressed reinforced concrete beams. Their deflections are 0 0.1 0.2 O.~ 0.4 o.~ 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1I 0.6
Defleclion 01 Midspan lin.) Oelleclion 01 Midspan (in.)
1.5 1.5
'a) ham No. 6163 'b I ham No. 64 66
 Theory
! 1.0
 Slmpllllod M_I
o HaUlnv.an (1970)
~
U
.!!
;! 0.5
Fig. 1.26. (a) Stressdistribution in cross sections of beams with tensilestrain softening: (b) 0~3~OO~6~OO~~~1~200 0~3~OO~I00~9~OO~1200
calculated beam deflections (BaZant and Oh, 1983) and their comparison with tests by T.II Duralion (day.) T I Ouralion (day.)
Gerstle et al. (1964, 1965). Bums and Siess (1966). and Hollington (1970). Fig. 1.26 (b).
56 57
tal Ibl
considerably less than those calculated under the assumption of no
cracking; obviously the beamE crack, even under service loads. On the
other hand, if one assumes a notension material (which is the accepted
approa~h to strength analysis, justified by the fact that strength is
determmed by the weakest cross section rather than the overall mean
behavior), then the calculated deflections are much larger than the
measured ones. This phenomenon, which is usually referred to as "ten
sionstiffening," is due to progressive microcracking of concrete in the
o~~
tensile zone of beam, and so it should be possible to obtain correct
deflections using our present bilinear stressstrain relation with strain
softening (Figure 1.26). tel
This was done in [87]. The value of E t was predicted from Eq. 1.21. On
the compression side, Saenz' expression for strains due to uniaxial
compression was assumed. The uniaxial stressstrain diagram of steel was c
considered as elasticperfectly plastic, and the average strain of steel was
assumed to be equal to the average strain of concrete at the same level.
Based on these assumptions, the typical distributions of normal stress in
concrete were as shown in Figure 1.26a.
As far as the cracking front is concerned, it is assumed here that the
cracking does not localize and the strain everywhere follows the kine Fig. 1.27. Determination of crack extension from Rcurves.
matic constraint expressed by the usual assumption that the cross sec
tions remain plane and normal. The localization of cracking into certain
cross sections is assumed to be prevented by tensile reinforcement and by deflections (c", = 3). No other material parameter was adjusted. The
the constraint provided to the cracking front by the compression zone results of calculations were compared [87] with the longtime deflections
(for deep beams, or for shear failures, the absence of localization cannot of beams tested by Hollington [94]; the agreement was again good
be assumed, of course). (Figure 1.26). Furthermore, the longtime deflections have been calcu
Calculations based on the foregoing assumptions were compared [87] lated for typical singly and doubly reinforced beams, and were compared
with the measurements of beam curvatures and deflections reported in with an ACI empirical formula. The agreement was good again [87], and
the literature [8992]. No fitting of data was attempted, i.e., no material in particular, the strong effect of compression reinforcement on creep
parameter was adjusted to improve the fit. The comparisons are shown in deflections of cracked beams, as known from tests, was predicted cor
Figure 1.26. The agreement is good, much better than the corresponding rectly.
case when the tensile resistance of concrete is neglected. It was also
shown [87] that the calculations give essentially the same results as the Application of Rcurves. For practical nonlinear fracture analysis, it is
wellknown Branson's empirical formula [76] within its range of validity helpful to use the approach of resistance curves, or Rcurves [95,41].
(service loads). This success indirectly lends further support to our Rcurve is the curve of effective or apparent fracture energy Gc as a
stressstrain relation for fracture. function of the extension a of a crack from a notch (Figures 1.27a and
The foregoing analysis of deflections, which applies to short time 1.27b). For materials which deviate from linear fracture mechanics, it is
loading, was further extended to longtime loading. The effective mod found that the amount of energy per unit crack extension, which flows
ulus method was used to take concrete creep into account. The qeep into the fracture process zone, increases as the crack extends until it
properties were predicted on the basis of double power law [93]. Since stabilizes at some constant limiting value, Gr , unless some boundaries or
this creep law does not apply for the tensile strainsoftening range, and loads are near the fracture front.
since creep in this range may be expected to be larger, the tensile creep As shown in the foregoing (Figure 1.6), in the crack band approach,
deformations were multiplied by an empirical coefficient c the value of the Rcurve can be predicted from the tensile strainsoftening stressstrain
which was determined so as to get the best fit of measu;ed longtime relation. The predictions are different for different body geometries, or
58 59
different loads and loading paths. It appears, however. that the shape of condition can never be satisfied if W' increases with a (Figure 1.27d).
the Rcurve (Figure 1.27) is nearly the same for most situations. Even Thus, the fact that a stable crack growth from a notch exists implies that
though this can be exactly trut only for infinitely short extensions of a Gc cannot be constant but must increase.
crack from a notch, the Rcurve can be assumed, for most purposes, to be For an approximate estimate of the values of W'(a), one may use
approximately a fixed material property, independent of body geometry linear fracture mechanics provided that crack length a is interpreted as
and the type of loading [41], as proposed in 1961 by Krafft et al. [95]. the equivalent length that gives the same remote stress field as the crack
This assumption was proven to be rather successful for ductile fracture of band. It might be difficult to actually determine this equivalent crack
metals [41]. Following the work in [96], a simple form of fracture analysis length for a given situation, but for practical purposes this is not
of concrete using the Rcurve approach will be outlined. necessary since the actual crack length at failure need not be known.
Consider that the effective fracture energy, Ge , depends on c where In a recent study [96], Rcurves were used to analyze fracture test data
c = a  ao' a = length of crack with the notch, a o = length of the notch; from the literature [44,45,4749,51,53,56] obtained with bent specimens
Ge = Ge ( c). The energy that must be supplied to the structure is U = or centc!rcracked specimens (the same data as used in Figures 1.5 and
fGeda  W(a) (if the thickness of the body is b = 1), where W= release 1.6). The Rcurve was assumed in the form
of strain energy from the body, and Ge effective fracture energy at
distance a from the notch. An equilibrium state of crack occurs when no (1.61 )
energy needs to be supplied to change a by 8a, i.e., when 8U = 0 or
8U= (Ge  W')8a = 0 or where G r, f3e and c I are constants to be found by fitting test data, and
d a = maximum aggregate size. A more general expression, namely Ge =
(1.59) Gr[1  f3r exp( c/clda)qr was also studied but q = r = 1 was found to
be about optimum. The energy release rates, W{(a), for unit load
.vhere W'( a) = aW faa = energy release rate, and c = a  ao' The equi (P = 1), were calculated as W{(a) = K?/E from the existing analytical
librium crack state is stable if the second variation 8 2 U is positive, i.e., expressions for the stress intensity factor K 1 , as listed for these specimens
~2U= haGJaa  a 2w/aa 2 )8a 2 > 0 or aGc(c)/ac> aW'(a)/aa. The in Tada's manual [97]. The computational algorithm was as follows:
imit of stability, i.e., failure, occurs if (1) Set the values of Gr, f3r, cI ' Aa (= 0.01 ao), and set a = ao'
(2) Increment a, replacing a with a + Aa. Set c = a  ao'
aw'( a) aGee c) (3) For each a, calculate W{(a), and since W' = W{P2 determine the
aa = ac
(1.60) load corresponding to a as P = [Gc(c)/W{(a)j1/2. If this value of Pis
larger than the previous Pvalue, return to 2.
For most structural situations, the strain energy release rate increases as (4) Now aGJac < aw'/aa, i.e. the specimen fails. Set P max = P. (One
the crack grows, i.e. W'( a) > O. By elastic structural analysis, the curve could interpolate for the exact a at which aGJac = aw'/aa but this
W{(a) corresponding to a unit load can be calculated. Then, for any load is not necessary if Aa is as small as 0.01 a o.) Evaluate deviation of
P, W'(a) = p 2W{(a). In Figure 1.27, we sketch the curves W'(a) for a set given test data from the theory as APerror = Pm  Pmax where Pm =
of increasing Pvalues, PI' P2' P3 "" According to Eq. 1.59, the equi measured value of maximum load.
librium states of crack extension for various loads are given by the (5) Repeat steps (1) to (4) for another case of the same test series (e.g.,
intersections of these curves with the curve Gc(c). These states are, another notch depth a o or another beam depth H), and accumulate
according to Eq. 1.60, stable if the slope of the Gc ( c)curve is larger than the sum iP = ~(APerrorlPo)2 where Po = prediction of failure load
the slope of the W'(a)curve (see points 1, 2, 3 in Figure 1.27b). As the according to the bending strength theory (based on the ligament
crack grows, the difference between the slopes aGJaa and aw' faa section).
gradually diminishes until the slopes become equal at the failure point The foregoing algorithm (computer subroutine) is then used with a
(Figure 1.27); this point represents a critical state (or failure state) library optimization algorithm, such as MarquardtLevenberg's, to vary
according to Eq. 1.60. Beyond this point, the crack extension is unstable. the values of Gr, f3r and c, until those values which give min iP are
In the case that W' < 0 for all a, Eq. 1.60 is always satisfied. The crack is determined. In this manner, it was found [96] that the values f3r = 0.72
then stable for all a (Figure 1.27e). and C I = 1.85 are nearly optimum for all concretes tested. while the
In the case that Gc = constant = Gr , Eq. 60 reads 0> aw' /aa. This values of Gr vary substantially from concrete [96]. Note that the optimum
60 61
1.0
.
c = I.B5
(3072 Solving c from this equation, Gc (c) may be evaluated and the failure load
may be calculated as P max = Gc(c)/(W{ + W{'c). For this solution, it
0
suffices to determine from linear fracture analysis the values of W{ and
y  0+ bX W{' at a = a o (and for unit load).
~
" If W'I(a) is approximated by a parabola, an algebraic equation of
cf 0.6 a 0.0218. b=0.968 fourth de~ee must be solved to determine c.
II
> )(0.628. Y 0 .630 In another recent study [98], the Rcurve approach has been used
0.4 s 0.037 under the assumption that the nonlinear zone is negligibly small com
CII. t 0.058
pared to specimen dimensions, crack length and ligament size. In this
case, the stress field near the nonlinear zone may be solved considering
0.2 that the crack tip is surrounded by an infinite elastic medium.
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Crack development
Eqs. 1.59 and 1.60 then become p2W{' = aGc/ac and P2(W{ + W{'c) == If there is bond slip, and the ultimate bond force U~ per unit length of
62
lal lbl
A similar formula may be derived for the case 2s < k( Db).
If there is bond slip, then 0'1 = U~S/('lfb2/4). Using this to express
a~c~
.1 WI ' as before, the following condition is obtained:
: .
I
I
I
"'''''/
0006
(e) Specimen No 3 0
 Theory
0 Chi. KIrstein
~ 0004
(19~8)
= 0002
From these, one can get the profiles esh(X) of the free (unrestrained and
i"
~ 0
incompatible) shrinkage strains. Assume that the environmental humidity
"''''''/
~ 0006 (g) Specimen No 6
is constant, and the moisture transmission at the surface is perfect. Then
~
<.>
..
t.i 0004
these profiles may be regarded as approximately parabolic.
0002 Let x, y, z be Cartesian coordinates, x being normal to the haifspace
surface. The stresses produced by the shrinkage strains may be solved
00004 00008 00012 00016 00004
Steel StrOIn, f.
0.0008 00012 0.0016
from the conditions (CIyO JlCI,O)/ Eerr  esh =
and CIzO= CIyO, where JI =
Poisson's ratio of concrete and Eerr = E/(1 + q,) = effective modulus for
Fig. 1.30. Comparisons of theory with Chi and Kirstein's (1958) measurements of crack elastic deformation plus creep, q, = q,(t, 10) = creep coefficient, which is a
spacing and crack width (after Baiant and Oh, 1983).
function of drying duration 1  10 and age 10 at drying start. Thus we
obtain CIyO= CIzO= esh(x)Eeff/(1  JI).
Assume now that a sudden formation of cracks normal to yaxis
W = esS. Other data, e.g. those by Clark [101], Kaar and Mattock [102], (Figure 1.31) reduces stress CIyO to 0, i.e., the stress change is dCIy =  CIyO.
Hognestad [103], and Mathey and Watstein [104] have been also success Let dCI, be the change of CIz ' and let de; be the change of strain in
fully fitted [88]. concrete between the cracks. From Hooke's law de~ = (  CIyO JldCI,)/ E
and de, = (dCI, + JlCIyo)/E=O, the solution of which is dCI, = JlCIyO, de::'
Drying shrinkage cracks. Due to relatively small tensile strength and =  (1  Jl2 )CI~ / E. The loss of strain energy due to cracking per unit
large shrinkage strains, drying typically produces cracks in concrete. If area of haifspace surface is dW\ = ft(CIyO+ ~dCIy)demdx or dW\ =
they are densely spaced and hairthin they do little damage; however, fOD(CI,?/2)(1  Jl2)(CIyO/E)dx = [Eerr/(1  JI)]2foD e;h(x)dx(1  Jl2)/2E.
longtime deformations are usually greatly affected. In particular, the Assurning the profile of esh( x) to be parabolic, we may substitute
drying creep as well as shrinkage cannot be realistically predicted without
taking the effect of cracking and its evolution into account [105,106].
esh(X) = (1  x/D)2e~h for x ~ D, and esh(X) = for x ~ D, where e~h =
constant = shrinkage strain at halfspace surface, and D = penetration
Consider just one typical problem: the initial spacing of drying cracks depth of drying (which is a function of drying duration 1  10)' Integra
at the surface of a concrete haifspace. Using diffusion theory with given tion then yields dW\ = 0.1 DE[e~h/(1 + q,)]2(1 + JI)/(1  JI).
diffusivity of moisture in concrete, one can calculate profiles of specific Stresses CIyO actually are not reduced completely to zero. Therefore, the
moisture content of concrete at various times after the start of drying. actual potential energy release will be rdW\ where r is a certain fraction
66 67
(0 < r < 1) which can be determined only by exact solution of the stress question is a possible coupling between drying and cracking due to the
field. Probably r is between 0.6 and 0.8. The energy balance during crack effect of cracking on diffusivity.
formation requires that r~WI,I':;;" Gra, where a = crack depth. This yields
the condition Crack system instability. Whereas the cracks in a tensioned reinforced
bar may become denser as the loading proceeds, in some other situations,
they may become sparser. This is so for cracks growing toward a
s >:10(1  v )G r ( 1 + cp)2 .!!..
(energy) (1.68) compression region, a typical example of which is the system of parallel
'" r(l+v)E E~h D
equidistant drying cracks or cooling cracks growing perpendicularly to
the surface of a halfspace (Fig. 1.31).
derived, without creep, in [99]. Note that factor 1/(1 + CP) is applied to In general, the work, U, that needs to be done to produce cracks of
E~h' not E. The cracks, however, form early in the drying process, and lengths a j in an elastic body may be expressed as [107,99]
then cp = O.
The ratio aiD, as well as the ratio als, can be determined by linear
L 1'Gr,da;
N a.
fracture analysis; this was done by finite elements [74], and yielded aiD U= W(a 1 , a2,,a n ; D) + (1.70)
as a certain function of Dis. For short cracks, one may use aiD = 1.5 ;=1 0
This criterion decides whether progressive microcracking can start but for 8a; > 0:  W; = Gj ,; for8a j <0: W;=O. (1.72)
not whether complete cracks form.
If the surface shrinkage E~h is sufficiently large, Eq. 1.69 is satisfied The first condition is the wellknown Griffith failure criterion [40],
before Eq. 1.68 and then the initial drying cracks form gradually, identical to Eq. 1.33. The cases  W; > Gr and  W; < 0 cannot happen
statically. If E~h is not large enough, the cracks can never initiate, for equilibrium states because Eq. 1.71 c~uld give 8U < o. So it follows
regardless of the penetration depth D. However, some other disturbance that only the following crack length variations are admissible:
can make the strength criterion satisfied, and then the cracks form
dynamically. for W;=Gj ,: 8a;:;;,,0
In testing shrinkage and creep at drying, deleterious cracking may be
for 0 <  W; < Gj ,: 8a; = 0 (1.73)
avoided on very thin specimens if the environmental humidity is varied
gradually and sufficiently slowly. Formulas indicating the maximum forW;=O: 8a;~0
admissible drying rate have been developed [105]. Also, a formula for
cracking of a tubular drying specimen has been derived, using the global Equivalent statements can be made in terms of the stress intensity factors
energy balance for complete crack formation [105]. Another interesting K; = ( W;IE)I/2.
68 69
The question of stability of. the states which satisfy the equilibrium
btfurcation
conditions (Eq. 1.71) is decided by the second variation of W [107,99):
(1.74)
in which ll;j = a 2u laa;aa j . When Gr, are independent of a; (the usual bifurcation.
case, except if one uses the Rcurve approach), ll;j = W;j = a2w laa;aa j . 2
critical state
So, stability is decided not by the energy release rates but by their of crack arreet
derivatives. Eq. 1.74 further implies
stable path
unstable path
> 0 for all n, l)a; all admissible ... stable f) calcu lated paints
det n ( ll;j) = 0 for some n, admissible l)a;" . critical (1.75)
{ OLL~2~3~4~
< 0 for some n, admissible l)a; ... unstable
Q zl2h
where detn = principal minors of matrix ll;j of sizes n ~ N. The eigenvec Fig. 1.32. Evolution of crack lengths in a system of parallel cracks in Fig. 31 (after Baiant.
tor l)a; corresponding to the critical state is determined from the equation Ohtsubo. Aoh. 1979).
system [107,99):
presence of onesided constraints makes the first critical state inapplica
n
ble and causes that the beam can buckle only in the second critical mode,
L ll;jl)a j = O. (1.76)
in which both spans deflect to the left. The same must happen for the
jl
crack system, i.e. instability can arise only due to the second critical
Consider now the parallel cracks that are initially of equal length condition, 22 = O. In that case, since the eigenvector is given by W22l)a 2
(Figure 1.31), and examine when the increments of a j can become *'
+ W21 l)01 = 0, it follows that W21 l)a 1 = 0, and since W21 0 according to
different, alternating between l)01 and l)a 2. In the 2 X 2 matrix ll;j numerical calculations, l)a 1 = 0, while l)a 1 cannot be negative since
(= W;), there is the need to check the sign of U22 = det l (ll;) = a2u laa~,  awlao; = Gr. So, there exists an instability such that l)0l > 0 and
and of det(ll;). If det(ll;) = 0, then U12U21 = Ull U22 or Ul~ = Ul~ (since l)02 = 0 at constant D.
a 1 = a 2), and the eigenvector is then given by Ull l)01 + U12l)a 2 = 0 and These conclusions and further, more detailed analysis [99] indicate the
U21 l)a 1 + U22l)a2 = O. Thus, if au10 1 > 0, it follows that l)a2/l)a1 = following evolution of the parallel crack system. Equally spaced drying
 W ll 1W21 =  W 12 IW22 . Now, since the energy release rates cracks extend at first at equal length (a 1 = a 2 ) as the drying front
( awlao;) should decrease with increasing 0; if the crack system is advances into the halfspace. The (2 x 2) determinant of 02U/0 102
stable before the point of instability, it is expected that W22 > 0 and vanishes first, but this does not represent any critical state. Subsequently,
W 12 > 0, and numerical calculations confirm that [107,99]. Thus, either a 2u lao~ vanishes, and this does represent a critical state at which each
l)a 2 or l)a 1 must be negative. A negative l)a; is, however, impossible if other crack gets arrested. Further growth of cracks at equal length is
 awlaa; = Gr (growing crack). So, this type of instability cannot hap impossible since it is unstable (as a 2u loa~ < 0), even though the energy
pen. balance condition (Eq. 1.71) is satisfied. Rather, cracks 02 suddenly jump
This interesting situation is analogous to that of buckling of a continu ahead at constant a 1 and constant D (Figure 1.32). Then cracks a 2 extend
ous beam with two spans (Figure 1.31) which are constrained so that they again gradually as the drying proceeds (D increases). At the same time,
can buckle only to the left. Without those onesided constraints, the cracks a stop growing and auloa 1 gradually diminishes as 02 and D
spans would buckle in opposite directions (the first critical state). The increase, until aulaa 1 becomes zero; this represents a second critical
70 71
state, which can be shown to correspond to a vanishing (2 X 2) determi where r = radius up to midthickness of tube wall. For a typical cement
nant of U;j. At this point, cracks a 2 suddenly close over a certain part of paste specimen of r = 7.5 mm, the critical shrinkage strain is achieved by
their length at constant a 2 and D. Thereafter, cracks a 2 grow at increas a drop from 100% to 90% relative humidity [105].
ing D. Because cracks a 1 are closed, this is equivalent to the initial In various types of tests of concrete or cement paste specimens, e.g., in
situation with equal crack lengths, but the spacing is doubled. The measurements of shrinkage and drying creep as a material property,
process then gets repeated at doubled spacing, quadrupled spacing, etc. sorption isotherms, internal surface areas, etc., it is important to make
(For a precise numerical calculation of this process, see [99].) sure that no tensile cracks or microcracks be produced by drying (or
The foregoing behavior is true for a twodimensional problem. In cooling). This problem was analyzed in detail in [105] from the view
three dimensions, the behavior is similar but the cracks form hexagonal points of both linear and nonlinear diffusion theories. If one considers a
prisms rather than parallel planes. Some hexagon sides successively close linear time variation of surface humidity, a perfect moisture transmission
and the hexagon sizes multiply, as the remaining cracks open ever more at the surface, and a planar wall of thickness b, then the maximum rate
widely during drying. Drying mudflats (in dried lakes) demonstrate this of change of environmental relative humidity he to assure a crackfree
behavior [108,109]. state is found to be [105]
The closing of cracks during the progress of drying has the effect that
the spacing and the width of the open cracks doubles at each critical Max ( dh e ) =0.14
C
(1.80)
state. Numerical calculations [99,74] show that the lengths of the leading dt b2
cracks and the spacing of the open cracks fluctuate within the limits
where C = moisture diffusivity. For typical properties of structural con
0.67 D:s;; a :s;; 0.77 D, 0.39 D :s;; s :s;; 0.61 D (1.77) crete, this gives the rate 2.2% humidity change per year for a 6inch thick
slab, which means that prevention of cracking cannot be assured in
where the first limit corresponds to the start of closing of every other normal specimens. The bulk of existing test data grossly violates this
crack, and the second limit to the completion of their closing. According condition. For an 0.75 mm thick wall, the maximum rate is 10% humidity
to these inequalities, the average crack length and average crack spacing change per hour, and so tests of material properties at drying must be
are carried out on extremely thin specimens, made of cement paste or fine
mortar, if cracking should be avoided. (Note, however, that cracking can
a::::: 0.72 D, s::::: 0.69 a ::::: 0.5 D. (1.78) be also avoided by applying sufficient biaxial compression parallel to the
surface, and then large specimens are usable.)
As the open cracks are getting more widely spaced, their opening w The gradual closing of some cracks at the expense of a wider opening
increases. Roughly, w = SEsh (s = spacing). The drying cracks become of others exists in various other situations. For example, it has been
visible when, roughly, SEsh ~ 0.2 mm, and considering that Esh = 0.0006, demonstrated [75] that equally spaced bending cracks growing toward the
this happens for S ~ 30 cm, D ~ 60 cm and a ~ 43 cm. The required value neutral axis in an unreinforced or reinforced beam subjected to bending
D is so large that cracks caused by drying in massive concrete walls or eccentric compression can exhibit this type of behavior. However, it is
cannot become visible except after many years. also found that here this question is only academic since this type of
From the foregoing conclusion, it follows that the drying cracks behavior is possible only for reinforcement percentages below about
normally are too narrow to form distinct, sharp, and continuous cracks. 0.18%, which do not represent realistic situations. For normal reinforced
Rather, what has been referred to as cracks must be cracking bands (or beams and plates, the bending cracks do not exhibit the instability just
microcrack bands). The foregoing conclusion does not apply in other analyzed and maintain the same spacing, which is analyzed in a preced
situations, e.g., when cracking releases flexural strain energy. For exam ing section from another viewpoint.
ple, thinwall tubular specimens exposed to drying may develop longitu
dinal cracks in a radial plane. It was shown [105] that these cracks form Crack path and shear fracture. The question of determining the crack
when the shrinkage strain reaches the value path is rather difficult and the present knowledge is fragmentary. For
many situations, it seems, one may assume that the crack propagates in
1 P 12Gr )1/2 such a direction that a Mode I situation would prevail at fracture front,
= ( 1+ P (1.79)
Esh ",rEef (i.e., the stress and displacement fields would be symmetric). The Mode I
72
73
stress directions. For this purpose, the stressstrain relation used before
(Eq. 1.12) needs to be generalized.
An attractive method to do this is the microplane model developed in
[110,111]. This model is defined by specifyi~g the ~onsti~ut~ve prope.rties
by a relation between the stresses and strams actmg within the mIcro
Fig. 1.33. Shear fracture as a band of inclined microcracks.
structure on a plane of any orientation. This involves no tensorial
invariance restrictions. These restrictions can then be satisfied by a
suitable combination of planes of various orientations, e.g., in the case of
isotropy, each orientation must be equally frequent.
situation is justified by the experimental fact that, due to crack surface The idea of defining the inelastic behavior independently on planes of
roughness, the ratio of crack slip increment to crack opening increment is different orientation within the material, and then in some way superim
nearly zero at very small openings [28]. However, if Mode I always posing the inelastic effects from all planes, has a long history. It appeared
applied, then shear fracture would be impossible, yet it exists in certain in Taylor's work [112] on plasticity of polycrystalline metals. Batdorf and
situations, e.g., that pictured in Figure 1.33 where the shear zone is Budianski [113] formulated the slip theory of plasticity, in which the
narrow and concentrated. If the fracture would propagate in Mode I, it stresses acting on various planes of slip are obtained by resolving the
would extend in 45 0 inclined directions which would quickly bring the macroscopic applied stress, and the plastic strains (slips) from all planes
crack front into a zone of small principal tensile stress and arrest the are then superimposed. The same superposition of inelastic strains was
crack. used in the socalled multilaminate models of Zienkiewics et al. (114] and
Shear fractures probably develop as a band of 45 0 inclined micro Pande et al. [115,116], and in many works on plasticity of polycrystals.
cracks, which themselves are of Mode I (symmetric) type (Figure 1.33). Recently, a model of this type was developed to describe tensile strain
This concept of shear fracture can be modeled by finite elements using softening due chiefly to microcracking [110]. While in previous works
the blunt crack band approach. In this case, the fracture energy for the dealing with plasticity of polycrystals, the stresses on various microplanes
band of inclined cracks would probably be about the same as for tensile were assumed to be equal to the resolved macroscopic stress, this new
(Mode I) crack band, i.e., equal to Gr. However, the multiaxial stress model uses a similar assumption for part of the total strains.
state at the crack front needs to be taken into account. Thus, if the The resultants of the stresses acting on the weak planes over unit areas
frontal element is subjected to pure shear, Eq. 1.22 (03 =  1 ) yields the of the heterogeneous material will be called the micros tresses, Sij' and the
equivalent strength in diagonal tension: strains of the heterogeneous material accumulated from the deformations
on the microplanes will be called the micros trains, eij With regard to the
' interaction between the micro and macrolevels, one may introduce the
/.eqll = ';1 +1 2p' /.'
eq,
(1.81)
following basic hypotheses [110,111].
Hypothesis I. The tensor of macroscopic strain, f ij , is a sum of a
where f:q , is the equivalent strength in pure tension (Mode I), as given by purely elastic macros train e~j that is unaffected by cracking, and an
Eq. 1.22 with rf = 1. I,
inelastic macrostrain e . which reflects the stress relaxation due to crack
ing, i.e.,
(1.82)
1.7 General model for progressive fracturing
Here, Latin lower case subscripts refer to Cartesian coordinates Xi
Microplane Model. For some types of loading, especially the dynamic (i = 1, 2, 3).
ones, it may happen that a principal tensile stress of direction z causes Hypothesis II. The normal microstrain en which governs the progres
only partial cracking and fracture is completed later by superimposing sive development of cracking on a microplane of any orientation is equal
another loading of different principal strain direction. For such situa to the resolved macroscopic strain tensor eij for the same plane, i.e.,
tions, one needs a softening stressstrain relation that can be applied for
general loading paths, in particular, loading paths with rotating principal (1.83)
74 75
(bJ~
300 Ie)
in which n i = direction cosines of the unit normal n of the microplane, (a'
and the repeated Latin lower case subscripts indicate a summation over
1,2,3.
Hypothesis III. The stress relaxation due to all microcracks normal to
n is characterized by assuming that the microstress Sn on the microplanes
Sn
dITt,,!'"
I II
".
(I)
(1.84) zoo
The factor (2'1T /3) is introduced just for convenience, as it will later
cancel out.
The last hypothesis is similar to that made for shear micros tresses and _..::.=..:::.___ 0'.
00002 00004
SlrOtn
microstrains in the slip theory of plasticity. Hypothesis II is however
opposite. There are three reasons for hypothesis II: Fig. 1.34. Explanations for microplane model (ad), and comparison with tests of Evans
and Marathe (1968) (ef).
(1) Using resolved stresses rather than strains on the microplanes
would hardly allow describing strainsoftening. since. in this case. there
are two strains corresponding to a given stress but only one stress
corresponding to a given strain. stiffness of the cracks decreases rather slowly as the crack gradually
(2) The microstrains must be stable when the macros trains are fixed. It opens. One must admit, however. that Eq. 1.84 (Hypothesis III) is also
has been experienced numerically that. in the case of strainsoftening, the useful for its simplicity. It would be much more complicated to assume a
model becomes unstable if resolved stresses rather than strains are used. general relation between the normal and shear micros tresses and micro
(3) The use of resolved strains, rather than stresses, seems to reflect the strains on each plane.
microstructure of a brittle aggregate material better. The use of resolved The virtual work of stresses per unit volume may be written. according
stresses is reasonable for polycrystalline metals in which local slips to Eq. 1.82, as !SW = aij!SE ,j = aij!SE~j + aij!Se ij . Summing the virtual work
scatter widely while the stress is roughly uniformly distributed throughout due to !SE~j and !Seij' it gives !SW = a,j!SE~j + Sij!Seii' in which Sij is the
the microstructure. By contrast, in a brittle aggregate material consisting macrostress tensor resulting from ~n on all planes, and aij is the stress
of hard inclusions embedded in a weak matrix. the stresses are far from tensor corresponding to E0. Since both expressions for !SW must hold for
uniform, having sharp extremes at the locations where the surfaces of any !SE:j and any !Se ,j , sij = a,j = ail" Equilibrium conditions may be
aggregate pieces are nearest. The deformation of the thin layer of matrix expressed by means of the principle of virtual work:
between two aggregate pieces, which yields the major contribution to
inelastic strain, is determined chiefly by the relative displacements of the
centroids of the two aggregate pieces, which roughly correspond to the (1.85)
macroscopic strain. The microplanes may be imagined to represent the
thin layers of matrix and the bond planes between two adjacent' aggre
gate pieces (Figure 1.34), since microcracking is chiefly concentrated ~n which S represents the surface of a unit hemisphere, the factor (4'1T /3)
there. IS due to integrating over the surface of a sphere of radius 1, and
In Hypothesis III, the relaxation of shear microstresses S nl caused by dS = sin !SdlJdq, (Figure 1. 34c). Note that there is no need to integrate
the shear and normal micros trains e nl and en is neglected. This assump over the entire surface of the sphere, since the values of an or en are equal
~t any two diametrically opposite points on the sphere. Function f(n)
tion is probably quite good for very small crack openings, since it has
lOtro~uces the relative frequency of planes of various orientations n,
been deduced from test data on shearing of cracks in concrete that no
contnbuting to inelastic stress relaxation.
relative shear displacements on the rough interlocked cracks is possible
before a certain finite crack opening is produced, and that the shear
Substituting Eqs. 1.83 and 1.84 into Eq. 1.85 yields a!Se tJ I)
=
76 77
(a) 2xl6 points unloading stiffness (which may be approximately taken as En; however, a
300 better expression exists [120]).
(3) Evaluate DI}km from Eq. 1.88 and Dljkm from Eq. 1.90. In struct
.;;; ural analysis, repeat this for all elements and all integration points in
...
~200
each element. When solving stressstrain curves, calculate then the incre
! ments of unknown stresses and unknown strains from Eq. 1.90. In
IJ) CblCo 0.999999999
CclCo 1.000000000 structural analysis, solve (by the finite element method) the increments of
CdlCo  1.000000006
C./C a  1.000000005 nodal displacements from the given load increments, and subsequently
C,lC o 1.000000000
calculate the increments of Eij and 0lj for all elements and all integration
0.0002
points in each element. Then advance to the next iteration of the same
0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
StrOin loading step, or advance to the next loading step.
In simulating uniaxial tensile loading of fixed direction, the unloading
criterion is not important since the only unloading occurs at moderate
300
compressive stresses, for which a perfectly elastic unloading may be
.;;; assumed .
E
:200 The microplane model can be calibrated by comparison with direct
l!' tensile tests which cover the strainsoftening response. Such tests, which
Vi CblCO  1.000000008
CclC o  1.000000009 can be carried out only in a very stiff testing machine and on sufficiently
CdlCo  1.000000002
's C.IC o 1.000000008 small test specimens, have been performed by Evans and Marathe [21] as
C,I Co  1.000000008
CVI Co  1.000000005 well as others [2225]. Optimal values of the three parameters of the
model, En' k, and p, have been found [110] so as to achieve the best fits
0.0002 0.0004 00006 00008 of the data of Evans and Marathe. Some of these fits are shown as the
Strain solid lines in Figure 1.34, and the data are shown as the dashed lines. A
better test of the model would, of course, be a tensile test under rotating
300 principal stress directions, but such tests have not yet been performed.
Note that, in this theory, one has only two material parameters, En
.;;;
c. and k, to determine by fitting test data. Trialanderror approach is
..
;;; 200
sufficient for that.
!
IJ)
CblCo  0.999999992
CclCo 0.999999990 Shear in cracked concrete. The microplane model just described appears
CdlCo 0.999999994
C.ICo 0.999999996
capable of modeling also the resistance of cracks in concrete for shear,
C,lC o 0.999999987
characterized by crack friction (aggregate interlock effect) and dilatancy.
For this purpose, the model needs to be enhanced by more realistic
0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 00008
Strain an  En curves for unloading, and if cyclic shearing is considered, then
Fig. 1.35. Directions of integration points for some integration formulas for the surface of a
also for reloading. This was done in [120].
sphere. and response curves for universal tension in direction a, h, c, d, ... (after Baiant and Test data are available only for shear loading of blocks (Figure 1.36a)
Oh, 1983). that have been previously fully cracked in tension [28,121126]. Even
though a finite separation is evident from the relative displacement of the
blocks, the resistance to shear is not zero, not even at the beginning of
all finite elements and for all integration points within each finite shear. Obviously, there must be some contacts between the opposite
element. surfaces even after the tensile stress normal to the crack has already been
(2) For all directions n(a), evaluate F'(e n ) for use in Eq. 1.93. Also reduced to zero.
check for each direction whether unloading occurs, as indicated by Using the microplane model, we treat the distinct crack in a rectangu
violation of the condition snden ;;:. O. If violated, replace F'( en) with the lar test specimen as a band of certain finite width, We' This is probably
82 83
(0) ~T (b) + i
~ i'
i5 5
000 Wal,a,.n , R.'nhardt, 1981
1982 _
10.
i 0. ;:=====I=T:=:=O<y=II=~B=:/=i:~~'=)6_=1=9M~)
f.
!
(e) _
rta Id)
+
~~
f~c:lf 36.7"Po
  Theor,
w'd
(.) an C I
(2.25 Plint.)
0000 ~~~ .,Peu.,
f cc Z t9MPa
with the data points obtained in' Paulay and Loeber tests [121]. In [120],
Fig. 1.36. Shear resistance of crack modeled by crack band. it was shown that this model can fit essentially all the existing data on
aggregate interlock or crack shear.
not too unrealistic in view of the roughness of the crack surface, as well Thus we have a model which correctly describes both the tensile
as the fact that concrete near the crack must have been microcracked strainsoftening up to full fracture and the crack shear in fully fractured
during its previous tensile loading that produced the crack. In numerical concrete. It may be expected that the model would also represent the
simulation, one starts with an intact concrete and implements first shear resistance of partially cracked concrete, and perhaps also shear
uniaxial tensile loading in direction z until the stress az is reduced to zero fracture. Another possible use is biaxial (spatial) nonproportional shear
(in practice, to 0.001 It'). Subsequently, either a shear stress 'Txz or a shear loading, i.e., loading of the crack plane by shear stresses 'Txz and 'Tyz (or
strain Yxz' depending on the conditions of simulated test, is gradually shear strains Yxz and yyz) which do not increase in proportion.
applied in small increments; see Figure 1.36b. Doing this, the normal If a simultaneous representation of both tensile fracture and crack
strain En on the microplanes inclined + 450. (Figure 1.36c) is increased, shear is not needed, one may of course use simpler models consisting in a
and so an remains zero on these microplanes. However, En on the relation between the stress and relative displacement on the crack. For a
microplanes inclined  450. (Figure 1.36c) is decreased, and so contrac realistic description, one must use (in 2 dimensions) both the normal and
tion (unloading) occurs on those microplanes. For contraction, the nor tangential relative displacements 8n and 8t across a crack, and describe
mal stiffness is nonzero. Therefore, shear produces in the crack band a the normal and shear stresses on the crack, an and ant, as a function of 8n
set of inclined compression forces illustrated in Figure 1.36d. These and 8t In an incremental form, such a relation may be written as
forces have a component along the crack, representing crack friction, and
a component normal to the crack, representing the pressure opposing
dilatancy. If such a pressure is not generated by the support conditions, (1.94)
then a simultaneous expansion (dilatancy) occurs so as to reduce the
normal force component to zero. in which B nn , ,Btl' called crack stiffness coefficients, depend on 8n and
Figure 1.36e shows the unloading anEn curves that have been used in 8t A model of this type was developed and callibrated by test data in
[120], in which analytical expressions for these unloading curves may be [28].
found. Typical response curves which have been simulated with the Experimental evidence [28,121127] reveals that the crack stiffness
microplane model are shown in Figure 1.37, where they are compared coefficients are extremely variable depending on the normal and tangen
84 85
tial displacements across the c~ack. For very small openings, the cracks Finally, it should be pointed out that if the slip of cracks should be
present a very large resistance to shear, while for large crack openings, prevented by reinforcement, then the reinforcement required to balance
this resistance may become quite small. At small crack openings, even a given loads is larger than that when crack friction is neglected. This is
small tangential displacement produces large compressive stresses if because the tensile reinforcement must balance not only the applied
dilation of the crack is prevented, while for a wide crack even large loads but also the normal component of friction on the cracks [117,73).
tangential displacements do not produce large compressive stresses. Consideration of friction leads to a reinforcement design for which the
Considering a system of dense, parallel and equidistant cracks, and maximum deformations of orthogonally reinforced concrete, which occur
superimposing the deformations on the crack and those due to solid in the diagonal directions, are significantly less than for the design in
concrete between the cracks, one can obtain the flexibility matrix of which friction is neglected.
cracked concrete. For small crack openings, this matrix can be written in
the following explicit form (28):
1.8 Conclusion
dan}
da =
[1
p
p
Ec
+p
E*
2
+2a d P
dEn}
dEl' (1.96)
References
{ ]{ 1. BaZant. Z.P., and Oh. B.H .. Crack Band Theory for Fracture of Concrete. Materials
da: 1 k kP (2ad )(k) dEnl and Structures (RILEM. Paris). Vol. 16. pp. 155177 (1983) (based on (130)).
2. BaZant. Z.P . and Kim, S.S. PlasticFracturing Theory for Concrete. Journal of the
It is interesting that this matrix is singular, which is a consequence of the Engineering Mechanics Division. ASCE. Vol. 105. No. EM3. Proc. Paper 14653, pp.
407428 (1979).
friction relation. However, this singularity does not cause problems in
3. BaZant, Z.P .. Crack Band Model for Fracture of Geomaterials. Proc . 4th Intern. Conf.
reinforced concrete analysis because the deformation is stabilized by on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics. held in Edmonton. Alberta. Canada. ed. by
reinforcement or the boundary restraint. Z. Eisenstein. Vol. 3 (1982), pp. 11371152.
86 87
4. BaZant, Z.P.. Instability. Ductility and Size Effect in StrainSoftening Concrete. J. of in Tension, Materials and Structures (RILEM, Paris), No.1, Jan.Feb., pp. 6164
the Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE, Vol. 102. No. EM2. pp. 331344  Paper (1968).
12042 (1976). 22. Heilmann, H.G., Hilsdorf, H.H., and Finsterwalder, K., Festigkeit und Verformung
5. BaZant, Z.P., and Panula. L., Statistical Stability Effects in Concrete Failure. J. of the von Beton unter Zugspanungen, Deutscher Ausschuss fUr Stahlbeton, Heft 203, W
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 104. No. EM5. pp. 11951212. Paper Ernst & Sohn, West Berlin (1969).
14074 (1978). 23. Rusch, H., and Hilsdorf, H., Deformation Characteristics of Concrete under Axial
6. BaZant, Z.P .. and Cedolin, L.. Blunt Crack Band Propagation in Finite Element Tension, Voruntersuchungen, Bericht Nr. 44, Munich (1963).
Analysis. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 105. No. EM2, 24. Hughes, B.P., and Chapman, G.P., The Complete StressStrain Curve for Concrete in
Proc. Paper 14529, pp. 297315 (1979). Direct Tension, Bulletin RILEM, No. 30, pp. 9597 (1966).
7. Cedolin. L.. and BaZant. Z.P., Effect of Finite Element Choice in Blunt Crack Band 25. Petersson. P.E., Crack Growth and Development of Fracture Zones in Plain Concrete
Analysis, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Vol. 24. No.3, and Similar Materials, Doctoral Dissertation, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
pp. 305316 (1980). Sweden (1981).
8. Rashid, Y.R., Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Pressure Vessels, Nuclear Engng. and 26. Reinhardt, H.W., and Walraven, J.e., Cracks in Concrete Subject to Shear, J. of the
Design, Vol. 7, No.4. pp. 334344 (1968). Structural Division ASCE, Vol. 108, No. STl, Paper 16802, pp. 207224 (1982).
9. Mindess. S.. and Diamond. S.. A Preliminary SEM Study of Crack Propagation in 27. ASCE StateoftheArt Report on Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete,
Mortar. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 10. pp. 509519 (1980). prepared by a Task Committee chaired by A. Nilson, Am. Soc. of Civil Engrs., New
10. Cedolin, L., Dei Poli, S., and lori. L. Experimental Determination of the Fracture York (1982).
Process Zone in Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 13, pp. 557567 28. BaZant, Z.P., and Gambarova, P., Rough Cracks in Reinforced Concrete, Journal of
(1983). the Structural Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST4, April 1980, pp. 819842, Paper
11. Cedolin, L., dei Poli, S., and lori. L., Experimental Determination of the StressStrain 15330; Discussion pp. 25792581, pp. 13771388 (1981).
Curve and Fracture Zone for Concrete in Tension, Proc., Int. ConL on Constitutive 29. BaZant, Z.P., and Tsubaki, T., SlipDilatancy Model for Cracked Reinforced Concrete,
Laws for Engineering Materials, ed. by e. Desai, University of Arizona. Tucson Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE. Vol. 106, No. ST9, Paper No. 15704, pp.
(1983). 19471966 (1980).
12. Barenblatt, G.I., The Formation of Equilibrium Cracks During Brittle Fracture, 30. Kupfer. H.B . and Gerstle, K.H . Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress, Journal of
General Ideas and Hypothesis. AxiallySymmetric Cracks, Prikladnaya Matematika i the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE. Vol. 99, No. EM4, Proc. Paper 9917, pp.
Mekhanika, Vol. 23, No.3. pp. 434444 (1959). 853866 (1973).
13. Dugdale. D.S., Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing Slits, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 8, 31. Liu, T.e.Y., Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O., Biaxial StressStrain Relations for Con
pp. 100108 (1960). crete, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST5, Proc. Paper 8905,
14. Kfouri. A.P., and Miller, K.J., Stress Displacement, Line Integral and Closure Energy pp. 10251034 (1972).
Determinations of Crack Tip Stress Intensity Factors, Int. Journal of Pres. Ves. and 32. Rosenthal, I., and Glucklich, J., Strength of Plain Concrete under Biaxial Stress, ACI
Piping, Vol. 2, No.3, pp. 179191 (1974). Journal, pp. 903914 (1970).
15. Kfouri, A.P., and Rice, J.R., Elastic/Plastic Separation Energy Rate for Crack 33. Kachanov, L.M., Time of Rupture Process Under Creep Conditions, Izv. Akad, Nauk.
Advance in Finite Growth Steps, in Fracture 1977 (Proc. of the 4th Intern. Con!. on SSR, Otd. Tekh, Nauk, No.8, pp. 2631 (1958).
Fracture. held in Waterloo, Ontario. June 1977). ed. by D.M.R. Taplin. University of 34. Janson, J., and Hult, J., Fracture Mechanics and Damage Mechanics,  A Combined
Waterloo Press, Vol. 1, pp. 4359 (1977). Approach, Journal de Mecanique Appliquee, Vol. 1, No. I, pp. 6984 (1977).
16. Knauss, W.e., On the Steady Propagation of a Crack in a Viscoelastic Sheet; 35. Leland, K.E., Continuous Damage Model for LoadResponse Estimation of Concrete.
Experiments and Analysis, in The Deformation in Fracture of High Polymers, ed. by Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 10, pp. 395402 (1980).
H.H. Kausch, Pub. Plenum Press, pp. 501541 (1974). 36. Lorrain, M., On the Application of the Damage Theory to Fracture Mechanics of
17. Wnuk, M.P., QuasiStatic Extension of a Tensile Crack Contained in Viscoelastic Concrete, A StateoftheArt Report, Civil Engineering Department, I.N.S.A . 31077
Plastic Solid, Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 41. No. 1. pp. 234248 Toulouse, Cedex, France.
(1974). 37. Mazars, Mechanical Damage and Fracture of Concrete Structures, 5th International
18. Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P.E., Analysis of Crack Formation and Conference on Fracture, Edited by D. Fran~is, Cannes, France, Vol. 4, pp. 14991506
Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements, (1981).
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 6, pp. 773782 (1976). 38. Arrea, M., Ingraffea, A.R., MixedMode Crack Propagation in Mortar and Concrete,
19. Petersson, P.E., Fracture Energy of Concrete; Method of Determination, Cement and Report No. 8183, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
Concrete Research, Vol. 10, 1980, pp. 7889, and Fracture Energy of Concrete: Feb. (1982).
Practical Performance and Experimental Results, Cement and Concrete Research, 39. Knott, J.F., Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics, Butterworths, London, England
Vol. 10, pp. 91101 (1980). (1973).
20. Suidan, M., and Schnobrich, W.e., Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, 40. Parker, A.P., The Mechanics of Fracture and Fatigue, E. & F.N. Spon, Ltd. 
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. STlO, Proc. Paper 10081, pp. Methuen, London (1981).
21092122 (1973). 41. Broek, D., Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Noordhoff International
21. Evans, R.H., and Marathe, M.S., Microcracking and StressStrain Curves for Concrete. Publishing, Leyden, Netherlands (1974).
88
89
42. Mindess, S., The Application of Fracture Mechanics to Cement and Concrete: A
Historical Review, Chapter I in ,'Fracture Mechanics of Concrete" ed. by F.H. 61. Flanagan, D.P., and Belytschko, T., A Uniform Strain Hexahedron and Quaderlateral
Wittmann, Elsevier, The Netherlands (1983). with Orthogonal Hourglass Control, Int. J. for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
Vol. 17, pp. 679706 (1981).
43. Brown, J.H., Measuring the Fracture Toughness of Cement Paste and Mortar,
Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 24, No: 81, pp. 185196 (1972). 62. Marchertas, A., BaZant, Z.P .. Belytschko, T., and Fistedis. S.H., Extension of HCDA
44. Carpinteri, A., Experimental Determination of Fracture Toughness Parameters KIC Safety Analysis of Large PCRV Containment Structures, Preprints 4th Intern. Conf.
and 'IC for Aggregative Materials, Advances in Fracture Research. (Proc., 5th on Struct. Mech. in Reactor Technology, San Francisco, Paper E4/1 (1977).
International Conference on Fracture, Cannes, ed. by D. FranyOls, Vol. 4, pp. 63. Marchertas, A.H., Beltyschko, T.B., BaZant, Z.P., Transient Analysis of LMFBR
14911498 (1981). Reinforced/Prestressed Concrete Containment, Trans, 5th Intern, Conf. on Struct.
45. Carpinteri, A., Static and Energetic Fracture Parameters for Rocks and Concretes, Mech. in Reactor Tech., Vol. H, Paper H4/1, West Berlin. ed. by T.A. Jaeger and
B.A. Boley, publ. by North Holland (1979).
Report, Instituto di Scienza delle CostruzioniIngegneria, University of Bologna, Italy
64. Marchertas, A.H., Fistedis, S.H., Baiant, Z.P., and Belytschko, T., Analysis and
(1980). . .
46. Entov, V.M., and Yagust V.l., Experimental Investigation of Laws Governmg Quasl Application of Prestressed Concrete Reactor Vessels for LMFBR Containment,
Nuclear Engng. and Design, Vol. 49 pp. 155173 (1978).
Static Development of Macrocracks in Concrete,: Mechanics of Solids (translation
from Russian), Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 8795 (1975). 65. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI Standard 318377), Am.
Concrete Institute, Detroit (1977).
47. Gj0rv, O.E., S0rensen, S.1., and Arnesen, A., Notch Sensitivity and Fracture Tough
ness of Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 7, pp. 333344 (1977). 66. Marchertas, A.H., Kulak, R.F., and Pan. Y.c., Performance of Blunt Crack Approach
48. Huang. C.M.J., Finite Element and Experimental Studies of Stress Intensity Factor for Within a General Purpose Code, in Nonlinear Numerical Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Concrete. ed. by L.E. Schwer, Am. Soc. of Mech. Engrs., New York 1982. (presented
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Kansas State University, Kansas (1981). at ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Phoenix, pp. 107123 (1982).
49. Kaplan, M.F., Crack Propagation and the Fracture of Concrete, American Concrete 67. BaZant, Z.P., Pfeiffer, P., Finite Element Crack Band Analysis, in preparation.
Institute Journal, Vol. 58, No. 11 (1961). 68. BaZant, Z.P., Pfeiffer, P., Marchertas, A.H., Blunt Crack Band Propagation in Finite
50. Kesler, C.E., Naus, D.J., and Lott, J.L., Fracture Mechanics  Its Applicability to Element Analysis for Concrete Structures. Preprints 7th Int. Conf. on Structural
Concrete, International Conference on the Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Kyoto, Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Chicago (1983).
August (1971). 69. Rice, J.R., Mathematical Analysis in the Mechanics of Fracture, in Fracture, an
51. Mindess, S., Lawrence, F.V., and Kesler, C.E., The JIntegral As a Fracture Criterion Advance Treatise. H. Liebowitz. ed. Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, N.Y., pp.
191250 (1968).
for Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 7, pp. 731742
(1977). 70. Haugeneder, E., A Note of Finite Element Analysis of Blunt Crack Band Propagation,
52. Naus, D.J., Applicability of LinearElastic Fracture Mechanics to Portland Cement Proc., Intern. Conf. on Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials, ed. by C.
Concretes, Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Desai. University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 561564 (1983).
of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1971). 71. Pan, Y.c., Marchertas, A.H., Kennedy, J.M., Finite Element of Blunt Crack Band
53. Shah, S.P., and McGarry, F.J., Griffith Fracture Criterion and Concrete. Journal of Propagation, A Modified JIntegral Approach, Preprints. 7th Intern. Conf. on Struct
the Engineering Mechanics Division. ASCE, Vol. 97. No. EM6. Proc. Paper 8597. pp. ural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper H, Chicago (1983).
16631676 (1971). 72. Rice, J.R., The Localization of Plastic Deformation, Preprints of the 14th IUTAM
54. Sok, c., Baron, J., and Franyois, D., Mecanique de la Rupture Appliquee au Beton Congress (lnt. Union of Theor. and Appl. Mech.), held in Delft. Netherlands, Edited
Hydraulique, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 9, pp. 641648 (1979). by W.T. Koiter, North Holland Publishing Co, Amsterdam. pp. 207220 (1976).
55. Swartz, S.E., Hu, K.K., Fartash, M., and Huang, C.M.J., Stress Intensity Factors for 73. BaZant, Z.P., Tsubaki, T., and Belytschko, T.B., Concrete Reinforcing Net: Safe
Plain Concrete in Bending  Prenotched Versus Precracked Beams. Report, Depart Design, Journal of the Structural Division, Proc. ASCE Vol. 106, No. ST9, pp.
18991906, Paper 15705 (1980).
ment of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University. Kansas (1981).
56. Walsh, P.F., Fracture of Plain Concrete,: The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 46, No. 74. BaZant, Z.P., and Wahab, A.B., Instability and Spacing of Cooling or Shrinkage
11, pp. 469, 470. and 476 (1979). Cracks, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. EM5,
57. Wecharatana, M., and Shah, S.P., Resistance to Crack Growth in Portland Cement Proc. Paper 14933, pp. 873889 (1979),
Composites, Report, Department of Material Engineering, University of Illinois at 75. BaZant, Z.P., and Wahab, A.B., Stability of Parallel Cracks in Solids Reinforced by
Chicago Circle, Chicago. Illinois (1980). Bars, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 16, pp. 97105 (1980).
58. BaZant, Z.P., and Oh, B.H., Rock Fracture via StressStrain Relations, Concrete and 76. Branson, D.E., Design Procedures for Computing Deflection, ACI Journal, Vol. 65,
Geomaterials, Report No. 8211/665r, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois No.9, pp. 730742 (1968).
. (1982); also to appear in ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. IlO (1984). 77. Kani, G.N.J., Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure, Part I and Part II, J. of ACt Vol.
59. BaZant, Z.P., and Cedolin, L., Fracture Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Journal of 63, No.6, pp. 675692 (1966).
the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. EM6. Proc. Paper 15917, 78. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., Beitrage zur Behandlung der Schubprobleme im
December 1980, pp. 12871306; with Discussion and Closure in Vol. 108, EM., pp. Stahlbetonbau, Betonu Stahlbetonbau, Vol. 56, No. 12 (1961), Vol. 57, No.2, 3, 6, 7,
8, (1962), Vol. 58, No.8, 9 (1963).
464471 (1982). .
60. BaZant, Z.P., and Cedolin, L., Finite Element Modeling of Crack Band Propagation, 79. Bha!, N.S. Ober den Einfluss der Balkenhbhe auf Schubtragfahihkeit von einfeldrigen
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. STI, pp. 6992 (1983). Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung, Dissertation, Unversitat Stuttgart
(1968).
90 91
80. Walraven, J.c., The Influence of Depth on the Shear Strength of Lightweight Concrete 102. Kaar, P.H., and Mattock, A.H., High Strength Bars as Concrete Reinforcement. Part
Beams without Shear Reinforcement, Stevin Laboratory Report No. 5784, Delft 4. Control of Cracking, Journal, Portland Cement Association Research and Develop
University of Technology (1978)., ment Laboratories. Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 1538 (1963).
81. Taylor, H.P.J., The Shear Strength of Large Beams, J. of the Structural Division 103. Hognestad, E., High Strength Bars as Concrete Reinforcement, Part 2. Control of
ASCE, Vol. 98, pp. 24732490 (1972). Flexural Cracking, Journal, Portland Cement Association Research and Development
82. Rusch. M . HaugJi, F.R., and Mayer. M., Schubversuche an Stahlbeton Rechteckbal Laboratories. Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 4663 (1962).
ken mit Gleichmassig Verteilter Belastung, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Heft 104. Mathey, R.G., And Watstein. D., Effect of Tensile Properties of Reinforcement on the
145, W. Ernst u. Sohn. West Berlin (1962). Flexural Characteristics of Beams, Journal, American Concrete Institute, Proc. Vol.
83. Swamy. R.N .. and Qureshi. S.A., Strength, Cracking and Deformation Similitude in 56, No. 12. pp. 12531273 (1960).
Reinforced TBeams under Bending and Shear, Part I and II, J. of Am. Concrete Inst., 105. BaZant. Z.P.. and Raftshol. W.J.. Effect of Cracking in Drying and Shrinkage
Vol. 68, No.3, pp. 187195 (1971). Specimens. Cement and Concrete Research. Vol. 12, pp. 209226 (1982).
84. BaZant, Z.P., Kim. J.K., Size Effect in Shear Failure of Longitudinally Reinforced 106. BaZant. Z.P., Mathematical Models for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete. in Creep
Beams, Am. Concrete Institute Journal Vol. 81 (1984), in press. and Shrinkage in Concrete Structures. ed. by Z.P. BaZant and F.H. Wittmann. J.
85. Reinhardt, H.W., Masstabeinfluss bei Schubversuchen im Light der Bruchmechanik Wiley & Sons. London. pp. 163285 (1982).
(Size Effect in Shear Tests in the Light of Fracture Mechanics), Betonund Stahlbe 107. BaZant, Z.P., and Ohtsubo, H., Stability Conditions for Propagation of a System of
tonbau, Vol. 7, No.1, pp. 1921 (1981). Cracks in a Brittle Solid, Mechanics Research Communications, Vol. 4, No.5. pp.
86. Reinhardt, H.W., Similitude of Brittle Fracture of Structural Concrete, Proc. IABSE 353366 (1977).
Colloquium Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete. Delft, pp. 201210 (1981). 108. Lachenbruch, A.H., Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 66. p. 4273 (1961).
87. BaZant, Z.P., Oh, B.H .. Deflections of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Beams. Am. 109. Lister, C.R.B., Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 39. pp.
Concrete Institute Journal, Vol. 81 (1984). in press. 465509 (1974).
88. BaZant, Z.P., Oh, B.H . Spacing of Cracks in Reinforced Concrete, J. of Engng. Mech. 110. BaZant, Z.P., and Oh. B.H .. Model of Weak Planes for Progressive Fracture of
ASCE, in press. Concrete and Rock, Report No. 832/448m. Center for Concrete and Geomaterials.
89. Agrawal, G.L., Tulin, L.G., and Gerstle, K.H .. Response of Doubly Reinforced Northwestern University, Evanston. II. (1983).
Concrete Beams to Cyclic Loading, ACI Journal, Proc. Vol. 63. No.7. pp. 823835 111. BaZant, Z.P . and Oh, B.H.. Microplane Model for Fracture Analysis of Concrete
(1965). Structures. Proc., Symp. on the Interaction of Nonnuclear Munitions with Structures.
90. Bruns, N.H., and Siess. c.P., Plastic Hinging in Reinforced Concrete, J. of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, May 1983, ed. by C.A Ross. publ. by
Structural Division ASCE. Vol. 92, No. ST5, pp. 4564 (1966). McGregor & Werner. Inc., Wash. D.C.
91. Bums, N.H., and Siess, c.P. Repeated and Reversed Loading in Reinforced Concrete. 112. Taylor, G.I., Plastic Strain in Metals. J. Inst. Metals. Vol. 63. pp. 307324 (1983).
J. of the Structural Division ASCE, Vol. 92. No. ST5, pp. 6578 (1966). 113. Batdorf, S.B .. and Budiansky, B., A Mathematical Theory of Plasticity Based on the
92. Sinha, B.P.. Gerstle, K.H .. and Tulin, L.G. Response of Singly Reinforced Beams of Concept of Slip, NACA TN1871 (1949).
Cyclic Loading, ACI Journal. Proc. Vol. 61, No.8, pp. 10211038 (1964). 114. Zienkiewics, O.c.. and Pande. G.N .. TimeDependent Multilaminate Model of Rocks
93. BaZant, Z.P . and Panula, L.. Practical Prediction of TimeDependent Deformations of  A Numerical Study of Deformation and Failure of Rock Masses. Int. Journal of
Concrete. Materials and Structures (RILEM, Paris), Vol. 11, pp. 307328, 415434 Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. Vol. I, pp. 219247 (1977).
(1978), Vol. 12. pp. 169183 (1979). 115. Pande, G.N., and Sharma, K.G., MultiLaminate Model of Clays  A Numerical
94. Hollington, M.R., A Series of LongTerm Tests to Investigate the Deflection of Evaluation of the Influence of Rotation of the Principal Stress Axes, Report, Depart
Representative Precast Concrete Floor Components, Technical Report TRA 442, ment of Civil Engineering, University College of Swansea. U.K., 1982; see also
Cement and Concrete Association (London) (1970). Proceedings, Symposium on Implementation of Computer Procedures and StressStrain
95. Krafft, J.M., Sullivan, AM. Boyle. R.W., Effect of Dimensions on Fast Fracture Laws in Geotechnical Engineering, ed. by C.S. Desai and S.K. Saxena. held in
Instability of Notched Sheets. Cranfield Symposium, Vol. I, pp. 828 (1961). Chicago, Aug. 1081, Acorn Press, Durham, N.C., pp. 575590 (1981).
96. BaZant, Z.P., Cedolin, L., Approximate Linear Analysis of Concrete Fracture by 116. Pande, G.N., and Xiong, W., An Improved Multilaminate Model of Jointed Rock
RCurves, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 5T6, June (1984). Masses, Proceedings, International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomecha
97. Tada, H., Paris, P.c., and Irwin, G.R., The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Del nics, ed. by R. Dungar, G.N. Pande, and G.A Studer, held in Zurich, Sept. 1982,
Research Corp., Hellertown, Pa. (1973). Baikema, Rotterdam. 1982. 218226.
98. Wnuk, M., BaZant, Z.P., and Law, E., Stable growth of Fracture in Brittle Aggregate 117. BaZant, Z.P., and Tsubaki, T., Concrete Reinforcing Net: Optimum SlipFree Limit
Materials, Theoretical and Applied fracture Mechanics, Vol. 2 (1984) in press. Design, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE Vol. 105. No. STI. Proc. Paper
99. BaZant, Z.P., Ohtsubo, H., and Aoh, K., Stability and PostCritical Growth of a 14344, Feb. 1979, pp. 327346; Discussion and Closure, pp. 13751383 (1981).
System of Cooling or Shrinkage Cracks, International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 15, 118. Albrecht, J., and Collatz, L., Zur numerischen Auswertung mehrdimensionaler In
No.5., pp. 443456 (1979). tegrale, Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik. Band 38, Heft 1/2,
100. Chi, M., and Kirstein, A.F., Flexural Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Beams, Journal, Jan./Feb . pp. 115.
American Concrete Institute, Proc., Vol. 54, No. 10, pp. 865878 (1958). 119. BaZant, Z.P., and Oh, B.H., Efficient Numerical Integration on the Surface of a
101. Clark, A.P., Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Member, Journal, American Sphere, Report, Center for Concrete and Geomaterials, Northwestern University,
Concrete Institute, Proc., Vol. 52, No.8, pp. 851862 (1956). Evanston, Ill. (1982).
92
120. Bafant, Z.P., and Gambarova, P., Crack Shear in Concrete: Crack Band Microplane
Model, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vo\. 110 (1984). in press. ]39. Christensen, R.M., A RateDependent Criterion for Crack Growth, Intern. J. of
121. Paulay, T., and Loeber, PJ., Shear Transfer by Aggregate Interlock, Am. Concr. Inst. Fracture, Vol. 15, No.1, Feb. 1979, pp. 321,; disc. Vol. 16, pp. R229R232,
Special Pub\. SP42, Detroit, pp. 115 (1974). R233 R237 (1980).
122. Reinhardt, H.W., and Walraven, J.E., Crack in Concrete Subject to Shear, Journal of ]40. Chudnovsky, A., On the Law of Fatigue Crack Layer Propagation in Polymers,
the Structural Division ASCE, Vol. 108, pp. 207224 (1982). Polymer Engineering and Science, Vol. 22, No. 15, pp. 922927 (1982).
123. Walraven, J.e., and Reinhardt, H.W., Theory and Experiments on the Mechanical 141. Chudnovsky, A., Proceedings of NSF Workshop on Damage, held in General. Butler
Behavior of Cracks in Plain and Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Shear Loading. State Park in May 1980, University of Cincinnati.
HERON Journal Vol. 26, No. lA, Dept of Civil Eng. Delft University of Technology, 142. Crisfield, M.A., Local Instabilities in the Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Delft (1981). Beams and Slabs, Proc., Institution of Civil Engrs. Part 2, Vol. 73, pp. 135145 (1982).
124. Laible, J.P., White, R.N., and Gergely, P., Experimental Investigation of Shear ]43. Crisfield, M.A., Accelerated Solution Techniques and Concrete Cracking, Compo
Transfer across Cracks in Concrete Nuclear Containment Vessels, Am. Concrete Inst., Methods in Appl. Mech. and Engng. Vol. 30 (1982).
Special Publ. SP53, pp. 203226 (1977). 144. Carpinteri, A., NotchSensitivity and Fracture Testing of Aggregate Materials, Engng,
125. Mattock, A.H., The Shear Transfer Behavior of Cracked Monolithic Concrete Subject Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 16, No. 14, pp. 467481 (1982).
to Cyclical Reversing Shear, REport SM7404, Dept. of Civil Engng., Vniv. of ]45. Ingraffea, A.R., Numerical Modeling of Fracture Propagation, in Rock Fracture
Washington, Seattle (1974). Mechanics, ed. by H.P. Rossmanith, publ. by The International Center for Mechanical
126. Paulay, T., Park, R., and Phillips, M.H., Horizontal Construction Joints in CastinPlace Sciences, Udine, Italy (1983).
Reinforced Concrete, in Shear in Reinf. Concrete, Vol. 2, Am. Concrete Inst. Special 146. Isida, J., Elastic Analysis of Cracks and Stress Intensity Factors. Baifukan Publishing
Publ. SP42, Detroit (1974). Col, Japan (1976).
127. Laible, J.P., White, R.N., and Gergely, P., Experimental Information on Shear 147. Kachanov, M. Continuum Model of Medium with Cracks, J. of the Engng. Mech.
Transfer Across Cracks in Concrete Nuclear Containment Vessels, Special Publ. SP53, Div. ASCE, Vol. 106. pp. 10391051 (1980).
Am. Coner. Inst., pp. 203226, Detroit 1977. 148. Kachanov. M.L.. A Microcrack Model of Rock Inelasticity, Mechanics of Materials,
North Holland, Vol. I, pp. 1941 (1982).
149. Kani, G.N.J., Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure. Part I and Part II. J. of ACt Vol.
63, No.6, pp, 675692 (1966).
Additional bibliography 150. Leonhardt. F., and Walther, R.o Beitrage nur Behandlung der Schubprobleme im
Stahlbeton bau. ~etonu Stahlbetonban, Vol. 56, No. 12 (1961), Vol. 57, No.2. 3, 6, 7,
128. Baumann, T., Zur Frage der Netzbewehrung von Fllichentragwerken. Der Bauin 8, (1962), Vol. 58, No.8, 9 (1963).
genieur, Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 367377 (1971). 151. Marchertas, A.H., Belytschko, T.B., Comparison of Transient PCRV Model Test
129. BaZant, Z.P. Mathematical Models for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete, Chapter 7 in Results with Analysis, Trans. 5th Int. Conf. on SMiRT, Paper H8/2, Berlin (1979).
Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete Structures, ed. by Z.P. BaZant and F.H. Wittmann. 152. Marchertas. A.H., and Belytschko, T.B . Transient Analysis of a PCRV for LMFBR
J. Wiley & Sons. London. pp. 163256. Primary Containments, Special Issue on Mechanics of Applications to Test Breeder
130. BaZant, Z.P., and Oh, B.H., Strain Ra,te Effect in Rapid Triaxial Loading of Concrete, Reactor Safety, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 51. No.3., pp. 433442 (1980).
Vol. 108, pp. 764782 (1982). 153. Margolin, L.G . Numerical Simulation of Fracture. Proceedings, INtern. Conf. on
131. BaZant, Z.P., and Oh. B.H., Concrete Fracture via StressStrain Relations, Report No. Constitutive Relations for Engineering Mechanics. ed. by e. Desai, University of
8110j665c, Center for Concrete and Geomaterials, Technological Institute, North Arizona, Tucson, pp. 567572 (1983).
western University, Evanston, III. (1981). 154. Mihashi, H . and Zaitzev. J.W., Statistical Nature of Crack Propagation, Chapter 4 in
132. Bafant, Z.P. and Oh. B.H., Deformation of Cracked NetReinforced Concrete Walls, Report of RILEM Techn. Comm. 50FMC, to appear
Journal of the Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 109. No. ST2, pp. 93108 (1983). 155. Morley, e.T., Yield Criteria for Elements of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Introductory
133. Bhal, N.S., Uber den Einfluss der Balkenhohe auf Schubtragfahigkeit von einfeldrigen Report, Colloquium, Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, Report of the Working Com
Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung, Dissertation, Universitat Stuttgart mission. Inter. Assoc. for Bridge and Struct. Engng., Vol. 8. pp. 3547 (1979).
(1968). 156. Nilson. A., Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete by Finite Element Method,
134. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete ACI31877, ACI Committee Am. Concrete Institute Journal. Vol. 65 (1%8).
318, American Concrete Institute. Detroit. Mich. (1977). 157. Paris, P.e., Fracture Mechanics in the Elastic Plastic Regime, Flaw Growth and
135. CEBFIP Model Code for Concrete Structures. Commite Eurointernational du Beton. Fatigue, ASTM Special Techn. Publ. 631. Am. Soc. for Testing Materials, Phila
CEB Bulletin No. 124/125E, Paris (1978). delphia, pp. 327 (1977).
136. Cedolin; L., and Bafant. Z.P., Fracture Mechanics of Crack Bands in Concrete, 158. Park. R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures. J. Wiley & Sons. New York,
Fracture Mechanic Methods for Ceramics. Rocks and Concrete. ed., S.W. Freiman (1975).
and E.P. Fuller, Am. Soc. for Testing Materials STP745, pp. 221236 (1981). 159. Paulay, T., and Loeber. P J., Shear Transfer by Aggregate Interlock Shear in Rein
137. Cedolin. L., and Dei Poli, S. Finite Element Studies of Shear Critical RjC Beams, J. forced Concrete, Special Publications SP42. American Concrete Institute. Detroit,
of the Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 103, No. EM3, pp. 395410 (1979). Mich., pp. 115 (1974).
138. Cervenka, V., and Gerstle, K.H., Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Panels, 160. Pietruszczak, S. and Mroz, Z . Finite Element Analysis of Deformation of Strain
Publications, Intern. Assoc. for Bridge and Structural Engng., Zurich, Switzerland, Softening Materials. Intern. J. for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 17, pp.
Vol. 31, 1971, pp. 3145 and Vol. 32, pp. 2579 (1972). 327334 (1981).
161. Rice, J.R., An Examination of the Fracture Mechanics Energy Balance from the Point
of View of Continuum Mechanics, Proc. First International Conference on Fracture
(held in Sandia) T. Yokobori, et aJ., eds. Japanese Soc. for Strength and Fracture of
Materials, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 309340 (1965).
162. Rice, J.R., Mathematical Analysis in the Mechanics of Fracture, in Fracture an
Advance Treatise, H. Liebowitz, ed., Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 191250
(1968).
163. Rusch, E.H., Haugh, F.R., and Mayer, M., Schubversuche an Stahlbeton Rechteck
balken mit Gleichmassig verteilter Belastung, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton,
Heft 145, W. Ernst & Sohn, West Berlin (1962).
164. Saouma, V.E., Ingraffea, A.R., and Catalano, D.M., Fracture Thoughness of Con
creteK 1c Revisited, J. of the Energy Mech. Div. ASCE, Vol. 108, pp. 11521166
(1982). .
165. Seaman, L., Curran, D.R. Shockey, D.A., Computational Models for Ductile and
Brittle Fracture, J. of Applied Physica, Vol. 47, No. 11, 1976, pp. 48144826 (also L.
Seaman, Proceedings, NSF Workshop on Damage and Fracture, Stone Mountain,
Nov. 1982, ed. by A. Alturi, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
166. Stout, R.B., Deformation and Thermodynamic Response for a Dislocation Model of
Brittle Fracture, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, to appear (also Report UCRL87472,
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, 1982).
167. Stout, R.B., Thigpen, L., and Peterson, L., Modeling the Deformation of Materials
Involving Microcracks Kinetics, Report UCRL85477, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, Cal., 1981 (to appear in Int. J. of Num. Methods in Geomech
anics, 1983).
168. Stroud, A.H., Approximate Calculation of Multiple Integrals, Prentice Hall, En
glewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 296302 (1971).
169. Swamy, R,N., and Qureshi, S.A., Strength, Cracking and Deformation Similitude in
Reinforced TBeams under Bending and Shear, Part I and Part II, J. of Am. Concrete
Inst., Vol. 68, No.3, pp. 187195 (1971).
170. Taylor, H.P.J., The Shear Strength of Large Beams, J. of the Structural Division
ASCE, Vol. 98, pp. 24732490 (1972).
171. Walraven, J.e., The Influence of Depth on the Shear Strength of Lightweight Concrete
Beams without Shear Reinforcement,: Stevin Laboratory Report No. 5784, Delft
University of Technology (1978).
172. Watstein, D., and Mathey, R.G., Width of Cracks in Concrete at the Surface of
Reinforcing Steel Evaluated by Means of Tensile Bond Specimens, Journal. American
Concrete Institute, Proc. Vol. 56, No.1, pp. 4756.
173. Wecharatana, M., and Shah, S.P., Double Torsion Tests for Studying Slow Crack
Growth of Portland Cement Mortar, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol, 10, pp.
833844 (1980).
174. Wecharatana, M., and Shah, S.P. Slow Crack Growth in Cement Composites, J. of the
Structural Division ASCE, Vol. 108, pp. 14001413 (1982).
175. Wittmann, F.H., Mechanics and Mechanisms of Fracture of Concrete, Advances in
Fracture Research (Preprints, 5th Intern. Conf. on Fracture, in Cannes, March 1981),
Vol. 4, Pergamon Press, Paris, pp. 14671487 (1981).
176. Zaitsev, Y.W., and Wittmann, F.H., Crack Propagation in a TwoPhase Material Such
as Concrete, Fracture, 1977 (Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Fracture), University of
Waterloo, Vol. 3, pp. 11971203 (1977).
177. Zech, B., and Wittmann, F.H., Variability and Mean Value of Strength of Concrete as
a Function of Load, Am. Con<;rete Institute Journal, Vol. 77, No.5, pp. 358362
(1980).
178. Zech, B. and Wittmann,.F.H., Influence of Rate of Loading on Strength of Concrete,
Manuscript (1981). .
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.