Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Effect of aggregate shape on the mechanical properties of a simple concrete

C.G. Rocco a, M. Elices b,*
a
Area Departamental Construcciones, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 48 y 115 s/n, 1900 La Plata, Argentina
b
Departamento de Ciencia de Materiales, E.T.S. de Ingenieros de Caminos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, c/Profesor Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The influence of aggregate shape on the fracture energy, tensile strength and elasticity mod-
Received 4 March 2008 ulus in concrete is considered. For this purpose, eight simple cement-based composites
Received in revised form 23 July 2008 were designed, manufactured and tested, with two purposes: to provide experimental data
Accepted 1 October 2008
that can throw some light on this involved problem and help in the design of future
Available online 25 October 2008
cement-based composites, and supply information that can be used as a benchmark for
checking numerical models of concrete failure, as this simple composite is amenable to
Keywords:
being modelled quite easily. Thirty-six notched beams were tested and values of the frac-
Concrete
Cohesive model
ture energy and elasticity modulus were recorded. The tensile strength was measured from
Fracture energy indirect standard tensile tests. Comparison with available experimental data is also
Aggregate shape included and discussed. Fracture was modelled using a cohesive crack with a bilinear soft-
Softening function ening function; data of the softening function inferred from the experimental measure-
ments are also provided and discussed.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The strength of concrete is assumed to depend primarily on two factors: the water to cement ratio and the degree of com-
pactation. Even so, the shape of aggregates has an influence on the concrete strength and this is the subject of this paper. It is
known that the stress at which cracks develop depends largely on the shape of the coarse aggregate; smooth gravel leads to
cracking at lower stresses than rough and angular crushed rock [1]. Also, as coarse aggregates act as crack arresters, so that,
under an increasing load, another crack is likely to open, the shape of the aggregates should influence the fracture energy of
concrete.
All these matters deserve to be evaluated, as there are few references on this subject. The effect of aggregate shape on the
fracture and mechanical properties of concrete was investigated in standard concretes, i.e. concretes made with graded
aggregates: Saouma et al. [2] and Li et al. [3] conducted an investigation on dam concretes, with large aggregates; rounded
and crushed. Donza and Cabrera [4], investigated the role of the shape of fine aggregates; natural sand and crushed sand.
Research along the same lines was performed by Kim et al. [5], as the use of crushed sand as a fine aggregate has rapidly
increased due to a shortage of river sand. Tests on concretes made with rounded and crushed aggregates, between 5 and
7 mm, were also performed by Guinea et al. [6].
Here, measurements of fracture parameters and mechanical properties from very simple concretes – made with spher-
ical aggregates with different diameter for each type of concrete, and crushed aggregates obtained from the spherical
ones – are reported. The difference and the advantage here with respect to the quoted references is that this concrete
is amenable to being numerically modelled, due to its simplicity and because the few parameters needed are known
(properties of the matrix, aggregates and interfaces). These results, although not directly applicable to graded concrete,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 915 43 39 74; fax: +34 915 43 78 45.
E-mail addresses: claudiorocco@sinectis.com.ar (C.G. Rocco), melices@mater.upm.es (M. Elices).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.10.010
 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298 287

Nomenclature

C crushed coarse aggregate (3 mm average size)

C6 crushed coarse aggregate (6 mm average size)
C9 crushed coarse aggregate (9 mm average size)
E elasticity modulus
ft splitting strength
f(w) softening function
GF fracture energy
lch characteristic length EGF =ft2
M2 mortar matrix (w/c = 0.42)
PA percentage of aggregates on the fracture surface
PBA percentage of broken aggregates on the fracture surface
R average roughness
S3 spherical coarse aggregate (3 mm diameter)
S9 spherical coarse aggregate (9 mm diameter)
S14 spherical coarse aggregate (14 mm diameter)
w1 initial crack opening (defined in Fig. 9)
wc critical crack opening
w abscissa of the centroid (defined in Fig. 9)

Greek
rt cohesive strength

can be profitably used as a benchmark for checking numerical models intended to predict the fracture and mechanical
behaviour of concrete.

2. Testing programme

2.1. Materials

Eight different ‘‘simple” concretes were manufactured using the same mortar matrix, two types of aggregate-matrix
interface (strong and weak interfaces) and two aggregate shapes (round and angular). The features of the composite com-
ponents as well as of the concrete are described below:
Aggregates: Commercial spheres of mullite were used as aggregate. The average diameter of the spheres was: 3 mm,
9 mm, and 14 mm, henceforth labelled as S3, S9 and S14. As the aggregate strength strongly depends on heat treatment, in
order to achieve similar strength for all sizes, the spheres were heat-treated for 5 h at the following temperatures; 525 °C
for B3, 625 °C for B9, and 800 °C for B14. Additional information on chemical composition and processing can be found in [7].
Angular aggregates were obtained by crushing mullite spheres of 14 mm diameter, using a small commercial crusher. The
mean size was defined as the arithmetic mean of the sieve size at which the particle is just retained and the sieve size
through which the particle just passes. The sieves considered were: 2.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 10.0 mm and the used aggregates were
those which passed between 2 and 4, between 4 and 8, and between 8 and 10, henceforth labelled as C3, C6 and C9.
Matrix: One type of mortar matrix, identified as M2, was used. The water/cement ratio was 0.42. Mortar was made with a
type III Portland cement (according to ASTM standards) and a natural fine siliceous aggregate of a size between 0.2 and
0.4 mm. Silica fume was added to increase the strength of the mortar, and superplasticizer (Sikament 300Ò) to improve
its workability.
The reason for choosing a water/cement ratio of 0.42 was because the shape of the coarse aggregate’s influence on the
strength of concrete depends on this ratio and its effect is greater at lower values. For water/cement ratios below 0.4, the
use of crushed aggregate provided strengths up to 38% higher than when rounded aggregates are used. With an increase
in the water/cement ratio, the influence of aggregate shape falls off and, at a water/cement ratio of 0.65 no difference in
the strengths of concretes made with crushed rock and gravel was observed [1,8,9].
Matrix–aggregate interface: Two kinds of matrix–aggregate interface – weak and strong – were used. Weak interfaces
were achieved by daubing the spheres with a release agent, whereas strong interfaces were naturally obtained from the ma-
trix and aggregate interaction. Here, strong is used in the sense that the adherence between matrix and aggregates is stron-
ger than when aggregates are smeared with the release agent. We refer to weak and strong interfaces as treated and
untreated types.
Concrete: The composition of the eight concretes is shown in Table 1. In all cases the volume of spherical aggregates was
25.8%. To make the concrete, the matrix was prepared first using a mechanical mixer and then the aggregate was added and
stirred by hand to avoid any damage. Details of this process and of the aggregate interface treatment appear in [7].
288 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

Table 1
Composition of the model concrete (kg/m3).

Cement Water Sand Silica fume Plasticizer Coarse aggregate

470 200 908 30 15 500

2.2. Specimens

Beams of 100  100  450 mm were cast for bending tests. Central notches were milled with a diamond steel disc,
1.5 mm wide. The notch depth was always 30 mm. Beam geometry is shown in Fig. 1a. For each type of concrete, four beams
were tested. All in all, 36 beams were cast; eight kinds of concrete plus the mortar.
Metallic casting forms were greased with a release agent and fixed to a vibration table before the start of casting. Curing
was done in the following way: watertight sheeting was placed over the specimens. They remained in this water-saturated
atmosphere at 20 °C for 24 h, to avoid shrinkage and cracking. Then, the specimens were taken out of the forms, marked, and
immersed in the laboratory water pools (lime saturated water at 20 °C) up to 60 days, until notching and immediate testing.
Cubes of 100  100  100 mm, for indirect tensile tests, were manufactured from the broken parts of the notched tests, as
shown in Fig. 1b.

2.3. Testing procedures

Two kinds of test were done: stable three-point bend tests with prismatic notched specimens, as recommended by RILEM
TC-50 [10], and indirect splitting tests with cubic specimens. In the bending test, possible sources of experimental errors, as
detailed in [11–14] were taken into account.
Bending tests were performed in an 1MN servo-hydraulic testing machine INSTRON 1275, run in crack mouth opening
displacement (CMOD) control mode, recording the crack opening, the load and the displacement of the loading point. Load
was measured with a 5 kN load cell of 5 N resolution and 0.25% accuracy. An extensometer, of ±2.5 mm and ±0.2% error at full
scale displacement, was used to measure the CMOD. The load-point displacement was measured by two transducers of
±2.0 mm and ±0.2% error at full scale. A discussion on the stability of the notched beam test can be found in [15].
Cubic specimens cut from the tested beams were used for splitting tests which were done under displacement-mode con-
trol following the recommendations of ASTM C 496, except for specimen size and width of the load-bearing strip, which was
4 mm. Previous work by the authors [16] had shown that the standard width of the bearing strip – 16% of the specimen
depth – is usually over-dimensioned and can lead to an erroneous estimation of tensile strength. We kept the relative width
of the bearing strip between 4% and 10%.

Fig. 1. Specimen geometries and loading set-up.

 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298 289

The fracture energy of the spherical aggregates, B14, was measured using notched beam tests. Here, we used cylindrical
bars where the central part was an aggregate glued to the bar, (as shown in Fig. 1c). The stress intensity factor was computed
according [17]. Tests were performed under displacement control at a rate of 1 lm/s, while load and relative displacement
were measured during testing; loads were measured with a 1 kN load cell of 1 N resolution and 0.25% accuracy. Displace-
ments, relative to the initial load application point, were measured with inductive transducers of ±2.0 mm range and 0.2%
error at full scale.
Tensile strength and elasticity modulus of spherical aggregates were measured by means of compression tests, using the
same procedure as in Refs. [7,18].

3. Experimental results

3.1. Notched beam tests

3.1.1. Fracture topography

After testing, the proportion of debonded and broken aggregates in the fracture surfaces was measured by image analysis.
The projected surfaces of both debonded and broken aggregates on the fracture surface were also measured. From these data
we drew up the following indexes (expressed in percentage), which give an idea of the type of fracture:

projected surface of aggregatesðbroken and debondedÞ

PðBA þ DAÞ ¼  100 ð1Þ
projected broken surface
projected surface of broken aggregates
PðBAÞ ¼  100 ð2Þ
projected broken surface
projected surface of bonded aggregates
PðDAÞ ¼  100 ð3Þ
projected broken surface

All these results, as well as the percentage of broken aggregates, BA/(BA + DA) are summarized in Table 2.
When the percentage of aggregates P(BA + DA) is above the value of a concrete with homogeneously distributed aggre-
gates – 25.8% in this simple concrete – this means that the crack has bypassed the aggregates and found its way mainly
through the matrix or the aggregate–matrix interfaces, indicating transgranular fracture or extensive debonding.
Topographic analysis of the crack surfaces produced by the three-point bend tests was performed by means of a laser pro-
filemeter. Twelve profiles, 5 mm spaced and parallel to the crack front, were measured on one of the cracked halves of the
specimens. The profile points were recorded every 20 lm along the path, with a resolution of 3 lm in height. Fig. 2 shows
some representative fracture surfaces for concrete made with spherical aggregates (untreated and treated) and concrete
made with crushed aggregates (untreated and treated).
The average roughness R was calculated for every concrete batch. This standard amplitude parameter is conventionally
defined as [19]
Z L
1
R¼ jzðxÞjdx ð4Þ
L 0

where L is length of the projected profile, and z(x) is the centre-line profile, which satisfies
Z L
0¼ zðxÞdx ð5Þ
0

The mean roughness of each specimen was computed by averaging the 12 values – one for every profile – of R measured on
the specimen. The roughness of each concrete batch was obtained as the average of the four specimens tested per batch and
shown in Table 2, jointly with the normalized value of the actual fracture surface area Aa/Ap.

Table 2
Average values of percentage of broken (B) aggregates, debonded (D) aggregates, and fracture surface roughness (R).

Aggregate Interface P(BA + DA)% P(BA)% P(DA)% R (mm) Aa/Ap

S3 Untreated 25.2 25.2 0.0 0.64 1.13
S9 Untreated 32.8 32.8 0.0 0.70 1.14
S14 Untreated 28.5 27.6 0.9 0.71 1.14
C3 Untreated 24.7 24.7 0.0 0.58 1.19
C6 Untreated 29.4 29.4 0.0 0.70 1.19
C9 Untreated 29.0 29.0 0.0 0.78 1.18
S9 Treated 30.5 5.1 25.4 1.49 1.28
C6 Treated 32.2 23.7 8.5 1.30 1.37

Aa/Ap: actual fracture surface/projected fracture surface.

290 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

Fig. 2. Fracture surfaces for concrete made with spherical aggregates; (a) untreated (strong matrix–aggregate interface) and (b) treated (weak matrix–
aggregate interface). Fracture surfaces for concrete made with crushed aggregates; (c) untreated (strong matrix–aggregate interface) and (d) treated (weak
matrix–aggregate interface).

3.1.2. Fracture energy

Measured values of the specific fracture energy, GF, according RILEM TC-50 proposal [10], are recorded in Table 3. The
values of the specific fracture energy GF were obtained by dividing the measured work of fracture by the projected area
of fracture according to the RILEM recommendation. Inspection of the fractured surfaces showed different degrees of rough-
ness – depending on the type of aggregate and matrix–aggregate interfaces – and hence different values of the actual areas,
although all surfaces had the same projected area. A knowledge of the fracture energy expended per unit of actual area, in-
stead of the projected area, may cast some light on the fracture processes at the meso-level. Additional remarks on measure-
ment procedures and meaning of GF can be found in [14,18], as well as about the fractal nature of the actual fracture surface
in [20].
Note that concrete GF values are always higher than the matrix one. It also appears that fracture energy increases as the
aggregate size increases. It is worth noticing the high values corresponding to crushed aggregates whose surface was treated
with a release agent to decrease adherence between aggregate and matrix interface.

3.1.3. Elasticity modulus

Measured values of the initial elasticity modulus, E, deduced from the load-displacement curves during the notched beam
tests, are also shown in Table 3.
For the simple concrete with untreated round aggregates, E slightly decreases as the aggregate size increases. For the sim-
ple concrete with crushed aggregates, this tendency is not so clear. What is evident are the lower values recorded for con-
cretes with treated aggregates, regardless of their shape.

Table 3
Average values of measured mechanical properties.

Aggregate Interface Tensile strength (MPa) Elasticity modulus (GPa) Fracture energy (J/m2) Peak loads (kN)
*
S3 Untreated 3.25 24.5 40.0
*
S9 Untreated 3.00 23.4 43.3
*
S14 Untreated 3.10 22.9 48.3
C3 Untreated 3.32 26.5 41.1 3.9
C6 Untreated 3.35 27.9 44.4 4.2
C9 Untreated 3.19 24.1 48.3 3.8
*
S9 Treated 2.19 20.3 41.2
C6 Treated 2.10 21.4 59.7 3.3
*
Matrix 3.26 27.0 34.0
Aggregates 2.80 6.0 60.0** *

*
Not available.
**
Measured on S14.
 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298 291

3.1.4. Peak loads

Average values of recorded peak loads for each concrete type are also summarized in Table 3. These values may be helpful
for checking numerical models of concrete when the mechanical properties of the components are known.

3.2. Splitting tests

Average tensile strength, ft, of the simple concretes as measured using the splitting-tension test, according ASTM C496,
are given in Table 3. For concrete made with untreated aggregates, a decline of ft seems to take place as the aggregate size
increases. Simple concrete, where aggregate debonding was helped, shows a clear decrease of ft by comparison with un-
treated aggregates.
Average values of some mechanical properties of the matrix and aggregates are also summarized in Table 3.

4. Discussion and comments

4.1. Surface topography

The fracture surfaces of concrete made with strong aggregate–matrix interface (untreated aggregates) show that almost all
aggregates are broken (index P(DA) is zero, except for concrete S14 where its value is less than 1%) regardless of aggregate
size and shape (see Table 2). The projected surface of broken aggregates on the fracture plane ranges from 24.7% to 32.8%.
Fracture surfaces of concrete made with weak aggregate–matrix interface (treated aggregates) exhibit two different fea-
tures depending on aggregate shape; concrete made with spherical aggregates show extensive debonding (index P(DA) is
25.4% and P(BA) only 5.1%, as indicated in Table 2) whereas fracture surfaces of concrete with crushed aggregates show
extensive aggregate fracture (index P(BA) is 23.7% and P(DA) only 8.5%, see Table 2).
An interesting finding related to the fracture surface of concrete made with treated angular aggregates was that, although
almost all aggregates were broken, many interfaces between matrix and aggregate were debonded (as shown in Fig. 3). Such
finding is indicative that two toughening mechanisms may be operative, at the aggregate level; a debonding mechanism and
another due to aggregate breaking. This behaviour does not occur with spherical aggregates due to their particular shape.
Average roughness, R, of the fracture surfaces is shown in Fig. 4a as a function of aggregate size. For comparison purposes,
the scatter band of the matrix roughness and additional values of concrete made with treated spherical aggregates are also
included, taken from [21]. As can be observed, the average roughness of concretes with untreated aggregates (strong inter-
face) is similar to the matrix roughness and does not depend on the aggregate shape (see Fig. 2), although it seems that there
is a modest increase with aggregate size. Conversely, concretes made with treated aggregates (weak interface) exhibit an
appreciable increase in roughness value, regardless of the rupture type, i.e. broken or debonded aggregates (see, also Fig. 2).
Fig. 4b shows the actual fracture surface area, normalized to the projected fracture surface area, as a function of aggregate
size, for the eight considered concretes. Again, concretes made with untreated aggregates (strong interface) display no dif-
ferences with respect to the matrix and appear to be independent of the aggregate shape or size. Once more, concretes made
with treated aggregates show a substantial increase of the fracture surface.

4.2. Tensile strength

Fig. 5 shows, for the two shapes of considered aggregates, the experimental results of the tensile strength ft (normalized
to the corresponding matrix value) as a function of the aggregate size. For concretes with strong matrix–aggregate interface

Fig. 3. Debonded interfaces between matrix and aggregate.

292 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

Fig. 4. (a) Roughness of the fracture surface as a function of aggregate size, for spherical and crushed aggregates, both with different kinds of matrix–
aggregate interfaces. (b) Normalized fracture surface area as a function of aggregate size, for spherical and crushed aggregates, both with different kinds of
matrix–aggregate interfaces.

the tensile strength was almost equal to the matrix tensile strength with a very low dependence on aggregate shape (angular
aggregates give values a bit higher than spherical ones) and aggregate size (a small decrease with increasing size may be
conceived). Concretes made with weak matrix–aggregate interfaces show a different behaviour; both concretes, made with
spherical or angular aggregates, gave tensile strengths much lower than the matrix and these values do not appear to depend
on aggregate shape. This figure also shows the tensile strength results as a function of size for spherical aggregates with weak
interfaces, already reported in [21].
Other authors have found a similar trend [2,3,6]; a small increase in tensile strength when using crushed aggregates in-
stead of round ones of the same size. Additionally, this effect can be found when considering the shape of fine aggregates, as
reported by Donza and Cabrera [4]. Experimental results from Refs. [2–4,6] are summarized in Table 4. Some time ago, Kap-
lan [22] observed that the flexural strength was generally lower than the flexural strength of corresponding mortar. Mortar
would thus seem to set an upper limit to the tensile strength of concrete, at least when the matrix–aggregate interface is
weak or for rounded aggregates [21].

4.3. Modulus of elasticity

Fig. 6 shows, for the two shapes of considered aggregates, the experimental results of the initial modulus of elasticity E
(normalized to the corresponding matrix value) as a function of aggregate size. Concretes made with a strong matrix–aggre-
gate interface gave slightly lower values than the matrix value (except concrete C6, whose value was almost equal). It seems
 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298 293

Fig. 5. Normalized tensile strength (with respect to the matrix) as a function of the aggregate size, for spherical and crushed aggregates, both with different
kinds of matrix–aggregate interfaces.

Table 4
Effect of aggregate shape on mechanical properties of concrete.

Reference Aggregate size (mm) Aggregate type ft (MPa) E (GPa) GF (J/m2) lch (mm)
Saouma et al. [16] 38 (max) Round 2.67 16.9 223 529
38 (max) Crushed 3.96 23.2 227 336
Li et al. [17] 540 Round 1.80 24.6 420 3189
540 Crushed 2.12 17.6 249 1047
5150 Round 1.58 43.1 490 8460
5150 Crushed 1.91 40.0 497 5463
Guinea et al. [18] 57 Round 3.93 39.8 94.7
57 Crushed 4.15 33.1 136.0
57* Round 4.93 40.0 87.1
57* Crushed 4.89 34.7 127.5
Donza and Cabrera [4] Fine (S) Round 3.59 40.0
Fine (G) Crushed 4.08 39.8
Fine (G) Crushed 4.54 39.4
Fine (L) Crushed 4.09 39.8
Fine (D) Crushed** 4.39 36.6

(S) siliceous, (G) granite, (L) limestone, (D) dolomite.

*
With silica fume.
**
Elongate.

that there is a tendency for E to decrease with aggregate size and that concretes made with crushed aggregates provide E
values somewhat higher than concretes made with spherical ones. Concretes made with a weak matrix–aggregate interface
show lower values of the modulus of elasticity, about 20% or 25% below the matrix modulus, and no effect of aggregate shape
is apparent.
Saouma et al. [2], working with dam concretes, obtained similar results for round and crushed aggregates of 38 mm max-
imum size. Other authors have found different results; Li et al. [3], also working with dam concretes, measured a decrease in
E, when comparing concretes made with round and crushed aggregates. A similar trend was found by Guinea et al. [6] for
concretes made with small aggregates (between 5 and 7 mm). All these results are summarized in Table 4.

4.4. Fracture energy

Fig. 7 shows, for the two shapes of considered aggregates, the experimental results of the specific fracture energy GF (nor-
malized to the corresponding matrix value) as a function of the aggregate size. Concretes made with a strong matrix–aggre-
gate interface always show higher GF values than the matrix, increasing with aggregate size. It seems that concretes made
with angular aggregates provide slightly higher GF values than concretes made with spherical ones. Concretes made with
weak matrix–aggregate interfaces also gave higher GF values than the matrix and appear to depend on the aggregate shape.
Fracture of concrete made with spherical aggregates occurs by debonding and provides GF values similar to well-bonded
aggregates. Fracture of concrete with crushed aggregates gives higher GF values; by observing the surface fractures it seems
294 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

Fig. 6. Normalized elasticity modulus (with respect to the matrix) as a function of the aggregate size, for spherical and crushed aggregates, both with
different kinds of matrix–aggregate interfaces.

Fig. 7. Normalized specific fracture energy (with respect to the matrix) as a function of the aggregate size, for spherical and crushed aggregates, both with
different kinds of matrix–aggregate interfaces.

that, first, aggregates partially debond (perhaps due to the weaker interface) and, finally, break due to underpinning and
aggregate interlocking.
For dam concrete, Saouma et al. [2] and Li et al. [3] (for large aggregates) found a similar trend; a small increase when
using crushed aggregates instead of rounded ones. Guinea et al. [6] also found the same trend with concretes made with
small aggregates (sizes between 5 and 7 mm) with and without silica fume. All these experimental results are summarized
in Table 4.

4.5. Characteristic length

It is well known that the fracture energy GF alone does not suffice to characterize the brittleness of concrete and its depen-
dence on the size of the structure. Hillerborg [23] proposed a brittleness number b = l/lch, where l is any structural dimension
and lch a material parameter, know as the characteristic length, defined as

lch ¼ EGF =ft2 ð6Þ

The higher the brittleness number of a given structure, the lower its ductility. Over the years, there have been other propos-
als for brittleness numbers (see, for example, Bazant, Planas), most of them closely connected with b.
 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298 295

Values of the characteristic length for the eight simple concretes considered in this research are shown in Table 5 and
relative values, with respect to the mortar matrix, are depicted in Fig. 8. Concrete made with strong matrix–aggregate inter-
face always shows values higher than the matrix, increasing with aggregate size. No clear trend was found with respect to
the influence of aggregate shape. Concretes made with weak matrix–aggregate interfaces display much higher values for
characteristic length, particularly those made with treated angular aggregates. In this particular case, the mechanisms
responsible for the significant increase of GF and those that control the decrease in tensile strength – all conducive to high
lch values and, hence, more ductile concretes – are worth to be investigated.

4.6. The softening curve

The cohesive crack model is generally accepted as a realistic simplification of the fracture of brittle or quasibrittle mate-
rials. In this model, the whole fracture process is lumped into a line, which makes it possible to treat the whole bulk of the
body as elastic. A review of this model’s main aspects and relevant references appear in a paper by the authors [24] and in
[25]. For a detailed exposition, see [26].
The cohesive crack model is able to capture the main aspects of the fracture of brittle materials [27], particularly of com-
ponents with blunted notches that do not exhibit a precrack or singularity. This model can be generalized in different ways:
(1) the material outside the process zone –considered initially as isotropic linear elastic – can behave in a more complex
manner, (2) the softening function may depend on triaxiality, or on previous loading history, and (3) the uniaxial model for-
mulation can be generalized to a mixed-mode one. Discussions of such possible extensions were published in [23,28] and
updated by the authors in [26,29].
In concrete-like materials, the softening curve can be approximated by a bilinear function [30,31], as depicted in Fig. 9.
This simple diagram captures the essential facts: large-scale debonding, or fracture, of aggregates in the steepest part,
and frictional pull-out of aggregates and crack face bridging in the shallow tail of the diagram. This function is completely
characterized when the following four parameters are known, as shown in the figure: the tensile strength rt, the specific
 and the initial slope, measured as the horizontal inter-
fracture energy GF, the abscissa of the centroid of the softening area w,
cept w1 of the initial segment.

Table 5
Average values of the characteristic length and critical crack opening.

Aggregate Interface lch (mm) wc (lm) w1 (lm)

S3 Untreated 92.8 196 15.7
S9 Untreated 112.6 285 22.3
S14 Untreated 115.1 357 22.6
C3 Untreated 101.4 192 16.5
C6 Untreated 110.4 217 15.1
C9 Untreated 114.4 231 17.0
S9 Treated 174.4 456 30.7
C6 Treated 289.7 324 36.2
Matrix 84.0 123 9.9

Fig. 8. Characteristic length as a function of the aggregate size for the eight simple concretes considered in this research.
296 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

Fig. 9. Bilinear softening function and notation used in the paper.

Fig. 10. Normalized (with respect to the matrix) crack opening as a function of the aggregate size, for spherical and crushed aggregates, both with different
kinds of matrix–aggregate interfaces. (a) Critical crack opening and (b) initial crack opening.
 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298 297

The four parameters needed for the bilinear approximation can be easily computed following the fitting procedure devel-
oped by the authors [32,33] which makes use of the results from stable three-point bending tests of notched beams and from
indirect splitting tests. The splitting-tension test gives results close to the actual cohesive strength, as was shown in [33].
Therefore, rt was considered equivalent to ft.
The influence of aggregate shape (spherical or angular) on rt and GF was already discussed. Only the change of w1 and the
critical crack opening wc (see Fig. 8) will be considered here. Average values for the eight concretes and the matrix are sum-
marized in Table 5.
Fig. 10a and b shows, as a function of aggregate size, the relative (with respect to the matrix) average values of w1 and wc,
for the eight concretes considered in this research jointly with experimental results for concretes made with treated spher-
ical aggregates reported in [21]. As may be observed, both sets of results are always higher than the matrix openings and
display increasing values as the aggregate size increases. With respect to the influence of the aggregate shape, it seems that
the critical crack opening – related with frictional pull-out of aggregates and crack face bridging – increases faster for spher-
ical aggregates than for crushed ones. The most remarkable results are the differences between treated and untreated aggre-
gates; untreated aggregates (where the matrix–aggregate interface was weaker) provided crack opening values much higher
than those measured in concretes with stronger matrix–aggregate interfaces. The nonlinear part of the stress-strain curve is
related with cracks starting from the aggregates [34] and, in this respect, the shape of the aggregates should be related also
with this part of the curve. Two parameters of the softening curve – the critical crack opening, wc, and the initial crack open-
ing, w1 – are involved in the cracking process and its dependence on aggregate shape was discussed, but further research is
needed to clarify the dependence of the nonlinear part of the stress–strain curve with aggregate shape.

5. Summary and conclusions

This research is an extension of previous analysis dealing with a simple cement-based composite made with spherical
aggregates of the same diameter [7,18,21]. Here, the mechanical properties of this simple composite – made now with
crushed aggregates – are compared with previous ones and the main findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Regarding standard properties, as elasticity modulus and tensile strength, it was found that for strong matrix–aggregate
interfaces, concrete made with crushed aggregates provides values of the elasticity modulus somewhat higher than concrete
made with spherical ones, and that there is a tendency for the modulus to decrease with aggregate size for both kinds of
aggregates. The tensile strength shows almost no dependence on aggregate shape and aggregate size. For weak matrix–
aggregate interfaces, the elasticity modulus is lower and no effect of aggregate shape is apparent. The tensile strength is al-
ways much lower than the matrix and does not appear to depend on aggregate shape.
Toughness is characterized by the specific fracture energy and the characteristic length. For strong matrix–aggregate inter-
faces, concrete made with crushed aggregates provides slightly higher values of the fracture energy than for concrete made
with spherical ones, and the fracture energy increases with aggregate size for both types of aggregates. With respect to the
characteristic length, no clear trend was found regarding the influence of aggregate shape although it increases with aggre-
gate size. For weak matrix–aggregate interfaces, the fracture energy is higher for crushed aggregates than for spherical ones.
The characteristic length also shows higher values for crushed aggregates than for spherical ones.
The softening curve – a material property when using cohesive models – is also sensitive to the aggregate shape. For
strong matrix–aggregate interfaces the relative critical crack opening (with respect to the concrete matrix) seems higher
for spherical than for crushed aggregates and in both cases, increases with aggregate size. A similar trend was found for
the relative initial crack opening w1 (see Fig. 9). For weak matrix–aggregate interfaces, the relative critical crack opening is
higher for spherical aggregates than for crushed ones and the contrary seems to happen for the relative initial crack opening
where the values for crushed aggregates are higher than the corresponding spherical aggregates.
Most of these results were already known in a qualitative way for standard concretes [2–5]: the merit of this research is to
provide quantitative results for a kind of simple composite amenable to be modeled numerically, particularly when dealing
with fracture predictions.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge José Miguel Martínez for help with drawing the figures. The present work was con-
ducted within the framework provided by the Projects Programa Ramón y Cajal, DUMEINPA (S-0505/MAT-0155), sponsored
by the Comunidad de Madrid, Spain, and SEDUREC, integrated in the Spanish national research program CONSOLIDER-INGE-
NIO 2010.

References

[1] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. England: Longman Group Ltd.; 1995.
[2] Saouma VE, Broz JJ, Brühwiler E, Boggs HL. Effect of aggregate and specimen size on fracture properties of dam concrete. J Mater Civil Engng
1991;3:204–18.
[3] Li Q, Deng Z, Fu H. Effect of aggregate type on mechanical behaviour of dam concrete. ACI Mater J 2004;101(6):483–92.
[4] Donza H, Cabrera O. The influence of kinds of fine aggregate on mechanical properties of high strength concrete. In: Proceedings of 4th international
symposium of high-strength/high-performance concrete, París, France, vol. 2; 1996. p. 153–60.
298 C.G. Rocco, M. Elices / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 286–298

[5] Kim J, Lee C, Park C, Eo S. The fracture characteristics of crushed limestone sand concrete. Cement Concrete Res 1997;27(11):1719–29.
[6] Guinea GV, El-Sayed KM, Rocco C, Elices M, Planas J. The effect of the bond between the matrix and the aggregates on the cracking mechanism and
fracture parameters of concrete. Cement Concrete Res 2002;32:1961–70.
[7] Roselló C, Elices M. Fracture of model concrete: 1. Types of fracture and crack path. Cement Concrete Res 2004;34:1441–50.
[8] Kuczynski W. L’influence de l’emploi d’agrégats gros sur la résistance du béton. Archiwum Inzynierii Ladowej 1958;4(2):181–209.
[9] Franklin RE, King TMJ. Relations between compressive and indirect-tensile strengths of concrete. Road. Res. Lab. Rep. LR412. Berks: Crowthorne; 1971.
32 pp.
[10] RILEM 50-FMC Recommendation. Determination of fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend test on notched beams. Mater
Struct 1985;18:285–90.
[11] Guinea GV, Planas J, Elices M. Measurement of the fracture energy using three-point bend tests: I. Influence of experimental procedures. Mater Struct
1992;25:212–8.
[12] Planas J, Elices M, Guinea GV. Measurements of the fracture energy using three-point bend tests: 2. Influence of bulk energy dissipation. Mater Struct
1992;25:305–12.
[13] Elices M, Guinea GV, Planas J. Measurement of the fracture energy using three-point bend tests. 3. Influence of cutting the P-d tail. Mater Struct
1992;25:327–34.
[14] Elices M, Guinea GV, Planas J. On the measurement of concrete fracture energy using three-point bend tests. Mater Struct 1997;30:375–6.
[15] Petersson PE. Fracture energy of concrete: practical performance and experimental results. Cement Concrete Res 1980;10:91–101.
[16] Rocco C, Guinea GV, Planas J, Elices M. Size effect and boundary conditions in the Brazilian test: experimental verification. Mater Struct
1999;32:210–7.
[17] Murakami Y, editor. Stress intensity factors handbook, vol. 4. JSMS and Elsevier Sci. Ltd.; 2001. p. 12.
[18] Roselló C, Elices M, Guinea GV. Fracture of model concrete: 2. The fracture energy and characteristic length. Cement Concrete Res 2006;36:1345–53.
[19] Thomas TR. Rough surfaces. London: Imperial College Press; 1999.
[20] Saouma VE, Barton C. Fractals, fractures and size effects in concrete. J Engng Mech ASCE 1994;120:835–54.
[21] Elices M, Rocco C. Effect of aggregate size on the mechanical properties of a simple concrete. Engng Fract Mech 2008;75:3839–51.
[22] Kaplan MF. Flexural and compressive strength of concrete as affected by the properties of coarse aggregates. J Am Concrete Inst 1959;55:1193–200.
[23] Hillerborg A. Results of three comparative test series for determining the fracture energy GF of concrete. Mater Struct 1985;18:407–13.
[24] Elices M, Guinea GV, Gómez FJ, Planas J. The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:137–63.
[25] Cornec A, Scheider I, Schwalbe KH. On the practical application of the cohesive model. Engng Fract Mech 2003;70:1963–87.
[26] Bazant ZP, Planas J. Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1998 [chapter 7].
[27] Stang H, Olesen JF, Poulsen PN, Nielsen LD. On the application of cohesive crack modelling in cementitious materials. Mater Struct 2007;40:365–74.
[28] Elices M, Planas J. Material models. In: Elfgren L, editor. Fracture mechanics of concrete structures. London: Chapman and Hall; 1989. p. 16–66.
[29] Planas J, Elices M, Guinea GV, Gómez FJ, Cendón DA, Arbilla I. Generalizations and specializations of cohesive crack models. Engng Fract Mech
2003;70:1759–76.
[30] Roester J, Paulino GH, Park K, Gaedicke C. Concrete fracture prediction using bilinear softening. Cement Concrete Comp 2007;29:300–12.
[31] Park K, Paulino GH, Roesler JR. Determination of the kink point in the bilinear softening model for concrete. Engng Fract Mech 2008;75:3806–18.
[32] Guinea GV, Planas J, Elices M. A general bilinear fitting for the softening curve of concrete. Mater Struct 1994;27:99–105.
[33] Planas J, Guinea GV, Elices M. Size effect and inverse analysis in concrete fracture. Int J Fracture 1999;95:367–78.
[34] Hsu TC, Slate FO, Sturman GM, Winter G. Microcracking of plain concrete and the shape of the stress–strain curve. J Am Concrete Inst 1963;60:209–24.