Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Scaling
Size Effect
Fracture Mechanics
Bazant ZP, Kazemi MT. 1990, Determination of fracture energy, process zone length and brittleness
number from size effect, with application to rock and concrete, International Journal of Fracture, 44,
111-131.
Why Cohesive Zone Model?
ft
w
wf
4
Outline
Motivation
Cohesive Zone Model for Concrete
Finite Element Analysis Implementation
Numerical Prediction of Three-point Bending Tests
Size Effect
Summary
5
Concept of Cohesive Zone Model
ft
Stage I
Elastic behavior
Stage II IV III II I
Crack initiation wf w
Tensile strength
Stage III
Penalty stiffness
ft
Non-linear cohesive law
Bi-linear softening curve for concrete
Stage IV ft
Traction-free macro-crack Gf GF G f w
w1 wf
6
Determination of the Cohesive Law
Bi-linear softening curve Cohesive strength : ft
Splitting test
Penalty stiffness
ft
Initial fracture energy : Gf
Size effect method (SEM)
Two-parameter fracture model (TPFM)
Kink point Total fracture energy: GF
ft
Gf Hillerborgs work-of-fracture method
GF G f
w1 wf w The stress ratio of the kink point :
Peterson : 1/3
2G f
w1 =
ft Wittmann : 0.25
Bazant : 0.15~0.33
2
wf = GF (1 )G f
ft
7
FEA Implementation
Principle of Virtual Work v4 v3
u4 wn
Virtual Internal Work = External Virtual Work u3
wt
v1
T d + wT T d c = uT F d v2
c u1 u2
FEA Formulation
T
E B d +
B NT N d c u = P d
T
c w
t 0 (w n wf )
8
ABAQUS User Element (UEL)
Nodal coordinates Transformation Matrix ( R )
Numerical Integration
UEL Properties
( GF , G f , f t , , wcr ,thickness) Bi-linear softening curve ( T , T )
w
9
Numerical Verification
Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) Test
P
2h
2
a0 a 3EI
L P=
a03 2
2
G 3 EB 4 h3
P= 4
108 2
Y
Z X
10
Three-Point Bending Test
D
a0
S
L
[mm]
11
Experimental Results
Fresh and Hardened Properties of the Concrete
Fresh Concrete Hardened Concrete
Density 2403 kg/m3 Compressive strength 58.3 MPa
Slump 100 mm Split strength 4.15 MPa
Air content 2.8 % Modulus of elasticity 32.0 GPa
Fracture Parameters
Hillerborg TPFM SEM
GF (N/m) KI (MPa m1/2) CTODc (mm) Gf (N/m) cf (mm)
B250-80a 193 1.261 0.0167
B250-80b 139 1.203 0.0181
B250-80c 169 1.497 0.0319
B150-80a N/A N/A N/A
B150-80b 170 1.086 0.0255
B150-80c 159 0.983 0.0115
52.1 24.36
B63-80a N/A N/A N/A
B63-80b 106 1.012 0.0159
B63-80c N/A 0.834 0.0115
CB63-80a 123 1.130 0.0142
CB63-80b 124 1.002 0.0075
CB63-80c 123 1.293 12 0.0184
Specimen Geometry and FE Mesh
Y
Z X
Cohesive elements
Y
ZX
13
Numerical Validation Small Beam
D = 63 (mm)
ft = 4.15 (MPa)
Gf = 56.6 & 52.1 (N/m)
GF = 119 (N/m)
= 0.25
D
a0
CMOD
14
Numerical Validation Intermediate Beam
D = 150 (mm)
ft = 4.15 (MPa)
Gf = 56.6 & 52.1 (N/m)
GF = 164 (N/m)
= 0.25
D
a0
CMOD
15
Numerical Validation Large Beam
D = 250 (mm)
ft = 4.15 (MPa)
Gf = 56.6 & 52.1 (N/m)
GF = 167 (N/m)
= 0.25
P
D
a0
CMOD
16
Model Sensitivity
Initial fracture energy
Load
Tensile strength
CMOD
17
Size Effect
D = 63mm D = 150mm D = 250mm
log ( Nu ) ( Pa )
1.00E+06
Experimental data
Numerical Result
*
TPFM
SEM
Bf t
N =
1 + D D0
1.00E+05
10 100 1000 10000
log ( D ) ( mm )
18
Summary
Predict Load-CMOD Curve
Bi-linear softening cohesive zone model
19