P

1 . . 2
:

.
-
.

.

. ,
APDL (ANSYS Parameter Design Language) ANSYS.

.

Growth of shear cracks in non-shear reinforced concrete beams

Irina Kerelezova 1 and M. P. Nielsen 2

ABSTRACT:
A theoretical crack growth formula for the development of cracks in non-shear reinforced
beams is presented and compared with experiments. The formula is based on a non linear two
parameter fracture mechanics model and gives a possibility to investigate the full crack
development.
The shear crack path in longitudinally reinforced beams is determined using the principal
stress criterion of linear elastic fracture mechanics. An investigation and analysis of the crack path,
according to different reinforcement percentages, is made. The numerical simulations are carried
out using APDL (ANSYS Parameter Design Language) programming language of the finite
element package ANSYS. The calculations seem to indicate that the shear failure in the beam
treated is not a fracture mechanics problem. If this is a general trend is not yet clear. More
calculations have to be carried out.
1

Assistant professor, Dr., Eng., Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of civil engineering,
University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy; e-mail: igk_fce@uacg.bg
2
Professor, Dr. techn., Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University of Denmark;
e-mail: mpn@byg.dtu.dk

1. The shear crack problem.

From experiments, it is a welll-known fact that the shear crack path depends on the size of
the beam and on the shear span ratio. The critical shear crack can be an almost straight line, a
curved line, or in some cases beams have collapsed without forming a critical shear crack. The
position of the critical shear crack is also different and dependent on many parameters.
In this paper the position of the critical crack is predicted using the following Jin-Ping
Zhang equation, see [1]:
2

f c*

a x
1+

ax
a x
h ,
*
f
1+

t
a L0
h
h
+

h 2h

(1)

Here f c* is the effective compressive strength of concrete, f t * is the effective tensile strength, L0, h
and a are beam dimensions and can be seen in Figure 1.

L0

initial crack
x
a

L /2
Figure 1: Position of the critical shear crack
This formula is based on the theory of plasticity for non-shear reinforced beams. This particular
theory of plasticity is called the crack sliding theory. The Jin-Ping Zhang formula is a condition for
the equality of cracking load and load-carrying capacity (see Figure 2).

Load

Load carrying
capacity

Cracking load
X

Figure 2: Condition for initiation of critical shear crack

The cracking load is the load needed for formation of an arbitrary shear crack and the load carrying
capacity is the load needed for sliding failure through the crack. When these loads are equal failure
takes place.
One can see from experiments that the crack path of both the critical and the secondary
cracks follow the orientation of the principal stresses of the beam without cracks. The following
figure 3 shows the principal stresses in a typical beam and the experimental crack curves. The
experimental results are taken from [2].

Beam5
Figure 3: Principal stress direction
For this reason we follow the well-known method from linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
(see for instance [4]) using the principal stress criterion to determine the crack path of the critical
shear crack. This criterion is described by the following equations:
K I cos 2
K I cos

c
2

c
2

sin

c
2

+ K II cos

3K II cos

c
2

2
2
cos c 2 sin c = 0 ,
2
2
2

sin

c
2

(2)

= K Ic ,

Here KI and KII are stress intensity factors for mode I and II, respectively, c is the angle between
new and present crack direction, KIc the critical stress intensity factors for mode I, which is assumed
to be a material constant. It is important to notice that for the critical crack path the KII factor has
negligibly small influence and is omitted in the present work.

2. Theoretical model for crack growth.

In this paper we use the crack growth formula proposed by the second author, [3]. This formula
is based on an energy balance equation leading to a simple fracture mechanics model for crack
growth of brittle and quasi-brittle materials. The equation reads:
W
da
a
=
du
W
GF b +
a

l eff
u
l eff
1 +

(3)

This equation is a first order differential equation for the crack length a as a function of the
displacement u in a displacement controlled system. In the equation W is the strain energy of the
system, GF the fracture energy, and b the thickness of the plane model.
The theoretical model is illustrated in figure 4. Here the physical meaning of the effective
length leff and the length of the approximate process zone a 'p - the micro cracking zone according
the present model - is shown. The w, wo and w' are crack openings displacements. The length of the

process zone a 'p is obtained by an Irwin type equilibrium calibration. The effective crack length
a + leff has been determined by approximate energy considerations leading to almost the same
result as the Irwin crack length correction.

ft
elastic

a 'p
w/2

w0/2

w0/2
leff

ap

a
ap

Figure 4: The model

The result from [3] is:

l eff = 0,4a 'p =

0,4 K I2
,
ft2

(4)

where ft is the tensile strength of the concrete.

In the crack growth formula the derivative

W
should be calculated for the effective crack
a

length a + leff.
The model is a simple extension of linear elastic fracture mechanics using two fracture
parameters, namely: the tensile strength ft and the fracture energy GF . The full formation of the crack
may be calculated from a series of linear elastic solutions. The numerical solution of equation (3) is
easily performed using for instance the Runge-Kutta technique.
Regarding the use of (3) in symmetrical crack growth cases (mode I) in plain concrete beams,
see [5] and [6].

3. Numerical model, results and comparisons

For numerical simulations of the present theory the finite element program ANSYS is used.
First the we need to determine the position of the critical shear crack and the crack path along the
beam depth. The critical shear crack position in the bottom face is calculated using equation (1).
The longitudinal reinforcement is linear elastic and modeled with a spring finite element. To obtain
a more realistic modeling of the cracked beam some other prescribed cracks have been added to the
beam. Figure 5 shows the model of the beam. Further the material properties have been indicated.

810
Material data:
320

prescribed cracks

initial crack
125

365

E = 20000 MPa
fc = 32,5 MPa
b =190 mm
As = 982 mm2

765
965

Figure 5: Fixed position of the critical shear crack

The reinforcement ratio has a great influence on the crack growth. If the beam is without any
reinforcement, the crack grows along an almost vertical line like a bending crack. With increasing
reinforcement ratio the crack path becomes more and more curved. In figures 6 and 7 two cases are
shown. The first one (figure 6) is with reinforcement ratio zero and the second one is with a normal
reinforcement (2N25), As = 982 mm2. This latter value has been used in the calculations.

calculated
crack path

prescribed cracks

Figure 6: Calculated critical shear crack path

calculated
crack path

prescribed cracks

Figure 7: Calculated critical shear crack path

The next step is calculation of the crack growth along the crack whose starting position has been
determined. The finite element program APDL (ANSYS Parameter Design Language)
programming language of the finite element package ANSYS has been used. These macros
calculate for every load step all needed fracture parameters and carry on the Runge-Kutta procedure
to solve the differential equation (3).
Parallel with the ANSYS programme another simple programme using Visual Basic for
Applications has been written in Excel. This programme uses the database for the energy of the
beam for different critical shear crack lengths found from a series of finite element solutions. The
programme calculates in a simple way all what is needed for the crack growth formula and finally
solve equation (3) by the Runge-Kutta technique.
Some comparisons between the two programs show that the finite element calculation with the
macros program is very slow and unstable. Thus in the present paper further calculations are done
with the simple Visual Basic program.
In the experimental data in [2] no information is given for the tensile strength of the concrete
and for the fracture energy. The fracture energy has been taken as Gf = 0,0957 N/mm, a typical
value used in [6].
The initial value of the tensile strength is calculated from the compressive strength fc of the
concrete using the following empirical formula (5):
f t = 0,26. f c

( f c in MPa )

(5)

This value of f t is increased by 15% taking into account the water content of the specimen under
the test conditions. Thus
2

f t = 1,15. f t = 1,15.0,26. f c 3 = 3,04MPa ,

(6)

Another correction must be done due to size effects. The size effect law used is of the Weibull
type:
0,1
ft = ft '
a
p
'

0, 3

(7)

where a 'p is the length of the process zone in [m], and 0.1 [m] is the approximate size of a specimen
in a standard test. Since the final value of a 'p is not known, iterations have to be made. Some
typical results are shown in Table 1. These are valid for an initial crack length 41 mm, the smaller
one, which could be calculated.

Table 1: Initial crack length 41 mm

Solution 1
Solution 2
'
5,268
f t [MPa] 3,04
Fu [kN] 45,48
58,26
3,11
l eff [mm] 6,27
'
7,775
a p [mm] 15,675

Solution 3
11,324
81,18
1,367
3,42

The size effect law (5) is probably doubtful for a 'p -values less then the aggregate size, say 5
mm for the present beam. For this reason, we assume the final solution to be solution 2. Thus the
length of the process zone is set at a 'p = 7,775 mm , since in the next solution the value is only

a 'p = 3,42 mm .
The maximum load Fu in Table 1 is the load for which da/du = .
The load-deflection curve for initial crack length 41 mm is shown in Figure 8.
70000

Load [N]

60000

58260

50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
Displacement [mm]

0
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

Figure 8: Load-Displacement curve for investigated beam.

Initial crack length 41 mm.
It appears that the value of the maximum force is rather close to the experimental value, which was
about 70 kN (beam no. 5 in [2]).
Another calculation has been carried out with initial crack length 200 mm. The results are
shown in Table 2 and Figure 9.

Table 2:

Initial crack length 200 mm

Solution 1
Solution 2
'
4,151
f t [MPa] 3,04
Fu [kN] 15,86
17,9
8,189
l eff [mm] 14,16
20,47
a 'p [mm] 35,4

Solution 3
6,68
20,68
4,185
10,46

Solution 4
13,33
23,44
1,38
3,45

Load [N]

25000

20679
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Displacement, [mm]

Figure 9: Load-displacement curve. Initial crack length 200 mm.

The most reasonable solution is probably solution 3. Notice that now both the maximum load
and the displacement is smaller. This could be interpreted as the beam failed by a snap back
phenomenon. However, this is in disagreement with the test report [2], according to which the shear
crack was growing in a stable manner until it reached the compression zone.
Thus our conclusion is that the failure of the beam investigated is not governed by unstable
crack growth. The failure is a sliding failure through the critical shear crack as summed in the crack
sliding theory [1].

4. Concluding remarks
The reason why we may not have an unstable crack growth failure is probably that mode I
relative displacements in the already developed crack are not possible because the crack is curved.
However, this conclusion is preliminary. More calculations are necessary for beams with other
shear span ratios, reinforcement ratios etc.

References
[1] Zhang, Jin-Ping, Strength of cracked concrete, Part 1 Shear strength of conventional
reinforced concrete beams, deep beams, corbels and prestressed reinforced concrete beams
without shear reinforcement, Technical University of Denmark, Dep. Struct. Eng., Serie R, No.
311, 1994.

[2] Leonhardt, Fritz, Ren Walter, Schubversuche an einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit und
ohne Schubbewehrung, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 151, Berlin 1962.
[3] Nielsen, M. P., An Energy Balance Crack Growth Formula, Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, Edited
by Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering, Volume 61, No 3-4, pp.1-125, (1990).
[4] Baant, Z., J. Planas, Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials,
CRC Press, LLC, (1998)
[5] Olsen, D. H., Concrete fracture and cracks growth- a fracture mechanics approach, PhD thesis,
Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Series R, No 42, (1998).
[6] Kerelezova, Irina, Numerical Modeling of Quasibrittle Materials by Means of Fracture Mechanics
Approach, PhD thesis, University of Arch., Civil Eng. & Geodesy, Depart. of Civil Eng., Sofia,
(2002).