You are on page 1of 19

Prediction of Concrete Fracture Mechanics Behavior

and Size Effect using Cohesive Zone Modeling

Kyoungsoo Park, Glaucio H. Paulino, Jeffery R. Roesler

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Center of Excellence for Airport Technology, UIUC

Federal Aviation Administration


Concrete Structures

Assembly Hall, IL. Concrete Pavement

Scaling
Size Effect
Fracture Mechanics

Arch Bridge, TN. 2


Fracture Mechanics Size Effect
log N
Size Effect Method (SEM)
Energy concept Strength Theory

Equivalent elastic crack model Quasi-brittle LEFM

Two size-independent fracture B ft


N = 1
1 + D D0
parameters: Gf and cf 2
log D

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.

Two-Parameter Fracture Model (TPFM)


Equivalent elastic crack model
Two size-independent fracture parameters : KI and CTODc
Jenq, Y. and Shah, S.P. 1985, Two parameter fracture model for concrete, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 111, 1227-1241.
3
Mechanisms of Concrete Fracture

Traction-free macrocrack Bridging zone Microcrack zone


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

f t wcr ( 0 wn < wcr )


Tt Tt
wn Tn f t ( w1 wcr ) ( wcr wn < wk )
T wt
= =
w Tn Tn wn f t ( w f wk ) (w wn < w f )
w wn
k

t 0 (w n wf )
8
ABAQUS User Element (UEL)
Nodal coordinates Transformation Matrix ( R )

Local coordinate system

Numerical Integration

Crack opening width ( wn , wt )

UEL Properties
( GF , G f , f t , , wcr ,thickness) Bi-linear softening curve ( T , T )
w

Global coordinate system Element stiffness matrix ( NT T N )


w
Element stiffness matrix Load vector ( NT T)
R
Load vector

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

Obtain fracture parameters


Compare load-CMOD curves
Size effect
P

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

Stress ratio of the kink point Tensile strength

Total fracture energy

CMOD

Stress ratio of the kink point Total fracture energy

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

Without calibration of the fracture parameters.

Investigate Size Effect


Cohesive Zone Model with bi-linear softening

Experiment results from Three-point bending tests


Bf t
Size effect expression: N =
1 + D D0
Good agreement between the results from the three methods.

19