European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering

ISSN: 1964-8189 (Print) 2116-7214 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Determination of fracture energy and fracture

toughness of two types of concrete and their
interface

Wei Chen, Wangyang Xie, Xiang Li, Wenjie Zou & Helin Fu

To cite this article: Wei Chen, Wangyang Xie, Xiang Li, Wenjie Zou & Helin Fu (2018):
Determination of fracture energy and fracture toughness of two types of concrete
and their interface, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/19648189.2018.1518159

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1518159

Published online: 23 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tece20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1518159

NOTE

Determination of fracture energy and fracture toughness of

two types of concrete and their interface
Wei Chena,b, Wangyang Xiea, Xiang Lic , Wenjie Zoua and Helin Fua,b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China; bNational Engineering Laboratory
for High-Speed Railway Construction, Changsha, China; cSchool of Resources and Safety Engineering,
Central South University, Changsha, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this study, three-point bending tests are performed on high-strength Received 3 January 2018
concrete, low-strength concrete, cementation of high and low-strength Accepted 27 August 2018
concrete with interface between them and interface reinforced by steel
KEYWORDS
fibre, respectively. The corresponding crack initiation load, peak load,
Concrete; interface;
external works at several loading points, fracture energy, pre-failure fibre-reinforced interface;
damage characteristics and double-K fracture toughness parameters are fracture energy; double-K
analysed based on test data utilising the theory of fracture mechanics. fracture toughness
The quantitative comparisons of these values are made for different
types of specimens. It reveals that the interface causes a great reduction
on crack initiation load, peak load, the fracture energy, initiation fracture
toughness and unstable fracture toughness. The pre-failure process of
specimens with interface develops faster than other intact specimens. In
addition, the steel fibre can reinforce the interface, especially, in increas-
ing the sustainability at the post failure stage.

1. Introduction
The interface widely exists in repaired structures (Lim, Kim, Shin, & Li, 2001), composite struc-
tures (Chandra Kishen & Subba Rao, 2007) and high-speed railway track slab structures (Zhu
& Cai, 2014). However, it is generally considered to be the weakest part of the whole struc-
ture. Due to its extensive applications in constructional structures, the strength and fracture
behaviour of concrete–concrete interface has become a research focus for scientists in the
last decades. For example, Tschegg and Stanzl (1991) have measured the adhesive power of
interface between old-new concretes based on splitting tensile tests. Tayeh, Abu Bakar, and
Megat Johari (2013) investigated characteristics of the interface between old concrete and
steel fibre-reinforced concrete with ultra-high performance. Chandra Kishen and Subba Rao
(2007) analysed the fracture properties of concrete–concrete, transversely cold jointed inter-
face beams. Shah and Kishen (2010a, 2010b) studied the fracture behaviour of concrete–con-
crete interface by acoustic emission technique and analysed nonlinear fracture properties of
the interface.
Although various studies have been carried out in this area, the fracture toughness and frac-
ture characteristic of interface of different material properties in concrete was still overlooked. To
explore the mechanisms of fracturing process of the interface between concretes, a systematic

CONTACT Xiang Li lixiang2006lixiang@hotmail.com School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South
University, No. 932 Lushan South Road, Changsha 410083, China.
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 W. CHEN ET AL.

investigation is carried out in this study through a series of three-point bending (TPB) tests on
four types of samples, including high-strength concrete (generally used for repair materials), low-
strength concrete (old materials), cementation of low and high-strength concretes (interface) and
cementation of low and high-strength concretes with steel fibres (interface reinforced by
steel fibre).
This paper is organised as follows. Sample preparation and experimental procedure are
first introduced. Then, external work at initiation cracking point and peak point, fracture
energy, pre-failure fracture characteristic and fracture pattern are analysed and compared.
The double-K fracture toughness is obtained thereafter. Finally, conclusions are drawn based
on the tests.

2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Specimens
Concrete beams are prepared for TPB tests with dimension of 150 mm
150 mm
550 mm.
The detailed dimensions for four types of beams are illustrated in Figure 1, where ‘H’ and ‘L’
stand for high-strength and low-strength concrete, respectively. The beam shown in Figure 1c
and 1d is cemented by two types of concrete and thus an interface is formed. The interface in
Figure 1d is reinforced by equally distributed steel fibres. The distance between two fibres is
about 15 mm and the fibres are implanted passing through the interface. The area percentage of
fibres versus interface is about 0.35%. Mix proportions of concretes are listed in Table 1 and the
basic mechanical parameters for concrete ‘H’, concrete ‘L’ and fibre are listed in Table 2.
The manufacturing process for the concrete beams with steel fibre-reinforced interface is
shown in Figure 2. As the first step, half of the beam mould is filled with low-strength concrete.
Then, about 66 fibres are implanted into the concrete with the embedded depth of about 3 cm
(The fibres are arranged in a cardboard with 15 mm
10 mm grids in advance). After 28 days
curing for the low-strength concrete, the cardboard is removed and the other half of beam
mould is filled with high-strength concrete. Finally, all samples are demoulded and are cured for
28 days.

2.2. Test procedure

Before testing, the loading faces of samples are polished and a clip-on extensometer is installed
at the mouth of the crack to measure the crack mouth-opening displacement (CMOD) (Figure 3).
The span of beam between two bottom supporting points is 440 mm and top loading point is
located in the middle of beam. All the TPB tests are conducted on MTS 322 testing system,
where the loading frame can sustain nominal axial load of 500 kN (error <0.05%). The load, verti-
cal displacement of top loading platen and CMOD of beams are recorded automatically during
each test. The loading rate of the tests is fixed at 0.025 mm/min (Yu, Yu, Lu, & Chen, 2015), and
the load–vertical displacement and load–CMOD curves are obtained accordingly.

3. Fracture energy and characteristic

3.1. External work at crack initiation point and peak load point
The external work done by the loading system is illustrated by the area of the shaded region in
vertical load–displacement diagram (Chen, Konietzky, Tan, & Fru €hwirt, 2016), as shown in Figure
4. The values of Wini , Wpeak and W0 which indicate external work at the crack initiation point, the
peak point and the final point, respectively, can be calculated according to the corresponding
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 3

Specimen 'HB'

H =150 mm
Concrete 'H'

a0 =50 mm

S=440 mm
B=150 mm
L=550 mm
(a)
Specimen 'LB'

Concrete 'L'

(b)
Interface
Specimen 'OB'

Concrete 'H' Concrete 'L'

(c)
Interface Steel fibre
Specimen 'FB'

Concrete 'H' Concrete 'L'

(d)
Figure 1. Cross-sections of different TPB beams: (a) beam ‘HB’ fabricated by high-strength concrete, (b) beam ‘LB’ fabricated
by low-strength concrete, (c) beam ‘OB’ with interface jointing two types of concrete and (d) beam ‘FB’ with steel fibre-rein-
forced interface jointing two types of concrete.

Table 1. Mix proportions of concretes.

Mixtures High-strength concrete Low-strength concrete
Cement (kg/m3) 388 227
Water (kg/m3) 145 149
Fine sand (kg/m3) 623 795
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 1081 1098
Limestone powder (kg/m3) 108 68
Slag (kg/m3) 50 44
Admixture (kg/m3) 13.65 6.4

area of the shaded region. dini , dpeak and d0 are vertical displacements at corresponding load-
ing points.
Examples of vertical load–displacement curves are shown in Figure 5, and the corresponding
vertical load–CMOD curves are shown in Figure 6. The symbols ‘OB’, ‘LB’, ‘HB’ and ‘FB’ represent
4 W. CHEN ET AL.

Table 2. Basic mechanical parameters.

Materials Compressive strength (MPa) Splitting tensile strength (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Unit weight (kg/m3)
Concrete ‘H’ 68.3 3.7 0.14 2405
Concrete ‘L’ 34.4 2.7 0.15 2380
Materials Length (cm) Diameter (mm) Tensile strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)
Fibre 6 1 600 200

Figure 2. Manufacturing process of the TPB beams with steel fibre-reinforced interface.

the type of specimen, as shown in Figure 1. Particularly, the vertical load–displacement curves
and vertical load–CMOD curves of ‘FB’ specimens have several peaks (Figures 5 and 6) due to
the bridging effects of the steel fibres implanted in the interface (Figure 1). However, the other
types of specimens have only one peak. The small squares in Figures 5 and 6 indicate the crack
initiation points which are obtained by identifying the transition points from elastic behaviour to
elastic-plastic behaviour of vertical load–CMOD curves in Figure 6 (Xu & Reinhardt, 1999a). For
example, the magnified view of vertical load–CMOD curves for specimen ‘LB-2’ and ‘HB-2’ are
shown in Figure 7. The transition points from elastic behaviour to elastic-plastic behaviour are
clearly marked by the small squares which indicate the crack initiation points.
The external works at the crack initiation point and the peak point for four types of speci-
mens are listed in Table 3. It is difficult to choose a suitable peak value to calculate the Wpeak for
‘FB’ specimens. For example, the Ppeak is 12.9 kN and 12.75 kN for ‘FB-1’ and ‘FB-2’ (Figure 5d),
respectively, but the corresponding dpeak is 3.16 mm and 4.38 mm (the variations of dpeak is quite
big which will cause great variation of Wpeak ). Therefore, for ‘FB’ specimens, the external work is
calculated with the vertical displacement of 3 mm (as shown in Figure 5d and Table 3). The ratio
of average crack initiation load of ‘OB’ specimen (interface) versus ‘LB’ specimen and ‘OB’ speci-
men versus ‘HB’ specimen is about 62.6% and 31.7%, respectively, and the ratio of average peak
load of OB’ (interface) versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is about 46.2% and 28.8%, respectively,
verifying that the strength of the interface is weaker than both sides of materials. It can be con-
cluded that the ‘OB’ specimens have the smallest crack initiation load, peak load, Wini and Wpeak ,
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 5

Figure 3. Illustration for TPB tests.

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of load versus vertical displacement: (a) initiation cracking point; (b) peak point and (c)
final point.

which means the interface has the weakest strength and resistance to crack initiation and propa-
gation. The test results also reveal the ability of steel fibre in reinforcing the interface to some
extent (see ‘FB’ specimens in Table 3). Especially, after cracking of the interface, the external
work still increases greatly due to the energy consumption during the process of pulling out of
the steel fibres.

3.2. The fracture energy

€ksal, Şahin, Gencel, & Yig
The fracture energy GF can be calculated as follows (RILEM, 1985; Ko it,
2013):
GF ¼ ½W0 þ mgd0 =Alig (1)

where W0 is the area of the shaded region in Figure 4c, m is the mass of specimen in the range
of span S, d0 is the maximum vertical displacement of loading position, and Alig ¼ ðH  a0 ÞB is
6 W. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 5. Vertical load versus vertical displacement.

the area of the ligament. In this paper, the value of Alig is 15000 mm2. The vertical displacement
of the ‘FB’ specimens is quit big, and the clip-on extensometer almost touched the loading frame
when the specimens are totally cracked. In order to avoid damaging the equipment, the test
processes for ‘FB’ specimens are stopped manually and the full load–displacement curves of ‘FB’
specimens are not obtained (see Figures 5d and 6d). Therefore, the fracture energy of ‘FB’ speci-
mens are not calculated. In addition, after totally cracking of ‘FB’ specimens, the energy is mainly
consumed by pulling out the steel fibres. The fracture energy calculation is largely related to the
steel fibres. The testing results for the fracture energy are shown in Table 4. The ratio of average
fracture energy of ‘OB’ (interface) versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 25.4% and 21.2%, respect-
ively, also indicating that the interface (‘OB’) has weaker resistance to crack propagation than
intact specimens (‘LB’ or ‘HB’).

3.3. Pre-failure fracture characteristic and fracture pattern

The evolution index of external work is defined by W=Wpeak , which can indirectly reflect the frac-
ture characteristics of pre-failure stages. As shown in Figure 8, the evolution index of external
work increases with ascending vertical displacement for all specimens. However, after the crack
initiation point, the values of ‘OB’ specimens (interface) peak at shorter displacements than other
specimens, which means the pre-failure process of ‘OB’ specimens develop faster than other
specimens and ‘OB’ specimens are more prone to fail.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 7

Figure 6. Vertical load versus CMOD.

Figure 7. Magnified view of vertical load versus CMOD curves of specimens ‘LB-2’ and ‘HB-2’ for finding crack initi-
ation points.
8 W. CHEN ET AL.

Table 3. The external works at different loading points.

Specimen Pini (kN) Ppeak (kN) dini (mm) dpeak (mm) Wini (N mm) Wpeak (N mm)
OB-1 2.38 4.34 0.226 0.334 229.6 628.8
OB-2 2.56 3.87 0.128 0.202 191.6 439.3
OB-3 2.58 4.12 0.216 0.253 349.2 515.7
OB-4 3.48 4.66 0.193 0.231 369.8 556.4
OB-5 2.45 3.95 0.145 0.196 247.6 397.8
Average 2.69 4.19 0.182 0.243 277.6 507.6
LB-1 3.95 8.79 0.285 0.478 391.4 1696.3
LB-2 4.25 9.72 0.194 0.387 408.9 1792.4
LB-3 4.01 8.42 0.235 0.414 422.4 1514.8
LB-4 4.98 9.33 0.241 0.405 467.3 1859.5
Average 4.30 9.07 0.239 0.421 422.5 1715.8
HB-1 7.87 15.87 0.356 0.565 1080.6 3586.3
HB-2 9.04 14.39 0.460 0.651 1713.1 3957.2
HB-3 8.82 14.85 0.387 0.589 1249.6 3545.1
HB-4 8.18 13.42 0.401 0.574 1297.2 3334.5
HB-5 8.51 14.17 0.422 0.598 1405.7 3625.8
Average 8.48 14.54 0.405 0.595 1349.2 3609.8
Specimen Pini (kN) Ppeak (kN) dini (mm) d3mm (mm) Wini (N mm) W3mm (N mm)
FB-1 4.48 12.90 0.147 3.0 311.8 26424.7
FB-2 2.03 12.75 0.114 3.0 155.4 24882.3
FB-3 3.28 11.76 0.165 3.0 349.6 21083.9
FB-4 3.41 12.04 0.212 3.0 395.7 22538.1
FB-5 3.52 11.93 0.158 3.0 366.3 22179.6
Average 3.34 12.28 0.159 3.0 315.8 23421.7

Table 4. The fracture energy.

Specimen W0 (N mm) d0 (mm) m (kg) GF (N/m)
OB-1 1049.4 0.602 23.63 79.4
OB-2 672.1 0.310 23.54 49.7
OB-3 680.2 0.375 23.67 51.3
OB-4 865.4 0.437 23.56 64.6
OB-5 561.6 0.293 23.65 42.1
Average 765.7 0.403 23.61 57.4
LB-1 3665.2 1.137 23.51 262.2
LB-2 2969.0 0.832 23.60 211.0
LB-3 3123.1 1.052 23.54 224.7
LB-4 2875.4 0.866 23.49 205.3
Average 3158.2 0.972 23.54 225.8
HB-1 4016.6 0.780 23.76 280.1
HB-2 4136.1 0.738 23.82 287.5
HB-3 3898.4 0.841 23.66 273.2
HB-4 3575.2 0.698 23.61 249.3
HB-5 3817.3 0.721 23.75 265.9
Average 3888.7 0.756 23.72 271.2

Examples of failed specimens are shown in Figure 9. As the typical Model I fracture failure, tensile
crack is caused in the middle of beam (Figure 9a). The fracture surface of ‘OB’ (interface) specimen is
smoother than that of ‘LB’ and ‘HB’ specimens (Figure 9b). Observations of the fracture surfaces
demonstrate that many aggregates are penetrated by the crack in the ‘LB’ and ‘HB’ specimens.
Comparatively, few aggregates are fractured in the ‘OB’ specimen (Figure 9b). This provides explan-
ation to the fact that less external work is needed for cracking the ‘OB’ specimens. In addition, even
the crack has totally propagated the ‘FB’ specimen, it can still sustain load due to the bridging
effects of steel fibres (Figure 9c), which can explain the existence of several loading peaks seen in
Figure 5d and a huge external work is needed for further splitting the ‘FB’ specimen.

4. Double-K fracture toughness

The double-K fracture criterion is widely used to investigate the fracture mechanism of concrete
in the past decades (Hu, Zhang, & Xu, 2015; Ruiz, Ortega, Yu, Xu, & Wu, 2016; Xu & Reinhardt,
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 9

Figure 8. Evolution of external work with the increase of vertical displacement.

2000; Zhang & Xu, 2011). The initiation fracture toughness and the unstable fracture toughness
can be determined by the following equations (Xu & Reinhardt, 1999a):
3Pini S pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KIcini ¼ pa0 F ða0 Þ (2)
2BH2
3Ppeak S pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KIcun ¼ pac F ðac Þ (3)
2BH2
where KIcini and KIcun are initiation fracture toughness and unstable fracture toughness, respectively;
a0 and ac are the initial notch depth and the critical notch depth of specimens, respectively;
a0 ¼ a0 =H, ac ¼ ac =H, and the meanings of other parameters are shown in Figure 1. The function
of FðaÞ for the two span-depth ratios are given as follows:
1:02:5a þ 4:49a2 3:93a3 þ 1:33a4
F ðaÞ ¼ ðS=H ¼ 2:5Þ (4)
ð1  aÞ3=2
1 1:99að1  aÞð2:15  3:93a þ 2:7a2 Þ
F ðaÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ðS=H ¼ 4Þ (5)
p ð1 þ 2aÞð1  aÞ
3=2

In this paper, the value of S=H ¼ 440=150 ¼ 2:933; the value of FðaÞ can be obtained by inter-
polation method (RILEM, 1990; Teng, Liu, & Lim, 2014). The value of Fða0 Þ is 1.013. The value of
the critical notch depth is expressed as follows (Xu & Reinhardt, 1999a, 1999b):
 
2 BECMODc 1=2
ð
ac ¼ H þ H0 Þarctan H0 (6)
p 32:6Ppeak
where B and H are as shown in Figure 1, H0 is the thickness of the clip gauge holder (in this
paper, it is 2 mm), E is the Young’s modulus in TPB tests and the CMODc is the critical CMOD at
peak vertical load Ppeak . The Young’s modulus E can be calculated from the vertical load–CMOD
curve as follows:
6Sa0
E¼ V ða0 Þ (7)
Ci BH2
where Ci ¼ dini =Pini is the initial compliance, and the functions Vða0 Þ for two span-depth ratios
are expressed as follows (Teng et al., 2014):
2
V ða0 Þ ¼ 0:762:28a þ 3:87a2 2:04a3 þ 0:66ð1  aÞ ðS=H ¼ 4Þ (8)
10 W. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 9. Failed specimens: (a) tensile cracks in the middle of beams, (b) typical fracture surfaces of ‘OB’, ‘LB’ and ‘HB’ speci-
mens and (c) failed ‘FB’ specimen.

2
V ða0 Þ ¼ 0:81:7a þ 2:4a2 þ 0:66ð1  aÞ ðS=H ¼ 12Þ (9)

The value of Vða0 Þ ¼ 1:856 in this paper with S=H ¼ 2:933 is obtained by interpol-
ation method.
Using Equations (2)–(9), the double-K fracture parameters are calculated and listed in Table 5.
The average initiation fracture toughness of ‘OB’ (interface), ‘FB’ (interface reinforced by steel
fibres), ‘LB’ and ‘HB’ specimens is 0.211, 0.262, 0.338 and 0.666 MPam1/2, respectively, and the
ratio of initiation fracture toughness of ‘OB’ versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 62.4%, and 31.7%,
respectively. The average unstable fracture toughness of ‘OB’, ‘LB’ and ‘HB’ specimens is 0.405,
1.029, and 1.283 MPam1/2, respectively, and the ratio of unstable fracture toughness of ‘OB’
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 11

Table 5. Experimental results of double-K fracture parameters.

Specimen KIcini (MPam1/2) E (GPa) CMODc (mm) ac (mm) F ðac Þ KIcun (MPam1/2)
OB-1 0.187 17.28 0.045 65.61 1.180 0.455
OB-2 0.201 26.55 0.024 63.81 1.155 0.391
OB-3 0.203 14.41 0.039 58.19 1.087 0.374
OB-4 0.273 14.86 0.051 63.10 1.145 0.465
OB-5 0.192 14.82 0.033 55.49 1.059 0.342
Average 0.211 17.58 0.038 61.24 1.125 0.405
LB-1 0.310 20.48 0.098 72.38 1.292 1.059
LB-2 0.334 23.74 0.088 70.85 1.264 1.134
LB-3 0.315 19.41 0.079 66.23 1.189 0.893
LB-4 0.391 20.09 0.091 68.25 1.220 1.031
Average 0.338 20.93 0.089 69.43 1.241 1.029
HB-1 0.618 33.61 0.053 52.89 1.036 1.310
HB-2 0.710 42.36 0.045 57.37 1.078 1.288
HB-3 0.692 36.59 0.051 55.90 1.063 1.294
HB-4 0.642 37.59 0.046 56.60 1.070 1.184
HB-5 0.668 42.61 0.049 60.35 1.111 1.341
Average 0.666 38.55 0.049 56.62 1.072 1.283
FB-1 0.352 23.41
FB-2 0.157 8.54
FB-3 0.257 17.01
FB-4 0.268 15.47
FB-5 0.276 14.20
Average 0.262 15.73

versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 39.4%, and 31.6%, respectively. It reveals that the existence of
the interface has greatly reduced the fracture toughness of the specimens. As can be seen from
Figure 9b and Table 3, the fracture toughness is closely related to roughness of fracture surface
and fracturing condition of aggregates.

5. Conclusions
A series of TPB tests are performed on the high-strength concrete, the low-strength concrete,
and cementation of high and low concretes (with and without steel fibre-reinforced interface).
The crack initiation load, the peak load, the external works at crack initiation point, peak point
and final point, the fracture energy, pre-failure damage characteristics and double-K fracture
toughness are analysed. According to the test results, the following conclusions can be drawn:

 The interface is weaker than both sides of materials. The ratio of average crack initiation
load of ‘OB’ (interface) versus ‘LB’ (low-strength concrete) and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ (high-strength
concrete) is about 62.6% and 31.7%, respectively, and the ratio of average peak load of OB’
versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is about 46.2% and 28.8%, respectively. The ratio of average
Wini for ‘OB’ versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 65.7% and 20.6%, respectively. The ratio of
average Wpeak for ‘OB’ versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 29.6% and 14.1%, respectively.
 The interface has the weakest resistance to crack initiation and propagation. The ratio of
average initiation fracture toughness of ‘OB’ versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 62.4%, and
31.7%, respectively. The ratio of average unstable fracture toughness of ‘OB’ versus ‘LB’ and
‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 39.4%, and 31.6%, respectively. The ratio of average fracture energy of
‘OB’ versus ‘LB’ and ‘OB’ versus ‘HB’ is 25.4% and 21.2%, respectively. The fracture toughness
is closely related to the roughness of cracking surface and fracturing condition of aggregates.
Therefore, the strength reduction and fracture toughness reduction due to existence of the
interface must be considered for designing and predicting the performance the structure.
 The pre-failure process of ‘OB’ specimens develops faster than other specimens and ‘OB’
specimens are more prone to fail.
12 W. CHEN ET AL.

 The test results also reveal the ability of steel fibre in reinforcing the interface to some
extent (see ‘FB’ specimens in Tables 3 and 5). Comparing ‘OB’ and ‘FB’, the area percentage
of fibres versus interface is about 0.35%, which has a limited effect on improving the crack
initiation load. However, these fibres can greatly increase the resistant ability of the speci-
men during post failure stage. The ratio of average crack initiation load of ‘FB’ to ‘OB’ is
124.2%, but the ratio of average peak load of ‘FB’ to ‘OB’ is 293.1%. Especially, after cracking
of the interface, the external work still increases greatly due to the energy consumption dur-
ing the process of pulling out of the steel fibres. In contrast to other samples without steel
fibre, the interface reinforced by steel fibre can still sustain load with the occurrence of
cracking in post-failure stage.

Acknowledgement
The constructive comments by anonymous reviewers are appreciated.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China [grant number 51608537], [grant number
51538009], [grant number 11402311]; China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [grant number 2017M610508]; and
Postdoctoral Foundation of Central South University.

ORCID
Xiang Li http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2245-4471

References
Chandra Kishen, J. M., & Subba Rao, P. (2007). Fracture of cold jointed concrete interfaces. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 74, 122–131.
Chen, W., Konietzky, H, Tan, X., & Fr€ uhwirt, T. (2016). Pre-failure damage analysis for brittle rocks under triaxial com-
pression. Computers and Geotechnics, 74, 45–55.
Hu, S., Zhang, X., & Xu, S. (2015). Effects of loading rates on concrete double-K fracture parameters. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 149, 58–73.
€ksal, F., Şahin, Y., Gencel, O., & Yig
Ko  it, _I. (2013). Fracture energy-based optimisation of steel fibre reinforced con-
cretes. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 107, 29–37.
Lim, Y. M., Kim, M. K., Shin, S. K., & Li, V. C. (2001). Numerical simulation for quasi-brittle interface fracture in cemen-
titious bi-material system. In de Borst R, Mazars J, Pijaudier-Cabot G, van Mier JGM (Eds.), Proceedings of fourth
international conference on fracture mechanics of concrete structures (pp. 73–80). Cachan: Balkema.
RILEM. (1985). 50-FMC committee fracture mechanics of concrete. Materials and Structures, 18(106), 285–290.
RILEM. (1990). TC 89-FMT. Size effect method for determining fracture energy and process zone size of concrete.
Materials and Structures, 23, 461–5.
Ruiz, G., Ortega, J. J., Yu, R. C., Xu, S., & Wu, Y. (2016). Effect of size and cohesive assumptions on the double-K frac-
ture parameters of concrete. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 166, 198–217.
Shah, S. G., & Kishen, C. (2010a). Fracture behavior of concrete-concrete interface using acoustic emission tech-
nique. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 77, 908–924.
Shah, S. G., & Kishen, C. (2010b). Nonlinear fracture properties of concrete-concrete interfaces. Mechanics of
Materials, 42, 916–931.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 13

Tayeh, B. A., Abu Bakar, B. H., & Megat Johari, M. A. (2013). Characterization of the interfacial bond between old
concrete substrate and ultra high performance fiber concrete repair composite. Materials and Structures, 46,
743–753.
Teng, S., Liu, Y., & Lim, T. Y. D. (2014). Determination of fracture energy of ultra high strength concrete. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 131, 602–615.
Tschegg, E. K., & Stanzl S. E. (1991). Adhesive power measurements of bonds between old and new concrete.
Journal of Materials Science, 26, 5189–5194.
Xu, S., & Reinhardt, H. W. (1999a). Determination of double-K criterion for crack propagation in quasi-brittle materi-
als, Part II: Analytical evaluating and practical measuring methods for three-point bending notched beams.
International Journal of Fracture, 98(2), 151–177.
Xu, S., & Reinhardt, H. W. (1999b). Determination of double-K criterion for crack propagation in quasi-brittle materi-
als, Part III: Compact tension specimens and wedge splitting specimens. International Journal of Fracture, 98(2),
179–193.
Xu, S., & Reinhardt, H. W. (2000). A simplified method for determining double-K fracture parameters for three-point
bending tests. International Journal of Fracture, 104, 181–209.
Yu, K., Yu, J., Lu, Z., & Chen, Q. (2015). Determination of the softening curve and fracture toughness of high-
strength concrete exposed to high temperature. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 149, 156–169.
Zhang, X., & Xu, S. (2011). A comparative study on five approaches to evaluate double-K fracture toughness param-
eters of concrete and size effect analysis. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 78, 2115–2138.
Zhu, S., & Cai, C. (2014). Interface damage and its effect on vibrations of slab track under temperature and vehicle
dynamic loads. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 58, 222–232.