Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eli65 PDF
Eli65 PDF
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUenON
3. NUMERICAL STUDIES
F F
~
-f+ d/f2 d/12
'tl -#- 'tl
d/6 !/6
_I Bd/3 +
~t2 :~:: ~
t;;
rt2 m
!:
OF Cl
Fig.2. Geometry of the specimens analysed in the present study. (a) Notched tension specimen ö (b) 3-point bend
spechnen: (c) headed .tud anchor; (d) torsion spcchnen.
SIZE EFFECT IN CONCRETE STRUCfURES 23
....-
V .~
I 1/
h
1'\ .....
- fJ
h
1/
r\.
....-
\ fJ
r'--.. L.,,-l.2
-
4d/3
1 t
-
....- . ""'-
I I} h
- ~ J
} "
\ • ~ p
v=-
4d/3 l
1 1
-
....-
1"'-
- ,,~
)-
- /
"-
).
)-
J..
1/ ~
1'- 11
1 't!
-
....- 1/ ""
l 4d/3 l
1 1
Fig. 3 Deformed finite element meshes and fracture process zone (shaded
areas) at peak load for the notched tension specimen.
SIZE EfFEcr IN CONCRETE SfRUCIlJRES 25
0.10 , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
NOTCHED TENSION SPECIMEN
d= 38. 1, 76.2 and 152.4 mm; b= 19 mm
0.05 - 1,=2.70 MPa; (JN=Fu/bd
0.00 +----~:---:-:--__:_:___:_-"""'"---------l
strength criteria
~-O.05
~ - - - ....b_ LEFM
.e.
:0:;
-0.10
o
tl) ,
.s -0.15- o test data (average)",
t:. calculated da ta ' , ,
, 0
-0.20 - ---size effect law "" t:.
B= 1.124, d o= 104.67
-0.25 +---.------.---.--,---,----,...-,---r- ,--,...---'
-0.49 -0.39 -0.29 -0.19 -0.09 0.01 0 . 11 0.21
log (d/d o)
Fig. 4 Comparison between calculated and measured failure loads with size
effect law for the notched tension specimen.
2.00~---------------------------------------'
..
~
~'.50
~
0
11
:.... 1.25
Y=AX+C
A =
0.007558 ; C = 0.79 t1
1.00 -I---,-.,--..---,.-""T"--.,--T--,--..---,-.....--,----i
30 50 70 90 "0 130 ISO
X = d (mm)
Fag. 5 Linear regression analysis of the calculated peak loads for the notched
tension specimen.
1.3 -r-----------------------.
NOTCHED TENSION SPECIMEN
1.2 d= 38.1, 76.2 and 152.4 mm; b= 19 mm
1,= 2.70 MPa; (JN=Fu/bd
I. I
1.0
0. 9
~
~0.8
b
0.7
o test data (average)
0.6 6 calculated data
size ellect law
0.5 B= 1.124, d o= 104.67
0.4+---.--r--.---,--.,--.,----,~-,_-_1
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0
d (mm)
Fig. 6 Comparison between calculated and measured failure loads with size
effect law for the notched tension specimen. shown in normal scale.
SIZE EFFECT IN CONCRETE STRUCfURES 27
Fig. 3 that, relative to the specimen size, the fracture process zone
decreases with increasing specimen depth. This is a consequence of the
fact that the volume of the nonlocal continuum over which the strains
are averaged is constant and therefore this volume is, relative to the
specimen size, sm aller if the size of the specimen is larger.
In Fig. 7 axial strain profiles across the symmetry line of the
specimen at the start of the analysis and at peak load are plotted for all
sizes. This figure clearly indicates that the strain distribution over the
cross-section is more uniform if the size of the specimen is sm aller .
Therefore with decreasing depth, the stresses in the critical section are
more uniformly distributed and the average stress increases.
Summarizing, the size effect can be explained by two effects: (1) The
size of the fracture process zone relative to the specimen size decreases
with increasing specimen depth; (2) because of (1) the strain and
stress distribution becomes less uniform with increasing member
depth, resuIting in a decrease of the nominal stress at peak load.
0.60 -y---------------------.....,
NOTCHED TENSION SPECIMEN - STRAIN PROFILE
d= 38,1. 76,2 and 152.4 mm; b=19 mm
4>
,, <-,,
, ,,
1.25 d
1
F/2
'" E'
t'
v
"-
1 P
v
- "\.
II
~p
L 'Jo'i
~
t.25d
f
F/2
I'\.. ~
I
L
~
'\ P
v
''\
L
~
/'
I
e
~
1.25d
Fig. 8 Deformed finite element meshes and fracture process zone (shaded
areas) at peak load for the three-point bend specimen.
SIZE EFFECf IN CONCRETE STRUcruRES 29
0.20 ~-------------------.....,
3-POINT BEND SPECIMEN
0 . 10 d= 76.2, 152.4 and 304.8 mm; b= 38.0 mm
ft= 2.74 MPa; (JN= 15Fu/4bd
0.00 ~---~------------------l
strength criteria
-0.10
'"":l
~-0.20
'\..
~-0.30
-.;;;;..
'1!-- ,
~-0.40
.... o test data (average) "" 0
-0.50
,:,. calculated da ta 'tI.,
, ,
size effect law ' ,
-0.60 B= 2.666 do= 33.644
-0. 70 J-_ _~_~~_~_.------r-_~-.-_.....----,_--.--.J
-0.10 0.11 0.31 0.51 0.71 0.90 l.ff
log (d/do)
Fig.9 Comparison between calculated and measured failure loads with sire
effect law for the three-point bend specimen.
30 ROLF EUGEHAUSEN &; JO~KO OZBOLT
~o~---------------------------------------,
1.8
3-POINT BEND SPECIMEN
d= 76.2, 152.4 and 304.8 mm
b= 38 mm
t.5 ft= 2.74 MPa; (JN= 15Fv/4bd
~1.3
:.:
~'.0
-.....::
11
:... 0.8
0.5 Y=AX+C
A = 0.004182 : C = 0.1407
0.34-~--~~--~~~--~~--~~--~~~--~~
60 120 180 240 300 360
X = d (mm)
Fig. 10 Linear regression analysis of the calculated peak loads for tbe
three-point bend specimen.
2.40 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,
3-POINT BEND SPECIMEN
d= 76.2. 152.4 and 304.8 mm; b= 38 mm
2 . 00 ft= 2.74 MPa; (JN= 15FN/4bd
1.60
_ 1.20
~
b'" o
A
0.80
o test data (average)
A calculated data
0.40
size effect law
B= 2.666 d o= 33.644
0.00 +----.....------.----....,.-----,---~---_._----
50.0 100.0 '50.0 200.0 250.0 300. 0 350.0 400.0
d (mm)
Fig. 11 Comparison between calculated and measured failure loads with size
effect law for the three-point bend specimen. shown in normal scale.
SIZE EFFECf IN CONCRETE STRUcruRES 31
strength related to tbe net area is C1N =-: 2· 15ft wbicb agrees witb tbe
value expected for unnotcbed beams.
The sbaded areas in Fig. 8 indicate tbe size of tbe fracture process
zones. As in tbe previous example, the relative size of the fracture
process zone decreases with increasing member depth. When, in
addition, the strain and stress distribution over the critical cross-
section is analysed one comes to tbe same explanation for the size
effect as in tbe case of tbe tension specimen. However, the size effect
is mucb more pronounced tban in notcbed tension specimens, because
the size of tbe fracture process zone relative to tbe member depth is
smaller.
In Fig. 12 tbe nominal bending strengtbs related to the value for
d = 100 mm are plotted as a function of tbe member depth. The
numerical values compared are calculated for tbe net member deptb
d. = 5/6d, witb predictions according to different proposals valid for
unnotcbed specimens. The test results by Heilmann [20] and Malcov &
Karavaev [21], agree rather weIl. The bending strength decreases from
C1N = 2ft for d = 100 mm to C1N = 1· 1ft for d = 1000 mm. According to
tbe CEB Model Code [22] tbe bending strength is only C1N = l'5ft for
d = 100 mm but approaches C1N = l·0ft for larger specimens. The
3.00.-----------------------------------------,
Heilmann (1969)
2.50 , Malcov &- Karavaev (1968)
\ CEB MC90 (1990)
Size eltec law (notched specifnen)
o Numencal results (net area)
2 .00
~
...
~ ,
b:( 1.50 "
... " ....
'-- --- ----
1.00 +----------------=-=------------------1
0.50 +--.-~-,-__r___,--r_.__-r-_,_-r~_,_--r___r---,r--r_..-__r_i
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
d (mm)
Fig. 12 Relative bending strength as a function of the member depth.
32 ROLF ELIGEHAUSEN &; JO~KO OZBOLT
numerical results for notched specimens agree roughly with the other
predietions; however, when extrapolating them by the size effect law
to larger specimens the nominal bending strength is mueh lower than
the centrie tension strength. This is in contradietion to the experimen-
tal results for unnotehed specimens. This is probably due to the fact
that the size effeet law was adjusted to fit the results of notched
specimens. Therefore unnotehed specimens of different sizes should be
analysed and the resulting size effeet law should be compared with test
results.
According to the CEB Model Code 1990 (MC90) [22], the ultimate
bending moment of large specimens (d 5= 1 m) inereases in proportion to
d 2• In contrast to this, the size effect law and linear elastie fracture
meehanics prediet an inerease of M II in proportion to d 1•S • This means
that the failure moment calculated according to MC90 might be
unconservative for large specimens.
ß =dldo (2)
SIZE EFFECf IN CONCRETE STRUcruRES 33
...t' ~~ fE ~ ~~
~~,
7.0....--------------------,
~:t:
ta., 3.0
'-..:.
11
:... 2.0
y= AX + C
.4= 0.Ot2; C= 0.52
t.O 0
0.0 -I---.---.----.---r---,---r--.----r-~-_j
o tOO 200 300 400 500
X = d (mmJ
Fig. 14 Linear regression analysis of the calculated peak loads for the headed
stud specimen.
PULL-OUT (AXISYMMETRICJ
O.tO d= 50, 150 and 450 mm; a= 3d;
Je= 3.0 MPa; J.= 40.0 MPa.
-- -
-O.tO --- ....
strength criteria
... ....
....
...
....
size eJJect law
Fu = F B{t+d/doT,jJ
N
...
-0.50 B
FN
= t .387 ; cl, = 4,3.33
= 2.90 sqrt(J.J er
o calculated
-0.70~-----.------.-----~ ______. -____~______~
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 t .00 t.25 t.50
log {d/doJ
Fag. 15 Comparison between calculated peak loads and size effect law for the
headed stud specimen.
SIZE EFFECf IN CONCRETE STRUCI1JRES 35
o numerical results
,/"
,/"
,/ "
/"
/" '
/" '
/,"
/,"
/,,"
/,,'
/,,"
/,'
/,'
/,'
/,'
O.O+----------.-----------r----------.---------~
30 60 90 120 150
EMBEDMENT DEPTH (mm)
(a)
9
8
no size eJJect Jormula
'17
l
... linear Jracture mechanics - LEFM
·6 size-eJJect Jormula - NLFM
} ,'-
;:!
0 numerical resulls ,,
~5 ,, /
~
" ,-
-..;. " /
" ,-
" ,-
~4 " ,-
C§
, , "" "
""
"'3 ,,,
~ ,'"
,'/
tS ,'/
,,,,,"
t::!2 V
,'l
...r~
~
1 "
°340~~--9rO--.--+--.--.---.--.--.--.--.--3-9rO--.-~450
150 210 270 330
EMBEDMENT DEPTH (mm)
(b)
Fig. 16 Prediction of the failure loads for the headed stud specimen
according to different proposals.
SIZE EFFECI' IN CONCRETE STRUCI1JRES 37
__ '.4,---------------------------------------------~
:)
'-
;:: 1.2
~
~ I. 0 1"",,--_
d= 50 mm
ti
~0.8 d= ISO mm
I..>
"-l d= 450 mm
c:3
1:: 0.6 peak load
Q;
~
~ 0.4
:.:
1::
~ 0 .2
Q;
2.4
4.0
d= 50 mm
d= ISO mm
d= 450 mm
, .0
0.0 +--af6...--.--~--:_r:_-4-__::_c_----r--'
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
RELATIVE HORIZONTAL CRACK LENCTH (ViA """')
F"&g. 18 Tensile stress distribution along tbe cone surface at peak load in
axisymmetric pull-out.
38 ROLF EUGEHAUSEN &; JO~KO OZBOLT
d= 381. mm d= 152.4 mm
d= 76.2 mm
YJg. 19 Finite element meshes used in the analysis of the torsion specimen.
SIZE EfFECf IN CONCRETE STRUCI1JRES 39
0.'5~----------------------------------------,
TORSION SPECIMEN
0.'0 d= 38. t, 76.2 and 152.4 1n17l-
0.05 Je= 2.60 MPa; aN = Mt/O.208d:
-0'00~----------~-----------s~t~r-en--g~th'--c-rt~·t~e-rt7·a--~
-0.05
~-0.'0
~:.,; -0.'5 -e-- _
-2.-0.20 --
g>-0.25
....,
-_
-
-c!J
test data (average) - ........
t;.
t;.
-0.45 +-_-.-_-.-_--.-_--.-_-._--,-_--,-_--,-_---,_-.J
-0.20 -0.'0 -0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
log (d/rio)
Fig. 20 Comparison between calculated and measured failure loads with size
effect law for the beam loaded in torsion.
40 ROLF EUGEHAUSEN &. JOSKO OZBOLT
0.75 ~---------------------,
TORSION SPECIMEN
d= 38. I, 76.2 and 152.4 m'!}
1,= 2.60 MPa; (JN= Mc!0.208d
0.50
..~
~
~
11 0.25
>..
Y=AX+C
A = 0.002598 ; C = 0.08285
0.00 -I---,---r---r----..-----.--..,----,---,--r----,--.--.,--I
30 50 70 90 f fO f30 f50
X = d (mm)
Fig. 21 Linear regression analysis of the calculated peak loads for the beam
loaded in torsion.
3.60 -r----------------------,
3.20
TORSION SPECIMEN
d= 38.1, 76.2 and 152.4 m'l7l
1,= 2.60 MPa; (JN= Mc!0.208ä
2.80
2.40
~2.00
\
b f.60 A
f.20
A test data (average)
o calculated data
Kennedy (1967)
'.50 Kani (1969)
Leonhardt (1961)
Bazant cl" Kazemi (1990)
o Taylor - fully scaled ['972)
'.25 -a- Chana - fully scaled 1981)
.,.... 1.00
..
~
-t--...=.....~;;;;:_----------------I
o
~'1
~0.75
~
0.50
0.25 - j - - - - ; - - - , - - . , - - - , - - - r - - , - - . , - - , - - - j
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
d (mm)
Yag. 23 Relative shear strength of beams without shear reinforcement as a
function of the member depth.
Fig. 23 which shows the relative shear stresses at peak load (shear
failure) of beams without shear reinforcement as a function of the
member depth. The shear strength for slabs with d = 250 mm is taken
as a reference value. In Fig. 23 test results of Leonhardt & Walter
[28], Kani [1] and Kennedy [29] and the size effect law, as proposed by
Baiant & Kazemi [30], are plotted. In these investigations the
concrete mix was constant. As can be seen, the relative shear strength
decreases significantly with increasing member depth. Taylor [31]
tested fully scaled specimens that scaled all parameters, incIuding the
aggregate size. The shear strength did not decrease significantly with
increasing specimen size. H6Wever, Chana [32] who also tested fully
scaled specimens found that influence of the member depth on the
shear strength was almost the same as in the investigations with
constant concrete mix.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present numerical study on the behaviour of plain
concrete structures under different loading conditions demonstrate
42 ROLF ELiGEHAUSEN & JO~KO OZBOLT
tbat tbe peak loads exhibit a significant size effect. Therefore, the
increase of tbe failure load is mucb less tban tbe increase of tbe failure
surface area. Tbis is in accordance witb experimental evidence. Similar
results can be expected in otber cases wbere tbe concrete tension
strengtb plays a dominant role, sucb as a bond between defonned
reinforcing bars and concrete, frame corners, puncbing, etc.
Tbe analysis demonstrates tbat tbe microplane material model based
on tbe nonlocal strain concept is capable of correctly predicting the
bebaviour of concrete structures in respect of fracture processes, peak
load and size effect. Since tbe microplane model is a fully 3D material
model it can be effectively used in 2D and 3D finite element codes.
Tbe fact tbat in tbe numerical analysis tbe size effect is calculated
correctly is due to tbe nonlocal strain concept.
Bcdant's size effect law or a suitably simplified formula can predict
size effect ratber weil in a small range of dimensions. But to cbeck this
law in a broader range, tests of very large structures are required.
Furtber studies are needed to clarify tbe inftuence of tbe concrete
mix on tbe size effect. Furtbermore, design provisions sbould be
evaluated, wbicb take tbe practical conditions into account, and which
sbould be incorporated in codes.
Tbe size effect in concrete structures is significant and sbould be
taken into account in tbe design codes.
REFERENCES
[IJ Kani, G. N., How safe are our large concrete beams? ACI Journol,
Proceedings, 64 (1967) 128-41.
[2J Bahnt, Z. P., Size effect in blunt fracture: Concrete, rock, metaI. J. Eng.
Mechanics (ASCE), 110(4) (1984) 518-35.
[3J Taylor, G. 1., Plastic strain in metals. J. Inst. Metals, 62 (1983) 307-24.
[4J Batdorf, S. B. & Budianski, B., A Mathematical Theory of Plasticity
Based on the Concept of Slip. NACA TNI871, April, 1949.
[5J Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Pande, G. N., Time-dependent multi-laminate
model of rocks-a numerical study of deformation and failure of rock
masses. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. in Geomechanics, 1 (1977) 219-47.
[6J Bafant, Z. P. & Gambarova, P. G., Crack shear in concrete: crack band
microplane model. J. Struc. Eng. (ASCE), 110(10) (1984) 2015-35.
[7J Bafant, Z. P., Microplane model for strain-controlled inelastic be·
haviour. In Mechanics 0/ Engineering Materials, ed. C. S. Desai & R. H.
Gallager. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester and New York, 1984, Chap. 4,
pp. 45-59.
SIZE EFFECf IN CONCREfE STRUcruRES 43
[8] Bafant, Z. P. & Oh, B.-H., Microplane model for progressive fracture of
concrete and rock. J. Eng. Mechanics (ASCE), 111(4) (1985) 559-82.
[9] Bafant, Z. P. & Prat, P. C., Microplane model for brittle-plastic
material--Parts land 11. J. Eng. Mechanics (ASCE), 114(10) (1988)
1672-1702.
[1O} Baf.ant, Z. P. & Pijaudier-Cabot, G., Nonlocal continuum damage,
localization instability and convergence. J. Applied Mechanics (ASME),
55 (1988) 287-93.
[11] Kröner, E., Interrelations between various branches of continuum
mechanics. In Mech. of Generalized Continua, ed. E. Kröner. Springer,
W. Berlin, 1968, pp. 33a-40.
[12] Eringen, A. C. & Edelen, D. G. D., On nonlocal elasticity. In!. J. Eng.
Sd., 10 (1972) 233-48.
[13] Krumhansl, J. A., Some considerations of the relations between solid
state physics and generalised continuum mechanics. In Mech. of General-
ized Continua, ed. E. Kröner. Springer, W. Berlin, 1968, pp. 298-331.
[14} Levin, V. M., The relation between mathematical expectation of stress
and strain tensor in elastic micro-heterogeneous media. Prikl. Mat.
Mehk., 3S (1971) 694-701 (in Russian).
[15] Baf.ant, Z. P., Belytschko, T. B. & Chang, T. P., Continuum model for
strain softening. J. Eng. Mechanics (ASCE), 110(12) (1984) 1666-92.
[16] Baf.ant, Z. P. & Pijaudier-Cabot, G., Measurement of characteristic
length of nonlocal continuum. J. Eng. Mechanics (ASCE), 115(4) (1989)
755-67.
[17} Bafant, Z. P. & O!bolt, J., Nonlocal microplane model for fracture,
damage and size effect in structures. Report 89-1O/498n Center for
Concrete and Geomaterials, Northwestem University, Evanston, 1989,
33 pp. Also J. Eng. Mechanics (ASCE), (in press).
[18] Eligehausen, R. & O!bolt, J., Size effect in anchorage behaviour. Paper
presented at Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on
Fracture-Fracture Behaviour and Design of Materials and Structures,
Torino, Italy, 1-5 October 1990.
[19] Baf.ant, Z. P. & Pfeiffer, p. A., Determination of fracture energy from
size effect and brittleness number. ACI Materials Journal, 84 (1987)
463-80.
[20] Heilmann, H. G., Beziehungen zwischen Zug-und Druckfestigkeit des
Betons. Beton, 2 (1969) 68-72 (in German).
[21] Malkov, K. & Karavaev, A., Abhängigkeit der Festigkeit des Betons auf
Zug bei Biegung und ausmittiger Belastung von den Querschnitt-
sabemssungen. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Technischen Universität
Dresden, 17(6) (1968) 1545-7.
[22] Comite Euro-International du Beton, CEB-FlP Model Code 1990, First
Draft. Bulletin d'Information Nos 195 and 196, CEB, Lausanne, March,
1990.
[23] ACI 349-76: Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete
Structures. ACI Journal, 7S (1978) 329-47.
[24] Eligehausen, R. & Sawade, G., A fracture mechanics based description
of the pull-out behavior of headed studs embedded in concrete. Fracture
44 ROLF ELIGEHAUSEN &. JO~KO OtoOLT