Effects of Aggregate and Specimen Sizes on

Lightweight Concrete Fracture Energy

Jae-Il Sim 1; Keun-Hyeok Yang 2; Eun-Taik Lee 3; and Seong-Tae Yi 4

Abstract: To evaluate the effects of beam specimen depth and aggregate size on the fracture energy of lightweight concrete (LWC), different
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

beam specimens designated into 32 notations were tested under three-point bending. In each of the all-lightweight concrete and sand-
lightweight concrete groups, the maximum aggregate size varied between 4 and 19 mm; the beam depth ranged from 150 to 600 mm
in each ready-mixed concrete batch with the same mix proportions. Based on experimental observations and verification of prior empirical
models, simple closed-form equations were proposed to generalize the influence of the concrete unit weight on the size effect for the fracture
energy of concrete. Test results clearly showed that when the maximum aggregate size is larger than 8 mm, the aggregate size in LWC has an
insignificant effect on fracture parameters such as the fracture energy, crack opening mouth displacement, and characteristic length due to
crack propagation through the lightweight aggregate particles. The fracture energy of LWC was lower than that of normal-weight concrete,
indicating that the size-dependence of the fracture energy increases with decreasing concrete unit weight. A comparison between the pre-
dicted and experimental fracture energies revealed that the reliability of existing models significantly depends on the concrete type and
ligament depth of the beam specimen, whereas the proposed model generally gives better agreement with the test data; it consistently predicts
the trend of the size effect, regardless of the concrete unit weight. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000884. © 2014 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Lightweight concrete; Fracture energy; Size effect; Aggregate size; Concrete unit weight.

Introduction
Concrete is a typical quasibrittle material that exhibits nonlinear
behavior even at the ascending branch and softening characteristics
after peak stress owing to crack growth. To explain the effect of
crack propagation on the structural response of concrete elements,
fracture parameters, including the fracture energy, fracture tough-
ness, and fracture process zone, need to be established (Gettu et al.
1990). The Comité Euro-International du Beton (CEB-FIP) code
provision (1999) specifies an empirical equation for evaluating
the fracture energy (GF ) of concrete. However, there is still debate
on the issue of concrete fracture parameters, particularly with re-
gard to size dependence. Zhang and Wu (1999) pointed out that GF
is dependent on the member size because of the existence of the
fracture process zone in front of an extending crack in concrete.
Carpinteri and Chiaia (1995, 1996) reviewed extensive test results
and concluded that GF increases with the member size up to a cer-
tain limit, beyond which it remains constant; considering these ob-
servations, they proposed a simple size-effect law procedure that
includes the extrapolation of infinite size.
1
Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Kyonggi Univ., Suwon,
Kyonggi-do 443-760, Republic of Korea.
2
Professor, Dept. of Plant Architectural Engineering, Kyonggi Univ.,
Kyonggi-do 443-760, Republic of Korea (corresponding author). E-mail:
yangkh@kgu.ac.kr
3 weight aggregates are commonly weaker and have smoother sur-
Professor, School of Architecture and Building Science, Chungang
Univ., Seoul 156-756, Republic of Korea.
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Inha Technical College, Incheon 402-752, Republic of Korea.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 2, 2012; approved
on June 24, 2013; published online on June 26, 2013. Discussion period
open until October 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 5, May 1, 2014. © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
2014/5-845-854/$25.00.
The fracture energy of concrete is also dependent on the size and
strength of aggregates and on the interfacial cohesion between ag-
gregates and paste because the width of the fracture process zone is
significantly affected by aggregate interlock action (Elices and
Rocco 2008). The prediction equation specified in the CEB-FIP
provision is relevant to the aggregate size and concrete compressive
strength. Hillerborg (1985) noted that GF tends to increase pro-
vided that the maximum aggregate size (da ) increases from 8 to
20 mm; although this tendency shows a large scatter. Elices and
Rocco (2008) conducted 44 notched beam tests to ascertain the in-
fluence of the matrix, aggregate, and matrix-aggregate interface
properties on the fracture parameters and showed that GF increases
by a rate of 120% for a fourfold increase in da . Choi et al. (2003)
revealed that the rate of increase in GF against da becomes more
prominent with increasing concrete compressive strength. How-
ever, the variation in GF against the strength and interfacial cohe-
sion capacity of aggregate is still uncertain owing to the lack of
experimental evidence.
The extensive experimental research reviewed above for GF was
conducted using normal-weight concrete (NWC) (Gettu et al. 1990;
CEB-FIP 1999; Zhang and Wu 1999; Carpinteri and Chiaia 1995,
1996; Elices and Rocco 2008; Hillerborg 1985; Choi et al. 2003;
RILEM 1985; Bažant et al. 1991; Bažant and Kazemi 1991; Zhang
et al. 2010; Karihaloo and Nallathambi 1990; Guo and Gilbert
2000; Barragan et al. 2001; Giaccio et al. 1993). Artificial light-
faces than normal-weight aggregates. These properties of
lightweight aggregates result in lower tensile strength of light-
weight concrete (LWC), lower cohesion between aggregate par-
ticles and pastes, and a more brittle descending branch after
peak stress compared with NWC of the same compressive strength.
Furthermore, cracks in LWC propagate mostly by passing through
the aggregates; this significantly reduces the aggregate interlock
capacity along the crack planes. Hence, the width of the fracture

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 845

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 process zone and crack opening displacement can be expected to be Oh 1983; Shah 1990), simple closed-form equations that consider
smaller in LWC than in NWC, which produces a different tendency the influence of the concrete unit weight on the size effect trend are
for GF. However, there is very little, if any, available test data on GF proposed to predict GF .
of LWC in the literature. The fracture characteristics of LWC are
also still unspecified.
The objective of the present study was to examine the effect of Experimental Details
the aggregate size and specimen depth on the GF of LWC. Different
beam specimens were prepared using eight ready-mixed concrete Specimen Design
batches classified into all-lightweight concrete (ALWC) and sand-
Four ALWC batches and four SLWC batches were prepared with
lightweight concrete (SLWC) groups. In each concrete group, the
different da between 4 and 19 mm (see Table 1). In each ready-
maximum aggregate size (da ) was varied from 4 to 19 mm, and the
mixed concrete batch, four beam specimens were fabricated as rec-
overall depth (D) of the beam specimens in each concrete batch was ommended by RILEM (1985) to measure GF , as shown in Fig. 1.
varied between 150 and 600 mm. Experimental determination of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

To examine the size effect on GF , the overall depth (D) of beam

GF followed the RILEM recommendation (1985) of a standard
displacement-controlled three-point bending test. The GF values
measured in the present LWC specimens were compared with
those of NWC compiled from the available literature (Gettu et al.
1990; Elices and Rocco 2008; Hillerborg 1985; Choi et al. 2003;
Karihaloo and Nallathambi 1990; Guo and Gilbert 2000). Based on
the experimental observations and verification of prior empirical
models (CEB-FIP 1999; Carpinteri and Chiaia 1996; Bažant and
specimens with a section width of 100 mm was varied from 150
to 600 mm at spacing intervals of 150 mm for each concrete
batch. As a result, all beam specimens could be designated using
32 notations. The specimen notation has three parts, indicating the
concrete type, da , and D in sequential order. For example, speci-
men A8-150 refers to beams with a D of 150 mm, which was made
using ALWC with a da of 8 mm. Note that a concrete specimen
with a da of 4 mm indicates mortar without coarse aggregate

Table 1. Details of Ready-Mixed Concrete Batches and Measured Mechanical Properties of Concrete
Unit volume weight (kg=m3 )
Concrete Concrete da W=C f c0 ft Ec ρc
mixa type (mm) (%) W C FL FS GL (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg=m3 )
A4 ALWC 4 30 200 667 725 — — 47.3 2.4 17,505 1,650
A8 8 240 455 48.3 2.6 17,520 1,620
A13 13 264 418 44.9 2.5 16,754 1,607
A19 19 255 437 42.2 2.5 16,251 1,617
S4 SLWC 4 35 571 — 1,423 — 37.6 2.5 21,181 2,234
S8 8 520 455 44.3 2.6 17,654 1,786
S13 13 566 418 38.5 2.5 16,387 1,794
S19 19 549 437 39.1 2.6 16,539 1,797
Note: da = maximum aggregate size, W=C = water-to-cement ratio by weight, FL = lightweight fine aggregate, FS = natural normal-weight sand, GL =
lightweight coarse aggregates, fc0 = compressive strength measured from a cylinder with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height, f t = direct tensile strength
measured from a prism with square section of 100 mm, Ec = modulus of elasticity recorded from the cylinder, and ρc = unit weight of hardened concrete.
a
In the concrete mix notation, the first and second parts indicate the type of concrete and maximum aggregate size, respectively. For example, A8 indicates an
all-lightweight ready-mixed concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 8 mm.

Fig. 1. Geometry of the three-point bending specimens and test setup

846 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 Table 2. Physical Properties of Aggregates Used Table 3. Summary of Test Results of Each Specimen
Unit Concrete Beam P Δpeak Δmax wc GF lch
Maximum volume Water Modulus mix notation (N) (mm) (mm) (mm) (N=mm) (mm)
size weight Specific absorption of
A4 A4-150 2,125 0.112 0.376 0.074 0.0482 141
Type (mm) (kg=m3 ) gravity (%) fineness
A4-300 3,467 0.166 0.676 0.109 0.0864 253
Expanded lightweight clay granule A4-450 4,596 0.245 0.938 0.162 0.1060 310
Fine particles 4 832 1.65 13.68 4.34 A4-600 5,609 0.309 0.987 0.173 0.1272 372
Coarse particles 8 759 1.22 18.77 5.86 A8 A8-150 2,163 0.145 0.571 0.077 0.0635 167
13 697 1.18 18.00 6.31 A8-300 3,759 0.231 0.860 0.122 0.1171 308
19 729 1.21 18.96 6.56 A8-450 4,952 0.311 1.105 0.165 0.1345 353
Natural normal- 5 1,750 2.6 1.85 2.51 A8-600 6,314 0.353 1.106 0.187 0.1466 385
weight sand A13 A13-150 2,116 0.162 0.526 0.074 0.0641 174
A13-300 3,796 0.280 0.891 0.115 0.1148 305
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A13-450 5,085 0.343 1.146 0.155 0.1366 365

and that the concrete mix S4 was produced using no lightweight A13-600 6,259 0.399 1.144 0.210 0.1544 418
A19 A19-150 2,284 0.168 0.554 0.074 0.0691 174
aggregate. The ligament depth (dl ) of all beam specimens was kept
A19-300 3,732 0.254 0.773 0.113 0.1071 270
constant as 0.6D; as a result, the ratio of the smallest to largest A19-450 4,870 0.307 1.045 0.168 0.1234 310
depths was 4.0, and the dl =da ratios ranged between 4.74 and A19-600 6,201 0.380 1.052 0.205 0.1413 356
90. The depth (a0 ) and width of the notches installed at midspan S4 S4-150 2,656 0.111 0.471 0.069 0.0645 224
were also kept constant at 0.4D and 3 mm, respectively. The beam S4-300 4,516 0.162 0.644 0.098 0.1011 352
span between the centers of both end supports was fixed to 4D, S4-450 5,817 0.210 0.807 0.113 0.1221 425
which satisfies the minimum requirement of 2.5D, as specified S4-600 6,588 0.228 0.827 0.149 0.1368 476
by RILEM. The distance from the end of the beam to the nearest S8 S8-150 2,652 0.134 0.477 0.071 0.0750 195
support was kept at 50 mm to prevent splitting or cracking at the S8-300 4,540 0.226 0.836 0.102 0.1221 318
beam ends. S8-450 6,344 0.256 1.019 0.122 0.1385 361
S8-600 7,400 0.286 1.042 0.165 0.1512 394
S13 S13-150 2,550 0.138 0.598 0.070 0.0768 198
Materials S13-300 4,815 0.239 0.848 0.107 0.1213 313
S13-450 6,008 0.277 1.076 0.150 0.1377 355
The targeted compressive strength and slump of the concrete S13-600 7,650 0.317 1.048 0.179 0.1539 397
were 40 MPa and 120 mm, respectively, for all concrete batches. S19 S19-150 2,236 0.138 0.643 0.071 0.0729 179
Artificially expanded clay granules were used as the lightweight S19-300 3,979 0.215 0.861 0.104 0.1132 278
aggregates. Locally available natural sand with a maximum size S19-450 5,496 0.258 1.066 0.120 0.1327 326
of 5 mm was also mixed as a normal-weight fine aggregate in S19-600 6,975 0.311 1.065 0.163 0.1526 375
the SLWC batches. The lightweight aggregates were spherical in Note: P = peak load, Δpeak = beam deflection at peak load, Δmax =
shape and had a closed surface with a slightly smooth texture deflection at beam fracture, wc = crack mouth opening displacement at
and porous structure. The water absorption of lightweight aggre- peak load, GF = fracture energy, and lch = characteristic length.
gates was excessively high, whereas their specific gravity was more
than 1.6 times lower than that of natural sand, as given in Table 2.
For the lightweight aggregates, the specific gravity was higher in deformation of the specimens. Loading was applied continuously
fine particles than in coarse particles and it was independent of the and without shock under closed loop control with a displacement
coarse particle size. The modulus of fineness of the lightweight fine rate of 0.002D per minute at midspan. The applied load was re-
aggregates was higher than that of the sand because of the relative corded using a load cell fixed to the head of the testing machine.
poverty of particles under 0.6 mm. The deflection at midspan of the beam specimens was measured
Table 1 includes the mechanical properties recorded at the same using two 5 mm capacity linear variable differential transducers.
time as each beam test. The compressive strength (fc0 ) of concrete The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was also recorded
was measured using three Φ150 × 300 mm cylinders, whereas the using a clip gage.
direct tensile strength (ft ) was obtained from three 100 × 100 ×
267 mm prism specimens installed with stud bolts at both ends.
In general, the measured fc0 and f t of ALWC were lower than those Test Results and Discussions
of SLWC. The compressive strength of concrete was negligibly
affected by da, whereas ft slightly increased with increasing da . Table 3 summarizes the experimentally determined fracture param-
The unit weight (ρc ) and modulus of elasticity (Ec ) of concrete eters: GF , the characteristic length (lch ¼ Ec GF =f2t ), and the
was independent of da except for specimen S4 with no lightweight amount of CMOD (wc ) at peak load. For determining GF from
aggregates the load-displacement curves of the notched beams, dl is a more
critical parameter than D. Hence, the size effect from the variation
in dl on GF was examined in this study.
Test Method
In each beam notation, three identical specimens were prepared
Crack Propagation
in order to minimize an experimental error. Hence, the fracture en-
ergy of each beam was determined from the average value of three Fig. 2 shows the typical crack propagation and characteristics of the
specimens with the same test parameters. All the specimens were failure surface observed in specimens A4-150, A4-600, A19-150,
tested under three-point bending using a very stiff 3,000 kN capac- and A19-600. The initial crack developed at 90 ∼ 95% peak stress
ity testing machine with a closed-loop control system at a nominal at the tip of the notch and then rapidly propagated toward the top
age between 28 and 33 days (see Fig. 1). Both end supports were loading point. The failure of all specimens was governed by this
installed to be horizontally movable to avoid any restraint on the single crack that linearly formed over the entire depth of the beam,

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 847

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Typical crack propagation and failure planes in ALWC specimens

revealing that the propagation and shape of the crack are not af-
fected by D and da . In addition, observation of the failure surfaces
clearly demonstrated that the crack mostly penetrates through the
lightweight coarse aggregate particles. Hence, aggregate interlock
action along the crack can be expected to be reduced.
7000
6000
5000
Applied load (N)
Fig. 3 plots typical load-CMOD curves measured from ALWC
beams. The slope at the ascending branch of CMOD curves was
independent of D and da . When a visible crack occurred at the
tip of the notch, CMOD sharply increased; this shows that the rate
of increase was negligibly affected by da owing to the extremely
reduced aggregate interlock along the crack. This response after
cracking immediately influenced the amount of wc . Hence, the
amount of wc was found to be almost irrelevant to da , as given
d a = 4 mm
No1
in Table 3. After reaching peak load, the crack opening gradually
d a = 8 mm
grew, and the applied load dropped sharply, showing a larger rate of
No2
decrease with increasing D.
d a = 13 mm
No3

d a = 19 mm
No4
4000 Load-Deflection Response
3000 The load-deflection response observed in all beams aligned to the
findings of load-CMOD curves, as shown in Fig. 4. Until the oc-
2000 currence of cracks at the tip of the notch, all specimens exhibited
1000
linear behavior. The rate of increase in displacement slightly de-
creased as D increased up to 450 mm; beyond this, it was indepen-
0 dent of D. The rate of decrease in the applied load at the descending
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
branch became slightly sharp as D increased, i.e., the flexural
(a) Crack mouth opening displacement, CMOD (mm) behavior of beams tended to become more brittle with increasing
D. In addition, when the beam was larger, the amount of deflections
7000
D
No4
= 150 mm
at peak load and at final fracture increased, as given in Table 3.
6000 D = 300 mm
No4
These observations of the ascending and descending branches were
D = 450 mm
No4
independent of da , unlike the general tendency (Man and van Mier
5000 D = 600 mm
No4 2008) revealed for NWC specimens, wherein the fracture behavior
Applied load (N)

is less brittle in concrete with a da of 19 mm than with a da of

4000
4 mm. Overall, the poor aggregate interlock action along the single
3000 crack resulted in the descending branches being independent of da .

2000
Effect of d a on G F
1000
Fig. 5 shows the fracture energy of LWC measured from beams
0 with a D of 150 mm according to da . The same figure plots the
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 GF of NWC beams (Elices and Rocco 2008; Hillerborg 1985; Choi
(b) Crack mouth opening displacement, CMOD (mm) et al. 2003; Karihaloo and Nallathambi 1990; Guo and Gilbert
2000) with a similar depth for comparison. In general, GF mea-
Fig. 3. Typical load-CMOD curves of ALWC beams
sured from the present LWC beams was lower than that of NWC.

848 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 7000 0.20
indicates the initial crack strength at tip of the notch. White and black symbols indicate SLWC and ALWC, respectively
6000

Fracture energy,GF (N/mm)

d a = 4 mm
No1 0.15
5000
Applied load (N)

d a = 8 mm
No2
4000 d a = 13 mm
No3
0.10
3000 d a = 19 mm
No4

2000 NWC (Hillerborg )

7 20
d a mm
= 10 mm
0.05
1000 4d amm
= 8 mm
LWC (This study)
d = 19 mm
19a mm
0 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 100 200 300 400
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)
Deflection at mid-span (mm) Depth of ligament, d l (mm)

7000 Fig. 6. Effect of dl on GF

indicates the initial crack strength at tip of the notch.
6000 No4
D = 150 mm
No4
D = 300 mm
5000 Effect of d l on G F
Applied load (N)

No4
D = 450 mm
4000 No4
D = 600 mm Fig. 6 shows GF according to the variation in dl . NWC data com-
piled from Hillerborg’s tests (1985) are also provided in the figure
3000 to examine the influence of the concrete type on the size effect on
GF . The differences in GF between SLWC and ALWC slightly nar-
2000 rowed as dl increased. The fracture energy of concrete generally
1000
increased with an increase in dl , showing that the rate of increase
was minimally affected by da. When dl increased from 90 to
0 360 mm, the average rates of increase in GF were evaluated to
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 be 228% and 197% for ALWC and SLWC, respectively. The rate
(b) Deflection at mid-span (mm) of increase in GF for NWC was 115% as dl increased from 90 to
300 mm. The rate of increase in GF was slightly higher in ALWC
Fig. 4. Typical load-deflection curves of ALWC beams than in SLWC, which in turn was higher than in NWC. Hence, the
size dependence of GF becomes stronger with a decrease in the
concrete unit weight. The tensile resistance capacity of LWC is
The fracture energy of SLWC was slightly higher by an average of generally lower than that of NWC of the same compressive
1.08 times than that of the companion ALWC, as given in Table 3. strength, indicating that the ratio of tensile to compressive strengths
For NWC, GF tended to increase with increasing da . GF measured is higher in LWC than in NWC. This lower tensile strength due to
in LWC beams with a da above 8 mm was almost constant, the decrease in concrete unit weight increases the amount of
although a value approximately 166% higher was obtained when CMOD and the effective length of the fracture process zone, which
da increased from 4 mm to 8 mm. The effect of da on GF of LWC results in a larger variation in energy dissipation against dl in LWC
was independent of dl . As a result, when da is above 8 mm, the rate than in NWC. This is one reason for the increased size effect of GF
of increase in GF against da in LWC was small enough to be on LWC than on NWC. The rate of increase in GF was found to be
ignored compared with the results observed in the best-fit curve mitigated when dl was larger than 270 mm. Based on an extensive
review of NWC test data, Wittmann et al. (1990) concluded that the
for NWC. This indicates that the aggregate interlock action of
fracture process zone remains constant after reaching the highest
LWC with da above 8 mm can be expected to have a negligible
length; as a result, an asymptotic value of GF can be obtained
effect on GF .
beyond a certain limit of dl . In the present tests, the value of GF
increased by an average of 109% only when dl increased from 270
0.4 to 360 mm. This clearly indicates the asymptotic size-dependence
NWC - D = 100 mm (d l /D = 0.5) of GF in LWC as well.
ALWC
Fracture energy,GF (N/mm)

D = 150 mm (d l /D = 0.6)
0.3 SLWC
Proposal of Simple Model
Best fit curve for NWC
0.2 The fracture energy is usually considered to be a material constant
representing the fracture process, including aggregate interlock-
ing and the dissipation mechanism ahead of the crack tip. As the
0.1 energy dissipation process is complicated and somewhat ambigu-
ous (Carpinteri and Chiaia 1995, 1996), numerous experimental
and analytical approaches (Gettu et al. 1990; Carpinteri and Chiaia
0.0 1995; Bažant and Oh 1983; Shah 1990) have been investigated to
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 define and determine GF according to a standard method. As a re-
Maximum aggregate size, d a (mm) sult, the RILEM recommendation (1985) of not considering the
size effect has predominantly governed the experimental determi-
Fig. 5. Effect of da on GF
nation of GF since the 1990s. However, the measured value of GF

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 849

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 has always been observed to increase with an increase in dl , though
the increasing rate is gradually mitigated. To explain this phenome-
non, Mai and Cotterell (1985) proposed a bilinear scaling-effect
law for GF based on several investigations. Carpinteri and Chiaia
(1995, 1996) described a multifractal scaling-law for GF using the
bilogarithmic diagram. However, it is not easy to evaluate GF di-
rectly using these models because experimental constants, includ-
ing the nominal asymptotic fracture energy (G∞ F ) and characteristic
length (lch ), should preferably be determined by nonlinear regres-
sion analysis.
Closed-Form Equation for G F
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Based on the multifractal scaling effect law plotted in Fig. 7,
Carpinteri and Chiaia (1995, 1996) concluded that the nominal
fracture energy of concrete can be fundamentally deduced as
follows:


∞ lch −1=2
GF ¼ GF 1 þ ð1Þ
dl
The characteristic length (lch ) was assumed to be a function of
the maximum aggregate size, namely, B1 da . The exponent −1=2
representing the maximum slope of the size effect law was deter-
mined from the hypothesis of a Brownian microscopic disorder of
the microstructure. Overall, the format of Eq. (1) is very similar to
that of the size effect equation generalized by Bažant and Kazemi
(1991). This may be because those models were fundamentally de-
rived under the hypothesis that the potential energy release rate at
the fracture is dependent on the width of the crack band zone
formed from smeared microcracks and on the length of the fracture
process zone. Bažant and Kazemi also assumed that the width of
the crack band zone is proportional to da . On the other hand, Yang
and Sim (2011) showed that the length of the fracture process zone
is minimally affected by da, especially in LWC, whereas it is sig-
nificantly affected by ρc. This fact was also observed in the present
test results. Similar to the analogy between Eq. (1) and the size
effect law of Bažant and Kazemi, a closed-form equation of GF
can thus be formulated using the size effect equation generalized
by Yang and Sim (2011) in the following form (see Fig. 7):

 
B1 ρc C1 −1=2
GF ¼ G∞ 1 þ ð2Þ
F
d l ρ0
where B1 and C1 are experimental constants, and ρ0 (¼ 2; 300
kg=m3 ) is the reference value for the concrete unit weight. Note
that dl in Eq. (2) is in millimeters. The above equation represents
Fig. 7. Generalization of the size effect on GF
850 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.
a homogeneous regime of scaling corresponding to the horizontal
asymptote when dl is larger than a certain limit.
Asymptotic Fracture Energy G ∞
F
To empirically determine the value of G∞ F , the current 32 LWC
test results and 41 NWC data results (Gettu et al. 1990; Elices and
Rocco 2008; Karihaloo and Nallathambi 1990; Guo and Gilbert
2000) on the size effect were substituted into Eq. (2); regression
analysis was then conducted for each concrete mix. An asymptotic
value of GF was always obtained, showing that the determined
G∞ 0
F tends to increase with the increase of f c . The effect of da
∞
on GF is significantly dependent on the type of concrete. The
G∞
F value for NWC increases with the increase of da , while that
for LWC increases up to da of 8 mm, beyond which it almost re-
mains constant. To reflect these trends into a simple equation for
G∞ 0
F , influencing parameters such as f c and da were adjusted by
nonlinear multiple regression analysis until a high correlation co-
efficient (R2 ) was obtained, as shown in Fig. 8. The different effects
of da according to the type of concrete were identified by introduc-
ing the parameter of ξ a . Overall, G∞
f can be reasonably expressed
in the following form:
G∞ 0 0.5
F ¼ 0.03 ln½ξ a ðf c Þ
þ 0.135 ð3Þ
where ξ a is da for NWC, and ðda Þ1.25 ≤ 13.45 for LWC, indicating
that da for LWC is limited to be below 8 mm. Note that the deter-
mination of G∞ f using Eq. (1), as proposed by Carpinteri and Chiaia
(1996) usually gives a tedious procedure through regression analy-
sis of a couple of datasets. However, the value of G∞ f straightfor-
wardly determined from Eq. (3) is similar to that obtained from
Eq. (1), as shown in Fig. 7.
Determination of Experimental Constants
A comprehensive database on GF compiled from the available lit-
erature (Elices and Rocco 2008; Hillerborg 1985; Choi et al. 2003;
Karihaloo and Nallathambi 1990; Guo and Gilbert 2000) was es-
tablished to determine the experimental constants of B1 and C1 in
Eq. (2). As it is extremely difficult to find published data for LWC
except for the three LWC beam specimens tested by Tang et al.
(2008), the database only includes NWC specimens with a total
of 108 datasets. The distribution of main parameters in the
NWC database is plotted in Fig. 9. The NWC beam specimens were
mainly from low- or medium-strength concrete, although a small
minority of specimens had an f c0 of more than 80 MPa. The overall
depth of beam specimens ranged between 63 and 258 mm, but the
majority were around 100 mm. This indicates that test data to
Fig. 8. Determination of G∞
F by regression analysis
 40 60
35 48
50 44
33 34
30
40

Frequency
Frequency 25 19 19
20 30
15
20
10 11
3 10 4
5 1
0 0
30 30~40 40~60 60~80 80 100 100~150 150~200 200~250 250
(a) Compressive strength of concrete, f' c (mm) (b) Overall depth of beam, D (mm)

60 80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

50 55 70
67
60
40 34
Frequency

Frequency
50
30 40
30
20 25
11 20
10 6 9
2 10 5
2
0 0
5 5~15 15~25 25~30 30 50 50~100 100~150 150~200 200
(c) Maximum aggregate size, d a (mm) (d) Depth of ligament, d l (mm)

70 60
59
60 50 54
50
40
Frequency

Frequency

38
40 29
30
30 19
20
20
7 10 4
10 1 3 2
0 0
0.5 0.5~0.6 0.6~0.7 0.7~0.8 0.8 5 5~10 10~20 20~30 30
(e) d l / D ratio (f) d l / d a ratio

Fig. 9. Distributions of main parameters in the NWC database

ascertain the size effect on GF are rare, even for NWC. The dl =D
ratios were limited to a specific range between 0.5 and 0.9; as a
result, dl varied from 41 to 233 mm. The maximum aggregate size
of NWC ranged between 5 and 32 mm; the D=dl and dl =da ratios
varied from 3.1 to 42.7 and from 1.6 to 38.2, respectively.
Using the reference value of G∞f determined by Eq. (3), the op-
timum values of the unknown quantities in the basic formula of
Eq. (2) were fitted by regression analysis using the current test data
and 108 NWC data points (Elices and Rocco 2008; Hillerborg
1985; Choi et al. 2003; Karihaloo and Nallathambi 1990; Guo
and Gilbert 2000). In this regression analysis, the unit weights
and da of NWC were assumed to be 2,300 kg=m3 and 19 mm, re-
spectively, for the specimens with no data available. Ultimately,
constants B1 and C1 were approximated as 900 and −0.35, respec-
tively, from the fitting procedure.
Comparison of Experimental Results and Predictions
The fracture energy of concrete was predicted using different
equations, including that of both previous and current models;
these results were compared with the experimental results. Separate
comparisons were made for existing NWC data (Elices and
Rocco 2008; Hillerborg 1985; Choi et al. 2003; Karihaloo and
Nallathambi 1990; Guo and Gilbert 2000) and the current LWC
beams, as plotted in Fig. 10. It should be noted that for comparison
with Carpinteri and Chiaia’s (1996) equation and the size effect
model (SEM) proposed by Shah (1990), 41 NWC beams (Gettu
et al. 1990; Elices and Rocco 2008; Karihaloo and Nallathambi
1990; Guo and Gilbert 2000) and the current 32 LWC beams were
used only because those models require a series of specimens with
different depths to determine GF . The statistical comparison includ-
ing the mean (γ cs:m ), standard deviation (γ cs:s ), and coefficient of
variation (γ cs:ν ) of the ratios (γ cs ¼ ðGF ÞExp: =ðGF ÞPre: ) for the mea-
sured to predicted fracture energies are also given in the same figure
for each concrete type. The previous model set used for the com-
parisons includes four separate formulas: the design equations
specified in the CEB-FIP provision (1999), the empirical equations
developed by Carpinteri and Chiaia (1996), the equations by
Bažant and Oh (1983), and the SEM proposed by Shah (1990).
Appendix summarizes examples to determine GF using these
models for comparison. The important findings that emerged from
the comparisons are described below.
As the design equations specified in the CEB-FIP provision
are primarily formulated as a function of fc0 and da , based on
NWC test data, they give a higher value for γ cs:m in LWC than in
NWC. The value of γ cs:m obtained from the CEB-FIP equations
increases for LWC with an increase in dl ; as a result, the equations
become unconservative for beams with a dl of less than 200 mm
[Fig. 10(a)], regardless of the concrete type. Carpinteri and Chiaia’s

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 851

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 5 5

4 4
(GF )Exp./(GF )Pre.

(GF )Exp./(GF )Pre.

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
(a) Depth of ligament, d l (mm) (c) Depth of ligament, d l (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 5

4 4
(GF )Exp./(GF )Pre.

(GF )Exp./(GF )Pre.

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
(b) Depth of ligament, d l (mm) (d) Depth of ligament, d l (mm)

4
(GF )Exp./(GF )Pre.

0
0 100 200 300 400
(e) Depth of ligament, d l (mm)

Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted GF with experimental results against dl (a) CEB-FIP (1999); (b) Carpinteri and Chiaia (1996); (c) Bažant and Oh
(1983); (d) SEM; (e) this study

equation requires a series of specimens with different depths to
empirically determine the values of G∞ F and lch . Using the value
of G∞ F determined from Eq. (3), lch varied between 13.3 and
256 da . Meanwhile, lch determined from regression analysis of test
data using Eq. (1) ranged between 53 and 256 da for LWC and 13.3
and 114 da for NWC. This indicates that the value of lch Carpinteri
and Chiaia’s equation is extremely variable-dependent on fc0 ,
ρc , and dl . Carpinteri and Chiaia’s equation has lower values for
γ cs:s and γ cs:ν than the design equations of the CEB-FIP provision.
The value of GF determined from Carpinteri and Chiaia’s equation
generally underestimates the test results of NWC, although the
considered size effect is reliable [Fig. 10(b)]. Bažant and Oh
empirically estimated GF according to the tensile strength of con-
crete. Bažant and Oh’s equation considerably underestimates GF ,
regardless of dl [Fig. 10(c)]; and gives lower values of γ cs in NWC
than in LWC. The SEM also produces scattered results, regardless
of the concrete type [Fig. 10(d)]. Similar to Carpinteri and Chiaia’s
equation, the SEM should experience a tedious regression pro-
cedure with regard to beams having different depths. Note that the
empirical equations of the CEB-FIP provision, and Bažant and Oh,
and the SEM do not consider the size effect on GF ; they give a
constant value of GF for concrete with the same fc0 and mix pro-
portions, regardless of D. The predictions obtained from the model
proposed in this study agreed better with the test results than the
other models did, regardless of the concrete type [Fig. 10(e)]. The
values of γ cs:m , γ cs:s , and γ cs:ν were 1.01, 0.104, and 0.103, respec-
tively, for LWC and 1.24, 0.437, and 0.352, respectively, for NWC.
In addition, the variation in the ratios (γ cs ) was marginally depen-
dent on dl , indicating that the size effect on GF is properly reflected
in the proposed model.

852 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 Conclusions Table 4. Example of Data Obtained from A13 Series Beams
Beam f c0 ft Ec ρc D dl P GF
To examine the effects of beam depth and maximum aggregate specimen (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg=m3 ) (mm) (mm) (N) (N/mm)
size on the fracture energy of lightweight concrete, different beam
specimens designated into 32 notations were tested, and simple A13-150 44.9 2.49 16754 1607 150 90 2,116 0.0641
A13-300 300 180 3,796 0.1148
closed-form equations were proposed to generalize the influence
A13-450 450 270 5,085 0.1366
of the concrete unit weight on the size effect on the fracture en- A13-600 600 360 6,259 0.1544
ergy. Although further reliable test data would need to be com-
piled to explain the asymptotic value of the fracture energy, the
following conclusions for the size effect on fracture energy may
be drawn: can be determined to be 0.3672 N=mm and 1,828 mm
1. The propagation and distribution of the crack developed at (= 140 da ), respectively. By substituting the determined values
the tip of the notch were not affected by the beam depth of G∞f and lch into Eq. (1), GF for each beam can be calculated
to be 0.0797, 0.1102, 0.1320, and 0.1492 N=mm for a dl
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and maximum aggregate size (da ), showing that crack pene-

tration occurred through the lightweight aggregate particles. of 90, 180, 270, and 360 mm, respectively.
As a result, the amount of crack mouth opening displacement 3. Bažant and Oh
at peak load was insignificantly affected by da. The empirical equation proposed by Bažant and Oh is as
2. The flexural behavior of beams tended to be more brittle with follows:
increasing beam depth, whereas it was independent of da .

d
3. The fracture energy (GF ) of lightweight concrete (LWC) was GF ¼ ð15.53 þ 17.72ft Þf2t a ð5Þ
lower than that of NWC. The fracture energy of LWC tended Ec
to increase as da increased up to 8 mm, beyond which it re-
mained constant, indicating that the aggregate interlock action Substituting the experimental values of ft and Ec into
can be expected to have no contribution to GF in LWC with da Eq. (5), GF for the concrete specimens given in Table 4
above 8 mm. can be calculated to be 0.2870 N=mm, regardless of the speci-
4. The fracture energy of concrete generally increased with in- men size. Provided that no experimental data for ft and/or Ec
creasing depth of the ligament (dl ), showing that the rate of are available, the code provision equations can be employed
increase in GF was slightly higher in all-lightweight concrete for them. For a concrete compressive strength of 44.9 MPa, the
than in sand-lightweight concrete; this in turn was higher than CEB-FIP equations give 3.27 and 16,086 MPa for f t and Ec ,
in NWC. respectively. Using these values determined from the CEB-FIP
5. The CEB-FIP equations were unconservative for small equations, GF becomes 0.6339 N=mm. Equation A.2 is sig-
beams, as they gave lower predictions for LWC than for nificantly sensitive to variations in ft and Ec .
NWC. The accuracy of the equations proposed by Carpinteri 4. Size effect model (SEM) −
and Chiaia, and Bažant and Oh significantly depends on the For the specimen given in− Table 4, the mean value (X ) of
concrete type. On the other hand, the proposed models X j ð¼ Dj Þ and mean value (Y ) of Y j ð¼ bw Dj =Pj Þ can be ob-
agreed better with test results; they closely predicted the size tained as 375 mm and 57.37 mm2 =N, respectively. Consider-
effect trend observed for the test data, regardless of the con- ing the plot of ordinates Y j against abscissa X j , slope (A) and
crete unit weight. intercept (C) of the linear regression line at Y ¼ AX þ C can
be calculated as follows:
Pn − −
j¼1 ðX j − X ÞðY j − Y Þ
Appendix. Example for Calculation of Fracture
Energy Using Different Models A¼ Pn − 2 ¼ 0.043 mm−1 MPa−2 ; and
j¼1 ðX j − X Þ
This appendix presents a typical example to illustrate the applica- − −
tion of the proposed models for comparison with the experimental C ¼ Y − AX ¼ 41.25 MPa−2
GF values. For ALWC mixes with a da of 13 mm, Table 4 gives
data obtained from the present tests, which includes mechanical where n is the number of all beam specimens. For the
properties of the material and peak loads of three-point bending αð¼ dl =DÞ and S=D values of 0.6 and 4.0, respectively, the
beams with a width (bw ) of 100 mm. The procedure for calculating nondimensional energy release rate (gðαÞ) is obtained using
the GF of each model can be summarized as follows: the following equations:
1. CEB-FIP
1.99 − αð1 − αÞð2.15 − 3.93α þ 2.7α2 Þ
For concrete compressive strength below 80 MPa, GF can FðαÞ ¼ ¼ 1.18; and
be obtained from the CEB-FIP equation using π1=2 ð1 þ 2αÞð1 − αÞ3=2

0 0.7
2
f S
GF ¼ GF0 c ð4Þ gðαÞ ¼ πα½1.5FðαÞ
2 ¼ 62.8
10 D
where GF0 is the base value of the fracture energy, which is Hence, GF for the A19 series specimens can be obtained as
0.025, 0.03, and 0.05 N=mm for a da of 8, 16, and 32 mm, follows:
respectively. Based on extrapolation, GF0 for a da of
13 mm can be determined to be 0.0287 N=mm. As Eq. (4)
above does not include the beam size, GF for the concrete gðαÞ 62.8
GF ¼ ¼
in Table 4 can be calculated to be 0.0821 N=mm. Ec A ð16,754 MPaÞð0.043 mm−1 MPa−2 Þ
2. Carpinteri and Chiaia ¼ 0.0872 N=mm
From the regression analysis using the experimental GF
values given in Table 4, the values of G∞
f and lch in Eq. (1) As a guide, the statistics satisfy the following condition:

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 853

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.

 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n−1 2 1 X 1 X
sYjX ¼ ðs − A2 s2X Þ ¼ 1.268; sX ¼ ðX j − XÞ2 ¼ 193.65; sY ¼ ðY j − YÞ2 ¼ 8.33;
n−2 Y n−1 j n−1 j
sYjX 1.268 s 193.65
ωYjX ¼ ¼ ¼ 0.0221; ωX ¼ X ¼ ¼ 0.516;
Y 57.37 X̄ 375
sYjX 1.268
ωA ¼ ¼ ¼ 0.088 < 0.1;
A · sX ðn − 1Þ1=2 0.043 · 193.65ð4 − 1Þ1=2


1=2
sYjX 1 1=2 1.268 1
ωc ¼ 1 þ ¼ 1 þ ¼ 0.039 < 0.2;
Cðn − 1Þ1=2 ω2X 41.25ð4 − 1Þ1=2 0.5162
ωYjX 0.0221
m¼ ¼ ¼ 0.043 < 0.2;
ωX 0.516
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5. Proposed model
Using Eq. (3), G∞
f can be straightforwardly obtained as
0.27 N=mm. Substituting this value into Eq. (2), GF for each
beam can then simply be calculated to be 0.0769, 0.1046,
0.1235, and 0.1379 N=mm for a dl of 90, 180, 270, and
360 mm, respectively.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF: 2009-
0067189) and by a Nuclear Research and Development program of
the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
(KETEP) grant funded by the Korea Government Ministry of
Knowledge Economy (2011T100200161).
References
Barragan, B. E., Giaccio, G. M., and Zerbino, R. L. (2001). “Fracture and
failure of thermally damaged concrete under tensile loading.” Mater.
Struct., 34(5), 312–319.
Bažant, Z. P., Gettu, R., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). “Identification of
nonlinear fracture properties from size effect tests and structural analy-
sis based on geometry-dependent R-curves.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci., 28(1), 43–51.
Bažant, Z. P., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). “Size dependence of concrete
fracture energy determined by the RILEM work-of-fracture method.”
Int. J. Fracture, 51(2), 121–138.
Bažant, Z. P., and Oh, B. H. (1983). “Crack band theory for fracture of
concrete.” Mater. Struct., 16(93), 155–177.
Carpinteri, A., and Chiaia, B. (1995). “Multifractal nature of concrete frac-
ture surfaces and size effects on nominal fracture energy.” Mater.
Struct., 28(8), 435–443.
Carpinteri, A., and Chiaia, B. (1996). “Size effects on concrete fracture
energy: Dimensional transition from order to disorder.” Mater. Struct.,
29(5), 259–266.
Comité Euro-International du Beton (CEB-FIP). (1999). Structural con-
crete: Textbook on behavior, design and performance, International
Federation for Structural Concrete (FIB), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Choi, S. H., Kim, H. W., and Kim, W. J. (2003). “The fracture energy of
concrete according to the maximum size of coarse aggregate by 3PBT
and WTT.” J. Archit. I. Korea, 19(4), 97–104.
Elices, M., and Rocco, C. G. (2008). “Effect of aggregate size on the frac-
ture and mechanical properties of a simple concrete.” Eng. Fract.
Mech., 75(13), 3839–3851.
Gettu, R., Bažant, Z. P., and Karr, M. E. (1990). “Fracture properties and
brittleness of high-strength concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 87(6), 608–618.
Giaccio, G., Rocco, C., and Zerbino, R. (1993). “The fracture energy (GF )
of high-strength concretes.” Mater. Struct., 26(7), 381–386.
Guo, X. H., and Gilbert, R. I. (2000). “The effect of specimen size on
the fracture energy and softening function of concrete.” Mater. Struct.,
33(5), 309–316.
Hillerborg, A. (1985). “Results of three comparative test series for
determining the fracture energy GF of concrete.” Mater. Struct., 18(5),
407–413.
Karihaloo, B. L., and Nallathambi, P. (1990). “Size-effect prediction
from effective crack model for plain concrete.” Mater. Struct., 23(3),
178–185.
Mai, Y. W., and Cotterell, B. (1985). “Effect of specimen geometry on
the essential work of plane stress ductile fracture.” Eng. Fract. Mech.,
21(1), 123–128.
Man, H. K., and van Mier, J. G. M. (2008). “Size effect on strength and
fracture energy for numerical concrete with realistic aggregate shapes.”
Int. J. Fract., 154(1), 61–72.
RILEM Technical Committee 50. (1985). “Determination of the fracture
energy of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on
notched beams, draft recommendation.” Mater. Struct., 18(4), 287–290.
Shah, S. P. (1990). “Size-effect method for determining fracture energy and
process zone size of concrete.” Mater. Struct., 23(6), 461–465.
Tang, W. C., Lo, T. Y., and Chan, W. K. (2008). “Fracture properties of
normal and lightweight high-strength concrete.” Mag. Concrete Res.,
60(4), 237–244.
Wittmann, F. H., Mihashi, H., and Nomura, N. (1990). “Size effect on frac-
ture energy of concrete.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 35(1), 107–115.
Yang, K. H., and Sim, J. I. (2011). “Modeling of the mechanical properties
of structural lightweight concrete based on size effects.” Technical Rep.,
Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Kyonggi Univ., Korea.
Zhang, D., and Wu, K. (1999). “Fracture process zone of notched three-
point-bending concrete beams.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29(12), 1887–1892.
Zhang, J., Leung, C. K., and Xu, S. (2010). “Evaluation of fracture param-
eters of concrete from bending test using inverse analysis approach.”
Mater. Struct., 43(6), 857–874.

854 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014.26:845-854.