computation
Article
Computational Fracture Modeling for Effects of Healed Crack
Length and Interfacial Cohesive Properties in Self-Healing
Concrete Using XFEM and Cohesive Surface Technique
John Hanna 1, * and Ahmed Elamin 2
Citation: Hanna, J.; Elamin, A.
Computational Fracture Modeling for
Effects of Healed Crack Length and
Interfacial Cohesive Properties in
Self-Healing Concrete Using XFEM
and Cohesive Surface Technique.
Computation 2023, 11, 142.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
computation11070142
Academic Editors: Martynas Patašius
and Rimantas Barauskas
Received: 30 March 2023
Revised: 22 June 2023
Accepted: 6 July 2023
Published: 16 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Computation 2023, 11, 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation11070142
1 Institute of Structural Mechanics, Bauhaus University Weimar, 99423 Weimar, Germany
2 School of Engineering, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK; ahmed.elamin@greenwich.ac.uk
* Correspondence: john.nabil.mikhail.hanna@uni-weimar.de
Abstract: Healing patterns are a critical issue that influence the fracture mechanism of self-healing
concrete (SHC) structures. Partial healing cracks could happen even during the normal operating
conditions of the structure, such as sustainable applied loads or quick crack spreading. In this paper,
the effects of two main factors that control healing patterns, the healed crack length and the interfacial
cohesive properties between the solidified healing agent and the cracked surfaces on the load carrying
capacity and the fracture mechanism of healed SHC samples, are computationally investigated. The
proposed computational modeling framework is based on the extended finite element method (XFEM)
and cohesive surface (CS) technique to model the fracture and debonding mechanism of 2D healed
SHC samples under a uniaxial tensile test. The interfacial cohesive properties and the healed crack
length have significant effects on the load carrying capacity, the crack initiation, the propagation, and
the debonding potential of the solidified healing agent from the concrete matrix. The higher their
values, the higher the load carrying capacity. The solidified healing agent will be debonded from the
concrete matrix when the interfacial cohesive properties are less than 25% of the fracture properties
of the solidified healing agent.
Keywords: self-healing concrete; healing patterns; interfacial cohesive properties; healed crack length;
computational fracture modeling; XFEM; cohesive surface technique
1. Introduction
The idea of sustainable composite materials has gained popularity recently, including
self-healing concrete (SHC) which became a hot topic due to its ability of automatic crack
repairing without human intervention to prolong the service life and reduce the mainte-
nance cost of structures [1]. Many laboratory studies and experiments have been conducted
to investigate the fracture of the capsules and the bonding interaction between capsules
and the concrete matrix, as well as the healing efficiency and fracture mechanism, such as
in [2,3]. However, computational modeling has shown advantages in modeling physical
phenomena that are challenging and difficult to investigate experimentally, such as capsular
clustering [4]. Most computational modeling in SHC has focused on the investigation of the
fracture interaction between capsules and the concrete matrix using a variety of modeling
techniques such as cohesive elements, which is based on the cohesive zone model (CZM) [5]
and the extended finite element method (XFEM) with a cohesive surface (CS) technique
and has shown high accuracy [6,7]. Studying the effects of the healing patterns of cracks on
the fracture mechanism is required, especially when it comes to the design of self-healing
structures. This is because different healing patterns of cracks could occur depending on
many factors, such as the position of the capsules and the viscosity of the healing agent.
Nevertheless, sustainable applied loads or quick crack propagation even during normal
operational conditions of the structure could lead to partial healing at the crack surface
because the capillary force might be insufficient to suck the healing agent from the fractured
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/computation
Computation 2023, 11, 142 2 of 18

capsule. Furthermore, there is a possibility that full bonding between the healing agent
and crack surfaces is not established because the chemical properties of the healing agent
could be changed during the storage or manufacturing process. As a result, the effects
of the healing patterns that are represented by the healed crack length and the interfacial
cohesive properties between the healing agent and concrete matrix should be considered
during the design of self-healing structures to assure the reliability of the healing process.
Studying this phenomenon is challenging to investigate experimentally due to the difficulty
in obtaining various healing patterns in addition to its high cost. Therefore, in this paper,
the advantage of computational modeling will be exploited to study it.
Several computational techniques have been developed to allow for fracture modeling
of brittle and quasi-brittle materials [8]. The meshfree method was developed to model
discrete cracks via the activation of crack surfaces in individual particles without the prior
configuration of crack patterns [9]. It was developed further to geometrically model non-
linear problems and 3D models [10,11]. Although the zero thickness cohesive element
approach is considered to be the most used fracture modeling approach in the literature, it
has several concerns, such as mesh dependency and artificial compliance [12]. Recently,
a computational model based on an arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) formulation
has been developed to simulate fracture development in sandwich structures [13]. The
internal core is modeled as plane stress triangular elements, while the facesheets are
modeled as a one-dimensional Timoshenko beam. In order to predict the direction and
displacement of the crack tip front, a suitable fracture criterion and mesh refitting technique
are implemented in the moving mesh approach used to analyze the crack growth in the
core, although a preexisting crack is inserted in the middle of the core thickness. The
suggested method combines ALE formulation with CZM in order to demonstrate the
delamination mechanism between the core and the facesheets. The developed model was
built with the help of COMSOL Multiphysics software and MATLAB environment. It is
worth mentioning that this model needs further development to allow for the initiation
of cracks.
The extended finite element method (XFEM) is a powerful, flexible, and promising
discrete crack approach that enables crack initiation and propagation without the require-
ment of re-meshing [8]. Also, it has been proven that the predefined crack path is not
necessary in such modeling, as it can predict crack propagation trajectories accurately,
meaning that XFEM can be used to model fractures with or without precracks [6,14,15].
Moreover, high accuracy for the modeling fracture in concrete materials [16] has been
shown, and it has already been integrated into commercial software like ABAQUS [8]. In
addition, XFEM is considered to be the most cost-efficient computational modeling fracture
method within continuous and discontinuous methods such as ALE, mesh-refinement-
based approaches like the zero thickness cohesive element approach, and moving mesh
like phase-field models. This is due to the fact that XFEM only increases the degrees of
freedom (DOFs) in the element nodes intersected by the crack without any need for mesh
refinement or remeshing [17]. Finding computational fracture simulation that examines
the influence of healing patterns on the fracture mechanism of self-healing concrete in the
literature is challenging. The key novelty of this study is to computationally investigate
the effects of healing patterns represented by the healed crack length and the interfacial
cohesive properties on the fracture mechanism of healed SHC samples. The proposed
modeling framework in this paper is based on XFEM and CS techniques to model the
fracture mechanism and debonding probabilities of the solidified healing agent from the
concrete matrix. The computational modeling was conducted for two-dimensional healed
SHC samples subjected to uniform displacements applied at both the top and bottom ends.
This paper is presented as follows: Section 2 provides a detailed classification of
healing patterns with two main types: geometrical and adhesive. Section 3 explains the
proposed framework for computational modeling using XFEM and the CS technique based
on the CZM. Section 4 describes the numerical simulations that were performed to study
the effects of healing patterns on the overall mechanical strength of the healed concrete
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Computation 2023, 11, 142 3 of 18

the effects of healing patterns on the overall mechanical strength of the healed concrete
samples, including the mesh size analysis and the parametric studies. Section 5 discusses
the effects
samples, of the interfacial
including the mesh cohesive properties
size analysis and theand the healed
parametric crackSection
studies. length 5ondiscusses
the load
carrying
the effectscapacity and the crack
of the interfacial pattern
cohesive of the self-healing
properties concrete
and the healed based
crack on the
length obtained
on the load
results from
carrying the numerical
capacity and the crack simulations.
pattern ofSection 6 summarizes
the self-healing concreteandbased
emphasizes the main
on the obtained
conclusions
results from theof this researchsimulations.
numerical work. Section 6 summarizes and emphasizes the main
conclusions of this research work.
2. Types of Healing Patterns
2. Types of Healing Patterns
The releasing process of the healing agent from the microcapsules can generate dif-
The
ferent releasing
patterns processcracks.
of healed of the healing agent from
These various the patterns
healing microcapsules can generate
can range differ-
from unhealed
ent patterns of healed cracks. These various healing patterns can range from unhealed to
to fully healed cracks; see Figure 1. These healing patterns can be classified into two main
fully healed cracks; see Figure 1. These healing patterns can be classified into two main
types: geometrical and adhesive. The first type is geometrical, which represents the length
types: geometrical and adhesive. The first type is geometrical, which represents the length
of the healed crack, and is also known as the bonded area in the experimental studies [3].
of the healed crack, and is also known as the bonded area in the experimental studies [3].
The second type is adhesive, which represents the interfacial cohesive properties between
The second type is adhesive, which represents the interfacial cohesive properties between
the solidified healing agent and the concrete crack surfaces and is also known as an adhe-
the solidified healing agent and the concrete crack surfaces and is also known as an adhe-
sive property that might cause an adhesive failure in the experimental studies [18]. The
sive property that might cause an adhesive failure in the experimental studies [18]. The
length of the healed crack is dependent on many issues such as the viscosity of the healing
length of the healed crack is dependent on many issues such as the viscosity of the healing
agent, the crack width, the applied loads, and the crack propagation. All of these affect the
agent, the crack width, the applied loads, and the crack propagation. All of these affect
capillary force which drives the healing agent through the cracks. The healed crack length
the capillary force which drives the healing agent through the cracks. The healed crack
could be less than the crack length or even zero, meaning that the healing agent did not
length could be less than the crack length or even zero, meaning that the healing agent
did through
go the crack
not go through theatcrack
all. Therefore, the healed
at all. Therefore, thecrack
healedlength
crackshould
lengthbe adequate
should to trans-
be adequate
fer the stress in the contact zone between the concrete matrix and the
to transfer the stress in the contact zone between the concrete matrix and the solidified solidified healing
agent. The
healing interfacial
agent. cohesive
The interfacial properties
cohesive are dependent
properties on theon
are dependent chemical properties
the chemical of the
properties
healing agent and its shelf life. The interfacial cohesive properties could be
of the healing agent and its shelf life. The interfacial cohesive properties could be less thanless than either
the cohesive
either properties
the cohesive of theofsolidified
properties healing
the solidified agent
healing or the
agent or concrete
the concretematrix. Hence,
matrix. the
Hence,
interfacial cohesive properties should be sufficient to allow for transferring
the interfacial cohesive properties should be sufficient to allow for transferring the stress the stress suc-
cessfully in the
successfully interfacial
in the transition
interfacial zonezone
transition (itz) (itz)
between the concrete
between matrix
the concrete and the
matrix andsolid-
the
ified healing
solidified agent
healing without
agent permitting
without debonding.
permitting debonding.

Figure1.1. The
Figure The geometrical
geometrical representation
representation of
of various
various healing
healing patterns
patterns ranging
ranging from (a) fully
from fully healed
healed to
to (h) non-healed.
non-healed (a–h).

Inorder
In ordertotomodel
modelthesethesetypes
typesofofhealing
healingpatterns,
patterns,thethemost
mostcritical
criticalhealing
healingpatterns
patterns
weregeometrically
were geometricallyinvestigated,
investigated, asas demonstrated
demonstrated in in Figure
Figure 1.1. Effects
Effects ofof the
the healed
healed crack
crack
lengthare
length aregeometrically
geometricallyrepresented
representedin inthis
thisfigure
figurebybyvarying
varyingthetheratio
ratioofofthe
thehealed
healed crack
crack
length(L
length (Lhh))relative
relativetotothe
thewhole
wholecrack
crack length.
length. However,
However, thethe effects
effects of the
of the interfacial
interfacial cohe-
cohesive
sive properties
properties are represented
are represented by varying
by varying the ratio
the ratio of theofcohesive
the cohesive properties
properties of theofinterfacial
the inter-
facial transition
transition zonerelative
zone (itz) (itz) relative
to thetoproperties
the properties
of theofsolidified
the solidified healing
healing agent.agent. Based
Based on
these observations, a simple procedure to model the effects of the healed crack length and
the interfacial cohesive properties can be modeled. In this proposed study, the samples
 Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

Computation 2023, 11, 142

on these observations, a simple procedure to model the effects of the healed crack length 4 of 18

and the interfacial cohesive properties can be modeled. In this proposed study, the sam-
ples only include a single crack within a concrete matrix, a solidified healing agent, and
the contact
only include surfaces between
a single crack thisaconcrete
within concretecrack
matrix,and the solidified
a solidified healing
healing agent.
agent, The
and the
length surfaces
contact of the solidified
betweenhealing agent crack
this concrete and the andinterfacial cohesive
the solidified properties
healing agent. Theof the contact
length of
surfaces
the willhealing
solidified be changedagentaccordingly to represent
and the interfacial different
cohesive degrees
properties of contact
of the healing surfaces
patterns.
Thebe
will healed crack
changed length canto
accordingly berepresent
varied from zero healing
different degreestooffull healing.
healing These two
patterns. The extreme
healed
contrasting scenarios show that the healing agent has never gone through the crack length
crack length can be varied from zero healing to full healing. These two extreme contrasting
and has gone
scenarios showthrough
that the the entireagent
healing crackhaslength,
neverrespectively.
gone through The healed
the crackcrack
lengthlength (Lh)
and has
will through
gone be utilizedthetoentire
define the degree
crack length, of the geometrical
respectively. healingcrack
The healed pattern. The(LLhh)ratio
length pa-
will be
rametertorepresents
utilized define thethe proportion
degree of the of the actual healed
geometrical healingcrack length
pattern. TheinLrelation to the total
h ratio parameter
crack length.
represents the The range ofofthe
proportion theLactual healed crack length in relation to the total crack
h ratio can be varied from 100 to 0%; these represent the
length. The range of the L ratio
two extreme limits that represent whether
h can be varied from has
the crack 100 completely
to 0%; thesehealed
represent
or notthehealed
two
extreme
at all, as shown in Figure 1 (a)&(h), respectively. The interfacial cohesive properties ofall,
limits that represent whether the crack has completely healed or not healed at the
asinterfacial
shown intransition
Figure 1a,h, zonerespectively.
(itz) between Thetheinterfacial
solidifiedcohesive properties
healing agent and theof the interfacial
concrete crack
transition
surfaces willzonebe (itz) between
used to definethe solidified
the degreehealing
of the agent and the
adhesively concrete
healing crack(degree
pattern surfacesof
will be usedThe
bonding). to define the degree
parameter of therepresents
itz ration adhesivelythat healing pattern (degree
the interfacial cohesiveof bonding).
propertiesThe are
parameter
varied relative to the properties of the solidified healing agent. The range of itzrelative
itz ration represents that the interfacial cohesive properties are varied ration canto
the properties of the solidified healing agent. The range of itz ration can be varied from 100
be varied from 100 to 0%. These represent the two extreme limits which represent that the
to 0%. These represent the two extreme limits which represent that the solidified healing
solidified healing agent has complete bonding with the concrete matrix (fully bonded)
agent has complete bonding with the concrete matrix (fully bonded) and zero bonding
and zero bonding with the concrete matrix (non-bonded).
with the concrete matrix (non-bonded).

3.3.Computational
ComputationalModeling
ModelingFramework
Framework
Thespecimens
The specimensare are modeled
modeled as as a composite
a composite consisting
consisting of three
of three components:
components: a con-
a concrete
crete matrix, a solidified healing agent, and an interface between them. The
matrix, a solidified healing agent, and an interface between them. The concrete matrix and concrete ma-
trix and the solidified healing agent are modeled using the extended
the solidified healing agent are modeled using the extended finite element method (XFEM). finite element
method
The (XFEM).
interaction The interaction
between these twobetween these is
components two components
simulated is simulated
by employing thebycohesive
employ-
ing the cohesive surface technique (CS), as illustrated in Figure 2. Both
surface technique (CS), as illustrated in Figure 2. Both techniques that are employed techniques that are
to
employed
perform theto performand
initiation thepropagation
initiation andofpropagation of cracks
cracks are based are basedzone
on a cohesive on a model
cohesive zone
(CZM)
model
for (CZM)
fracture for fracture
modeling. modeling.framework
The modeling The modeling framework
was verified was verified
in another in another
study [7], which
study [7], which was shown to be superior in determining the load carrying
was shown to be superior in determining the load carrying capability and fracture pattern capability and
fracture pattern compared to the zero thickness
compared to the zero thickness cohesive element approach. cohesive element approach.

Figure2.2.The
Figure Themodeling
modelingtechniques.
techniques.

3.1.The
3.1. TheExtended
ExtendedFinite
FiniteElement
ElementMethod
Method(XFEM)
(XFEM)
Theextended
The extendedfinite
finiteelement
elementmethod
method(XFEM),
(XFEM),which whichisisbased
basedon onaalocal
localpartition
partitionofof
unity, can be described as an expansion of the traditional finite element method. The
unity, can be described as an expansion of the traditional finite element method. ex-
The
tended finite element method (XFEM) is considered as an extension of the conventional
extended finite element method (XFEM) is considered as an extension of the conventional
finiteelement
finite elementmethod
methodbased
basedononthe
theconcept
conceptofofpartition
partitionofofunity.
unity.This
Thisallows
allowsthethecracks
crackstoto
be represented as local enrichment functions and be easily integrated into a
be represented as local enrichment functions and be easily integrated into a finite element finite element
mesh
meshwithout
withoutremeshing
remeshingduring
duringthe simulation
the simulation [19]; seesee
[19]; Figure
Figure3. The
3. Thepresence
presence of cracks is
of cracks
depicted through
is depicted throughthethe
inclusion of of
inclusion enrichment
enrichment functions,
functions, which
which are
areincorporated
incorporatedinto intothe
the
standard displacement interpolation function; see Equation (1) [20]. The black dots denote
the enriched nodes, the white dots denote the crack tip enriched node, and the standard
nodes are not shown. XFEM has already been integrated into commercial software like
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Computation 2023, 11, 142 standard displacement interpolation function; see Equation (1) [20]. The black dots denote 5 of 18
the enriched nodes, the white dots denote the crack tip enriched node, and the standard
nodes are not shown. XFEM has already been integrated into commercial software like
Abaqus, making
Abaqus, making itit one
one of
of the
the most
most promising
promising approaches
approaches for
for fracture
fracture modeling
modeling [8,21].
[8,21].
However, a more specific description of this method can be found in [19].
However, a more specific description of this method can be found in [19]. In Abaqus, XFEMIn Abaqus,
isXFEM is defined
defined in the interaction
in the interaction module
module and and is assigned
is assigned to modelto
themodel
cracksthe cracks
inside theinside the
concrete
concrete
matrix andmatrix and solidified
solidified healing agent.
healing agent.
𝑁𝑁
" 4 #
N 4
u = � N (x) �u + H(x)a + � F (x)b
α α
u = ∑ NI (x)I uI + IH(x)aI +I ∑ Fα (αx)bI I � (1)
(1)
I=1 𝐼𝐼=1 α=α=1
1
NI(x) represents the shape functions, uI is the nodal displacement vector, H(x) is the
NI (x) represents the shape functions, uI is the nodal displacement vector, H(x) isα the
jump functions such as the Heaviside functions that represent the cracks, aI and bI are
jump functions such as the Heaviside functions that represent the cracks, aI and bI α are
nodal vectors of the enriched degree of freedom, and F (x) is the crack tip functions. The
nodal vectors of the enriched degree of freedom, and Fαα(x) is the crack tip functions. The
first termon
first term onthetheright
rightside
sideisisapplicable
applicableto toall
allnodes
nodeswithin
withinthethemodel,
model,while
whilethe thesecond
second
term is specific to nodes whose shape function support intersects the
term is specific to nodes whose shape function support intersects the interior of the crack. interior of the crack.
The third term is solely utilized for nodes whose shape function
The third term is solely utilized for nodes whose shape function support intersects the support intersects the
cracktip.
crack tip. This
This third
thirdtermtermisisthe
theso-called
so-calledcrackcracktip
tipenrichment
enrichmentthat thatcontains
containsinformation
information
regarding the analytical solution in linear elastic fracture mechanics.
regarding the analytical solution in linear elastic fracture mechanics. However, linear However, linear elas-
elastic
tic fracture mechanics cannot properly deal with concrete materials.
fracture mechanics cannot properly deal with concrete materials. Thus, the last term on the Thus, the last term
on the
right handright hand
side has side
beenhas been in
omitted omitted in this
this study. study. Therefore,
Therefore, thecannot
the crack tip crack tip cannotthe
be inside be
element but can be located at the element edge instead, as shown in Figure 3. Despite the3.
inside the element but can be located at the element edge instead, as shown in Figure
Despite
great the greatof
advantages advantages
XFEM for of XFEMmodeling,
fracture for fracture modeling,
it has it has a few
a few limitations limitations
[21]. Mainly, two [21].
Mainly, two
limitations limitations
should should bethe
be considered: considered: the first
first concerns crackconcerns crack near
propagation propagation
the element near
the element
edge. The secondedge. is The
aboutsecond
allowingis about allowing
the initiation of the initiation
multiple cracksofinmultiple
the samecracks in the
enrichment
same enrichment zone. However, there is an option in the Abaqus input
zone. However, there is an option in the Abaqus input file to overcome this limitation; for file to overcome
this limitation;
more details, seefor more details, see [6,21].
[6,21].

Figure3.3.Crack
Figure Crackwith
withenriched
enrichedelements.
elements.

3.2. Cohesive Surface Technique (CS)

The cohesive surface technique (CS) is designed to model a zero thickness contact
3.2. Cohesive
interface Surface
between two Technique
surfaces(CS)
based on the traction–separation response [6,21]. The CS
The cohesive
technique is employedsurface technique
to model (CS) is contact
the cohesive designed to model
between the asolidified
zero thickness
healingcontact
agent
interface
and between
the concrete two surfaces
matrix. based
It is defined inon the traction–separation
Abaqus as a cohesive surfaceresponse [6,21].
interaction The CS
property
technique
and is employed
is modeled with pure to master–slave
model the cohesive
roles incontact between
the contact the solidified
formulation. healing
Within agent
this study,
the
and the concrete matrix. It is defined in Abaqus as a cohesive surface interactionwhile
outer surface of the solidified healing agent is designated as a slave surface, the
property
cracked surface of the concrete matrix is designated as the master surface.
and is modeled with pure master–slave roles in the contact formulation. Within this study,
the outer surface of the solidified healing agent is designated as a slave surface, while the
3.3. Cohesive Zone Model (CZM)
cracked surface of the concrete matrix is designated as the master surface.
The cohesive zone model (CZM) uses a traction–separation law to represent the failure
mechanism of cracks and it is applied across the crack surface that links the cohesive
traction transmitted
3.3. Cohesive by the
Zone Model discontinuity surface to the displacement jump, characterized
(CZM)
by the separation vector. The CZM for XFEM is an initially rigid model, see Figure 4,
The cohesive zone model (CZM) uses a traction–separation law to represent the fail-
while CZM for CS is initially an elastic model which is represented by the linear zone
ure mechanism of cracks and it is applied across the crack surface that links the cohesive
(linear elastic traction) and the softening zone (damage evolution); see Figure 5. Both
tractionare
models transmitted
defined inbyAbaqus
the discontinuity surface
by two criteria: to the displacement
damage initiation andjump, characterized
damage evolution.
The elastic behavior of a cracked element is expressed in terms of an elastic constitutive
matrix that connects normal and shear stresses to normal and shear separations. In the
 by the separation vector. The CZM for XFEM is an initially rigid model, see Figure 4, while
Computation 2023, 11, 142 CZM for CS is initially an elastic model which is represented by the linear zone 6 of(linear
19
elastic traction) and the softening zone (damage evolution); see Figure 5. Both models are
defined in Abaqus by two criteria: damage initiation and damage evolution. The elastic
behavior
defined of a cracked
in Abaqus by twoelement
criteria:isdamage
expressed in terms
initiation andof damage
an elasticevolution.
constitutive Thematrix
elasticthat
Computation 2023, 11, 142
connects
behavior of anormal
crackedand shear stresses
element is expressedto normal
in termsandofshear separations.
an elastic In the matrix
constitutive case of that
3D, the6 of 18
nominal
connects traction
normal and stress vector (t)
shear stresses to is composed
normal of three
and shear components:
separations. In thetncase
, ts, and
of 3D, tt, the
which
represent
nominal the normal
traction and shear
stress vector (t) istractions
composed in two directions,
of three respectively.
components: The correspond-
tn, ts, and tt, which
ing separations
case
represent theofnormalareand
3D, the denoted
nominal by δn, δsstress
shear traction
tractions , in
and
twoδvector
t.directions,
The (t)
elastic behavior of
is composed
respectively. can then
three
The be written astn , ts ,
components:
correspond-
ingfollows:
and tt , which
separations represent
are denoted bythe
δn,normal
δs, and and shear
δt. The tractions
elastic in two
behavior directions,
can respectively.
then be written as The
follows:corresponding separations are tn
denoted by δn , δs , and δt . The elastic behavior can then be
K nn 0 0 δn
written as follows: t
t t= � ts � K
 = � K0 ss00 0δ�0� δs 
0
 K � = Kδ
 (2)
 n nn  δn 
t =t = t
t =tt 0= K0 0 0 0 K δ
tt δ
= t Kδ (2)
s Kss 0  δs = Kδ (2)
t  0 00 K 0 δK  δ 
t t tt t
Cohesive traction
𝑡𝑛𝑛∗

t 𝑢𝑛𝑛
tn

Gf 𝛿𝑛𝑛∗

δ𝑢𝑛𝑛 Crack Opening δn

Figure 4. Initially
Figure rigidrigid
4. Initially traction–separation law for
traction–separation lawXFEM.
for XFEM.
Figure 4. Initially rigid traction–separation law for XFEM.
Traction

Damage
initiation

𝑡𝑛𝑛∗ , 𝑡𝑠𝑠∗ , 𝑡𝑡𝑡∗

Gf
Knn, Kss, Ktt 𝛿𝑛𝑛∗ , 𝛿𝑠𝑠∗ , 𝛿𝑡𝑡∗

𝛿𝑛𝑛0 , 𝛿𝑠𝑠0 , 𝛿𝑡𝑡0

Separation
Elastic traction Damage evolution

Figure 5. Initially elastic traction–separation law for CS.

Figure 5. Initially elastic traction–separation law for CS.
Figure 5. Initially
Theelastic
elastictraction–separation law forby
response is governed CS.
the penalty stiffnesses Knn , Kss , and Ktt , which
Thecalculated
are elastic response is governed
as a function of thebytwo
the penalty
adjacentstiffnesses
material K nn, Kss, and Ktt, which are
stiffnesses [22]. These values
calculated
The elastic as a function
response is of the
governed two adjacent
by the material
penalty stiffnesses
stiffnesses
do not affect the overall specimen stiffness [23], and in this sspaper, K nn, [22].
K These
, and K values
ittt,has
whichbeen do not as
aretaken
affect
calculated theas overall
a
6 functionspecimen
of the stiffness
two [23],
adjacent and
materialin this paper,
stiffnesses
1 × 10 MPa/mm. Moreover, it has been assumed that the normal and shear penalty it
[22].has been
These taken
values as
do 1
not× 106
MPa/mm.
affect the Moreover,
overall
stiffnesses specimen it has
are decoupled, been
stiffness assumed
[23], and
meaning thatthat
inthe the
this normal
paper,
pure it and
normal sheartaken
hasopening
been penalty
forceasofstiffnesses
1 the
× 10interface
6

are decoupled,
MPa/mm. does not produce shear forces, and vice versa [6]. The elastic zone is assumednot
Moreover, meaning
it has that
been the pure
assumed normal
that opening
the normal force
and of the
shear interface
penalty does
stiffnesses
to bepro-linear
are duce shear
decoupled, forces,
meaning and vice
that the versa
pure [6]. The
normal elastic
opening zone is
force assumed
of the
by default. However, several damage evolution laws are available for the softening zone, to be
interface linear
does by
not default.
pro-
duceHowever,
shear several
forces,
for example, anddamage
thevice evolution
versa
linear and laws
[6].non-linear
The are traction–separation
elastic available for the softening
zone is assumed to law zone,
be linear
[21]. Infor
by example,
default.
this paper, the
the linear
However, and
several non-linear
damage traction–separation
evolution laws are law
available [21].
for In
the this paper,
softening
softening is defined as linear which means that a bilinear traction–separation law the
zone, softening
for example, is de-
is used;
the fined
linear
seeasand
linear
Figure which
non-linear
5. means that a bilinear
traction–separation
The traction–separation traction–separation
law
behavior[21].is In this paper,
defined withinlawtheis softening
the used;
material see properties
Figure
is de- 5. for
The
fined traction–separation
asXFEM;
linear however,
which means it is behavior asispart
that a bilinear
defined defined
of thewithin
traction–separationthe material
interaction properties
law is used;
properties see CS
for the for
Figure XFEM;
5.
technique.
Thehowever, it is defined behavior
traction–separation as part of is thedefined
interaction
withinproperties for theproperties
the material CS technique. for XFEM;
however, 3.3.1.
it isDamage
defined Initiation
as part of the interaction properties for the CS technique.
3.3.1. Damage Initiation
Multiple damage initiation criteria are documented in the literature and have already
3.3.1. Damage Initiation into software like Abaqus. These criteria include the maximum sep-
been incorporated
arationdamage
Multiple criterion, quadratic
initiation separation
criteria criterion, in
are documented maximum
the literaturenominal stressalready
and have criterion, and
quadratic stress criterion. The damage will be initiated
been incorporated into software like Abaqus. These criteria include the maximum separa- when the maximal stress exceeds the
maximum strength in the case of the stress criterion.
tion criterion, quadratic separation criterion, maximum nominal stress criterion, and In this study, the maximum principal
stress damage criterion was used in the case of XFEM. Therefore, a crack may form if the
maximal principal stress determined by its integration points matches the requirement of
Equation (3). However, the maximum nominal stress damage criterion is used for the CS
technique, which means that separation can happen when the maximum nominal traction
Computation 2023, 11, 142 7 of 18

meets the criterion of Equation (4). A more detailed explanation in this regard can be found
in [21]. n σ o
maxps
max 0, ≥1 (3)
σ*
 
htn i ts tt
max , , =1 (4)
t*n t*n t*t
σmaxps is the calculated maximum primary stress, while σ* is the material’s maximum
strength. The normal, shear, and tangential components of the interfacial tractions are
denoted by n, s, and t, respectively. * denotes the maximum interfacial tractions.

3.3.2. Damage Evolution

The damage evolution involves defining the softening part of the traction–separation
law; so, it includes describing the degradation of the cohesive stiffness. D is a scalar damage
variable that starts initially from 0 and develops during the loading process until 1. Either
the maximal displacement or the fracture energy, which is the area under the curve of the
traction–separation law, must be specified in Abaqus [21]. In this study, the fracture energy
was used to define the damage evolution with linear softening. In order to characterize
the development of damage when both normal and shear separations occur across the
interface, effective separation is defined based on the approach described in [24]:
q
δm = hδn i2 + δs 2 + δt 2 (5)

!
δ* δum − δ0m
D= m (6)
δum δ*m − δ0m
(
( 1 − D ) tn if tn ≥ 0
tn = (7)
tn if tn < 0 (compression)

ts = ( 1 − D ) ts (8)

tt = ( 1 − D ) tt (9)
δn , δs , and δt are the normal, shear, and tangential components of the interfacial sepa-
ration directions, respectively. δm denotes the effective separation and δ*m is the maximum
effective separation during loading. The effective separation just prior to unloading is δum ,
while the effective separation during the initial stages of damage is δ0m . In contrast, the
elastic traction–separation behavior predicts that for current separations without damage,
tn , ts , and tt are the contact traction components. In order to avoid compressive damage, 〈〉
Macaulay brackets are utilized.
The region beneath the curve shown in Figure 5 represents the energy dissipated in
order to create a completely separated pair of surfaces, which is referred to as the interface
fracture energy. The placement of the interface with respect to the applied load can lead to
a mixed-mode propagation response of the cohesive interface for healed cracks. This mixed
mode encompasses various energies associated with the capability of debonding in the
normal (n) and parallel (s, t) directions to the interface. The maximum fracture separation
is subsequently determined using the equation provided in [24]:

2G*n
δ*n = (10)
t0n

2G*s
δ*s = (11)
t0s
Computation 2023, 11, 142 8 of 18

2G*t
δ*t = (12)
t0t
It is assumed in this study that the interaction between the energies for each mode (i.e.,
n, s, and t) complies with the power law fracture criterion [24], as stated by the following:
 α  α  α
Gn Gs Gt
+ + =1 (13)
G*n G*s G*t

where the power α is a cohesive property parameter that represents the interaction between
modes, and Gn , GS , and Gt are the energy release rates derived from the traction and
normal, shear, and tangential displacements during interface opening. The properties
Gn∗ , Gs∗ , and Gt∗ represent the critical interface toughness for each direction. In this re-
search, it is assumed that the critical fracture toughness remains the same in all directions.
Additionally, in order to consider the influence of this parameter on the response, a value
of α = 1 was employed [24].

4. Numerical Simulations
Two-dimensional specimens were loaded under uniaxial tension from both sides: top
and bottom. The specimens represent healed samples with the width of the healed crack
being 0.5 mm and variation in the healed crack length ratios: 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%.
The healed length with the smallest healed crack ratio has the smallest healed length which
is equal to 25% of the cracked length and vice versa. The dimensions of the sample’s
geometry, along with the corresponding boundary conditions, are illustrated in Figure 6.
Uniform displacements of 0.5 mm were imposed on both the top and bottom surfaces
of the specimens. The simulation was performed using Abaqus/Static, and the samples
were meshed with quadrilateral elements (Q4) under the assumption of plane stress state.
Every healed specimen was divided into three parts: the top and bottom parts represent
the concrete matrix, which is divided by the crack path beforehand, and the middle part
represents the solidified healing agent. The three parts of each specimen were modeled
via XFEM, which means that there were three enrichment zones, one for each part. The
interactions between these parts were modeled via the cohesive surface technique (CS).
In order to investigate where the crack would initiate; therefore, a preexisting crack with
this type of analysis is not required. Table 1 defines the material properties used in these
simulations which are considered by [6,25–27]. Their parameters are then represented
by Young’s modulus (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν), maximum tensile strength (σ*), and fracture
energy (Gf ).
In this study, to overcome the numerical convergence issues that occur with such
modeling, the viscosity coefficient value was taken as 0.0001 [21]. Also, the initial time
increment was chosen to be 1 × 10−9 , and the minimum time increment was 1 × 10−15 .
Within the step module, the maximum number of cuts (IA ) permitted for an increment was
modified to 30. More detailed information about modeling implementation in Abaqus can
be found in [4].

Table 1. Properties of materials.

E σ* Gf
Material ν
(MPa) (MPa) (N/mm)
Concrete 25,000 0.2 3.5 0.055
Healing agent (solidified) 3400 0.38 39 0.088
Interface - - Varies Varies
 E σ* Gf
Material ν
(MPa) (MPa) (N/mm)
Computation 2023, 11, 142 Concrete 25,000 0.2 3.5 0.055 9 of 18
Healing agent (solidified) 3400 0.38 39 0.088
Interface - - Varies Varies

Figure
Figure6. 6.
Specimens’ geometry
Specimens’ dimensions
geometry and modeling
dimensions techniques.
and modeling techniques.

4.1.
4.1.Mesh
MeshSize Analysis
Size Analysis
Three
Threedistinct mesh
distinct densities
mesh were conducted
densities in orderin
were conducted to order
determine the level ofthe
to determine meshlevel of mesh
refinement necessary to achieve trustworthy findings, as illustrated in Figure 7. The
refinement necessary to achieve trustworthy findings, as illustrated in Figure 7. The coarse coarse
mesh had 42,900 elements consisting of 42,400 elements for the concrete matrix and 500
mesh had 42,900 elements consisting of 42,400 elements for the concrete matrix and 500 for
for the healing agent. The medium mesh had 55,600 elements for the concrete matrix and
the healing agent. The medium mesh had 55,600 elements for the concrete matrix and 800
800 for the healing agent. The fine mesh had 87,750 elements consisting of 86,500 elements
forthe
for theconcrete
healing agent.
matrix andThe fine
1250 formesh had 87,750
the healing elements
agent. Figure consisting
8 shows ofdisplace-
the force 86,500 elements for
the concrete matrix and 1250 for the healing agent. Figure 8 shows
ment curves for each mesh discretization. The force–displacement curves obtained the force displacement
from
the medium mesh and fine mesh discretization were highly similar. As a result, the me- from the
curves for each mesh discretization. The force–displacement curves obtained
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
dium
mediummeshmesh
discretization
and finewas
meshutilized for simultaneously
discretization presenting
were highly the As
similar. a10result,
results of 19
in thisthe medium
study.
mesh discretization was utilized for simultaneously presenting the results in this study.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. Three distinct examples of discretization for the meshes: (a) coarse mesh (42,900 elements),
Figure 7. Three distinct examples of discretization for the meshes: (a) coarse mesh (42,900 elements),
(b) medium mesh (56,400 elements), and (c) fine mesh (87,750 elements).
(b) medium mesh (56,400 elements), and (c) fine mesh (87,750 elements).

800
Coarse mesh
700
Medium mesh
600 Fine mesh
500
)
 (a) (b) (c)
Computation 2023, 11, 142 Figure 7. Three distinct examples of discretization for the meshes: (a) coarse mesh (42,900 elements),
10 of 18
(b) medium mesh (56,400 elements), and (c) fine mesh (87,750 elements).

800
Coarse mesh
700
Medium mesh
600 Fine mesh
500
Force (N)
400

300

200

100

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (mm)
Figure
Figure8.8.Force
Forcedisplacement
displacementcurves
curvesfrom
fromthree
three distinct
distinct examples
examples of
of discretization.
discretization.

4.2.Parametric
4.2. ParametricStudies
Studies
Parametricstudies
Parametric studiesof
offour
fourdifferent
differentinterfacial
interfacialfracture
fractureproperties
propertieswere
wereperformed
performedto to
study the effects of the interfacial cohesive properties between the solidified healing
study the effects of the interfacial cohesive properties between the solidified healing agent agent
andthe
and thecracked
crackedsurfaces
surfacesof
ofthe
theconcrete
concretespecimen
specimenon onthe
theload
loadcarrying
carryingcapacity
capacityof
ofhealed
healed
specimens with four different healed crack length ratios. The four healed
specimens with four different healed crack length ratios. The four healed crack length crack length
ra-
ratios (Lh ) ranged from 25% (Lh = 6.25 mm) to 100% (Lh = 25 mm); see Figure 9. Each part
tios (Lh) ranged from 25% (Lh = 6.25 mm) to 100% (Lh = 25 mm); see Figure 9. Each part
was given the values for the material parameters listed in Table 1. The interaction between
was given the values for the material parameters listed in Table 1. The interaction between
the solidified healing agent and concrete matrix (i.e., the interfacial transition zone) is
the solidified healing agent and concrete matrix (i.e., the interfacial transition zone) is de-
defined as a cohesive surface. Only two parameters that represent the cohesive properties
fined as a cohesive surface. Only two parameters that represent the cohesive properties of
of the interfacial transition zone (itz), the maximum interfacial cohesive strength σ* and the
the interfacial transition zone (itz), the maximum interfacial cohesive strength σ* and the
interfacial fracture energy G , were varied relative to the properties of the solidified healing
interfacial fracture energy Gff, were varied relative to the properties of the solidified
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 heal-
of 19
agent for each simulation, while the other parameters were fixed, i.e., they ranged from
ing agent for each simulation, while the other parameters were fixed, i.e., they ranged
25% (σ* = 9.75 Mpa, Gf = 0.022 N/mm) to 100% (σ* = 39 Mpa, Gf = 0.088 N/mm).
from 25% (σ* = 9.75 Mpa, Gf = 0.022 N/mm) to 100% (σ* = 39 Mpa, Gf = 0.088 N/mm).

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure
Figure9.9.Healed
Healedsamples
sampleswith
withdifferent
differenthealed
healedcrack length
crack LhLratios:
length (a) Lh 100% (Lh= 25 mm), (b)
h ratios: (a) Lh 100% (Lh = 25 mm),
L(b)
h 75% (Lh= 18.75 mm), (c) Lh 50% (Lh= 12.5 mm), and (d) Lh 25% (Lh= 6.25 mm).
Lh 75% (Lh = 18.75 mm), (c) Lh 50% (Lh = 12.5 mm), and (d) Lh 25% (Lh = 6.25 mm).

5.5.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion
This
Thissection
sectiondiscusses
discussesthe
theeffects
effectsof
ofthe
theinterfacial
interfacialcohesive
cohesiveproperties
propertiesand
andthe
thehealed
healed
crack
cracklength
lengthononthe
theload
loadcarrying
carryingcapacity
capacityand
andthe
thecrack
crackpattern
patternof
ofself-healing
self-healingconcrete
concrete
through the findings from the numerical simulations. It is worth mentioning that the ac-
curacy of the proposed modeling framework was numerically investigated in a previous
study [7]. The obtained results were compared with the most used modeling approach in
the literature, the zero thickness cohesive element approach, and showed significant ac-
 Computation 2023, 11, 142 11 of 18

through the findings from the numerical simulations. It is worth mentioning that the
accuracy of the proposed modeling framework was numerically investigated in a previous
study [7]. The obtained results were compared with the most used modeling approach in the
literature, the zero thickness cohesive element approach, and showed significant accuracy
of the proposed model in determining the load carrying capacity and fracture pattern. Also,
the crack patterns obtained from this study will be compared with a recent experimental
study which had a close sample configuration [3]. It should be noted that to represent
the obtained force displacement curves clearly, the maximum range for displacement was
adapted to 0.1 mm, as all samples are fractured completely before this value, which can
also clearly be noticed in Figure 8.

5.1. Effects of Interfacial Cohesive Properties on the Load Carrying Capacity of SHC
The four specimens with various healed crack length ratios are illustrated in
Figures 10–13 with the effects of the interfacial cohesive properties (itz) on the load carrying
capacity. In these figures, the cohesive strength of the interfacial transition zone (itz) ranges
from 9.75 MPa (i.e., 25% of the healing agent strength) to 39 MPa (same as a healing agent)
for healed crack length ratios of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%. Similarly, the fracture energy of
the interfacial zone (itz) ranges from 0.022 N/mm (i.e., 25% of the healing agent fracture
energy) to 0.088 N/mm (same as the healing agent). It is clear that the load carrying
capacity of the specimen is highly influenced by interfacial cohesive properties. The effects
of the interfacial cohesive properties itz on the load carrying capacity of the SHC specimen
for the healed crack length ratio of 100% are shown in Figure 10. The maximum load carried
by the specimen decreased from 702.1 N for itz = 100% to 360.3 N for itz = 25%. Therefore,
it is obvious that the load carrying capacity of the SHC specimen is significantly influenced
by the interfacial cohesive characteristics (itz). The same phenomenon can also be found in
Figures 11–13 for the healed crack length ratios of 75%, 50%, and 25%, respectively. It is
clear that a higher maximum load will be achieved when the interfacial cohesive fracture
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
properties have the same values as the healing agent. In other words, the load carrying
capacity increases with increasing itz, and vice versa.

800 Lh 100%
700 itz 100%
itz 75%
600
itz 50%
500
Force (N)

itz 25%
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Figure
Figure10.
10.Force
Forcedisplacement
displacementcurves
curvesof
ofhealed
healedcrack
cracklength
length ratio
ratio LLhh of
of100%
100% with
with different
different itz
itz ra-
ratios.
tios.

700
Lh 75%
600
itz 100%
500
itz 75%
Force (N)

400 itz 50%

300 itz 25%

200
 100
100
0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.02 0.04
Displacement 0.06
(mm) 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Computation 2023, 11, 142 Figure 10. Force displacement curves of healed crack length ratio Lh of 100% with different itz12ra-
of 18
Figure
tios. 10. Force displacement curves of healed crack length ratio L h of 100% with different itz ra-

tios.
700
700 L 75%
Lhh 75%
600
600 itz 100%
500 itz 100%
500 itz 75%
itz 75%
(N)
400 itz 50%
Force(N) 400 itz 50%
300
Force
itz 25%
300 itz 25%
200
200
100
100
0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.02 0.04
Displacement 0.06
(mm) 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Figure 11. Force displacement curves of healed crack length ratio Lh of 75% with different itz ra-
Figure
Figure11.
tios. 11.Force
Forcedisplacement
displacementcurves
curvesofofhealed
healedcrack
cracklength
lengthratio
ratioLLh hofof75%
75%with
withdifferent
differentitz
itzra-
ratios.
tios.

450
450 L 50%
400 Lhh 50%
400 itz 100%
350 itz 100%
350 itz 75%
300 itz 75%
300 itz 50%
(N)

250 itz 50%

(N)

250 itz 25%

Force

200 itz 25%

Force

200
150
150
100
100
50
50
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0 13 of 19
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.02 0.04
Displacement 0.06
(mm) 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Figure 12. Force displacement curves of healed crack length ratio Lh of 50% with different itz ra-
tios.
Figure 12. Force displacement curves of healed crack length ratio Lh of 50% with different itz ratios.

250
Lh 25%
200
itz 100%
150 itz 75%
Force (N)

itz 50%
100 itz 25%

50

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Figure 13.13.
Figure Force displacement
Force curves
displacement ofof
curves healed
healedcrack
cracklength
lengthratio
ratioLhLof 25% with different itz ra-
h of 25% with different itz ratios.
tios.

5.2. Effects of the Healed Crack Length on the Load Carrying Capacity of SHC
The four specimens with different interfacial fracture property (itz) ratios are pre-
sented in Figures 14–17 with the effects of the healed crack length (Lh) on the load carrying
 Computation 2023, 11, 142 13 of 18

5.2. Effects of the Healed Crack Length on the Load Carrying Capacity of SHC
The four specimens with different interfacial fracture property (itz) ratios are presented
in Figures 14–17 with the effects of the healed crack length (Lh ) on the load carrying capacity
shown. It is clear that the load carrying capacity of the specimen is highly influenced by
the healed crack length (Lh ). The effects of the healed crack length (Lh ) on the load carrying
capacity of the specimen with the interfacial fracture property ratio of 100% are shown
in Figure 14. The maximum load carried by the specimen decreased from 702.1 N for
Lh = 100% to 179.6 N for Lh = 25%. Therefore, it is obvious that the load carrying capacity
of the SHC specimen is significantly influenced by the healed crack length (Lh ). The
same phenomenon can also be found in Figures 15–17 for the interfacial fracture property
ratios of 75%, 50%, and 25%, respectively. It is clear that when the healed crack length is
equal to the crack length, then a higher maximum load carrying capacity will be achieved.
Consequently, these results show that the higher the Lh , the higher the load carrying
capacity, and vice versa.
Figure 18 shows the relationship between the maximum carrying load and the itz
percentage of interfacial cohesive properties for different healed crack length ratios. It is
clearly shown that a higher percentage of itz increases the maximum load of the specimen
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
that it can withstand. The higher the healed crack length ratio, the higher the maximum 14 of 19
carrying load of the specimen.

800
800 itz 100%
itz 100% Lh 100%
Lh 100%
600 Lh 75%
600 Lh 75%
Lh 50%
(N)

Lh 50%
(N)

400 Lh 25%
Lh 25%
Force

400
Force

200
200

0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.02 0.04
Displacement 0.06
(mm) 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Figure 14. Force displacement curves of interfacial cohesive ratio itz of 100% with different Lh ra-
Figure
Figure14.
tios. 14.Force
Forcedisplacement
displacementcurves
curvesof
ofinterfacial
interfacial cohesive
cohesive ratio
ratio itz
itz of
of 100%
100% with
with different Lhh ra-
different L ratios.
tios.

800
800 itz 75% Lh 100%
itz 75% Lh 100%
Lh 75%
600 Lh 75%
600 Lh 50%
Lh 50%
(N)

Lh 25%
(N)

400 Lh 25%
Force

400
Force

200
200

0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.02 0.04
Displacement 0.06
(mm) 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Figure
Figure15.
15.Force
Forcedisplacement
displacementcurves
curvesof
ofinterfacial
interfacialcohesive
cohesiveratio
ratioitz
itzof
of75%
75%with
withdifferent
differentLLh ratios.
ratios.
Figure 15. Force displacement curves of interfacial cohesive ratio itz of 75% with different Lhhratios.
700
700 itz 50%
600 itz 50% Lh 100%
600 Lh 100%
500 Lh 75%
500 Lh 75%
Lh 50%
(N)

400 Lh 50%
)
 200

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Computation 2023, 11, 142 Displacement (mm) 14 of 18

Figure 15. Force displacement curves of interfacial cohesive ratio itz of 75% with different Lh ratios.

700
itz 50%
600 Lh 100%
500 Lh 75%
Lh 50%

Force (N)
400
Lh 25%
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement (mm)
Computation 2023,
Computation 11, xx FOR
2023, 11, FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 15 of
15 of 19
19
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Force displacement curves
Force displacement curves of
of interfacial
interfacial cohesive
cohesive ratio
ratio itz
itz of
of 50%
50% with
with different
different LLhh ratios.
ratios.

400
400
itz 25%
itz 25%
Lh 100%
Lh 100%
300
300 Lh 75%
75%
Lh
Lh 50%
50%
(N)

Lh
Force (N)

200
200 Lh 25%
Lh 25%
Force

100
100

00
00 0.02
0.02 0.04
0.04 0.06
0.06 0.08
0.08 0.1
0.1
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
Figure 17.
Figure
Figure 17. Force
17. Force displacement
Force displacement curves
displacement curves of
curves of interfacial
of interfacial cohesive
interfacial cohesive ratio
cohesive ratio itz
ratio itz of
itz of 25%
of 25% with
25% with different
with different L
different LLhhh ratios.
ratios.
ratios.

800
800 Lh 100%
Lh 100%
700
700 Lh 75%
Lh 75%
600
600 Lh 50%
Lh 50%
(N)
load (N)

500 Lh 25%
Lh 25%
500
Maximumload

400
400
Maximum

300
300
200
200
100
100

00
0%
0% 20%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80% 100%
100% 120%
120%
Interfacial fracture
Interfacial fracture properties
properties itz
itz (%)
(%)
Figure 18. Effects
Figure Effects of the
the healed crack
crack length ratio
ratio Lhh and
and the itz
itz percentage on
on the maximum
maximum load.
Figure 18.
18. Effects of
of the healed
healed crack length
length ratio L
Lh and the
the itzpercentage
percentage on the
the maximum load.
load.

5.3. Effects
5.3. Effects of
of Interfacial
Interfacial Cohesive
Cohesive Properties
Properties and
and the
the Healed
Healed Crack
Crack Length
Length on on the
the Crack
Crack Pattern
Pattern
The crack
The crack pattern
pattern for
for specimens
specimens with
with healed
healed crack
crack length
length ratios
ratios of
of 100%,
100%, 75%,
75%, 50%,
50%,
and 25%
and 25% is
is affected
affected by by interfacial
interfacial cohesive
cohesive properties
properties (itz),
(itz), as
as illustrated,
illustrated, respectively,
respectively, in
in
Figure 19,
Figure 19, Figure
Figure 20,
20, Figure
Figure 21,
21, and
and Figure
Figure 22.
22. Figure
Figure 19
19 demonstrates
demonstrates the the crack
crack patterns
patterns
propagated in
propagated in the
the healed
healed specimens
specimens with
with the
the healed
healed crack
crack length
length ratio
ratio LLhh of
of 100%
100% associ-
associ-
ated with variation in the interfacial cohesive property ratios (itz) of 100%,
ated with variation in the interfacial cohesive property ratios (itz) of 100%, 75%, 50%, and75%, 50%, and
Computation 2023, 11, 142 15 of 18

5.3. Effects of Interfacial Cohesive Properties and the Healed Crack Length on the Crack Pattern
The crack pattern for specimens with healed crack length ratios of 100%, 75%, 50%,
and 25% is affected by interfacial cohesive properties (itz), as illustrated, respectively,
in Figures 19–22. Figure 19 demonstrates the crack patterns propagated in the healed
specimens with the healed crack length ratio Lh of 100% associated with variation in the
interfacial cohesive property ratios (itz) of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%. The specimens with
itz of 100% and 75% produced the same crack patterns as the crack initiated and propagated
through the concrete matrix only, which can be observed in Figure 19a,b. When the per-
centage of itz ranges from 0 to 25% of the fracture properties of the solidified healing agent,
interfacial cracks occur and the solidified healing agent is debonded from the concrete ma-
trix, as illustrated in Figure 19d. An interesting fracture pattern occurred when itz was 50%,
as an interfacial crack was initiated and propagated through the contact surface between
the solidified healing agent and the concrete matrix, in addition to another crack initiating
and propagating through the concrete matrix, as illustrated in Figure 19c. This means a
possibility of developing interfacial cracks and concrete cracks at the same time when the
interfacial fracture properties are 50% of the solidified healing agent fracture properties.
Figures 20–22 produced the same crack patterns propagated in the healed specimens,
with the healed crack length ratios Lh of 75%, 50%, and 25%, respectively, associated with
variation in the interfacial fracture ratios (itz) of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%. When the
percentage of itz to the fracture properties of the solidified healing agent ranged from 100
to 75%, the crack was initiated and propagated through the concrete matrix first; then,
the crack moved toward the contact surface between the solidified healing agent and
the concrete matrix and became an interfacial crack separating them until the end of the
simulation, as illustrated in Figures 20a,b, 21a,b and 22a,b. This means that mixed crack
patterns develop when the percentage of Lh ranges from 75 to 25%, with the percentage of
itz ranging from 100 to 75%, as the first part is a concrete crack initiated and propagated
through the concrete matrix and the second part is an interfacial crack propagated through
the interface zone between the healing agent and the concrete matrix. On the contrary, when
the percentage of itz ranges from 0 to 25% of the fracture properties of the solidified healing
agent, interfacial cracks occur, and the solidified healing agent becomes debonded from the
concrete matrix, as illustrated in Figures 20d, 21d and 22d. Another interesting fracture
pattern occurred when an itz of 50% as an interfacial crack was initiated and propagated
through the contact surface between the solidified healing agent and the concrete matrix,
in addition to another crack being initiated and propagated through the concrete matrix, as
illustrated in Figures 20c, 21c and 22c. This means a possibility of developing interfacial
cracks and concrete cracks at the same time when the interfacial fracture properties are 50%
of the solidified healing agent fracture properties.
It is worth mentioning that the obtained crack patterns from this computational
study comply with recent experimental data which have a close sample configuration [3].
However, the aim of this experimental study was to develop modified cyanoacrylate (n-
CA) with an extended shelf life suitable for self-healing concrete. A series of n-CAs were
formed from a commercial Ethyl Cyanoacrylate adhesive mixed with acrylic acid (AA) and
nitro-anthraquinone (nAq) in varying ratios. However, these variation ratios to develop
modified n-CA led to varying the bond strength, which can represent the variation in
interfacial cohesive properties in this study. Also, it was noticed that the actual bonded
area of developed modified n-CA was less than the cross section area of the sample, which
can be seen to be representing the variation in the healed crack length in this study. In
case of using unmodified commercial CA, which can be seen to be representing an itz of
100% in this computational study, the cracks occurred in the concrete matrix only; so, these
experimental data confirm the crack patterns obtained in this computational study. Also,
in the case of using modified n-CA, which can be seen to be representing the itz ranging
between 75 and 25% in this computational study, the cracks occurred at the bonded surface
(interfacial cracks); so, these experimental data confirm the crack patterns obtained in this
computational study.
 area
of of developed
using unmodified modified n-CACA,
commercial waswhich
less than
canthe
be cross
seen tosection area of the sample,
be representing an itz of which
100%
in this computational study, the cracks occurred in the concrete matrix only;study.
can be seen to be representing the variation in the healed crack length in this In case
so, these ex-
of using unmodified
perimental data confirmcommercial
the crackCA, which
patterns can be seen
obtained to computational
in this be representingstudy.
an itz Also,
of 100% in
in this
the casecomputational
of using modifiedstudy,n-CA,
the cracks
whichoccurred
can be in thetoconcrete
seen matrix only;
be representing the so,
itz these
rangingex-
perimental
between 75 data
and 25%confirm thecomputational
in this crack patterns study,
obtainedtheincracks
this computational
occurred at the study.
bonded Also, in
Computation 2023, 11, 142 16sur-
of 18
the case of using modified n-CA, which can be seen to be representing the
face (interfacial cracks); so, these experimental data confirm the crack patterns obtained in itz ranging
between
this 75 and 25%
computational in this computational study, the cracks occurred at the bonded sur-
study.
face (interfacial cracks); so, these experimental data confirm the crack patterns obtained in
this computational study.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 19. Crack pattern of Lh of 100% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
(a) Figure 19. Crack(b) (c) different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%;
pattern of Lh of 100% specimen with (d) (b) itz = 75%;
(c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
Figure 19. Crack pattern of Lh of 100% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 20. Crack pattern of Lh of 75% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 20. Crack pattern of Lh of 75% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 20. Crack pattern of Lh of 75% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz17=of 19
75%;
(c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
Computation 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 21. Crack pattern of Lh of 50% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
(a) Figure 21. Crack(b)pattern of Lh of 50% specimen with
(c) different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%;
(d) (b) itz = 75%;
(c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
Figure 21. Crack pattern of Lh of 50% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 22. Crack pattern of Lh of 25% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 22. Crack pattern of Lh of 25%
6. specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%; (c) itz = 50%; and (d) itz = 25%.
Conclusions
Figure 22. Crack pattern of Lh of 25% specimen with different itz ratios. (a) itz = 100%; (b) itz = 75%;
(c) itzIn this paper,
= 50%; and (d) the
itz =extended
25%. finite element method (XFEM) and cohesive surface (CS)
6. Conclusions
technique were used to study the effects of healing patterns represented by the healed
Inlength
this paper,
6. Conclusions
crack the extended
and interfacial finiteproperties
cohesive element method (XFEM) mechanism
on the fracture and cohesive ofsurface (CS)
self-healing
technique
concrete.
In this were used
paper, theto
Two-dimensional study
extended the
numerical effects
finite of healing
simulations
element were
method patterns represented
conducted
(XFEM) andto examine
cohesive bysurface
the
the healed
effects
(CS)
crack length
technique and
were interfacial
used to studycohesive
the properties
effects of on
healingthe fracture
patterns mechanism
of the healed crack length and the effects of the interfacial cohesive properties of the in-
represented of
byself-healing
the healed
concrete.
terfacial
crack length Two-dimensional
transition zone (itz)numerical
and interfacial cohesive simulations
between properties
the solidified on were
healingconducted
agent
the fracture and tothe
examine
mechanism cracked the effects
surfaces
of self-healing
of the healed crack length and the effects of the interfacial cohesive
of the concrete matrix on the specimen strength and fracture mechanism of the healed
concrete. Two-dimensional numerical simulations were conducted toproperties
examine of
the the in-
effects
terfacial
specimens.
of the healedtransition
Thecrackzone
potential (itz)
length between
ofandthe the the solidified
fracture and
effects the healing
of debonding agent
of
interfacial the and theproperties
solidified
cohesive cracked
healingsurfaces
agent
of the
of thethe
from concrete
interfacial concrete matrix
transitionmatrix
zone on(itz)
the between
was specimen
studied thestrength
numerically
solidified and
underfracture
healinguniform
agentmechanism of thesurfaces
displacements
and the cracked healed
applied
specimens.
on bothconcrete
of the Theand
the top potential
bottom
matrix on of the
sides
the fracture and debonding
of the specimens.
specimen strength of themechanism
The fracture
and specimens solidified
were modeledhealing agent
of theashealed
three-
from the concrete
The matrix
potential was
of thestudied
fracture numerically
and debonding under of uniform
phase composite materials composed of a concrete matrix, a solidified healing agent,from
specimens. the displacements
solidified healing applied
agent and
on
theboth
contact the top
concrete
interface and
matrix bottom
was
surfaces. sides
studied
The of the specimens.
numerically
concrete matrixunder The
and uniformspecimens were modeled
displacements
the solidified healing applied
agent asonthree-
were both
mod-
phase
the top
eled composite
usingandXFEM bottommaterials
andsides
the of composed of a concrete
the specimens.
contact interfaces matrix,
The specimens
between awere
them were solidified
modeled
modeled healing agent,
as the
via three-phase
CS tech-and
contact
composite interface surfaces.
materials composed The concrete
of a matrix
concrete and
matrix, the
a solidified
solidified
nique. The proposed modeling framework was verified numerically in a previous study healing
healing agent
agent, were
and mod-
contact
eled
and using
interface
validated XFEM
surfaces. and
The the
experimentally contact
concrete interfaces
matrix
using and the
recent between them
solidified
experimental werewhich
healing
data modeled
agent hadvia
were the CS
amodeled
close tech-
using
sample
nique.
XFEM The
and proposed
the contact modeling
interfaces framework
between
configuration. The following conclusions are made: was
them verified
were numerically
modeled via thein a
CS previous
technique. study
The
and validated experimentally using recent experimental data which had a close sample
• The healed crack length (Lh) has a significant role in governing the specimen strength,
configuration. The following conclusions are made:
as the higher the healed crack length ratio, the higher the maximum carrying load
• The healed
capacity of crack length (Land
the specimen, h) has a significant
vice versa. role in governing the specimen strength,
• as the higher the healed crack length ratio,
The interfacial cohesive properties (itz) between the higher the maximum
the solidified carrying
healing agent andload
the
Computation 2023, 11, 142 17 of 18

proposed modeling framework was verified numerically in a previous study and validated
experimentally using recent experimental data which had a close sample configuration.
The following conclusions are made:
• The healed crack length (Lh ) has a significant role in governing the specimen strength,
as the higher the healed crack length ratio, the higher the maximum carrying load
capacity of the specimen, and vice versa.
• The interfacial cohesive properties (itz) between the solidified healing agent and the
cracked surfaces of the concrete specimen have a crucial role in determining the load
carrying capacity of the specimen. The load carrying capacity increases with increasing
itz, and vice versa.
• The cracks will initiate and propagate through the concrete matrix only when the itz
ratio is 75–100% of the fracture properties of the solidified healing agent and the Lh is
100% (equal to the total crack length).
• Interfacial cracks occur and the solidified healing agent will be debonded from the
concrete matrix when the itz ratio is 0–25% of the fracture properties of the solidified
healing agent.
• There is a possibility of developing interfacial cracks and concrete cracks concurrently
when the interfacial fracture properties are 50% of the solidified healing agent fracture
properties.
• The mixed crack patterns are developed when the Lh ratio ranges from 75 to 25% and
the itz ratio ranges from 100 to 75%. This is because a concrete crack is initiated first
and propagates through the concrete matrix, and then an interfacial crack propagates
through the interface zone between the healing agent and the concrete matrix.
• It is not only important to pay much attention to the cohesive properties of the healing
agent but also to its viscosity, which is responsible for how far the healing agent will
go through the crack length. Therefore the viscosity of the healing agent should be
enough to let it cover the whole length of the cracks and give adequate setting time
to solidify it, but it should also not flow fluidly, which would allow the spilling over
from cracks without healing them due to the late setting time to solidify it.
Future works for this type of simulation should study more complex models, includ-
ing multiple healed cracks randomly distributed all over the sample. These cracks not
necessarily extending to the edges of the sample means that some of these cracks will be
started and ended within the concrete matrix. Also, some improvements can be introduced
into these models, like including capsules that may be sound or fractured and randomly
distributed all over the sample to imitate the reality of SHC members and the healing
efficiency. In order to perform these studies, first, it is necessary to investigate the limitation
of XFEM, which mainly is allowing multiple cracks within the same enrichment zone which
can be overcome by modifying the Abaqus input file.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis;

investigation; resources; data curation; writing—original draft preparation; visualization; supervision;
project administration, J.H.; writing—review and editing, A.E. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study
are available within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Souradeep, G.; Kua, H.W. Encapsulation technology and techniques in self-healing concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 04016165.
[CrossRef]
2. Snoeck, D.; Malm, F.; Cnudde, V.; Grosse, C.U.; Van Tittelboom, K. Validation of Self-Healing Properties of Construction Materials
through Nondestructive and Minimal Invasive Testing. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 5, 1800179. [CrossRef]
Computation 2023, 11, 142 18 of 18

3. De Nardi, C.; Gardner, D.; Cazzador, G.; Cristofori, D.; Ronchin, L.; Vavasori, A.; Jefferson, T. Experimental investigation of a
novel formulation of a cyanoacrylate based adhesive for self-healing concrete technologies. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 660562.
[CrossRef]
4. Hanna, J. Computational Modelling for the Effects of Capsular Clustering on Fracture of Encapsulation-Based Self-Healing
Concrete Using XFEM and Cohesive Surface Technique. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5112. [CrossRef]
5. Mauludin, L.M.; Zhuang, X.; Rabczuk, T. Computational modeling of fracture in encapsulation-based self-healing concrete using
cohesive elements. Compos. Struct. 2018, 196, 63–75. [CrossRef]
6. Gilabert, F.; Garoz, D.; Van Paepegem, W. Macro-and micro-modeling of crack propagation in encapsulation-based self-healing
materials: Application of XFEM and cohesive surface techniques. Mater. Des. 2017, 130, 459–478. [CrossRef]
7. Hanna, J. Accurate computational modelling for impacts of microcapsule size and interfacial fracture properties on the fracture of
self-healing concrete. Int. J. Hydromechatronics 2022, 5, 397–415, (Scientific Machine Learning: Application in Engineering Science).
[CrossRef]
8. Rabczuk, T. Computational methods for fracture in brittle and quasi-brittle solids: State-of-the-art review and future perspectives.
ISRN Appl. Math. 2013, 2013, 849231. [CrossRef]
9. Rabczuk, T.; Belytschko, T. Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 2004, 61, 2316–2343. [CrossRef]
10. Rabczuk, T.; Zi, G.; Bordas, S.; Nguyen-Xuan, H. A geometrically non-linear three-dimensional cohesive crack method for
reinforced concrete structures. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2008, 75, 4740–4758. [CrossRef]
11. Rabczuk, T.; Zi, G.; Bordas, S.; Nguyen-Xuan, H. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without
enrichment. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2010, 199, 2437–2455. [CrossRef]
12. Tabiei, A.; Zhang, W. Cohesive element approach for dynamic crack propagation: Artificial compliance and mesh dependency.
Eng. Fract. Mech. 2017, 180, 23–42. [CrossRef]
13. Funari, M.F.; Greco, F.; Lonetti, P.; Spadea, S. A numerical model based on ALE formulation to predict crack propagation in
sandwich structures. Fract. Struct. Integr. Ten Years ‘Frat. Ed. Integrità Strutt. 2019, 13, 277–293. [CrossRef]
14. Moreno, M.S.; Curiel-Sosa, J.L.; Navarro-Zafra, J.; Vicente, J.M.; Cela, J.L. Crack propagation in a chopped glass-reinforced
composite under biaxial testing by means of XFEM. Compos. Struct. 2015, 119, 264–271. [CrossRef]
15. De Cicco, D.; Taheri, F. Delamination buckling and crack propagation simulations in fiber-metal laminates using xFEM and
cohesive elements. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2440. [CrossRef]
16. Tang, Y.X.; Chen, H.N. Simulation of crack propagation in concrete based on extended finite element method. Key Eng. Mater.
2018, 783, 165–169. [CrossRef]
17. Cervera, M.; Barbat, G.B.; Chiumenti, M.; Wu, J.Y. A comparative review of XFEM, mixed FEM and phase-field models for
quasi-brittle cracking. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2022, 29, 1009–1083. [CrossRef]
18. Aguiar, J.; Gemert, D.v. Advances in adhesion between polymers and concrete. In Proceedings of the ICPIC 2007: 12th
International Congress on Polymers in Concrete, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea, 27–28 September 2007.
19. Rabczuk, T.; Song, J.H.; Zhuang, X.; Anitescu, C. Extended Finite Element and Meshfree Methods; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2019.
20. Moës, N.; Dolbow, J.; Belytschko, T. A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
1999, 46, 131–150. [CrossRef]
21. Dassault Systémes Simulia Corp. Abaqus Documentation; Simulia Corp: Johnston, RI, USA, 2017.
22. Dong, B.; Han, N.; Zhang, M.; Wang, X.; Cui, H.; Xing, F. A microcapsule technology based self-healing system for concrete
structures. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2013, 7, 1350014. [CrossRef]
23. Edvardsen, C. Water permeability and autogenous healing of cracks in concrete. In Innovation in Concrete Structures: Design and
Construction; Thomas Telford Publishing: London, UK, 1999; pp. 473–487.
24. Camanho, P.P.; Dávila, C.G. Mixed-Mode Decohesion Finite Elements for the Simulation of Delamination in Composite Materials;
NASA/TM-2002–211737; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
25. Mauludin, L.M.; Oucif, C. The effects of interfacial strength on fractured microcapsule. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13, 353–363.
[CrossRef]
26. Quayum, M.S.; Zhuang, X.; Rabczuk, T. Computational model generation and RVE design of self-healing concrete. Front. Struct.
Civ. Eng. 2015, 9, 383–396. [CrossRef]
27. Tu, L.; Kruger, D. Engineering properties of epoxy resins used as concrete adhesives. Mater. J. 1996, 93, 26–35.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.