See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/378477331

Size effect model with competing mechanism for quasi-brittle materials

under uniaxial compression

Preprint · February 2024

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35149.41441

CITATIONS READS

0 79

3 authors, including:

Xiaoyu Liu
Xi'an University of Science and Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaoyu Liu on 25 February 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Size effect model with competing mechanism for quasi-brittle materials under

2 uniaxial compression

3 Xiaoyu Liu, Huimei Zhang, Shenghu Luo

4 College of Sciences, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, 710600, China

5 Abstract:

6 Although researchers have proposed various size effect models, it is still one of the most

7 challenging problems in mechanics and materials science to establish a model that can capture

8 different types of size effect trends. In this work, the size effect models of the maximum flaw and

9 fracture process zone (FPZ) are defined and verified. Then, these models are incorporated into the

10 fracture mechanics model to establish a new size effect model of uniaxial compressive strength

11 (UCS) for quasi-brittle materials. The new size effect model reveals that the mechanism behind

12 the size effect of UCS is attributed to the competition between the relative rate of change of FPZ

13 and maximum flaw, the geometrical parameter with sample sizes. So, the new size effect model

14 is called as size effect model with competing mechanism (CMSE model). Parametric analysis

15 shows that six types of size effect trends can be reflected by the CMSE model. Moreover, this

16 study also reveals that the fluctuation in size effect of type 5 is attributed to the competing

17 mechanism, rather than the experimental errors believed by previous studies. To validate the

18 performance of the CMSE model, the predictions of the CMSE model are compared with

19 experimental and simulated results. The results indicate that the CMSE model can successfully

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiaoyu-liu@xust.edu.cn (Xiaoyu Liu)

1/39
20 predict six types of size effect trends, and determined parameters are located in the pre-specified

21 range. It is noted that the minimum and mean determination coefficients R2 of the CMSE model

22 are more than 0.91 and 0.97 for different quasi-brittle materials, respectively, which indicates high

23 accuracy of the CMSE model. This study gives new insight into the contribution of the maximum

24 flaw and FPZ to the size effect of UCS, and provide valuable guidance for predicting the strength

25 of quasi-brittle materials with different size.

26 Keywords: Quasi-brittle materials, Size effect, Maximum flaw, Fracture process zone

27

28 1. Introduction

29 In civil and geotechnical engineering, quasi-brittle materials (e.g., rock, concrete) are

30 generally subjected to compressive stresses. It is well known that the uniaxial compressive

31 strength (UCS) of quasi-brittle materials can usually exhibit a descending trend with the increase

32 of samples size1-4. However, some experimental and simulated results have indicated that the UCS

33 of quasi-brittle materials follow an ascending then descending size effect trend5-15. Moreover,

34 other size effect trends have been observed from experimental results16-22. All this means that the

35 UCS obtained from laboratory mechanical tests on small intact samples cannot be used to design

36 the large structures. Therefore, various size effect models have been proposed and developed to

37 describe the different types of size effect trends of UCS for quasi-brittle materials.

38 One of the most popular size effect models was introduced by Weibull based on the statistical

39 theory23, which later become known as the weakest-link model. Hoek and Brown also modified

40 the statistical size effect models to predict the size effect of UCS. According to the weakest-link

2/39
41 theory, a sample could be equivalent to a chain composed of N independent links, and the whole

42 chain would abrupt failure without precursory phenomena as soon as the weakest-link occurs to

43 break. However, the deterministic size effect, caused by the stress redistribution and associated

44 energy released and dissipated in the fracture process zone (FPZ), was neglected by the statistical

45 size effect models. By considering the FPZ, Bažant24 proposed the size effect law (SEL) based on

46 the fracture energy theory to reflect the deterministic size effect. The statistical size effect model

47 and SEL did not predict an asymptotic strength for a huge structure. A size effect model was

48 developed by Carpinteri25 based on the concept of multifractality, which known as multifractal

49 scaling law (MFSL). In fact, as the UCS is reached in a sample of quasi-brittle material, the larger

50 FPZ, the more complex fractal can be observed on the fracture surface; this means that the

51 mechanisms of SEL and MFSL are identical. Weiss et al.26 argued that compressive failure is a

52 critical phase transition from an intact to a failed state. On this basis, a finite size effect law was

53 derived for the mean UCS and the associated variability. The finite size effect law could predict a

54 non-vanishing asymptotic UCS, but its underlying physics was very complicated and difficult to

55 understand. Besides, several empirical and semi-empirical models were proposed based on the

56 descending size effect trend1, 27-30, but these models are only data fitting and lack the physical

57 mechanisms.

58 A limitation of aforementioned size effect models is that they cannot describe the ascending

59 then descending size effect trend7, 8. Bažant31 proposed the fractal fracture size-effect law (FFSEL)

60 by incorporating the concept of fractals into fracture energy. Wu et al.22 reported that the FFSEL

61 could describe the ascending then descending size effect trend [See Fig. 10(a) in reference22].

3/39
62 Following Bažant’s work, Masoumi and co-workers7, 10, 12, 32, 33 conducted a comprehensive and

63 systematic experiments on the size effect of UCS and triaxial strength of different rocks, and the

64 ascending then descending size effect trend was observed. Masoumi et al.32 also observed that the

65 UCS of polished samples with 25mm diameter was weaker than the UCS of unpolished samples

66 with 65mm diameter for Gosford sandstone. Therefore, they assumed that the fractal

67 characteristics seemed to be the primary mechanism causing the ascending size effect trend of

68 UCS, and surface flaws could be considered the secondary mechanism32. On this basis, Masoumi

69 et al.32 proposed a unified size effect law (USEL) by combining with FFSEL and SEL to capture

70 the ascending then descending size effect trend. However, the USEL cannot predict an asymptotic

71 strength for infinitely large sample. So, an improved USEL (IUSEL) was proposed to remedy the

72 deficiency of the USEL34.

73 Apart from the size effect trends mentioned above, other size effect trends have been reported

74 from the quasi-brittle materials under uniaxial compression18-20, 22. Ferro18 observed a descending

75 then ascending size effect trend from concrete under uniaxial compression. Uniaxial compression

76 test of Berea sandstone and Marble conducted by Bai and Li et al. shown an ascending, then

77 descending and again ascending size effect trend19, 20. Wu et al.22 found that the UCS of Green

78 sandstone shown an ascending size effect trend. However, these size effect trends cannot be

79 described by existed size effect models.

80 Bažant and Yu35 argued that there are two kinds of size effect: statistical and deterministic

81 size effect. Statistical size effect assumes that the intact sample contains a population of non-

82 interacting pre-existing flaws, and global failure occurs as soon as crack initiation is triggered

4/39
 83 from the weakest-link, which is associated with the maximum flaw36. Further, the cracks

84 propagate and coalesce to create the local damage zone, also known as FPZ. Deterministic size

85 effect is directly affected by the stress redistribution and the associated energy released and

86 dissipated in the FPZ, which caused by the crack propagation and coalescence37. So, it is

87 concluded that the pre-existing maximum flaw and FPZ are the roots of statistical and

88 deterministic size effect, respectively.

89 In this work, the variation of maximum flaw and FPZ with sample size are systematically

90 analyzed, and then their size effect models are developed and demonstrated. On this basis, a new

91 size effect model of UCS is established by incorporating the size effect models of maximum flaw

92 and FPZ, it is called as size effect model with competing mechanism (CMSE model). The effect

93 of the parameters on the CMSE model is investigated to gain a deep understanding. The

94 performance of the CMSE model is validated with experimental results with different size effect

95 trends. In addition, mechanisms behind the different types of size effect trends are clarified by

96 using the CMSE model.

97 2. Size effect model of maximum flaw and fracture process zone (FPZ)

98 In this section, the size effects of pre-existing maximum flaw and FPZ for intact sample are

99 systematically analyzed, and then proper models will be proposed to describe their size effect.

100 2.1 Size effect model of maximum flaw

101 For failure of intact sample of quasi-brittle materials under uniaxial compression, the crack

102 generally initiate from pre-existing maximum flaw36. Quantitative characterizations of flaws in

5/39
103 the rock mass show that pre-existing flaw sizes will follow a specific distribution and has an upper

104 limit38-41. On this basis, it is known from statistical theory42, 43 that the probability of finding larger

105 pre-existing flaw in large size sample is higher than for small one. Therefore, it can be concluded

106 that the pre-existing maximum flaw will increase with the increase of the sample sizes or volumes

107 and has an upper limit36. Same trend has been observed from experimental and simulated results44,

45
108 . However, existing models cannot describe the nonlinear relation between the maximum flaw

109 size and sample size or volume44. Therefore, an empirical model is proposed to reflect nonlinearity

110 and upper limit of size effect of maximum flaw.

𝑎∞ 𝐷 𝑘
111 𝑎𝑚 = (1)
𝐷𝑘 +ℎ𝑚

112 where am is the maximum flaw size; D is the sample size; a∞ is the value of the maximum flaw in

113 the intact sample when D → +∞. The parameter k controls the nonlinear relation between the am

114 and D. Figs. 1 and 2 show the am versus D curves with different hm or k. One can notice that the

115 critical sample size of reaching a∞ reduces as hm decreases or k increases. This means that with

116 the increasing D, the material with the smaller hm or larger k easier reaches the representative

117 elementary volume (REV) of homogeneity. So, the parameters k and hm can reflect the

118 homogeneity of material. The am for different D can be obtained by imaging methods41, 46, and

119 then the parameters a∞, k and hm can be easily determined by the optimal fitting. Here, the data of

120 am versus D are collected from publications44, 45, 47 to validate Eq. (1). In Figs. 3-5, the predictions

121 given by the Eq. (1) are compared with the maximum flaw in ADF1 steel, cast aluminum alloy

122 and ceramics. One can see that a good agreement is obtained.

6/39
 1.0

0.8

0.6

am
k=0.3, 0.6, 1, 2, 3 a=hm=1
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
123 D

124 Fig. 1. Influence of parameter k on proposed Eq. (1).

1.0

0.8

0.6
am

0.4 hm=1, 5, 10, 15, 20

a=1, k=2
0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
125 D

126 Fig. 2. Influence of parameter hm on proposed Eq. (1).

50

40

30
am (mm)

20
ADF1 steel
Predicted by Eq. (1) R2=0.9935
10
a=62.920, hm=2.555×10-4, k=1.639

0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014
127 M (K g )

128 Fig. 3. Comparison between Eq. (1) and maximum flaw in ADF1 steel44.

7/39
 100

80

60
Cast aluminum alloy

am (mm)
Predicted by Eq. (1) R2=0.9875
40 a=104.2, hm=1.228, k=1.309

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
129 D (mm)

130 Fig. 4. Comparison between Eq. (1) and maximum flaw in cast aluminum alloy45.

150

120
am (mm)

90

Ceramics
60 Predicted by Eq. (1) R2=0.9999
a=170, hm=3.963, k=2.42
30
a= 170
b= 3.963
0 m= 2.42
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
131 D (mm)

132 Fig. 5. Comparison between Eq. (1) and maximum flaw in ceramics47

133 2.2 Size effect model of fracture process zone (FPZ)

134 After the crack initiate from pre-existing maximum flaw in intact sample of quasi-brittle

135 materials under uniaxial compression, the cracks further propagate and coalesce to form the FPZ.

136 Experiment and simulation indicate that the tensile FPZ size increases with increasing sample size

137 D and is nearly constant in large sample48-53. On this basis, an empirical model is developed to

138 describe the size effect of tensile FPZ by Fakhimi and Tarokh48 and Ayatollahi and Akbardoost54

139 as follow.

8/39
 𝑟∞ 𝐷
140 𝑟fpz = (2)
𝐷+ℎfpz

141 where rfpz is FPZ size, and can be determined by acoustic emission55, X-ray imaging56 or digital

142 image correlation48, 49. r∞ is the FPZ size in an infinitely large sample. For sample with specific

143 size D, the smaller the hfpz is, the larger the rfpz is, that is, hfpz can reflect ductile-brittle of sample.

144 The r∞ and hfpz can be determined directly from the experimental or simulated results by using

145 optimal fitting.

146 Differing from the above mentioned tensile FPZ with a single macrocrack, tensile, shear and

147 mixed tensile-shear FPZs are observed from the ultimate failure of quasi-brittle materials under

148 uniaxial compression57, and it is difficult to determine these FPZs sizes quantitatively. However,

149 experimental or simulated figures qualitatively indicate that these FPZs sizes increase as

150 increasing D58-60. Moreover, the predominant opinion is that the many tensile FPZs, also known

151 as "wing cracks", are the main factor leading to failure of quasi-brittle materials under uniaxial

152 compression, and propagate in a direction which is parallel to the direction of uniaxial

153 compression61-63. Therefore, only the tensile FPZs are considered for quasi-brittle materials under

154 uniaxial compression, and an exponent n is introduced into Eq. (2) to modulate the nonlinear

155 relation between the size of many tensile FPZs rfpz and D, it has a form as follow.
𝑟∞ 𝐷𝑛
156 𝑟fpz (𝐷) = (3)
𝐷𝑛 +ℎfpz

9/39
 35

30

25

rfpz (mm)
20
Experimental FPZ length of
15 granite
Predicted by Eq. (2) R2=0.9938
10 r=84.37, hfpz=469.5
5 Predicted by Eq. (3) R2=0.9975
r=57.85, hfpz=1099, n=1.285
0
0 80 160 240 320 400
157 D (mm)

158 Fig. 6. Compared Eqs. (2) and Eq. (3) with the experimental FPZ length of granite50.
10

8
rfpz (mm)

Experimental FPZ width of granite

4 Predicted by Eq. (2) R2=0.9462
r=10.62, hfpz=53.4
Predicted by Eq. (3) R2=0.9995
2
r=1565, hfpz=828.4, n=0.2739

0
0 80 160 240 320 400
159 D (mm)

160 Fig. 7. Compared Eqs. (2) and Eq. (3) with experimental FPZ width of granite50.

35

30

25
rfpz (mm)

20

15
Simulated FPZ length of concrete
10 Predicted by Eq. (2) R2=0.9756
r=90.79, hfpz=264.80
5 Predicted by Eq. (3) R2=0.9975
r=44.58, hfpz=1344, n=1.344
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
161 D (mm)

162 Fig. 8. Compared Eqs. (2) and Eq. (3) with simulated FPZ length of concrete52.

10/39
 200

160

rfpz (mm)
120
Simulated FPZ length of concrete
80 Predicted by Eq. (2) R2=0.9991
r=317, hfpz=382.5
Predicted by Eq. (3) R2=0.9995
40
r=39.5, hfpz=288.6, n=0.9286

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
163 D (mm)

164 Fig. 9. Compared Eqs. (2) and Eq. (3) with simulated FPZ length of concrete53.

165 To validate the predictability of Eq. (3), the data of rfpz versus D are assembled from rock

166 and concrete50, 52, 53. Figs. 6-9 show that the predicted curves of rfpz-D given by Eq. (3) agree well

167 with rock and concrete data. Moreover, the correlations between rock or concrete data and Eq. (3)

168 are more consistent than Eq. (2), as shown in Figs. 6-9.

169 3. Development of size effect model with competing mechanism (CMSE model)

170 In this section, size effect model with competing mechanism (CMSE model) is established

171 by incorporating the size effect models of maximum flaw and FPZ into a fracture mechanics

172 model.

173 3.1 Establishment of size effect model with competing mechanism (CMSE model)

174 It is no doubt that size effect of material strength is governed by statistical and deterministic

175 size effects35. Statistical size effect assumes that the intact sample contains a population of non-

176 interacting pre-existing flaws, and global failure occurs as soon as crack initiation is triggered

177 from the weakest-link, which is associated with the maximum flaw36. Further, the cracks

178 propagate and coalesce to create the local damage zone, also known as FPZ. Deterministic size

11/39
179 effect is directly affected by the stress redistribution and the associated energy released and

180 dissipated in the FPZ, which caused by the crack propagation and coalescence37. So, it is

181 concluded that the pre-existing maximum flaw and FPZ are the roots of statistical and

182 deterministic size effect, respectively. Predominant opinion assumes that the many tensile FPZs,

183 also known as "wing cracks", are the main factor leading to failure of quasi-brittle materials under

184 uniaxial compression, and propagate in a direction parallel to the direction of uniaxial

185 compression61-63. Therefore, a fracture mechanics model, which considers maximum flaw and

186 tensile FPZ in the parallel direction of uniaxial compression, is introduced to characterize the

187 failure mechanism of intact sample of quasi-brittle materials under uniaxial compressive stress n,

188 as shown in Fig. 10.

n


r

rfpz 
Flaw
H


c
Tensile FPZ

n
189

190 Fig. 10. Schematic of fracture mechanics model with maximum flaw and tensile FPZ for sample of quasi-brittle

191 materials under uniaxial compression

12/39
192 In Fig. 10, the width and height of intact sample are D and H, respectively. The length of the

193 maximum flaw is am, and tensile FPZ is parallel to the direction of n. The angle between the

194 extended line of maximum flaw and the horizontal direction is ; c is the angle between the

195 extended line of flaw and the tensile FPZ, and  +c =90º. The normal stress  and shear stress

196  on the surface of the maximum flaw are  = ncos2  = ncos sin. The maximum flaw

197 is closed, and the friction coefficient between the flaw surfaces is m. When tan ≤ m frictional

198 sliding along the maximum flaw will not occur, so the stress intensity factor (SIF) KI and KII at

199 the flaw tip are equal to 0. When tan > m, the flaw will have the trend of sliding along the flaw

200 surface, the KI =0 and KII >0, and can be expressed as follows64-66.

201 𝐾I = 0 (4)
0 tan 𝛼 ≤ 𝜇
202 𝐾II = { (5)
𝐶 √𝜋𝑎𝑚 (𝜏𝛼 − 𝜇𝜎𝛼 ) = 𝐶𝜎𝑛 √𝜋𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛼 (𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼 − 𝜇) tan 𝛼 > 𝜇

203 where C is a geometrical parameter, and related to the ratio of maximum flaw length/sample width

204 am/D. Compressive stresses are taken to be positive in this paper.

1.0

0.9 Analysis results by Zhu et al.

Predicted by power function
0.8
C

0.7

0.6
2.179
C = 0.5074(a/D) +0.5028
0.5 2
R =0.9996

0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
am/D
205
206 Fig. 11. Comparison between power function and analysis results by Zhu et al.64.

207 Based on analysis results by Zhu et al.64, the following power function is proposed to describe

208 the variation of C with am/D. It can be seen from Fig. 11 that good agreement is observed between

13/39
209 the power function and analysis results.

𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑚 2.179
210 𝐶( ) = 0.507 ( ) + 0.503 (6)
𝐷 𝐷

211 Based on the previous works66, the radial stress rr, tangential stress  and shear stresses

212 r (see Fig. 10) near the maximum flaw tip are given in cylindrical coordinates as follows.
𝐾II 𝜃
𝜎𝑟𝑟 = 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (3 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃 − 1) + 𝑇𝑥 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃 + 𝑇𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝜃 + 𝑇𝑥𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜃)
2√2𝜋𝑟 2
3𝐾II 𝜃
213 𝜎𝜃𝜃 = − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃 𝑐𝑜𝑠 + 𝑇𝑥 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝜃 + 𝑇𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃 − 𝑇𝑥𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜃) (7)
2√2𝜋𝑟 2
𝐾II 𝜃 1
𝜏𝑟𝜃 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (3 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃 − 1) + (𝑇𝑦 − 𝑇𝑥 ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜃) + 𝑇𝑥𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠(2𝜃)
2√2𝜋𝑟 2 2

214 where r is the radial distance from maximum flaw tip, and the three T stress components Tx, Ty,

215 Txy are given as follow.

216 𝑇𝑥 =-𝜎𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛼 , 𝑇𝑦 =-𝜎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛼 , 𝑇𝑥𝑦 =-𝜇𝜎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛼 (8)

217 In Fig. 10, it is assumed that failure of uniaxial compressive sample with maximum flaw

218 occurs when tensile FPZ grows to a critical size rfpz, and tangential stress  at the end of tensile

219 FPZ reaches tensile strength t. At this time, uniaxial compressive stress n attains its peak value

220 nc, namely the UCS. So, this assumption can be given as follow.
−3𝐾II 𝜃𝑐
221 𝜎𝜃𝜃(𝑟=𝑟fpz ,𝜃=𝜃𝑐) = 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑠 + 𝑇𝑥 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝜃𝑐 + 𝑇𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃𝑐 − 𝑇𝑥𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜃𝑐 ) = −𝜎𝑡 (9)
2√2𝜋𝑟fpz 2

222 Considering tan > m in Eq. (5) and +c =90º, by substituting Eqs. (5) and (8) into Eq. (9),

223 the nc can be obtained as follow.

−1
2√2𝜎𝑡 𝑎𝑚 √2(𝑠𝑖𝑛2 2𝛼−𝜇 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛼)
224 𝜎𝑛𝑐 = 𝜋 𝛼 [𝐶 √𝑟 + 𝜋 𝛼 ] (10)
3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( 4 − 2 ) fpz 3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( 4 − 2 )

225 Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (6), the size effect of geometrical parameter C is expressed as

226 follows.
2.179
𝑎∞ 𝐷𝑘−1
227 𝐶(𝐷) = 0.507 ( ) + 0.503 (11)
𝐷𝑘 +ℎ𝑚

14/39
228 Considering the size effect of am [Eq. (1)], rfpc [Eq. (3)] and C [Eq. (11)], by substituting

229 Eqs. (1), (3) and (11) into Eq. (10), a new size effect model of UCS can be obtained as follow.

𝑟
2√2𝜎𝑡 √ ∞
𝑎∞
𝜋 𝛼
3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( − )
230 𝜎𝑛𝑐 = 4 2
(12)
2.179 𝐷𝑘−𝑛 (𝐷𝑛 +ℎfpz )
𝑎 𝐷𝑘−1 𝑟 √2(𝑠𝑖𝑛2 2𝛼−𝜇 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛼)
(0.507( ∞𝑘 ) +0.503)[√ 𝑘 +√𝑎∞ 𝜋 𝛼 ]
𝐷 +ℎ𝑚 𝐷 +ℎ𝑚 ∞ 3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( − )
4 2

231 By defining w1 and w2 as follow.

𝑟
2√2𝜎𝑡 √𝑎∞
∞
𝑤1 = 𝜋 𝛼
3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( 4 − 2 )
232 (13)
𝑟∞ √2(𝑠𝑖𝑛2 2𝛼−𝜇 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛼)
𝑤2 = √ 𝜋 𝛼
𝑎 ∞ 3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( 4 − 2 )

233 where tan >m, a∞ > 0, r∞ > 0 and º ≥  ≥ 90º, so w1 > 0 and w2 > 0 should be satisfied.

234 Under the above definitions, Eq. (12) can be rewritten as follow.
𝑤1
235 𝜎𝑛𝑐 = (14)
2.179 𝐷𝑘−𝑛 (𝐷𝑛 +ℎfpz )
𝑎 𝐷𝑘−1
[0.507( ∞𝑘 ) +0.503][√ +𝑤2 ]
𝐷 +ℎ𝑚 𝐷𝑘 +ℎ𝑚

236 In Eq. (10), if C, t,  m are constants, nc will decrease with the increase of am at a fixed

237 rfpz, while the rfpz has an opposite effect on nc. This is because the fracture process zone rfpz is

238 essentially a high-stress region at the tip of the flaw67, 68. Ideally, the stress in this region just

239 reaches the tensile strength t of materials, and the materials have not yet cracked69, 70. This means

240 that the larger rfpz is and the bigger nc is. In contrast, the stress in the maximum flaw region is 0,

241 this results that the larger am is and the smaller nc is. Moreover, based on the carefully analyzed

242 in Section 2, it can be noted from Eqs. (1) and (3) that the am and rfpz nonlinearly increase with

243 the increase of D, and eventually tend to a constant. Therefore, it is concluded size effects of am

244 and rfpz are two competing mechanisms governing the size effect of nc of quasi-brittle materials.

245 Therefore, Eq. (12) or (14) is called the size effect model with competing mechanism (CMSE

15/39
246 model).

247 In addition to maximum flaw am and fracture process zone rfpz, the size effect of geometrical

248 parameter C [Eq. (11)] can also affect the size effect of nc in Eq. (14). Fig. 12 shows that the C

249 decreases with the increase of D for 0 ≤ k ≤ 1, and then tend to a constant. When k > 1, the C first

250 increase, then decrease, and finally tend to a constant with the increasing D. Compared with C

251 versus D curves with different k, the relation between nc and D will be the exact opposite. The

252 reason for different C versus D curves is that the am/D varies nonlinearly with D. This implies that

253 the effect of C on the size effect of nc is attributed to the interaction between the nonlinear

254 increase of am and linear growth of D.

0.5050

0.5045 a=0.1, hm=1

0.5040 k=0
C

k=1
k=5
0.5035 k=10
k=20

0.5030

0.5025
1
255 D

256 Fig. 12. Influence of parameter k in Eq. (11) on geometrical parameter C.

257 3.2 Effect of the parameters on the CMSE model

258 In this section, to study the influence of parameters on the CMSE model, the dimensionless

259 of Eq. (12) is derived as follow.

16/39
 𝑟
2√2√ ∞ℎ
𝑎∞ℎ
𝜋 𝛼
𝜎𝑛𝑐 3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠3 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( − )
260 = 4 2
(15)
𝜎𝑡 𝑘−𝑛 𝑛 ℎfpz
2.179 (𝐷ℎ ) ((𝐷ℎ ) + )
𝑎 𝐷𝑘−1 √ ℎ𝑘 2 2
𝑚 + 𝑟∞ℎ √2(𝑠𝑖𝑛 2𝛼−𝜇 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛼)
(0.507( ∞ℎ
𝑘 1−𝑘 ) +0.503) 𝑘 √𝑎 3 𝜋 𝛼
𝐷 +ℎ𝑚 ((𝐷ℎ ) +ℎ1−𝑘
𝑚 ) ∞ℎ 3(𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼−𝜇) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠( 4 − 2 )

261 where Dh = D/hm, r∞h = r∞/hm, a∞h = a∞/hm. Parameters (k, n, a∞h, r∞h, hfpz,  m) in Eq. (15) can

262 modulate the nonlinearity and variation laws of the CMSE model. These parameters effects will

263 be investigated to provide a deep understanding of the CMSE model.

264 Figs. 13-19 show the size effect curves of the CMSE model with different values of a∞h, hfpc,

265 r∞h,  m, k, and n. It can be seen in Fig. 13 at around Dh = D/hm = 1 that size effect curves gradually

266 change from concave to convex with decreasing a∞h. One can observe in Fig. 16 that the nct

267 first decreases and then increase with the increase of  at a fixed Dh. Figs. 13-15 and 17 suggest

268 that the nct decrease with the rise of a∞h, hfpz, or decrease of r∞h,  m at a fixed Dh. Based on

269 the classification of size effect curves in Figs. 13-19, six types of size effect trends can be obtained

270 as follows.

271 Type 1: When n = 0 in Fig. 19, the nct decreases with the increase of Dh, and then tends

272 to a constant. Many simulated and experimental results have reported this size effect trend1-3.

273 Type 2: When k = 0 in Fig. 18, the nct increases with the increasing Dh, and then tends to

274 a constant. This size effect trend is observed from some simulated and experimental results16, 17.

275 Type 3: When k < n and k ≠ 0 in Figs. 13-19, the nct first increases, then decreases, and

276 finally tends to a constant with the increasing D. This size effect trend can be observed from many

277 simulated and experimental results6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 32, 38, 71.

278 Type 4: When k > n and n ≠ 0 in Figs. 13-19, the nct first decreases, then increases, and

17/39
279 finally tends to a constant with the increasing Dh. Same size effect trend is observed from

280 simulated and experimental results18, 72.

3.5

3.0

2.5
nt
2.0
n=4 n=1
1.5 ah→0
k=2, hfpz=1, hm=1 ah=0.5
1.0 rh=10,  =45 ah=1
m =0.1 ah=2
0.5 ah=5

0.1 1 10
Dh
281
282 Fig .13. Effect of the parameter a∞h on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].

k=2
2.4 rh=0.1, ah=0.1
 =45, m =0.1

2.0
nt

n=1 n=3
hfpz=0.5
1.6 hfpz=0.8
hfpz=1
hfpz=2
hfpz=3
1.2
1 10
Dh
283
284 Fig .14. Effect of the parameter hfpc on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].

2.9

2.8
nt

2.7
n=1 n=3
rh=0.5
2.6 hfpz=1 rh=0.8
k=2, ah=0.1 rh=1
2.5  =45, m =0.1 rh=2
rh=3
2.4
0.1 1 10
Dh
285
286 Fig .15. Effect of the parameter r∞h on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].

18/39
 w1=1, w2=1, a=1, hfpz=10, k=2

2.4

2.2

nt
2.0

n=1 n=3
 =45
1.8 k=2, hfpz=1, hm=1  =55
r=0.1, a=0.1, m =0.1  =65
 =70
 =75
1.6
1 10
Dh
287
288 Fig .16. Effect of the parameter  on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].
4.8

n=1 n=3
m = 0.0
4.0 k=2, hfpz=1 m = 0.2
rh=0.1, ah=0.1,  =45 m = 0.4
m = 0.6
nt

3.2 m = 0.8

2.4

1.6
1 10
Dh
289
290 Fig .17. Effect of the parameter m on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].

2.4

2.2
nt

2.0

n=2, hfpz=1, hm=1 k=0.0

k=0.2
1.8 r=0.1, a=0.1
k=0.6
 =45, m =0.1 k=2
k=6
1.6
1 10
Dh
291
292 Fig .18. Effect of the parameter k on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].

19/39
 2.4
k=2, hfpz=1, hm=1
r=0.1, a=0.1,  =45, m =0.1
2.2

nt
2.0

n=0.0
1.8 n=0.2
n=0.6
n=4
n=20
1.6
1 10
Dh
293
294 Fig .19. Effect of the parameter n on the CMSE model [Eq. (15)].

295 Type 5: When k < n in Fig. 13, the nct first increases, then decreases, then again increases,

296 and finally tends to a constant with the increasing Dh. Two experiments have observed this size

297 effect trend19, 20.

298 Type 6: When a∞h → 0 in Fig. 13, no size effect is observed. When k = n = 2 and hfpz = hm =

299 1 in Fig. 18, the nct is an approximate constant. This size effect trend is reported from

300 experimental results of fibre-reinforced concrete21.

301 4. Validation of the CMSE model

302 4.1 Validation of the CMSE model with collected data

303 To validate the accuracy and rationality of the CMSE model [Eq. (14)], experimental and

304 simulated data about the size effect of UCS are collected from extensive literature for different

305 quasi-brittle materials. The detailed types of size effect trends, range of sample sizes D, height-

306 diameter ratio L/D, data bulk and data source can be found in Table 1. Allowing for the collected

307 data are often time-consuming; these data are stored in Baidu Netdisk

308 (https://pan.baidu.com/s/1tjgkv-TkpF2SC6IwoM7LXw, Password: 1234) for use by other

20/39
309 researchers in the future.

310 In the CMSE model [Eq. (14)], the parameters a∞, w1, w2, hfpc, hm, n and k can be determined

311 by at least seven experimental or simulated data. The numbers of data of No. 4, 14 and 18 in Table

312 1 are smaller than the numbers of parameters in the CMSE model, therefore, linear interpolation

313 between two data is used to avoid overfitting of parameters in the CMSE model, and the

314 interpolating points are not plotted in Figs. 21(a), 23(a) and 25. Moreover, more experimental or

315 simulated data are preferred to obtain high-accuracy size effect curves. Therefore, an optimized

316 method is used to determine the parameters in the CMSE model [Eq. (14)] for different quasi-

317 brittle materials. In the next, collected data will be used to validate the accuracy and rationality of

318 the CMSE model.

319 Table 1 Experimental and simulated data of the six types of size effect trends for different quasi-brittle materials.

Variation type No. Materials D L/D Data bulk Data source

Type 1 1 Coal 0.02-2.14m 1 12 Bieniawski1

2 Simulated rock mass 0.05-12m 2 12 Huang et al.2

3 Concrete-C60 0.1-1.2m 1 7 Liu et al.3

Type 2 4 Green sandstone 20-100mm 2 5 Wu et al.16

5 Simulated granite 25-100mm 2 7 Li et al.17

Type 3 6 Gosford sandstone 19-145mm 2 8 Masoumi et al.32

7 Pilton sandstone 12.5-150mm 2 8 Hawkins6

8 Pennant sandstone 12.5-150mm 2 8 Hawkins6

9 Burrington oolite limestone 12.5-150mm 2 8 Hawkins6

21/39
 10 Hollington sandstone 12.5-150mm 2 8 Hawkins6

11 Gambier limestone 26-145mm 2 9 Zhai et al.10

12 Artificial rock 26-139mm 2 9 Zhai et al.10

13 Simulated rock mass 0.05-7m 2 12 Song15

Type 4 14 Concrete 10-190mm 1 5 Ferro18

15 Simulated rock mass 0.05-10m 2 12 Zhou et al.72

Type 5 16 Berea sandstone 12.7-101.6mm 2 7 Li et al.19

17 Marble 2.5-40mm 2 7 Bai20

Type 6 18 Fibre-reinforced concrete 40-150mm 1 3 Ortega et al.21

320 Table 2

321 The optimized parameters of the CMSE model for different quasi-brittle materials.

Variation type No. a∞ w1 w2 hm hfpc k n

Type 1 1 2.22E-14 2.49E+00 2.61E-14 4.05E-02 2.52E-04 2.85E+00 3.18E+00

2 4.77E-08 5.96E+00 4.27E-14 5.29E-03 1.56E-04 1.09E+01 1.04E+01

3 2.22E-14 3.11E+01 3.92E-01 3.26E-01 1.34E+00 1.88E+00 5.19E-01

Type 2 4 3.80E-03 2.09E+01 2.10E-09 1.25E+08 5.99E+08 5.54E+00 5.34E+00

5 4.44E-14 6.14E+01 1.77E-01 2.13E+02 2.45E+03 6.03E-09 1.68E+00

Type 3 6 2.89E+01 2.68E+01 3.37E-14 6.28E+07 2.31E+09 4.04E+00 4.96E+00

7 5.67E+01 1.15E+01 2.20E-06 1.54E+05 2.08E+04 1.63E+00 2.23E+00

8 1.53E+00 3.02E+01 7.19E-05 1.78E+06 8.17E+07 3.28E+00 4.52E+00

9 3.63E-03 5.08E+01 3.51E-06 3.93E+07 1.25E+09 4.01E+00 5.14E+00

22/39
 10 1.35E+00 8.36E-01 3.10E-14 2.19E+05 2.11E+04 1.26E+00 2.24E+00

11 3.00E+02 1.67E+00 1.73E-08 4.00E+07 5.49E+08 3.20E+00 3.85E+00

12 6.31E-04 1.11E+00 7.41E-04 8.65E+04 3.01E+06 2.50E+00 3.81E+00

13 3.13E-02 1.90E+00 3.73E-03 9.55E+03 1.07E+00 1.17E+00 1.48E+00

Type 4 14 1.95E+00 3.28E+02 9.86E-08 5.58E+06 1.77E+03 6.59E+00 4.32E-01

15 3.34E+00 9.30E+00 1.73E-01 1.42E+01 2.04E+01 4.40E+00 2.71E+00

Type 5 16 3.26E+00 2.79E+01 1.27E-02 1.32E+08 5.53E+08 1.19E+01 1.29E+01

17 1.49E+00 2.62E+01 6.47E-06 5.23E+02 1.12E+03 1.06E+01 1.14E+01

Type 6 18 1.37E+01 1.55E+01 1.58E-05 1.10E+02 1.10E+02 1.08E+00 1.08E+00

322 By using the optimized method, the parameters in the CMSE model are determined and given

323 in Table 2. The prediction of nc versus D curves is obtained by substituting these optimized

324 parameters into Eq. (14). Figs. 20-25 show that predictions given by the CMSE model are

325 compared with the simulated and experimental results of six types of size effect trends. It is shown

326 that the predictions given by the CMSE model agree very well with simulated and experimental

327 results. This agreement validates the capability of the proposed CMSE model to capture the six

328 types of size effect trends. Fig. 20(a) also shows the ascending then descending size effect trend

329 for coal under uniaxial compression, which is not noticed by other researchers previously26. More

330 importantly, comparison of the curve predicted by the CMSE model with experimental results in

331 Fig. 25 reveals that the fluctuation in size effect of type 5 is attributed to the competitive

332 mechanism, rather than the experimental errors believed by previous studies19, 20, 73-75. Moreover,

333 if the CMSE model is valid, the parameters a∞ ≥ 0, w1 ≥ 0, w2 ≥ 0, hfpc ≥ 0, hm ≥ 0, n ≥ 0 and k ≥

23/39
334 0 must be satisfied in Eq. (14). It can be seen from Table 2 that the predicted parameters a∞, w1,

335 w2, hfpc, hm, n and k satisfy pre-specified conditions for different quasi-brittle materials. The

336 determination coefficients R2 are also determined to evaluate the accuracy of the CMSE model

337 and given in Table 3. It is found that the minimum and mean R2 of the CMSE model are more

338 than 0.91 and 0.97 for different quasi-brittle materials, respectively, which indicates high accuracy

339 of the CMSE model.

(a) (b)
35
150
Type 1: No. 1
28 Coal Type 1: No. 2
120 Marble
CMSE model Simulated rock mass
CFF m
nc (MPa)
nc (MPa)

CMSE model
21 90

14 60

7 30

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 3 6 9 12
340 D (m ) D (mm)
(c)
50

45
Type 1: No. 3 Marble
Concrete-C60 CFF model
nc (MPa)

40 CMSE model

35

30

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

341 D (m )

342 Fig. 20. Compared CMSE model with simulated and experimental data of Type 1: (a) Coal; (b) Simulated rock

343 mass; (c) Concrete-C60.

24/39
 (a) (b)
40
280

35
260 Marble Marble
CFF model CFF mod

nc (MPa)
nc (MPa)

30 Type 2: No. 4
Green sandstone Type 2: No. 5
240 B
CMSE model Simulated granite
25 CMSE model D
F
220 H
20

15 200
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 120
344 D (mm) D (mm)

345 Fig. 21. Compared CMSE model with simulated and experimental data of Type 2: (a) Green sandstone; (b)

346 Simulated granite.

(a) (b)
180
54
170 Marble Marble
CFF model CFF mod
nc (MPa)

nc (MPa)

48
160
Type 3: No. 6
Gosford sandstone
42 Type 3: No. 7
CMSE model
150 Pilton sandstone
CMSE model
36
140

25 50 75 100 125 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

347 D (mm) D (mm)
(c) (d)
90 150

80 135
Marble Marble
CFF model CFF mod
nc (MPa)
nc (MPa)

70 120

Type 3: No. 8 105

60 Type 3: No. 9
Pennant sandstone
Burrington oolite limestone
CMSE model
90 CMSE model
50

75
40
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
348 D (mm) D (mm)

25/39
 (e) (f)
3.9
32
3.6 Marble
Marble
CFF model CFF mod

nc (MPa)
nc (MPa)

28
3.3
Type 3: No. 10
Hollington sandstone
24 Type 3: No. 11
CMSE model 3.0 Gambier limestone
CMSE model

20 2.7

30 60 90 120 150 50 100 150 200 250

349 D (mm) D (mm)

350 Fig. 22. Compared CMSE model with simulated and experimental data of Type 3: (a) Gosford sandstone; (b) Pilton

351 sandstone; (c) Pennant sandstone; (d) Burrington oolite limestone; (e) Hollington sandstone; (f) Gambier limestone;

352 (g) Artificial rock; (h) Simulated rock mass.

(g) (h)
180

3.6 Type 3: No. 12 Type 3: No. 13

Artificial rock 160 Marble Simulated rock mass Marble
CMSE model CFF model CMSE model CFF m
nc (MPa)
nc (MPa)

3.2 140

120
2.8

100
2.4
30 60 90 120 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
353 D (mm) D (m )

354 Fig. 22. Continued.

Steeply descending region

(a) (b)
45
40
Slowly descending region

Marble Marble
40 30 CFF model CFF mod
nc (MPa)

nc (MPa)

Type 4: No. 15
Simulated rock mass
CMSE model
20
35
Type 4: No. 14
Concrete
CMSE model 10
Ascending region
30

0
40 80 120 160 200 0 2 4 6 8 10
355 D (mm) D (m )

356 Fig. 23. Compared CMSE model with simulated and experimental data of Type 4: (a) Concrete; (b) Simulated rock

357 mass.

26/39
 (a) (b)

Steeply ascending region

45
54

40 Ascending region 51 Marble

Slowly ascending region

CFF mod

Descending region

nc (MPa)
nc (MPa)

Type 5: No. 17
35 48
Marble
CMSE model
Type 5: No. 16 45
30 Berea sandstone
CMSE model
42
25
0 8 16 24 32 40 0 10 20 30 40
358 D (mm) D (mm)

359 Fig. 24. Compared CMSE model with experimental data of Type 5: (a) Berea sandstone; (b) Marble.

360
32

Type 6: No. 18
Fibre-reinforced concrete
CMSE model
31
nc (MPa)

30

29
0 30 60 90 120 150
361 D (mm)

362 Fig. 25. Compared CMSE model with experimental data of Type 6: Fibre-reinforced concrete

363 Table 3

364 The determination coefficients R2 of CMSE model for different quasi-brittle materials.

Variation type No. Materials CMSE model

Type 1 1 Coal 0.9975

2 Simulated cracked-rock 0.9975

3 Concrete-C60 0.9971

Type 2 4 Green sandstone 0.9743

5 Simulated granite 0.9966

27/39
 Type 3 6 Gosford sandstone 0.9880

7 Pilton sandstone 0.9189

8 Pennant sandstone 0.9471

9 Burrington oolite limestone 0.9841

10 Hollington sandstone 0.9401

11 Gambier limestone 0.9824

12 Artificial rock 0.9156

13 Simulated cracked-rock 0.9803

Type 4 14 Concrete 0.9368

15 Simulated cracked-rock 0.9977

Type 5 16 Berea sandstone 0.9698

17 Marble 0.9960

Type 6 18 Fibre-reinforced concrete 0.9999

Mean R2 0.9733

365 4.2 Mechanisms behind the six types of size effect trends

366 In section 3.2 and 4.1, parameters study and validation indicate that the CMSE model can

367 embody six types of size effect trends for different quasi-brittle materials. In this section, by using

368 the CMSE model, mechanisms behind the six types of size effect trends are clarified. In addition,

369 the limitations of the CMSE model are stated.

370 Considering the definition of w1 and w2 in Eq. (13), Eq. (10) can be rewritten as follow.

28/39
 𝑎
𝑤1 √ 𝑟 ∞
∞
371 𝜎𝑛𝑐 = 𝑎 𝑎
(16)
𝐶 √𝑟 𝑚 +𝑤2 √ 𝑟 ∞
fpz ∞

372 where w1 > 0 and w2 > 0 are related to a∞, r∞ [In Eqs. (1) and (3)] and m  [In Fig. 9]. The am, rfpz

373 and C are maximum flaw [Eq. (1)], FPZ size [Eq. (3)] and geometrical parameter [Eq. (11)],

374 respectively.

375 For different material samples with different size under quasi-static uniaxial compression,

376 the a∞, r∞, w1 and w2 in Eq. (16) are constants. Figs. 3-9 show that the size effects of am and rfpz

377 are different for different materials, and lead to size effect of C being different. It is found in Eq.

378 (16) that the size effect of nc are controlled by the size effect of am, rfpz and C. So, differences in

379 material properties can make different size effect trends. Wang investigated the USC of fly ash

380 ground aggregate concrete samples with different size after different temperatures76. The results

381 indicated that the size effect of USC transited from descending to ascending size effect trends with

382 the increase of temperatures. Analysis of experimental and simulated failure characteristics

383 revealed that the change of maximum flaw and FPZ with temperature was the reason for this

384 phenomenon. Moreover, researchers performed experiment and simulation about the size and

385 strain-rate effects on the dynamic USC of rock77, 78. The experimental and simulated results shown

386 that the size effect of dynamic USC gradually transited from descending to ascending size effect

387 trends with the increase of strain-rates. The reason for this phenomenon is that the FPZ size

388 increases with the increasing strain-rates. Therefore, it can be concluded that material properties,

389 temperature and strain-rate may be responsible for the existence of six types of size effect trends.

390 In next, the CMSE model is further analyzed to clarify the mechanisms behind the six types of

391 size effect trends.

29/39
392 The first derivative of Eq. (16) with respect to D is given as follow.
𝑎
𝑤12 √ ∞𝐶 √𝑎𝑚 𝑟fpz
′ 𝑟∞ 𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
393 𝜎𝑛𝑐 = 2 (𝑟 − −2 ) (17)
𝑎 fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶
(𝑤2 √ 𝑟 ∞ √𝑟fpz +𝐶 √𝑎𝑚 )
∞

394 where rfpz′, am′ and C′ are the first derivative of rfpz, am and C with D, respectively. The rfpz′/rfpz,

395 am′/am and C′/C are the relative rate of change of FPZ rfpz and maximum flaw am, the geometrical

396 parameter C with sample size D, respectively, and obtained based on Eqs. (1), (3) and (11) as

397 follows.
𝑟fpz ′ 𝑛ℎfpz
398 = (𝐷𝑛 (18)
𝑟fpz +ℎfpz )𝐷

𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝑘ℎ𝑚
399 = (𝐷𝑘 (19)
𝑎𝑚 +ℎ𝑚 )𝐷

𝑎 1.179 𝑎 ′
𝐶′ 1.1048( 𝐷𝑚 ) 𝑎𝑚 ( 𝑎𝑚 𝐷−1)
400 = 𝑎𝑚 2.179
𝑚
(20)
𝐶 (0.507( 𝐷 ) +0.503)𝐷2

401 Since k, n, a∞, r∞, hfpc, hm, w1 w2 C rfpz and am are greater than or equal to 0 in Eqs. (17)-
𝑟fpz ′
402 (20), it can be got that the change of the CMSE model [Eq. (14)] is controlled by −
𝑟fpz

𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′ 𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
403 ( + 2 ) in Eq. (17). So, when >( + 2 ) , (nc)′ > 0 is got in Eq. (17), the nc
𝑎𝑚 𝐶 𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶
′
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
404 increases with the increase of D. When <( + 2 ), the descending size effect trend is
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶
′ ′
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶′
405 obtained from the CMSE model. When ≡( + 2 ), no size effect is observed from the
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

406 CMSE model.

407 Here, the experimental and simulated data of No. 3 (Type 1), 5(Type 2), 9 (Type 3), 15

408 (Type 4), 16 (Type 5) and 18 (Type 6) in Table 1 are selected to illustrate the mechanisms behind

409 the six types of size effect trends. By substituting the parameters of No. 3, 5, 9, 15, 16 and 18 in
𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′ 𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
410 Table 2 into Eqs. (18)-(20) and −( + 2 ), the rfpz′/rfpz, am′/am, C′/C, −( +2 )
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶 𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

411 versus D curves are obtained and shown in Fig. 26. A1 and A2 in Figs. 26(c), (d) and (e) are the

30/39
 𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
412 intersections of the −( + 2 ) curve and its zero line.
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

413 Type 1: For No. 3 in Fig. 26(a), 2C′/C is close to 0 and the rfpz′/rfpz and am′/am are greater

414 than 0. So, the size effect of No. 3 (Type 1) is controlled by am′/am and rfpz′/rfpz. The maximum

415 flaw of Infinite sample a∞ = 2.22-14m is very small for No. 3 in Table 1, and am′/am in Eq. (18) is

416 not related to a∞. This means that the value of maximum flaw am is not the controlling factor for

417 descending size effect trend (Type 1). It is noted from Figs. 26(a) that am′/am is greater than rfpz′/rfpz,
𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
418 which leads to −( + 2 ) < 0. So, the mechanisms behind of descending size effect
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

419 trend (Type 1) is higher am′/am.

(a) 0 (b) Type 2: No. 5 Simulated granite
80 8 8 '
rfpz/rfpz
r'fpz/rfpz -20 ' ' ' '
am/am
rfpz/rfpz-am/am-2C /C
60 Type 1: No. 3 Concrete-C60 6 '
6 '
a'm/am rfpz/rfpz 2 C /C
-40 '
E
2C'/C r'fpz/rfpz-a'm/am-2C'/C am/am
40 4 4
'
2C /C
-60
20 2 2

-80
0 0 0

0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1 10

420 D (m ) D (mm)
(c) Type 3: No. 9 Burrington oolite limestone (d) Type 4: No. 15 Simulated cracked-rock
0.08 0
0.15 2.1 A1

' ' ' 0.06 '

rfpz/rfpz
0.10 rfpz/rfpz-am/am-2C /C -2
'
rfpz/rfpz 1.4 '
am/am ' ' '
rfpz/rfpz-am/am-2C /C
' 0.04 B1
0.05 am/am '
2C /C
'
-4
2C /C 0.7
0.00 0.02

A1 -6
-0.05 0.00 0.0

-0.10 -0.02 -8
10 100 0.1 1 10
421 D (mm) D (mm)

31/39
 (e) Type 5: No. 16 Berea sandstone (f)
B1
' ' ' 0.02 0.02
2.4 rfpz/rfpz-am/am-2C /C r'fpz/rfpz-a'm/am-2C'/C
0.5 r'fpz/rfpz
G
a'm/am
1/D
2C'/C 0.01
1.6 A2 0.01
0.0
' A1
rfpz/rfpz
0.8 ' 0.00
am/am 0.00
' -0.5
2C /C
Type 6: No. 3 Fibre-reinforced concrete
0.0 -0.01
-0.01
-1.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
422 D (mm) D (mm)
𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
423 Fig. 26. The rfpz′/rfpz, am′/am, C′/C, −( + 2 ) versus D curves: (a) Concrete-C60; (b) Simulated granite;
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

424 (c) Burrington oolite limestone; (d) Simulated cracked-rock; (e) Marble; (f) Fibre-reinforced concrete.

425 Type 2: For No. 5 in Fig. 26(b), am′/am and 2C′/C are close to 0. It is also concluded for No.

426 4 from Table 1 that the rfpz′/rfpz and am′/am are greater than 0. So, the size effect of No. 5 is

427 controlled by rfpz′/rfpz, while the size effect of No. 4 is controlled by rfpz′/rfpz and am′/am. Because

428 rfpz′/rfpz in Eq. (18) is not related to r∞, so the value of FPZ size rfpz is not the controlling factor for
𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
429 ascending size effect trend (Type 2). Fig. 26(b) shows −( + 2 ) > 0 , so the higher
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

430 rfpz′/rfpz is the reason for ascending size effect trend (Type 2).

431 Type 3: For No. 9 in Fig. 26(c), 2C′/C is close to 0, and rfpz′/rfpz is greater than am′/am in the

432 left region of point A1, which corresponds to ascending size effect region in Fig. 22(d). In the right

433 region of point A1, rfpz′/rfpz is less than am′/am, which corresponds to descending size effect region

434 in Fig. 22(d). So, size effect of No. 9 is controlled by rfpz′/rfpz and am′/am, and the transition from

435 rfpz′/rfpz dominance to am′/am dominance is the mechanism of ascending then descending size

436 effect trend (Type 3).

437 Type 4: For No. 15 in Fig. 26(c), 2C′/C is close to 0, and rfpz′/rfpz < am′/am in the left region

438 of point B1, which corresponds to the steeply descending region in Fig. 23(b). So, the am′/am and

32/39
439 rfpz′/rfpz are controlling factors in this region, and the dominant mechanism is higher am′/am. In the

440 B1A1 region, with the increasing D, the 2C′/C first increases and then decreases, the rfpz′/rfpz and
𝑟fpz ′ 𝑎𝑚 ′ 𝐶′
441 am′/am decrease, and −( + 2 ) < 0, which corresponds to the slowly descending region
𝑟fpz 𝑎𝑚 𝐶

442 in Fig. 23(b). So, the rfpz′/rfpz, am′/am and 2C′/C are controlling factors in the B1A1 region, and the

443 dominant mechanism is higher (am′/am+2C′/C). Obviously, the dominant mechanisms are different

444 for steeply and slowly descending regions in Fig. 23(b). In the right region of point A1, the 2C′/C

445 <0, so higher (rfpz′/rfpz - 2C′/C) is dominant mechanisms for ascending region in Fig. 23(b).

446 Type 5: For No. 16 in Fig. 26(e), the 2C′/C is close to 0 in the left region of point B1, which

447 corresponds to the steeply ascending region in Fig. 24(a). So, the rfpz′/rfpz and am′/am are

448 controlling factors in this region, and the dominant mechanism is higher rfpz′/rfpz. It is found that

449 the rfpz′/rfpz, am′/am and 2C′/C are controlling factors in the B1A1 [Corresponding to slowly

450 ascending region in Fig. 24(a)] and A1A2 [Corresponding to descending region in Fig. 24(a)]

451 region. However, the higher rfpz′/rfpz is the dominant mechanism for slowly ascending region,

452 while higher (am′/am+2C′/C) is the the dominant mechanism for descending region. In the right

453 region of point A1, the 2C′/C <0, rfpz′/rfpz and am′/am are close to 0. So, higher 2C′/C is the dominant

454 mechanism for ascending region.

455 Type 6: Ortega et al.21 argued that the no size effect in fibre-reinforced concrete was due

456 to the ductility of the material in this range of sizes. Experimental phenomenon shown that the

457 ductile zone is equal to sample size D, that is, FPZ size rfpz =D. The ductile zone was caused by

458 the steel fibre reinforcement (namely flaw). So, the maximum flaw am may be linearly

459 proportional to FPZ size rfpz, that is am = o1rfpz = o1D (o1 are constants), and one can get 2C′/C =0

33/39
460 and rfpz′/rfpz = am′/am = 1/D. For No. 18 in Fig. 26(f), the 2C′/C is close to 0 when D ≥ 20, and the

461 rfpz′/rfpz = am′/am, and rfpz′/rfpz versus D curve is close to 1/D. This means that the CMSE model

462 can reveal mechanisms behind the no size effect in fibre-reinforced concrete. Moreover, if a∞, r∞,

463 hfpc, hm, n and k are equal to 0 in Eq. (12), no size effect will be obtained in this case, which

464 corresponds to completely brittle failure.

465 Although the CMSE model can capture mechanisms behind the six types of size effect trends,

466 its limitations remain. First, there are seven parameters in the CMSE model, which increases the

467 cost to calculate the parameters in real applications. Second, the microstructure and failure process

468 of quasi-brittle materials are very complex45, 57, which results that it is difficult to quantify the size

469 effect of the maximum flaw and FPZ. Eqs. (1) and (3) are used to describe the size effect of the

470 maximum flaw and FPZ, but they are empirical in the CMSE model. Third, in the CMSE model,

471 tensile FPZ is introduced to characterize the failure mechanism of quasi-brittle materials under

472 uniaxial compression, which cannot capture shear FPZ or mixed tensile-shear FPZ79, 80
.

473 Additionally, how to embed the temperatures, freeze-thaw cycles or strain rates into the CMSE

474 model demands further study.

475 5. Conclusions

476 In this work, based on a systematic analysis of experimental results and theoretical models,

477 the size effect models of maximum flaw and fracture process zone (FPZ) are subtly defined and

478 verified. On this basis, a new size effect model, referred to as the size effect model with competing

479 mechanism (CMSE model), is established and validated with experimental and simulated results

480 of quasi-brittle materials under uniaxial compression. The impact of material parameters is

34/39
481 investigated to gain a deeper understanding of the CMSE model. The investigation yields the

482 following conclusions.

483 1. As the increase of sample size, it is found that the maximum flaw and FPZ nonlinearly

484 increase and then tend to a constant. The defined models can accurately describe the size

485 effects of maximum flaw and FPZ.

486 2. The CMSE model reveals that the mechanism behind the size effect of UCS for quasi-brittle

487 materials is attributed to the competition between the relative rate of change of FPZ and

488 maximum flaw, the geometrical parameter with sample sizes. Six types of size effect trends

489 are found based on a systematic analysis of parameters in the CMSE model.

490 3. The predictions given by the CMSE model agree very well with simulated and experimental

491 results, and determined parameters are located in the pre-specified range. The minimum and

492 mean determination coefficients R2 of the CMSE model are more than 0.91 and 0.97 for

493 different quasi-brittle materials, respectively, which indicates high accuracy of the CMSE

494 model.

495 4. The mechanisms behind the six types of size effect trends are clarified by using the CMSE

496 model. Analysis results suggest that the dominant mechanism for different types of size effect

497 trends may be the same, while the size effects with the same trend may have different

498 dominant mechanism.

499 Acknowledgment

500 The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the National Natural Science Foundation

501 of China (Grant No. 52274139, 12172280).

35/39
502

503 References
504 1. Bieniawski ZT. The effect of specimen size on compressive strength of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min. 1968;5(4):
505 325-335.
506 2. Huang H, Shen J, Chen Q, Karakus M. Estimation of REV for fractured rock masses based on Geological
507 Strength Index. Int J Rock Mech Min. 2020;126: 104179.
508 3. Liu H. Plastic damage model of concrete Based on strain gradient theory and size effect of compressive strength.
509 127. Beijing: Beijing Jiaotong University; 2019:104613.
510 4. Liu X, Yang Z, Zhang H. Energy balance size effect model of compressive strength for quasi-brittle materials.
511 Cin J Theor App Mech. 2022;54(6): 1-17(in Chinese).
512 5. Nishimatsu Y, Yamaguchi U, Motosugi K, Morita M. The size effect and experimental error of the strength of
513 rocks (in Japanese). Journal of Mining and Material Process Institute of Japan. 1969;18: 1019-1025.
514 6. Hawkins A. Aspects of rock strength. B Eng Geol Environ. 1998;57(1): 17-30.
515 7. Masoumi H. Investigation into the mechanical behaviour of intact rock at different sizes. Doctor of Philosophy.
516 Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2013.
517 8. Quinones J, Arzúa J, Alejano L, García-Bastante F, Ivars DM, Walton G. Analysis of size effects on the
518 geomechanical parameters of intact granite samples under unconfined conditions. Acta Geotech. 2017;12(6):
519 1229-1242.
520 9. Faramarzi L, Rezaee H. Testing the effects of sample and grain sizes on mechanical properties of concrete. J
521 Mater Civ Eng. 2018;30(5).
522 10. Zhai H, Masoumi H, Zoorabadi M, Canbulat I. Size-dependent behaviour of weak intact rocks. Rock Mech Rock
523 Eng. 2020;53(8): 3563-3587.
524 11. Pérez-Rey I, Muñoz-Ibáñez A, González-Fernández MA, et al. Size effects on the tensile strength and fracture
525 toughness of granitic rock in different tests. J Rock Mech Geotech. 2022.
526 12. González-Fernández MA, Estévez-Ventosa X, Alejano LR, Masoumi H. Size-dependent behaviour of hard rock
527 under triaxial loading. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2023;56(8): 6009-6025.
528 13. Darbor M, Faramarzi L, Sharifzadeh M. Size-dependent compressive strength properties of hard rocks and rock-
529 like cementitious brittle materials. Geosystem Eng. 2019;22(4): 179-192.
530 14. Bahrani N, Kaiser PK. Numerical investigation of the influence of specimen size on the unconfined strength of
531 defected rocks. Comput Geotech. 2016;77: 56-67.
532 15. Song X. Research on structure effect and size effect of mechanical parameters of fractured rock mass. Taiyuan
533 University of Technology; 2021.
534 16. Wu F, Qiao L, Guan S, al e. Study on size effect of uniaxial compression tests of small size rock samples. Cin J
535 Rock Mech Eng. 2021;40(5): 856-873 (in Chinese).
536 17. Li K, Cheng Y, Fan X. Roles of model size and particle size distribution on macro-mechanical properties of Lac
537 du Bonnet granite using flat-joint model. Comput Geotech. 2018;103: 43-60.
538 18. Ferro G. On dissipated energy density in compression for concrete. Eng Fract Mech. 2006;73(11): 1510-1530.
539 19. Li H, Song K, Tang M, et al. Determination of scale effects on mechanical properties of berea sandstone.
540 Geofluids. 2021;2021: 6637371.
541 20. Bai Y. Normal and anomalous size effects of heterogeneous media. Biejing, China: Final Report to NNSFC;
542 2009.

36/39
543 21. Ortega JJ, Ruiz G, Poveda E, et al. Size effect on the compressive fatigue of fibre-reinforced concrete. Constr
544 Build Mater. 2022;322: 126238.
545 22. Wu H, Ju Y, Han X, et al. Size effects in the uniaxial compressive properties of 3D printed models of rocks: an
546 experimental investigation. Int J Coal Sci Techn. 2022;9(1): 83.
547 23. Weibull W. A statistical theory of the strength of materials. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Ph.D.
548 dissertation. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science; 1939.
549 24. Bažant ZP. Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal. J Eng Mech. 1984;110(4): 518-535.
550 25. Carpinteri A, Chiaia B, Ferro G. Size effects on nominal tensile strength of concrete structures: multifractality
551 of material ligaments and dimensional transition from order to disorder. Mech Mater. 1995;28(6): 311-317.
552 26. Weiss J, Girard L, Gimbert F, Amitrano D, Vandembroucq D. (Finite) statistical size effects on compressive
553 strength. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014;111(17): 6231-
554 6236.
555 27. Yoshinaka R, Osada M, Park H, Sasaki T, Sasaki K. Practical determination of mechanical design parameters of
556 intact rock considering scale effect. Engineering Geology. 2008;96(3): 173-186.
557 28. Darlington WJ, Ranjith PG, Choi SK. The effect of specimen size on strength and other properties in laboratory
558 testing of rock and rock-like cementitious brittle materials. Rock Mechanics Rock Engineering. 2011;44(5): 513.
559 29. Zhang Q, Zhu H, Zhang L, Ding X. Study of scale effect on intact rock strength using particle flow modeling.
560 Int J Rock Mech Min. 2011;48(8): 1320-1328.
561 30. Bažant ZP, Xiang Y. Size effect in compression fracture: splitting crack band propagation. J Eng Mech.
562 1997;123(2): 162-172.
563 31. Bažant ZP. Scaling of quasibrittle fracture: hypotheses of invasive and lacunar fractality, their critique and
564 Weibull connection. Int J Fract. 1997;83(1): 41-65.
565 32. Masoumi H, Saydam S, Hagan PC. Unified size-effect law for intact rock. Int J Geomech. 2016;16(2): 04015059.
566 33. Masoumi H, Roshan H, Hagan PC. Size-Dependent Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion. International Journal of
567 Geomechanics 2017;17(2): 04016048.
568 34. Masoumi H, Arefi A, Hagan P, Roshan H, Sharifzadeh M. An improvement to unified size effect law for intact
569 rock. 51st U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. San Francisco, USA; 2017.
570 35. Bažant ZP, Yu Q. Universal size effect law and effect of crack depth on quasi-brittle structure strength. J Eng
571 Mech. 2009;135(2): 78-84.
572 36. Pagnoncelli AP, Tridello A, Paolino DS. Modelling size effects for static strength of brittle materials. Mater
573 Design. 2020;195: 109052.
574 37. Bažant, ZP , Author, Lewis, G , Reviewer. Scaling of Structural Strength. Appl Mech Rev. 2003;56(5): B70-B72.
575 38. Liang Z, Wu N, Li Y, Li H, Li W. Numerical study on anisotropy of the representative elementary volume of
576 strength and deformability of jointed rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2019;52(11): 4387-4402.
577 39. Mas Ivars D, Pierce ME, Darcel C, et al. The synthetic rock mass approach for jointed rock mass modelling. Int
578 J Rock Mech Min. 2011;48(2): 219-244.
579 40. Wang J, Zhang W, Tan C, et al. Multi-dimensional size effects and representative elements for non-persistent
580 fractured rock masses: A perspective of geometric parameter distribution. J Rock Mech Geotech. 2023;15(9):
581 2339-2354.
582 41. Healy D, Rizzo RE, Cornwell DG, et al. FracPaQ: A MATLAB™ toolbox for the quantification of fracture
583 patterns. J Struct Geol. 2017;95: 1-16.
584 42. Wang Z, Guan Y-h, Luo H-w. Progress on statistical models of evaluating inclusions in clean steels. J Iron Steel
585 Res Int. 2022;29(8): 1153-1163.

37/39
586 43. Atkinson HV, Shi G. Characterization of inclusions in clean steels: a review including the statistics of extremes
587 methods. Prog Mater Sci. 2003;48(5): 457-520.
588 44. Zhang JM, Zhang JF, Yang ZG, et al. Estimation of maximum inclusion size and fatigue strength in high-strength
589 ADF1 steel. Mat Sci Eng A. 2005;394(1): 126-131.
590 45. El Khoukhi D, Morel F, Saintier N, Bellett D, Osmond P, Le V-D. Probabilistic modeling of the size effect and
591 scatter in High Cycle Fatigue using a Monte-Carlo approach: Role of the defect population in cast aluminum
592 alloys. Int J Fatigue. 2021;147: 106177.
593 46. Beretta S. More than 25 years of extreme value statistics for defects: Fundamentals, historical developments,
594 recent applications. Int J Fatigue. 2021;151: 106407.
595 47. Yu H, Zhou B, Zhu L, et al. Mathematical law of size effect on the flexural property of ceramics. Ceram Int.
596 2022;48(1): 769-775.
597 48. Fakhimi A, Tarokh A. Process zone and size effect in fracture testing of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min. 2013;60:
598 95-102.
599 49. Zhang S, Wang H, Li X, Zhang X, An D, Yu B. Experimental study on development characteristics and size
600 effect of rock fracture process zone. Eng Fract Mech. 2021;241.
601 50. Tarokh A, Makhnenko RY, Fakhimi A, Labuz JF. Scaling of the fracture process zone in rock. Int J Fract.
602 2017;204(2): 191-204.
603 51. Zhou R, Lu Y, Wang L-G, Chen H-M. Mesoscale modelling of size effect on the evolution of fracture process
604 zone in concrete. Eng Fract Mech. 2021;245: 107559.
605 52. Zhou R, Chen H-M. Mesoscopic investigation of size effect in notched concrete beams: The role of fracture
606 process zone. Eng Fract Mech. 2019;212: 136-152.
607 53. Dong W, Zhou X, Wu Z. On fracture process zone and crack extension resistance of concrete based on initial
608 fracture toughness. Constr Build Mater. 2013;49: 352-363.
609 54. Ayatollahi MR, Akbardoost J. Size effects on fracture toughness of quasi-brittle materials – A new approach.
610 Eng Fract Mech. 2012;92: 89-100.
611 55. Tschegg EK, Schneemayer A, Merta I, Rieder KA. Energy dissipation capacity of fibre reinforced concrete under
612 biaxial tension–compression load. Part II: Determination of the fracture process zone with the acoustic emission
613 technique. Cem Concr Compos. 2015;62: 187-194.
614 56. Kumpova I, Fila T, Vavrik D, Kersner Z. X-ray dynamic observation of the evolution of the fracture process
615 zone in a quasi-brittle specimen. J Instrum. 2015;10(08): C08004.
616 57. Zhang J-Z, Zhou X-P. Fracture process zone (FPZ) in quasi-brittle materials: Review and new insights from
617 flawed granite subjected to uniaxial stress. Eng Fract Mech. 2022;274: 108795.
618 58. Jin L, Yu W, Li D, Du X. Numerical and theoretical investigation on the size effect of concrete compressive
619 strength considering the maximum aggregate size. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 2021;192:
620 106130.
621 59. Wen B, Huang D, Zhang L, Song Q, Gao G, Huo D. Study on mechanical properties and size effect of coal
622 gangue concrete at mesoscale. Constr Build Mater. 2022;360: 129551.
623 60. Choo J, Sun Y, Fei F. Size effects on the strength and cracking behavior of flawed rocks under uniaxial
624 compression: from laboratory scale to field scale. Acta Geotech. 2023.
625 61. Reches Z, Lockner DA. Nucleation and growth of faults in brittle rocks. J Geophys Res Sol Ea. 1994;99(B9):
626 18159-18173.
627 62. Ashby MF, Sammis CG. The damage mechanics of brittle solids in compression. Pure Appl Geophys.
628 1990;133(3): 489-521.

38/39
629 63. Healy D, Jones RR, Holdsworth RE. Three-dimensional brittle shear fracturing by tensile crack interaction.
630 Nature. 2006;439(7072): 64-67.
631 64. Zhu Z, Wang L, Mohanty B, Huang C. Stress intensity factor for a cracked specimen under compression. Eng
632 Fract Mech. 2006;73(4): 482-489.
633 65. Liu H, Lv S. A model for the wing crack initiation and propagation of the inclined crack under uniaxial
634 compression. Int J Rock Mech Min. 2019;123: 104121.
635 66. Fan Y, Zhu Z, Zhao Y, Zhou L, Qiu H, Niu C. Analytical solution of T-stresses for an inclined crack in
636 compression. Int J Rock Mech Min. 2021;138: 104433.
637 67. Di Luzio G, Cusatis G. Cohesive crack analysis of size effect for samples with blunt notches and generalized
638 size effect curve for quasi-brittle materials. Eng Fract Mech. 2018;204: 15-28.
639 68. Carloni C, Cusatis G, Salviato M, Le J-L, Baant ZP. Critical comparison of the boundary effect model with
640 cohesive crack model and size effect law. Eng Fract Mech. 2019;215: 193–210.
641 69. Maimí P, González EV, Gascons N, Ripoll L. Size Effect Law and Critical Distance Theories to Predict the
642 Nominal Strength of Quasibrittle Structures. Appl Mech Rev. 2013;65(2): 020803-020803-020816.
643 70. Hu X, Guan J, Wang Y, Keating A, Yang S. Comparison of boundary and size effect models based on new
644 developments. Eng Fract Mech. 2017;175: 146-167.
645 71. Alejano LR, Walton G, Gaines S. Residual strength of granitic rocks. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech. 2021;118: 104189.
646 72. Zhou Z, Sun J, Lai Y, et al. Study on size effect of jointed rock mass and influencing factors of the REV size
647 based on the SRM method. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech. 2022;127: 104613.
648 73. Sinha S, Walton G, Chaurasia A, Diederichs M, Batchler T. Evaluating size effects for a porous, weak,
649 homogeneous limestone. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2022.
650 74. Thuro K, Plinninger R, Zäh S, Schütz S. Scale effects in rock strength properties. Part 1: Unconfined
651 compressive test and Brazilian test. ISRM regional symposium, EUROCK. 2001:169-174.
652 75. Martin CD. The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite around underground openings. Ph.D. Dissertation.
653 Winnipeg: University of Manitoba; 1993.
654 76. Wang S. Study on size effect of fly ash geopolymer concrete compressive
655 strength at high temperature. Master's thesis. China, Xi’an: Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology;
656 2023:105853.
657 77. Qi C, Wang M, Bai J, Li K. Mechanism underlying dynamic size effect on rock mass strength. International
658 Journal of Impact Engineering. 2014;68: 1-7.
659 78. Jin L, Yu W, Du X, Zhang S, Li D. Meso-scale modelling of the size effect on dynamic compressive failure of
660 concrete under different strain rates. international journal of impact engineering. 2019;125: 1-12.
661 79. Zhang J-Z, Zhou X-P. Integrated acoustic-optic-mechanics (AOM) multi-physics field characterization methods
662 for a crack: Tension vs. shear. Eng Fract Mech. 2023;287: 109339.
663 80. Cartwright-Taylor A, Mangriotis M-D, Main IG, et al. Seismic events miss important kinematically governed
664 grain scale mechanisms during shear failure of porous rock. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1): 6169.

665

39/39

View publication stats