International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials

Korea Concrete Institute (한국콘크리트학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Experimental Study on Fracture Energy of Plain Concrete

  • Lee, Jaeha (Department of Civil Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University) ;
  • Lopez, Maria M. (Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University)
  • Received : 2013.05.22
  • Accepted : 2014.01.06
  • Published : 2014.06.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, the concrete fracture energy was obtained using the three point notched beam test method developed by Hillerborg et al. (Cem Concr Res 6(6):773-782, 1976). A total of 12 notched concrete beams were tested under two different loading conditions: constant stroke control and constant crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) control. Despite individual fracture energies obtained from the two different loading conditions showing some variation, the average fracture energy from both loading conditions was very similar. Furthermore, the results obtained support the idea that a far tail constant "A" could change the true fracture energy by up to 11 %, if it is calculated using CMOD instead of LVDT. The far tail constant "A" is determined using a least squares fit onto a straight line according to Elices et al. (Mater Struct 25(148):212-218, 1992) and RILEM report (2007). It was also observed that the selection of the end point can produce variations of the true fracture energy. The end point indicates the point in the experiment at which to stop. An end point of 2 mm has been recommended, however, in this study other end points were also considered. The final form of the bilinear softening curve was determined based on Elices and Guinea's methods (1992, 1994) and RILEM report (2007). This paper proposes a bilinear stress-crack opening displacement curve according to test results as well as the CEB-FIP model code.

Keywords

References

  1. ACI 446. (2009). Fracture toughness testing of concrete. Farmington Hills, MI: America Concrete Institute (in progress).
  2. ASTM. (2005). Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. Annual book of ASTM standards, C496/C496M (Vol. 04.02).
  3. Bazant, Z. P. (1976). Instability, ductility, and size effect in strain softening concrete. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, 102(2), 331-344.
  4. Bazant, Z. P., & Planas, J. (1998). Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  5. Bazant, Z. P., & Yu, Q. (2011). Size effect testing of cohesive fracture parameters and nonuniqueness of work-of-fracture method. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 137(8), 580-588. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000254
  6. CEB-FIP. (1990). Final draft CEB-FIP model code 1990. Bulletin Information Committee Euro-International, Beton 203.
  7. CEB-FIP. (2010). Final draft CEB-FIP model code 2010. Bulletin Information Committee Euro-International. Beton 203.
  8. Coronado, C., & Lopez, M. (2005). Modeling of FRP-concrete bond using nonlinear damage mechanics. Proceedings of the FRPRCS-7: 7th International symposium on fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures, ACI, KS.
  9. Coronado, C. A., & Lopez, M. M. (2008). Experimental characterization of concrete epoxy interfaces. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20(4), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:4(303)
  10. Elices, M., Guinea, G., & Planas, J. (1992). Measurement of the fracture energy using 3-point bend tests. 1. Influence of experimental procedures. Materials and Structures, 25(148), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02473065
  11. Elices, M., Guinea, G. V., Gomez, J., & Planas, J. (2002). The cohesive zone model: Advantages, limitations and challenges. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 69(2), 137-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2
  12. Gerstle, W. (2010). Progress in developing a standard fracture toughness test for concrete. Structures Congress 2010, ASCE, Orlando, FL.
  13. Guinea, G., Planas, J., & Elices, M. (1994). A general bilinear fitting for the softening curve of concrete. Materials and Structures, 27(2), 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472827
  14. Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., & Petersson, P. (1976). Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research, 6(6), 773-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7
  15. Kitsutaka, Y., Kurihara, N., & Nakamura, S. (1998). Evaluation method of tension softening properties. Proceedings of the FRAMCOS 3 preconference workshop on quantitative evaluation methods for toughness and softening properties of concrete, Gifu, Japan.
  16. Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., & Onate, E. (1989). Plasticdamage model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 25(3), 299-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050-4
  17. Maturana, P., Planas, J., & Elices, M. (1990). Evolution of fracture behaviour of saturated concrete in the low temperature range. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 35(4-5), 827-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(90)90167-F
  18. Petersson, P. E. (1981). Crack growth and development of fracture zones in plain concrete and similar materials. Rep. TVBM-1006, Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden.
  19. Planas, J., Guinea, G. V., & Elices, M. (1999). Size effect and inverse analysis in concrete fracture. International Journal of Fracture, 95(1-4), 367-378. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018681124551
  20. Planas, J., Guinea, G. V., Galvez, J. C., Sanz, B., & Fathy, A. M. (2007). Indirect test for stress-crack opening curve. RILEM report-TC-187-SOC.
  21. Reinhardt, H. W., Cornelissen, H. A. W., & Hordijk, D. A. (1986). Tensile tests and failure analysis of concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 112(11), 2462-2477. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:11(2462)
  22. RILEM Draft Recommendation. (1990). Determination of fracture parameter (Kic s and CTODc) of plain concrete using three point bend tests. Materials and Structures, 23, 457-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472029
  23. Rocco, C., Guinea, G. V., Planas, J., & Elices, M. (2001). Review of the splitting-test standards from a fracture mechanics point of view. Cement and Concrete Research, 31(1), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00425-7

Cited by

  1. Mode II Fracture Toughness of Hybrid FRCs vol.9, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-015-0117-4
  2. Tests on direct tensile characteristics of expanded clay lightweight aggregate concrete vol.68, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.15.00077
  3. Determination of Double-K Fracture Parameters of Concrete Using Split-Tension Cube: A Revised Procedure vol.10, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-016-0139-6
  4. Fracture Behavior of Concrete Exposed to the Freeze-Thaw Environment vol.29, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001901
  5. Experimental Investigation on the Blast Resistance of Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composite Panels Subjected to Contact Explosions vol.11, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-016-0179-y
  6. Modified Disk-Shaped Compact Tension Test for Measuring Concrete Fracture Properties vol.11, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-017-0189-4
  7. Nonlocal Formulation for Numerical Analysis of Post-Blast Behavior of RC Columns vol.11, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-017-0201-z
  8. Bond behavior and interface modeling of reinforced high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composites vol.83, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.07.017
  9. Evaluation of Shear Strength of RC Beams with Multiple Interfaces Formed before Initial Setting Using 3D Printing Technology vol.10, pp.12, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10121349
  10. Design Approach for Improving Current Concrete Median Barriers on Highways in South Korea vol.32, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001168
  11. Automating XFEM Modeling Process for Optimal Failure Predictions vol.2018, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1654751
  12. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Deformable Concrete Median Barrier vol.12, pp.19, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193176
  13. Investigation on Mode I Fracture Behavior of Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer Composites vol.44, pp.10, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04074-4
  14. Numerical analysis of torsional tangent rigidity of reinforced concrete waffle slab vol.12, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952019000600013
  15. Impact of Particle Packing Method of Design Mix on Fracture Behavior of Concrete: Critical Analysis vol.32, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003138
  16. Fracture Properties of Concrete in Dry Environments with Different Curing Temperatures vol.10, pp.14, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10144734
  17. Analytical model for textile reinforced mortar under monotonic loading vol.258, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120178
  18. Experimental Study on Crack Propagation of Concrete Under Various Loading Rates with Digital Image Correlation Method vol.14, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-020-00400-5
  19. Evaluation of Mode II Fracture Toughness of Hybrid Fibrous Geopolymer Composites vol.14, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14020349
  20. Specimen size effects on the mechanical behaviors and failure patterns of the mine tailings-based geopolymer under uniaxial compression vol.281, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122525
  21. Interfacial transition zones in concrete meso-scale models – Balancing physical realism and computational efficiency vol.293, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123332
  22. Use of digital image correlation to confirm the enhancement of concrete–epoxy resin mortar adhesion through surface precoating treatment vol.295, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123512
  23. The amount prediction of concrete fragments after impact using smoothed particle hydrodynamics vol.131, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105882