Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structure With Fracture and Damage Mechanics Constitutive Models

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH FRACTURE

AND DAMAGE MECHANICS CONSTITUTIVE
MODELS
THESIS
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
Rajesh Kumar Singh

(04404702)
Supervisors
Professor Tarun Kant

Dr. R. K. Singh
Department Of Civil Engineering

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
Powai, Mumbai-400 076
November 2008
Thesis Approval Sheet
Thesis entitled: NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

STRUCTURES WITH FRACTURE AND DAMAGE MECHANICS
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS by RAJESH KUMAR S INGH is approved for the
degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.
Examiners
Supervisors
Chairman
Date:
Place:
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
CERTIFICATE OF COURSE WORK
This is to certify that Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh was admitted to the candidacy of the PhD
degree on January 2005, after successfully completing all the course required for the PhD
degree programme. The details of the course work done by him are given below.
Sr. No. Course No. Course Name Credits
1. CE 620 Finite Element Methods 6.00
2. AE 676 Laminated Plates and Shells 6.00
3. CES801 Seminar 4.00
IIT Bombay Dy. Registrar (Academic)
Dated:
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURES USING FRACTURE AND
DAMAGE MECHANICS CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
PhD Thesis
by
Rajesh Kumar Singh

Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Powai, Mumbai -400 076, India
ABSTRACT
The conventional stress-strain model for the inelastic analysis of reinforced and plain concrete
structures is unable to represent the strain and stress singularities that would occur at the crack
tip. Further, the propagation of cracks using this numerical model has been found to be
dependent on the finite element mesh size even in the converged regime of mesh refinement.
The fracture energy model as become most popular in recent years for the finite element
analysis of plain and Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures because it gives mesh insensitive
results after the convergence has been attained. To overcome the mesh size dependence of the
numerical solution for concrete structures, an effort is made here to evaluate the fracture
energy based on analytical effective elastic approach and finite element cohesive and crack
band fracture models along with the damage model. For this the fracture energy of three point
bend (RILEM) specimen is evaluated. It has been seen that during experimental routine test as
per RILEM recommendation body forces (self weight) of test specimen affect the fracture
energy value. The present study proposes the inclusion of body force and its significance on
the fracture energy evaluation is described. It has been remarked by past researchers that the
nominal fracture energy of plain concrete should be increased for the analysis of reinforced
concrete. The published information either experimental or analytical for reinforced concrete
is rather qualitative or empirical and hence inconclusive. The present study proposes to verify
the fracture energy of reinforced concrete analytically which is illustrated by carrying out a
series of numerical finite element simulations. Finally, the structural size effect of geometrical
similar (same span to depth ratio) RC structures is investigated and compared with
experimental test results.
Keywords: fracture energy, cohesive crack model, crack band model, damage model, size
effect
i
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
NOMENCLATURE xv
1 INTRODUCTION 1-4
1.1 General 1
1.2 Scope and Objective 2
1.3 Layout of Report 3
1.4 Closure 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5-22
2.1 General 5
2.2 Elasto-Plastic Models of Concrete 6
2.3 Plasticity Model of Concrete 7
2. 3.1 Recent Work on Plasticity Model 8
2.4 Fracture Model 10
2.4.1 Introduction of Fracture Mechanics in Concrete 12
2.4.2 Mechanics of Compression Fracture of Concrete 14
2.4.3 Recent Work on Fracture Model 14
2.5 Representation of Reinforcement Bars 16
2.6 Bond Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete 17
2.7 Nonassociated Flow Rule for Concrete 18

iii
2.8 Structural Size Effect 18
2.9 Damage Model for Concrete 19
2.10 Closure 20
3 NUMERICAL MODELS AND FORMULATION 23-52
3.1 Introduction 23
3.2 Softening and Energy Concepts for Mesh insensitivity 24
3.3 Effect of Reinforcement on Fracture Energy (Gf ) 28
3.4 Analytical Effective Elastic Approach 32
3.4.1 Triangular Stress Block 32
3.4.2 Parabolic Stress Block 36
3.4.3 Rectangular Stress Block 39
3.5 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model 43
3.5.1 Mechanical Behaviour 44
3.5.2 Concrete Plasticity 44
3.5.3 Tension Stiffening 46
3.6 Closure 51
4 DETERMINATION OF FRACTURE ENERGY FOR

PLAIN AND REINFORCED CONCRETE AND ITS
SIZE EFFECT 53-90
4.1 Introductory Remarks 53
4.2 Effective Elastic Approach 53
4.2.1 Triangular Stress Block for Plain Concrete 55
4.2.2 Parabolic Stress Block for Plain Concrete 59
4.2.3 Rectangular Stress Block for Plain Concrete 62
4.3 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) for Notched Three Point

iv
Bending Beam using Karihaloo (1995) Approach 65
4.4 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) using Crack Band Model 68
4.4.1 RILEM (1985) Recommendations 72
4.4.2 Numerical Convergence using Band of Fracture Energy 73
4.5 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf ) for Reinforced Concrete 78
4.5.1 Triangular Stress Block for Reinforced Concrete 78
4.5.2 Parabolic Stress Block for Reinforced Concrete 83
4.5.3 Rectangular Stress Block for Reinforced Concrete 84
4.5.4 Numerical Convergence using Band of Fracture Energy 86
4.6 Closure 90
5 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 91-130
5.1 Introductory Remarks 91
5.2 Crack Analysis in Plain Concrete 92
5.2.1 Modes of Crack Tip Deformation 92
5.2.2 Fictitious or Cohesive Crack Model (FCM) 93
5.2.3 Crack Band Model (Crack with localisation limiters) 94
5.2.4 Strength Based Concrete Material Model 95
5.2.5 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model 95
5.3 Mesh Sensitiveness using Fracture Energy Models for

Peterson (1981) Beam 95
5.3.1 Stress-Strain Model 96
5.3.2 Features of Fracture Energy Models 98
5.4 Mesh Sensitivity using Fracture Energy Models

for Carpintari et al. (1993) Beam (without notch) 105
5.5 Direct Tension Problem tested by Hordijk (1991) 110
5.6 Mixed Mode Problem- Failing in sliding mode tested by

v
Schlangen (1993) 111
5.7 Analysis of Three Point Bending Notched Beam using 2D Plane

Stress Element and 3D Solid Element Arrea et al. (1981) Test 113
5. 8 Crack Analysis in Reinforced Concrete 117
5.9 Parametric Studies Based on Varying Percentage of Reinforcement

Tested by Bosco et al. (1990) 119
5.10 Structural Size Scale Effect on the Analysis of RC Member

Loaded in Shear Tested by Walraven et al. (1994) 125
5.11 Closure 129
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 131-135
6.1 Preliminary Remarks 131
6.2 Concluding Remarks 132
6.3 Contributions from Present Work 134
6.4 Directions for Future Work 135
APPENDIX I 137
REFERENCES 141
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Caption Page no.
4.1 Material properties of high strength concrete for notched beam

Petersson (1981) 56
4.2 Material properties of low strength concrete for notched beam

Petersson (1981) 57
4.3 Fracture energy using brittle failure concept for plain concrete 65
4.4 Fracture energy using quasi-brittle failure concept for plain

concrete 65
4.5 Value of coefficients Ai for three point bending beam

(Karihaloo (1995)) 66
4.6 Fracture energy using for plain concrete Karihaloo (1995) 67
4.7 Fracture energy estimated analytically for plain concrete 74
4.8 Material Properties of steel Bosco et al. (1990) notched beam 79
4.9 Fracture energy using brittle failure triangular stress block 83
4.10 Fracture energy with quasi-brittle failure of reinforced concrete 85
5.1 Material properties of high strength concrete for notched beam

Petersson (1981) 96
5.2 Comparative results for notched beam Petersson (1981) 103
5.3 Material properties of concrete beam Cervenka (1995) 106
5.4 Material properties of concrete for notched beam Onate (1991) 114
5.5 Specimen properties and failure loads 125
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Caption Page No.
2.1 Stress material state in front of a crack tip for metal and concrete 10
2.2 Notched beam test specimen 11
2.3 The load-deformation curve for a three-point bending test on a

notched beam for the determination of fracture energy by
RILEM recommendation 11
2.4 Crack band model (Bazant 1976) 13
2.5 Cohesive crack model (Hillborg 1976) 13
3.1 Crack band model proposed by Bazant et al. (1983) 24
3.2 Idealised Stress-Strain curve for Concrete in Tension 25
3.3 Representation of one-dimensional bar in tension 26
3.4 Idealised representation of the constitutive model for concrete 29
3.5 Tension Stiffening Diagram for the Interaction between

Concrete and Steel 29
3.6 Triangular stress block for an uncracked section 33
3.7 Parabolic stress block for an uncracked section 36
3.8 Rectangular stress block for an uncracked section 39
3.9 Stress block for cracked section 42
3.10 Schematic representation of damage plasticity model 48
3.11 Response of concrete to uniaxial bending 49
3.12 Yield Surface in the Deviatoric Plane 50
3.13 Post failure stress-strain relations (tension stiffening) 50
4.1 Geometry representation of plain concrete beam tested by Petersson (1981) 55
4.2 Triangular stress blocks for plain concrete beam 56
ix
4.3 Parabolic stress blocks for plain concrete beam 60
4.4 Rectangular stress blocks for plain concrete beam 63
4.5 Two-dimensional finite element model of notched beam Peterson (1981)

(a) 92 elements, (b) 132 elements, (c) 178 elements, (d) 196 elements
(e) 214 elements 69
4.6 Load deflection curve showing mesh insensitivity using crack band
fracture energy based approach 70
4.7 Load-deflection curve of notched beam using crack band model 71
4.8 Load-deflection curve of notched beam using crack band model 71
4.9 Comparison of mouth opening using CMOD and Displacement control 72
4.10 Three-point bending test specimen with load compensation device 73
4.11 Influence of body forces on load deflection curve 73
4.12 Load-deflection curve for different values of fracture energy for low
strength concrete 76
4.13 Load-deflection curve for different values of fracture energy for high
strength concrete 76
4.14 Stress-midspan deflection curve for different values of fracture energy for
high strength concrete 77
4.15 Stres-midspan deflection curve for different values of fracture energy for
high strength concrete 77
4.16 R-curve for Plain concrete specimen tested by Petersson (1981) 78
4.17 Geometry Representation of Reinforced concrete beam tested by

Bosco et al. (1990) 79
4.18 Triangular stress blocks for reinforced concrete beam 80
4.19 Parabolic stress blocks for reinforced concrete beam 83
4.20 Rectangular stress blocks for reinforced concrete beam 84
4.21 Load-deflection curve using Elastoplastic approach 87
4.22 Rebar stress and midspan deflection using Elastoplastic approach 87
4.23 Load-deflection curve RC beam specimen tested by Bosco et al. (1990)

with different fracture energy values 88
x
using different fracture energy 88


5.1 Mode of crack tip deformation, opening mode (Mode I), shearing mode
(Mode II) and tearing mode (Mode III) 92
5.2 A bilinear stress-deformation curve proposed by Petersson (1981) 94
5.3 Geometry Representation of Plain concrete beam tested by Petersson

(1981) 96
5.4 Two-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam Peterson

(1981) (a) 92 elements, (b) 132 elements, (c) 178 elements, (d) 196
Elements (e) 214 elements 97
5.5 Load deflection curve showing mesh sensitivity using strain based
Approach 99
fracture energy model 100
5.7 Load deflection curve showing mesh insensitivity using cohesive

crack model 100
5.8 Load vs no. of elements showing mesh insensitivity using crack band
Model 101
5.9 Deflection vs no. of elements showing mesh insensitivity using crack

band model 101
5.10 Crack pattern of notched beam (Coarse Mesh, 92 elements) 102
5.11 Crack pattern of notched beam (Fine Mesh, 214 elements) 102
5.12 Comparison of load-deflection curve using strain based

and fracture energy model 104
5.13 Size effect on load displacement curve for same geometry 105
5.14 Geometry Representation of Plain concrete beam tested by Cervenka

(1995) 105
5.15 Two-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam Peterson
xi
(1981) (a) 20 elements (size 100mm), (b) 80 elements (size 50mm), (c)
500 elements (size 20mm) and (d) 1000 elements ((size 10mm) 107
fracture energy based approach 108
5.17 Crack pattern of notched beam (Coarse Mesh, 20 elements) 108
5.18 Crack pattern of notched beam (Fine Mesh, 500 elements) 109
5.19 Non-dimensional load versus deflection curve for three point

bending beam with the same geometry 109
5.20 Size effect on three-point bending beam at failure 110
5.21 DEN-T Specimen tested by Hordijk (1991) 110
5.22 Crack distribution for Specimen 1 111
5.23 Crack distribution for Specimen 2 111
5.24 Single notched shear beam for mixed mode crack propagation
(First Crack initiation at P =6.7 KN) 112
(2nd Crack initiation at P =19.1 KN) 112
(3rd Crack initiation at P =21.2 KN) 112
(Crack distribution at failure P =21.2 KN) 113
5.28 Two-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam

Arrea et al. (1981) 114
5.29 Three-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam

Arrea et al. (1981) 114
5.30 Crack Pattern of two-dimensional notched beam Arrea et al. (1981) 115
5.31 Load deflection curve using stress-strain model 116
5.32 Load deflection curve using cohesive crack model 116
5.33 Load deflection curve using crack band model 117
5.34 The failure pattern of a beam subjected to centre point load 118
5.35 The interactive effects between concrete and reinforcement 119
xii
5.36 Load-deflection curve RC beam for different percentage of
Reinforcement 120
5.37 Load-deflection curve RC beam for different percentage of

Reinforcement 120
5.38 CMOD along the depth of beam (mm) 121
5.39 Stress-deflection curve for rebar using different fracture energy 121
5.40 Stress-deflection curve for concrete using different fracture energy 122
5.41 Crack pattern of notched RC beam (0.09% rebar, Gf =50N/m) 122
5.51 Relative shear stresses at initiation of crack and failure for short
members with a/d=1.0 but different absolute dimensions 126
5.52 Crack pattern in short shear members V711 tested by Walraven et al.
(1994) (Shear span/depth = 1.0; d=200 mm) 126
xiii
NOMENCLATURE
E0 Concrete Modulus of Elasticity
cu Ultimate Compressive Stress of Concrete
t Ultimate Tensile Stress
Gursons Yield Function
c Compressive Strain at Ultimate Compressive Stress
Concrete Dilation angle
dt Damage variable in Tension
dc Damage variable in Compression
Gf Fracture Energy
e Flow eccentricity
cu Ultimate Compressive strain
ft Average Tensile Stress
fcr Cracking Tensile Stress
t
Effective Tensile Stress
c
Effective Compressive Stress
S Effective Stress Deviator
f Volume Void Fraction

~
E 0 Initial Elastic Modulus of Concrete
~ cu Uniaxial Maximum Compressive Stress
~
cu Uniaxial Maximum Tensile Strain
fy Yield Stress of Steel
xv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The strength based models for the inelastic analysis of concrete structures have limitations
due to their inability to represent the strain and stress singularities that would occur at the
crack tip. Further, the propagation of crack using this model has been found to be mesh-
sensitive. The fracture energy models have become the most popular in recent years for the
finite element analysis of concrete structures because these models give mesh insensitive
results for a wide range of failure modes related to concrete cracking.
The area where most work is still concentrated in the modeling of RC structures is in tensile
crack simulation and multi-axial constitutive model development. It is important to recognise
that it is inappropriate to simply label concrete as a brittle material and hence after the crack
initiation softening constitutive models are required for the inelastic analysis of concrete
structures. Further, the macroscopic post-peak response should be related to the level of
compressive confinement operating on the material. More experimental and analytical
research is needed to improve the understanding of bond behaviour under monotonic and
cyclic loadings and to develop suitable bond stress-slip relationship for use in finite element
analysis of reinforced concrete members. Only with this perspective can a meaningful
interpretation of the concrete inelastic behaviour can be gained.
During the 1970s much effort was expended on understanding and developing constitutive
models for concrete under multi-axial stress states. This early work was largely restricted to
continuum-based approaches similar to those used in soil and rock mechanics. At that time,
many researchers treated the compressive behaviour within a different model framework
compared to that used for the tensile response. For concrete loaded to its peak nominal stress
in compression, the general features include inelastic compaction under hydrostatic loading,
shear enhanced compaction, dilation, strain hardening and strain softening.
Despite the large body of models developed for the compressive behaviour of concrete, the
vast majority of early non-linear elasticity-based formulations represent little more than
phenomenological curve fits to experimental data, with little attention paid to the evolution of
irrecoverable strains, strain softening or stiffness degradation (as observed upon unloading).
Many of the early models employed more material constants which had no physically
meaningful link to the internal fabric. Those models that claimed fewer constants had
generally been calibrated against a single concrete mix and thus included hidden (fixed)
material constants. In certain cases, the model development phase unsatisfactorily ended once
triaxial test data had been simulated, and not when the model had been incorporated in a
numerical scheme and real boundary value problems had been solved.
In the 1980s, this trend continued, however the concepts of engineering fracture mechanics
were gradually introduced. Thus attention switched over to understanding and capturing the
tensile behaviour. The 1990s saw a growing recognition of the difficulties associated with
employing a strain softening formulation within a classical continuum model.
In recent years, a wider range of physical and chemical phenomena associated with concrete
modeling at micro and macro levels have been addressed and included in finite element (FE)
analyses. The search for a unified, stable and accurate constitutive model for concrete remains
an ongoing activity by various researchers. The latest research is finally beginning to link
micro-mechanical theoretical considerations for macroscopic representations. Many recent
constitutive models combine hardening/softening plasticity formulations with continuum
damage (CD) approach to model the highly non-linear behaviour.
An alternative approach has been to consider the additive decomposition of slip on multiple
planes. The microplane fracture model adopts this technique, providing it with the capability
to partially capture the evolving anisotropy quite naturally. Just as in non-associated plasticity
models, non-symmetry of the microplane constitutive matrix emerge as slip develops on
different planes.
Advanced plasticity damage models and microplane fracture models have been under
development for over 15 years, yet they do not appear in the mainstream FE software
(although some researchers have introduced them into general purpose codes via a user
material model subroutine). Only a few of the more advanced plasticity models have rigorous
stress return algorithms.
2
1.2 Scope and Objective
There is active research worldwide with the aim to establish the fracture and damage theories
at macro level for concrete both for static and transient dynamic problems. These available
constitutive models are still under intense debate. An idealized model of concrete is provided
by continuum damage theory, in which the strain is totally reversible but the elastic modulus
decreases. In the elastoplastic model, the increments of stress and strain are linked with initial
Youngs Modulus of elasticity. In damage model, the material responds elastically and no
permanent strain is left after complete unloading to zero stress. The real behaviour of
materials such as concrete is usually a combination of damage and plasticity.
The objective of this study is to present the nonlinear analysis of concrete members using
conventional stress-strain, fracture and damage mechanics based numerical models and to
validate the results with the available experimental results. The following four areas of
research have been identified and addressed in this thesis.
(i) Simplified stress block models based on analytical effective elastic analysis approach is
used for the evaluation of the peak load and the fracture energy (Gf) of three point bending
concrete beam specimens. These results are compared with the reported experimental results
and the present numerical finite element analysis results obtained with stress-strain
constitutive model, the cohesive crack and crack band fracture models and damage mechanics
model. With this comparative study the suitable numerical model using crack band fracture
model is evolved, which is shown to give mesh insensitive results and is suggested for
inelastic analysis of plain and reinforced concrete structures.
(ii) Then the influence of reinforcement on the fracture energy is studied. The published
information either experimental or analytical for reinforced concrete is rather qualitative and
inconclusive. The present study proposes to estimate the fracture energy of reinforced
concrete analytically with effective elastic approach which is verified with the crack band
numerical model. Detail investigations of the failure modes related to concrete cracking, post
cracking softening and strain hardening due to the reinforcement yielding are carried out and
the applicable fracture energy (Gf) for the reinforced concrete structure is suggested.
(iii) Further the structural size effect on nominal strength of concrete is investigated with the
single parameter of fracture energy and is shown to give consistent results obtained with
Bazant two parameter models of concrete aggregate size and the tensile strength. Test cases of
structural size effect on the fracture energy (Gf) are presented with the fracture energy crack
3
band numerical model.
(iv) Finally the direct and shear modes of fracture are described and tension, shear, flexure
and combination of shear and flexure concrete structure cracking examples are presented. All
these numerical case studies using the crack band fracture model are compared with the
reported experimental results to study the applicability of the proposed model.
1.3 Layout of Report

The second chapter presents the literature review on different failure theories for concrete.
The proposed material model for reinforced concrete is described in chapter three. In this
chapter, simplified stress block models based on analytical effective elastic analysis approach
is presented. In the chapter four, determination of fracture energy for plain and reinforced
concrete is presented. The chapter five includes numerical results of a set of benchmark
problems using different failure theories. At the end in chapter six concluding remarks and
scope of future work on various aspects of study are presented.
1.4 Closure
In this chapter the general information related to the development of constitutive model for plain and
reinforced concrete along with scope and objective of present investigation have been presented.
Layout of the report is highlighted at the end.
4
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
Failure of concrete may be tensile or compressive in nature. Tensile failure appears in form of
cracking. Concrete subjected to compression type of loading, on the other hand, exhibits
highly nonlinear behaviour while undergoing relatively large strains including irreversible
plastic strains before failure (crushing) occurs. These two distinctly different failure modes
necessitate separate numerical treatment.
In the elastoplastic model, the increments of stress and strain are linked with initial Youngs
modulus of elasticity. In damage mechanics model, the material responds elastically and no
permanent strain is left after complete unloading to zero stress. The real behaviour of
materials such as concrete is usually a combination of damage and plasticity models. Concrete
is pressure sensitive material with a drastically lower strength in tension than in compression.
Stiffness degradation can be handled within the framework of fracture mechanics or damage
mechanics. The so-called smeared crack models, popular in engineering applications can be
described as a special type of damage model.
For tensile load the concrete fails in a quasi brittle material manner and the phenomenological
behavior is described by cohesive fracture mechanics or damage models with localization
limiters (Jirasek et al. 2002). The main practical consequence is that the nominal strength of
concrete structure exhibits a structural size effect, which cannot be captured by conventional
plasticity theories. In addition the shape effects of test specimen also influence the strength
which is difficult to obtain in a numerical simulation. Two explanations can be offered for the
non applicability of plastic limit analysis and lack of attention on the structural size effect.
(1) True safety margins in design are much larger than those implied by the load factors
and under strength factors of the design codes.
(2) Another explanation is that the larger structural size effect is hidden in prescribing
the excessive dead load factors as described by Bazant et al. (2000).
For some types, such as the bending failure of an under reinforced unprestressed beam, there
is no size effect.
The rate dependent material models depend on the creep, relaxation and rate dependent
strength. The rate dependent inelastic strains of concrete consist of shrinkage strain, which is
independent of stress and additional mechanical strain produced by stress in general known as
creep. Nonlinear effects are introduced into the formulation by the influence of humidity on
creep parameters and by the superimposed cracking strain.
2.2 Elasto-Plastic Models of Concrete

The failure criteria for concrete should reflect the properties of the experimentally determined
failure surface. This is still far from complete, although a large variety of models have been
proposed in recent years. There are several approaches for defining the complex stress-strain
behaviour of concrete under various stress states. In general, they can be divided in two main
groups as time dependent model and time independent model and their subgroups.
There is no basic difference between elasticity based models, plastic, plastic fracturing and
Endochronic models. They all result in variable material stiffness matrices applicable for
certain ranges of loading directions; at least one matrix of loading, and another matrix for
unloading. The strong point of most of the elasticity based constitutive models is their
conceptual simplicity in relation to other types of constitutive models. Most elasticity based
constitutive models reasonably perform well representing overall concrete nonlinear
behaviour, but a sizeable number of models do not give a close representation near the
ultimate stress. It is restricted to monotonic loading or proportional loading in general. The
limitation of this model is path independent which is certainly not true for concrete in general.
There are various elastic model based on number of parameters which have been proposed.
The circular cone and parboiled of revolution type of surface have been suggested by various
investigators. William (1974) has given three-parameter failure surface for concrete in a low
compression regime along with tension regime. The failure model which is convex and
smooth has been achieved by the curve fitting of an ellipse, which is a portion of the failure
curve. Owing to symmetry, smoothness and convexity, the elliptic form can easily degenerate
to a circle which, in turn, shows that both the Von Mises and the Drucker-Prager criteria are
special cases of this model.
6
A failure criterion proposed by Ottosen (1977), is known as the four parameter model. This
failure surface contains all three stress invariants. The four parameters are determined using
the four failure states as uniaxial compressive and tensile strength, biaxial compressive
strength and the triaxial compressive strength. This surface is in good agreement with
experimental results over a wide range of stress states, including those where tensile stresses
occur.
The five parameter model developed by William (1974) is the extension of the three
parameter model by adding two additional degrees of freedom for describing curved
meridians so that the failure surface model can be applied to low as well as high compression
regions. This failure model features a smooth surface and produces the principal features for
the triaxial failure surface of concrete. The cross-section is non-circular and the meridians are
second order parabolas with a failure surface in the deviatoric plane described by a part of an
elliptic curve. Most of the popular biaxial and triaxial failure models (Von Mises, Drucker-
Prager and Ottosen model) are the special cases of this five parameter model.
2.3 Plasticity Model of Concrete

In plasticity model, stress-strain behaviour of concrete material may be separated into
recoverable and irrecoverable strain components. The recoverable behaviour is treated within
the frame work of elasticity theory, while the irrecoverable part is based on the theory of
plasticity. In general, model based on the theory of plasticity describes concrete as an elastic
perfectly plastic material or to account for the hardening behaviour up to the ultimate strength.
The formulation of the constitutive relation for strain-hardening plastic material is based on
three fundamental assumptions: (1) the shape of an initial yield surface; (2) the evaluation of
subsequent loading surface or hardening rule and (3) the formulation of appropriate flow rule.
Three types of hardening rule are frequently used in strain hardening plasticity models. These
are: isotropic, kinematic and mixed hardening. In an isotropic hardening model, the initial
yield surface is assumed to expand uniformly without distortion as plastic flow occurs. The
kinematic hardening rule assumes that during plastic flow the loading surface translates as a
rigid body in the stress space, maintaining the size and shape of the initial yield surface. In the
mixed hardening rule, the loading surface experiences both translation and uniform expansion
in all directions.
The theory of incremental plasticity, on which the plastic modulus is based, is not a very
effective approach for modeling the behaviour of concrete. Plastic slip, defined as the strain
7
increment at constant stress and no change in elastic modulus, accounts only for part of the
inelastic behaviour of concrete, and represents the prevalent part only under conditions of
very high hydrostatic pressure.
2.3.1 Recent development on plasticity model

Various nonlinear theories and models have been developed from the classical plasticity
model for nonlinear analysis of plain and reinforced concrete members. Recently many
researchers contributed in the development of plasticity model of concrete.
Taijun et al. (2001) developed a new set of constitutive models which can take care of the
four important characteristics of cracked reinforced concrete: (1) the softening effect of
concrete in compression, (2) the tension-stiffening effect for concrete in tension (3) the
average stress-strain curve of steel bars embedded in concrete and (4) the new, rational shear
modulus of concrete.
Kwon et al. (2002) developed three-dimensional concrete constitutive model for the analysis
of concrete specimens and reinforced concrete columns subjected to different load patterns.
The hypoelastic, orthotropic concrete constitutive model includes coupling between the
deviatoric and volumetric stresses, which works with both proportional and non-proportional
loads and is implemented as a strain driven module.
Assan (2002) presented the constitutive models for the concrete material in which concrete is
modeled by a strain-induced orthotropic-elastic model under plane stress state and employs
the smeared cracking concept and a layered finite element approach.
Makoto Kawakami et al. (2003) presented the constitutive models for the concrete material
with material nonlinearities (concrete cracking/crushing and rebar plasticity) and geometrical
nonlinearities (large displacement and contact/separation between the segments) for analysis
of prestressed concrete column using ADINA (2000).
Zhao et al. (2004) developed the plasticity model of concrete for analysing the nonlinear
behaviour of reinforced concrete structures that accounts for cracking and compression-
softening of the concrete, the dowel action and confining effect of the reinforcing bars.
Kwak et al. (2004) developed a plasticity model to simulate the nonlinear behavior of
reinforced concrete (RC) structures subject to monotonic in-plane shear and normal stresses.
Based on the force equilibrium, compatibility conditions, and bond stressslip relationship
between the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete, a criterion to consider the tension-
8
stiffening effect is proposed using the concept of average stresses and strains. The material
behavior of concrete is described by an orthotropic constitutive relation, focusing on the
tensioncompression region with tension-stiffening and compression softening effects
defining the equivalent uniaxial stressstrain relation along the orthotropic axes. The behavior
of cracked concrete is described by a system of orthogonal cracks, which follows the principal
strain directions and rotates according to the loading history.
Waleed et al. (2004) described the development of a numerical algorithm used for the
inelastic analysis of composite sections subjected to combined axial force and bending
moment. The algorithm is based on assessment of the strain distribution across the section for
given applied loads and mechanical properties of the materials. The application of algorithm
is illustrated by analyzing a reinforced concrete section. The stressstrain relationship adopted
for the concrete is based on a non-linear monotonic model, which is capable of predicting
both ascending and descending (softening) parts of the stressstrain curve. For the reinforcing
steel, the relation assumed is bi-linear elasto-plastic in tension and compression. The
algorithm predicts the exact mode of strain distribution for elastic, plastic and elasto-plastic
stages of behaviour.
Hyuk (2005) presented the biaxial stress state in shells represented by the improved work-
hardening plasticity concrete model, where the ductility increase phenomenon can be
depicted.
Pankaj et al. (2005) presented two similar continuum plasticity material models to examine
the influence of material modelling of reinforced concrete frame structures. In the first model
reinforced concrete is modelled as a homogenized material using an isotropic DruckerPrager
yield criterion. In the second model, concrete and reinforcement are modeled separately.
While the latter considers strain softening in tension the former does not.
Honggun et al. (2005) presented a plasticity model developed to address the cyclic behavior
of reinforced concrete planar members. The plasticity model basically used multiple failure
criteria to describe the isotropic damage of compressive crushing and the anisotropic damage
of tensile cracking. New concepts of multiple fixed crack orientations, hybrid plasticity
model, and degraded shear stiffness were introduced to describe the behavioral characteristics
of reinforced concrete subject to cyclic loads, i.e. multiple tensile crack orientations and
progressively rotating crack damage. Particularly, the proposed model is distinguished from
existing plasticity models in that it can describe the characteristics of the tensile crack damage
9
in cyclic shear, rotating crack damages in loading and fixed crack damages during
unloading/reloading.
2.4 Fracture Model of Concrete

The strain softening behaviour of concrete beyond the peak stress cannot be treated
adequately by the classical theory of work-hardening plasticity. In contrast of plastic
phenomena, the fracturing phenomena are better characterized in terms of a loading surface
that depends on strains rather than stresses. The fracture zone will develop due to the
development of the microcracks, which are concentrated in a small volume close to this cross
section. In the fracture process zone, stresses are still carried over what appears to be a visible
crack. Even though a discrete, visible crack was seen to exist on the specimen, this crack was
not fully formed through the specimen thickness. However, according to the stress-strain
state, it is possible to define three different zones in concrete, namely the linear elastic zone,
plastic zone and the fracture zone around the crack tip as shown in Fig. 2.1.
2 2
3 3
1
1
Concrete
Metals
1 Linear Elastic Zone
2
Plastic Zone
3 Fracture Zone
Z Linear Elastic Zone one
Figure 2.1 Stress material states in front of a crack tip for metal and concrete
10
In concrete, if the crack tip is defined as the point behind which no stress is transmitted, the
fracture process zone is seen to extend a relatively larger distance in front of the crack tip. It
does not exhibit significantly large plastic deformation. The fracture energy, G f, can be
determined by three-point bending tests on notched specimen according to the RILEM (1985)
Fig. 2.2.
P
Thickness b h
a
Figure 2.2 Notched beam test specimen
The fracture energy Gf can be calculated using the following equation.

A1 A2 A3 A4 A1 mg
G f
0
(2.1)
b(h a) b(h a)
Where m is mass of the beam, h, b and a are the beam depth, width and central notch depth
respectively as shown in Fig 2.2. The central deflection 0 due to central load is measured in
the experiment to generate load deflection curve with area under the curve A1 and the effect of
the self weight mg is accounted by the areas A2, A3 and A4 respectively as shown in Fig. 2.3.
Central Load (P)
A1
A2 A4
A3 Mid-span Deflection ()
Figure 2.3 The load-deformation curve for a three-point bending test on a notched
beam for the determination of fracture energy by RILEM recommendation
11
Fracture of concrete may occur in two different forms. One is by cracking, primarily under
tensile type of stress states, and the other is by crushing under compressive type of stress
states as described next.
2.4.1 Development of fracture mechanics in concrete

Concrete design has already seen two revolutions so far. The first, which made the technology
of concrete structure possible, was the development of the elastic no-tension analysis
methodology developed during 1900-1930. The second revolution, based on a theory
conceived chiefly during the 1930, was the introduction of plastic limit analysis, which was
successfully applied in the period 1940-1970. There are now good reasons to believe that
introduction of fracture mechanics into the design of modern concrete structures might be the
third revolution.
Noting this fact, Griffith (1924) concluded that, in the presence of a crack, the stress value
cannot be used as a criterion of failure since the stress at the tip of a sharp crack in an elastic
continuum is infinite no matter how small the applied load is. However, soon after the
introduction of the fracture mechanics concepts, it became evident that classical linear elastic
fractures mechanics (LEFM) yielded good predictions only when fracture was brittle and is
limited to the initiation of fracture. This was not the case for many practical situations. Then,
various nonlinear fracture mechanics theories were developed more or less in parallel. Apart
from elastoplastic fracture mechanics, two specific theories for concrete structures were
developed: crack band models and cohesive crack models.
(I) Crack band model

The basic attributes of the crack band model is that the given constitutive relation with strain
softening must be associated with a certain width hc of the crack band, which represents a
reference width and is treated as a material property. The most important features of the crack
band model are that it can effectively handle the problem of mesh size sensitivity, provided
the crack is localized in one element. For concrete, the crack band models (Fig. 2.4) proposed
by Bazant (1976) and co-workers are among the most extensively used and have led to test
recommendations for the evaluation of the fracture properties of concrete.
12

hc
Figure 2.4 Crack band model (Bazant 1976)

(II) Cohesive crack model
The cohesive crack models were developed to simulate the nonlinear material behaviour near
the crack tip. In these models, the crack is assumed to extend and to open while still
transferring stress from one face to the other. In general, all the foregoing fracture mechanics
theories require a preexisting crack to analyse the fracture of a structure with nonlinear elastic
fracture mechanics. This is not so with Hillerborg (1976) fictious crack model (Fig.2.5). It is a
cohesive crack in the classical sense as described above but also includes crack initiation rule
for situations even if there is no precracking. This means that it can be applied to initially
uncracked concrete structures to describe all the fracture processes from no crack to complete
structural failure. It provides a link between the classical strength based analysis of structures
and the energy based fracture mechanics analysis.

Localised deformations
l
l
w
Fictious tied crack
l
l
w
= + Gf
l w
Figure 2.5 Cohesive crack model (Hillerborg 1976)
13
2.4.2 Mechanics of compression fracture of concrete
In ductile metals, compression failure as well as tensile failure is caused by plastic slip on
inclined shear bands. This type of failure is ductile, without any significant postpeak decrease
of the applied load. It does not cause any structural size effect.
In concrete, however, such ductile compression failure is possible only under extremely high
lateral confining pressure. Such pressure lacking, no shear slip can develop in concrete. The
interlock of rough surfaces of cracks inclined to the principal compressive stress direction
prevents any slip, unless the cracks are already widely opened and the material near the crack
is heavily damaged. Macroscopically, of course, shear failure are often observed, but their
microscopic physical mechanism is not the slip. It normally consists of tensile microcracking
in an inclined direction.
The energy to form the crack and propagate it must come from a local mechanism, such as the
release of stored energy from the fracture process zone and must be calculated from its triaxial
constitutive relation. Because of the absence of a global energy release, this type of
compression failure cannot cause any size effect, as confirmed by the numerical results of
Bazant et al. (1990).
2.4.3 Recent development on fracture model

Many nonlinear fracture mechanics models have been proposed. Bazant et al. (1979)
recommended the use of the stress intensity factor or the critical strain energy rate as a
cracking criterion. An alternative method was developed by Bazant et al. (1983) who used the
strain softening characteristics as a cracking parameter. The strain softening parameter was
adjusted with respect to the element size, so that the total energy under the softening curve
represented the fracture energy.
Russo et al. (1992) developed an analysis of reinforced concrete members subjected to

uniaxial tension on the basis of the nonlinear bond stress-slip relationship and extensive study
of the physical behaviour.
Ouyang et al. (1994) used an R-curve approach to evaluate the fracture energy required for
crack propagation. In their model concrete is considered as a quasi-brittle material. Only a
few published works can be found on the simulation of crack in reinforced concrete using the
fictious crack model. The application of this model in conjunction with Finite Element
method can be seen in Gulemberg et al. (1984) and Hawkins et al. (1992).
14
Menrath et al. (1998) have presented the constitutive models, which are based on a fracture
energy approach for concrete and interface-elements for the numerical simulation of nonlinear
behaviour of composite steel-concrete structures.
Maekawa et al. (1998) developed fixed multidirectional nonorthogonal smeared crack model
for post cracking formulation. In a smeared crack approach the behaviour of the fractured
concrete is described in terms of a continuum representation. Fracture formation is handled by
the strain-softening constitutive relationships. Cracking is assumed to be spatially distributed
over the volume represented by the element, or possibly the volume attached to one
integration point.
Carpinteri et al. (2004) presented the flexural behaviour of a reinforced concrete beam with
multiple reinforcements under cyclic loading is analysed through a fracture mechanics-based
theoretical model which considers a cracked beam subjected to an external bending moment
and the crack bridging reactions due to the reinforcements.
Rabczuk et al. (2005) describes a two-dimensional approach to model fracture of reinforced

concrete structures under (increasing) static loading conditions. In tension, a fictitious
crack/crack band model is proposed. The influence of biaxial stress states is incorporated in
the constitutive relations.
Karihaloo et al. (2005) is concerned with identifying and quantifying the deterministic (as
opposed to statistical) size effect on the strength of cracked concrete structures that is believed
to be a result of stress discontinuities introduced by the cracks. For this, the strength of
geometrically similar pre-cracked specimens of varying sizes made from three concrete mixes
is measured in three-point bend and wedge splitting geometries. The true, structural size-
independent specific fracture energy and the corresponding tension softening diagram of each
of the three mixes are independently established in order to exclude their influence on the
strength size effect. The test results show that the deterministic strength size effect weakens as
the size of the crack reduces. This is confirmed by theoretical/computational studies based on
the fictitious crack model in the range of sizes tested in the laboratory. The computational
results have been fitted by a simple strength size effect formula with appropriate asymptotic
behaviour at both size extremes. The three unknown coefficients in this formula depend only
on the size of the crack and they can be obtained by conducting tests on geometrically similar
specimens of any shape but of varying sizes that can be conveniently handled in a laboratory.
The three material properties of the concrete mix appearing in this formula, namely the Young
15
modulus E, the direct tensile strength ft and the size-independent specific fracture energy Gf
must be independently measured.
Carpinteri et al. (2005) proposed a theoretical model based on fracture mechanics concepts in
order to analyse the mechanical damage of ordinary or prestressed reinforced concrete beams
with a rectangular cross-section subjected to cyclic bending. Local phenomena, such as
fracturing or crushing of concrete and yielding or slippage of the longitudinal steel
reinforcement, are examined.
Yang et al. (2005) presents a finite element (FE) model for fully automatic simulation of
multiple discrete crack propagation in reinforced concrete (RC) beams. Discrete crack is the
stress singularity at the crack tip that drives crack propagation, but fracturing can only be
understood through considerations of energy expenditure. In the fictitious crack model, a
fracture process zone is said to exist ahead of the crack tip. The discrete cracks are modelled
based on the cohesive/fictitious crack concept using nonlinear interface elements with a
bilinear tensile softening constitutive law.
2.5 Representation of Reinforcement Bars

Three approaches have been documented for modelling the reinforcement bars: (1) Smeared
layer model; 2) Embedded model, and (3) Discrete model. In the smeared layer model, steel
bars are replaced by a smeared uniformly distributed layer over an element with stiffness only
in the direction of reinforcing bars. The thickness of the smeared layer is such that the volume
of smear layer is equal to the volume of reinforcing steel in an element. Dowell action and
Flexural stiffness of the bars are neglected. Subsequently, the constitutive relationships are
derived from composite theory by using an assumption of perfect bond between the concrete
and the reinforcement. Such a model for steel representation has been adopted by numerous
investigators Hand et al. (1973); Lin et al. (1975); Gilbert et al. (1978); Milford et al. (1984);
Gupta et al. (1984); Buyukozturk et al. (1985); Hinton et al. (1985); May et al. (1988); Hu et
al. (1988); Barzegar (1988); Shenglin et al. (1993); Polak et al. (1993); Ramaswamy et al.
(1995); Singh et al. (1993); Kale (2000); Singh (2001).
In the embedded model, contribution of the reinforcement to the element stiffness is evaluated
(in conjunction with isoparametric shape function used in element formulation) independently
for each steel bar. Phillips et al. (1987) were first to present such a formulation where the
element representing reinforcement bar was restricted to lie along one of the isoparametric
axes (natural coordinates) of a 2D element. Chang, et al. (1987) extended the approach and
16
presented a formulation to represent the embedded one dimensional line element which could
be placed at any angle with respect to isoparametric axes of an element. Formulation was
however restricted to straight reinforcement in a rectangular 2D element. The approach was
further refined by Elwi et al. (1989) who presented a formulation for the curved reinforcement
embedded in a higher order 2D element. Similar work has also been done by Phillips et al.
(1987), who attempted embedded representation of reinforcement for 20 node isoparametric
brick element, and by Phillips et al. (1987) who employed the model for eight node
serendipity isoparametric elements for the analysis of skewed RC panels.
In the discrete model on the other hand, one dimensional bar element is superimposed on side
of a continuum concrete element, sharing the nodes (Dodd et al. 1984). A discrete
representation of the reinforcement, using one dimensional element has been most widely
used.
2.6 Bond Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete

The transfer of forces across the interface by bond between concrete and steel reinforcement
is of fundamental importance to most of the aspects of reinforced concrete behaviour. The
location, spacing and width of cracks in members and strength all relate directly to the
characteristics of the interface. For finite element modeling, the law by which interface
behaviour are described are exactly analogous to the constitutive laws which describe the
behaviour of the concrete or steel (Houde 1973, Mirza et al. 1979, Ngo et al. 1967, Nilson
1968, Nilson 1972). The constitutive models of bond mechanics are traditionally grouped into
two main kinds.
Micro model and macro model: In the micro approach, the local bond- slip relation is applied
to analyse RC structures. In the Macroscopic approach, the bond behaviour is analysed via
member response on the global scale.
In finite element analysis of RC, a zero thickness bond link element is placed between steel
and concrete elements to deal with interface bond micro behaviour. Ngo et al. (1967) use a
linear bond slip relation for linkage element. Later, Nilson (1968) employed a nonlinear
behaviour as the constitutive law for the linkage element. Subsequently, several bond slip
relations based on test data have been used for finite element analysis.
17
2.7 Nonassociated Flow Rule for Concrete
The idea of flow rule associated with the yield condition was first advanced by von Mises,
who verified its validity for simple model of plastic slip in crystals. The response of most
metals can be described well by an associated flow rule, except when the loading path is
highly nonproportional. For pressure sensitive material like concrete, the associated flow rule
is often unrealistic at high confinement and must be replaced by nonassociated flow rule.
For defining the direction of plastic flow using nonassociated flow rule, a general plastic
potential (a set of equipotential surfaces) function is used instead of yield function. Bazant et
al. (1990) presented that plastic model with nonassociated flow rule the tangent stiffness
tensor is nonsymmetric.
2.8 Structural Size Effect

Structural-size effect, a phenomenon observed by many researchers, is related to change,
usually an increase, in strength that occurs when the specimen size is decreased. Sabins et al.
(1979) reviewed a large number of theoretical studies available in several decades. These
include Weibull (1939), Tucker (1941), and others. Various experimental investigations into
size effect have been summarized by Sabins et al. (1971) and later Sabins et al. (1979).
Recently, Bazant et al. (1988) have demonstrated the use of the energy release and fracture
energy effect. The essential results were derived by Bazant in a series of increasingly refined
works (Bazant et al. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1993, 1997) based on an energetic approximation
coupled with dimensional analysis. Further work showed that, for not too large specimens, the
size effect does not depend on the entire softening curve, but only on its initial portion (Planas
et al. 1992, Guina et al. 1994, Planas et al. 1995).
Based on the observation, Guina et al. (1994) determined an approximation size effect
expression that can describe the size effect for different geometries and softening curves in a
unified way. But the resulting equation is rather complicated and cannot fit the size effect for
small size. This is due to fact that most of the work and especially the definition of intrinsic
size relies on the analysis of the asymptotic trend for large sizes and loses applicability to
small sizes. In a further work, Planas et al. (1997) found a formulation that can simulate both
large and small size limits, and also gives a very good description of the size effect for
notched specimens in the practical size range.
18
Similar to tensile failure, many types of compression failure of concrete exhibit a size effect
(Gonnermann 1925, Blanks et al. 1935, Marti 1989, Jisan et al. 1990). However the
compression failure, and especially its size effect, is more complex and less understood. Yet it
is often is more important and dangerous mode of failure, which is highly brittle, lacking
ductility. The reason is that compression failure is not controlled by a material strength
criterion, as assumed in nearly all practical applications up to now. Rather, as suggested or
implied by some researchers (Bazant et al. 1993; Bieniawski 1974 and Cotterell 1972) and
described mathematically, the compression failure in concrete is caused predominately by the
release of stored energy from the structure, similar to tensile failure.
Kotsovos et al. (2004) investigated the causes of size effects in structural-concrete members.
It is based on the use of a finite-element model found to yield realistic predictions of
structural-concrete behaviour in all cases investigated to date. In fact, the previous use of this
model in investigations of size effects in reinforced-concrete beams with a shear span-to-
depth ratio larger than 2 indicated that such effects reflect the dependence of load-carrying
capacity on small unintended eccentricities of the applied load and/or load-induced
anisotropy, rather than, as widely considered, on fracture-mechanics characteristics. The
present work extends the scope of the above investigation so as to include the case of beams
with a shear span-to-depth ratio smaller than 1.15, the behaviour of which is already
established experimentally. It is found that, unlike the beams with a shear span-to-depth ratio
larger than 2, the beams investigated in the present work, in contrast with the interpretation
given in the above reported experimental findings of Kotsovos et al. (2004), are size-effect
independent.
2.9 Damage Model for Concrete

The bulk of existing continuum damage formulation is restricted to isotropic damage
evolution resulting in the degradation of the elasticity modulus as a function of a scalar
damage parameter by exploiting the notion of effective stress. Several formulations have been
proposed to extend the concept of effective stress to anisotropic models.
Meschke et al. (1998) presented a damage plasticity model for concrete by accounting
fracture induced anisotropic strength degradation of cracked concrete in addition to
anisotropic stiffness degradation.
Polling et al. (1998) developed a combination of the brittle damage theory with a plasticity
theory. For the apparently most elegant type of these combinations this elastoplastic brittle
19
damage theory has been adopted to demonstrate simulations of the nonlinear behaviour of
concrete in compression region.
Tran et al. (1998) presented a new concept based on a simple interaction of spring elements
and a discrete element to describe cracking and evolution of damage in concrete materials.
Polling et al. (2004) presented damage model which contains a minimum number of material
parameters. It further enables to map exact uniaxial stressstrain curves as proposed by
modern design codes of practice.
Marfia et al. (2004) developed elastoplastic-damage model for the concrete material
introducing two damage variables, one in tension and another in compression. A plasticity
model with nonlinear hardening is adopted for the reinforcing steel and a bond stressslip law,
suitable for cyclic behavior, is introduced for the concretesteel interface. .
Colombo et al. (2005) obtain a uniform definition of damage, independently of the material
used for the structure, so that practical design and assessment methods can be applied to any
type of structure. It is shown that the damage in any construction material mainly results in
strength deterioration. A general damage index is thus defined as the ratio between the initial
and the reduced resistance capacity of a structure, evaluated by using an evolution equation
for the yield strength in which the structural damageability is included. The ability of this
index to model different damage situations is demonstrated.
Contrafatto et al. (2006) presented the description and the validation of a constitutive model
for concrete characterized by a combined plastic-hardening-damage-fracture dissipative
criterion developed within the framework of the simple material model, so that its numerical
implementation is easy and robust. Two different damage isotropic mechanisms associated
with tensile and compressive strain processes are introduced and two hardening variables are
used; the first rules the plastic hardening while the second controls the compaction of the
material. The limit domain is defined through the envelope of three yield criteria presenting a
strong and original coupling between plastic and damage dissipative mechanisms.
2.10 Closure
Literatures on various mathematical models for concrete that are currently used in reinforced
concrete analysis have been reviewed. The nonlinear plasticity models based on the moduli
give a good fit for numbers of available tests. It has been understood that the strain softening
behaviour of concrete beyond peak stress can not be treated adequately by the classical theory
20
of work-hardening plasticity. The plastic fracturing theory shows a great potential in
developing a more unified and comprehensive material model for concrete. In view of this it
is necessary to critically examine the various fracture and damage models. In addition, these
constitutive models should also explain the structural size effect as noticed in the experiments
provided these models are based on sound theoretical foundation. Hence, the present research
proposal, with the scope and objectives as proposed in Chapter 1, was formulated based on
the critical review and conclusions arrived after the literature survey.
21
Chapter 3
NUMERICAL MODELS AND FORMULATION
3.1 Introduction
Concrete exhibits a complex structural response due to various important nonlinearities; namely,
a nonlinear stress-strain behaviour and tensile cracking and compression crushing failures with
post peak softening behaviour. All these concrete nonlinearities depend strongly on the triaxial
state of stress, and in addition the nonlinearities introduced by the reinforcing and prestressing
steel should in general be taken in to account.
Modeling the complex behaviour of Reinforced concrete (RC), which is both non-homogenous
and anisotropic, is a difficult task in finite element analysis of civil engineering structures. The
nonlinear behaviour of concrete under load is frequently dominated by cracking resulting in
localised failure. Rashid was the first researcher, who introduced a smeared cracking approach
using iso-parametric finite element formulation to represent cracking of concrete in 1968. In the
smeared cracking approach, cracking of concrete occurs when the principal tensile stress exceeds
the ultimate tensile strength. The elastic modulus of the materials is then assumed to be zero in
the direction parallel to the principal tensile stress direction. The fixed and rotational crack
models are frequently used for above approach.
Fracture mechanics has been introduced in early 1980 for the study of the behaviour of material
and the condition in the vicinity of a crack and at the crack tip. The application of fracture
mechanics to plain and reinforced concrete has opened up a new field for modelling of
phenomena that have often been treated empirically in the past. Cohesive crack model proposed
by Hillerborg (1976) and crack band model with localisation limiters Bazant (1983) are
frequently used to study of tension failure of concrete. This approach is so called mesh
insensitive and is enabled with capturing the structural size effect.
In concrete material, fracture develops as result of localisation of distributed damage due to

microcracking. In discrete fracture models, the damage due to distributed cracking is lumped into
a line, but this is not sufficiently realistic for all applications. The width and microcracking
density distribution at the fracture front may vary depending on the structure size, shape and type
of loading. This behaviour can be captured only by continuum damage mechanics. However,
such models cannot be implemented in the sense of the classical, local continuum, because a
continuum, in which the stress at a point depends only on the strain at the same point. A nonlocal
continuum must be adopted which is defined as a continuum in which the stress at a point depend
also on the strains in the neighborhood of that point or some type of average strain measure of the
neighborhood.
This chapter covers the details of material models used for concrete, steel members including
input data used in the model. It also describes the details of element used, convergence study
along with the results and other relevant parameters, which are included in numerical model of
RC materials.
3.2 Softening and Energy Concepts for Mesh insensitivity

Adopting the concept to smeared formulation Bazant et al. (1983) developed the crack band
model (Fig. 3.1) in which the fracture energy Gf was smeared out over the width of the area in
which the crack localised, so that Gf is expressed by equation (3.1)
Gf
Fracture process zone
Figure 3.1 Crack band model proposed by Bazant et al. (1983)
24

ft
ET
E

0 u
Figure 3.2 Idealised Stress-Strain curve for concrete in tension
G f = ( d ) dx (3.1)
With x is the ordinate orthogonal to the crack direction where we assume that the strain is
constant over a bandwidth w.
G f = w ( d ) (3.2)
With the assumption of uniform strain distribution and carrying out the integration of equation
(3.2) for a linear softening diagram (Fig. 3.2), we arrive at the following equation (3.3) for the u
at which the strength is exhausted.
25
2G f
u = (3.3)
ft w
We now consider the area of one-dimensional bar of length L (Fig. 3.3), which is divided into n
number of elements with a linear displacement interpolation.
w = L/n
Figure 3.3 Representation of One-Dimensional bar in tension
Since
1
Gf = ft u w (3.4)
2
from Fig. 3.3, w = L/n and from Fig. 3.2, a softening modulus ET can be defined as in equation
(3.5)
ft (3.5)
ET =
u 0
from equation (3.4) and equation (3.5), a softening modulus can be defined as in equation (3.6).
Lf t 2
ET =
Lf t 2 (3.6)
2nG f
E
26
We observe that this modulus is proportional to structural size and inversely proportional to the
number of elements. When we apply a tensile stress in an element that is marginally below that
of the other elements we can derive an expression for the average strain in the bar beyond the
peak load.
Since
ft ( ft )
= + (3.7)
E ET
If we substitute the ET from equation (3.6) in equation (3.7) and divide it by number of elements
n, we get average strain in each element as in equation (3.8). Since, applied tensile stress is
well below ft during softening hence effect of number of elements, which appears in denominator
of first part of right hand side of equation (3.8), on those elements which are in elastic state will
be negligible.
2G f ( f t )
= + 2
(3.8)
nE Lf t
We observe that the number of elements n has disappeared from the significant component of the
strain of this expression (equation (3.8)) and inclusion of the fracture energy Gf has thus made the
stress- average strain curve or equivalently, the load displacement curve, insensitive with regard
to mesh refinement. Simultaneously, the specimen length L has entered the expression for the
average strain; so that the brittleness of the structure depends on the value of L and a physical
structural size effect is present the formulation.
27
3.3 Effect of Reinforcement on Fracture energy (Gf )
The tension stiffening effect is usually understood as the ability to gradually redistribute the load
in a structure from concrete to steel under the formation of primary and secondary cracks. It has
been suggested to conceive the tension stiffening effect as the additional stiffness due to the
interaction between concrete and reinforcement in the direction of the reinforcement and to
model the initiation of primary and secondary cracks with the constitutive model of plain
concrete in tension for instance the crack band model. In the presence of reinforcement, the
fracture energy in this model is distributed over a tributary area by using the crack spacing.
In reinforced concrete a number of cracks usually develop during the process stablises and no
further cracks develop in the structure. The crack spacing at stablised cracking is determined
mainly by the amount of reinforcement. A rational assumption is that the material model for plain
concrete based on fracture energy Gf of a single crack can be applied to reinforced concrete with
the total amount of fracture energy dissipated over the crack length is assumed to be a material
parameter, only the average crack spacing S has to be determined.
Normally, the dimensions of the finite elements h, in simulation of reinforced concrete structure
are much larger than the average crack spacing S. Keeping this in mind, it is reasonable to
assume that the released energy in reinforced concrete Gfrc , can be determined by
G rcf = min {G f ,G f
h (3.9)

S
The averaging crack spacing is a function of the bar diameter, the concrete cover and the
reinforcement ratio.
It is assumed that the behaviour of cracked, RC can be obtained by superposition of the plain
concrete, a stiffness of the reinforcement and an additional stiffness due to the interaction
between concrete and reinforcement. This leads to the following summation of stress
contributions
= concrete + steel + I (3.10)
28
Where I is the interaction stress contribution due to tension stiffening (Fig. 3.4).
1 Concrete elastic
4 3
2 Concrete softening
3 Steel elastic -ideal plastic
1
I tension stiffening 4 Composite RC response
c concrete
s Reinforcement
Figure 3.4 Idealised representation of the constitutive model for concrete

0 cu u s
Figure 3.5 Tension stiffening diagram for the interaction stress between concrete and steel
29
The Constitutive model of the reinforcement is normally assumed to be given by an elastoplastic
model with a stiffness matrix given by
pE s 0 0 (3.11)
Ds = 0 qE s 0
0 0 0
In which p and q are the reinforcement ratio in different direction. Es is the elastoplastic modulus
of reinforcement. The shear stiffness of the reinforcement grid is assumed to be equal to zero.
The stress contribution in the global x, y coordinate system is computed via
steel = [T T ( ) DsT ( )] (3.12)
With the strain vector in the global x, y coordinates system and T ( ) is the standard
transformation matrix between two coordinate system, being the angle between the x-axis and
main reinforcement.
After a stablise crack patterns has developed, stresses are still transferred from reinforcement to
concrete between the crack due to the bond action which increases the total stiffness of the
structure (Fig. 3.5).
The additional stress due to tension stiffening is assumed to be a given as a function of the strain
in the direction of the reinforcement. The interaction stress is only active if the strain in the
reinforcement is larger than 0, which is determined by
ft
0 = cos 2 (3.13)
Ec
With is the angle between the direction of the reinforcement and the principal stress at incipient
cracking.
30
The strain cu is determined by the crack spacing, the equivalent length of the element and the
fracture energy of the concrete and is given by expression (3.14).
G rcf
cu = 2 cos 2 (3.14)
hf t
The tension stiffening component is reduced near the yield strain of the reinforcement sy in order
to avoid an artificial increases of the yield stress of reinforcement. The strain at which the tension
stiffening component is reduced is given by expression (3.15).
ft
u = sy (3.15)
peff . E s
With peff . is the effective reinforcement ratio.
The local stiffness matrix that incorporates the interaction stiffness is given by expression (3.16).
Ebp 0 0 (3.16)
DI = 0 Ebq 0
0 0 0
In which Ebp and Ebq are the bond stiffness in different directions. The transformation of the
global coordinate system is given by in expression (3.17).
I = [T T ( ) DI T ( )] (3.17)
31
3.4 Analytical Effective Elastic Approach
For three points bending problem, moment of resistance M for RC member is expressed in the
term of central point load, P, mid-span deflection and notch depth a (initial crack length).
Therefore the fracture energy is calculated based on the analytical effective elastic approach is
given by in equation (3.18).
P 2 dc
Gf = (3.18)
2b da
Where
c is the compliance and a is the crack length. The compliance c is given by in equation (3.19).
(3.19)
c=
P
3.4.1 Triangular stress block
A triangular stress block for an uncracked section is considered as shown in Fig.3.6. It is assumed
that concrete is having similar triangular stress block in compression and tension zone. The
concrete may be considered to be able to resist a small amount of tension. In this case a tensile
stress resultant, Fct , acts through the centroid of the triangular stress block in the tension zone; Fst
is the resultant force of steel and Fcc is the resultant force which acts through the centroid of the
triangular stress block in the compression zone, cc and ct are the values of strain at the
compression zone and tensile zone respectively and st is the value of steel strain, fcc is the
compression stress, fct is the tensile stress of concrete and fst is the stress in steel.
For the equilibrium equation (3.20) of the section as shown in Fig. 3.6.
32
P
Reinforcement
Vertical flexural crack

Diagonal tension crack
(a)The failure pattern of a beam

bj d i l d
h
d
Transformed steel
(b)Transformed section
cc fcc
Fcc
d x 2/3(x)
st 2/3(h-x)
h
Fct
Fst
ct fct
b
Section Strain Stress
Figure 3.6 Triangular stress block for an uncracked section
33
Fcc = Fct + Fst (3.20)
where
1
Fcc = bxf cc
2
1
Fct = b( h x) f ct
2
Fst = Ast f st
In equation (3.20), x is the depth of the neutral axis measured from the top surface. Taking the
moment about Fcc, the moment of resistance of the section is given by equation (3.21).
x 2 2
M = Fst ( d ) + Fct x + ( h x ) (3.21)
3 3 3
The depth of the neutral axis, x, is determined by converting the section into an equivalent area of
concrete as shown in Fig. 3.6 in which m = Es/Ec, is the modular ratio. Taking moment about the
top surface,
h + 2mpd
x= (3.22)
2 + 2mp
where
As
p=
bh
The strain can be calculated from the linear proportions of the strain diagram in Fig. 3.6 as
expression (3.23) and expression (3.24).
34
x
cc = ct (3.23)
hx
dx
st = ct (3.24)
hx
Therefore, the stresses can be calculated as expression 3.25 to 3.27.
f ct = E c ct
(3.25)
x
f cc = f ct (3.26)
hx
dx (3.27)
f st = mf ct
hx
For cracked section, a triangular stress block in tension zone is considered as shown in Fig. 3.9
(a). The concrete may be considered able to resist a small amount of tension in cracked zone
(cover to reinforcement). In this case a tensile stress resultant, Fct, acts through the centroid of the
triangular stress block in the tension zone can be calculated as equation 3.28.
1 1
Fct = b( d x ) f ct + b( h d ) f ct
' (3.28)
2 2
moment about Fcc, the moment of resistance of the cracked section is given by equation (3.29).
35
2 ' 2 1

2 ' 3
' (d x ) + (h d)2
+(h d)(
d x' )
x
M=Fst(d ) +Fct x + 3 (3.29)
3 3 (hx')

3.4.2 Parabolic stress block

A parabolic stress block for an uncracked section is considered as shown in Fig.3.7. It is assumed
that concrete is having parabolic stress block in compression and triangular stress block in
tension zone. The concrete may be considered able to resist a small amount of tension. It is
assumed that stresses in all the bars are equal. The resultant tensile force, thus acts at the centroid
of the reinforcing bars.
cc
fcc
x2
Fcc
d x x-a
x1
h st 2/3(h-x)
Fct
Fst
fct
b
Figure 3.7 Parabolic stress block for an uncracked section
36
where
2
Fcc = bx1 f cc + bx 2 f cc
3
1
Fct = b( h x) f ct
2
Fst = Ast f st
In equation (3.30), x is the depth of the neutral axis measured from the top surface. The stress
block parameter x1 and x2 can be obtained from the strain diagram.
The distance of the line of action of force a of compression from the extreme top fibre can be
calculated as expression (3.31).
3 2 1
1 2 x1 + x2 (x2 )
x + x
8 3 2
a= (3.31)
2
x +
1 2 x
3
Taking the moment about Fcc, the moment of resistance of the section is given by equation
(3.32).
2
M = Fst (d a ) + Fct ( x a ) + (h x) (3.32)
3
37
The depth of the neutral axis, x, is determined by equilibrium equation (3.30).The strain can be
calculated from the linear proportions of the strain diagram in Fig. 3.7 as expression (3.33) and
expression (3.34).
x
cc = ct (3.33)
hx
dx
st = ct (3.34)
hx
f ct = E c ct
(3.35)
dx (3.36)
f st = mf ct
hx
(b). The concrete may be considered able to resist a small amount of tension in cracked zone
(cover to reinforcement). In this case a tensile stress resultant, Fct , acts through the centroid of the
1 1
' (3.37)
2 2
In equation (3.37), x is the depth of the neutral axis measured from the top surface and a is the
distance of line of action of compression force of cracked section. Taking the moment about Fcc,
the moment of resistance of the cracked section is given by equation (3.38).
38
2 ' 2 1
(d x ) + (h d)2
+(hd)(
d x' )
M=Fst(d a' )+Fct(x'a' )+ 3 3 (3.38)
(hx')

3.4.3 Rectangular stress block

A rectangular stress block for an uncracked section is considered as shown in Fig.3.8. It is
assumed that concrete is having rectangular stress block in compression and triangular stress
block in tension zone.
The concrete may be considered able to resist a small amount of tension. It is assumed that
stresses in all the bars are equal. The resultant tensile force, thus acts at the centroid of the
reinforcing bars.
cc
fcc
Fcc
d x
x/2
h st 2/3(h-x)
Fct
Fst
b fct
Figure 3.8 Rectangular stress block for an uncracked section
39
where
Fcc = bxf cc
1
Fct = b( h x) f ct
2
Fst = Ast f st
In equation (3.39), x is the depth of the neutral axis measured from the top surface.
Taking the moment about Fcc, the moment of resistance of the section is given by equation (3.40).
x x 2
M = Fst (d ) + Fct ( ) + (h x) (3.40)
2 2 3
The depth of the neutral axis, x, is determined by equilibrium equation (3.40).The strain can be
calculated from the linear proportions of the strain diagram in Fig. 3.8 as expression (3.41) and
expression (3.42).
x
cc = ct (3.41)
hx
dx
st = ct (3.42)
hx
40
f ct = E c ct
(3.43)
dx (3.44)
f st = mf ct
hx
(c). The concrete may be considered able to resist a small amount of tension in cracked zone
(cover to reinforcement). In this case a tensile stress resultant, Fct , acts through the centroid of the
1 1
' (3.45)
2 2
moment about Fcc, the moment of resistance of the cracked section is given by equation (3.46).
2 ' 2 1
' (d x ) + (hd) +(hd)(d x')
2
x 'x 3 3
M= Fst(d ) +Fct + (3.46)
2 2 (hx')

41
fcc
Fcc

x
2/3x
Fct
Fst fct
(a) Triangular stress block
fcc
x2
Fcc
X-a
x1
Fct
Fst fct
(b) Parabolic stress block

fcc
Fcc
x/2
Fct
Fst fct
(c) Rectangular stress block
Figure 3.9 Stress block for cracked section
42
3.5 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model
The concrete damaged plasticity model based on concepts of isotropic damaged elasticity in
combination with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic behavior
of concrete (Fig. 3.10). The advantages of this model over concrete smeared cracking model is, it
can be used for concrete structure subjected to monotonic as well as cyclic loading under the low
confining pressure. It consists of the combination of non-associated multi-hardening plasticity
and scalar (isotropic) damaged elasticity to describe the irreversible damage that occurs during
the fracturing process, and also allows to control of stiffness recovery effects during cyclic load
reversals.
3.5.1 Mechanical behaviour

Concrete damaged plasticity model is a continuum plasticity-based, damage model for concrete
with two main failure mechanisms are tensile cracking and compressive crushing of the concrete
material. The evolution of the failure surface is controlled by two hardening parameters are
~ pl ~ pl

tensile and compressive equivalent plastic strain t and c . The following section describes

the main assumptions about the mechanical behaviour of concrete.
a) Uniaxial Tensile and Compressive Stress Behaviour
The model assumes that the uniaxial tensile and compressive response of concrete is
characterized by damaged plasticity, as shown in Fig. 3.11. Under uniaxial tension the stress-
strain response follows a linear elastic relationship until the value of the failure stress ( t ), is
u
reached. Beyond the failure stress the formation of micro-cracks is represented macroscopically
with a softening stress-strain response, which induces strain localisation in the concrete structure.
Under uniaxial compression the response is linear until the value of initial yield ( c ). In the
plastic regime the response is typically characterized by stress hardening followed by strain
softening beyond the ultimate stress ( cu ). The uniaxial stress-strain curve can be converted into
stress versus plastic strain from the given stress versus inelastic strain data.
~ pl
t = t t , (3.47)

43
~ pl
c = c c , (3.48)

~ pl ~ pl
where subscript t and c refers to tension and compression respectively and t and c are the
equivalent plastic strains and is the temperature.
As shown in Fig. 3.13 when the concrete specimen is unloaded from any point on the strain
softening branch of the stress-strain curves, the unloading response is weakened: the elastic
stiffness of the material appears to be damaged. The degradation of the elastic stiffness is
characterized by two damage variables, dt and dc, which is assumed to be, functions of the plastic
strains, temperature. The damage variable can take values from zero representing the undamaged
material to one, which represents total loss of strength.
If E0 is the initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material, the stress-strain relations under
uniaxial tension and compression loading are,
~ pl

t = (1 dt ) E0 t t (3. 49)

~ pl

c = (1 d c ) E0 c c (3.50)

Effective tensile and compressive cohesion stresses are, calculated by equation 3.51 and 3.52.
which determines the yield surface.
t ~ pl

t = = E0 t t (3.51)
(1 dt )
c ~ pl

c = = E0 c c (3.52)
(1 dc )
3.5.2 Concrete plasticity
a) Effective stress invariants
The effective stress is defined as,
= D0 : ( - pl ) (3.53)
44
The plastic flow potential function and the yield surface make use of two stress invariants of the
effective stress tensor, namely the hydrostatic pressure stress.
1
p = trace (3.54)
3
and the Mises equivalent effective stress,
3
q= S :S (3.55)
2

where, S is the effective stress deviator, defined as,

S =+ pI (3.56)
b) Plastic flow
The concrete damaged plasticity model assumes non-associated potential plastic flow. The flow
potential G used for this model is the Drucker-Prager hyperbolic function.
2
( e t tan )
2
G= + q p tan (3.57)
where; = Dilation angle in the p-q plane at high confining pressure.

t = Uniaxial tensile stress at failure.
e = Flow eccentricity (Rate at which the function approaches the asymptote).
c) Yield function
The model makes use of the yield function of Lubliner et al. (1989), with modification proposed
by Lee and Fenves (1998), to account for the different evolution of strength under tension and
compression. The evolution of the yield surface is controlled by the hardening
~ pl ~ pl
variable t and c . In terms of effective stress, the yield function takes the form,
1
~ pl ~ ~
~ pl
F= q 3 p +
t max max c c = 0
(3.58)
1
with, =
( b 0 co ) 1 ; 0 0.5 (3.59)
2 ( b 0 co ) 1
45
~ pl

c c
= ~ pl (1 ) (1 + ) (3.60)

t t

3 (1 K c )
= (3.61)
2Kc 1
~
where; max = Maximum principal effective stress.
b 0 co = Ratio of initial equi-biaxial compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial
compressive yield stress.
K c = The ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian, to that on
the compression meridian at initial yield for any given value of the
pressure invariant p, such that the maximum principal stress is negative
and it must satisfy the condition 0.5 < K c < 1.0 .

~ pl
t t = The effective tensile cohesion stress.

~ pl
c c = The effective compressive cohesion stress.

Fig. 3.12 shows a typical yield surface on the deviatoric plane.
3.5.3 Tension Stiffening
The post-failure behaviour for direct straining is model with the help of tension stiffening
approach by means of post-failure stress-strain relation and facture energy cracking criterion. The
tension stiffening also takes into account the effect of reinforcement interaction with concrete.
Cracking in concrete will develop and propagate in the direction normal to that of the major
principal stress starting from the section where a crack is first originated. However, even after
cracking concrete is still partially capable of resisting tensile forces due to the bond between
concrete and reinforcement. This effect can be adequately accounted for by increasing the
average stiffness of the element which has relatively large dimensions when compared with the
size of the cracked section. Increase of the tensile stiffness of concrete can be accomplished by
46
using a stress-strain relationship which includes a descending branch in the tension region. On the
other hand, in order to predict more accurately deflection of the structures, it is necessary to use a
cracking model in the nonlinear analysis since cracks in the concrete are the major sources of
material non-linearity. However, the fracture behaviour of concrete is quite different from that of
metals, mainly due to the fact that the fracture of concrete is presented by micro-cracking instead
of yielding. Bazant et al. (1983) introduced the crack band theory in the analysis of a plain
concrete panel, which is the one of the simplest types of fictitious cracks models. The final
equation derived for determining the strain at which tensile stress is equal to zero ( t ) can be
f
expressed as,
2G f
t f = (3.62)
b t
t 2 Da
G f = (2.72 + 0.0214 t ) (Bazant and Oh 1983) (3.63)
Ec
( t and Ec are in pound, Da is in inch)
where, G f = Fracture energy required to open a unit area of crack in N/m.
t = Uniaxial tensile stress, MPa.

b = Element width, mm.
The equation 3.62 can be successfully applied when the finite element mesh size is equal to or
smaller than 75 mm. The equation 3.63 can be used for determination of fracture energy of
concrete. The value of fracture energy obtained using above equation can be taken as the first
good estimate. The actual value of the fracture energy may be different because the above
expression is the result of statistical analysis. If this value obtained using the above expression is
changed around 150% to 175% for beam specimens, the post failure characteristics do not show
considerable difference.
47
ab=elastic tension yielding bc=tension hardening
b
fg=reverse unloading
c
g a
d
cd=elastic unloading
f
ef=Compression hardening
e
de=loading until yielding
+ =
Damage Plastic
Plastic Behaviour Damage Behaviour
Figure 3.10 Schematic representation of damage plasticity model
48
t
tu
(1-dt)E0
E0
t
~ pl ~ el
t t
(a) Tension
cu
E0
(1-dc)E0
c
~ pl ~ pl
c c
(b) Compression
Figure 3.11 Response of concrete to uniaxial bending
49
-S1
-S2
kc=2/3 kc=1
-S3
Figure 3.12 Yield surface in the deviatoric plane
tu
t
tu t f
Figure 3.13 Post failure Stress-Strain relations (Tension Stiffening)
50
3.6 Closure
This chapter covered material model used in finite element analysis. All the material models were
discussed in this chapter are available with commercial software. Detailed comparisons of
experimental results with finite element analysis using conventional strength and different
fracture models will be presented in subsequent chapters.
51
Chapter 4
DETERMINATION OF FRACTURE ENERGY FOR

PLAIN AND REINFORCED CONCRETE AND ITS
SIZE EFFECT
4.1 Introductory Remarks

The first experimental routine test proposed for determining fracture properties of concrete
was based on the cohesive crack model. It was described in a RILEM recommendation
(RILEM, 1985) and has been the subject of debate since then, because the experimental
values of Gf so obtained were seen to be size dependent. In this debate, it is sometimes
difficult to understand whether the objections are directed against the experimental method or
against the model itself. Certainly if the experimental method is sound and the model is
perfect for concrete; the experimental values of Gf must be constant. Otherwise either the
experimental method has flaws or the model is valid only approximately or both the problems
could possibly co-exist. If the size effect still remains, it is because of the cohesive crack
numerical model.
To overcome the size effect on the value of fracture energy, an effort is made here to
determine the fracture energy analytically based on analytical effective elastic analysis
approach with various types of stresses blocks and based on crack band model with
localisation limiters.
4.2 Analytical Effective Elastic Analysis Approach

The fracture energy may be calculated based on analytical effective elastic analysis approach
which depends on central point load, P, mid-span deflection and notch depth a (initial crack
length). It is assumed that no permanent deformation occurs upon unloading in this approach.
For three points bending problem (Fig. 4.1), the deflection can be calculated based on the
theory of elasticity. The deflection of simply supported beam subjected to central point load
P, length L, depth d and width b can be expressed in equation (4.1).
PL3 (4.1)
=
48 EI
The compliance c as given by equation (3.19) can be calculated as shown in equation (4.2).

c=
P
L3
= (4.2)
48 EI
Therefore, the fracture energy which depend on the compliance c can be calculated from
equation (3.18) and (3.19).
we have
P 2 dc
Gf =
2b da

P2 d L3
= (4.3)
2b da
48 Eb
(d a )
3
12
54
Hence,
3 P PL3
Gf = (4.4)
2 b( d a ) 48 EI
In terms of deflection , the fracture energy can be expressed as in equation (4.5).
72 EI 2
Gf = 3 (4.5)
bL ( d a )
The above equation (4.4) is valid for brittle material. From the experiment, it has been seen
that concrete is not a brittle material. The value of fracture energy will not be less than
calculated from equation (4.4) and equation (4.5).
4.2.1 Triangular stress block for plain concrete

The triangular stress block is considered here for the analysis of the three point bending
problem which is shown in Fig. 4.1. It is a plain concrete notched beam subjected to three-
point bending and the material properties used in the analysis are tabulated in Table 4.1 (high
strength concrete) and Table 4.2 (low strength concrete). The typical beam geometry has
depth (h) of 100.0 mm, the notch depth (a) of 10.0 mm, and the width of beam (b) is 150.0
mm with beam length (L) of 600.0 mm. The beam was observed to fail in bending in the
experiment.
P
Thickness b h
a
L
Figure 4.1 Geometry Representation of Plain concrete beam
tested by Petersson (1981)
55
fcc
fcc
Fcc Fcc

x 2/3x x 2/3x
Neutral axis Neutral axis
2/3(h-x) 2/3(h-x)
Fct
Fct fct
fct
Stress block for uncracked section Stress block for cracked section
Figure 4.2 Triangular stress blocks for plain concrete beam
Table 4.1 Material properties of high strength concrete for notched beam Petersson (1981)
Material Properties of concrete
Uniaxial compressive strength of concrete (MPa) 75.7
Uniaxial tensile strength of concrete (MPa) 5.3
Youngs modulus of concrete (MPa) 34300.0
Poisson ration of concrete 0.17
Uniaxial ultimate compressive strain in concrete 0.0035
Fracture energy (N/m)) 110.0
Dilation Angle (Degree) 15
Flow Eccentricity 0.52
56
Table 4.2 Material properties of low strength concrete for notched beam Petersson (1981)
Youngs modulus of concrete (MPa) 23150
Two different triangular stress blocks have been considered for uncracked and cracked
sections of above beam as shown in Fig. 4.2. For uncracked section, moment of resistance M,
can be calculated from equation (3.21) as shown below.
x 2 2
M = Fst ( d ) + Fct x + ( h x )
3 3 3
Here,
Neutral axis depth, x = d/2
=45.0 mm;
h =100.0 mm;
1
Tension force, Fct = b ( h x ) f ct
2
b = 150.0 mm;
57
Stress in tension, fct = 5.3 Mpa;
Hence,
Moment of resistance from above expression, M = 1.073 KNm;
We can calculate the central point load, P = Mx4/L
= 7.153 KN;
From equation (4.4), we can calculate the fracture energy (Gf) as
3 P PL3
Gf =
2 b( d a ) 48 EI
= 81.72 N/m;
For low strength concrete, fracture energy can be calculated based on material properties from
Table 4.2 as above.
Gf = 121.08 N/m;
For cracked section, depth of neutral axis x can be calculated from equilibrium equation
(3.20) as
Fcc = Fct + Fst

where
1 '
Compression force, Fcc = bx f cc
2
or,
1 ' x'
Fcc = bx f ct
2 d x'
1 1
Tension force, Fct = b(d x ' ) f ct + b( h d ) f ct
2 2
58
Hence,
hd
Depth of neutral axis, x' =
h+d
= 47.37 mm;
The moment of resistance for cracked section can be calculated from equation (3.29) as
below.
2 ' 2 1
'
2 ' 3 (d x ) + (h d )2
+(h d)(
d x' )
x
M=Fst(d ) +Fct x + 3
3 3 (h x' )

= 1.325 KNm;
Similarly, fracture energy for cracked section can be calculated from equation (4.4).
Gf = 124.5 N/m;
For low strength concrete,
Gf = 184.46 N/m;
The fracture energy for unnotched beam can be calculated as above and it will be same as
notched beam.
4.2.2 Parabolic stress block for plain concrete

The Parabolic stress block has been considered for the analysis of the three point bending
problem (Fig. 4.1.). Two different parabolic stress blocks have been considered for uncracked
and cracked sections of above beam as shown in Fig. 4.3.
59
fcc fcc
x2 x2
Fcc Fcc
x
x-a x-a
x1 x1
2/3(h-x) 2/3(h-x)
Fct Fct
fct
fct
Figure 4.3 Parabolic stress blocks for plain concrete beam
The stress block parameter x1 and x2 can be obtained from the strain diagram as
4 3
x1 = x; x2 = x;
7 7
After putting the value of stress block parameters in equilibrium equation (3.30), we can get
the expression (4.6) for depth of neutral axis x as
2h + 4h 2 + 2.476 h 2
x= (4.6)
1.2381
since
for notched beam, h = d =90.0 mm;
after putting the value of h in equation (4.6), we can get
depth of neutral axis, x = 39.60 mm;
The distance of the line of action of force a of compression from the extreme top fibre can
be calculated from expression (3.31).
60
3 2 1
x1 + x2 x1 + x2 (x2 )
8 3 2
a=
2
x1 + x2
3
a = 16.475 mm;
below.
2
M = Fst ( d a ) + Fct ( x a ) + ( h x)
3
M = 1.1371 KNm;
Gf = 91.74 N/m;
Gf = 135.93 N/m;
(3.30) as expression (4.7).
( h + d ) + ( h + d ) 2
+ 2.096 hd
x' = (4.7)
1.048
After putting the value of h andd in expression (4.7), we can get
x ' = 42.41 mm;
Similarly, the distance of the line of action of force a of compression from the extreme top
fibre can be calculated from expression (3.31).
61
a = 17.642 mm;
The moment of resistance of the cracked section M can be calculated from equation (3.38).
2 ' 2 1
' 3 (d x ) + (h d)2
+(hd)(
d x' )
M= Fst(d a ) +Fct(x'a )+
' 3
(hx')

M = 1.3696 KNm;
Gf = 133.0 N/m;
Gf = 197.06 N/m;
4.2.3 Rectangular stress block for plain concrete

The rectangular stress block has considered analysing the three point bending problem (Fig.
4.1). Two different rectangular stress blocks have been considered for uncracked and cracked
sections of above beam as shown in Fig. 4.4.
For the equilibrium equation (3.39), the depth of neutral axis x can be calculated after
putting the value of h
x = 37.26 mm;
62
fcc fcc
Fcc Fcc
x/2 x/2
Fct Fct fct
fct
Figure 4.4 Rectangular stress blocks for plain concrete beam
below.
x x 2
M = Fst (d ) + Fct ( ) + (h x)
2 2 3
M = 1.127 KNm;
Gf = 90.21 N/m;
Gf = 133.66 N/m;
(3.39) as expression (4.8).
( h + d ) + (h + d ) 2 + 4hd
x =' (4.8)
2
After putting the value of h and d in expression (4.8), we can get
63
x ' = 39.26 mm;
2 ' 2 1
x 3
' (d x ) + (h d)2
+(hd)(
d x' )
x' 3
M= Fst(d ) +Fct +
2 2 (hx')

M = 1.371 KNm;
Gf = 133.4 N/m;
Gf = 197.65 N/m;
The value of fracture energy for plain concrete based on brittle failure concept using different
Stress blocks are presented in Table 4.3 and fracture energy based on quasi-brittle failure is
presented in Table 4.4. It shows that for high strength concrete the band of fracture energy is
81.72-133.4 N/m, which compares well with the experiment value of 90.0-140.0 N/m. In case
of low strength concrete the fracture energy band obtained from different stress block models
is 121.08-197.65 N/m. The limitation of present study to determine fracture energy using
different stress blocks is that the influence of size of aggregate is not taken care. However, the
influence of size of aggregate is not significant with the assumption of homogeneity. This is
due to the fact that the fracture energy is an average representation of the entire cross-section
of the test beam.
64
Table 4.3 Fracture energy using brittle failure concept for plain concrete
Stress blocks High strength concrete Low strength concrete

(N/m) (N/m)
Triangular 81.72 121.08
Parabolic 91.72 135.93
Rectangular 90.21 133.66
Table 4.4 Fracture energy using quasi-brittle failure concept for plain concrete

(N/m) (N/m)
Parabolic 133.0 197.06
4.3 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) for Notched Three

Point Bending Beam using Karihaloo (1995) Approach
The fracture energy can also be calculated based on Karihaloo (1995) approach using the
compliance of notched beam which depends on notch depth to beam depth ratio, bending
moment, M, parameter Y, which is function of geometry and notched depth a (initial crack
length).
For three points bending problem (Fig. 4.1), the bending moment, M can be calculated based
on the theory of elasticity. The fracture energy Gf of simply supported beam of length L,
depth d, width b notched depth a can be expressed in equation (4.9).
3
Gf =
P
[ ] (4.9)
2 b( d a )
65
where deflection of notched beam is
2
9 P L
= F ( ) (4.10)
2 BE d
and F( ) is given as

F ( ) = x(Y ) ( x) dx
2 (4.11)
0
The function of geometry, Y of simply supported beam of length L, depth d, width b notched
depth a can be expressed in equation (4.12).
2 3 4
a a a a a
Y = A0 + A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 (4.12)
d d d d d
where coefficients Ai listed in Table 4.5 for a three point bending beam.
This is valid for a/d ratio in the range of 0.1 to 0.6. The geometry function Y (a/d) is known
for two span to depth ratios (L/d = 4 and 8). However, linear interpolation of Y(a/d) is
permitted within and outside of these two span to depth ratio.
Table 4.5 Value of coefficients Ai for three point bending beam (Karihaloo (1995))
L/d A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
8 +1.96 -2.75 +13.66 -23.98 +25.22
4 +1.93 -3.07 +14.53 -25.11 +25.80
Therefore, the fracture energy Gf for the notched beam can be calculated from equation (4.9) -
(4.11).
66
The typical beam geometry has depth (d) of 100.0 mm, the notch depth (a) of 10.0 mm, and
the width of beam (b) is 150.0 mm with beam length (L) of 600.0 mm.
The value of fracture energy for plain concrete based on Karihaloo (1995) approach with the
compliance of the notched beam using different stress blocks are presented in Table 4.6. It
shows that for high strength concrete the band of fracture energy is 113.96-127.90 N/m,
which compares well with the mean experiment value of 115.0 N/m (range 90-140 N/m). We
note that the fracture energy for high strength concrete 124.50-133.40 N/m evaluated with our
model using quasi brittle softening presented in section 4.2 with compliance of notched beam
using reduced depth compares well with the values of 113.96-127.90 N/m obtained with the
formulation due to Karihaloo (1995). In case of low strength concrete the fracture energy
obtained from different stress block models obtained with our model is 184.66-197.06 N/m
and is comparable with Karihaloos model (168.85-189.55 N/m).
Table 4.6 Fracture energy for plain concrete Karihaloo (1995)

(N/m) (N/m)
Parabolic 127.90 189.55
67
4.4 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) using Crack Band
Model
Fig. 4.1 shows a notched beam subjected to three-point bending and the material properties
used in the analysis are tabulated in Table 4.1 (high strength concrete) and Table 4.2 (low
strength concrete). The typical beam geometry has depth (h) of 100.0 mm, the notch depth (a)
of 10.0 mm, and the width of beam (b) is 150.0 mm with beam length (L) of 600.0 mm. The
two-dimensional 8-noded plane stress element is used for the finite element models of
notched beam as shown in Fig. 4.5 (displacement control model).
68
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 4.5 Two-dimensional finite element model of notched beam Peterson (1981)
(e) 214 elements
69
The beam was observed to fail in bending in the experiment. The convergence for the fracture
energy model with mesh refinement is monotonic as noticed in the load-deflection curve in
Fig. 4.6.
The load and displacement control models are used for obtaining the complete failure (Load-
displacement) curve as shown in Fig. 4.7 (low strength concrete) and Fig. 4.8 (high strength
concrete). The post softening curves show the expected nonlinear behaviour of concrete with
the fracture energy based damage model. Fig. 4.9 shows the stress-CMOD curve of the three
point bending beam using crack band model. The value of fracture energy can be estimated as
equivalent to the area under this curve.
92 elements
12 132 elements
178 elements
10
196 elements
8
214 elements
Load (KN)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Mid-span deflection (mm)
Figure 4.6 Load deflection curve showing mesh insensitivity using

crack band fracture energy based approach
70
8 Low strength concrete
6
Load (KN)
4
Gf
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Figure 4.7 Load-deflection curve of notched beam using crack band model
15
High Strength Concrete
10
Load (KN)
5
Gf
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Midspan deflection (mm)
Figure 4.8 Load-deflection curve of notched beam using crack band model
71
5.0
4.5
Displacement Control
4.0 CMOD control
3.5
Stress-yy (N/mm )
2
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (CMOD) at notch (mm)
Figure 4.9 Comparison of mouth opening using CMOD and Displacement control
4.4.1 RILEM (1985) recommendations

According to RILEM recommendation RILEM (1985), fracture energy (Gf) can be calculated
using equation 2.1 as
A1 + mg 0
Gf =
b( h a )
From Fig. 4.8, area under load-deflection curve A1 can be calculated using triangle and
trapezoidal numerical integration method.
Here
A1 = 2.017 Nm;
b = 150.0 mm;
h = 100.0 mm;
a = 10.0 mm;
0 = 0.325 mm;
mg = 190.706 N;
Putting all the above value of parameter in above equation
Fracture energy (Gf ) = 136.0 N/m (excluding the elastic part of the load deflection curve)
72
It has been seen that during experimental routine test as per RILEM recommendations body
forces (self weight) of test specimen affect the fracture energy value. The self- weight of the
specimen and the energy dissipated in the far field (away from notch) must be properly taken
into account. It is not accounted for by the measuring devices unless a special arrangement
like weight compensation method is used. The RILEM (1985) does not recommend weight
compensation method. Instead, it uses an analytical correction as per equation 2.1. One of the
popular weight compensation methods is shown in Fig. 4.10.
Fig. 4.11 presents the load deflection curve of notched beam subjected to central point load
and body force of the beam. The fracture energy was calculated on the basis of area under the
load-deflection curve and the cross-section area at the notch without analytical correction for
self weight.
Thickness b h
a
Figure 4.10 Three-point bending test specimens with load

compensation device
12 without body force

with body force
10
Load (KN =224.73 lb)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
midspan deflection (mm = 0.0394 in.)
Figure 4.11 Influence of body forces on load deflection curve
73
Therefore
A1
G f ==
. b( h a ) (4.9)
Here,
A1 = 2.133 Nm;
b = 150.0 mm;
h = 100.0 mm;
a = 10.0 mm;
Putting all the above parameters in equation (4.9)
Fracture energy (Gf ) = 158.0 N/m;
The values of fracture energy obtained using the above different approaches are summarised
in Table 4.7. It may be noted that the fracture energy for high strength concrete obtained with
crack band model is in the range of 130-154 N/m and compares well with the experimental
band of 90-140 N/m, which was also earlier shown to be in agreement with the results of
various stress block models (81.72-133.4 N/m). In case of low strength concrete the fracture
energy obtained with crack band model is 200 N/m which is in agreement with the results of
various stress block models (121.08-197.65 N/m). For low strength concrete no experimental
results are available.
Table 4.7 Fracture energy estimated analytically for plain concrete
Loading condition Fracture Energy (N/m)
Central point loading 154.0
Loading-unloading 136.0
Loading with body force 158.0
R- Curve 130.0
Experimental 90.0-140.0 N/m
It is observed that for high strength concrete beams the triangular stress block model closely
predicts the lower bound of the fracture energy (81.72 N/m) as observed in the experiment (90
N/m). The rectangular block stress model correctly predicts the upper bound of experimental
74
fracture energy (133.4 N/m compared to 140 N/m). The crack band numerical model predicts
the upper bound of fracture energy (133-154 N/m). This is due to the fact that the triangular
stress block model closely represents a brittle model, while the rectangular stress block model
and numerical crack band model represent a quasi-brittle material. Similar observation is
noted for low strength concrete beam fracture energy (121.08 N/m with triangular and 197.65
N/m with rectangular block models as compared to 200 N/m with crack band model). The
lower band of fracture energy observed in some of the high strength concrete beam
experiments perhaps may be due to its relatively brittle behavior and smaller fracture process
zone, which is typically observed in case of high strength concrete beam specimens.
Fig.4.11 shows the comparison of load-deflection curve of notched beam analyzed with and
without self-weight. The load-deflection curve of beam subjected to additional self weight
shows higher value of load carrying capacity and larger area compared to the load-deflection
curve of beam without self weight. It supports the analytical correction for the self-weight
recommended by RILEM (1985).
4.4.2 Numerical convergence using band of fracture energy

Fig. 4.12-4.15 show the influence of the fracture energy value on load-deflection and stress-
deflection behaviour of the beam and rebar stress-strain response for low and high strength
concrete. It is observed that the fracture energy value for low strength concrete is more than
the high strength concrete.
75
8 Gf=50 N/m
Low strength concrete Gf=75 N/m
7 Gf=110 N/m
Gf=134 N/m
6 Gf=150 N/m
Gf=175 N/m
5 Gf=200 N/m
Load (KN)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Figure 4.12 Load-deflection curves for different value of fracture
energy for low strength concrete
16
14 High Strength Concrete

Gf=50 N/m
Gf=75 N/m
12 Gf=90 N/m
Gf=110 N/m
10
Load (KN)
Gf=130 N/m
Gf=150 N/m
8 Gf=200 N/m
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Figure 4.13 Load-deflection curves for different value of fracture
energy for high strength concrete
76
6
High strength concrete Gf=50 N/m
Longitudinal Stress (MPa)

5 Gf=75 N/m
Gf=110 N/m
Gf=130 N/m
4 Gf=150 N/m
Gf=175 N/m
3 Gf=200 N/m
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 4.14 Stres-midspan deflection curves for different value of

fracture energy for high strength concrete
6
Gf=50 N/m
Gf=75 N/m
Longitudinal Stress (MPa)
5
High strength concrete Gf=110 N/m
Gf=130 N/m
4 Gf=150 N/m
Gf=175 N/m
Gf=200 N/m
3
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Longitudinal strain
Figure 4.15 Stress-midspan deflection curves for different value of
fracture energy for high strength concrete
77
Fig. 4.16 shows the R-curve for high strength concrete. The value of fracture energy is
estimate based on R-curve approach is 130.0 N/m. It is comparable with the fracture energy
values obtained with different stress blocks models.
200
G (Strain energy release rate)
P/P0=0.5
150 Gf=130 N/m P/P0=0.75
P/P0=1.0
Gf P/P0=1.2
(N/m)
P/P0=1.4
100
R curve
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
a (depth of fracture process zone)
(mm)
Figure 4.16 R-curve for Plain concrete specimen tested by Petersson (1981)
4.5 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) for Reinforced

Concrete
For the analysis of reinforced concrete structures, tension stiffening of concrete is taken into
account due to the influence of reinforcement in the vicinity of cracks. It has been remarked
by past researchers (Bangash et al. (1989)) that the nominal fracture energy of plain concrete
should be increased for the analysis of reinforced concrete. The published information either
experimental or analytical for reinforced concrete is very little and inconclusive. There is need
to put much effort to estimate the fracture energy of reinforced concrete analytically as well as
experimentally.
4.5.1 Triangular stress block for reinforced concrete

The numerical examples presented are based on the three-point bending beam tested
experimentally by Bosco et al. (1990). In the present study, a typical three point bending
notched RC beam has been considered for which the structural features are shown in Fig.
4.17. The depth of beam (h) is 100.0 mm, the notch depth (a) is 10.0 mm, the width of beam
78
(b) is 150.0 mm and length of beam (L) is 600.0 mm and all these geometrical features have
been simulated for the analysis of the beam. The reinforcement area used for the analysis was
varied from 12.7 mm2 to 157.1 mm2. The material properties of the beam are presented in
Table 4.8. The reinforcement cover, which is the distance of the bars from the bottom beam
surface, is equal to 1/10 of the beam depth for each case.
Table 4.8 Material Properties of steel Bosco et al. (1990) notched beam
Material Properties of steel
Tensile Strength, ft (MPa) 580.0
Yield Strength (MPa) 456.0
Poisson ratio 0.3
Youngs Modulus, Ec (MPa) 200000.0
The triangular stress block has been considered for analysing the three point bending problem
which is shown in Fig. 4.17.
Reinforcement (cover, c=h/10)
Figure 4.17 Geometrical Representation of Reinforced

concrete beam tested by Bosco et al. (1990)
79
fcc
fcc
Fcc Fcc
x 2/3x x 2/3x
2/3(h-x) 2/3(h-x)
Fct
Fct fct
Fst Fst
fct
Figure 4.18 Triangular stress blocks for reinforced concrete beam
Two different triangular stress blocks have been considered for uncracked and cracked
sections of above beam as shown in Fig. 4.18. For uncracked section, depth of neutral axis x
can be calculated from equation (3.22).
h + 2mpd
x=
2 + 2mp
where
Ast
p=
bh and m = Es/Ec;
For uncracked section, moment of resistance M, can be calculated from equation (3.21) as
below.
x 2 2
M = Fst ( d ) + Fct x + ( h x )
3 3 3
Here,
80
Neutral axis depth, x = 45.26 mm;
h =100.0 mm;
m = 5.98;
1
Tension force, Fct = b ( h x ) f ct +mAst f ct
2
b = 150.0 mm;
As=12.7 mm2;
Stress in tension, fct = 5.3 MPa;
bd 3
Equivalent moment of inertia, I = + mA st ( d x ) 2
12
Hence,
Moment of resistance from above expression, M = 1.097 KNm;
We can calculate the central point load, P = Mx4/L
= 7.31 KN;
From equation (4.4), we can calculate the fracture energy (Gf) as
3 P PL3
Gf =
2 b( d a ) 48 EI
= 85.45 N/m;
(3.20) as
Fcc = Fct + Fst

where
1 '
Compression force, Fcc = bx f cc
2
or,
81
1 ' x'
Fcc = bx f ct
2 d x'
1 1
Tension force, Fct = b(d x ' ) f ct + b( h d ) f ct
2 2
Hence,
2mAst
h + d
x' =
b
Depth of neutral axis, 2mAst
h + d +
b
= 47.6 mm;
below.
2 ' 2 1
'
2 ' 3 (d x ) + (h d )2
+(h d)(
d x' )
x
M=Fst(d ) +Fct x + 3
3 3 (h x')

= 1.353 KNm;
Gf = 128.2N/m;
The values of fracture energy obtained using triangular stress block for different
reinforcement area varied from 12.7 mm2 to 157.1 mm2 are summarised in Table 4.9.
82
Table 4.9 Fracture energy using triangular stress block
Area of reinforcement Fracture Energy (N/m)
12.7 mm2 (0.09%) 128.22
39.3 mm2 (0.29%) 135.20
100.5 mm2 (0.71%) 153.42
157.1 mm2 (1.11%) 170.40
Experimental 110.0-150.0
4.5.2 Parabolic stress block for reinforced concrete

The Parabolic stress block has been considered for analysing the three point bending problem
(Fig. 4.17). The parabolic stress block has been considered for cracked sections of the above
beam as shown in Fig. 4.19.
fcc
x2
Fcc
x-a
x1
2/3(h-x)
Fct
fct
Fst
Stress block for cracked section
Figure 4.19 Parabolic stress blocks for reinforced concrete beam
since
depth of beam, h = 100 mm; d =90.0 mm;
depth of neutral axis, x ' = 44.43 mm;
83
The distance of the line of action of force a of compression from the extreme top fibre can
be calculated from expression (3.31).
a = 18.484 mm;
2 ' 2 1
' 3 (d x ) + (h d)2
+(hd)(
d x' )
M= Fst(d a ) +Fct(x'a )+
' 3
(hx')

M = 1.7319 KNm;
Gf = 210.09 N/m;
4.5.3 Rectangular stress block for plain concrete

The rectangular stress block has been considered for analysing the three point bending
problem (Fig. 4.17). The rectangular stress block has been considered for cracked sections of
the above beam as shown in Fig. 4.20.
fcc
Fcc
x/2
Fct fct
Fst
Stress block for cracked section
Figure 4.20 Rectangular stress blocks for reinforced concrete beam
84
(3.39).
After putting the value of h andd in expression (3.39), we can get
x ' = 41.85 mm;

2 ' 2 1
' (d x ) + (hd) +(hd)(d x')
2
x x 3
'
3
M= Fst(d ) +Fct +
2 2
( ' )

h x

M = 1.702 KNm;
Gf = 209.5 N/m;
The value of fracture energy for reinforced concrete based on quasi-brittle concept using
different stress blocks are presented in Table 4.10. It shows the band of fracture energy for
low reinforcement (0.09%) is 128.2-210.1 N/m. Once again the increase in fracture energy
obtained with triangular and rectangular stress block models for cracked section of reinforced
beam specimen is ~ 63% as was observed in section 4.2. In this present example also the
adequacy of rectangular stress block model is illustrated for the estimation of fracture energy
of quasi-brittle failure.
Table 4.10 Fracture energy with quasi-brittle failure for reinforced concrete
Stress Blocks (Area of reinforcement =0.09%) Fracture Energy (N/m)
Triangular 128.22
Parabolic 210.09
Rectangular 209.50
85
Subsequently in the study the band of fracture energy for reinforcement areas of 12.7 mm2 to
157.1 mm2 (range 0.09%-1.11%) using triangular stress block is 128.22-170.4 N/m compared
to the fracture energy for plain concrete using similar approach was 124.5 N/m. It shows that
the influence of rebars in the lower percentage range of reinforcement on the fracture energy
value is negligible. The band of fracture energy for higher value of percentage of
reinforcement area is only marginally increased compared to the plain concrete due to energy
shared by reinforcement.
4.5.4 Numerical convergence using band of fracture energy

In this model, Concrete has been modelled using 8-noded plain 2D elements and the rebars
have been modelled using 3 nodded 1-D truss elements.
Before the comparative analysis using fracture energy model with experiment, the RC beam is
analysed using effective elastic approach to show the load deflection curve (Fig. 4.21) and
transfer of stress in steel after cracking (Fig. 4.22) if the concrete is treated as brittle material.
The fracture energy, Gf, is one of the important parameters, which should be carefully
determined. For this reason, the various numbers of Gf in the range of 50.0 to 400.0 N/m
(Fig.4.23-4.26) were tested in the present analysis for different reinforcement area. It was
found that value of Gf ~ 130 N/m obtained from crack band model is close to the
experimental value of 140 N/m as obtained in the experiment by Bosco et al. (1990). With
higher value of Gf peak load is over predicted (Fig. 4.23) as compared to the experimental
results for 0.09% reinforcement. For higher reinforcement of 0.29% (Fig. 4.24) the numerical
simulation with Gf ~ 130 N/m shows consistent softening behaviour. For higher Gf upto 200
N/m the softening behaviour is lost. The simulations with reinforcement of 0.712% and
1.11% (Fig. 4.25-4.26) show that the softening behaviour is lost and hardening due to
reinforcement yielding is noticed.
86
10 2
Elastoplastic approach(rebar =12.7 mm )
8
Concrete cracked
Load (KN)
6
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Figure 4.21 Load-deflection curves using Elastoplastic approach
140
120 Stress in rebar

100
Stress (MPa)
80
concrete cracked
60
40
20
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Mid-span Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.22 Rebar stress and midspan deflection using Elastoplastic approach
87
20
percentage of rebar = 0.09% Gf=50 N/m
Gf=75 N/m
16 Gf=110 N/m
Gf=130 N/m
Gf=150 N/m
12
Load (KN)
Gf=175 N/m
Gf=200 N/m
8 Experimental
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure 4.23 Load-deflection curve RC beam specimen tested by

Bosco et al. (1990) with different fracture energy value
50 Gf=50 N/m
Gf=75 N/m
percentage of rebar = 0.29%
Gf=110 N/m
40 Gf=130 N/m
Gf=150 N/m
Gf=175 N/m
Load (KN)
30 Gf=200 N/m
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Bosco et al. (1990) using different fracture energy
88
percentage of rebar =0.712%
50
Gf=50 N/m
45 Gf=75 N/m
Gf=110 N/m
40
Gf=130 N/m
35 Gf=150 N/m
Gf=175 N/m
Load (KN)
30
Gf=200 N/m
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

percentage of rebar = 1.11%

80
Gf=50 N/m
70 Gf=75 N/m
Gf=110 N/m
60 Gf=130 N/m
Gf=150 N/m
50
Load (KN)
Gf=175 N/m
Gf=200 N/m
40
Gf=250 N/m
30 Gf=400 N/m
20
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

89
4.6 Closure
This chapter presents the estimation of fracture energy using various stress block models and
crack band numerical model for plain and reinforced concrete structures. The triangular stress
block model is shown to be suitable for brittle materials. The rectangular/parabolic stress
block models are shown to be suitable for quasi-brittle materials and predict the fracture
energy in agreement with the experimental result. Mesh insensitive results are obtained with
numerical crack band model for the softening behaviour of plain and reinforced concrete
structures and its monotonic convergence is demonstrated. The consistently close comparison
of the experimental results with the crack band model serves as a guideline for numerical
simulation of RC plate and shell structures. The influence of reinforcement on the fracture
energy value of concrete was also investigated and it was shown to be insignificant.
90
Chapter 5
NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Introductory Remarks

The fracture energy model is the most popular in recent days for the finite element analysis of RC
structures because it gives mesh insensitive result. The mesh insensitive numerical results
obtained with the fracture energy model are illustrated in this investigation.
The first set of examples includes the comparative studies on mesh sensitivity of notched beam
and without notch beam based on stress-strain approach and fracture energy approach.
The second set of examples includes inelastic analysis of several plain concrete (PC) beam
specimens exhibiting different failure modes. The purpose is to demonstrate the advantages of the
three dimensional model based on fracture energy concept in detecting the failure characteristics
of PC structures.
The third set of examples includes inelastic analysis of several reinforced concrete (RC) beam
specimens exhibiting different failure modes. The purpose is to demonstrate the advantages of the
three dimensional model based on fracture energy concept in detecting the failure characteristics
of RC structures. It includes set of examples for which the parametric studies at various fracture
energy levels are carried out to validate the available experimental test results.
The last set of examples includes the structural size effect on shear strength for geometrical
similar RC members. It includes set of examples to validate the available experimental test
results.
Each section of the chapter includes concluding remarks with the set of inferences drawn that are
based on the present numerical study and overall conclusions are summarized at the end of the
chapter that gives the overall perspective of this study from the applications point of view.
5.2 Crack Analysis in Plain Concrete
The different fracture modes and crack analysis for plain concrete is presented with the fictitious
crack model and the crack band model which have been widely used for studying the fracture
behaviour of concrete structures.
5.2.1 Modes of Crack Tip Deformation

In fracture mechanics three basic modes of failure are distinguished, namely crack opening mode
(Mode I), crack sliding mode (Mode II) and crack tearing mode (Mode III), as shown in Fig. 5.1.
x
z
Mode I Mode II Mode III
Figure 5.1 Mode of crack tip deformation, opening mode (Mode I), shearing mode
(Mode II) and tearing mode (Mode III)
The basic modes are defined with respect to the geometrical separation of the crack surfaces and
can be explained by the following:
1. Opening mode (Mode I) having symmetry about the (x, y)-plane and (x, z) - plane.
2. Sliding mode (mode II) having anti-symmetry about the (x, z) - plane and symmetry about
the (x, y) - plane.
3. Tearing mode (Mode III) having anti-symmetry about the (x, y) - plane and (x, z)-plane.
The strain softening behaviour of concrete beyond the peak stress cannot be treated adequately by
the classical theory of work-hardening plasticity. In contrast of plastic phenomena, the fracturing
92
phenomena are better characterized in terms of a loading surface that depends on strains rather
than stresses. The fracture zone is identified with the development of the microcracks, which are
concentrated in a small volume close to this cross section. In this fracture process zone, stresses
are still carried over what appears to be a visible crack. Even though a discrete, visible crack was
seen to exist on the specimen, this crack was not fully formed through the specimen thickness.
Then, various nonlinear fracture mechanics theories were developed more or less in parallel.
Apart from elastoplastic fracture mechanics, two specific theories for concrete structures were
developed: cohesive crack model and crack band model.
5.2.2 Fictitious or Cohesive Crack Model (FCM)

The fictitious crack concept, which is introduced to represent the fracture zone in front of the
crack tip in a concrete structure, is based on the assumption that:
1. The fracture zone starts to develop at any point when the maximum principal stress
reaches the tensile strength.
2. The fracture zone develops perpendicular to the maximum principal stress.
3. The material in the fracture zone is partly destroyed, but is still able to transfer tensile
stress due to cohesion between the cracked surfaces. The stress is dependent on the crack
opening displacement.
In this model, the cohesive forces acting normal to both the crack surfaces replace the fracture
zone. These surfaces are not fully cracked in the real sense and are still able to transfer the tensile
stress, which are referred as the fictitious crack boundary. The intensities of these forces are
dependent on the crack opening displacement. In this FCM, the material outside the fracture zone
is assumed to behave in a linear elastic manner.
In this model, the shape of the stress-strain curve will have an influence on the final result of the
analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to approximate the curve as close as possible to the real shape.
An experimental study conducted by Petersson (1981) shows the real shape of the various
numbers of concrete specimens (Fig. 5.2). In the finite element implementation of FCM model it
is required to compute the relative displacement at an integration point to provide crack opening
displacement. The crack opening displacement is computed by multiplying the strain with the
characteristic length (lch), which is based on the element geometry. Characteristic length is the
length of the influence zone around the integration point in the case of beam and truss element,
93
this length will be equal to square root of the area in the case of shell and planar element around
the integration point and in the case of three-dimensional solid element this characteristic length
will be equal to cube root of the volume around the integration point. This definition of the
characteristic length is used because the direction of crack is unknown. Thus, if there are
elements in the model that have large aspect ratios, the model is likely to provide different results
depending on the direction of principal stress with respect to the element sides.
t /3
ucr
0.8Gf /t 3.6Gf /t
Figure 5.2 A bilinear stress-deformation curve proposed by Petersson

(1981)
5.2.3 Crack Band Model (crack with localisation limiters)

The crack band model is the special case of the cohesive crack model. The basic attributes of the
crack band model is that the given constitutive relation with strain softening must be associated
with a certain crack width hc of the crack band, which represents a reference width and is treated
as a material property. The most important feature of the crack band model is that it can
94
effectively handle the problem of mesh size sensitivity, provided that it is localised within one
element.
In the crack band model the results are almost insensitive to the choice of hc, as well as element
size (h), and in the limiting case when h tends to zero the crack band model becomes identical to
the cohesive or fictitious crack model. The only point worthy of debate is computational
effectiveness and convenience. The crack band model is used for the simulation of crack
propagation and post softening behaviour of concrete structures for the present studies.
5.2.4 Strength Based Concrete Material Model

The strength based five-parameter model has been used to model the nonlinear response of brittle
materials based on a constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of concrete, which is due to
Williams and Warnke (1974). In this simulation, a smeared crack analogy for cracking in tension
zone and a plasticity algorithm to account for the possibility of concrete crushing in compression
zone are utilised.
5.2.5 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model

The concrete damaged plasticity model uses concepts of isotropic damaged elasticity in
combination with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic behavior
of concrete. The advantages of this model over concrete smeared crack model is that it can be
used for concrete structures subjected to monotonic as well as cyclic loading under the low
confinement pressure. It consists of the combination of non-associated multi-hardening plasticity
and scalar (isotropic) damaged elasticity to describe the irreversible damage that occurs during
the fracturing process, and it allows controlling the stiffness recovery effects during cyclic load
reversals.
5.3 Mesh Sensitivity using Fracture Energy Models for Petersson

(1981) Beam
The fracture energy model has been the most popular recently for the finite element analysis of
concrete structures because it gives mesh insensitive results. An effort is made here to show the
capability of fracture energy model in comparison with stress-strain based model with the
Petersson (1981) beam. In the present study, a simply supported-notched beam under central
95
point load shown in Fig. 5.3 with the material properties tabulated in Table 5.1 has been
considered for analysis as reported in the experiment by Petersson (1981). The depth of beam (h)
is 100.0 mm,
the notch depth (a) is 10.0 mm, the width of beam (b) is 150.0 mm and length of beam (l) is 600.0
mm.
Table 5.1 Material properties of high strength concrete for notched beam Petersson (1981)
Thickness b h
a
S
Figure 5.3 Geometry representation of plain concrete beam tested
by Petersson (1981)
96
The two-dimensional 8-noded plane stress element is used for the finite element models of
notched beam as shown in Fig. 5.4 (displacement control model).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 5.4 Two-dimensional finite element model of notched beam Peterson (1981)
(e) 214 elements
97
There were five finite element models with 92, 132, 178, 196 and 214 elements analysed for the
comparative studies based on strength model and fracture energy models.
5.3.1 Strength Model

The compressive part of the stress-strain relationship is simulated with the assumption that the
state of stress is biaxial. The tensile part of the stress-strain relationship included the linear
tension stiffening effect after cracking, which are dependant on cracking strain and failure strain
definition. This crack model can represent the following capabilities.
(i) Smeared cracking where tensile failure is evaluated at each integration point of a plane
element
(ii) Orthotropic stress-strain relationship using the reduced crack normal stiffness (reduction
factor = 0.0001) and the reduced shear stiffness (reduction factor = 0.5) along the cracked
direction
(iii) Fixed initial crack direction during the solution.
(iv) Crack closing depending on strain normal to the cracked direction.
5.3.2 Features of Fracture Energy Models

Cohesive crack Model of Hillerborg (1976) with damage plasticity model and crack band model
due to Bazant et al. (1983) were used to predict the complete failure of the beam. The dilation
angle (degree) =15, flow eccentricity =0.52 and fracture energy (Gf ) = 110 N/m were used for the
present analysis.
Bazant et al. (1983), introduced the crack band theory in the analysis of a plain concrete panel,
which is the one of the simplest types of fictitious cracks models. The final equation derived for
determining the strain at which tensile stress is equal to zero ( t ) can be expressed as,
f
2G f
t f = (5.1)
b t
t 2 Da
G f = (2.72 + 0.0214 t ) Bazant et al. (1983) (5.2)
Ec
( t and Ec are in psi, Da is in inch)
98
The equation 5.1 can be successfully applied when the finite element mesh size is equal to or
smaller than 75 mm. The equation 5.2 can be used for determination of fracture energy of
concrete. The value of fracture energy obtained using above equation can be taken as the first
good estimate. The actual value of the fracture energy may be slightly different because the
above expression is the result of statistical analysis. For the present problem, the above equation
gives a Gf of 147 N/m.
The beam was observed to fail in bending in the experiment by Petersson (1981). The load and
displacement control models were used for obtaining the complete failure (Load- displacement)
curve.
Fig. 5.5-5.9 present the load-deflection curves obtained with strain based model and the two
fracture energy models; namely the cohesive crack model and the crack band model respectively.
8
92 elements
132 elements
6 178 elements
196 elements
214 elements
Load (KN)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Figure 5.5 Load deflection curve showing mesh sensitivity using strain
based approach
99
92 elements
12 132 elements
178 elements
10
196 elements
214 elements
8
Load (KN)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

crack band fracture energy model
92 elements
12
132 elements
10
178 elements
196 elements
8 214 elements
Load (KN)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Mid-span displacement (mm)

cohesive crack model approach
100
12
Stress-strain model
Crack band model
Cohesive crack model
10
Experiment
Load (KN)
4
50 100 150 200 250
No. of elements
Figure 5.8 Load vs no. of elements showing mesh insensitivity using
crack band model approach
0.25 Stress-strain model

Crack band model
Cohesive crack model
Experiment
0.20
Deflection (mm)
0.15
0.10
0.05
50 100 150 200 250
No. of elements
Figure 5.9 Deflection vs no. of elements showing mesh insensitivity

using crack band model approach
101
In Fig. 5.5, strain based approach shows a sharp peak but it underestimates the maximum load
and post-softening response shows oscillations. The crack band fracture energy model traces the
peak load (Fig.5.6) in true manner in agreement with the experimental value of 10.3 KN and
gives the true presentation of softening curve what normally one obtains in experiments. In
addition, the convergence for the fracture energy model with mesh refinement is monotonic as
noticed in the load-deflection curve in case of fracture energy crack band model compared to the
strain based approach. The cohesive crack fracture model computes the peak load in agreement
with the experimental results but the post-softening behavior is inferior compared to the crack
band model and the mesh sensitivity is noticed for refined grids with 178, 196 and 214 elements
(Fig. 5.7) in the post-softening regime, while the crack band model showed mesh insensitive
results for these three refined grids and the convergence is monotonic as shown in Fig 5.6.
Fig.5.10-5.11 presents the crack distribution at failure for coarse mesh (92 elements) and fine
mesh (214 elements). It is observed that size of mesh does not affect the pattern of failure modes
if crack band model is used for the analysis.
Figure 5.10 Crack pattern of notched beam (Coarse Mesh, 92 elements)
Figure 5.11 Crack pattern of notched beam (Fine Mesh, 214 elements)
102
Finally, we present a comparative study for the Petersson (1981) test problem of simply
supported-notched beam under central point load in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Comparative results for notched beam Petersson (1981)
Crack Band Cohesive

Strength Based Model EXPERIMENT
Model Crack Model
Ultimate load
10.04 11.51 7.95 10.05
(KN)
Deflection at
ultimate load 0.183 0.187 0.163 0.185
(mm)
The details of this problem have been described earlier along with the results of the two fracture
energy models namely the cohesive crack model and the crack band model obtained with various
mesh sizes. Here we include the additional results with elasticity model and stress-strain based
plasticity models obtained on the refined grid with 214 elements for all the cases.
Fig. 5.12 presents the analytical results using elasticity model, stress-strain based plasticity
model, cohesive crack fracture energy model with damage plasticity and crack band fracture
energy model. In this figure, the stress-strain based plasticity approach shows a sharp peak load
of 7.95 KN and it underestimates the maximum load and post-softening response shows
oscillations. The crack band fracture energy model traces the peak load of 10.04 KN accurately in
agreement with the experimental value of 10.05 KN and gives the true presentation of softening
curve as one obtains in the experiment. The cohesive crack model predicts the peak load of 11.51
kN but the results are mesh sensitive in the softening regime as was illustrated earlier in Fig 5.7.
In addition, the convergence for the crack band fracture energy model with mesh refinement is
103
monotonic (Fig 5.6) as noticed in the load-deflection curve compared to the stress-strain based
plasticity approach (Fig 5.5) and cohesive crack fracture energy models (Fig 5.7).
Elastic model
Plasticity model
14 Crack band model (ADINA)
Cohesive crack model (ABAQUS)
12
10
Load (KN)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.12 Comparison of load-deflection curve using strain based

approach and fracture energy based approach
In Fig. 5.13, it can be seen that load-deflection curve can be significantly different due to the
different beam depths. A snap back behaviour is particularly pronounced for the specimen with a
large beam depth (h =200.0 mm). The enlarged view of snap-back behaviour is presented in this
figure. That is, the load deflection curve is significantly influenced by the size of the specimen.
104
16
Depth = 100.0 mm (span/depth = 6)
14 Depth = 200.0 mm (span/depth = 6)
12
10
stress(MPa)
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
relative deflection
Figure 5.13 Size effect on load displacement curve for same geometry
5.4 Mesh Sensitivity using Fracture Energy Models for Carpinteri et

al. (1993) Beam (without notch)
In the present study, a simply supported beam under central point load shown in Fig. 5.14 with
the material properties tabulated in Table 5.3 has been considered for analysis as reported in the
experiment by Cervenka (1995). The depth of beam (h) is 200.0 mm, the width of beam (b) is
120.0 mm and length of beam (l) is 1000.0 mm.
P
L b
Figure 5.14 Geometry representation of plain concrete beam

tested by Cervenka (1995)
105
Table 5.3 Material properties of concrete beam Cervenka (1995)
The two-dimensional 8-noded plane stress element is used for the finite element models of
notched beam as shown in Fig. 5.15 (displacement control model). There were four finite element
models with 20, 80, 500, 2000 elements analysed for the comparative studies based on the
fracture energy models.
(a)
(b)
106
(c)
(d)
Figure 5.15 Two-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam Petersson (1981)
(a) 20 elements (size 100mm), (b) 80 elements (size 50mm), (c) ) 500 elements (size
20mm) and (d) 1000 elements ((size 10mm)
The beam was observed to fail in bending in the experiment by Carpinteri et al. (1993). The
displacement control models were used for obtaining the complete failure (Load- displacement)
curve including softening.
Fig. 5.16 present the load-deflection curves obtained with the crack band model. The crack band
fracture energy model traces the peak load in true manner in agreement with the experimental
value of 18.0 KN and gives the true presentation of softening curve what normally one obtains in
experiments. In addition, the convergence for the fracture energy model with mesh refinement is
monotonic as noticed in the load-deflection curve in case of fracture energy crack band model.
Fig.5.17-5.18 presents the crack distribution at failure for coarse mesh (20 elements) and fine
mesh (500 elements). It is observed that the size of mesh does not influence the peak load in the
present crack band model and is in agreement with the experimental results of Carpinteri (1993)
and the numerical results reported by Cervenka (1995). However, the softening response is
107
accurately predicted with element sizes of 100 mm (20 element grid), 50 mm (80 element grid)
and 20 mm (500 element grid). The softening response is poor for 10 mm mesh size (1000
element grid) due to use of grid size lower than the concrete aggregate size. Nevertheless, the
failure mode with crack band model is correctly simulated in all the analyses.
Fig.5.19-5.20 present the influence of the size (depth) of three point bending beam at failure for
geometrical similar members (span/depth = 5.0) It is observed that size of the member effect the
flexure strength significantly even large span to depth ratio.
24
20 elements(size 100mm)
18 1000 elements(size 10mm)
Load (KN)
12
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

crack band fracture energy based approach
Figure 5.17 Crack pattern of notched beam (Coarse Mesh, 20 elements)
108
Figure 5.18 Crack pattern of notched beam (Fine Mesh, 500 elements)
Dimensionless Load (P/bdft x10 )
3.0
Span/depth = 5.0
-1
d = 200 mm
2.5
d = 400 mm
d = 600 mm
2.0 d = 800 mm
d = 1000 mm
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-3
Dimensionless deflection (defl./d x10 )
Figure 5.19 Non-dimensional load versus deflection curve for three point
bending beam with the same geometry
109
1.0
0.8 Span/Depth= 5.0
0.6
P/bdft
0.4
0.2
0.0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Depth (mm)
Figure 5.20 Size effect on three-point bending beam at failure
5.5 Direct Tension Problem tested by Hordijk (1991)

The double edge notched specimens (Fig. 5.21) of two different lengths (specimen 1, l=125 mm;
specimen 2, l =250.0 mm) are analysed using fracture energy model. The width of specimen is
60.0 mm, the notch depth of specimen is 5 mm and thickness of specimen is 50.0 mm.
Fig.5.22-5.23 presents the crack distribution at failure for specimen 1 and specimen 2. It is
observed that crack pattern were similar to the experiment test.
D/6 P
P
D
Thickness b
D/6
8D/3
Figure 5.21 DEN-T Specimen tested by Hordijk (1991)
110
Figure 5.22 Crack distributions for Specimen 1
Figure 5.23 Crack distributions for Specimen 2
5.6 Mixed Mode Problem- Sliding Mode Failure in Schlangen (1993)

Tests
Fig. 5.24 shows the configuration of the beam. The condition of loading is nonsymmetric, which
implies that the fracture propagating from the notch will show opening as well as sliding (mixed)
modes. The length of the beam is 440 mm, depth of the beam is 100 mm and thickness of the
beam is 50 mm.
Fig. 5.24 -5.27 shows the crack path at various stages. It gives an excellent illustration of the real
behaviour of a beam subjected to shear loading. The crack band fracture energy model traces the
111
peak load of 32.5 KN in agreement with the experimental value of 34.0 KN and gives the true
presentation of crack distribution (Fig. 5.27) as obtained in the experiment.
1/11P 10/11P
Figure 5.24 Single notched shear beam for mixed mode crack propagation (First Crack
initiation at P =6.7 KN)
Figure 5.25 Single notched shear beam for mixed mode crack propagation (2nd Crack
Figure 5.26 Single notched shear beam for mixed mode crack propagation (3rd Crack
112
Figure 5.27 Single notched shear beam for mixed mode crack propagation (Crack
distribution at failure P =35.0 KN)
5.7 Analysis of Three Point Bending Notched Beam Using 2D Plane

Stress Element and 3D Solid Element Arrea et al. (1981) Test
In the present study, a simply supported notched beam test by Arrea et al. (1981) and analyzed by
Onate (1991) under central point load has been considered. The span of the beam is 2.0 m and it
is 50.0 mm in width and 200.0 mm in depth. The depth of notch of the beam is 100.0 mm. The
material properties of the beam are presented in Table 5.4. In the present finite element model,
beam has been modelled using 8-noded 2D plane stress element and 20-noded 3D solid element
as is shown in Fig. 5.28 and Fig. 5.29. All three material models (stress-strain model, cohesive
crack model and crack band model) have been used for analysis of this beam.
As mentioned above, the crack band model is the special case of the cohesive crack model and
the basic attributes of the crack band model is that the given constitutive relation with strain
softening must be associated with a certain width hc of the crack band, which represents a
reference width and is treated as a material property. The most important feature of the crack
band model is that it can effectively overcome the problem of mesh size sensitivity, provided it is
localised within one element.
113
Table 5.4 Material properties of concrete for notched beam Onate (1991)
Figure 5.28 Two-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam Arrea et al. (1981)
Figure 5.29 Three-dimensional Finite Element model of notched beam Arrea et al. (1981)
114
In the crack band model the results are almost insensitive to the choice of hc, as well as element
size (h), and in the limiting case when h tends to zero the crack band model becomes identical to
the fictitious crack model. The only point worthy of debate is computational effectiveness and
convenience. Crack band model is used for the crack propagation and post softening behaviour of
concrete. This model is defined by three parameters, Gf, t and hc. The fracture energy (Gf) =
126.0 N/m, t = 3.6 MPa and hc = 20.0 mm were taken for the present analysis as reported by
Onate (1991).
Fig. 5.30 presents the crack pattern of notched beam using 2D plane stress and 3D solid elements.
The load deformation curve in Fig. 5.31-5.33 shows identical response both with 2D plane stress
and 3D solid element models in the elastic region. However, in the post cracking regime, the 3D
solid element simulation shows better agreement with experimental results of Arrea et al. (1981)
compared to the load-deflection curve obtained using 2D plane stress elements due to the
influence of triaxiality. Further, the strength model is unable to compute the peak load accurately
and the post cracking response is widely different compared to the experimental observation as
shown in Fig 5.31. Both of these limitations have been overcome with fracture energy models as
shown in Fig 5.32-5.33.
Figure 5.30 Crack pattern of two-dimensional notched beam Arrea et al. (1981)
115
1400
plane 2D Model
3D Model
1200 Experiment
1000
Load (KN)
800
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Mid-deflection (mm)
Figure 5.31 Load deflection curve using stress-strain model
1200
1000
Plane 2D model
3D model
800 Experiment
Load (KN)
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Mid-span displacement (mm)
Figure 5.32 Load deflection curve using cohesive crack model
116
1600
1400 Plane 2D Model

3D Model
1200 Experiment
1000
Load (N) 800
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 5.33 Load deflection curve using crack band model
5.8 Crack Analysis in Reinforced Concrete

The beam shown in Fig. 5.34, which is subjected to a simple centre point load, can illustrate the
failure behaviour of concrete under transverse load. The failure pattern of the beam can be
divided into three regimes:
1. The uncracked elastic stage
2. The crack propagation stage and the yielding of steel
3. The crushing stage
Under increasing load, the behaviour of reinforced concrete can be summarized as follows. At
low load levels the beam behaves essentially as an uncracked elastic member. Vertical flexural
cracks then occur at mid-span, resulting in a redistribution of stress causing an increase in the
stresses in the steel, bond stresses and some bond slips. A further increase in load causes these
flexural cracks to spread and increase in number. If shear and diagonal tension are not critical, the
beam eventually fails by yielding of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement, or by a crushing of
the concrete in the compressive zone.
117
If the shear and diagonal tension are critical, a more complex situation develops due to the
formation of a significant diagonal tension crack. This crack activates resistance to the vertical
shear by dowel action in the main longitudinal reinforcement, by aggregate interlock along the
diagonal crack, by stresses in the vertical stirrups, as well as by resistance in the uncracked
concrete above the crack tip. A sudden increase in the longitudinal steel stress at the base of the
diagonal tension crack also occurs.
P
Reinforcement
Vertical flexural crack

Diagonal tension crack
Figure 5.34 The failure pattern of a beam subjected to

centre point load
Under further increasing load, the diagonal tension crack propagates towards the loading point
causing an increase in shear stresses, final failure may occur when shear compression at the
uncracked zone occurs under a combined stress state.
Therefore in the numerical model, the constitutive relationship, which describes the behaviour of
the concrete and reinforcement must approximately represent the real behaviour of the possible
steel-concrete interaction (Fig. 5.35).
118
(a) Pull-out (b) Crack and extension
(c) Dowel effect

(d) Spalling and splitting
Figure 5.35 The interactive effects between concrete and

reinforcement
5.9 Parametric Studies Based on Varying Percentage of

Reinforcement tested by Bosco et al. (1990)
Parametric studies have been done on the basis of different reinforcement areas. Fig. 5.36-5.37
present the load deflection curve at the notch for different reinforcement areas (low strength and
high strength concrete).
The effect of steel reinforcement over the crack opening displacement along the depth is shown
in Fig. 5.38. It is clearly shown that the introduction of the reinforcement tends to reduce the
crack opening. The crack opening displacement is compared to the beam without reinforcement
as shown in Fig. 5.38.
Fig. 5.39-5.40 present the stress and mid-span deflection curve. Post softening part of this curve
shows that concrete is not purely brittle, it has reserved strength due to plasticity after the crack
opens. Fig. 5.39 presents the comparison of stress-deflection curve for rebar. Fig. 5.40 presents
the stress vs. mid-span deflection curve at the notch. It is observed that at initial stage crack
119
develops linearly along the depth but after that it shows significant nonlinearity up to the ultimate
load.
25
Low strength concrete with rebar
20
Plain concrete
Load (KN)
15
0.145% of rebar
10
0.29% of rebar
0.436% of rebar
5
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 5.36 Load-deflection curve of RC beam for different

percentage of reinforcement
35
H igh stren gth con crete w ith reb ar
30
25
20 p lain con crete

Load (KN)
0.09% of reb ar
15
0.29% of reb ar
10 0.712% of reb ar
1.11% of reb ar
5
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
M id sp an d eflection (m m )
Figure 5.37 Load-deflection curve RC beam for different
percentage of reinforcement
120
100
90 Beam with reinforcement (12.7 mm )
2
80 Beam without reinforcement

70
Depth of beam (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Crack mouth opening Displacement (ucr/2) in mm.
Figure 5.38 CMOD along the depth of beam (mm)
600
Percentage of rebar 0.09%
500
Stress in rebar (MPa)
400
Gf=50 N/m
300 Gf=75 N/m
Gf=110 N/m
Gf=130 N/m
200 Gf=150 N/m
Gf=175 N/m
100 Gf=200 N/m
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Figure 5.39 Stress-deflection curves for rebar using different fracture energy
121
6 Gf=50 N/m
High strength concrete with rebar (0.09%) Gf=75 N/m
Longitudinal stress (MPa)
Gf=110 N/m
5
Gf=130 N/m
Gf=150 N/m
4 Gf=175 N/m
Gf=200 N/m
3
2 Gf
1
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Figure 5.40 Stress-deflection curves for concrete using different fracture energy
Fig. 5.41 to Fig. 5.50 presents crack pattern of the beam for the increasing value of fracture
energy. It was observed that effect of increasing value of fracture energy on crack pattern of the
beam is significant. The different percentage of reinforcement area was taken for above analysis.
The effect of reinforcement area on the crack pattern of the RC beam was observed.
Figure 5.41 Crack pattern of notched RC beam (0.09% rebar, Gf =50N/m)
122
123
124
5.10 Structural Size Scale Effect on the Analysis of RC member
loaded in shear tested by Walraven et al. (1994)
The load carrying capacity of reinforced concrete member is said to be structural size dependent
when its predicted ultimate strength values depend on the size of the member. Size effects have
been first reported for the case of reinforced concrete (RC) beams without stirrups, characterized
by non-flexture type of failure and widely referred to as shear modes of failure (Kani (1967)).
For the present analysis, five geometrical similar (shear span/depth =1.0) specimens namely
V711, V022, V511, V411 and V211 tested by Walraven et al. (1994) and analysed by Kotsovos
(2004). The detailed geometrical configuration, material properties and test results are given in
Table 5.5.
Fig. 5.51 presents the relative shear stress (V/bdfc ) at first crack initiation and failure versus
depth of test specimens. It is observed that the load at which crack initiated is hardly size-
dependent. The response with regard to size effect is compared with experimental results
(Walraven et al. (1994)) and analytical results obtained by Kotsovos (2004). It is observed that at
crack initiation the present model give good agreement with experimental results. However, the
final failure load response shows strong size dependence.
Table 5.5 Specimen properties and failure loads
Specimen h d Total Eff. Ast fc Vcexpt. Vcanal.. Vuexpt. Vukotsovos Vupresent.

(mm) (mm) length Length (mm2 ) (MPa) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN)
(mm) (mm)
V711 200 160 680 320 606 18.1 70 74.5 165 120 188.5
V022 400 360 1030 720 1020 19.9 125 125 270 252 310.0
V511 600 560 1380 1120 1570 19.8 150 157.5 350 360 393.75
V411 800 740 1780 1480 2040 19.4 225 226.3 365 360 418.8
V211 1000 930 2250 1860 2510 20.0 240 242.5 505 480 631.25
Fig. 5.52-5.56 shows the cracking pattern of the five test specimens at failure load. It is observed
that all specimen fails in strut action not in flexure. At early stage, all the specimens show flexure
crack distributions. However, final failure was in shear.
125
0.25
Present model
0.20 At Failure
Experiment
Kotsovos (2004)
0.15
V/bdfc
0.10
At First initiation of crack Experiment
Present model
0.05
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Depth(mm)
Figure 5.51 Relative shear stresses at initiation of crack and failure for short
members with a/d=1.0 but different absolute dimensions
Figure 5.52 Crack pattern in short shear members V711 tested by Walraven et al.
(1994) (Shear span/depth = 1.0; d=200 mm)
126
Figure 5.53 Crack pattern in short shear members V022 tested by Walraven et al
127
Figure 5.56 Crack pattern in short shear members V211 tested by Walraven et al.
128
5.11 Closure
This chapter presents the estimation of fracture energy and its parameters using numerical models
of plain and reinforced concrete structures. The advantage of fracture energy model (cohesive
crack model and crack band model) over the stress-strain model for the mesh sensitivity issue
was discussed in this chapter and monotonic convergence was illustrated with fracture energy
model. The influence of reinforcement on fracture energy value of concrete was also investigated.
The structural size effect of geometrical similar (same span to depth ratio) RC structures is
investigated and compared with experimental test results.
129
Chapter 6
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE WORK
6.1 Preliminary Remarks

In the present thesis a systematic evaluation of various numerical finite element models with
conventional stress-strain, damage and fracture energy constitutive models for inelastic behaviour
of plain and reinforced concrete structures has been made with a number of reported
experimental/numerical examples. Use of crack band fracture energy has been highlighted, which
has been shown to produce consistent mesh insensitive results in agreement with the
experimental results. It has been remarked by past researchers that the nominal fracture energy of
plain concrete should be increased for the analysis of reinforced concrete. The published
information either experimental or analytical for reinforced concrete is rather qualitative and
inconclusive. The present study proposes to estimate the fracture energy of reinforced concrete
analytically using various stress block models for cracked and uncracked sections, which has
been further supplemented with numerical simulation. The load carrying capacity of reinforced
concrete member is said to be size effect dependent when its predicted values depend on the size
of the member. The strong structural size effect of geometrical similar (same span to depth ratio)
RC structures has been reported especially when shear failure is predominant. The comparative
studies has been done using fracture energy model for various test specimens.
In the study, an attempt is made to employ the 3D failure laws to detect tensile as well as
compressive failure at sampling points where all the six stress components are realistically
computed. The ductile compressive response of the concrete is described using associated flow
theory of plasticity.
An effort is made here to simulate the experimental routine test based on recommendation of
RILEM (1985) for determination of fracture energy of concrete. The crack band and cohesive
crack fracture models along with stress-strain based conventional models are used for the
numerical simulation of experimental test results. The mesh sensitivity numerical studies for all
the models are presented and superiority of crack band model is illustrated. In reinforced
concrete the stress-displacement relationship must also represent the action of the bond between
the concrete and the rebar. In past conventionally it has been accommodated by increasing the
value of Gf based on comparison with experimental results for reinforced concrete material.
However, the present study concludes that the fracture energy value of reinforced concrete
structures does not improve significantly in the presence of reinforcement for the fracture induced
failure modes and hence it can be ignored.
It is shown through numerical simulation for the test problem of Arrea et al. (1981) that for
tracing the peak ultimate load the stress-strain based plasticity model and the fracture energy
models give identical results. Subsequently, the influence of fracture process is shown for the test
problem of Peterson (1981). The numerical results show that the both the cohesive crack and
crack band fracture energy models trace the ultimate load carrying capacity accurately as
observed in the experiment compared to the stress-strain based plasticity model. However, the
crack band model is capable of predicting the peak load in better agreement with the test results
compared to the cohesive crack model. Moreover, the post softening behaviour of the test is more
accurately predicted by the crack band model compared to the cohesive crack model. Further, the
present study concludes that the fracture energy based crack band model gives mesh insensitive
results compared to stress-strain based plasticity model and the cohesive crack fracture energy
model. Finally, it was seen that size effect and notch depth ratio influence the load deflection
curve significantly especially where tensile failure is concerned.
6.2 Concluding Remarks

1. The overall structural behaviour predicted by finite element analysis has been represented
with the help of load deflection plot at mid-span. Finite element analysis shows good
agreement with the experimental results.
2. The effect of body force on the fracture energy is difficult to estimate experimentally
(RILEM 1985). A correction factor is used to estimate the fracture energy for taking the
body force effect. A numerical model (crack band model with localisation limiters) was
used in the present study for the estimation of fracture energy including the effect of body
132
force. It has been shown that value of fracture energy obtained in present analysis was
slightly higher than that of fracture energy based on RILEM (1985).
3. It was concluded that fracture energy model traces the ultimate load carrying capacity
accurately as observed in the experiment compared to stress-strain based numerical
approach.
4. The present study concludes that the fracture energy based concrete models give mesh
insensitive results compared to stress-strain based model. The crack band model is shown
to possess superior performance with regard to mesh sensitivity, monotonic convergence
and accuracy compared to the cohesive crack model.
5. In the present study R-curve (resistance curve) approach was used for the prediction of
fracture energy value of concrete. This approach gives quite comparable with analytical
estimated fracture energy.
6. The present study concludes the load at which crack is initiated is hardly size-dependent
for geometrical similar specimens (span to depth ratio). However, the final failure load
response shows strong size dependence and it has good agreement with experimental
results. Recently, it was concluded by Kotsovos (2004) on the basis of numerical analysis
that the structural size effect for short RC members (shear span/depth <1.15) are found to
be independent or meaningless. However, the present model and experimental results
(Walraven et al. (1994)) for short members (shear span/depth =1.0) show strong structural
size dependence.
7. The present study concludes that the fracture energy value of reinforced concrete
structures does not improves significantly in the presence of reinforcement for the fracture
induced failure modes and hence it can be ignored. The present numerical fracture models
show the same response before softening compared to the experimental results but differs
slightly in the post softening region This has been demonstrated by analysis of the
problem of Bosco et al. (1990), where the fracture energy for the plain and reinforced
concrete beam specimen are shown to be ~ 130 N/m.
133
6.3 Contributions from Present Work
1. There is active research worldwide with the aim to establish the fracture and damage
theories for concrete structures. The results using these theories are still under intense
debate. The fracture energy model is the most popular in recent days for the finite element
analysis of RC structures because it gives mesh insensitive results. The experimental
value of fracture energy has been reported to be size dependent. In this debate, it is
sometimes difficult to understand whether the objections are directed against the
experimental method or against the model itself. If the size effect still remains, it is
because of the cohesive crack numerical model.
Simplified stress block models based on analytical effective elastic analysis approach
have been used in the present study for the evaluation of the peak load and the fracture
energy (Gf) of three point bend concrete beam specimens. These results are compared
with the reported experimental results and the numerical finite element analysis results
obtained with stress-strain constitutive model, the cohesive crack and crack band fracture
models and damage mechanics model. With this comparative study the suitable numerical
model using crack band fracture model is evolved, which is shown to give mesh
insensitive results and is recommended for inelastic analysis of plain and reinforced
concrete structures.
2. It has been remarked by past researchers that the nominal fracture energy of plain
concrete should be increased for the analysis of reinforced concrete. The published
information either experimental or analytical for reinforced concrete is rather qualitative
and inconclusive.
In the present study the fracture energy of reinforced concrete is estimated analytically
with effective elastic approach which is verified with the crack band numerical model.
Detail investigations of the failure modes related to concrete cracking, post cracking
softening and strain hardening due to the reinforcement yielding are carried out and the
applicable fracture energy (Gf) for the reinforced structure is suggested. The influence of
reinforcement with regard to softening is shown to be insignificant and hence it may be
concluded that for the softening simulation of reinforced concrete structures the nominal
134
fracture energy band of the plain concrete may be used as an average property of the
section. It is further shown that with higher reinforcement the failure mode changes from
concrete cracking induced softening to reinforcement yielding and strain hardening as
shown by the numerical examples in the present investigation.
3. The advantage of fracture energy model over the stress-strain model for the mesh
sensitivity issue and monotonic convergence are illustrated with fracture energy model.
The structural size effect of geometrical similar (same span to depth ratio) RC structures
is investigated and compared with experimental test results.
Further the structural size effect on nominal strength of concrete is investigated with the
single parameter of fracture energy and is shown to give consistent results obtained with
Bazant two parameter model of concrete aggregate size and the tensile strength. Test
cases of structural size effect on the fracture energy Gf are presented with the fracture
energy crack band numerical model.
4. Finally the direct and shear modes of fracture are described and tension, shear, flexure
and combination of shear and flexure concrete structure cracking examples are presented.
All these numerical case studies using the crack band fracture model are compared with
the reported experimental results to study the applicability of the proposed model.
6.4 Direction for Future Work

The size effect formulae have not yet been calibrated and verified by the available test results for
beams. An effort can be made to establish formulae based on the proposed model and it can be
introduced into it as a correction factor due to the size effect law.
In concrete, fracture develops as a result of localisation of distributed damage due to

microcracking (Crack band model). In discrete fracture models (cohesive crack model), the
damage due to distributed cracking is lumped into a line, but this is not sufficiently realistic for
all applications. The width and microcracking density distribution at the fracture front may vary
depending on structure size, shape and type of loading. Such behaviours can be captured only by
nonlocal continuum damage model, defined in which the stress at a point depends also on the
strains in the neighborhood of that point.
135
APPENDIX I
Size Effect
Size effect, a phenomenon observed by many researchers, is related to change, usually an
increase in strength that occurs when the specimen size is decreased. In the classical theories
based on plasticity or limit analysis, the strength of geometrical similar structures is independent
of the structure size. However, concrete structure or quasi-brittle materials do not follow this
trend.
For three point bending problem, based on plasticity or limit analysis,
M
The nominal stress, = ;
Z
PL
= 42
or, bd ;
3 P L
or, = (i)
2 bd d
For geometrical similar structures, span/depth ratio (L/d) will remain same. From above equation
(i), the peak load, P will be directly proportional to depth of section, d.
Based on fracture energy approach (quasi brittle failure),
Gf =
3 P
( )
2 bd

3 P PL3
Gf =
or, 2 bd bd 3
48 E
12
3
3 P2 L
Gf = (ii)
8 Eb bd d
For geometrical similar structures, span/depth ratio (L/d) will remain the same. From above
equation (ii), the peak load, P will be proportional to square root of depth of section, d.
Based on the present model, size effect equation (iii) as
1
N = CGN (iii)
d
where, CGN is material parameter which can be evaluated from experiment.
Theoretically, CGN can be evaluated as in expression (iv)

8 f
G E
CGN =
3 L 3
(iv)

d

The size effect equation which is given by Bazant (1989) is presented in equation (v).

Bf t
N =
d (v)
1 +
0 d a
Where B, 0 and d a are the material parameter which can be evaluated from experiment.
For comparative studies on the above size effect equations, a simply supported Cervenka (1995)
beam under central point load shown in Fig. 5.14 with the material properties tabulated in Table
12 has been considered for analysis as reported in the experiment by Carpinteri et al. (1993). The
138
depth of beam (h) is 200.0 mm, the width of beam (b) is 120.0 mm and length of beam (L) is
1000.0 mm.
Fig. A1 present the influence of the size (depth) of three point bending beam at failure for
geometrical similar members (span/depth = 5.0). It is observed that size of the member affect the
flexure strength significantly even large span to depth ratio.
1.0
Limit state model

0.8
Normalised stress
Bazant (1989)model
Present model
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Depth of beam
Fig. A1 Size effect representation of three point bending beam

(span/depth = 5)
139
REFERENCES
A
ADINA (2000) R & D, Inc. /K. J. Bathe. The ADINA System, version 7.4, 71 Elton Avenue,
Watermelon, MA02472, USA.
Arrea M. Ingraffea A. R. (1981). Mixed mode crack propagation in mortar and concrete, Dept.
Struct. Engg. Report, Cornell Univ., Ithaka, Newyork.
Assan, A. E. (2002). Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete cylindrical shells, Computers &
Structures, 80(27), 2177-2184.
B
Bangash, M. Y. H. (1989). Concrete and concrete structures: Numerical modelling and
applications, Elsevier Science Published Ltd., London England.
Barzegar, F. (1988). Layering of reinforced concrete membrane and plate elements in nonlinear
analysis, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. 114(11), 2474-2492.
Bazant, Z.P. (1976). Instability, ductility and size effects in strain softening, ASCE Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division, 102(2), 331-344.
Bazant, Z.P. (1984). Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, material, ASCE Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division, 110, 518-535.
Bazant, Z.P. (1985). Fracture mechanics and size effect in concrete, Japan Seminar on Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, 1, 47-69.
Bazant, Z. P. (1993). Scaling laws in mechanics of failure, ASCE J. Engg. Mech., 119 (9),
1828-1844.
Bazant, Z. P. (1997). Scaling laws in quasibrittle fracture: asymptotic analysis, Int. J. of

Fracture, 83 (1), 19-40.
Bazant, Z.P. and Oh, B. H. (1983). Crack band theory for fracture of concrete, Materials and
Structures, 16(3), 155-177.
141
Bazant Z. P. and Ozbolt J. (1990) Nonlocal microplane model for fracture damage and Size
effect in structures, Journal of Engg. Mechanics, ASCE 116, 2485-2505.
Bazant Z. P. and Frangopol, D. M. (2000). Size effect hidden in excessive dead load factor,
Report 2000-6/A423s, Department of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Illinois.
Bieniawski, Z, T. (1974). Estimating the strength of rock materials, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.,
74, 312-320.
Blanks, R. F. and McNamara, C. C. (1935). Mass concrete test in large cylinders, ACI J., 31,
280-303.
Bosco, C., Carpinteri, A. and Debernardi, P. G. (1990). Minimum reinforcement in high strength
of concrete, J. of Structural Engg., ASCE, 116, 427-437.
Buyukozturk, O. and Shareef, S. S. (1985). Constitutive Modeling of Concrete in Finite Element

Analysis, Computers and Structures, 21(3), 581-610.
Carpinteri, A., Chiaia, B. and Maradei, F. (1993). "Experimental determination of the fractal
dimension of disordered fracture surfaces", in Advanced Technology for Design and Fabrication
of Composite Materials and Structures Eds. G.C. Sih, A. Carpinteri, G. Surace, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Carpinteri, A. and Spagnoli, A. and Vantadori S. (2004). A numerical model for reinforced
concrete structures, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 42(5), 1327-1354.
Carpinteri, A. and Spagnoli, A. and Vantadori, S. (2005). Mechanical damage of ordinary or

prestressed reinforced concrete beams under cyclic bending, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
72(9), 1313-1328.
Cervenka, V. (1995). Mesh sensitivity effects in smeared finite element analysis of concrete
fracture Ed. F. H. Wittmann, ADIFICATIO, ETH, Zuric.
Contrafatto, L. and Cuomo, M. (2006). A framework of elasticplastic damaging model for

concrete under multiaxial stress states, International Journal of Plasticity, 22(12), 2272-2300.
142
Colombo, Antonella and Negro, Paolo (2005). A damage index of generalised
applicability, Engineering Structures 27(8), 1164-1174.
Cotterell, B. (1972). Brittle fracture in compression, Int. J. Fract. Mech. 8(2), 195-208.
D
Dodd, R. H., Darwin, D. and Lievengood, L. D. (1984). Stress controlled smeared cracking in
RC beams, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. 110(9), 1959-1976.
E
Elwi, A. E. and Hnudey, T. M. (1987). Finite element model curved embedded reinforcement,
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 118(7), 740-754.
G
Gilbert, R. I. And Warner, R. F. (1978). Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slab, ASCE
Journal of Structural Division. 104(12), 1885-1900.
Griffith, A. A. (1924) The theory of rupture, In Proceedings of the first International

Conference of Applied Mechanics, 55-63.
Guina, G. V., Planas, J. and Elices, M. (1994). A general bilinear fit for the softening curve of
concrete, Journal of Material and Structure, 27, 99-105.
Gonnermann, H. F. (1925). Effect of size and shape of test specimen on compressive strength of
concrete, Proc. ASTM, 25, 237-250.
Gulmberg, R. and Samuelsson, A. (1984). A general constitutive model for concrete structures,
Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Computer-Aided Analysis and Design of Concrete Structures, Part-I,
eds. Damjanic et al., 119-132.
Gupta, A. K. and Akbar, H. (1984). Cracking in reinforced concrete analysis, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 110(8), 1735-1746.
H
Hand, F. R., Pecknold, D. A. and Schnobrich, W. C. (1973). Nonlinear layered analysis of RC
plates and shells, ASCE Journal of Structural Division, 99(7), 1491-1505.
143
Hawkins, N. M. and Hjorteset, K. (1992). Minimum reinforcement requirements for concrete
flexural members, Applications of Fract. Mech. To Reinforced Concrete, ed. A. Carpinteri,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, 379-412.
Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M. and Petersson, P. E. (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements, Cement and Concrete
Res., 6, 773-782.
Hinton, E. and Owen, D. R. J. (1985). Finite element software for plates and shells, Pineridge
press Limited.
Honggun, Park and Jae-Yo, Kim (2005). Hybrid plasticity model for reinforced concrete in
cyclic shear, Engineering Structures, 27(1), 35-48.
Hordijk D. A. (1991). Local approach to fatigue of concrete, Ph.D thesis, Technical University
of Delft.
Houde, J. (1973). Study of force displacement relationship for the finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete, Report no. 73, Deptt. Of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics Mcgill
University, Montreal.
Hu, H. T. and Schnobrich, W. C. (1988). Nonlinear analysis of plane stress state reinforced
concrete under short term monotonic loading, Civil Engineering Studies Structural Research
Series, 539, University if Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
Hyuk, Chun Noh (2005). Ultimate strength of large scale reinforced concrete thin shell
structures, Thin-Walled Structures.
J
Jirasek, M. and Bazant, Z. P. (2002). Inelastic analysis of structures, John Wiles and Son Ltd.,
England.
Jirasek, M. and Zimmermann, T. (1998). Rotating crack model with transition to scalar
damage, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 124, 277-284.
Jisan, X. and Xixi, H. (1990). Size effect on the strength of a concrete member, Eng. Frac.
Mech., 35, 687-696.
144
K
Kale, S. (2000). Pseudo three-dimensional methodology for inelastic analysis of reinforced
concrete plates and shells, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay.
Karihaloo, B.L. (1995). Fracture mechanics and structural concrete, Addison Wisely Longman,
New York.
Karihaloo, B.L. Abdalla, H.M. and Xiao, Q.Z. (2005). Deterministic size effect in the strength
of cracked concrete structures, Cement and Concrete Research, 56, 597-604.
Kotsovos, M. D. and Pavlovi, M. N. (2004). Size effects in beams with small shear span-to-
depth ratios, Computers & Structures, 82(2), 143-156.
Kwak, Hyo-Gyoung and Kim, Do-Yeon (2004). Material nonlinear analysis of RC shear walls
subject to cyclic loadings, Engineering Structures, 26(10), 1423-1436.
Kwon, M. and Spacone, E. (2002). Three-dimensional finite element analyses of reinforced

concrete columns, Computers & Structures, 80(2), 199-212.
Kawakami, Makoto and Ito, Tadahiko (2003). Nonlinear finite element analysis of prestressed
concrete members using ADINA, Computers & Structures, 81(8), 727-734.
L
Lin, C. S. and Scordelis, A. C. (1975). Nonlinear analysis of rc shells of general form, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering Division. 101(3), 523-538.
M
Maekawa, K. and Hauke, B. (1998). Three dimensional R/C model with multi-directional
cracking, Computational Modeling of Concrete Structures, edited by Rene de Borst, Nenad
Bicanic, Herbert Mang and Gunther Meschek, Balkema.
Marfia, S., Rinaldi, Z. and Sacco, E. (2004). Softening behavior of reinforced concrete beams
under cyclic loading, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 41(11), 3293-3316.
Marti, P. (1989). Size Effect in Double Punch Tests on Concrete Cylinders, ACI Mater. J.,
86(6), 597-601.
145
May, I. M. and Ganaba, T. H. (1988). A full range analysis of reinforced concrete slabs using
finite elements, International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 26(4), 973-985.
Menrath, H. Haufe, A. Ramm, E. (1998). A model for composite steel-concrete structure,

Computational Modeling of Concrete Structures, edited by Rene de Borst, Nenad Bicanic,
Herbert Mang and Gunther Meschek, Balkema.
Meschek, G., Macht, J. and Lackner, R. (1998). A damage plasticity model for concrete
accounting for fracture induced anisotropy, Computational Modeling of Concrete Structures,
edited by Rene de Borst, Nenad Bicanic, Herbert Mang and Gunther Meschek, Balkema.
Milford, R. V. and Schnobrich, W. C. (1984). Nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete

cooling towers, Civil Engineering Studies Structural Research Series, 514, University if
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
Mirza M. S. and Houde, J. (1979). Study of bond stress-slip relationship in reinforced concrete,
ACI Journal Proceedings, 76(1), 19-46.
N
Nilson, A. H. (1968). Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete by finite element method, ACI
Z Journal, 65(9), 757-766.
Nilson A. H. (1972). Internal Measurement of Bond Slip, ACI journal, 69(7), 439-441.
Ngo, D. and Schordelis, A. C. (1967). Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beam, ACI
Journal, 64 (3), 152-163.
O
Onate E. (1991). Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Shells, Nonlinear Analysis of
Shells by Finite Elements, FG. Rammerstar ed., Wein.
Ottosen, N. S. (1977). A Failure criterion for concrete, ASCE Journal of Engineering

Mechanics Division, 103(4), 527-535.
Ouyang, C. and Shah, S. P. (1994). Fracture energy approach for predicting cracking of
reinforced concrete members, ACI J., 91, 69-78.
146
P
Pankaj Pankaj and Ermiao Lin (2005). Material modelling in the seismic response analysis for
the design of rc framed structures, Engineering Structures, 27(7), 1014-1023.
Petersson, P. E. (1981). Crack growth and development of fracture zones in plain concrete and
similar materials, Report TVBM-1006, Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of
Technology, Lund, Sweden.
Phillips, D. V. and Mohamed, M. S. (1987). Three dimensional nonlinear analysis of reinforced

concrete with application to torsion, Proceedings of International Conference on Computational
Plasticity-Models, Software and Applications, 2, edited by Owen, D. R. J. et al., Barcelona,
Spain.
Planas, J. and Elices, M. (1992). Shrinkage eigenstress and structural size effect, In Fracture
Mechanics of Concrete Structures, Z. P. Bazant, ed., Elsevier Applied Science, London, 939-950.
Planas, J., Elices, M. and Guinea, G. V. (1995). The extended cohesive crack, In Fracture of
Disordered Materials: Concrete, Rock and Ceramics, G. Bakker and B. L. Karhaloo, eds., E and
FN Spoon, London, 51-65.
Planas, J., Elices, M. and Guinea, G. V. (1997). Generalised size effect equation for quasibrittle
materials, Fatigue Fracture Eng. Mat. Struct., 20(5), 671-687.
Polling, R. and Kratzig, W. B. (1998). On fracture and damage theories for concrete
simulalations, Computational Modeling of Concrete Structures, edited by Rene de Borst, Nenad
Bicanic, Herbert Mang and Gunther Meschek, Balkema.
Polling, R. and Kratzig, B. W. (2004). An elsto-plastic damage model for reinforced concrete
with minimum number of material parameters, Computers & Structures 82(16), 1201-1215.
Polak, M. A. And Vecchio, F. J. (1993). Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(12), 3439-3462.
Polak, M. A. And Vecchio, F. J. (1994). Reinforced concrete shell elements subjected to

bending and membrane loads, ACI Structural Journal. 91(3), 211-226.
147
R
Rabczuk, T., J. and Eibl, J. (2005). Mechanical damage of ordinary or prestressed reinforced
concrete beams under cyclic bending, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72(9), 1313-1328.
Ramaswamy, A., Barzegar, F. And Voyiadjis, G. Z. (1994). Post cracking Analysis of RC

structures based on secant stiffness, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 120(12), 2621-
2640.
RILEM Recommendations (1985). Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete
by means of three-point bend test on notched beams, Material and Structures, 18 (106), 287-
290.
Russo, G. and Romano, F. (1992). Cracking response of reinforced concrete members subjected
to uniaxial tension, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118, 1172-1190.
S
Sabins, G. M. and Aroni, S. (1971). Size effect in material systems, in Structure, Solid
Mechanics and Engineering Design, The Proceedings of the Southhampton Civil Engineering
Materials Conference, M. Teeni, Ed., Wiley Interscience, New York, 131-142.
Sabins, G. M. and Mirza, M. S. (1979). Size effects in model concrete, ASCE J. Struct. Div.,
105(ST6), 1007-1020.
Schlangen, E. (1993). Experimental and numerical analysis of fracture process in Concrete

Ph D Thesis, Delft University of Tech, The Netherlands.
Shenglin, D. And Cheung, Y. K. (1993). Nonlinear analysis of RC shell structures using

laminated elements II, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 119 (7), 2074-2094.
Singh, R. K., Gupta, A. Kushwaha, H. S., Mahajan, S. C. and Kakodkar, A. (1993). Ultimate
load capacity assessment of Indian PHWRs Some Pre Test Results, U02/5, Smirt-12.
Singh, R. K. (2001). Material nonlinear finite element analysis of RCC structures, M.Tech.
Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.
T
Taijun, W. and Thomas, T. C. H. (2001). Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures
using new constitutive models, Computers & Structures, 79(32), 2781-2791.
148
Tran, T. X., Dorfmann, A. and Rhie, Y. B. (1998). Micromechanical modeling of cracking and
damage of concrete structures, Computational Modeling of Concrete Structures, edited by Rene
de Borst, Nenad Bicanic, Herbert Mang and Gunther Meschek, Balkema.
Trucker, J. Jr. (1941). Effect of dimensions of specimen upon precision of strength data, ASTM
Proc., 45, 592-659.
W
Waleed, A. T, Ahmed, M. M. Hamed, J. Noorzaei, M. S. Jaafar and Bayar J. Al-Silayvani (2004).
Inelastic analysis of composite sections, Computers & Structures, 82(20), 1649-1656.
Walraven, J. C., and Lehwalter, N. (1994). "Size effect in short loaded beams in shear," ACI
Structural Journal, 91(5), 585-593.
Weibull, W. (1939). A Stastical Theory of the Strength of Materials, Royal Swedish Proc., 151-
152.
William, K. J. (1974). Constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of Concrete Concrete
Structures subjected to Triaxial stresses, IABSE Report, International Association of Bridge and
Structural Engineers, Italy.
William, K. J. and Warnke E. P. (1974). Constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of
Concrete Concrete Structures subjected to Triaxial stresses, IABSE Report, International
Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers, Zuric, 19, 1-30.
Y
Yang, Z. J. and Jianfei, Chen (2005). Finite element modelling of multiple cohesive discrete
crack propagation in reinforced concrete beams, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72(14),
2280-2297.
Z
Zhao, Z. Z. Kwan, A. K. H. and He, X. G. (2004). Nonlinear finite element analysis of deep
reinforced concrete coupling beams, Engineering Structures, 26(1), 13-25.
.
149
VITA
Rajesh Kumar Singh was born in Bihar state of India on 2nd February 1973. He obtained his
Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree from National Institute of Technology (Formerly
Known as Bihar College of Engineering Patna) Patna in July, 1996 and Master of
Technology (Structural Engineering) degree from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
(IIT Bombay), Powai in January, 2001.
After completion his M. Tech, he jointed Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC),
Trombay in April, 2001. He obtained certificate for Orientation course for Nuclear
Engineering Post-graduate in September, 2001. Then he jointed Architecture and Civil
Engineering Division of Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Trombay as Scientific Officer. He
associated with mainly structural analysis & detailed design of power plant related structures,
analysis and design of nuclear and non-nuclear Facilities using in-house software and
commercial software packages, seismic re-evaluation/ rehabilitation studies of existing
nuclear facilities and necessary software development.
He registered for the doctoral programme at IIT Bombay in January, 2005 under the
supervision of Prof. Tarun Kant and Dr. R. K. Singh (HOD, CSD, BARC). His research
interests include nonlinear analysis and design of reinforced concrete structures subjected to
accidental loads. He worked on constitutive properties of structural materials and in house
software development for performance based analysis of safety related structures.

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structure With Fracture and Damage Mechanics Constitutive Models

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structure With Fracture and Damage Mechanics Constitutive Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED

CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH FRACTURE

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Rajesh Kumar Singh

Professor Tarun Kant

Department Of Civil Engineering

Thesis entitled: NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

Sr. No. Course No. Course Name Credits

1. CE 620 Finite Element Methods 6.00

2. AE 676 Laminated Plates and Shells 6.00

3. CES801 Seminar 4.00

IIT Bombay Dy. Registrar (Academic)

Rajesh Kumar Singh

LIST OF TABLES vii

1.2 Scope and Objective 2

1.3 Layout of Report 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5-22

2.2 Elasto-Plastic Models of Concrete 6

2.3 Plasticity Model of Concrete 7

2. 3.1 Recent Work on Plasticity Model 8

2.4 Fracture Model 10

2.4.1 Introduction of Fracture Mechanics in Concrete 12

2.4.2 Mechanics of Compression Fracture of Concrete 14

2.4.3 Recent Work on Fracture Model 14

2.5 Representation of Reinforcement Bars 16

2.6 Bond Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete 17

2.7 Nonassociated Flow Rule for Concrete 18

2.9 Damage Model for Concrete 19

3 NUMERICAL MODELS AND FORMULATION 23-52

3.2 Softening and Energy Concepts for Mesh insensitivity 24

3.3 Effect of Reinforcement on Fracture Energy (Gf ) 28

3.4 Analytical Effective Elastic Approach 32

3.4.1 Triangular Stress Block 32

3.4.2 Parabolic Stress Block 36

3.4.3 Rectangular Stress Block 39

3.5 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model 43

3.5.1 Mechanical Behaviour 44

3.5.2 Concrete Plasticity 44

3.5.3 Tension Stiffening 46

4 DETERMINATION OF FRACTURE ENERGY FOR

4.2 Effective Elastic Approach 53

4.2.1 Triangular Stress Block for Plain Concrete 55

4.2.2 Parabolic Stress Block for Plain Concrete 59

4.2.3 Rectangular Stress Block for Plain Concrete 62

4.3 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) for Notched Three Point

4.4 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf) using Crack Band Model 68

4.4.1 RILEM (1985) Recommendations 72

4.4.2 Numerical Convergence using Band of Fracture Energy 73

4.5 Determination of Fracture Energy (Gf ) for Reinforced Concrete 78

4.5.1 Triangular Stress Block for Reinforced Concrete 78

4.5.2 Parabolic Stress Block for Reinforced Concrete 83

4.5.3 Rectangular Stress Block for Reinforced Concrete 84

4.5.4 Numerical Convergence using Band of Fracture Energy 86

5 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 91-130

5.1 Introductory Remarks 91

5.2 Crack Analysis in Plain Concrete 92

5.2.1 Modes of Crack Tip Deformation 92

5.2.2 Fictitious or Cohesive Crack Model (FCM) 93

5.2.3 Crack Band Model (Crack with localisation limiters) 94

5.2.4 Strength Based Concrete Material Model 95

5.2.5 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model 95

5.3 Mesh Sensitiveness using Fracture Energy Models for

5.3.1 Stress-Strain Model 96

5.3.2 Features of Fracture Energy Models 98