Modulus of Rupture: Size Effect due to Fracture Initiation in Boundary Layer
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 121, Issue 4
Abstract
The modulus of rupture of concrete, which characterizes the bending strength of unreinforced beams, is known to depend on the beam size. Because there is no large stable growth of a crack before the maximum load is reached, this size effect, unlike that in many other types of failure of concrete structures, cannot be explained by energy release due to fracture. Rather, this size effect must be explained by the fact that distributed microcracking and slips with strain softening take place in the boundary layer of the beam before the maximum load is reached. The beam is considered to fail before any macroscopic cracks are formed. A simple formula describing the size effect is derived. Asymptotic analysis of the strain softening in the boundary layer shows that the excess of the modulus of rupture over the direct tensile strength is inversely proportional to the beam depth and proportional to the thickness of the boundary layer, which itself is approximately proportional to the maximum aggregate size. The proposed formula agrees with the existing experimental data quite well. The formula is further generalized to describe the effect of the gradient of normal strains near the concrete surface. Finally, it is shown that approximate analysis of the size effect by linear elastic fracture mechanics yields similar formulas. Those formulas, however, have some questionable features; for example, they indicate the size effect magnitude depends on the span-to-depth ratio of the beam, which has not been observed in experiments.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
ACI Committee 318. (1992). Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-89) (revised 1992) and Commentary—ACI 318R-89 (revised 1992) . Am. Concrete Inst. (ACI), Detroit, Mich.
2.
ACI Committee 446. (1992). “State-of-art-report on fracture mechanics of concrete: concepts, model and determination of material properties.”Fracture mechanics of concrete structure, Z. P. Bažant, ed., Elsevier Appl. Sci., New York, N.Y., 4–144.
3.
Avram, C. et al. (1981). Concrete strength and strains . Elsevier, New York, N.Y., 255–268.
4.
Bažant, Z. P.(1986). “Mechanics of distributed cracking.”Appl. Mech. Reviews ASME, 39(5), 675–705.
5.
Bažant, Z. P. (1994). “Is size effect caused by fractal nature of crack surfaces?”Rep. 94-10/C402i, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Northwestern Univ., Evanston, Ill.
6.
Bažant, Z. P., and Cedolin, L. (1991). Stability of structures: elastic, inelastic, fracture and damage theories . Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y.
7.
Bažant, Z. P., and Li, Y.-N.(1993). “Penetration through floating sea ice plate and size effect: simplified fracture analysis.”J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 120(6), 1304–1321.
8.
Fracture mechanics of concrete structure; Proc., 1st Int. Conf. (1992). Z. P. Bažant, ed., Elsevier, London, England.
9.
Hillerborg, A., Modéer, 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(6), 773–782.
10.
Kellerman, W. F.(1932). “Effect of size of specimen, size of aggregate and method of loading upon the uniformity of flexural strength tests.”Public Roads, 13(11), 177–184.
11.
Lindner, C. P., and Sprague, I. C. (1955). “Effect of depth of beams upon the modulus of rupture of plain concrete.”ASTM Proc., Vol. 55, 1062–1083.
12.
Mal'cov, W. K., and Karavaev, A. (1968). “Abhängigkeit der Festigkeit des Betons auf Zug bei Biegung und ausmittiger Belastung von den Querschnittsabmessungen.”Wissenschaftlihe Zeitschrift der Technischen Universität, Dresden, Germany, Vol. 6, 1545–1547 (in German).
13.
Mayer, H. (1967). “Die Berechnung der Durchbiegung von Stahlbetonbauteilen.”Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Vol. 194, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany (in German).
14.
Nielsen, K. E. C. (1954). “Effect of various factors on the flexural strength of concrete test beams.”Mag. of Concrete Res., 15(Mar.), 105–114.
15.
Planas, J., Elices, M., and Guinea, G. V.(1993). “Cohesive cracks vs. nonlocal models: closing the gap.”Int. J. Fracture, 63(2), 173–188.
16.
Reagel, F. V., and Willis, T. F.(1931). “The effect of dimensions of test specimens on the flexural strength of concrete.”Public Roads, 12(2), 37–46.
17.
Tada, H., Paris, P., and Irwin, G. (1985). The stress analysis of cracks handbook, 2nd Ed., Paris Productions Inc., Missouri.
18.
Walker, S., and Bloem, D. L. (1957). “Studies of flexural strength of concrete—part 3: effects of variations in testing procedures.”ASTM Proc., Vol. 57, 1122–1139.
19.
Wright, P. J. F., and Garwood, F. (1952). “The effect of the method of test on the flexural strength of concrete.”Mag. of Concrete Res., 11(Oct.), 67–76.
20.
Zhu, Y. (1990). “The flexural strength for concrete beams without initial cracks.”Proc., 8th European Congress of Fracture: Fracture Behavior and Design of Mat. and Struct., Vol. 2, D. Firrao, ed., Chameleon Press, Ltd., London, England, 599–604.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 121 • Issue 4 • April 1995
Pages: 739 - 746
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Apr 1, 1995
Published in print: Apr 1995
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.