Spatially random modulus and tensile strength: Contribution to variability of strain, damage, and fracture in concrete
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper explores the computational modeling of nonlocal strain, damage, and fracture in concrete, considering the isolated contribution of two random, spatially variable properties related to the fracture process: Young’s modulus (E) and tensile strength (f t ). Applying a continuum damage model, heterogeneous specimens of concrete with random and spatially varying E or f t were found to produce substantial differences when contrasted with traditional homogeneous (non-random) specimens. These differences include variable and uncertain strain and damage, wandering of the failure paths, and differing (sometimes lower) peak forces, i.e. increased probabilities of failure in the heterogeneous specimens. It is found that f t variability contributes more (from 1.7 to up to 4 times more, depending on the parameter) to the overall performance variability of the concrete than E variability, which has a comparatively lower contribution. Performance is evaluated using (1) force-displacement response, (2) individual, average, and standard deviation maps of non-local strain and damage, (3) fracture paths and strain and damage values along the fractures. The modeling methodology is illustrated for two specimen geometries: a square plate with a circular hole, and an L-shaped plate. The computational results correlate well with reported experimental data of fracture in concrete specimens.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Numerical methods in engineering · Rock Mechanics and Modeling · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Aalto, Finland
References (47)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.12989/sem.2012.43.6.82310.12989/sem.2012.43.6.823 ↗
2. Ambati M · Computational Mechanics · 2014 · 55
3. 10.1007/s00466-015-1151-410.1007/s00466-015-1151-4 ↗
4. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1994)120:3(593)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1994)120:3(593) ↗
5. 10.1080/10298436.2016.114983910.1080/10298436.2016.1149839 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.10586710.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105867 ↗
7. 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.000150510.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001505 ↗
8. 10.1177/105678951772850110.1177/1056789517728501 ↗
9. 10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00066-X10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00066-X ↗
10. 10.1016/0045-7949(94)00501-S10.1016/0045-7949(94)00501-S ↗
11. 10.1177/105678951878702510.1177/1056789518787025 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.01.00410.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.01.004 ↗
13. 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00245.x10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00245.x ↗
14. 10.1016/j.cma.2015.11.01810.1016/j.cma.2015.11.018 ↗
15. 10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-910.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9 ↗
16. 10.1002/nme.257910.1002/nme.2579 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.08.01210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.08.012 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.07.03010.1016/j.commatsci.2008.07.030 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.02.00810.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.02.008 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2017.11.00410.1016/j.mechmat.2017.11.004 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.10224610.1016/j.tafmec.2019.102246 ↗
22. 10.1115/1.401154710.1115/1.4011547 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.07.00410.1016/j.jrmge.2019.07.004 ↗
24. 10.1016/S0045-7825(99)00213-310.1016/S0045-7825(99)00213-3 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jmps.2019.10373210.1016/j.jmps.2019.103732 ↗
26. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:2(345)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:2(345) ↗
27. 10.1016/j.cma.2006.11.01610.1016/j.cma.2006.11.016 ↗
28. 10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X ↗
29. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990910)46:1<131::AID-NME726>3.0.CO;2-J10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990910)46:1<131::AID-NME726>3.0.CO;2-J ↗
30. 10.1002/nme.639710.1002/nme.6397 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.cma.2017.09.01910.1016/j.cma.2017.09.019 ↗
32. 10.1115/1.402311010.1115/1.4023110 ↗
33. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19961015)39:19<3391::AID-NME7>3.0.CO;2-D10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19961015)39:19<3391::AID-NME7>3.0.CO;2-D ↗
34. 10.1002/nag.36710.1002/nag.367 ↗
35. 10.1002/nme.536410.1002/nme.5364 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11918410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119184 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jmps.2017.10.01510.1016/j.jmps.2017.10.015 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.00910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.009 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.09.02010.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.09.020 ↗
40. 10.1177/105678951769091510.1177/1056789517690915 ↗
41. 10.1007/s10704-011-9658-y10.1007/s10704-011-9658-y ↗
42. Vanmarcke E · 1983
43. 10.1002/nme.315010.1002/nme.3150 ↗
44. Winkler BJ (2001) Traglastuntersuchungen Von Unbewehrten Und Bewehrten Betonstrukturen Auf Der Grundlage Eines Objektiven Werkstoffgesetzes Für Beton. PhD Thesis (in German), Innsbruck University, Austria.
45. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.10.00110.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.10.001 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.03.01410.1016/j.cemconres.2017.03.014 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.06110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.061 ↗