journal article·2026-04-07

A strategy for concrete cracking simulation using high aspect ratio interface damage elements and rule-of-mixture-based equivalent properties

Lahis Assis, Michèle Farage, Flávia de Souza Bastos

Publisher page

Abstract

Capturing the influence of concrete mesostructure at the macroscale remains a significant challenge in computational modeling. This paper presents a novel methodology for simulating concrete cracking at the macroscale while considering mesoscale characteristics and overcoming the difficulties of generating computational specimens. To this end, a tensile damage model incorporating high aspect ratio interface elements via mesh fragmentation is employed to capture nonlinear behavior. The Rule of Mixture is utilized to derive effective properties. A notched square plate under uniaxial tensile loading is simulated, and the average result from five mesoscale realizations is compared with a single macroscale result, considering varying aggregate fractions and shapes. A three-point bending test and an L-shaped panel test are also performed to verify the effectiveness of the strategy under different fracture modes, and the results are compared with experimental and computational references. The findings demonstrate the efficacy of the approach in capturing mesoscale characteristics through macroscale analysis, encouraging further application to more complex analyses, such as thermomechanical or three-dimensional problems, which involve more computationally demanding aggregate arrangements in the mortar matrix.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Rock Mechanics and Modeling · Numerical methods in engineering · Concrete Properties and Behavior

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora

References (81)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.03.01210.1016/j.tafmec.2019.03.012 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2011.05.00710.1016/j.euromechsol.2011.05.007 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.03710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.037 ↗
4. American Society for Testing and Materials (2024) ASTM C31/C31M-2024 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field.
5. 10.1111/ffe.1415510.1111/ffe.14155 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.10812910.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.108129 ↗
7. Assis LS, Dal-Sasso MF, Farage MCR, et al. (2021) Numerical analysis of mechanical damage on concrete under high temperatures. Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais 15(1): 1–14.
8. Bonifácio AL (2017) Estratégia computacionalpara avaliação de propriedades mecânicas de agregado leve. Tese de doutorado Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora Juiz de Fora Brasil.
9. Bošnjak J Ožbolt J (2016) Modeling thermal strain of concrete at mesoscale. IA-FraMCoS. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21012/FC9.083.10.21012/FC9.083 ↗
10. 10.1016/0022-5096(91)90030-R10.1016/0022-5096(91)90030-R ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2004.07.00110.1016/j.ijplas.2004.07.001 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.10483210.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104832 ↗
13. 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00100-210.1016/S1359-835X(01)00100-2 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11313710.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113137 ↗
15. 10.1680/macr.1965.17.52.14210.1680/macr.1965.17.52.142 ↗
16. 10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.4710.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47 ↗
17. 10.1590/s1983-4195202300060000510.1590/s1983-41952023000600005 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.02.00710.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.02.007 ↗
19. De Sa C, Benboudjema F (2011) Modeling of concrete nonlinear mechanical behavior at high temperatures with different damage-based approaches. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions 44(8): 1411–1429.
20. 10.1007/BF0247285310.1007/BF02472853 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.10282910.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102829 ↗
22. 10.1177/105678951351602810.1177/1056789513516028 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.07.02710.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.07.027 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.10345910.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103459 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.enganabound.2017.04.00210.1016/j.enganabound.2017.04.002 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.cma.2005.01.02810.1016/j.cma.2005.01.028 ↗
27. 10.1002/nme.605810.1002/nme.6058 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.10.01910.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.10.019 ↗
29. 10.1002/9781119176817.ecm210710.1002/9781119176817.ecm2107 ↗
30. 10.1557/mrs.2016.16510.1557/mrs.2016.165 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.04.02910.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.04.029 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.00210.1016/j.jmps.2009.04.002 ↗
33. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2010)136:3(322)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2010)136:3(322) ↗
34. Greco F, Ammendolea D, Lonetti P, et al. (2021) Crack propagation under thermo-mechanical loadings based on moving mesh strategy. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 114(June): 1–20.10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103033 ↗
35. 10.1002/nag.218010.1002/nag.2180 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.cma.2023.11590110.1016/j.cma.2023.115901 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.cma.2023.11654010.1016/j.cma.2023.116540 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.10518810.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.105188 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.10527010.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105270 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.06.00910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.06.009 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.05.00210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.05.002 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.cma.2022.11555910.1016/j.cma.2022.115559 ↗
43. 10.1002/1097-0207(20010228)50:6<1269::AID-NME11>3.0.CO;2-U10.1002/1097-0207(20010228)50:6<1269::AID-NME11>3.0.CO;2-U ↗
44. 10.1590/1679-7825189010.1590/1679-78251890 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.02810.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.028 ↗
46. 10.1115/1.309083010.1115/1.3090830 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.prostr.2022.12.23310.1016/j.prostr.2022.12.233 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.01.02010.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.01.020 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.09.00510.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.09.005 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.cma.2019.11280210.1016/j.cma.2019.112802 ↗
51. Maio UD, Greco F, Leonetti L, et al. (2022) A cohesive fracture model for predicting crack spacing and crack width in reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Failure Analysis 139: 1–18.
52. 10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.12.00110.1016/j.compstruc.2011.12.001 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.12.02610.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.12.026 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.finel.2019.01.00710.1016/j.finel.2019.01.007 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.12.01810.1016/j.compositesb.2017.12.018 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.10388910.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103889 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.apples.2021.10005010.1016/j.apples.2021.100050 ↗
58. 10.1007/s40030-022-00636-210.1007/s40030-022-00636-2 ↗
59. 10.1111/ffe.1363510.1111/ffe.13635 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2016.05.00410.1016/j.ijsolstr.2016.05.004 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.cma.2017.08.04810.1016/j.cma.2017.08.048 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.cma.2019.11281310.1016/j.cma.2019.112813 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.01.01510.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.01.015 ↗
64. 10.1080/15376494.2020.177643110.1080/15376494.2020.1776431 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.10761310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107613 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.10294910.1016/j.tafmec.2021.102949 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.cma.2021.11409010.1016/j.cma.2021.114090 ↗
68. 10.1016/S0013-7944(02)00222-910.1016/S0013-7944(02)00222-9 ↗
69. 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.394610.1103/PhysRevB.54.3946 ↗
70. 10.1177/1056789521100141010.1177/10567895211001410 ↗
71. 10.1177/14644207012150020210.1177/146442070121500202 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.finel.2005.11.00810.1016/j.finel.2005.11.008 ↗
73. 10.1177/105678951990116210.1177/1056789519901162 ↗
74. 10.1177/105678950809656510.1177/1056789508096565 ↗
75. Xia Y, Wu W, Yang Y, et al. (2021.) Mesoscopic study of concrete with random aggregate model using phase field method. Construction and Building Materials 310: 1–20.
76. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.06.01910.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.06.019 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.camwa.2021.06.00410.1016/j.camwa.2021.06.004 ↗
78. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.10827010.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108270 ↗
79. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.11023410.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110234 ↗
80. 10.1016/j.tafmec.2024.10428510.1016/j.tafmec.2024.104285 ↗
81. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.04010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.040 ↗