Critical comparison of the boundary effect model with cohesive crack model and size effect law

Christian Carloni, Gianluca Cusatis, Marco Salviato, Jia Liang Le, Christian Hoover, Zdeněk P. Bažant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

For several decades it has been clear that the size effect on structural strength, exhibiting a major non-statistical component, is a quintessential property of all quasibrittle materials. However, progress in design codes and practice for these materials has been retarded by protracted controversies about the proper mathematical form and justification of the size effect law (SEL). A fresh exception is the American Concrete Institute which, in 2019, becomes the first concrete code-making society to adopt the SEL based on quasibrittle fracture mechanics. This article begins by discussing several long-running controversies that have recently abated, and then focuses critically on the so-called Boundary Effect Model (BEM), promoted for concrete relentlessly for two decades, in ever-changing versions, by Xiaozhi Hu et al. The BEM is here compared to the quasibrittle SEL based on asymptotic matching. Its errors, weaknesses and inconsistencies are identified—including incorrect large- and small-size asymptotic size effects, conflicts with broad-range comprehensive test data and with the cohesive crack model, incorrect aggregate-size dependence of strength, illogical dependence on ligament stress profile, inability to capture the statistical part of size effect at large sizes, simplistic effect of boundary proximity, and lack of distinction between Type 1 and 2 size effects. In contrast to the SEL, the BEM is not applicable to mixed and shear fracture modes and to complex geometries of engineering structures, and is not transplantable from concrete to other quasibrittle materials. The purpose of this critique is to help crystallize a consensus about the proper size effect formulation, not only for concrete structures but also, and mainly, for other quasibrittle materials and structures, including airframes made of fiber composites, ceramic components and micrometer-scale devices, and for failure assessments of sea ice, rock, stiff soils, bone, and various bio- or bio-mimetic materials, for all of which the non-statistical size effect is yet to be widely accepted in practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-210
Number of pages18
JournalEngineering Fracture Mechanics
Volume215
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 15 2019

Fingerprint

Concretes
Cracks
Biomimetic materials
Sea ice
Airframes
Ligaments
Fracture mechanics
Concrete construction
Bone
Rocks
Soils
Geometry
Fibers
Composite materials

Keywords

  • Analysis of experimental data
  • Concrete structures
  • Design codes
  • Energetic size effect
  • Fracture mechanics
  • Quasibrittle materials
  • Size effect justification
  • Size effect law
  • Statistical size effect

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Materials Science(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials
  • Mechanical Engineering

Cite this

Critical comparison of the boundary effect model with cohesive crack model and size effect law. / Carloni, Christian; Cusatis, Gianluca; Salviato, Marco; Le, Jia Liang; Hoover, Christian; Bažant, Zdeněk P.

In: Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 215, 15.06.2019, p. 193-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carloni, Christian ; Cusatis, Gianluca ; Salviato, Marco ; Le, Jia Liang ; Hoover, Christian ; Bažant, Zdeněk P. / Critical comparison of the boundary effect model with cohesive crack model and size effect law. In: Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 2019 ; Vol. 215. pp. 193-210.
@article{c45faa1966704d11a6e2f31fe97f072b,
title = "Critical comparison of the boundary effect model with cohesive crack model and size effect law",
abstract = "For several decades it has been clear that the size effect on structural strength, exhibiting a major non-statistical component, is a quintessential property of all quasibrittle materials. However, progress in design codes and practice for these materials has been retarded by protracted controversies about the proper mathematical form and justification of the size effect law (SEL). A fresh exception is the American Concrete Institute which, in 2019, becomes the first concrete code-making society to adopt the SEL based on quasibrittle fracture mechanics. This article begins by discussing several long-running controversies that have recently abated, and then focuses critically on the so-called Boundary Effect Model (BEM), promoted for concrete relentlessly for two decades, in ever-changing versions, by Xiaozhi Hu et al. The BEM is here compared to the quasibrittle SEL based on asymptotic matching. Its errors, weaknesses and inconsistencies are identified—including incorrect large- and small-size asymptotic size effects, conflicts with broad-range comprehensive test data and with the cohesive crack model, incorrect aggregate-size dependence of strength, illogical dependence on ligament stress profile, inability to capture the statistical part of size effect at large sizes, simplistic effect of boundary proximity, and lack of distinction between Type 1 and 2 size effects. In contrast to the SEL, the BEM is not applicable to mixed and shear fracture modes and to complex geometries of engineering structures, and is not transplantable from concrete to other quasibrittle materials. The purpose of this critique is to help crystallize a consensus about the proper size effect formulation, not only for concrete structures but also, and mainly, for other quasibrittle materials and structures, including airframes made of fiber composites, ceramic components and micrometer-scale devices, and for failure assessments of sea ice, rock, stiff soils, bone, and various bio- or bio-mimetic materials, for all of which the non-statistical size effect is yet to be widely accepted in practice.",
keywords = "Analysis of experimental data, Concrete structures, Design codes, Energetic size effect, Fracture mechanics, Quasibrittle materials, Size effect justification, Size effect law, Statistical size effect",
author = "Christian Carloni and Gianluca Cusatis and Marco Salviato and Le, {Jia Liang} and Christian Hoover and Bažant, {Zdeněk P.}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.04.036",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "215",
pages = "193--210",
journal = "Engineering Fracture Mechanics",
issn = "0013-7944",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critical comparison of the boundary effect model with cohesive crack model and size effect law

AU - Carloni, Christian

AU - Cusatis, Gianluca

AU - Salviato, Marco

AU - Le, Jia Liang

AU - Hoover, Christian

AU - Bažant, Zdeněk P.

PY - 2019/6/15

Y1 - 2019/6/15

N2 - For several decades it has been clear that the size effect on structural strength, exhibiting a major non-statistical component, is a quintessential property of all quasibrittle materials. However, progress in design codes and practice for these materials has been retarded by protracted controversies about the proper mathematical form and justification of the size effect law (SEL). A fresh exception is the American Concrete Institute which, in 2019, becomes the first concrete code-making society to adopt the SEL based on quasibrittle fracture mechanics. This article begins by discussing several long-running controversies that have recently abated, and then focuses critically on the so-called Boundary Effect Model (BEM), promoted for concrete relentlessly for two decades, in ever-changing versions, by Xiaozhi Hu et al. The BEM is here compared to the quasibrittle SEL based on asymptotic matching. Its errors, weaknesses and inconsistencies are identified—including incorrect large- and small-size asymptotic size effects, conflicts with broad-range comprehensive test data and with the cohesive crack model, incorrect aggregate-size dependence of strength, illogical dependence on ligament stress profile, inability to capture the statistical part of size effect at large sizes, simplistic effect of boundary proximity, and lack of distinction between Type 1 and 2 size effects. In contrast to the SEL, the BEM is not applicable to mixed and shear fracture modes and to complex geometries of engineering structures, and is not transplantable from concrete to other quasibrittle materials. The purpose of this critique is to help crystallize a consensus about the proper size effect formulation, not only for concrete structures but also, and mainly, for other quasibrittle materials and structures, including airframes made of fiber composites, ceramic components and micrometer-scale devices, and for failure assessments of sea ice, rock, stiff soils, bone, and various bio- or bio-mimetic materials, for all of which the non-statistical size effect is yet to be widely accepted in practice.

AB - For several decades it has been clear that the size effect on structural strength, exhibiting a major non-statistical component, is a quintessential property of all quasibrittle materials. However, progress in design codes and practice for these materials has been retarded by protracted controversies about the proper mathematical form and justification of the size effect law (SEL). A fresh exception is the American Concrete Institute which, in 2019, becomes the first concrete code-making society to adopt the SEL based on quasibrittle fracture mechanics. This article begins by discussing several long-running controversies that have recently abated, and then focuses critically on the so-called Boundary Effect Model (BEM), promoted for concrete relentlessly for two decades, in ever-changing versions, by Xiaozhi Hu et al. The BEM is here compared to the quasibrittle SEL based on asymptotic matching. Its errors, weaknesses and inconsistencies are identified—including incorrect large- and small-size asymptotic size effects, conflicts with broad-range comprehensive test data and with the cohesive crack model, incorrect aggregate-size dependence of strength, illogical dependence on ligament stress profile, inability to capture the statistical part of size effect at large sizes, simplistic effect of boundary proximity, and lack of distinction between Type 1 and 2 size effects. In contrast to the SEL, the BEM is not applicable to mixed and shear fracture modes and to complex geometries of engineering structures, and is not transplantable from concrete to other quasibrittle materials. The purpose of this critique is to help crystallize a consensus about the proper size effect formulation, not only for concrete structures but also, and mainly, for other quasibrittle materials and structures, including airframes made of fiber composites, ceramic components and micrometer-scale devices, and for failure assessments of sea ice, rock, stiff soils, bone, and various bio- or bio-mimetic materials, for all of which the non-statistical size effect is yet to be widely accepted in practice.

KW - Analysis of experimental data

KW - Concrete structures

KW - Design codes

KW - Energetic size effect

KW - Fracture mechanics

KW - Quasibrittle materials

KW - Size effect justification

KW - Size effect law

KW - Statistical size effect

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065607223&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065607223&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.04.036

DO - 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.04.036

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85065607223

VL - 215

SP - 193

EP - 210

JO - Engineering Fracture Mechanics

JF - Engineering Fracture Mechanics

SN - 0013-7944

ER -