Eng~fer~g Fracture Mechanics Vol. 35, No. l/2/3, pp. 3-14, 1990 ~13-7~/~ $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press pk.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR DETERMINING

FRACTURE PROCESS ZONE AND FRACTURE
PARAMETERS
S. P. SHAH
NSF Science & Technology, Center for Advanced Cement-Based Materials,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, U.S.A.

Abstract-For quasi-brittle materials like concrete, rock and ceramic it is not possible to determine
fracture toughness using laboratory-sized specimens and linear elastic fracture mechanics. This
inapplicability of the conventional fracture mechanics is due to fracture process zone, R-curve type
of behavior and precritical stable crack growth. In this keynote paper, a two-parameter fracture
model developed at Northwestern University is described. The model is based on observations of
fracture processes using laser holography as well as acoustic emission measurements.

EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF FRACTURE PARAMETERS

IN ORDER to apply fracture mechanics, accurate experimental determination of the fracture

parameters is very important. Most of the fracture parameters are determined in the laboratories
and the tested specimen sizes are usually relatively smaller than the actual structure scale. Thus,
the experimentally obtained fracture parameters and the associated fracture mechanics models
should be able to reflect the mechanical response of the real structures. Therefore, a good fracture
parameter should be independent of the specimens sizes. Unfortunately, most of the proposed
fracture parameters for concrete are dependent on specimen sizes, The reasons for the size-
dependency of these conventional fracture parameters will be discussed and a method to determine
the size-independent fracture parameters will be proposed.

Critical stress intensity factor K,‘.

The critical stress intensity factor in mode I is usually determined from the measured peak
load, the initial notch length and the associated specimen configuration. The critical stress intensity
factor calculated without considering stable crack growth is defined as conventional criticai stress
intensity factor (&). Compact tension (CT), three-point bend (TPB), four-point bend (FPB) and
double cantilever beam tests are commonly used as concrete fracture toughness tests. Results of
conventional critical stress intensity factor (R,,) have been reported by several investigators. Most
of the results revealed that the conventional critical stress intensity factors are dependent on the
specimens sizes (Fig. 1). It was thus concluded that the conventional critical stress intensity factor
(&) cannot be treated as a material property. The major reason that causes the experimentally
observed size-effect is the stable (or precritical) crack growth that occurs prior to the peak load.
Formation of the stable crack growth is due to formation of microcracks, crack arresting, kinking
and linking mechanisms of macrocracks. To accurately determine the critical stress intensity factor,
the stable crack growth has to be added to the initially imposed notch length. Methods to account
for the stable crack growth will be detailed later.

Critical strain energy release rate, G,,

The strain energy release rate (G) is defined as the energy required to generate a unit crack
surface. The critical strain energy release rate (G,,) can be expressed in terms of the critical stress
intensity factor (Xi,,) as

Since G,, is closely related to K,,, the size-dependency of G,, is essentially the same as that of K,,.
 s. P. SHAH

1000, I
0.8 . Experimental results
Corpinteri (1981 I
- 0.8

800 --
l\
/ l
A. :
-0.6 :
_;
6 600 - J'
/’ E

P !il
,a
"
I
ti G
b-5.9‘f‘ n- -%@ - 0.4
400- -- ,

I 2ooO_10-/o.2 0.6
0.2 0.4 06 0.8 Notch-depth rcitio (a,/bf

(al $L (b)

Fig. 1. Theoretical prediction and experimental results of size effect on conventional K,, of TPB
specimens.

Fracture energy, G,
The fracture energy has similar physical meaning as the critical strain energy release rate.
However, unlike the determination of G,, which is directly related to the peak load, the fracture
energy is determined from the work to break a specimen into two halves. Ideal values of Gr should
be calculated using direct uniaxial tensile tests. Due to the difficulties incurred in performing the
direct uniaxial tensile tests (i.e. prevention of eccentricity and prediction of the failure location etc.),
a three-point bend notched beam test was proposed[ l] to calculate the fracture energy. By recording
the complete (from zero load to zero load) load-load line deflection curve in a stable 3-PB notched
beam test, the fracture energy can be calculated.
Based on the proposal[l], Gr values have been experimentally determined by several
laboratories[2-4]. The Gr values were reported to be dependent on specimen sizes. For the same
notch-depth ratio (which is proposed to be 0.5), larger specimen sizes always yields higher values
of GF. For the specimens of the same size with different notch-depth ratios, lower notch-depth
ratios give higher Gr values, The size-dependency of GF has been attributed to the settlement of
support and energy contributed from tne noncritical sections.

Critical Jzaw size

In order to utilize the Griffith criterion, the critical flaw size (i.e. the actual crack size at the
critical/peak load also called effective crack length) is always implicity assumed for untracked
specimens and neglected for notched specimens. Accurate determination of the critical flaw size
(or critical crack extension) is as important as the determination of critical strain energy release
rate or critical stress intensity factor. However, maybe due to the complexity of crack formation
in concrete and the size-effect on the conventional critical stress intensity factor (Kr,,), very few
studies have been done on the critical crack extension. As discussed earlier, accurate determination
of the fracture parameter should account for the stable crack growth occurring prior to peak load.
Thus, the determination of the critical flaw size (or critical crack extension) will enhance the
accuracy in determining the critical stress intensity factor.

~rificui crack Qpening misplacement, CTOD,

It has been reported that the critical crack tip opening displacement at the original notch tip
(CTOD,) may be used as fracture parameter for ductile materials like metal. The CTOD for
ductile materials mainly results from the blunting effect of sharp crack/notch due to the large
plastic deformation. For brittle materials like concrete, the formation mechanism of CTOD
 Fracture process zone and fracture parameters

Transducers

/ \

\A/ .-scurc*

I\ Test specimen Oscilloscape screen

Fig. 2. Explanatory diagram to show the difference in arrival times at four transducers.

is completely different from ductile materials due to lack of large plastic deformation. Since
different fracture mechanisms are involved, the conventional methods proposed to measure the
CTOD, values for metal are not applicable to concrete. The CTOD of concrete is mainly due to
the formation of stable crack growth. Thus, it is expected that the CTOD, can be related with the
critical crack extension.

MEASUREMENT OF FRACTURE PROCESS ZONE

To study the fracture processes at the microscopic level, two noninvasive techniques are
currently being studied at Northwestern University. These two techniques are acoustic emission
source location and identification methods and laser holography. Some pertinent results from these
studies are described in this section. The details of these techniques are described in Refs [5-71.

Acoustic emission (AE)

Acoustic emissions are microseismic activities originating from within the test specimen when
subjected to an external loading. Acoustic emissions are caused by local disturbances such as
microcracking, dislocation movement, intergranular friction, etc. An acoustic signal travels to 4
piezoelectric transducers (Fig. 2) which convert the acoustic signals (mechanical wave forms) to
electric signals. The electric signals are captured by a digital oscilloscope. The time of arrival of
the signal at each transducer depends on the distance of the transducer from the AE source. The
source, frequency and amplitude of the AE events have been used to quantify the nature of
microfracture in various materials. AE source are determined by calculating the difference in time
taken for the wave to arrive at the different transducers. Velocity of the waves in the specimen was

Loading grips

Extensometer

Disk
storoge
,I
I
I
Fig. 3. Acoustic emission monitoring set-up.
 S. P. SHAH

800

(a)

o.ooas” 0 .oo I” (.+(-Jo

AE source locotlons during loading stage I.

Effective cra;k tip at peok load

Loading stage 2

Loading stage 3

Fig. 5. Microscopically observed crack lengths, acoustic emission source locations and effective
crack lengths (Ref. 5).

determined by an ultrasonic system. To find the rate of AE events, the oscilloscope is connected
to an IBM-AT by a GPIB (IEEE 488) interface bus[5].
The Acoustic emission set-up is shown in Figs 3 and 4. Four transducers (PZTSA, Dunnegan
Corp Type MtOOD] were attached to the specimen with methyl cyanacrylate adhesive. The AE
signals from the four transducers were amplified by a 70 dB bandpass filter (120 kHz-1.2 MHz].
The signals were digitized and stored on diskettes which were used for future analysis. The first
arrival of the P waves at each transducer was found and the difference in arrival times of the AE
signal at the 4 transducers was used to locate the source of the AE signals. Nicolet digital
oscilloscope with sampling rate of 2 MHz was used. A least squares iteration program{81 was used
for source location. To count the number of AE events, the oscilloscope trigger used to send a
message to the IBM-AT by a GPIB bus. Each time an AE event occurred, the oscilloscope triggered
and the GPIB message updated the count on the IBM-AT.
Some typical results from the AE source location studies are shown in Fig. 5. Single-edged-
notched specimens of mortar were tested in a closed-loop testing machine. The crack mouth
opening displacement (CMOD) was used as a feedback control. In Fig. 5, load vs CMOD curves
 Fracture process zone and fracture parameters

Fig. 4. Set-up for acoustic emission testing for tension.

 S. P. SHAH

Fig. 6. Set-up for holographic interferometry on vibration isolation table.

 Fracture process zone and fracture parameters 9

Crack length a bntn)

-60

-70 I I -16
0 I 2 3

Crack length a (inches)

Fig. 7. Sample crack profiles at various loading stages (Ref. 7).

of a specimen is given. The location of AE events observed during the different stages of
load-CMOD response are also given along with microscopically observed surface crack length. The
following conclusions can be summarized from the study:
1. Microcracking localizes before peak load and the microcrack cluster progresses forward
with increasing CMOD.
2. Few events occur ahead of the microscopically observed crack tip but events continue to
occur far behind the crack tip indicating closing pressure due to ligament connection,
3. Rate of AE events reach a maximum immediately after peak load.
4. Effective crack length estimated from the modified LEFM approach (to be described later)
is consistent with optical and AE measurements.

Laser holography
The optical arrangement for obtaining split-beam transmission (Lieth-Upatniks) hologram is
shown in Fig. 6. A hologram is produced as a result of the interference of the object beam and
the reference beam. When two holograms of the object at two levels of loading are superimposed
(sandwich holograms), fringes are observed. The number of fringes give the displacement along
the sensitivity vector. With this arrangement we can observe crack profile as the crack propagates
with an increase in load with an accuracy of about l/2 micron.
Sample crack profiles for a (center cracked plate) mortar specimen are shown in Fig. 7. Note
that the radius of the loading hole was l/2 in. and the length of the notch was 7/8 in. It can be
observed that the crack tip opening displacements will sometimes increase over several load
intervals before the crack propagates. A plot of CTOD of the former crack tip just after
propagation is shown in Fig. 8. On the same plot, critical crack opening displacement calculated
from the notched beam test (this will be defined later) by Jenq and Shah is also shown. Although
the holographic measurements show a considerable scatter, the idea of critical crack tip opening
displacement appears correct from these data.

A NONLINEAR FRACTURE MODEL

Acoustic emission measurements reveal a substantial energy consumption behind the optically
observed crack tip. Crack profiles observed using laser holography indicate pinching of crack tip
as compared to an elastic crack profile. These and other observations indicate that a single fracture
parameter may not be sufficient to describe fracture processes occurring in these laboratory sized
 S. P. SHAH

Crack length a (mm)

75
60:

50 -

40 -
-------------_-___ *-----
----__----
Jenq ond Shoh [S] + ;-*-----
0
Notched beam test
210
30 - 0
0 a

20 -

+ 0 O 06 0
IO -

d
0 I 2 3’

Crack length a (inches)

Fig. 8. Crack opening displacement (COD) of former crack tip just after propagation.

specimens. Several nonlinear fracture models have been proposed to account for the nonlinear
fracture process zone. A model proposed by Jenq and Shah is briefly described in this paper.

Generalized fracture mechanics model for concrete

For the two-dimensional case of a crack subjected to shear and normal tractions, which may
be generated through air-bridging or aggregate-interlock effects, with nonzero stress intensity
factors at the crack tip and assuming linear elasticity, the strain energy reIease rate, G, can be
pressed as
CTOD CTSD
:I
G=$+$+ cr(w)dw + z(s) ds (2)
s0 s 0

where
K, = net stress intensity factor for mode I
K,, = net stress intensity factor for mode II
a(w) = tensile traction acting on the crack surface
CTOD = crack tip opening displacement
T(S) = shear traction acting on the crack surface
CTSD = crack tip sliding displacement.

In the present derivation, the energy is assumed to dissipate along the crack. Equation (1)
includes most of the basic fracture parameter (i.e. Ki, K,, , CTOD, CTSD) that might be involved
in a general failure condition. In eq. (I), the shear traction (r) is a function of the sliding
displacement, friction coefficient (p) and possibly, crack opening displacement. The effect of the
shear traction to the structural system is similar to the slip type of plastic deformation in metal.
Therefore, the contribution of energy by shear traction will not be conservative and the global
mechanical behavior may not be predicted just based on energy criteria if the shear traction is not
negligible.
It should be noted that if no tractions exist along the crack surface, the eq. (2) will reduce
to the Griffith crack, i.e.

K2 K2
- -
G-J-_-!+” (3)
E’ E”
 Fracture process zone and fracture parameters 11

Pre-critical crack growth

i CMOD. A CMOD

Fig. 9. Explanation of the terms used in the two parameter fracture model of concrete (Ref. 13).

However, if one assumed that there will be no stress concentration (K, and K,, are equal to zero),
then, Dugdale-Barenblatt type of model will results, i.e.
CTOD CTSD
G=J= CT(W) dw t(S) ds.
+ (4)
s0 s 0

The original idea of the tractions is attributed to the atomic type of force in
Dugdale-Barenblatt model which is not obtained from the global uniaxial stress-strain or
stress-separation relationships.
For fiber reinforced concrete, eq. (2) can be used as an approximate solution of the energy
consumption and the tractions due to the fiber pullout and sliding can be determined from fiber
pullout test. Detailed application of fracture mechanics to steel fiber reinforced concrete is given
in [9].
To examine the validity of eq. (2) and the associated fracture parameters, we first wanted to
simplify the studied problems so that the influence of normal and shear tractions are minimized.
The simplest fracture problem of this type is encountered in mode I failure of plain concrete. Only
two fracture parameters are involved if the tractions along the crack surface are assumed to be
negligible. These two fracture parameters are the critical stress intensity factor (Ki,) and the critical
crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) (Fig. 9) which is used to quantify the stable crack growth
prior to peak load.

A TWO PARAMETER FRACTURE MODEL

The extent of stable precritical crack growth (Stage II in Fig. 9) can be substantial for concrete.
It has been observed that when the critical stress intensity factor, K,,, is calculated ignoring this
precritical crack growth (i.e. initial notch length, u,,, is used in evaluation of K,,, the value of
fracture toughness (K,,) depends on the geometry and dimensions of specimens[ll, 121.
An effective Griffith crack model has been proposed to incorporate the precritical crack
growth[ 10-l 31. It is assumed that a crack of initial length a, will critically propagate when the stress
intensity factor at the tip of the effective crack a reaches the critical value Ki, (the superscript s
denotes consideration of stable precritical crack growth). The effective crack a is defined such that
the crack tip opening displacement at the tip of the original crack a, reaches a critical value CTOD,
12 S. P. SHAH

(Fig. 9). One can determine these parameters from pertinent linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM) equations and from the measured values of initial compliance (Ci in Fig. 9) and unloading
compliance (C, in Fig. 9) at or near the maximum load as described next.
In general, LEFM yields the following equations:
K, = oJna F,(a) (5)
CMOD = 4a a/E. V,(a) (6)
CTOD = CMOD * Z(a, /?) (7)
where 0 = applied stress, E = Young’s modulus, D = depth of the specimen, CMOD = crack
mouth opening displacement, CTOD = crack tip opening displacement, a = a/D = notch-depth
ratio, a = a, + Aup, a, = initial notch length, Au, = pre-peak crack extension, /I = Q/U and El, V,
are geometry correction factors. Knowing the initial compliance (Ci in Fig. 9) and using eq. (5)
and a = a,, the value of Young’s modulus E can be determined. The substituting this value of E
in eq. (6), an effective crack length a is calculated such that the compliance obtained using eq. (6)
is equal to the measured elastic compliance at the peak load (C, in Fig. 9). Kk And CTOD, are
then calculated at peak load using eqs (5)-(7) and the effective crack length a. Thus, the two fracture
parameters, K;, and CTOD, (as well as Young’s modulus E) can be determined from a single
notched beam test.
If the fracture parameters K3, and CTOD, and Young’s modulus E are known, the peak stress
and hence peak load of any structure can be calculated using the eqs (5)-(7). Combining eqs (5)-(7)
leads to:
K =CTOD.E+ F,(a)
I
4Ja ’ v,(a).
(8)
z@, 6)’
The value of effective a at the critical load is determined from eq. (8) for a given set of values of
KC, and CTOD,. Then using eq. (5) the corresponding stress value at the critical load can be
determined.
Based on tests of three different sizes of single edge notched beam specimens, Jenq and
Shah[l 1,121 showed that the two fracture parameters Ki, and CTOD, thus determined are
size-independent (Fig. 10). The superscript in Ks, denotes inclusion of prepeak stable crack growth.
TPFM requires the use of a closed loop testing system with COD as the control feedback signal
so as to obtain stable load-COD response. But both the fracture parameters Ki, CTOD, (and E)
can be obtained from a single test. These results were validated recently by Alvarado, Shah and

I .4

0 I 2 3 4 5

Notch depth (in)

Fig. 10. Size effect of K,,.

 Fracture process zone and fracture parameters 13

AU dimensions in inches

I inch = 25.4mm
I p.s.i. = 0.0069 MPo
IO I I I I I
0 2 4 6 6 10

Compressive strength, f: (x IO’ p.s.i.1

Fig. 1I. Decrease of nonlinearity (extent of prepeak crack growth) with increasing compressive
strength (Ref. 16).

John[l4] and Miller et a1.[7] based on a mode I fracture study using a plate specimen with a central
notch and a point load applied at the center of the notch.
Knowing the fracture parameters Kf, and CTOD,, and Young’s modulus, E the peak load
for any structure can be predicted by a simple iterative procedure using LEFM equations similar
to eqs (S)--(S). Note that this model is valid for both notched (a,, # 0) and unnotched (a~ = 0)
specimens. This model will reduce to the single parameter LEFM approach when CTOD, -P 0 (i.e.
a, = q,). Combining Kfc, CTOD, and E, Jenq and Shah[2] obtain a material parameter, Q, which
is similar to the characteristic length, I,, proposed by Hillerborg et a1.[15]. Q Can be expressed as:

Q =[“‘~coDc] (8)
Jenq and Shah[OO]and John and Shah[l6] have used this model to predict: (1) tensile strength; (2)
split-cylinder strength; (3) size effect of R,, (Fig. 1); (4) size effect on modulus of rupture; (5) strain
rate effect; and (6) size effect in mixed-mode fracture and shear.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is interesting to note that the critical crack extension (Au,) calculated using the two fracture
parameters (KS, and CTOD,) gives a good indication of relative fracture toughness of materials.
For example, critical crack extension decreases with an increase in compressive strength (Fig. 11).
This means that for very high strength concrete, the precritical crack growth tends to be negligible
and as a result, the material behaves more classically brittle. The same observation can be made

log (strain rate) (I/set)

Fig. 12. Decrease of nonlinearity (extent of prepeak crack growth) with increasing strain rate
(Ref. 16).
14 S. P. SHAH

with respect to the effect of increasing strain rate. It was observed that the higher the strain rate,
the lower the valve of Aa, (Fig. 12). Thus, the extent of critical crack extension (which can be
ascertained from the two fracture parameters) appear to be a useful index for toughness for
quasi-brittle material. For a classically brittle material, Au, = 0 and LEFM is applicable. For
concrete, Aa, can be significant and as a result, one fracture parameter is not adequate. The value
of Aa, will depend on material composition, strain rate, size and geometry of the structure.

Acknowledgement-This research was supported by a grant from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR-85
0261) under a program managed by Dr Spencer T. Wu.

REFERENCES
[I] Proposed RILEM recommendation, Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of three
point bend tests on notched beams. Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden (1982).
12) P. Nallathambi, B. L. Karihaloo and B. S. Heaton, Various size effect in fracture of concrete. Cement Concr. Res.
15, ooo (1985).
[3] A. Hillerborg, Concrete fracture energy tests performed by nine laboratories according to a draft RILEM
recommendation. Report to RILEM TC SO.FMC, Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology,
Sweden (1983).
[4] A. Hillerborg, Additional concrete fracture energy tests performed by six laboratories according to a draft RILEM
recommendations. Report to RILEM TC 50-FMC, Division of a Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology,
Sweden (1984).
[5] A. K. Maji and S. P. Shah, Process zone and acoustic emission measurements in concrete. Exp. Me&t., 27-33 (March
1988).
[6] A. K. Maji and S. P. Shah, Appli~tion of acoustic emission and laser holography to study ~crofracture in concrete.
ACI SP-112 (1989).
[7] R. A. Miller, S. P. Shah and H. I. Bjelkhagen, Crack profiles in mortar measurement by laser holographic
interferometry. To be published in Exper. Mech. (April 1989).
[S] J. F. Labuz, S. P. Shah and C. H. Dowding, The fracture process zone in granite: evidence and effect. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Mineral Sci. (August 1987).
191 Y. S. Jenq, Fracture mechanics of cementitious composites. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern University, Chapter 5 (June
1987).
[IO] Y. S. Jenq and S. P. Shah, Nonlinear fracture parameters for cement based composites: theory and experiments. in
Application of Fracture Mechanics lo Cementitious Composites (Edited by S. P. Shah), pp. 319-360. Martinus Nijhoff
Company, Dordrecht (1986).
[I I] Y. S. Jenq and S. P. Shah, A fracture toughness criterion for concrete. Engng Fracture Mech. 21, 1055-1069 (1985).
[12] Y. S. Jenq and S. P. Shah, Two parameter fracture model for concrete. J. Engng Mech. 111, 1227-1241 (October 1985).
[13] Y. S. Jenq, Fracture mechanics studies of cementitious composites. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois (1987).
[14] M. Alvarado, S. P. Shah and R. John, Mode I fracture in concrete using center cracked specimens. Accepted for
publication in >. Erzgng Mech. Die. (March 1988).
[I 51 A. Hillerborg, M. Modeer and P. E. Petersson, Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means
of fracture mechanics and finite elements. J. Cemenr Concr. Res. 6, 773-782 (1976).
[ 161 R. John and S. P. Shah, Fracture of concrete subjected to impact loading. Cement Concr. Aggregates 8,24-32 (Summer
1986).

(Received fir publ~caiion 16 November 1988)