DTIC F;LE Copy

N-1 807
February 1990

N OEL By L. J. Malvar and G. E. Warren

Sponsored By Naval Facilities
Technical Note Engineering Command

MIXED MODE CRACK

PROPAGATION IN CONCRETE
Ltn

ABSTRACT Two smeared crack approaches to fracture of con-

crete in mixed mode are implemented in two-dimensional nonlinear
concrete elements: (1) tensile stress transfer across cracks and
(2) tensile plus shear stress transfer across cracks. To corroborate
the analytical model a notched beam under mixed mode loading is
then analyzed. In both cases, the stiffnesses normal and parallel
the crack were modified to insure a positive definite stiffness
matrix. Stresses were corrected and set as functions of the crack
slip and crack opening. Equilibrium iterations were implemented to
redistribute stress. In both cases, acceptable agreement was found
between analytical predictions and experimental results. The con-
siaeration of shear stress transfer yielded better predictions, but
requires consideration of a non-symmetrical stiffness matrix.

NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY PORT HUENEME CALIFORNIA 93043-5003

Ap~pmwW for piiicmW". dsblbtn iBUft&d

U T.
9 J I
 .8 N

Cr C

o G)Q
.5 0.2.2 -

ID u

* >.I 4
0 0

Ey 0 0 v!

~
0 zc2 2S
E. E~

U,CO8EN , "'" C0
C>
I- tt C
O 6 9 11 91 91 #1 L I 1 0 6 8 9 t £E
ii 0 ' i iii' Iiijl 1 1:1
c 3ittr iiili 0
N
11f
dimmmmfhm~ii
i~llI 1

u2 N 2r 0-

EENFE
E'. O
E~s C,
& C

E C" E EEE -- - -C,

E .2
0)0
E5 S , K~

C, C

- LU

EL
z -- CD 0 w6CD - )140

NN am,

E s~ {w .O -
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Oo.74

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of infonnation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washinglon Headquarters Services, Directorate for Intorrnation and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Suite 1204, Arlington. VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwof Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

February 1990 Final Oct 88 - Sep 89

4. TITLE AND SUB1TLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

MIXED MODE CRACK PROPAGATION IN CONCRETE PE -61153N

WU - DN665019
. AUTHOR(S)

L. J. MALVAR, Assistant Research Engineer, UCLA

G. E. WARREN, NCEL
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSE(S) S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003 TN-1807

9. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSE(S| 10. SPONSORNGIMONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Alexandria, Virginia 22332

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRISUTION/AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Two smeared crack approaches to fracture of concrete in mixed mode are implemented in two-dimensional
nonlinear concrete elements: (I) tensile stress transfer across cracks and (2) tensile plus shear stress transfer
across cracks. To corroborate the analytical model a notched beam under mixed mode loading is then ana-
lyzed. In both cases, the stiffnesses nomal and parallel to the crack were modified to insure a positive definite
stiffness matrix. Stresses were corrected and set as functions of the crack slip and crack opening. Equilibrium
iterations were implemented to redistribute stress. In both cases, acceptable agreement was found between
analytical predictions and experimental results. The consideration of shear stress transfer yielded better
predictions, but requires consideration of a non-symmetrical stiffness matrix.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Fracture mechanics, nonlinear, concrete, mixed mode, smeared cracking 47

I& PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL

NSN 7540-01-280-500 Standard Form 98 (Re, F1,
Prescrbd by ANSI Std F
298-102
 CONTENTS
Pg
Page

PURPOSE ............... ............................. 1

INTRODUCTION ............. ........................... 1

PROBLEM ............... ............................. 1

TENSILE STRESS TRANSFER .......... ..................... 2

ARC-LENGTH PROCEDURE ............ ........................ . 2

FAILURE ENVELOPES.............................3

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ........... ....................... 3

SHEAR TRANSFER ............. .......................... 4

SHEAR TRANSFER MODEL ........... ....................... 4

IMPLEMENTATION IN FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM ...... ............. 5

MODEL REPRESENTATION ........... ....................... 6

RESULTS ............... ............................. 7

DISCUSSION .............. ............................ 8

CONCLUSIONS ............. ........................... 8

REFERENCES ............. ............................ 9

APPENDIXES

A - CBM, 2-D .... ........ .................... A-I

B - CBM, 3-D .......... ........................ B-1
C - General Modifications ....... .................. . C-i
D - Failure Envelope ....... .................... . D-I
E - Derivation of Crack Stiffness Matrix 1 .. ......... E-I
Accession
NTIS CRA&IFor
DTIC TAB
Unanno,,,.,?-.
Justification_
----------
By

D~ try i

vj 3
t1.1
PURPOSE

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) through the Naval

Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) has initiated a project to develop
fracture mechanics methodology for design application of reinforced con-
crete elements in tensile and shear stress states. In a preceding study,
analytical modeling methodology of Mode I (opening) was detailed in two
and three dimensions, and Mode IT crack propagation (shearing) addressed.
Tn this report Mode 1I modeling methodology is developed and a benchmark
mixed mode problem is analyzed. This report supports the project
"Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete" in the NAVFAC 6.1 Basic Research
Program YR023-03-01, Structural Modeling.
The modifications implemented in the computer program ADINA have
been compiled in the appendixes.

INTRODUGrTON

Although it is generally recognized that crack initiation in con-

crete occurs in Mode I (opening), crack propagation is more likely to
take place in mixed mode, i.e., involving Mode I and IT (shearing), or
III (tearing).
Mixed mode crack propagation involves considering the transfer of
tensile and shear forces across cracks. Constitutive relations repre-
senting the transferred stresses were evaluated (Ref 1). In the present
report these constitiitive relations are implemented in a general purpose
finite element program developed by ADINA R&D Inc. (Ref 2). A benchmark
experiment by Arrea and Ingraffea (Ref 3 and 4) is then modlod, with
and withoiit considering transfer of shear st resses.

PROBLEM

The mixed mode problem considered is depicted in Figure 1, -. ,d

concrete properties usod are reported ii Tble 1. In nany cas( 4 the
problem was approached without cons idor ing -hrar trasfor acras the
crack. Initial attempts at modeling the shear transfer using a constant
shear retention factor 0 (typically a < 0.1) yielded results with almost
no softening after peak load (Ref 5 and 6). Better representations were
obtained either assuming the existence of n Modo II fro:1ri.re energy
(Ref 7), or using a predetermined crack path (Ref 8).
In this study the consideration of n sheair trimsfor model is
attempted and its effects observed.
TENSILE STRESS TRANSFER

The transfer of tensile stresses across a crack had already been

implemented with a smeared crack approach (Ref 9) using the Crack Band
Model (CBM) (see Appendixes A, B, and C). This tension softening behav-
ior involved a negative stiffness, C , for the cracked element. The CBM
was implemented assuming zero stiffness (actually a very small value was
used to avoid a singular stiffness matrix) and then resetting the stresses
as a function of the crack opening. These stresses are then redistributed
during equilibrium iterations. The stress transferred versus crack width
relationship is tabulated in Table 2 (Ref 1) in nondimensional form.
The fracture energy, Gf, is related to the stress versus displacement
relationship by:
1
f= 1fft d(w/wo)

where w = crack width or crack opening

a = stress transferred at crack width w

w = crack width beyond which no stress is transferred

ft = tensile strength

In a first analysis on the mixed mode problem the CBM alone was
used in order to evaluate the importance of considering shear transfer.
The latest version of ADINA (Ref 2) acknowledges the importance of
strain softening by including a linear stress release as a function of
strain after cracking (Ref 10). However, this stress release is not
explicitly linked to fracture energy, and the authors have shown that
linearizing the highly nonlinear post peak stress versus strain rela-
tionship negatively affects results (Ref 9). Hence, this feature of the
latest ADINA version was not used in the present project.

ARC-LENGTH PROCEDURE

The solution of the finite element incremental equations of motion

was first attempted using the spherical arc-length and the constant incre-
ment of external work procedures described in Reference 11. The post-peak
numerical analysis of this experiment has shown to be highly unstable
(Ref 5). The adopted approaches did not yield converged equilibrium
states past peak load and, thus, were modified.
A type of indirect displacement control (Ref 12) was then adopted:
in the arc-length procedure the norm of displacement (involving all
nodal points) was replaced by the distance between the two points at the
edges of the notch (Appendix C). The vertical component of this distance
is referred to as CMSD (Crack Mouth Sliding Displacement). During the
test, the CMSD is a monotonically increasing parameter that stabilized
the algorithm. In the experiment, the CMSD had been used as feed-back
control parameter.

2
FAILURE ENVELOPES

The failure envelopes used in ADINA (Ref 13) are largely based on
biaxial concrete strength experimental results by Kupfer et al. (Ref 14).
In the plane stress analytical model, the crack path showed sensitivity
to the tensile envelope representation close to the tension/tension zone
( 1>0, 2>0, 3O=0) (Figure 2). The existing linear envelope in the
tension/compression zone was then modified to better match experimental
results. The following power relationship was used:

where o t = uniaxial cut-off tensile stress

a't = uniaxial cut-off tensile stress under multiaxial conditions

a'c= uniaxial compressive failure stress under multiaxial

c conditions

taci = principal stress in direction i at time t

2
n = 1 if a'c > 8000 psi (563 kp/cm )

= I + 0.0002(8000-0') if O'c < 8000 psi

Both linear and power envelopes are show2
Kupfer et al. results for Op = 315 kp/cm
uniaxial compressive strength of 50 by 50
prisms. The current ADINA addresses this
a different way (Ref 10):
in Figure 2, together with
(4450 psi). Op is the
by 200 mm (2 x 2 x 7.9 in.)
deficiency, but corrects it in

t
't = t 1 - 0.75 ! ]
c

From Figure 2 it is apparent that the present modification yields a

better match. Program modifications are reported in Appendix D.

FINITE ET MENT MODEL

The finite element mesh used is depicted in Figure 1. Loads of

0.13P and P were applied at points A and B, respectively. In the com-
puter program this is accomplished using an automatic step incrementa-
tion method, where the level of externally applied loads is adjusted
automatically. In the experiment, a single total load of 1.13P was
applied on a steel beam bearing on rollers at points A and B. The point
of application of that total load will be referred as point C.

3
SHEAR TRANSFER

Cracks in reinforced concrete are able to transmit shear forces

across crack faces. This transfer is traditionally neglected on the
assumption that this would be a conservative simplification. However,
Bazant et al. showed that this assumption can be an over simplification
(Ref 15 and 16). Crack dilation occurs with shear slip. However, crack
dilation is prevented by forces normal to the crack faces, which will
have to be compensated by tensiles forces in the reinforcement across
the crack.
Shear stresses can he transferred across a crack in three ways:
(1) aggregate interlock as a result of the roughness of the crack faces,
(2) dowel action or shear resistance of the reinforcement across the
crack, and (3) the axial tensile force component in the reinforcement
oblique to the plane of cracking.
For members with low reinforcement and for small crack widths,
aggregate interlock is the main mechanism of shear transfer. Tests
carried out on beams without web reinforcement showed that aggregate
interlock accounted for up to 75 percent of the shear transfer (Ref 17).
Hence, most attention will be given to this first mechanism of transfer.

SHEAR TRANSFER MODEL

Three accepted empirical models which represent the nonlinear rela-

tionships between shear stress and slip are: the Rough Crack Model (RCM)
in its original form (Ref 11), or in a modified form (MRCM) (Ref 18),
and the Two-Phase Model (TPM) (Ref 19 and 20). The constitutive laws of
the MRCM are as follows:

nn A12 ( r)025
- - 6nt (always compressive) (1)

3
(,-F
V 26 n ) r a3 +_A4irl
(2)
0 4
nt d I +
A 4

in which 6nn crack opening (6 n _>0)

6 tt rolativo slip

0 interface normal stress

nn
0
t = interface shear stress

r 6t/6 ,,

a 12 0.62

12'
 a 3 = 2.45/T

a 4 = 2.4(1-4/T )

T=0 0.25 f C

and

[
[dcnni
do =
[B
B
Bt
nt
d6
d6 t (3)
nt B tn d t

where B = Bnn Bnt is the crack st.iffness matrix.

B.tn Bt tJ

The derivation of B is shown in Appendix E.

IMP..F.ENTATION IN FINITE EIEKFNT PROGRAM

Transfer of shear stressos was impl.amn.oted by C-onhining the MRCM

and the CR!. The incremental flexibility matrix dw to the solid
concrete and including strain softening in tension is given by (Ref 21):

[del = Ds [do

or

dE nn 1/y -11/r 0, do ilt

dt -p/Fe 1/E 0 do (4)
d t 0 0 1/C do

where p = Poisson's ratio.

In addition, sinco we assnto strain ;ofteniilig i f.ii iinn to bo prosont.,

tho slope C of the stra in soft llning iratich has to ho tnkon into acrc.onnt.
The crack sfiffniss is tien:

c r
rr
=WBnn
nt +C s wB )
WB tn wBtt

For very small valnes of tho crack openinig, C is arge, hut B is

n
almost zero; wherens, when tho crack oponitg roaches 1hoilt 0. 1mm, t.p
opposite holds.
 The incremental stiffness matrix can he obtained as follows:

D Ds c + cr-i

C DP

yielding

C .(6) 1.
l+wBtt/Gtt+ (1-V)(wB nnn+C s+w 2/G)/2G

§w 2/G+WB nn+C s 1(w2/G4 wB nn+C S) wBlt

(§w 2/G+wB n-+C ) w2/G+wB nn+C s42(1+p)wBtt +E wBnt

wBtn plwB ( 1-p)§w 2 /2G+wB t

where I = BnnBtt - BntBtn.

This yields an incremental stiffness matrix which is not sym-

metrical and is not guaranteed to be definite positive.
Since ADINA considers only symmetric matrices, the solution was
attempted using a modified stiffness, and then correcting the stresses
at every iteration for each load stop increment. Tt was then assumed
that:

and to insure definite positiveness

+ iifC 11 < 0
C 11l =0

C31 C13 = CC
= 1C33 - 0

+
where 04 is a small positive number.

MODEL REPRESENTATION

To evaluate the effects of shear transfer, a 100 by 100 by 100 mm

(4 x 4 x 4 in.) concrete finite element was first cracked initension,
then sheared in the perpendicular direction (Figure 3), in displacement
control. Given the nodal displacements, strainis at the Gausns points are
evaluated, then an iterative process determines crack slip, crack dilata-
tion, and concrete deformatiot, usi g, formilns (1), (2), C , and:
,5
 6n = (En - /nn/E)w

6t t- nt/G)w

The model behavior is predicted using all three formulations (RCM,

MRCM, TPM). For each case, Figure 4 shows the shear and normal loads
transferred. The TPM values were capped to the maximum predicted by the
RCM. It is observed that the dilatancy induces vertical compression
(along the z axis). If reinforcing bars perpendicular to the cracks
were present, the dilatancy would increase the tension in the bars at
the crack locations.
From Figure 4 it is apparent that all three models yield very simi-
lar shear transfer capacity, but the normal stress due to dilatation is
significantly higher for the RCM. Since more normal stress experimental
data appears to back the MRCM and TPM, the RCM was discarded. In the
mixed mode analysis, the more recent MRCM formulation was chosen, since
it presents no discontinuity in the stress gradient.

RESULTS

In order to evaluate the importance of modeling stress transfer

across cracks, the analytical model was first run with no transfer,
i.e., assuming total stress release right after cracking. Since the
standard algorithms did not converge, the indirect displacement method
was used, with a very low fracture energy (0.0002 N/mm) equivalent of a
sudden stress release. Results for this first run are shown in Figure 5.
The analysis was then carried out considering only tensile stress
transfer across the cracks (CBM). Finally, the MRCM was added and a new
analysis completed (CBM+MRCM). Results for both cases are shown in the
form of load versus CMSD (Figure 5), and load versus vertical displace-
ment at point C (Figure 6). The vertical displacement at point C was
derived by linear interpolation of the vertical displacements of points
A and B. Data points indicating the reported range of experimental
results (Ref 3) are shown in Figure 5.
Convergence of the arc-length algorithm was only obtained for care-
fully chosen control parameters. These parameters control the size of
the step in the load-CMSD space (ALFA), the maximum number of iterations
allowed for each time step (ITEMAX), the maximum displacement at control
point E (DISPP), and energy convergence criteria (ETOL) (Ref 11). In
each case they were respectively:

Parameter No Transfer CBM CMB+MRCM

ITEMAX 45 45 30 4
ETOL 10 10 5.10
DISPP -0.015 -0.015 -0.015
ALFA 0.4 0.4 0.5

The crack pattern for the last loading step is indicated in

Figure 7 (CBM case). Figure 8 shows the deformed shape obtained for the
last step (CBM case).
DISCUSSION

Figure 6 indicates that the displacement at point C presents a

sharp snap-back past peak load. This explains why displacement control
at that point cannot yield the post peak response. The displacement at
both points A and B shows a similar behavior, which explains why the
norm of displacement in the arc-length procedure was unsuccessful.
Figure 5 shows that considering tensile stress transfer alone yields
a conservative behavior prediction. The maximum load is underestimated
by about 20 percent, and the post peak load carrying capacity is lower.
However, the shape of the strain softening portion is similar. A higher
value of Gf would yield a better match to the experimental peak load and
post peak response (Ref 8).
The crack pattern (Figure 7) still differs from the reported
experimental crack path. It was, however, observed that a smill vari.-
ation in the mesh size, or initially larger load step sizes, would
affect the path or result in bifurcation points. Similarly, stiffer
bearing plates would bring the crack path closer to the notch plane.
The crack path would easily follow any of the different directions
indicated in Figure 9. This would explain the discrepancies in crac|k
paths found by different authors (Ref 22, 23, 24, and 25) (using a
similar but symmetrical specimen). For example, the experimental crack
path obtained in Reference 23 coincides with the analytical crack pat-
tern shown in Figure 7.
Should tensile stress transfer not have been considered, the
maximum load carrying capacity of the analytical model would have been
reached as soon as the first tensile cracks formed (around 50 kips)
(Figure 5). This is obviously an inadequate representation of t1'e
experimental behavior.
Transfer of both tensile and shear stress is considered best in
matching experimental behavior. The peak load is higher and the post
peak behavior is closer to experimental results. However, in order to
obtain the complete post peak behavior, a nonsymmetrica] stiffness
matrix would have to be considered. This would present additional
difficulties, such as (1) implementation in a new program with a
nonsymmetrical solver, and (2) increase in computation time. The
increased accuracy has to be weighed against the increased cost in
implementing shear transfer. In this case, the crack pattern remained
similar to the previous one.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration of shear stress transfer across the propagating

cracks yielded a better prediction of the experimental results. However,
the resultant stiffness matrix is nonsymmetrical and would require imple-
mentation in a program with a nonsymmetric solver. This would enhance
the convergence of the indirect displacement control 'lgorithm.
The exclusive consideration of tensile stress transfer yielded good
results up to peak load. Beyond this point, the loads are underestimated,
although the shape of the unloading branch matches the experimental trend.

n u 8 N
This could be an acceptable reprnsentat. ion of mixed mode behavior as
long as it is kept in mind that. a conservative post poak behavior will
he obtained. Finally, it was shown that. inadmissible results are obtained
if both tensile andi shear stresses )re, assiimed to completely vanish up~on
cracking.

REFFUNCES

1. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Technical Report R-926:

Analytical modeling of reinforced concrete in tension, by 1. Malvar
anl G.E. Warren. Port lHneneme, CA, Apr 1980.

2. ADINA R&D Inc. ADiNA: A finite element, program for automatic

dynamic incremental nonlinear analysis, Watertown, MA, Dec 1987.

3. M. Arrea and A.R. lngraffea. "Mixed-mode crack propagation in mortar

and concrete," Report No. 81-13, IDepartment of Striuctuiral Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1981.

4. RITLEM Technical Committee 90-PMA. "Fractilre mechanirs of concrete/

appl ict.tions,"Second Draft. Report. over the Staite of the Art-, Division
of Structural Engineering, Lilea Uin iversi ty of Technology, S-951 87 Luile~a
Sweden, May 1987.

5. J.C. Rots, P. Narita, G.M.A. Kusters, anti J. Blaauuwendraad. "Smeared

crack approach and fracture local ization in concrete," HERON, vol 30,
no. 1, 1985.

6. P. Gergely and R.N. White, Cornell Universitly, .I.W. Frenay and ll.W.
Reinhardit, Delft University, editors. "tConcrete Mechanics, coope-rative-
research between inst itiitions inl the Nether lantis and the USA, Third
Meet ing, De 1ft U'nivyers ity of Techunology '[he Netlie rlands, Juin 1983.

7. J... Rots and R . die Bors t.. "Ain 1ys is of uui xeol-mode f ractiin in
conucrete,"'J.ournalI of Eng inreer ing Mechrincs , Amer icanl Society of C ivil1
Engineers. vol 113, no. 11, Nov 1987. pp) 1719-17 8.

8. J.G. Rots. Compilitaitiona 1 model ing of couucret ftact ire, P11.1).

Dissertation, Delft hUnivrsitv of T'nchJnrolgv, 'him Net) hehns e q8R.

9 . Nava1 C ivil1 Enug inee r ing l~aho rat ory. [e huui ci Report R -924:
Frac tuire energy for t Iiree po iii t bend( tnest- (11outillng 1 edge not cli d beaIms
by 1-.J. Mlvar and CEF. Warren. Port lhitunenue. CA, Mar 1988.

10. K-J. Batho, Jl. Wa1zack , A. Wel1chi, aind N. Mit rv. "Non I i near analIys is
of concrete st riictures ," CompWt ers inl St rue. t ii-es oi run l1 vol 32 , no. 3/4,
19899, pp 563-590.

11. K-J. Bathe and E.N. 1)vorkiui. ''()n thne automat i solut ion of nonlinear
finite element equnations,'' Comptters and Stiuicttres Jourma 1, vol 17,
rio. S/6, 1983, pp 871-879.
12. R. de Borst. Nonlinear analysis of frictional materials, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1986.

13. K-J. Bathe and S. Ramaswamy. "On three dimensional nonlinear

analysis of concrete structures," Nuclear Engineering and Design,
vol 52, 1979, pp 385-409.

14. H. Kupfer, 11.Hilsdorf, and 1. Rush. "Behavior of concrete under

biaxial stresses," American Concrete Institute Journal, vol 66, 1969,
pp 656-666.

15. Z.P. Bazant and T. Tsubaki. "Optimum slip-free limit design of

concrete reinforcing nets," Journal of Structural Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, vol 105, no. ST2, Feb 1979, pp 327-346.

16. Z.P. Bazant and P. Gambarova. "Rough cracks in reinforced

concrete," Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, vol 106, no. ST4, Apr 1980, pp 819-843.

17. S. DeiPoli, P.G. Gambarova, and C. Karakoc. "Aggregate interlock

role in R/C thin webbed beams in shear," Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, vol 11.3, no. 1, Jan 1987, pp 1-19.

18. R.C. Fenwick and T. Paulay. "Mechanisms of shear resistance in

concrete beams," Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, vol 94, no. ST10, Oct 1968, pp 2325-2350.

19. J.C. Walraven and H.W. Reinhardt. "Theory and experimentation on

the mechanical behavior of cracks in plain and reinforced concrete sub-
jected to shear loading," HERON, vol 26, no. IA, 1981.

20. H.W. Reinhardt and J.C. Walraven. "Crack in concrete subject to

shear," Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, vol 108, no. STl, Jan 1982, pp 207-224.

21. Z.P. Bazant and B.H. Oh. "Crack band theory for fracture of
concrete," Materials and Structures Journal, vol 16, no. 93, May-June
1983, pp 155-177.

22. Z.P. Bazant and P.A. Pfei.ffer. "Shear fracture tests of concrete,"
Materials and Structures Journal, vol 19, no. 110, 1985, pp 111-121.

23. A.R. Ingraffea and N.J. Panthaki. "Analysis of 'shear fracture'

tests of concrete beams," Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers; in Proceedings of a
seminar sponsored by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and
the U.S. National Science Foundation, Tokyo, Japan, 1985, pp 151-173.

10
24. Z.P. Bazant and P.A. Pfeiffer. Comment on Ingraffea and Panthaki's
"analysis of shear fracture tests of concrete," Finite Element Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers;
in Proceedings of a seminar sponsored by the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science and the U.S. National Science Foundation, Tokyo,
Japan, 1985, pp 174-183.

25. S. Melin. "Why are crack paths in concrete and mortar different
from those in PMMA?" Materials and Structures Journal, vol 22, no. 127,
Jan 1985, pp 23-27.

11
 Table 1. Concrete Properties

Fracture Energy Gf = 0.055 N/mm

f'c = 45.5 N/mm 2

Compressive Strength

Tensile Strength ft = 2.80 N/mm 2

Modulus of elasticity E = 24.8 GPa

Table 2. Stress - Crack Width Relationship

w/w o/f t

0.00 1.0000
0.05 0.7082
0.10 0.5108
0.15 0.3817
0.20 0.2986
0.25 0.2446
0.30 0.2080
0.40 0.1596
0.60 0.0904
0.80 0.0361
1.00 0.0000

12
 0

C...

r-4~
411

r-4 -4

.aJ

I41
'-4 .a
- 01

'-4

00

Ulm szC )

---------------------
3--
 CL)O

-0

00
a) 0.
co co

.2 U)

00 ..

60
LL4

0 0
Q)

LO 0

4-
co
U)

LC) C:
O

0 O 0

c'14
 LLJJ

00
0

0 L
CD:
0 '.4

15
 10Y REACTION (kN)

140-

120-

100-

80-

60-

40 - Two-Phase model

20 -+ Rough Crack model

-*-Modified Rough CM

01
0 0.06 Z DISPLACEMENT
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Y DISPL. (MM)

(a) Y Reaction (kN)

5Z REACTION (kN)

50

-50-

-100 - Two -Phase model

-4Rough Crack Model

-*-Modified Rough CM

-150 11
0 0.06 Z DISPLACEMENT
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Y DISPL. (MM)

(b) Z Reaction (kN)

Figure 4. Shear transfer models.

16
 al)
C C0

Ua)
0 +~

U)
41
cc 0
DC

0 V
000
EB

-z El

El
El0
LLb

00 0 0 0 0 0 00
(0 Oj 0 CC (0 1- C

17
 0

C'\j

00

z 2z

tE1
H-J
00

0 a)i
-jE0
0

c -4

Cj
00

0
L I I I I iC -o1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C~d 0 CC (D0: C~j

18
 14-
X 'A)

-- '-

19
 4~J

a)

U)

a)

0
a)

a)

20
 4

AP AAAA

-2
 Appendix A

CBM, 2-D

The following are changes implemented in the two-dimensional element

formulation; namely, in the subprograms TODMFE.F77 and EI,T2D4.F77 for
tensile stress transfer. Although not mentioned in this report, formula-
tion for the Rotating Crack Model is also included (see Ref 1).
Version 84.NL3 of the computer program AT)INA was used. Text record
identifiers were inserted in Columns 72 to 80, using HISTORIAN PIUS
Software Control System.

CHANGES IN TODIFE.F77

Change at
or after-

I IDWAS/ 0, 0, 0,18,18, 0010,15,]5,33,33, 0, 0,26,6*0/, TODMFE93

COION /SOFT/ ISCODE,WWCC,ELWW,GGFF,DDAA,IRCH TDFE 42

IF (HOOEL.EQ.51 READ(IIN,100)S ISCODE,WWCC,ELWN,GGFr,DDAA,IRCH "DFE 101

100S FORMAT (1S,4F1.OI 1DFE1219

UDDAA,IRCtt
COMM1ON /SOFT/ ISCODE ,WWCC,ELWW,GGFF IATRT214

WRITE (6,2236) ISCODE,WWCC,ELWN,GGFF,DDAA KATRT244

IF (IRCM.EQ.O) WRITE (6,2237)
IF (IRCH.GE.11 WRITE (6,22381

2236 FORMATI/38H (BBI CODE FOR TENSILE STRESS TRANSFFR T,. IATRT726
I /38H 1=LINEAR SOFTENING
2 /38H 27CORNELISSEN'S SOFTFNING
3 /38H SOFT BAND WIDTH (WWCCI FIO.!,
4 /38H SOFT ELEMENT WIDTH (ELWWI FIO.5,
5 /38H FRACTURE ENERGY IGGFF) FIO.,,
6 /38H MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE IDDAAI FIo.r)
2237 FORAT(/41H ONLY PERPENDICULAR CRACKS AL.OWED
7?38 FORMATI/41H ROTATING CRACK MODEL IS USFD I

A-I
CHANGES -INELT2D4.F77

IDWm)B*ITWO ELT2D43B

DIMENSION PROPt1I),WAI 18,1),YZ( I ,NODSI I ,NOD)S( 1 ,TEIPV1( I ICDHOD16

DO 10 1=1,18 ICDMOD26

COMMON /SOFT/ ISCODE,HWCC,ELHW,GGFF,DDAA,IRCI CDMOD SO

ICRKSTRI6),STRESS(4),STRAIN(4),C(4,41,NOJS(1 I,TEIIPVI(1 I, CDMOD 53

2 TEMPV2(1),YZ(IP,NODS(11,WA(l),DWIWA(IBP CDH0O 54

DO 1 1=1,18 CIt1OD 66

IF (IRCH.GE.1 .AND. ANGLE.LT.3.6ID21 GO TO 13 CDK00135

GO TO 14 CDMOD1so
13 CONTINUE
CALL CRAKID ISTRESS,STRAlN,PGRAV,CRKSTR,RKU),RKUN,GL-D,SP33,
I ANGLE,EP,NUIICRK,MODEL,1 I
14 CONTINUE

47 CALL DCRACK (C,SIG,ANGLEMODEL,ITYP2D,NUMiCRK,1 ,1,CRKSTRI CDMODK270

CALL DCRACK (C,STRESS,ANG,MO0DEL,ITYP2D,NUTICRK,1,Z,CRKSTRI CDM100302

CALL DCRACK IC,STRESS,ANGLE ,MODEI.,ITYP2D,MftCRK ,2 ,2,CRKSTR P CDHOD350

CALL DCRACK IC ,STRESS ,ANG.E ,MODEL , ITYP2D , NUIICRK .1 2 ,CRKSTR P CDM00374

CRKSTRI 41=EPI II CDMOD41S

CRKSTRI S P=EP( 2 )
CRKSTRI 6 I=EP 3P

CALL. DCRACK IC ,STRESS ,ANGLE ,MODEL-, TYP2D ,NU1ICRK ,1.2 ,CRK.;TR I CDMOD422

CALL DCRACK I C, STRESS, AGPR IMODFL,ITYP?l, NUCRK. I.?. CRKSTR I CDM00427

CALL DCRACK IC,STRESS ,ANC ,HOnEI. , TYP2T),tsiIIRK .2.1 ,rRKSTPI 0)MO0590

DO 210 1=1,18 CDMOD0596

COMMON /SOFT/ ISCOO)E,WWCCEL.W,GGFF,DDAA,IRCII CRAKID13

DIMENSION STRI41,EPS4I,CRKSTR6,SP(1IIlH I.SP32(I ,SP33' 11', CRAKIDIS

IF IIRC?1.GE.1 P GO TO 11 CRAKID16

GO TO 107 CRAKID45

A-2
C
11 IF (KKK.GE.2) GO TO 12
C
C FIND DIRECTION OF PRINCIPAL STRAINS
C
AA=(EPS(l) 4EPS(211w0.5

BB=(EPS(l) EPS(2)l*O.5
CC=SQRTIBB*BB + EPSI3.I*EPS(3))
EPSL(I1)=AA *CC
EPSL(21=AA -CC

EPSL( 31=0.00
EPSLE 4 )EPSI 41
ANGLE =4 SD I
IF (EPS(3).EQ.O.D01 ANGLE=O.ID-3
IF (ABSIBBI.LT.O.1D-61 GO TO 12
DUHI=ABS( EPSI 3 /BB I
ANGLE=57. 296*ATANI DUll)
C
IF (BB.LT.O.DO .AND. EPS(3).GT..DO At4GLE=180. -ANGLE

IF (BB.LT.O.DO .AND. EPS(3).LE.O.DDI ANGLE=180. 4ANGLE

IF (BB.GT.O.DO .AND. EPS(31.LE.O.DOI ANGLE=360. -ANGLE

ANr.LE =ANGLE/2.
C
C FIND STRESSES PERPENDICULAR AND PARALLEL TO CRACYK
C
12 CONTEINUE
PI=4.D0*ATANI 1.D0
TANG =ANGLE
IF (TANG.LT.-5.41D2) TANG=TANG + 722.
IF (TANG .LT. (-1.802)) TANG=TANG + 361.
IF (TANG.GT.1.BD2) TANG=TANG - 180.
GA=2 .*~A8S( TANG l*PI/180.
SG"SINIGAMlI CG=COSI GAHl
IF IKKEQ.3) GO TO 107
C
R111(STR111 + STR(21W0.5
R]2=(STR(11 STR211*0.5
SIGP(11=Rll R12*CG *STR13)*SG
STGP(21=R11 R12*CG -STR(3I*SG

SIGPI 31=0.00
SIGPI 4 I=STR( 4
C
IF (KKK.EQ.21 RETURN

COMMION /SOFT/ ISCODE,WWCC,FLWN,GGFF,DDAA,TRC~i DCRACK 8

DIMENSION C(4,4I,SIG(41,014,41t,T14+,41,DSIG(41.CRKSTR1iA DCRACK 9

A- 3
 IF (IRCM.EQ.OI GO TO 12 DCRACKS9
IF (EP(I I.NE.EP(Z I
1 C(3,31r (SIGP(I )-SIGP2I/(2(EPI I-EP21 1
IF (EP(II.EQ.EP(ZIIC(3,31 = 1.0-8
12 CONTINUE

C RELEASE APPROPRIATE STRESSES DCRAC204

C DCRAC205
98 NF=NIMCRK + I DCRAC206
GO TO (140,120,110,155,100,100,1001, NF DCRACZ07
100 CALL DSOF (4,SIGPFALSTREP,CRKSTR,E,VNUSIGIAT,SIGIAC) DCRAC208
IF (NUIICRK - 5) 140,120,110 DCRAC209
110 CALL DSOF (2,SIGP,FALSTR,EP,CRKSTR,E,VNU,SIGIAT,SIGIACI DCRAC210
120 SIGP( 3 ISIGP 31 DCRAC211I
CALL DSOF (1,SIGP,FAI.STR,EP,CRKSTR,EVHU,SIGHAT,SIGIAC) DCRAC212
C DCRAC21 3
C ROTATE STRESSES TO GLOBAL AXES DCRAC214

SUBROUTINE DSOF (IJ,SIGP,FALSTR,EP,CR5TR,E,VNU,SI~lAT,SGf1AC) CDIIOD62O

IMIPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION ( A-H,O-Z )
COMMHON /SOFT/ ISCOOE ,NWCC ,ELWW ,GGFF ,DDAA , IRCI
DIMENSION SIGPI 41 ,EPI 4)I,CRKSTRt 61I,CORN( 11 , 3
IF (CRKSTR( I.J .GT.0. DOI GOTO 5
SIGP( IJ ?=FALSTR
RETURN
5 CONTINUE
C
DATA (CORN(I,1 1,1=1,111/0. ,.05,.1,.15,.2,.25,.3,,.4,.6,.B,1.0/
DATA ICORNII,2),Ir=,I1 I/1.,.7082,.5108,.3817,.2986,.2446,
1 .20B0, .1596, .0904, .0361,0.0/
JJ=IJ
IF I3J.EQ.4) JJ=3
KK=3J*3
EEPP=EP(I 3
IF (EPIT13I.GT.CRKSTR(KK II CRKSTR(IK l=EP( 131
IF IEP(I JI.LT.CRKSTR(KKII EEPP=CRKSTR(KI~I
ISS=ISCODE-2
IF (ISSI 10,20,30

10 CONTINUE
EEfl"1/( 1/E-( Z*G;GFF I/ISIGtAT*M2*WWCCI I
SIGP(I 3I=FALSTR+EETr*I EEPP-CRKSTR(J33II
IF OEP(1Ii.LT.CRKSTRIKKII SIGP(IIIEPIJ/FEPVSTrwf T.I
IF (SIGPI 13I.GT.FALSTRI SIGP(I I=IFALSTR
IF I SIGP(IJ3. LT.0.DO I SIGP( 13 =0.D0
sIGP(53 1.DO
RETURN
C

A- 4
 20 CONTINUE
EO=GGFF/IWNCC*0. 197O4*SIGIIAT)
DO 21 1=1,11
CORN( I, 3 =CORN( 1,1 l.CORN(I1,2 1CRKSTR(J Ii/EO
IF (EEPP/EO.LT.CORN(I,3I) GO TO 22
21 CONTINUE
22 AAM(CORN(I-1,21-CORN(1,211/(CORNI-1,31-CORN(I,3fl
BB=CORN( 1-1,2 )-AA*CORN( I-I ,3)
SIGPE 13 =FALSTR*I AA*EEPP/EO.BB)
IF (EP(IJ) . LT .CRKSTRI KK 1) SIGP(I 3I'EP(I13)/EEPP*SIGP( 13)
If I SIGP( IJ).GT.FALSTR I SIGPfI 3 =FALSTR
IF I SIGPfI 3I .LT.O.DOI SIGPfII l.DO
SIGP( 3 10.DO
RETURN
C
30 CONTINUE
RETURN
C
END

A- 5
 Appendix B

CBM, 3-0l

Three-dimensional element formulation.

CHANGES IN THREDN.F77

Change at
or afters

I IDWAS / 0, 0, 0P 2S,25, 0,14,Z1,21,47,47,38,8*o/, THRED100

COMMfON /SOFT/ ISCOD)E,NWCC,ELWH,GGFF,DDAA,IRCU1 THDFE 46

IF IMODEL.EQ.51 READ(IIN,1009) ISCODE,HWCC,ELWH,GGFF,DAA,IRCI THD)FE10Z

1009 FORMAT 1I5,4FI0.01 THDF1 190

COMIMON /SOFT/ ISCODE ,WWCC ,ELWN ,GGFF ,DDAA , IRCI HATWRT14

WRITE (6,22391 lIATWR243

2239 FORIIAT/38H IBB) CODE FOR TENSILE STRESS TRANSFER,I5, ?IATWR596

I /38H ]=LINEAR SOFTENINGP
2 /38H 2=C0RNELISSEN'S SOFTENING
3 /38H SOFT BAND WIDTH INHCC) ,F10.5,
4 /38H SOFT ELEMIENT WIDTH (ELWW) ,F1Q.5,
5 /38H FRACTURE ENERGY (GGFFI ,F10.8,
6 /38H flAxrlIUt AGGREGATE SIZE IDDAA) ,F1.51

CHANGESINELT3D4.F77

IDW=25*ITWO ELT3D444

DIMENSION PROPEII,NA(25,I I,XYZ(I ,N009(11I,NOOS(I,TEIMrVIII r0100316

Do i0 r=1,25 rc100326

I CRKSTRI61,STRESSI6(,STRAIN(6),C(6,6),RLIN 3.AI,NiO0St I, C1003D54

1 TEIIPV1I(I,TEtPV2II,XYZI1,NOD9III,WA(IhDUIWAI2'HI COO3D513

B-1
 DO I 1=1,25 C11003D67

47 CALL DCRAK3 (C,SIG,RL*IN,NO0EL,NUICRK,1 ,1,CRKSTR I 01003261

CALL DCRAK3 (C,STRESS,RLHN,IIODEL,NUMCRK,1 ,2 ,CRKSTR I 01003286

CALL DCRAK3 IC,STRESS.RUIN,tIOOEL,NUtICRK,2,Z,CRKSTR) C1003340

CRKSTRI 4 IEP(I 1 01003362

CRKSTR(S5)=EPI 2
CRIKSTR( 6 )=EP( 3)

CALL DCRAK3 (C,STRESSRLHNHO0EL,NUICRK,1 ,2,CRKSTRI C10D3363

159 CALL DCRAK3 (C,STRESS,RLIINIO0EL,NUHCRK,12,,CRKSTRI C01003414

CALL DCRAK3 (C,STRESS,RUIN,IOOEL,NUICR)%1 ,?,CRKSTRI C1003420

130 CALL DCRAKS IC,SIG,RUIN,lI00EL,NUMCRK,2,1 ,CRKSTRI C1003561

DO 210 1=1,25 01003567

DIMENSION STR(4bEPS(41,CRKSTR(6I,SPI(I ,SP31(1i),SP3?I11I,SP33(11 , CRAKIDIS

DIMENSION C(4,4,SIG14 1,0(4,4 (,T(4,41,DSIG(4 I,CRKSTR(6) DCRACK 9

C RELEASE APPROPRIATE STRESSES DCRAK 16S

C DCRAK1 66
NT=IK + I DCRAK167
GO TO (140,120,110,100,1551, NF DCRAK168
100 CALL DSOF3 I 3,SIGP,FALSTR,EP,CRKSTR,F,VNJ,SICtIAT,SGIIAC I DCRAK169
110 SIGPI6I=SIGPI6) DCRAK170
CALL DSOF3 ( 2,SIGP,FALScTR,EP,CRKSTR,E,VNU,SGAT,SIGIAC I DCRAK171
120 SIGPISI=SIGP(Sl DCRAKI 72
SIGPI 4 hSIGP 4) DCRAK1 73
CALL DSOF3 (I,SIGP,FALSTR,EP,CRKSTR,E,VNU,SGIAT,SI1I;AC P DCRAK174
C DCRAKI 75
C ROTATE STRESSES TO GLOBAL AXES DCRAKI 76

SUBROUTINE DSOF3 ( IJ,SIGP,FALSTR,EP,CRKS;TRE,VIIU,STGIIAT,STCtlAC I, 01003

O 90
IMIPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION ( A-H,O-Z I
COMM1ON /SOFT/ ISCODE ,I*CC,ELi4W,GGFr ,DDAA,1R01-
DIMENSION SIGPI4I,EP(4I,CRKSTrR(61,CORNII1 ,7,
C
IF (CRKSTR~ii.J.GT.O.nOI G(YFO s
SIGPII13)=FALSTR
RETURN

B- 2
 5 CONTINUE
DATA (CORNII,1 l,1=1,11I/O. ,.OS,.1,.IS,.2,.25,.3,.4,.6,.8,1.O/
DATA fCORN(I,21,Isl,1lI/1. ,.7082,.5108,.3817,.2986,.24.6,.2080,
I .1S96,.0904,.0361,0.0/
33=IJ
KK33J+3
EEPP=EP(I 3
IF fEP(I 3I.GT.CRKSTR(KK II CRKSTR(KK IEP( 131
IF (EP(IJ3I.LT.CRKSTR(KKI I EEPP=CRKSTR(KK I
C
ISS=ISCODE-2
IF (ISSI 10,20,30
C
10 CONTINUE
EETr=1/ 1/E-f2*GGFFI/fSIGflAT**2*WWCCI1
SIGP(I 3 =FALSTREETr*( EEPP-CRKSTRI 33II
IF (EP(IJ).LT.CRKSTRIKKI I SIGP(13 I:EP(I 3 /FEPP*SIGPI TJ I
IF I SIGP( 131 .GT. FALSTR I SIGP( 13 IFALSTR
IF (SIGP(I31.LT.O.DOI SIGPIIJI=O.DO
IF (13-21 12,11,11
11 SIGP16J=O.DO
12 SIGPISIO0.DO
SlOPE 4 =0. DO
RETURN
C
20 CONTINUE
EO=GGFF/( WWCC*O. 19704*SIGtIAT I
DO 23 1=1,11
CORNI 1,3 l=CORN( 1,1 l.CORN( 1,2 I*CRKSTR 33 1/EG
IF (EEPP/EO.LT.CORNII,3 II GO TO 24.
23 CONTINUE
24 AA=ICORN(I-1,21-CORNII,211/ICORNEI-2,3)-CORNII,3))
B8=CORN( 1-1,2 I-AA*CORN( 1-1,3l
SIGPE 13I=FAILSTR*( AA*EEPP/EO+BBl
IF ISIGPII3I.GT.FALSTR) SIGPI 131=FALSTR
IF (SIGPI IiI.LT.O.DO I SlOPE 13 10.DO
IF (13-21 22,21,21
21 SIGP46IO.DO
22 SIGPI5IO0.DO
SIGPE'. 10.DO
RETURN
C
30 CONT INUE
RETURN
C
END

B- 3
 Appendix C

GENERAL MODTFICATIONS

The following are changes implemented in the rest of the program,

namely in the subprograms ADINA.F77, ADTNI.F77 and ADINA2.F77. Only the
modified spherical constant arc-length scheme is allowed and only Full
Newton iterations without line search are carried out. If NODQL is
chosen between 3 and 100, a subset of NODQI, nodes is used in the norm of
displacement. If NODQI, is 2, the distance between two points is used
instead of the norm of displacement.

CHANGES IN ADINA.F77

COiMlON /DICS/ DISPtI4,ADNOI,ADI4AX,ADCOtI,NODQNDIDNEDPI4,NICRLO,IARADINA189

I ,NODQLNEDPH1L!1O0,7l

IF !IRSHI4.EQ.2I KSTOP=1 ADINA994

CHANGES IN ADINI.F77

I ,NODQL,NEDPHLE 100,71 ADINI 33

IREAD EIIN,10041 NWQ,NDIDDISP4,ADNOt,ADtIAX,ICOtIA,IAR,IIODQL AD111166

IFINODQL.EQ.O .OR. IETHOO.NE.41 GO TO 70
NNOQL=IKTIFLOATINOOQL-1 1/10. P+1
DO 69 I=I,NNIDQL
69 READ (IIN,10071 (NEDPt1LI10*(I-1I+K,1),K=I,10
70 CONTINUE
IF IhETHOC.EQ.4) NEWREF=1 ADINI718
IF INODQL.EQ.O GO rO 46 ADINI801
WRITE 16,20671 NODOQL
=
DO 446 I1 ,NNODQL
446 WRITE 16,2068) INED1'HLf1OII-llK,2p,K-,)

1004 FORIAT 1215,3FI0.0,3T5l ADINI218

1007 FORMAT (10151 ADINI220

2067 FORMAT I/5X, ADIN1577

ISSNOOE SUBSET FOR DISPLACEMfENT NORK, TOTAL NODES (NODQI. 1,'I,/)
2068 FORIIAT IISX,10I4

C-1
CHANGES IN ADIN-A2.F77

I ,NODQL,NEDPiLI 100,71 LOAD?1S55

IF INODQL.EQ.0) GO TO 13 LOADI03
D0 13 II=1,NODQL
NIDL=NS - I + (fNEDPtL( II, 1 1-1I *NDOF
DO 22 IN=1,6
IF (IDOF( IN I.EQ.0I GO TO 22
NIDL=NDL. 1
NEDPHLEII,IN+1) = IA(NIDL)
22 CONTINUE
13 CONTINUE
IF(NODQL.EQ.01 GO TO 14 LOADMI0O9
WRITE (6,5000)
no Is I=1,NODQL
15 WRITE 16,5001) NEDPMflI,l),(NEDPflL(I,XI,K=2,7)
14 CONTINUE

5000 FORIIATI /34H NODE SUBSET FOR DISPLACEMIENT NORM, LOADM268

I /34H NODE EQUATION NUMBERS
5001 FORIATI6X,I4,4X,6I4)

C IF (PEOLIJ.GT.BIG*PEINIT) GO TO 710 EQUIT254

GO TO 230 EQUIT259

I ,NODQL,NEDPIL( 100,71 ASTIM423

INODQL,NEDPHIL(100,71 ASTCHE71

DUALL=3. WDUALL ASTCH151

IF (NODQL.NE.0) GO TO 500 ASTCH186

COMMION /DICS/ DISPI4 , ADNOII ,ADMAX ,ADCOiI ODQ ,NDID,NEDPI4 ,N1CRI.O ,IARI)OPRFtiI4

INODQL,NEDPHL( 100,71

IF INODQL.EQ.2) GO TO 160 DOPRFM21I

IF (NODQL.NE.01 GO TO 150

IS0 PD-0.Do DOPRFM46

DO 151 11I,NODQL
DO 151 3=2,7
IF (NEDPtIL(I,3(.EQ.01 GO TO 151
PII=PD4AA(NEDPtIL( I,JII*BBINEDPtIL(I,J3I
151 CONTINUE
PD=PD*(NALLEQ/(NODQL+1Ill
PRO0.DO
RETURN

C- 2
160 P0=0.00
DO 161 J=2,7
IF (NEDPt1L1,I.EQ.OI GO TO 161
PD=PD+(AA(NEDPHL( 1,3 I-AA(NEDPKL( 2,3 I
1 *IBB(NEDPtLI,JII-BBNEDPHL(2,JlI
161 CONTINUE
PD=PD*I NALLEQ/3 )
PR=O.DO
RETURN

I NOOQLgNEDPHL(100,71I ALSTEP 9

I ,NODQLNEDPILI100,7) ALSET 10

NODQL=0 ALSET 37

DO 2 I=1,100 ALSET 39
DO 2 3=1,7
2 NEDPHLII,31=0

1 NOOQL,NEDPIILI100,71 NEWDAV36

C- 3
 Appendix D

FAILURE ENVELOPE

Concrete Strength Power

8000 psi, (563 kp/ CM 2 ) (55.2 MPa) 1.00

6000 psi (422 kp/ cm 2 ) (41.4 MPa) 1.40

4000 psi (281 kp/cm 2 ) (27.6 MPq) 1.80

2000 psi (141 kp/cm 2 ) (27.6 MPa) 2.20

CHANGES IN ELT204.F77

FALSTR=SIGIAT*( 1. - (P3/SIGIIAC I**POWR I PRNCPL86

IF (P1.GE.O.DO) FALSTR=SIGlAT*(I1. - (P2/SIGCPI**POWR) PRNCP121

1 *(I. - (P3/SIGCP I**POWR(

IF (HODEL.EQ.5 -AND. SIG(ZLLT.O.DOI CRAKII83

I FALSTR=SIGIIAT*u1. - (SIG(2?/SIGlAC?**POWRfl CRAII84

CHANGES IN ELT3D4.F77

120 FALSTR=SIGIAT*(I. - (P3/SIGlIAC)**POWR) PR~NCP232

IF (PI.GE.O.DO) FALSTR=SIG1AT*11. - (PZ/SIGCP(**POWR) PRNCP266

I *(I. - IP3/SIGCPI**PONRI

IF (?ODEL.EQ.5 .AND. SIG(3).LT.O.DOI CRAK3120

I FALSTR=SIGMAT#11. - (SIG(3)/SIGtiACl**POWR) CRA)X3121

Dl-1
 Appendix E

DERIVATION OF CRACK STIFFNESS MATRIX B

The MRCM formulation can be rewritten as

ann = -al2 rV/6ndt/h

an= ot(1-26n/d a)r(f/g)

where:

f a3 + a 4 Jr 31

g= I + a4 r4

0 25
h (1+r 2)

and by derivation:

fn = 8f/8n = -3a416t 3/6n4 1

ft = =
af/at 3a4 6t16t/6nBJ

4 n5
ag/an = - a4 (6t /6 )
= 4
gn

t= 3g/at = 4n4(6t /6n 4 )

hn= h/an = (l+r 2) 075(-26t /6 3)/4

t n

ht =a8h/at = ( r2)-O7(26t/6n 2 )

I E-I
The crack stiffness terms are then:

2 -h nr )
B = -a2(-h6t/6 -n a /h
2 + r6- 0.5 nt/2h r -nBt/h

=
Bnt -al2 (-htr+h/6n) /Ot/h2 + rV6nBtt/h)

Bt (1- 26/d) If/6ng + r(ftg-fgt)/g21

Btn =To(-fr/(gV-d6)+(I-V n/d)(fng-fgn)r/g2-f6t/ n2)

E-2
 I)ISTRI11tvi'ION LIST

AF 110 ESI) AVMS. Hlanscomi Al Ht. NMA

AF.SC ''IC('IihrarNI. 'I %ndali AFBI. 1:1
ARMY.IN ('L(ONI R"&) I cci 1i.) Ft Monmtiouith. N.1i R& 1) 1 ah. S I RN( -1,1 . Natick. VA.
ARNMY BFIXO(IR R&D CIIN S I R~IW-iH.( RI ftI Hickiii. \ A
ARNMY 'F.RI. (IA'l'.RLN1[ Ii i,'1 ('hliipaiun . 11 . I iit'I. 'hiltlpaiu. 11
ARNMY FilS (P-(I i'cktcr ). VcI~mvIi. NIS. I Ibit1. \'iLk-Wiiri MS. \\1F D NiI
01k.11,P . lkJuti! %Is.

( NA 'I'cch I hijin ..'\cvmidriit VA

DODt) ~pn SiICtII Bid (Ijib). Vi'iitiif. DC(
D)1Rj.T'N COIC 172. Hcthc~kIi. Nil). Codec 4111. Bcthc'dil. \il)
C 1DTP 1C Co.( irona. ('A
6SN ('11t' higrg i. POWH %kpini..ttn.j11
liB1RARNY Of CONORI SS Sti & I ccli i\. Wo' lmuicn. D(
N AN'(OAS'ISYSI. 'N ('(. I'iiin Cm.t 1:1
NA'I'A(' N62. ,NTL'cli,. NI
NANNFACNGN ('( )NI ( odc M0. Alcxiind ii. VAr: ('tIC 03.Nl t \,itilrisl. NA: ( nc 0)4A. AkI,\ttli i. V 0,
(1i4A] . 'Nicindrio. VA:' ('()tc 041ID Ai nidriai. VA -\ (ilc WtA ". NI' lilrii. \:N
A ulc I WAt.
Almxindriit. VA' ('ndc 06)11 ANimtiar~. NA: ( nudc ()-. Aliinlit N\A: ( tic (t1 (.~ ' \1Nt~
VA,: ('idc OINI 214W itb). Alc':indti A.
NAVF'A('NGCOM ((III S IV. (I-,c 112 1. Witduincnun. IDC': Fi'() It' .~ Ni ihngtoi. M
NAVI A(TINGCOM - IAN'l DIV ( nudc 1112. NorilIk. VA: I ihiain. \,:Iflk VA
NAVIA('FNGiC(M -N( Rl II DI1V, ( 'dc (1'4. Phikidiiii .VA:( Cod 04A I . l'hiladIlphI.. P'A
NA\'FA-'CNG'('OMI S(~~l IV1N.
Df' ( 'dc 0)4A3. ('hmii Iin SC. Cod H'EI1211. ('himrlc'tn. M Ld I' I)
(horle~ion. SC: hbrat~i. ('haicst ii. S
NAVIA('FN(G(OM - W1 SI IV' ('idc 014A2 2 (1lihj. Sin 11rit11. ('A. ('I OH1. Stitffn I I .111 Ilk.,,
(Jcurigl San BrunotC(' Paic NV'. Hr ( )tic. (n. ( ;(),. Silrrdtc. %%A.
N.NN'kFAUN(;C()NI ('( N'IRA( IS ( 'tc 460). Pl'itNmokith, N N: I mi. R( )( ( '.('I h ctk. N 1
NANNIIOSPI'5(1'Knaipmskil. (ircai I.akcs. If
NAVMAR(OREiSCFN 1 I I )avi'.. Ruilcich. NV
NAVMI'.1COM SCE., .ack'nmific. I I,
NAVSCSC 01. I'Vi(. Athctn. (6A
NRI ('ndc 2511., t~ishiiwtnn. iC: ( 'nE 46,711 (11 Fatiti . \\i :ivion. D))
NI. SC D)1< fib (('ndc 45331. Noyrlr RI
('AIHliRNIA SI AllF UNIVI:RSI IY (V. ( '11ClaitI. 1 0i11! ILcich. A
C ASE' WKS'iFERN RFSI' RN'i: UIN N Del~pt 1lcrdikiii. ('CldidI. ()I
('Al'fl0i.C LININ of Am. (J DI)i ( Kim). )
M\ihwni
(TiARKSON C'OIl 1O TFl'l(llUIDcit IHatitf. PI'Ianih. NN
ClORAD)( SiNil.I-UNIN'IRSI1 ) ('I lt W ri,\wcll. FtHCothin'.
('ORNI 1.1 I'NIN'i'.RSI I ' ('jul & Infint l'rtcrc (it Kntiuuim. ltbacc.. N) I Ii' t~~.V
l)ANWIS & NiO( tH I .irIr.o it Ni.~clc'. C
FITORiI),N INS I Of1 1('11 ( *l iDcp1 (Kiltiiiin). \icIbo'imic. I I

('1 Scot 1/uruck I. AIltita. 6 A

JOHNS HOP1KINS 'NIN' (*I Dept l.Iiic'.. Blilnic. Nil)
l.,NNNRI.N(Tl lINI RN1IRI NA II I ANli 1.1 likir,. I ixcitntrc. CAN. I'lint I'itcr l it, H -(~i I ILL'tni0k,n' N
I I HIGII INIVI RSI IN I indcrii I ihim ii cthlcltcmn. IN
NiCI(iAN IIA('I I'NIN'RSIIN ('I Decpt Ii'lIioii~htion. Nil
Nil I infzrp Ilbd. arnl'idgi.. NIA
NANI I ACAI)I N Of S( II' N( 'I S NR( . Ndt\ .I StIMiK'S lid. NN,'iwtt )(
ORI60N SIAll. I'NIN'IRSI IY CI iDcpi IIlicki,.. (alii'. OR
TN N SN'1I'A N IA SI ANI' I NINVI R SI I N ( itl kki. Ii In, crsi i' lidk. PA:1 Rlt1 .ihfi) (Sit IctI 1. Sti
IdIC IAckL!
l'A
POR )I' I A NI) Si NIl I IN I R S IIN' I ni v, Dct 11 0N1iliminct Ilkitla t. 0
IIRD)Ii 1NIRSI I ('(I ScilOI Ilcinaid'1. N\\ I .,taC1c. IN: 'nct! lIhI.. I li,tIcuL. IN
SAN MI 60 SI AlIl UNIV ('I1, Dpt I Krinaiiiiirth%' I. Sin lDtcki.. ( AN
SI Al I'1.l 1.'N IN RSI I N I DI pt1 (SCh\%i1:ijCcl. ScitlC, \kNA
SOUl JIWIS I RS( 'I IN'SI Klop. sant ,Ntitomiti. IV; NI Plkn. smt 'Nntt IN. Nhik,itl,,. \womoi IN
SIMAl'I kNINI RSI IN Of NI W YORK C'I Dept 4Rcittril. Hittlil. N)i ('I Ocpt. Buitlil \)
I [NXAS A&Ni UNIVIRSI I N' (I Ik~pf tNiI,1cI)I c IflI. II'I cc S~ID(')). I\. (I I)1 1\1t'I1/%uc I,( ('I'ICI
Statiin. Occan
( I lip Prot ('ulcgc Staittit. IN
 CNI\'LRSII'Y OF CALIFORNIA ('E Dept (Fenses). IBerkele\ (CA: CL D~ept (I'ourncev), L-os .\nLeelcs.(A
CE Dept (Gerwick). Berkelev. (A: (FE Dept ('la\ lor). Da\vis, C' CE D~ept (Williamson). BcrkclcN. CA
UN IVERSITY OF H ARTFORD) CE Dept (Kcshia a West Flartlord. CTI
I NIVERSIIlY OF HAWAII CE Dept (('hiul. Ilonolul~i. Ill: %lanoa. Library. Honolulu, III
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Librirv, Uirhana. IL: Met/ Ref Rmi. Urbana. IL
L'NIVERSI'rY OF MICH IGAN CF D~ept (Richart). Ann Arbor. Nll
U.NIVERSITIY OF NEW MEXI() Ill. Schrever. Albuquerque. NM: NMLERI (Bean). Alb1UqL1ek1u. NM:I
NMERI (Falk). Albuquerque. NM: NMERI (L-eigh). Albuquerque. NMI
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA lDept of Arch (P. McClear,.1. Philadelphia. PA
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND ('E Dept (Kovacs), Kingston. RI: CE Dept. Kingston. RI
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS CE Dept ("I hompson ). Austin. IX: Construction IndustrN Inst. Auistin. IX F:ECJ
4.8 (Breen). Austin, TX
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON (CE Dept (Mattock). Seattle. WA
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Great Lakes Studies ('en. NijlWauLkee. WI
WASHINGTON DIfIHS. OFE. PIIS (Ishihara). Seattle. WA
AMERICAN CONCRETE INS]'ITl[UlE Library. D)etroit. N1I
ARVID GRANT & ASSOC Olympia. WA
BECHTEL ('IVIL. INC Woolston. San Francisco. ('A
('ANADA Viateur De ('hamplain. D.S.A.. Niatane. Quebee
CHIILDS ENGRG C'ORP K.M. ('ilds. Jr. Nlerdfild. %IA
C'LARENC'E R JONES,.('(NSU.IXIN, LITD Augursta. GA
COLLIINS ENGiRG. INC NI Garlich. (Chicago. It,
C'ONRAD ASSOC Luisoni. Van Nuvs, (CA
('ONSIDER TOWNSEND & ASSOC': Schramm. C'hicag~o. IL
('ONSTRUCl'lON 'TECH LABS. IN(' G. ('orley. Skokie. II.
DIL[LINGHAM CONS'rR C'ORP (IID&C). F Mehlale. IHonolulu. [il
I Ong Yam Chai. Singapore
EARL & WRIGH'V C'ONSUILTING ENGRGS Jensen. San Francisco. ('A
EVALUATION ASSOC. INC' MA Ft'dele. King of Prussia. PA
HALEY & ALDRI('II. INC. T.('. Dunn. Canmbridg'e. MA
[JAYNES & ASSOC H., tlanes. PE. Oakland. ('A
IfIRSCH & CO 1, Hirsch, San Diego. CA
IIJ DEGENKOLB ASSOC W Murdough. San Francisco. ('A
JOHN J MC MULLIEN ASSOC Library. Newk York. NY
LEO A DALY CO, Honolulu. Ill
[LIN OFFSH4ORE ENGRG P. ('how%. San Francisco ('A
LINDA HALL LIBRARY IDoc Dept. Kansas ('ity. MO
MARITE('H ENGRG Donoghue, Austin. TX
MC CLELI.AND ENGRS. IN(' Library. Houston. TX
EDWARD K NODA & ASSOC' I onolulu. Ill
NEW ZEALAND NZ ('oncrete Rsch Assoc. Library. Porirua
PACIFIC MARINE TEC('IM. Wagner) IDusall. WA
PMB ENGRG ('null. San Francisco. ('A
PORTLAND) CEMENT ASSOC AL Fiorato. Skokie. If.
SANDIA LABS L.ibrarv. Lisermore. CA
SARGENT & HERKES. INC JP Pierce. Jr. New%Orleans. LA
SAUDI ARABIA King Saud Univ. Rsch ('en. Riyadh
SIMPSON. GUNMPERTZ & HIEGER. INC' E- Hill. CF. Arlington. NI/\
I'RW INC Crawford. Redondo Beach. ('A. Iai. San Bernardino. ('A: Engr Library. ('leveland. Ofl
TUDOR ENGRG ('0 Ellegood. Phoenix. AZ
WISS. JANNEY. ELS'INER. & ASSO(' IW Pfeifer. Northbrook. IL.
WISWELL. INC' (iC. Wis%%cll. Southport, SC
WOODWARD-C'IYDE ('ONSULrAN'[S West Reg. Liii. Oakland. ('A
BROWN. ROBERT University. AL
GIORDANO. A.J. Sewell. NJ
[JAYNES, B. No. Stonington. CTI
HEUIZE. F Alamo. ('A
NIEDORODA. AW Gainesville. Fl.
QUIRK. J Panama City. FL-
STEVENS. 'TW Dayton. 011
VAN ALLEN. B Kingston. NY
 II!
I INSTRUCTIONS

I The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory has revised its primary distribution lists. The bottom of the
I' label on the reverse side has several numbers listed. These numbers correspond to numbers assigned to
I the list of Subject Categories. Numbers on the label corresponding to those on the list indicate the
subject category and type of documents you are presently receiving. If you are satisfied, throw this card
I away (or file it for later reference).

I If you want to change what you are presently receiving:

9 Delete - mark off number on bottom of label.

* Add - circle number on list.

* Remove my name from all your lists - check box on list.

* Change my address - line out incorrect line and write in correction (DO NOT REMOVE LABEL).

9 Number of copies should be entered after the title of the subject categories you select.

Fold on line below and drop in the mail.

Note: Numbers on label but not listed on questionnaire are for NCEL use only, please ignore them.

Fold on line and staple.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYIIiII

Naval CMI Engineering Laboratory
Port Hueneme. CA 93043-5003 NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300

BUSINESS REPLY CARDI____

,.UN
IF MAILED
IN THE
STATES

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12503 WASH D.C.________

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE

Commanding Officer
Code L34
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Port Hueneme, California 93043-5003
 DISTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Is revising Its Primary distribution lists.

SUBJECT CATEGORIES 28 ENERGY/POWER GENERATION

29 Thermal conservation (thermal engineering of buildings. HVAC
1 SHORE FACILITIES systems, energy loss measurement. power generation)
2 Construction methods and materials (including corrosion 30 Controls and electrical conservation (electrical systems.
control, coatings) energy monitoring and control systems)
3 Waterfront structures (maintenance/deterioratior. control) 31 Fuel flexibility (liquid fuels, coal utilization, energy
4 Utilities (including power conditioning) from solid waste)
5 Explosives safety 32 Alternate energy source (geothermal power, photovoltaic
6 Aviation Engineering Test Facilities power systems, solar systems, wind systems, energy storage
7 Fire prevention and control systems)
8 Antenna technology 33 Site data and systems integration (energy resource data.
9 Structural analysis and design (including numerical and energy consumption data, integrating energy systems)
computer techniques) 34 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10 Protective construction (Including hardened shelters, 35 Hazardous waste minimization
shock and vibration studies) 36 Restoration of installations (hazardous waste)
11 Soil/rock mechanics 37 Waste water management and sanitary engineering
14 Airfields and pavements 38 Oil pollution removal and recovery
39 Air pollution
15 ADVANCED BASE AND AMPHIBIOUS FACILITIES
16 Base facilities (including shelters, power generation, water 44 OCEAN ENGINEERING
supplies) 45 Seafloor soils and foundations
17 Expedient roads/arfields/bridges 46 Seafloor construction systems and operations (Including
18 Amphibious operations (including breakwaters, wave forces) diver and manipulator tools)
19 Over-the-Beach operations (including containerization. 47 Undersea structures and materials
material transfer. lghterage and cranes) 48 Anchors and moorings
20 POL storage, transfer and distribution 49 Undersea power systems, electromechanical cables,
and connectors
50 Pressure vessel facilities
51 Physical environment (including site surveying)
52 Ocean-based concrete structures
54 Undersea cable dynamics
TYPES OF DOCUMENTS
85 Techdata Sheets 86 Technical Reports and Technical Notes 82 NCEL Guides & Abstracts Ej None-
83 Table of Contents & Index to TOS 91 PhySical Security remove my name
 NCEL DOCUMENT EVALUATION
You are number one with us; how do we rate with you?

We at NCEL want to provide you our customer the best possible reports but we need your help. Therefore, I ask you
to please take the time from your busy schedule to fill out this questionnaire. Your response will assist us in providing
the best reports possible for our users. I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. I assure you that the
information you provide will help us to be more responsive to your future needs.

R. N. STORER, Ph.D. P.E.

Technical Director

DOCUMENT NO. _ ___TITLE OF DOCUMENT:________________

Date: . _ Respondent Organization: __ ___

Name: Activity Code: _

Phone: Grade/Rank:

Category (please check):

Sponsor - User Proponent Other (Specify)

Please answer on your behalf only; not on your organization's. Please check (use an X) only the block that most closely
describes your attitude or feeling toward that statement:

SA Strongly Agree A Agree 0 Neutral D Disagree SD Strongly Disagree

SA A N D SD SA A N D SD

1. The technical quality of the report () () () () () 6. The conclusions and recommenda- () () () ( ) ()

is comparable to most of my other tions are clear and directly sup-
sources of technical information, ported by the contents of the
report.
2. The report will make significant () () () () ()
improvements in the cost and or 7. The graphics, tables, and photo- () () () () ()
performance of my operation. graphs are well done.

3. The report acknowledges related ( ) () () ()

work accomplished by others. Do you wish to continue getting l--- E I
[NCEL reports? YES NO
N
I
4. The report is well formatted. ( ) () (r) (r) (Y)
Please add any comments (e.g., in what ways can we
5. The report is clearly written. () () () () () improve the quality of our reports?) on the back of this
form.
Comments:

Plea fold on line and staple

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Naval CM Engirnering Laboratory
Port lueneme. CA 93043-S003

Official kelnes
Penalty for Private Uee S300

Code L03B
NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
PORT HUENEME, CA 93043-5003