International Journal of Fracture 118: 163–189, 2002.

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete

J.C. GÁLVEZ1, D.A. CENDÓN2 and J. PLANAS2

1 ETS de Ingenieros de Caminos, Universidad Castilla-La Mancha, Av. Camilo José Cela s/n, 13071-Ciudad
Real, Spain.
2 Departamento de Ciencia de Materiales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, ETS de Ingenieros de Caminos,
Ciudad Universitaria, 28040-Madrid, Spain

Received 20 August 2001; accepted in revised form 19 November 2002

Abstract. The influence of the mode II fracture parameters on the mixed mode fracture experimental tests of
quasibrittle materials is studied. The study is based on experimental results and numerical analyses. For the nu-
merical study, a procedure for mixed mode fracture of quasibrittle materials is presented. The numerical procedure
is based on the cohesive crack approach, and extends it to mixed mode fracture. Four experimental sets of mixed
mode fracture were modelled, one from Arrea and Ingraffea and another from a nonproportional loading by the
authors, both with bending concrete beams. Two other sets of experimental fracture were modelled, based on
double-edge notched testing; in these tests an important mode II is beforehand expected. The numerical results
agree quite well with experimental records. The influence of the main parameters for mode II fracture on the
mixed mode fracture is studied for the four experimental set of tests and compared with these results. In all them,
large changes in the mode II fracture energy hardly modify the numerical results. The tangential and normal
stresses along the crack path during the loading proccess are obtained, also with different values of the mode II
fracture energy. For the studied experimental tests it is concluded that the crack is initiated under mixed mode but
propagated under predominant mode I. This allows a development of mixed mode fracture models, mainly based
on standard properties of the material measured by standard methods, avoiding the problems associated with the
measurement of mode II fracture parameters, such as mode II fracture energy and cohesion.

Key words: Cohesive crack models, concrete, finite element method, fracture, mixed mode, numerical analysis,
plasticity.

Abbreviations: ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials; CEB – Comité Euro-International du Béton;
CMOD – crack mouth opening displacement; CMSD – crack mouth sliding displacement; FEM – finite element
method; GBF – general bilinear fit; LEFM – linear elastic fracture mechanics; MCS – maximum circumferential
stress; RILEM – Réunion Internationale des Laboratoires d’Essais et de Recherches sur les Matériaux et les
Constructions; PTFE – polytetrafluoridethylene.

1. Introduction

Considerable effort has been devoted to the study of the initiation and stable growth of cracks
in quasibrittle materials, such as mortar, concrete, rock or bricks, under mixed mode I/II
loading conditions. Much experimental work has been done, especially with bending beam
tests, such as those based on the Iosipescu’s geometry (Iosipescu, 1967): Arrea and Ingraffea
(1982), Bažant and Pfeiffer (1986), Biolzi (1990), Bocca et al. (1990, 1991), Ballatore et al.
(1990), Schlangen (1993), Schlangen and Van Mier (1993) or Carpinteri et al. (1993), and
those based on the three point bend of notched beams with eccentric notch: Guo et al. (1994a,
b), Jenq and Shah (1988), Schwartz et al. (1988a), among others. Other important sets of tests
have been developed by Nooru-Mohamed (1992), Nooru-Mohamed and Van Mier (1992) and
Hassanzadeh (1992) on notched specimens partially cracked in tension. The advance has been
164 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

important, but some aspects need to be studied in depth. The influence of fracture energy in
mode II on the mixed mode cracking is not clear. Some authors postulate that under mixed
mode failure, the mode II is negligible or non-existent (Jenq and Shah, 1988; García et al.,
2000; di Prisco et al., 2000) whereas Swartz et al. (1988b) concluded from their tests that
mode II fracture energy is eight to ten times larger than mode I fracture energy, Bažant and
Pfeiffer (1985) thirty times larger, and Carpinteri et al. (1983) that the mixed mode fracture
energy is 16 to 33 per cent higher than mode I fracture energy. Systematic research, focussed
on the physical mechanisms involved in the initiation and stable growth of the cracks, with
different test geometries, is necessary to clarify the role and the influence of the mode II frac-
ture parameters on the mixed mode I/II fracture of the quasibrittle materials, an investigation
that calls for the combined use of experimental methods and numerical tools.
Numerical methods for fracture of quasibrittle materials may be classified into two groups
(Elices and Planas, 1989): ‘smeared crack approach’ and ‘discrete crack approach’; although
some authors include a third group: the ‘lattice approach’ (Schlangen, 1993).
In the smeared crack approach the fracture is represented by an infinite number of parallel
cracks of infinitely small opening, (theoretically) distributed (smeared) over the finite element
(Bažant and Planas, 1998). The cracks are usually modelled on a fixed finite element mesh.
Their propagation is simulated by the reduction of the stiffness and strength of the mater-
ial. This approach was pioneered with fixed-crack orthotropic secant models (Rashid, 1968;
Červenka, 1970; Suidan and Schnobrich, 1973) and rotating crack models (Cope et al. 1980;
Gupta and Akbar, 1984; Willam et al., 1987). More elaborarate models were also proposed
(de Borst and Nauta, 1985; Rots, 1988).
The discrete approach is preferred when there is one crack, or a finite number of cracks, in
the structure. The cohesive crack model, developed by Hillerborg and co-workers (Hillerborg
et al., 1976) for mode I fracture of concrete, was shown to be efficient to model the fracture
process of other quasi-brittle materials in mode I as well. It was extended to mixed mode
fracture (modes I and II) and incorporated into finite element codes (Reich et al., 1993, 1997;
Červenka, 1994; Xie and Gerstle, 1995; Valente, 1995), and boundary element codes (Saleh
and Alabadi, 1995, 1996). These codes require an input of material properties, related to
mode II fracture, which are difficult to evaluate. In the absence of experimental data, they
are estimated, but no systematic research has clarified their influence on mixed mode fracture.
The authors usually fit these properties to simulate the experimental results of mixed mode
fracture. The problem is the wide scatter of the published experimental data on mixed mode
fracture; large changes in the material properties allow the numerical predictions to cover this
scatter, an aspect that is especially notable in the crack paths.
This work presents a procedure that reproduces the fracture proccess of the quasibrittle
materials under mixed loading using the discrete crack approach. It predicts the crack path
and the mechanical behaviour of the specimen as the crack grows. The cohesive model is
based on the models of Carol et al. (1997) and Červenka (1994), and is implemented by means
of classical plasticity concepts. The numerical model was verified experimentally and agrees
quite well with two experimental sets of mixed mode fracture of concrete beams; one from
Arrea and Ingraffea (1982), traditionally used to verify normal/shear cracking of concrete
models; the other one from Gálvez et al. (1998) under proportional and non-proportional
loading. Two other sets of experimental fracture results were modelled, based on double-edge
notched testing, one from Cedolin et al. (1999) and the other from Gálvez et al. (2000a). This
geometry was proposed by Reinhardt et al. (1997, 1998) for pure mode II fracture in concrete,
but it seems that the fracture is developed under mixed mode (di Prisco and Ferrara, 1998).
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 165

The above cohesive model for mixed mode fracture is used to calculate the traction vector
(normal and tangential stresses) along the crack path under different loading states during the
test. The evolution of the traction vector is analyzed for two experiment sets of fracture of
concrete beams (Arrea and Ingraffea, 1982; Gálvez et al., 1998) and for two other experiment
sets of double-edge notched specimens (Cedolin et al., 1999; Gálvez et al., 2000a), in which
beforehand an important mode II could be expected. In all cases an important local mixed
mode is observed when the crack starts from the notch. This is geometrically shown by a
kink between the notch and the crack. When the crack is growing in stable manner under
mixed loading, a local mode I crack growth predominates over mode II. Large changes in
the mode II parameters, such as the specific fracture energy in mode II and the cohesion,
hardly modify the numerical predictions; dividing by two or to multiplying by one hundred
the specific fracture energy in mode II produces very little effect on the load–displacement
and load–CMOD curves.
These results show that for this kind of tests, it is enough to use a formulation of mixed
mode fracture based on simple properties of the material, measured by standardized
methods: tensile strength, compression strength, Young’s modulus, mode I specific fracture
energy and softening curve. Other parameters not measurable by standard methods, such as
mode II specific fracture energy, have little influence on the final result.
We begin with a presentation of the classical cohesive crack model for mode I fracture,
which is then extended to mixed mode I/II fracture. The experimental verification of the model
is shown and the influence of the mode II parameters on mixed mode fracture is studied.
Finally, the conclusions and final comments are presented.

2. The cohesive crack model in mode I

The cohesive crack model, called fictitious crack model by Hillerborg and co-workers, has
been successful in the analysis of the fracture of concrete, rock and cement–based materials
since its proposal (Hillerborg et al., 1976), as shown by Bažant et al. (1986), Carpinteri (1994),
Guinea et al. (1994) and Cendón et al. (2000), among others. Part of this success is due to its
simplicity and physical meaning. A detailed study of this model was published by Bažant and
Planas (1998). The softening function, σ = f (w), is the main ingredient of the cohesive crack
model. This function, a material property, relates the stress σ acting across the crack faces to
the corresponding crack opening w (see Figure 1). In mode I opening, the stress transferred,
σ , is normal to the crack faces.
Two properties of the softening curve are most important: the tensile strength, ft0 , and
the cohesive fracture energy, GF . The tensile strength is the stress at which the crack is
created and starts to open (f (0) = ft0 ). The cohesive fracture energy, GF , also called specific
fracture energy, is the external energy required to create and fully break a unit surface area of a
cohesive crack, and coincides with the area under the softening function. The tensile strength
and the specific fracture energy are material properties and may be experimentally measured
in accordance with ASTM C 496 (1999) and RILEM 50-FMC (1986), respectively.
Many softening curves have been developed to model the experimental fracture behaviour
of concrete in tension (Bažant and Planas, 1998). The bilinear curves are accepted as rea-
sonable approximations to the softening curve for concrete, although there is no agreement
about the precise location of the kink point. Based on a previous work (Cendón et al., 2000)
the GBF softening curve is preferred and used in this work. The GBF model, developed by
166 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 1. Cohesive crack and softening curve for mode I fracture of concrete.

(Guinea et al. (1994), is calibrated with four parameters: the tensile strength, ft0 , the specific
fracture energy, GF , the abcisa of the centroid of the softening curve, w , and the initial
tangent intercept, w1 . See Guinea et al. (1994) for details. When there are not enough data,
the Petersson softening function (Petersson, 1981) is used with its two parameters: the tensile
strength, ft0 , and the specific fracture energy, GF .

3. The cohesive crack model applied to mixed mode fracture

The numerical simulation of the mixed mode (I/II) fracture process of concrete proposed in
this work is based on the incorporation of the cohesive crack model into a finite element code.
The two main stages of the process are the calculation of the crack path, and the incorporation
of the cohesive crack model into the crack path, in two computational steps.

3.1. N UMERICAL PREDICTION OF THE CRACK PATH

LEFM has proved its worth in predicting the crack path, even of complex trajectories. This
was demonstrated in stable tests with brittle materials (Gálvez et al., 1996; Mahajan and Ravi,
1989) and extended to quasi-brittle materials (Cendón et al., 2000; Gálvez et al., 2000a). In
this work, numerical computations use the MCS criterion (Erdogan and Sih, 1963), which
postulates that the crack grows perpendicularly to the greatest tension. Detailed information
about the MCS criterion can be found in Broek (1986), for example. The LEFM finite element
code FRANC2D (1994) was used to calculate the crack paths.

3.2. C RACKING SURFACE FOR MIXED MODE FRACTURE

Quasibrittle materials such as rock and concrete do not exhaust their tensile strength after
a stress equal to the tensile strength. Figure 2 shows a crack growing in these materials.
From left to right we distinguish three zones: 1) the true crack, with no stress transmission
through the interface, 2) the fracture process zone, where the material has been loaded up to
its tensile strength and is partially broken, but with unbroken material bridges, and is able to
transmit stresses through the interface, and 3) the intact material, where the material has not
been loaded up to its tensile strength. The cohesive crack model for mode I reproduces this
behaviour through the softening curve that relates the normal stress σ transferred across the
cohesive crack faces, as shown in Figure 1.
In mixed mode (I and II) fracture, the relative displacement between the upper and lower
face of the cohesive crack is vectorial in nature. We denote it as u. Likewise, the stress trans-
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 167

Figure 2. Cracking process in concrete.

ferred between the faces of the crack is also vectorial, and is characterized by the traction
vector t acting on the lower face of the crack.
In the present work we adopt an elastoplastic formulation in which the crack displacement
is split into its elastic and inelastic parts
u = ue + ui (1)

so that the traction vector is given by

t = Ke u e (2)

where Ke is a second order elastic stiffness tensor. In this work we assume that the shear and
normal components are uncoupled. We further assume that the normal and shear stiffnesses
are identical, so that the matrix of components is actually


1 0
[Ke ] = K e (3)
0 1
For the inelastic behaviour, it is assumed that the inelastic crack opening can progress when
the so called cracking surface F (t) = 0 is reached, similar to the yield surface in classical
plasticity. In this work, the following hyperbolic expression is assumed (Carol et al., 1997):

F (t) = τ 2 − tan φf (ft − σ )[2c − tan φf (ft + σ )] (4)

where c, φf and ft are the instantaneous values of the cohesion, friction angle and tensile
strength, respectively. These parameters are assumed to depend on the loading history only
through the effective inelastic crack displacement uieff , defined by the conditions
 2 1
2 2
u̇ieff = ||u̇i || = u̇in + u̇it (5)

In this work we assume that, for a given material, the friction angle φf is constant, while
the instantaneous tensile strength ft and cohesion c depend on uieff bilinearly as depicted in
Figure 3. The area enclosed between the softening curve for ft and the axes is the specific
fracture energy GIF for mode I (usually called fracture energy). The area defined by the
168 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 3. Softening curves: a) traction strength, σ , b) cohesion, c.

softening curve for the cohesion and the axes, has also dimensions of energy per unit area
and was called the mode IIa specific fracture energy GIFI a by Červenka (1994). GIFI a is not
accessible to direct measurement in the sense that no test can be devised in which the work of
fracture is uniquely related to GIFI a .
The bilinear softening curve for the tensile strength (Figure 3a) can be determined
experimentally from mode I tests, see Guinea et al. (1994) for details. At present there is
no way to directly measure the softening curve for the cohesion. Therefore, we assume that
the shape of the two curves is the same and that the effective crack opening at which the
strength or cohesion becomes zero is the same. This leads to the following conditions for the
characteristic points of the curve:
GIFI a GIFI a
wc = wσ , w1c = w1σ , c0 = ft 0 , s1c = s1σ (6)
GIF GIF
Figure 4 shows the cracking surface and its evolution in several cracking conditions, based
on the value of the parameter uieff . Note that for each state of damage the cracking surface
has two branches and only the branch extending towards negative values of σ is physically
acceptable. Note also that for fully damaged material (complete loss of tensile strength and
cohesion), the cracking surface degenerates into a Coulomb friction surface with friction
coefficient µ = tan φf .
It is worth noting that the ratio c/ft = GIFI a /GIF cannot be selected arbitrarily. Indeed, for
the equation F (t) = 0 to be meaningful with F (t) given by Equation (4), the factor in square
brackets must be non-negative for any σ ≤ ft and thus we must have
c GIFI a
≥ tan φf and ≥ tan φf (7)
ft GIF

3.3. F LOW RULE AND DILATANCY

The evolution of the inelastic displacements in the fracture process zone is specified by means
of the flow rule, given by
∂Q(t)
u̇i = λ̇ = λ̇b (8)
∂t
where Q(t) is the plastic potential, b is the normal to the plastic potential surface and λ̇ is a
non-negative plastic multiplier. The dilatancy angle is also defined
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 169

Figure 4. Cracking surface and evolution.

u̇in
tan φd = (9)
u̇it
and thus coincides with the angle formed by the potential surface and the negative part of the
σ axis.
The dilantancy too is assumed to depend on the damage level through uieff . Following
Červenka (1994), a linear curve has been adopted:
 ieff


 φd0 1 − u ∀uieff < ucd
φd = ucd (10)


0 ∀u ≥ ucd
ieff

where φd0 is the initial value of the dilatancy angle and ucd is the critical inelastic crack
displacement after which the crack ceases to exhibit the dilatancy effect.
The integration of the rate equations is based on the standard backward Euler scheme. The
model was incorporated into the finite element code ABAQUS© by means of an user sub-
routine. A quadratic interface element was also developed. The Newton-Raphson algorithm
solver was used, and the tangent stiffness matrix was calculated. See Crisfield (1991) and
Cendón (2002) for details.

4. Analysis of mixed mode fracture tests on notched beams

4.1. C OMPARISON WITH THE EXPERIMENTS BY A RREA AND I NGRAFFEA

The experimental results published by Arrea and Ingraffea (1982) are traditionally used to
verify normal/shear cracking of concrete models. This pioneering work on mixed mode frac-
ture of concrete is a standard for validation of numerical and analytical fracture models.
170 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 5. Geometry, forces, and boundary conditions of the tests of Arrea and Ingraffea (1982).

Table 1. Material properties of the tests of Arrea

and Ingraffea (1982).

Series fca Ea νa ftb0 GbF

MPa GPa MPa N/m

B 45.5 24.8 0.18 3.7 107

C 43.4 24.8 0.18 3.4 110
a From Arrea and Ingraffea (1982).
b From CEB-FIP Model Code (1990).

The only material properties measured in the tests by Arrea and Ingraffea (1982) are the
compressive strength, fc , the Young’s modulus, E, and the Poisson’s ratio, ν. There are no data
about the tensile strength, ft0 , or the specific energy fracture, GF , both essential to defining the
softening curve. Saleh and Aliabadi (1995) validated their numerical model by taking ft0 =
2.8 MPa and GF = 100 N/m. Gerstle (1995), for the same set of tests took: ft0 = 4.0 MPa and
GF = 150 N/m; obviously, the concrete fracture parameters are quite different. A relatively
small number of beams were tested in each series. Concrete tests: series B, three beams, all
valid; and series C, three beams, only two valid. A wide experimental scatter band is shown in
Arrea and Ingraffea (1982) for the crack paths and the load-CMSD curves. These drawbacks
suggest that a complementary set of experimental data is needed for an objective validation of
the mixed mode cracking models.
Figure 5 shows the geometry, forces and boundary conditions of the tests of Arrea and
Ingraffea (1982). The notch depth, a, was 82.4 mm in series B and C. The thickness of the
beams was 152 mm for series B and C. Table 1 shows the material properties considered in the
simulation; the values of the tensile strength, ft0 , and the specific fracture energy, GF , were
estimated from the material properties in Arrea and Ingraffea (1982) and the recommendations
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 171

Figure 6. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the crack trajectories in mixed mode tests of Arrea
and Ingraffea (1982): a) series B, b) series C, c) legend and axes of reference.

Figure 7. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the tests of Arrea and Ingraffea (1982). Load
P -CMSD curves: a) series B, and b) series C

of the Model Code (1990). In accordance with Červenka (1994) complementary parameters
for the model were estimated: c = 5.0 MPa, φf = 0.5 rad, φd = 0.3 rad and GIFI a = 54 GIF .
Figure 6 compares the experimental crack paths and the numerical prediction for series B
and C, and shows that the numerical model gives a good approximation to the experimental
crack path.
Figure 7 shows the experimental envelope and the numerical predictions of the load P -
CMSD curves. The Petersson (1981) softening curve was used in the numerical prediction.
The numerical results are within the experimental scatter band.

4.2. C OMPARISON WITH THE EXPERIMENTS BY G ÁLVEZ

As stated above, further experiments on mixed mode fracture with notched beams are required
for an objetive validation of the numerical procedure. Experimental data on mixed mode
172 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 8. Geometry, forces, and boundary conditions of the tests of Gálvez et al. (1998).

Table 2. Dimensions of the prismatic specimens and number of tests in

Gálvez et al. (1996).

Specimen Depth Length Eccentricity factors Number of tests

type mm mm α β type 1 type 2

D1 75 340 1.133 1 6 4
D2 150 675 1 1 6 6
D3 300 1350 1 0.89 4 5

Thickness: 50 mm.

fracture of concrete were published by Gálvez et al. (1998). Two sets of the testing procedure
were developed under proportional and nonproportional loading for two different families of
crack paths. Three sizes of quasi homothetic beams were tested. Figure 8 shows the geometry,
forces and boundary conditions of the tests. Table 2 gives the dimensions and number of
the specimens for both types of test. Fracture energy, tensile strength, compressive strength
and Young’s modulus were measured according to RILEM 50-FMC (1986), ASTM C 496
(1999), ASTM C 39 (1999) and ASTM C469 (1999). Their values were: GF = 69 N/m,
ft0 = 3.0 MPa, fc = 57 MPa and E = 38 GPa. In accordance with Červenka (1994),
complementary parameters for the model were estimated: c = 5.0 MPa, φf = 0.5 rad,
φd = 0.3 rad and GIFI a = 69 N/m. The GBF softening curve (Guinea et al., 1994) was
used.
Figure 9 shows the experimental envelopes and the numerical predictions of the crack
paths for the two types of test and the three specimen sizes. The numerical prediction is a
good approximation to the crack path in the narrow experimental scatter band.
Figures 10 and 11 show the experimental envelope of some of the tests and the numerical
prediction of load P -CMOD, and load P versus displacement of the application point of load
P , for the different sizes. The numerical model suitably predicts the experimental results.
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 173

Figure 9. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the crack paths in the tests of Gálvez et al. (1998):
a) small specimens (D = 75 mm), b) medium specimens (D = 150 mm), large specimens (D = 300 mm),
d) legend and axes of reference.

A good convergence is reached, especially for type 1 tests (Figure 10). In load P versus
displacement of the application point of P curves, the model predicts the snap-back of the
curve. Figure 10 shows a slightly overestimate of size effect.

5. Influence of the mode II in the mixed mode fracture of notched beams

Once the cohesive model has been experimentally verified it is used to study the influence of
the mode II on the mixed mode fracture of the notched beams. The cohesive model presented
in Section 3 includes two main mode I fracture parameters: the traction strength, ft , and the
specific fracture energy in mode I, GIF , and two other parameters directly related to mode II
fracture: the cohesion, c, and the specific fracture energy in mode IIa, GIFI a . The mode I
parameters were measured experimentally and the mode II parameters were estimated. The
influence of these estimated mode II parameters is studied by modifying their values over
a wide range. Since the form of the cohesion softening curve is fixed, the cohesion and the
specific fracture energy in mode IIa are proportional. In the absence of experimental data, the
critical tangential displacement, ωc , is held constant in this parametric study.
Figure 12 shows the numerical predictions of load P -CMSD of the series B tests by Arrea
and Ingraffea (1982) with GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 times of the estimated value of
174 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 10. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the type 1 tests of Gálvez et al. (1998). Small
size (D = 75 mm): a) load-CMOD, b) load-displacement. Medium size (D = 150 mm): c) load-CMOD,
d) load-displacement. Large size (D = 300 mm): e) load-CMOD, f) load-displacement. g) Legend and scheme of
the tests.
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 175

Figure 11. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the type 2 tests of Gálvez et al. (1998). Small
size (D = 75 mm): a) load-CMOD, b) load-displacement. Medium size (D = 150 mm): c) load-CMOD,
d) load-displacement. e) Legend and scheme of the tests.

Figure 12. Numerical predictions of the load-CMSD curves of the series B tests of Arrea and Ingraffea (1982)
with GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 GIF .
176 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

GIFI a . In accordance with Červenka (1994) the estimated value for GIFI a was 0.5 GIF (see
Subsection 4.1), this value was multiplied by 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000.
Figures 13 and 14 show the numerical predictions of load P -CMOD, and load P versus
displacement of the application point of load P , for medium size specimens, of the tests of
Gálvez et al. (1998), with GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 times of the estimated value of
GIFI a . In this case the estimated value of GIFI a was equal to GIF (see Subsection 4.2).
Large changes in the cohesion value, when they lead to a hyperbolic equation (4) with phys-
ical meaning, hardly modify the numerical predictions; specific fracture energy in mode IIa,
GIFI a , divided by two or multiplied by one thousand produces very close curves, in all cases
within the experimental scatter band. The curves shown in Figures 12, 13 and 14 for GIFI a =
10, 100 and 1000 times of the estimated value of GIFI a are coincident, and very similar to
the curves with GIFI a equal to the estimated value of GIFI a ; only those with GIFI a equal to 0.5
times the estimated value of GIFI a show a small difference. Similar results were obtained for
the other series of specimens.
The results shown by Figures 12 to 14 suggest that in these geometries of mixed mode
fracture, the crack growth is only slightly affected by the modification of the main mode
II governing variables, whenever they move into a wide range with physical meaning. This
agrees with the results presented by Cendón et al. (2000) with a local mode I model to simulate
these experiments. A minimum value of mode II fracture energy, GIFI a , and cohesion, c, are
needed for the physical meaning of Equation (4). Even though no experimental test has shown
values of GIFI a smaller than GIF , it has been included in this study to give a wider range of
mode IIa fracture energy, GIFI a , and cohesion, c.
Figure 15 shows the initial cracking surfaces and the numerical trajectories of the stresses
in the crack with GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 times of the estimated value of GIFI a during
cracking in the series B tests of Arrea and Ingraffea (1982). Figure 15a compares the initial
cracking surfaces for different values of GIFI a . Figure 15b shows the trajectories of the stresses
at the point placed at the notch tip (point 1), and Figure 15c for a point placed approximately
in the middle of the crack path (point 2). Since the cracking surface evolves as a funtion of ueff ,
the points of the drawn stress curves are placed on consecutive cracking surfaces, the initial
cracking surface was drawn only for a clearer figure. As shown in Figures 15b and 15c, the
tangential stresses on the crack are very small in comparison with the traction stresses during
the whole test, for all values of the mode IIa fracture energy, GIFI a . This helps to explain the
results in Figure 12, in which large changes in the cohesion value hardly modify the load P -
CMSD curves. Figure 15d shows the trajectories of the stresses for the point placed close to
the end of the crack path, in the compressed zone (point 3).
Figures 15b and 15c lend further support to the hypothesis that the crack grows in a stable
manner under predominant mode I in these mixed mode fracture tests. Important mode II
stresses build up only around the initial notch, but the crack propagation from that notch goes
in the direction for which the stress state around the crack tip corresponds predominantly to
mode I. So the crack is initiated under mixed mode I/II but propagates under mode I. Similar
results were observed for tests of Gálvez et al. (1998).

6. Analysis of double-edge notched specimens under compression loading

The double-edge notched specimen under compression loading of one half specimen was
recently proposed by Reinhardt et al. (1997, 1998, 2000) to determine the mode II fracture
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 177

Figure 13. Numerical predictions of the type 1 medium size tests (D = 150 mm) of Gálvez et al. (1998) with
GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 GIF : a) load-CMOD, b) load-displacement, c) legend and scheme of the tests.

energy for concrete. The test procedure is based on the Tada et al. (1985) theoretical solution
for a mode II problem of an infinite plate, which assumes that the crack is vertically developed
along the ligament under pure mode II fracture. The test procedure was used by other workers
(Cedolin et al., 1999; Gálvez et al., 2000a). Experimental results (Gálvez et al., 2000a) and
numerical simulations (di Prisco and Ferrera, 1998) suggest that the crack grows into the
unloaded half specimen under mixed mode I/II fracture.
The double-edge notched specimens under compression loading testing were adopted be-
cause an important mode II is beforehand expected in this geometry, and its influence on the
mixed mode fracture should be significant.
178 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 14. Numerical predictions of the type 2 medium size tests (D = 150 mm) of Gálvez et al. (1998) with
GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 GIF : a) load-CMOD, b) load-displacement, c) legend and scheme of the tests.

Two failure processes are at work during the test: crack growth from the notches run-
ning along the ligament (cracking), and compression failure of the loaded–half of the spec-
imen (crushing). For our purpose, the important question is that the specimen fails under
compression loading (crushing), and the numerical modelling of the compression failure is
important to simulate the whole test. However, the nucleation and growth process of the mixed
mode cracks to the failure compression is sufficient to verify the mixed mode fracture model.
Detailed modelling of compression failure is beyond the scope of this paper. The Menétrey
and Willam (1995) model, included in the ABAQUS© materials library, is used to model this
behaviour.
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 179

Figure 15. Initial cracking surfaces and numerical trajectories of the stresses in the crack with
GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 GIF during the cracking of the series B tests of Arrea and Ingraffea (1982):
a) initial cracking surfaces. Trajectories of the stresses in the crack for: b) start of the crack (point 1), c) middle of
the crack path (point 2) and d) near the end of the crack path on the uncracked ligament (point 3). e) scheme of
the specimen and legend.

The experimental results developed by Gálvez et al. (2000a) and by Cedolin et al. (1999)
are adopted for verification of the mixed mode fracture model.

Table 3. Dimensions of the specimens and number of tests in Gálvez

et al. (2000a).

Specimen Height, 2h Length, 2w Ligament, 2a Number of

mm mm mm specimens

H75 75 56.25 37.5 3

H150 150 112.5 75 3
H300 300 225 150 3

Thickness: 50 mm.
180 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 16. Geometry and testing arrangement of the tests of Gálvez et al. (2000).

Figure 17. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the crack trajectories of the tests of Gálvez et al.
(2000a): a) medium specimens (2h = 150 mm), b) large specimens (2h = 300 mm).

6.1. C OMPARISON WITH THE EXPERIMENTS BY G ÁLVEZ AND C ENDÓN

Figure 16 shows the testing arrangement of the double-edge specimens of concrete under com-
pression loading devised by Gálvez et al. (2000a). The dimensions and number of specimens
are detailed in Table 3. Geometrically similar specimens of three sizes were tested. The me-
chanical properties of the concrete, measured according to ASTM C 39 (1999), ASTM C 496
(1999), ASTM C 469 (1999) and RILEM 50-FMC (1986), were respectively: fc = 57 MPa,
ft0 = 3.0 MPa, E = 38 GPa y GF = 69 N/m. Complementary parameters of the model were
estimated to be as follows: c = 5.0 MPa, φf = 0.5 rad, φd = 0.4 rad and GIFI a = 115 N/m.
The GBF softening curve (Guinea et al., 1994) was used, determined from independent tests.
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 181

Figure 18. Experimental envelopes and numerical predictions of the tests of Gálvez et al. (2000a).

Figure 17 compares the experimental tests and numerical prediction of the crack paths
for the medium and large size specimens, and shows that the numerical model is a good
approximation to the experimental crack path.
Figures 18a and 18d show the experimental envelope and the numerical prediction of the
load versus lengthening recorded by the extensometer placed on the load-free half part of
the specimen (left extensometer in Figure 16) for the the medium and large size specimens.
The nucleation and growth of the cracks is shown in the curves by the loss of linearity and
a marked drawing back. The crack growth moderates the load tranference from the loaded to
182 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas
Table 4. Dimensions of the specimens and number of tests
in Cedolin et al. (1999).

Specimen Heigth, 2h Length, 2w Ligament, 2a

mm mm mm

H60 60 45 30
H120 120 90 60
H240 240 180 120

Thickness: 60 mm.

the load–free part of the specimen and leads to a reduction in the lengthening of the load–free
part.
Figures 18b and 18d show the experimental envelope and the numerical prediction of the
load versus shortening recorded by the extensometer placed on the loaded half of the specimen
(right extensometer in Figure 16). The numerical prediction stops at the peak load. Numerical
modelling of the post peak behaviour under compression loading would need an adequate
compression model which is beyond the scope of this work. Numerical prediction up to the
peak load is good.
As shown in Figure 18, the non-linear behaviour of the loaded part up to peak load is of
minor importance in the fracture behaviour of the load–free part. This confirms the value of
this testing procedure to verify the numerical and analytical models of mixed mode fracture
of quasibrittle materials.

6.2. C OMPARISON WITH THE EXPERIMENTS BY C EDOLIN

Figure 19 shows the arrangement for the tests developed by Cedolin et al. (1999). The di-
mensions are detailed in Table 4. Three specimen sizes were tested. The material properties
adopted for the numerical simulation were: ft0 = 4.0 MPa, E = 28 GPa, GF = 54 N/m,
c = 5.0 MPa, φf = 0.5 rad, φd = 0.4 rad and GIFI a = 67.5 N/m. The Petersson’s (1981)
softening curve was used in the numerical prediction.
Figure 20 shows the average of the experimental results and the numerical prediction of
the load versus displacement of the extensometers placed on the loaded and unloaded part
of the medium and large size specimens. In all cases the numerical prediction adequately fits
the experimental records. The comments made above for the tests of Gálvez et al. (2000a) in
relation to the shape of the curves are valid for the curves of Cedolin et al. (1999).

7. Influence of the mode II in the mixed mode fracture of double-edge notched

specimens

Once the cohesive model has been experimentally verified it is used to study the influence of
the mode IIa on the mixed mode fracture of the double-edge notched specimens. As with the
notched beams, the influence of the mode IIa fracture energy, GIFI a , and cohesion, c, is studied
by modifying their values in a wide range.
Figure 21 shows the numerical predictions and experimental envelope of the applied load
versus displacement of the extensometers placed on the load–free side of the medium size
tests by Gálvez et al. (2000a) and Cedolin et al. (1999) with GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 183

Figure 19. Geometry and testing arrangement of the tests of Cedolin et al. (1999).

times the estimated value of GIFI a . Large changes in the cohesion value hardly modify the
numerical predictions at the load–free side. Specific fracture energy in mode IIa, GIFI a , equal
to GIF or multiplied by one thousand produces very close applied load versus displacement
of the extensometer placed on the unloaded side curves, in all cases within the experimental
scatter band. Similar results were obtained in the small and large size specimen tests by Gálvez
et al. (2000a) and Cedolin et al. (1999).
The results shown in Figure 21 suggest that again in these geometries of mixed mode
fracture, the crack growth is only slightly affected by the modification of the main mode II
governing variables, when they move into a wide range with physical meaning.
The numerical trajectories of the stresses in the crack were plotted during cracking for the
medium size specimen tests by Gálvez et al. (2000a) and Cedolin et al. (1999). The results
were quite similar to that shown by Figure 16.

8. Conclusions and final remarks

The influence of the mode II fracture parameters in the the mixed mode fracture experimental
tests of concrete has been studied. This study is based on experimental results and numerical
analyses. For the numerical study, a procedure for mixed mode fracture of quasibrittle mate-
rials has been presented. The numerical procedure is based on the cohesive crack approach,
and extends it to mixed mode fracture.
Four experimental sets of mixed mode fracture were modelled, one from Arrea and In-
graffea and other from a nonproportional loading by the authors, both with bending concrete
beams. Two other sets of experimental fracture results were modelled, based on double-edge
notched testing; in these tests an important mode II is beforehand expected. The numerical
184 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Figure 20. Experimental results and numerical predictions of the tests of Cedolin et al. (1999).

results agree quite well with the experimental records. Once the cohesive model has been
experimentally verified, it is used to study the influence of the mode II in the mixed mode
fracture of the notched beams and the double-edge notched specimens.
The influence of the main parameters for mode IIa fracture: mode IIa fracture energy, GIFI a ,
and cohesion, c, is studied by modifying their values in a wide range. For the notched beams,
dividing by two or multiplying by one thousand the specific fracture energy in mode IIa,
GIFI a , produces very close load P -CMSD, P -CMOD and load P -displacement curves, in all
cases fitted in the experimental scatter band. For the double-edge notched specimens, also
an specific fracture energy in mode IIa, GIFI a , equal to GIF or multiplied by one thousand
produces very close applied load versus displacement of the extensometer placed on the un-
loaded side curves (cracking part), in all cases fitted in the experimental scatter band. These
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 185

Figure 21. Numerical predictions of the load-lengthening at the load-free side, for medium size double-edge
notched specimens, with GIFI a = 0.5, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 GIF , for the tests of: a) Gálvez et al. (2000a), b) Cedolin
et al. (1999).
186 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

curves, corresponding to notched beams and double-edge notched specimens, are coincident
for GIFI a = 10 to 1000 times GIF , and hardly different from the curves with GIFI a = GIF .
These results suggest that, for these geometries of mixed mode fracture, the crack growth is
only sligthly affected by the modification of the main mode II governing variables, whenever
they fit into a wide range with physical meaning.
The numerical trajectories of the stresses in the crack with GIFI a = 0.5 to 1000 times GIF
during the whole tests were obtained for the notched beams and for the double-edge notched
specimens. In all cases three points along the crack path were studied. The tangential stresses
on the crack are very small in comparison with the normal stresses during the whole test,
for all values of the mode IIa fracture energy, GIFI a . This result explains why large changes
in the mode IIa parameters (GIFI a and c) hardly modify the P -CMSD, P -CMOD and load
P -displacement curves, in the notched beams, and the applied load versus displacement of
the extensometer placed on the unloaded side curves in the case of the double-edge notched
specimens.
The above results show that, at least in these series of tests, an important mode II stresses
build up only around the initial notch, but the crack propagation from that notch goes in the
direction for which the stress state around the crack tip corresponds predominantly to mode I.
So the crack is initiated under mixed mode I/II but propagates under mode I. The results lend
further support to the hypothesis put forward by other authors and studied in this paper by
means of mixed mode fracture tests from different authors.
This allows a formulation of mixed mode fracture models for quasibrittle materials based
mainly on standard properties of the material, measured by standardized methods: tensile
strength, compression strength, Young’s modulus and mode I specific fracture energy. Other
parameters, not measurable by standard methods, such as mode II specific fracture energy,
may be brought in with little influence on the final result.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research provided by the
Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, European Community and Junta de Comunidades
de Castilla La Mancha under grants MAT2001-3863-CO3-02, EVK4-2001-00091 and PBI-
02-006. The authors wish to thank Prof. A. Ingraffea (Cornell University) for providing the
computer program FRANC2D.

References

Arrea, M. and Ingraffea, A. (1982). Mixed Mode Crack Propagation in Mortar and Concrete, Report 81-13, Dpt.
of Structural Engineering, Cornell University.
ASTM C 496-96 (1999). Splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM, 4.02, pp. 266–269.
ASTM C 39-96 (1999). Standard method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, ASTM, 4.02, pp. 18–22.
ASTM C 469-96 (1999). Standard method for static modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of concrete in
compression, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, 4.02, pp. 241–244.
CEB-FIP (1990). Model Code 1990, Lausanne, (1991).
Ballatore, E., Carpinteri, A., Ferrara, G. and Melchiorri, G. (1990). Mixed mode fracture energy of concrete,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 35, 145–157.
Bažant, Z.P., Kim, J.K., and Pfeiffer, P.A. (1986). Non linear fracture properties from size effect tests, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 112, 289–307.
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 187

Bažant, Z.P. and Pfeiffer, P.A. (1985). Tests of shear fracture and strain-softening in concrete, Proc. of 2nd
Symposium on the Interaction of Non-Nuclear Munitions with Structures, Florida.
Bažant, Z.P. and Pfeiffer, P.A. (1986). Shear fracture tests of concrete, Materials and Structures 19, 111–121.
Bažant, Z.P. and Planas, J. (1998). Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials, CRC
Press.
Biolzi, L. (1990). Mixed mode fracture in concrete beams, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 35, 187–193.
Bocca, P., Carpinteri, A. and Valente, S. (1990). Size effects in the mixed mode crack propagation: softening and
snap-back analysis, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 35, 159–170.
Bocca, P., Carpinteri, A. and Valente, S. (1991). Mixed mode fracture of concrete, International Journal Solids
and Structures 27, 1139–1153.
de Borst, R. and Nauta, P. (1985). Non-orthogonal cracks in a smeared finite element model, Engrg. Computations
2, 35–46.
Broek, D. (1986). Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Martinus Nijhoff Pub., pp. 374–380.
Carol, I., Prat, P. and López, M. (1997). Normal/shear cracking model: Application to discrete crack analysis,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 123, 765–773.
Carpinteri, A., Valente, S., Ferrar, G. and Melchiorri, G. (1993). Is mode II fracture energy a real material
property?, Computers and Structure 48, 397–413.
Carpinteri, A. (1994). Cracking of strain-softening materials, Static and Dynamic Fracture Mechanics, Aliabadi,
M.H. et al. eds., Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, pp. 311–365.
Cedolin, L., GianLuigi, B., Nardello, P. (1999). Mode II fracture resistance of concrete, Concrete Science and
Engineering, RILEM 1, 1–9.
Červenka, V. (1970). Inelastic finite element analysis of reinforced concrete panels under in-plane loads, Ph. D.
Thesis, University of Colorado.
Červenka, J. (1994). Discrete Crack Modelling in Concrete Structures, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Colorado.
Cope, R., Rao, P., Clark, L. and Norris, P. (1980). Modelling of reinforced concrete behaviour for finite ele-
ment analysis of bridge slabs, Numerical Methods for Non-linear Problems, C. Taylor eds., Pineridge Press ,
pp. 457–470.
Cendón, D.A., Gálvez, J.C., Elices, M. and Planas, J. (2000). Modelling the fracture of concrete under under mixed
loading, International Journal of Fracture 103, 293–310.
Cendón, D.A. (2002). Study of the Mixed Mode Fracture of Concrete and Mortar, Ph. D. Thesis (in Spanish),
Polytechnic University of Madrid.
Crisfield, M.A. (1991). Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 1, John Wiley and Sons
Pubs.
di Prisco, M., Ferrara, L., Meftah, F., Pamin, J., de Borst, R., Mazars, J. and Reynouard, J. (2000). Mixed mode
fracture in plain and reinforced concrete: some results on benchmark tests, International Journal of Fracture
103, 127–148.
di Prisco, M. and Ferrara, L. (1998). On the evaluation of mode II fracture energy in high strength concrete,
Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures, de Borst, R., Bićanić, N., Mang, H. and Meschke, G. eds.,
Balkema ed., pp. 409–418.
Elices, M. and Planas, J. (1989). Material models, Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, L. Elfgren ed.,
Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 16–66.
Erdogan, F. and Sih, G.C. (1963). On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear,
Journal of Basic Engineering 85, 519–527.
FRANC2D: A Two-Dimensional Crack-Propagation Simulator, Version 2.7, Wawryzynek, P. and Ingraffea, A.
Gálvez, J.C., Elices, M., Guinea, G.V. and Planas, J. (1996). Crack trajectories under mixed mode and
non-proportional loading, International Journal of Fracture 81, 171–193.
Gálvez, J.C., Elices, M., Guinea, G.V. and Planas, J. (1998). Mixed mode fracture of concrete under proportional
and nonproportional loading, International Journal of Fracture 94, 267–284.
Gálvez, J.C., Elices, M. and Cendón, D.A. (2000a). Fracture of double-edge notched specimens of concrete under
compression loading, Construction Materials: Theory and Application, Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 95–105.
Gálvez, J.C., Červenka, J., Cendón, D.A. and Saouma, V. (2000b). A discrete approach to normal/shear cracking
of concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, 32, 1567–1585.
García, V.O, Gettu, R. and Carol, I. (2000). Numerical analysis of mixed mode fracture in concrete using interface
elements, European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, Barcelona,
Spain.
188 J.C. Gálvez, D.A. Cendón and J. Planas

Guinea, G.V., Planas, J. and Elices, M. (1994). A general bilinear fit for softening curve of concrete, Materials
and Structures, RILEM 27, 99–105.
Guo, Z.K., Kobayashi, A.S. and Hawkins, N.M. (1994a). Mixed modes I and II concrete fracture: an experimental
analysis, Journal of Applied Mechanics 61, 815–821.
Guo, Z.K., Kobayashi, A.S. and Hawkins, N.M. (1994b). Fracture process zone in mixed mode dynamic fracture
of concrete, Fracture and Damage in Quasibritle Structures, pp. 217–229.
Gupta, A. and Akbar, H. Cracking in reinforced concrete analysis, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 110,
1735–1746.
Hassanzadeh, M. (1992). Behaviour of fracture process zones in concrete influenced by simultaneously applied
normal and shear dsiplacements, Ph. D. Thesis, Report TVBM-1010, Lund Institute of Technology.
Hillerborg, A., Modéer, M. and Petersson, P. (1976). Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by
means of fracture mechanics and finite elements, Cement and Concrete Research 6, 773–782.
Iosipescu, N. (1967). New accurate procedure for single shear testing of metals, Journal of Materials 2, 537–566.
Jenq, Y. and Shah, S.P. (1988). Mixed-mode fracture of concrete, International Journal of Fracture 38, 123–142.
Kupfer, H.B. and Gerstle, K.H. (1973). Behaviour of concrete under biaxial stresses, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics 99, 853–866.
Mahajan, R.V. and Ravi-Chandar, K. (1989). An experimental investigation of mixed-mode fracture, International
Journal of Fracture 41, 235–252.
Menétrey, P. and Willam, K.J. (1995). Triaxial failure criterion for concrete and its generalization, ACI Structural
Journal 92, 311–318.
Nooru-Mohamed, M.B. (1992). Mixed Mode Fracture of Concrete: An Experimental Approach, Ph. D. Thesis,
Delft University.
Nooru-Mohamed, M.B. and Van Mier J.G. (1990). Geometrical and structural aspects of concrete fracture,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 35, 617–628.
Petersson, P. (1981), Crack growth and development of fracture zones in plain concrete and similar materials,
Report TVBM-1006, Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology.
Rashid, Y. (1968). Analysis of prestressed concrete pressure vessels, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Balkema
Ed., pp. 265–286.
Reich, R., Plizari, G., Červenka, J. and Saouma, V. (1993). Implementation and validation of a nonlinear fracture
model in 2D/3D finite element code, Numerical Models in Fracture Mechanics, Wittmann Ed., Balkema Ed.,
pp. 265–287.
Reich, R., Červenka, J. and Saouma, V. (1997). MERLIN: A three-dimensional finite element program based on a
mixed iterative solution strategy for problems in elasticity, plasticity, linear and nonlinear fracture mechanics,
Technical Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, and Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Reinhardt, H., Ožbolt, J., Xu, S. and Dinku, A. (1997). Shear of structural concrete members and pure mode II
testing, Advanced Cement Based Materials 5, 75–85.
Reinhardt, H. and Xu, S. (1998). Experimental determination of KI I c of normal strength concrete, Materials and
Structures 31, 296–302.
Reinhardt, H. and Xu, S. (2000). A practical tseting approach to determine mode II fracture energy of GI I F for
concrete, International Journal of Fracture 105, 107–125.
RILEM, 50–FMC Comittee Fracture Mechanics of Concrete (1986). Determination of the fracture energy of
mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests of notched beams, Matériaux et Constructions 18,
285–290.
Rots, J. (1988). Computational modelling of concrete fracture, Ph. D. Thesis, Delft University.
Saleh, A. and Aliabadi, M. (1995). Crack growth analysis in concrete using boundary element method,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 51, 533–545.
Saleh, A. and Aliabadi, M. (1996). Boundary element analysis of the pullout behaviour of an anchor bolt embedded
in concrete, Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials 1, 235–249.
Schlangen, E. (1993). Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Fracture Processes in Concrete Ph. D. Thesis,
Delft University.
Schlangen, E. and Van Mier, J.G. (1993). Mixed-mode fracture propagation: a combined numerical and
experimental study, Fracture and Damage of Concrete and Rock, pp. 166–175.
Suidan, M. and Schnobrich, W. (1973). Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete, Journal Structural Division,
ASCE 99, 2109–2122.
 Influence of shear parameters on mixed–mode fracture of concrete 189

Swartz, S.E., Lu, L. and Tang, L. (1988a). Mixed-mode fracture toughness testing of concrete beams in three-point
bending, Materials and Structures 21, 33–40.
Swartz, S.E., Lu, L., Tang, L. and Refai, T. (1988b). Mode II fracture parameter estimates for concrete from beam
specimens, Experimental Mechanics 28, 146–153.
Tada, H., Paris, P. and Irwin, G. (1985). The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, 2nd ed., Paris Productions
Incorporated, St. Louis, p. 4.13.
Valente, S. (1995). On the cohesive crack model in mixed-mode conditions, Fracture of Brittle Disordered
Materials: Concrete, Rock and Ceramics, E & FN Spon, pp. 66–80.
Willam, K., Pramono, E. and Stur, S. (1987). Fundamental issues of smeared crack models, Proc. SEM-RILEM
Int. Conf. on Fracture of Concrete and Rock, Shah and Swartz eds., SEM, pp. 192–207.
Xie, M. and Gerstle, W. (1995). Energy-based cohesive crack propagation modeling, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 121, 1349–1358.