Advances in Modeling FRC Materials

Barzin Mobasher
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State University, USA

Collaborators: Cheng Yu Li, Andrew Pivacek, Garrett Haupt,

Alva Peled (Ben-Gurion University, Israel)
Jitendra Pahalijani, Sachiko Sueki, Nora Singla

Support: NSF, St. Gobain Technical Fabrics, SRP, Vetrotex Cemfil

International Workshop on Advanced Fiber Reinforced

Concrete, Bergamo, Italy, Sept. 23, 2004
Methods

Finite Element Composite Laminate

Method Theory

Experimental
Mechanics Observations
Fracture
of Materials Mechanics

Design
Guidelines
 Modeling
• Tensile
• Finite element approach for toughening
• Short fiber reinforced concrete using fracture mechanics
• Continuous fiber Composites
• Laminated &Textile composites
• Shear
• Flexure
• Crack growth models based on Resistance Curve
• Flexural modeling of laminated Composites
• Analytical Moment-Curvature response for bilinear materials
• Pullout
• single fibers and fabrics
 FEM Simulation: Coupled problem
of matrix and interface crack growth
• Fiber Pullout Pv
• Closing Pressure Formulation Ph
• Toughening of Matrix

σ2

fiber
Sliding contact
Interface
Substrate

Mobasher, B., and, Li, C. Y., "Modeling of Stiffness Degradation of the Interfacial Zone During Fiber
Debonding," Journal of Composites Engineering, Vol. 5, N0. 10-11, pp. 1349-1365, 1995.
Mobasher, B., and, Li, C. Y., "Effect of Interfacial Properties on the Crack Propagation in
Cementitious Composites," Journal of Advanced Cement Based Materials, Vol. 4. No. 3, Nov.
Dec. 1996, pp. 93-106.
 Debonding and Sliding Friction
During Pullout of Fibers by FEM
σn / σ *
Debonding criteria
σn 2 τn 2
( * ) +( * ) =1
σ τ τ /τ *

Coulomb friction
Frictional Shear Stress
after debonding
τf
τ = τ0 + μ σn < τ f μ
τ0 1

Normal Stress
 Effect of clamping pressure and
debonding shear strength
25
25
E = 34 MPa E = 34 MPa * = 35 MPa
* = 35 MPa m
m
E = 210 MPa p = 9 MPa
E = 210 MPa * = 3.5 MPa f
f = 0.5
E = 0.34 MPa = 0.5 E = 0.34 MPa
int. 20 int.
20 L = 15 mm
L = 15 mm f
f
d = 0.4 mm d = 0.4 mm

Pullout Force, N
f
Pullout Force, N

15 15

10 10

5 5
p = 5 MPa, = 0.31 MPa * = 3.6 MPa, = 0.7 MPa
f f
p = 9 MPa, = 0.7 MPa * = 1.8 MPa, = 0.3 MPa
f f
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
Slip Displacement, mm Slip Displacement, mm
Li, C. Y., and Mobasher, B., ”Finite Element Simulations of Toughening in Cement Based Composites,” Journal of Advanced
Cement Based Materials, 1998, 7, pp. 123-132.
 Interfacial shear stress distribution
during debonding process
3.0
E = 34 MPa * = 35 MPa u = 0.00071 mm
Li et. al.
m
E = 210 MPa * = 1.773 MPa u = 0.00144 mm
15
f = 0.2982 MPa
2.5 E
int.
= 0.34 MPa f u = 0.00250 mm FEM (Coulomb Friction)
p = 9 MPa
L = 15 mm = 0.5 u = 0.00375 mm
f
d = 0.4 mm

Pullout Force, N
u = 0.04875 mm
Shear Stress, MPa

f
2.0
10
L = 12 mm
r = 0.1016 mm
1.5
q = 1.6247 N/mm
y
q = 1.0452 N/mm
1.0 5 f
= 30 MPa
t
0.5 interface thickness=0.05 mm
E / E = 1/10
i m

0.0 0
0 5 10 15
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Distance from Fiber Pulling End, mm
Slip Displacement, mm
 R-Curve Based Models
Rm
Green’s function Approach:
lb

Rm + n1 ΔR ΔK b ( lb ) = ∫ G( a, x )σ b ( x )dx
0
G(a,x) = green’s function
Rm + n 2 Δ R a = crack length
lb = bridging zone length
σb = bridging stress
Rm + n 2 Δ R

Rm + n2 ΔR Potential Energy Approach:

lb
⎛ du ⎞
ΔRb = 2 ∫ σ b ( u ) ⎜ ⎟ dx
R 0 ⎝ dx ⎠
Rm + n2 ΔR
Rm + n1 ΔR u(x) = crack opening profile
Rm Δa
 Matrix Toughening model-FEM

100 due to applied load

80
1/2
KI, MPa-mm

60

40 composite
P
20 FEM
R-Curve Model
due to fibers
0
19 21 23 25
Crack Length, mm

Mobasher, B., and, Li, C. Y., "Effect of Interfacial Properties on the Crack Propagation in Cementitious
Composites," Journal of Advanced Cement Based Materials, Vol. 4. No. 3, Nov. Dec. 1996, pp. 93-106.
 Stress-Crack Width Models
• Sakai-Suzuki, 1994, Foote, Mai, Cotterell,1986 σ0b
6
nd
σb
⎡⎛ x ⎞ q ⎤
5 σb = σb0 ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ lb ⎠ ⎥⎦
Stress, MPa

4
x
3
crack
2 lb
1 bridging zone
nd
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 ⎡⎛ x ⎞ q
⎤
u, mm σb = σ ⎢⎜ ⎟
0
b ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ lb ⎠ ⎥⎦
FRC
 Crack Opening and Stress vs. Position

0.06 6

0.05 nd
⎡⎛ x ⎞ ⎤
5 q

σb = σ ⎢⎜ ⎟
0
⎥

Stress, MPa
b
0.04 ⎢⎣⎝ lb ⎠ ⎥⎦
Crack Opening, mm

4
x n
0.03 ub (x) = u ( )
0
b 3
lb
0.02
x 2
crack
0.01
lb 1

bridging zone
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Position, mm
Position, mm
 R-Curve- Load Deformation
0.14 7000

0.12 6000

0.1 5000
R, N/mm

Load, N
0.08 4000

0.06 3000
β1 = 0.0368 2000
0.04
αc = 3.057, R = 0.1332 Nmm (plateau)
0.02 Closing Pressure, KI = 46.07MPa mm1/2 1000

0 10 00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length, mm CMOD, mm
 Theoretical Prediction of Load Deformation
Response-Effect of Age on Flexural response

8000 0.20 Model Prediction 3 Days

3 days
28 days Model Prediction 28 Days
Model Prediction 3 Days
6000 Model Prediction 28 Days
0.15

R , N/mm
Load, N

4000 0.10

2000 0.05 HD12mm

w/c = 0.55
V f = 0.6 Kg/m 3 w/c = 0.55
Vf = 0.6 Kg/m3
0.00
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
CMOD, mm Crack Extension, mm
 Effect of fiber Volume fraction
0.02 12
Control Simulation V f=20 Kg/m3 Age = 28 Days
10 Kg/m3 Simulation 10
0.016 Vf=10 Kg/m3
20 Kg/m3 Simulation
R- Curve, N/mm

8 20 Kg/m3 Simulation
Vf=20 Kg/m3 10 Kg/m3 Simulation

Load, KN
0.012 Control Simulation
20 Kg/m3 Exp.
6
Vf=10 Kg/m3 10 Kg/m3 Exp.
0.008 Control Exp.

HP12 AR 4
Glass fibers
Control
0.004 Control
2 W/C = 0.4
W/C = 0.4 Age = 28 Days HP12 AR Glass fibers
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack Extension, mm CMOD, mm

Mobasher, B., Peled, A., “Use of R-Curves for Characterization of Toughening in Fiber Reinforced Concrete,”
FraMCoS 5, 2004.
 Composite Laminate Theory for
Continuous Fiber/Textile Systems
m=n, θn
• Unidirectional approach for each layer
Δε ij = S jki Δσ k
σ = S
i
k ( )i −1
jk Δε ij + σik−1
hm-1 hm
• or in matrix form:
−1
⎡ σ1 ⎤ ⎡ S11 S12 0 ⎤ ⎡ Δε1 ⎤ ⎡ σ1 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
σ k = ⎢⎢ σ 2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢ S 21 S 22 0 ⎥ ⎢⎢ Δε 2 ⎥⎥ + ⎢⎢ σ 2 ⎥⎥
⎢⎣τ12 ⎥⎦ i ⎢⎣ 0 0 S 66 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Δγ12 ⎥⎦ i ⎢⎣τ12 ⎥⎦ i −1

1 υ12 1 1 m=1, θ1
S11 = S12 = − S 22 = S 66 =
E1( ω ) E1( ω ) E2 ( ω ) G12 ( ω )
Mobasher, B., Pivacek A., and Haupt, G. J. ” Cement Based Cross-Ply Laminates,” Journal of Advanced
Cement Based Materials, 1997, 6, pp. 144-152.
 Response of an 8 stack [0/45/-45/90/90]s lamina
Strain Distribution
10

4
140
2
z,mm

0
120

Nominal stress, MPa

-2

-4 100
-6

-8 80
-10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
mm/mm
10
Stress Distribution x x 10
-3
60

6
40

2 20
z,mm

-2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-4 -3
x 10
-6 Nominal strain, mm/mm
-8

-10
0 5 10 15 20 25
MPa
Response of an 8 stack [0/45/-45/90/90]s lamina
 Comparison With Experimental Results of
unidirectional and 0/90/0 composites
60
σt1= 5 MPa
Unidirectional
σt2= 6 MPa
50 Vf= 9%
Em= 28 GPa
40 Εf= 71 MPa
Stress, MPa

30 [0/90/90/0]

20
0 degree experiment
0 degree simulation
10 0/90/90/0 experiment
0/90/90/0 simulation
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Strain, mm/mm
B. Mobasher, “Micromechanical Modeling of Filament Wound Cement-Based Composites,” ASCE,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 129, No. 4, pp. 373-382, 2003.
Modeling of Racking Shear Test
Effect of Lamina Orientation
8

Shear Stress (MPa) 6

G5 [0/45/90]s
2
C1 [0/-45/90]s
C2 [0/-45/90]s
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
Shear Strain (deg.)
 Simulation of Shear Panel Tests
Deformation, mm Deformation, mm
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4
3500 5000
20
3000
4000
12
2500
15

Load, KN
Load, KN
Load, lbf

3000

Load (lbf)
2000
8
10
1500 2000

1000 [0/45/90]s [45/-45]s

4 5
Experiment 1000 Experiment
500 Simulation Simulation

0 0 0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02
Deformation, inch Deformation (inch)
Pullout Modeling of Fabrics
Flyash at the yarn junction
Matrix penetration between two fabric layers
Failure of Bonded Junctions
 Pullout Modeling of Fabrics
1

Crack Deflection

Yarn Debonding
Theoretical modeling of Fabric pullout

200
Fill-yarn
Expt.
Math. Yarn
150
Math. Woven
U

Load, N
100
P
Ld
50
L AR Glass Fabric
Anchorage 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Deformation, mm
Various stages of cracking
 Modeling of Fabrics

30 80
Crack Spacing Debonding Length
S = S1 + S0 e-α(ε−εmu)
60 200

Crack Spacing, mm
20 (a) Glass
Expt.
Stress, MPa

150 Math. Yarn

S1 = 8 mm 40 Math. Woven

Load (N)
S0 = 35 mm
100
10 α = 150
ε1 = 0.01 20
50
Pullout Slip response
0 0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Strain, mm/mm Deformation (mm)
 Flexural Modeling
• Composites Using Tensile Stress Strain response
• Using Composite Laminate Theory
• Moment Curvature Response Using a Closed
Form Analytical Approaches
 Response of an 8 stack unidirectional lamina to Flexure
10
10
8 Strain
a b
8
6 Distribution c
6 a
4
2
c 4
b
z,mm

z,mm
0 c
σxx
0
-2 -2
-4 c a -4
-6 b -6 b a
-8 -8
-10
-10-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
mm/mm MPa
x 10-3
10000
10

Moment/unit width, N mm /mm

9000
8
a b 8000 c
6
4 c 7000
2 6000 b
z,mm

0 5000
-2 4000
-4 c b
σyy 3000
-6 a
2000
-8
-10 1000 a
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
MPa 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Curvature, 1/mm x 10-4
 Flexural Load-Deflection
Strain Distribution sigmax
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2 Stress
0.15 0.15
Distribution
8 layers 0 degree
0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05
z,mm

z,mm
0 0

-0.05 -0.05

-0.1 Strain -0.1

-0.15
Distribution -0.15

-0.2
-0.2
-0.25
-0.25 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 psi
mm/mm -3
x 10
sigmax
0.25
250
0.2
Stress
200
0.15
Distribution
0 degree 0.1
8 layers
[02/902]s
0.05
150
z,mm
force, lbs

-0.05
100

[02/902]s
-0.1

-0.15
50
-0.2

-0.25
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
0 psi
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
deflection, in -3
x 10
 3 Variables & 2 material parameters

1) Variables:
β = represents strain level beyond first tensile cracking
κ =represents strength ratio of compression to tension
γ = represents stiffness ratio of elastic to post elastic in tension
σ
Ε1 /γ
2) Material Parameters: σt1
E1, and εt1 εc1 ε
Ε1 εt1 βεt1
ε
κ= εc1
t1

σc1
 Strain compatibility & stress distribution

kd εc1 σc1

d z σt1
εt1

βε1 σt1 + Ε1 /γ (β−1)ε t1

b

d d

∑ F = ∫ σ bdz=C+T=0
z=0 z=0
d d

∑ M = ∫ σ zbdz = Moment
z=0 z=0
 Location of Neutral Axis
(2γ +β -1)β
k=
γ +2γβ +β 2 -1+γβ 2 γ=E0/E2

Location of N.A., k
1 γ=2
γ = 1, k =
2
( 19 + β )β
γ = 10, k =
20β + 11β 2 + 9
( 199 + β )β γ=10
γ = 100, k =
200β + 101β 2 + 99
γ=100

β=ε/εt1
 Section Stiffness for a General Bi-linear Material

γ Stiffness

Elastic, bd 3 E1
(β=1,γ=1) 12

1 bd 3E1 (2β 3 +3β 2 -3)

24 β3

bd 3E1 (-62β +71β 4 -259+352β 2 +88β 3 +10β 5 )(9+β )

5 24 (2+5β +3β 2 )3

2bd 3E1 (-136β +583β 4 -2462+3401β 2 +194β 3 +20β 5 )(39+β )

20
3 (19+40β +21β 2 )3

γ bd 3E1 (-14γβ +6β 4 +14γ -4+18γ 2 β 2 +3γ 2 β 4 -13γ 2 +2β 2 +8β +20β 3γ -2γβ 4 -20γβ 2 -12β 3 +2γβ 5 )*(2γ +β -1)
3 (γ +2γβ +β 2 -1+γβ 2 )3
 Stiffness
γ=E0/E2
Normalized Stiffness, 6S/bd2

γ=1

γ=5
Elastic Plastic Material
limit, Hinge formation,
γ=20
γ=1000 zero stiffness

β=ε/εt1
 Moment Capacity of an Elastic Perfectly
Plastic Material, γ = ∞
κ=εc1/εt1
(36κβ − 12κ β -4κ -18κ +3κ -13+12κ β +12κβ )
3 3 2 4 2 2 2
m=
(1+2β − κ 2 + 2κβ )2

Normalized Moment, m
3β − 4 + 3β 2
κ = 1, m =
2β 2
Mp 1 Theoretical Limit of
m= ,M 0 = Eε t1bd 2 Shape factor, ξ=1.5
M0 6

β=ε/εt1
 Moment Capacity of an Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Material with Different Tension and Compression Yield
Strengths
(36κβ − 12κ 3 β -4κ 3 -18κ 2 +3κ 4 -13+12κ 2 β 2 +12κβ 2 ) κ=εc1/εt1
m=
(1+2β − κ 2 + 2κβ )2

3β − 4 + 3β 2
κ = 1, m =

Normalized Moment, m
κ=20
2β 2
−23 − 8β + 24 β 2 κ=5
κ = 2, m =
3( −1 + 2 β )2
Theoretical Limit of
−38 − 55β + 15β 2
κ = 5, m = κ=1factor, ξ=1.5
Shape
6( −2 + β )2
Mp 1
m= ,M 0 = Eε t1bd 2
M0 6
β=ε/εt1
 Moment curvature for an elastic-
hardening plastic material with a varying
strength ratios
30
Ec2=ηE1

Normalized Moment, m=Mp/M0

κ= 10
κ= 8
20

κ= 5

10

κ= 1

0
0 100 200 300 400
ϕ , ε /εt1/(1-k)d
 Strain-Softening Material
M SF A
m= =
M0 B
6E1ε t1 κ=5

Normalized Moment, m
M 0=
bd 2
A= (-4+8β +2κ 3 β -6κ 2b 2 -21κβ 2 +
2γκ 4 -4κ 3γ 2 -20κ 2γ -18κ 2γ 2 +6b3κ -β 2k 3 +
3β 4κ +12βκ 2 -28κβ 2γ +12κβ 2γ 2 +12βκ -4γκ 3 β - κ=2
13γ 2 +20k 2γβ -4κ 3γ +8γκ 3 β 2 -k 3 +3κ 4γ 2 +40κβγ +
14βγ +12κ 2 β 2γ 2 -4β 2 -14γ +8γκ 2 β 2 +36κβγ 2 -6κ 2 -
2γκ 4 β -12κ 3γ 2 β -12κβ 3γ -8γκ 2 β 3 ) κ=1

B= (-γ -2βγ +β 2 -1+κ 2γ -2κβγ )2

ε t12 E1+2ε t1 E1ε +E2ε 2 -E2ε t12 -ε c12 E1+2ε c1 E1ε +Ec2ε 2 -2Ec2εε c1+Ec2ε c12 ϕ , ε /εt1/(1-k)d
ϕ=
2(2ε t1 E1+E2ε -E2ε t1 )

-( γ +2βγ -β 2 +1-κ 2γ +2κβγ +ηβ 2γ -2ηβκγ +ηκ 2γ )

ϕ=
2(-2γ +β -1)
 Conclusions
• A variety of material models can be used with various
theoretical methods to address the modeling of cement
based materials.
• Techniques based on finite element method, composite
materials, fracture mechanics, and analytical approaches
can be used, and or combined for a variety of problems.