Professional Documents
Culture Documents
;i
s:;'ute,
B.H.Oh
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, llIinois. 60201.
A fracture theory for a heterogeneous aggregate material which exhibits a gradual strainsoftening due to microcracking and contains aggregate pieces that are not necessarily small
compared to struttural dimensions is developed. Only Mode I is considered. The fracture is
modeled as a blunt smeared crack band, which is justified by the random nature of the
microstructure. Simple triaxial stress-strain relations which model the strain-softening and
describe the effect of gradual microcracking in the crack band are derived. It is shown that
it is easier to use compliance rather than stiffness matrices and that it suffices to adjust a
single diagonal term of the compliance matrix. The limiting case of this matrix for complete
(continuous) cracking is shown to be identical to the inverse of the well-known stiffness
matrix for a perfectly cracked material. The material fracture properties are characterized
by only three paPlameters -fracture energy, uniaxial strength limit and width of the crack
band (fracture Process zone), while the strain-softening modulus is a function of these
parameters. A m~thod of determining the fracture energy from measured complete stressstrain relations is' also given. Triaxial stress effects on fracture can be taken into account.
The theory is verljied by comparisons with numerous experimental data from the literature.
Satisfactory fits of maximum load data as well as resistance curves are achieved and values
of the three matetial parameters involved, namely the fracture energy, the strength, and the
width of crack b~nd front, are determined from test data. The optimum value of the latter
width is found to be about 3 aggregate sizes, which is also justified as the minimum acceptable
for a homogeneous continuum modeling. The method of implementing the theory in a finite
element code is al$o indicated, and rules for achieving objectivity of results with regard to the
analyst's choice of element size are given. Finally, a simple formula is derived to predict from
the tensile strength and aggregate size the fracture energy, as well as the strain-softening
modulus. A statistical analysis of the errors reveals a drastic improvement compared to the
linear fracture th~ory as well as the strength theory. The applicability of fracture mechanics
to concrete is thz4 solidly established.
INTRODucnON
BORDAS-DUNOD
b~
t
II
(a)
,
....
~I
...J'
CF<WX;'<P"
ELASTICITY OR
....
,,
PLASTICITY
8M
4M
O"N:I b"2 or b"2
LINEAR
FRACTURE
/ / MECHANICS
'Pi
"' '"
:t
"
~I
:
1981
1.5v
,
",
NONLINEAR
FRACTURE
MECHANICS
(TN:I
bit or bit
...... ---.,
"ll
"
COG (SIZE Hl
(b)
Linear Fracture
(C)
Melal.
(d) Cancr.'e
z.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF BLUNT CRACK BAND
P Bazan! -
B. H. Oh
,z
(a)
(b)
Secllon AA
representOflYe
valume
(e)
(d)
I I
+
wc+
- =1=
a i
I - a- I-
- +-
~a
I I
:~
't
Jilt. 2. -
I;
l
L
A
b-c: b.~
x,
~ ~.
'IV
m elements
25
wS
o
n. 7)
MESH
.(,..... 6,
MESH
(".. 12.".13)
MESH
(m.10. ".25)
Fic. 3. - Finite element results for crack band (right) and for line crack (left).
compared to exact linear fracture mechanics solution (after Bazant-Ccdolin. 1979, Ref. [5]).
158
Z. P. Bazant (a)
crt
"t
Eo Ef
(d)
(c)
(b)
"~l
crt
. I,e,
Eo
Ef
Et
Eo
(f)
(e)
I,
B H. Oh
crt
1,2'"
3
..
(g)
area OP3A
f'I
70,-0
~,
OP48
OPe
Fig. 4. - (a-d) Stress-strain diagrams for fracture process zone; (e) Zig-zag crack band; (f-g) Stress distributions in fracture process zone.
del
"
0:0
fy
0.30
i i'
025
-Eaact
a
D ...
_ _ .i
p,
Ie}
lal
da
"_b:.::::t:.
Ibl
Previous works
,y
PI
101
,
.-- 0......
020
0.
015
M.,,, A
a
4 Mn"
M.,II C
It KYne
Ot
for Me,,, A
,
,
010
005
00
02
04
06
08
Fi.. 5. - (a) Center-cracked plate; (b) Finite element mesh refinements; (e) Crack front for mesh A. B. and C; (d) Comparison of numerical results.
159
t5 I =
t5~ = sum
of
the
openings
of
individual
= f ((1:) = -
CI
(f; - (1,).
(2)
ex
=
{}
e:
By
[E
-v E - 1
E-l
sym.
-y
-y
-y
(1)
in which
1
I
I
-----<0
Et - E CI = ,
-y
x} = [
(4)
(1
{ (1=
E + y~ E;
y E,
(5)
= (c: x,
By, Bz)T,
f=(3 x 3) compliance
Z. P. Bazant -
B. H. Oh
(6)
STIFFNESS AND COMPLIANCE MATRICES FOR FULLY
CRACKED MATERIAL
( 8)
or
-=D/'
- -e,
0"
(9)
(10)
I. - If ~ =
12 - 1,
then:
( II)
11- 0 -
C(P)-
[.!.E
~'_E'[~
-y
-']
-y
-y
-y
p.-.l
'
.oJ
I
FRACTURE CHARACTERISTICS
o,
(12)
0 0
( 14)
162
(15)
where W =
(j:
z.
only if no Pll'stiC defonnations accompany tensile
microcracking, s we tacitly assumed (cf Ref. [3]).
Conversely, b measuring 'f, f; and E" it is possible
to detennine th width of the fracture process zone,
namely:
!
I
(16)
.1f;~O:
~;c=f;+.1f;;
for
.1f;>O: 1.=f;
with
(17)
'I
B. H. Oh
( 18)
where f~=comp lession strength (taken as a pOSItive
number). In Equ tion 17 we use (<I % + <Iy) because this
is an invariant f r coordinate rotations about axis z,
which should ha e no effect on the strength limit. We
do not need h wever the invariants for arbitrary
coordinate rotati ns because axis z is fixed by the
orientation of mi rocracks.
The use of str s-strain relations would also pennit
introducing easil the effects of loading rate and
duration of sust ined load upon fracture. This is
however beyond t, e scope of this work.
P Bazant -
We
=--
cos IX
( 19)
1;2 h
Cf = - -
2rJ'
2~f
80--
I; h'
(20)
h< 2rf E
(21)
1;2 '
Z. P Bazant 025~
(a)
2~r---------------~
'-
(c)
for p ..... 43!iOlb.
020~
1600
0..
a.
,
'0
'~
015~
I 0 .19,800
'.c
B H.Oh
OJol
lH
T
00'
lb.
____. ____
_~.
':~"_
8'
00
02
0.4
0.6
.,
o
u
'"
,,
0.5
,,
,,
,
,
10 12
10 12
10 12
:6
05
04
4
04
16 20
10 12
16 20
16 20
Ft.. 6. - C
a of theory with naximnm load data of Na.. (1971); (a) Test series LC-I-AD-C; (b) Test series QC-I-SLW-C; (c) Strain
distribution; and mparison of theory with Walsh's (1972) Data on notched beams of various sizes: (d) Walsh's Series I; (e) Series 2; (f)
Series 3; (g) Series 4; (h) Series 5; (i) Series 6.
0.5
,,
04
(a)
,,
'0,
10
Nonlinear Theory
Linear Theory
Mmdess, LQwrl!nce.
KUler (1977)
0
08
,,
Linear Theory
I(aplan (961)
\
\
Po - 9351b.
0
Q.
,,
03
Po -2960 lb.
\
0
,,
Q.
0
06
Q.E
Q.E
02
0.1
0.5
..-,H
04
.l..
0.6
0.7
,,
,,
IH
\
\
02.'--__~~--~~~~--__::~--~.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
r-_~r_~----__R-e-I-.-ln-I-'I-a-,1 Flaw,ooO~.~Pl~h~(~a~o~/~H~)____________- ,
1.00
\
0.75
,,
Po - 2916 lb.
0.75
\
Q.
....
11
o I
Po -43731b
050
,,
Q.
025
\
Q25
00:---::0:':.2=---::0,:..4-=---0-=.-::6---::0':.8:---'
ReI. )nillal
,,
00
Crae~
0.2
-0-'.4---0-'.-6---0'-.8---'1.0
Oeplh la. / H)
Ftg. 7. - COlllpU'iscja of theory with maximum load data of: (a) Mindess. Lawrence and Kesler (1911); (b) Kaplan (1961); (c, d) Huang (1981).
165
\
\
\
, 00
,
\
Carp,",.r. (1980)
,,
(b )Non1tnear
Linear Theory
Carpln,.,. (1980)
\
\
Po r8191b.
2~
......
Po -2067 1b
,
\
a..
Tn.ory
Linear Theory
I.~O
,:::1.00
O.7~
\
\
o
E
,,
a.. O.~o
,,
0.2~
02~
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0~--~0.-'--~0~2~--~0~.3----~0.-4--~0.~
o.~
(d)
I
- .: ::.:. ---_- ~ ~ -_ - - I
Nonl,near T".ory
- - - l.,neor Theory
-
0'
I--r--~--~
lot:
L-t_ _1'\1'
(:
o~~--~------~--~~
02
0.4
a~----~--------~--------~~
10
"
20
25
0.6
Fig. 8. - Comparison of theory with q.ximon load data of (a, b) Carpinteri (1980), comparison of theory with bending strength data of: (e) Shah
and McGarry (1971), and Gjorv, Sorensen and Arnesen (1977); (d) Hillerborg, Modeer and Petersson (1976).
(22)
4r-------------------------,
(3,)
1.0...------------------------,
r-~--------~----o
3r~Q
I
~
0.8
,s
00
,..:-=::::c..____
z20
::I!
a:
~l......
"
r-0
~I~
~
I,
.., 06
io-!_1
'"'" 04
Nonlinear n'leory
P"~~L..
Nonlinear Theory
- - - L.ln_ar Theory
a Q ~. Weeharatana and Shah (1980)
- - - Linear Tl'teory
o Soll,Saron, Fran~Ols (1979)
oL-__ __ __
~
O.S
~~
,.,...
e
....
0.6
0.4
~~
(e)
---~.
I~
r--:-:l\
-1111 i12b
1.0
::I!
~
0.2
Nonlinear TI't.or~
- - - Llneor Theory
o Bro .. n (1972)
o~---~--~----~--~---~
o
10
1$
20
2~
ReI. Crack ExtenlSlon (A/wel
"'"
O.~
~'l
::I!
-",
"
(d)
;;-
,E
__ __
4
8
12
5
10
15
20
25
ReI. Crack Ellten510n (A lWeI
Flel. Crack Ed.nSlon (to / we I
20r-------------2.0,-----------------
Nonlinear il't..,t'y
"or.
- - - Llneaf iheory
a
oL--------------~-~
l::,-n<;<
8f '
o.~t
i-:--'I~
Fig. 9. - Comparison of theory with R-<lI1'Ye data of: (a) Sok, Baron and Franc;ois (1979);
(b) Wec\llaratana and Shah (1980); (e) Brown (1972); (Ii, e) Enlov and Yagust (1975).
166
I
I
oL--------------------~
Z. P. Bazant -
.. '0,.--------_____---,,,
NOHLUi'E.\A
(a)
ntEORY
'.80,.--------------..,
(b)
l.INlAa
TKEQlty
1.44
.0
1.44
l.OB
'"
1" "
"'+
",+
1.08
'"
O. T2
0.36
",
",
.. -0.OJ4
b
1.02)
0.066
0.0
0.36
0.0
0.72
X .. Pr;!P
l.Oa
0.0
1.44
1.80
",
a .. 0.093
b .. 0.844
... .. 0.267
'" "
:).36
0.0
" '"
0.72
1.44
l.Oa
x: ..
o
LIMlAI.
(d)
THlORY
",
-5.4
-5.4
."
-5.8
C:
-6.2
-6.2
-6.6
'"
..
'"
/
/
-7.0
-7.0
'"
-6.6
'"
'" '"
+
",
.. 0.143
-5.5
-6.2
X 10,
0.08)
-5.4
-S.O
-7.
-7.0
-tlo.6
(9t/f~d .. )
'" '"
'"
b 1.027
II ..
'"
'" '"
/
-5.8
"
,...
'/PO
-5.0
-5.0
-.
B. H. Oh
-&.2
'"
'"
'"
... -0.540
'
O. 94~
O. liT
-5 ...
-S.S
10,
'" '"
'" '"
...'"
-5.11
q,~in/f>a)
Flg. 10. - (a, b) Plot$ of measured versus theoretical values of maximum loads from figures 6-8; (c, d) Plots of measured versus theoretical values
of energy release r,te from figure 9.
1.35
;'r--~~L~lrEM~----------------------------~~~
Cl..ltfAR
...
-li8
~
sr)_7J4
~
1.14
'.
(b)
T1Ci
11JRY
')0731
0.440
.;. iV
, 0.743
" . ' J.67S
f).D
.. -J.085
/'
/
~o.
/,,/
I~Q
1;3
,
/
,
0.51
/
/
,
,
,.
,, '.
"
:
"
1/
15
D. 30 ~jL---:-..".,..----:o~,~,----:0:":.'~J-
,,
:)
s"
......-.:-'.,:':',,--'---:,-:.35
,, ,
,,
/
,,
,,
..,
:.8
,,
"
,"'\
.j.'"
, ~/
/ . / II
,
,,
.,
, '
, ., '
/
0.]2
0.93
, ,- , ,
,,
'. ",
'
,,
., ,
,,
d 0.005
b 1.'J28
,4
,,
:0 _
z.
01.
12.
13.
i4.
. ..
CJ
l.
S 0,
,,0
,
a-
'
\7.,
Fig. 11. - Plots or _ured versus tbeoretical values or maxilDllJJ loads from figures 6-8
(same as Figure lOa, b but different scales),
167
TABLE I
PARAMETERS FOR TEST DATA
Test Series
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22
Naus-No. 1 ....................
Naus-No.2 ....................
Walsh-No. 1 ...................
Walsh-No.2 ...................
Walsh-No.3 ...................
Walsh-No.4 ...................
Walsh-No.5 ...................
Walsh-No.6 ...................
Mindcss, Lawrence, Kesler . .........
Shah, McGarry .................
Gj~rv, S,rensen, Arnesen . . . . . . . . . . .
Kaplan .......................
Huang-No.1 ...................
Huang-No.2 ...................
Carpinteri-No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carpintcri-No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hillerborg, Modeer, Pctersson ........
Sok, Baron, Fran~ois . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wccharatana. Shah ...............
Entov, Yagust-No. 1 ..............
Entov, Yagust-No. 2 ..............
I r;
I
E,
(ksi)
"J,
d.
w,
C~n
(psi)
(lb./in.)
(in.)
(in.)
(/b./in.)
c,
(lb./in.)
460
360
347
430
273 "
286"
495
414
370"
300"
300"
300"
360"
360"
313 "
356
400"
740"
690"
740
450
440"
4,450
4,500
3,299
4,083 "
2,593
2, 716
4,697"
3,928
6,260
3,000
3,000"
4,190
3,122
3,122 "
2, 700"
3,130 "
3,300
3,000"
2,200"
3,000"
3,000"
3,000"
0.205 "
0.099 "
0.174
0.188 "
0.126 "
0.133 "
0.224"
0.193*
0.088 "
0.108
0.108 "
0.101
0.225 "
0.225
0.207 "
0.280"
0.100
2800
0.182 "
0.855
0.746 "
0.640
0.375
0.375
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.375
0.752
0.157
0.472
0.047
0.250
0.787
0.787
1.125
1.125 "
1.50
1.50 "
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50 "
1.125"
1.125
1.125 "
1.50
1.50
1.50 "
1.125
2.256 "
0.471"
1.416 "
0.141"
0.750"
2.360"
2.360"
0.430"
0.249 "
0.188
0.173 "
0.158 "
0.162 "
0.173*
0.176"
0.170"
0.047 "
0.047 "
0.177
0.337
0.245 "
0.147 "
0.201
0.118
2910"
0.185 "
0.860"
0.755 "
0.630 "
7.664 "
6.111"
6.356
5.535 "
5.845
5.888 "
5.725 "
5.897 "
7.154 "
6.400"
6.400"
6.269 "
7.227 "
7.227 "
10.14"
6.130 "
8.758
21.66
11.93 "
12.49 "
9.366"
8.405 "
0.224"
0.113
0.185
0.270 "
0.123
0.133
0.348
0.253
0.087 "
0.103
0.103
0.098 "
0.217
0.217"
0.128 "
0.3\5"
0.086"
1.600
0.178
0.848 "
0.657"
0.617"
Note: psi =6 895N/ml, lb./in. = 115.1 N/m, in. =25.4mrn. ksi= 1000 psi.
asterisk indicates numbers cstim.ted by calculations; without asterisk-as reported.
168
IJ,
Z. P Bazan! -
B. H. Oh
(24)
Z. P Bazant -
(25)
(26)
B H Oh
E,==
-69.9 E
56.7+ f;
(27)
fi
Wp
"
Wp~(0.1622/2) +
=(0.132 + L004w;)1IZ,
provided that experimental values of /; and E are
substituted in Equation 27. If these are unavailable, one
may further introduce in Equation 27 the well-known
.~mpirical
approximate
relations
/; = 6
-I7c
and
-I7c
E = 57,000
where /; = standard cylindrical comlpression strength in psi. This, however, increases
Ithe
error,
causing
that,
roughly,
iJ p ~ [0.132 2 + 1.004(w~ + wic + w?)P/~\
where
w. =coefficient of variation for compression strength,
and W,., WEe =coefficients of variation of the deviations
from the ratios /;1/; and E/ /~ according to the
c~pirical relations.
Equation 27 seems to succeed where previous
attempts failed. The reason is, probably, that we use as
a parameter the aggregate size, which becomes logical
only when a crack band of finite width is considered;
and secondly, that instead of trying to predict the
apparent fracture energy values (corresponping to a
certain point on the R-curve) including the initial ones,
as measured e. g. by Naus, we interpret i f in
Equation 27 strictly as the limiting fracture energy (the
asympote of the R-curve) at which the fracture process
zone becomes developed fully.
Equation 27 should be particularly useful for dam
c:oncretes. Their very large aggregate size would require
too large fracture specimens, which has so far prevented
measuring the fracture energy for these concretes
directly. Yet, at the same time, dams belong to structures
for which the use of fracture mechanics is needed most.
<:ONCLUSIONS
--------------------------------------------Z P Bazan! -
ACKNOWl.EDGMENT
B H. Oh
with
PI = (C 33 Jl - 1 -l! T 1- 1 l!) -
I.
(1.,
this may
(33)
~= ~~
for uncracked
(31)
Further we need to invert Equation 29. From this
equation, e: = l!T ~"+ C 33 Jl- 1 (1: and substituting:
~
.. =1- 1 ( ~ .. -l!
wij=
(1 :)
we may solve:
(1:=Pd~:_l!T
1-
~")
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(34)
In
...
The fracture formation may be regarded as a strainlocalization instability. In the direct tensile test, a state
of uniform strain in the strain-softening range is stable
(i. e., remains uniform) if, and only if, the following
stability condition is satisfied:
(39)
(36)
or:
- [I
) +-C
I J=-- (L
-
-E,(8=)<
E. (e%)
-I
We
(40)
We
(see Equations (51), (52) of Reference [3], or References [4] and [11]). Here L = length of the tensile
specimen, C = stiffness constant of the loading frame;
E" E. = tangent moduli for further loading (increasing
er) and for unloading (decreasing eo) from the same
NOTATION
ao, a,
Lla,
B,
~,
C/o
g,
d.,
EC1
E"
f~,
H,
h,
K.
L,
if'
s,
We,
:1,
I> f,
w,
ef'
v,
/J.,
B. H. Oh
REFERENCES
175
[10] BAZANT Z. P., OH B. H. - Concrete fracture via stressstrain relations, Report No. 81-1O/665c, Center for
Concrete and Geomaterials, Technological Institute,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., Oct. 1981.
[11] BWNT Z. P., PANULA L. - Statistical stability effects in
concrete failure, J. of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, Vol. 104, Oct. 1978, No. EM5, pp. 1195-1212,
Paper 14074.
112] BAUNT Z. P., TSUBAKI T. - Slip-dilatancy model for
cracked reinforced concrete, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST9, Paper No. 15704,
September, 1980, pp. 1947-1966.
[13] BROWN J. H. - Measuring the fracture toughness of
cement paste and mortar, Magazine of Concrete Research,
Vol. 24. No. 81. December. 1972, pp. 185-196.
[14] CARPINTERI A. - Experimental determination of fracture
toughness parameters Klc and J IC for aggregative
materials, Advances in Fracture Research," (Proc., 5th
International Conference on Fracture, Cannes, France,
1981), Ed. by D. Fram;ois, Vol. 4, pp. 1491-1498.
[15] CARPINTERI A. - Static and energetic fracture parameters
for rocks and concretes, Report, Istituto di Scienza delle
Costruzioni-Ingegneria. University of Bologna, Italy,
1980.
[16] CEDOLIN L., BAZANT Z. P. - Effect of finite element
choice in blunt crack band analysis, Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 24, No.3,
December 1980, pp. 305-316.
[17] ENTOV V. M., YAGUST V. I. - Experimental investigation
of laws governing quasi-static development of macrocracks
in concrete, Mechanics of Solids (translation from
Russian), Vol. 10, No.4. 1975, pp. 87-95.
[18] EVANS R. H., MARATHE M. :So - Microcracking and
stress-strain curves for concrete in tension, Materiaux et
Constructions, Vol. 1, No.1, 1968, pp. 61-64.
[19] GlORY 0. E., SORENSEN S. I., ARNESEN A. - Notch
sensitivity and fracture toughness of concrete, Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 7. 1977, pp. 333-344.
[20] HILLERBORG A., MODEER M., PETERSSON P. E. - Analysis
of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means
of fracture mechanics and finite elements, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 6, 1976, pp. 773-782.
[21] HUANG C. M. J. - Finite element and experimental
studies of stress intensity factors for concrete beams,
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Kansas
State University, Kansas, 1981.
[22] ISIDA M. - Elastic analysis of cracks and stress intensity
factors, Baifukan Publishing Co., Japan, 1976.
[23] JANSON J., HULT 1. - Fracture mechanics and damage
mechanics-a combined approach, Journal de Mecanique
appliquee, Vol. 1, No.1, 1977, pp. 69-84.
[24] KACHANOV L. M. - Time of rupture process under creep
conditions, Izv. Akad. Nauk, SSSR. Otd. Tekh. Nauk,
No.8, 1958, pp. 26-31.
[25] KAPLAN M. F. - Crack propagation and the fracture of
concrete, American Concrete Institute Journal, Vol. 58,
No. 11, November 1961.
[26] KESLER C. E., NAus D. 1., LOTT 1. L. - Fracture
mechanics-Its applicability to concrete, International
Conference on the Mechanical Behavior of Materials,
Kyoto, August 1971.
[27] KFOURI A. P., MILLER K. J. - Stress displacement, line
integral and closure energy determinations of crack tip
stress intensity factors, Int. Journal of Pres. Ves. and
Piping, Vol. 2. No. 3. July 1974, pp. 179-191.
[28] KFOURI A. P., RICE J. R. - Elastic/plastic separation
energy rate for crack advance in finite growth steps, In
"Fracture 1977" (Proc. of the 4th Intern. Conr. on
Fracture. held in Waterloo. Ontario, June 1977), ed. by
176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Z. P Bazant
Stress intensity factors for plain concrete in bendingPrenotched versus precracked beams. Report, Department
of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, Kansas,
1981.
[48] T ADA H., PARIS P. c., IRWIN G. R. - The stress analysis
of cracks handbook, Del Research Corp., Hellertown,
Pa., 1973.
REsUME
- B. H. Oh
Resistance to crack
growth in Portland cement composites, Report. Depart-
\77