Compurers & Srruc~ures Vol. 44, No. 14, pp.

285-295, 1997
0 1997 Civil-Comp Ltd and Ekvier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain
PII: SO0457949(96)00125-3 0045-7949/97 $17.00 + 0.00

SIZE EFFECTS IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE:

A NUMERICAL EXPERIMENT

M. D. Kotsovost and M. N. Pavlov@

TDepartment of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
$Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, U.K.

Abstract-The paper forms part of a programme of investigation into the causes of size effects in
structural-concrete behaviour. It is postulated that one of the causes of size effects is load-induced
non-symmetrical cracking which is inherent in concrete due to its heterogeneous nature. The validity of
this postulate is supported by the results-presently reported-of non-linear finite element analysis, in
which the model used to describe cracking is capable of inducing non-symmetrical cracking in symmetrical
structural members subjected to symmetrical loading. The results demonstrate that the package used can
also providle a close fit to experimental values and, moreover, that the presence of stirrups (designed so
as to prevent shear failure) is sufficient to diminish the effect of non-symmetrical cracking and hence
eliminate size effects. 0 1997 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Science Ltd.

I. INTRODUaION plane actions are likely to lead to premature loss

It has recently been suggested that size effects in
structural concrete under load cannot be attributed to
inadequacies in the modelling of the stress-strain
characteristics of concrete, as widely considered [ 11.
Instead, it has been postulated that such effects
merely reflect simplifications which are often made in
the description of the boundary, and, in particular,
the loading conditions [ 11. Such simplifications lead
to predictions of stress conditions, developing within
structural concrete, which overlook the influence that
small “secondary” tensile stresses may have on load-
carrying capacity. An example where such influences
may be encountered is the case of reinforced concrete
(RC) beams, without stirrups, failing in combined
flexure and shear.
It has been shown that, while RC beams with
stirrups are essentially free from size effects, the
lack of stirrups leads to predictions of load-carrying
capacity which is heavily dependent on the size of the
beam [l]. The causes for such predictions have been
attributed to unintended out-of-plane actions (rather
than the intended in-plane loading which the beams
are assumed to be subjected to) which are difficult, if
not impossible, to eliminate in an experiment. Out-of-
plane actions may develop not only due to small
externally-inducecl unintended eccentricities of the
applied (assumed in-plane) loading, but also due
to flexural and inclined cracking which is non-
symmetrical with respect to the vertical longitudinal
plane at mid-breadth of the beam: such non-
symmetrical cracking is practically unavoidable in a
heterogeneous material like concrete. In the absence
of stirrups, the small tensile stresses which develop
within the structure under such unintended out-of-
of load-carrying capacity, and it is postulated that
this is the underlying cause of size effects. On the
other hand, the presence of stirrups, designed so
as to prevent “shear” failure, has been found to be
sufficient to prevent premature failure and hence
eliminates size effects [ 11.
The present work is intended to demonstrate the
connection between size effects and out-of-plane
actions caused by non-symmetrical fracture processes
in structural concrete. It relies on the use of a
three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA)
package that has been found, to date, to yield realistic
predictions of the behaviour of a wide range of
structural-concrete configurations [2, 31. The package
is used to predict the behaviour of a number of
geometrically strictly similar RC beams of various
sizes, made of the same materials, with and without
stirrups, which have been divided into two groups:
group A, in which the beams have been modelled
so as to undergo non-symmetrical cracking under
increasing loading: and group B, in which the beams
in group A have been modelled so as to undergo
symmetrical cracking under the same loading
conditions. The ensuing conclusions are therefore
based on a comparative study of the numerically
predicted behaviour of the beams in groups A and B,
with the aim to establish the connection between
non-symmetrical cracking and beam size, as well as to
investigate the influence of the stirrups on size effects.
2. THE ANALYTICAL MODEL
As the general FEA package used to predict
structural-concrete behaviour has been described at

285
286 M. D. Kotsovos and M. N. PavloviC

length elsewhere [2, 31, only a very concise summary
of its main features will be given here. The key to the
success of the otherwise fairly standard iterative
procedure adopted is the incorporation of realistic
constitutive laws for the deformational [4] and
strength [5] properties of concrete and steel [2], as
well as the interaction between steel and concrete [2].
Both the (triaxial) deformational response of concrete
[resolved into linear (elastic) and non-linear (perma-
nent) components] and the analytical representation
of the ultimate-strength level (at which macro-
cracking-modelled following the smeared-crack
approach-takes place) are functions of fc (the
uniaxial cylinder strength) only. The uniaxial stress-
strain relationship for steel consists of a trilinear
relationship (defined by fY, the yield stress), it being
applicable to both main reinforcement and stirrups.
When the ultimate-strength level for concrete is
reached (i.e. the conditions for macrocracking are
satisfied), a macrocrack is allowed to form only at
the location where the stress conditions are the
most critical. In fact, due to the “double-precision
accuracy” used in the package, it is unlikely that
the main decimal digits associated with the stress
values at nominally symmetric locations will exactly
coincide; thus the stress conditions may even be
found to be more critical in only one of two
symmetrical locations within the structure. Adopting
such a procedure to describe the fracture process may
therefore lead to non-symmetrical macrocracking
even for the case of symmetrical structural forms
subjected to symmetrical loading. As it will be seen
later, this feature of the package plays a key role in
the present investigation on size effects.
The analytical description of the macrocracking of
concrete reflects the rapid deterioration of stiffness
which characterizes cracked concrete, thus leading to
a transfer of internal actions from cracked concrete
to untracked concrete and steel. On the other hand,
the interaction between concrete and steel is con-
sidered to be adequately described by the assumption
of perfect bond which not only is compatible with the
smeared-crack approach, but also reflects the fact
that the tensile strength of concrete is more critical
than bond strength [2].
Concrete has been modelled by using twenty-noded
brick isoparametric elements with the 2 x 2 x 2
integration rule [6], while three-noded bar isopara-
metric elements have been used for modelling steel. In
subsequent meshes the position of the steel elements
is indicated by dotted lines, which coincide with the
boundaries of the concrete elements. The convention
for indicating cracks at the relevant Gauss points
(there are eight of these per concrete element) is as
follows: in-plane cracks (i.e. closer to the vertical
plane) are indicated by circles; transverse ones (i.e.
closer to the horizontal plane) by short straight lines
oriented along the direction of the crack; two closely
spaced circles or lines distinguish a crack which has
just occurred at the current load stage from cracks
which have formed during previous load increments,
the latter being indicated by single circles or lines.
Two short lines intersecting each other at a Gauss
point indicate total failure in the plane of the
intersecting lines, whereas a star at a Gauss point
indicates total load-carrying capacity loss of concrete
within the region of the Gauss point.
3. STRUCTURAL FORMS INVESTIGATED
Tables l-4 contain the details of the simply-
supported beams, with and without stirrups, adopted
in the present investigation. The beams have been
selected so as to be similar in geometry and main
reinforcement to those from the part of the work of
Leonhardt and Walther [7] in which two different sets
of geometrically strictly similar specimens-set of
beams D and set of beams C-formed the basis of an
experimental investigation of the problem of size
effects in structural concrete.
The finite element (FE) meshes adopted for the
analysis of the beams are shown schematically in
Fig. 1. The figure indicates that, for the case of the
smaller of beams D, the 9 x 3 x 1 FE mesh with a
2 x 2 x 2 integration rule adopted for all other
beams has been reduced to a 5 x 1 x 1 FE mesh with
a 3 x 3 x 3 integration rule. Such a change in mesh
has been dictated by the small size of the beam, in
order to comply with the condition that a Gauss

Table 1. Group A reinforced concrete beams without stirrups: data and comparison of experimental and predicted ultimate
loads
Material strength
Dimensions (mm) (MPa) P. (kN)
Beam
reference b d a, L fc fy hv Ps Pv Test* Analysis Analysis/Test

Dl 50 70 210 520 38.0 460 - 0.0162 - 14.8 15.3 1.03

D2 100 140 420 1040 38.2 435 - 0.0162 - 44.4 36.0 0.81
D3 150 210 630 1560 39.5 421 - 0.0162 - 89.2 90.0 1.01
D4 200 280 840 2080 36.1 448 - 0.0162 - 148.0 144.0 0.97
Cl 100 150 450 1000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 44.0 48.0 1.09
c2 150 300 900 2000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 132.5 156.0 1.17
c3 200 450 1350 3000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 202.0 270.0 1.32
c4 225 600 1800 4000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 310.0 330.0 1.06
*Test values from Ref [7].
 Size effects in structural concrete 287

Table 2. Group A reinforced concrete beams with stirrups: data and comparison of predicted ultimate loads with
their group B counterparts
Material strength
Dimensions (mm) (MPa) P. (kN)
Beam
Group A,
reference b d a, L ji fy f,” Ps Pv Analysis
Group B
Dls 50 70 210 520 38.0 460 439 0.0162 0.0025 15.3 1.0
D2s 100 140 420 1040 38.2 435 439 0.0162 0.0025 57.6 1.0
D3s 150 210 630 1560 39.5 421 439 0.0162 0.0025 126.0 1.0
D4s 200 280 840 2080 36.1 448 439 0.0162 0.0025 234.0 1.0
Cls 100 150 450 1000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 63.0 1.07
c2s 150 300 900 2000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 168.0 0.93
c3s 200 450 1350 3000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 384.0 1.07
c4s 225 600 1800 4000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 540.0 1.07
*Predicted values for group B beams from Table 4.

point must describe the average stress-strain con-
ditions of a space with a minimum dimension larger
than about three times the size of the maximum
aggregate of the concrete mix [2]. Hence, as a
consequence of the rough discretization along the
vertical direction, the 3 x 3 x 3 integration rule then
becomes essential in order to be able to establish a
reasonably accurate stress variation throughout the
member depth. All beams have been analysed both
with and without stirrups. The stirrups have been
placed throughout the shear span at the boundaries
between the concrete elements with their presence
being indicated by heavy dashed lines (see later Figs 6
and 7). The beams with stirrups have been designated
by adding the ending s to the description of the beams
without stirrups. Each beam has been analysed twice:
first, by considering that the FE meshes of Fig. 1
represent half the specimens (symmetry with respect
to the cross-section at mid-span of the beams); and
then by considering that the same meshes represent
one-quarter of the beams (two-fold symmetry with
respect to the x-z-plane and the cross-section at
mid-span of the beams). In the former case, the
beams have been designated as group A beams
consisting of beams D and C, without and with
stirrups, designated as Dl, . ... D4, Cl, .... C4, Dls,
...) C4s, while in the latter case, as group B beams also
consisting of beams D and C, without and with
stirrups, designated as Dl 1, .... D44, Cl 1, .... C44,
Dl Is, .... C44s. (Note that the width of the mesh in

Table 3. Group B reinforced concrete beams without stirrups: data and comparison of predicted ultimate loads
with their group A counterparts
Material strength
Dimensions (mm) (MPa) P. (kN)
Beam
Group A.,
reference b d a, L ji .A fyv Ps Pv Analysis Group B

Dll 50 70 210 520 38.0 460 - 0.0162 - 15.3 1.0

D22 100 140 420 1040 38.2 435 - 0.0162 - 49.0 0.74
D33 150 210 630 1560 39.5 421 - 0.0162 - 125.0 0.72
D44 200 280 840 2080 36.1 448 - 0.0162 - 204.0 0.70
Cl1 100 150 450 1000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 48.0 1.0
c22 150 300 900 2000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 156.0 1.0
c33 200 450 1350 3000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 324.0 0.83
C44 225 600 1800 4000 40.0 433 - 0.0134 - 450.0 0.73
*Predicted values for group A beams from Table 1.

Table 4. Group B reinforced concrete beams with stirrups: data and predicted ultimate loads
Material strength
Dimensions (mm) (MPa) P. (kN)
Beam
reference b d a, L fe h hv Ps 0” Analysis
Dlls 50 70 210 520 38.0 460 439 0.0162 0.0025 15.3
D22s 100 140 420 1040 38.2 435 439 0.0162 0.0025 57.6
D33s 150 210 630 1560 39.5 421 439 0.0162 0.0025 126.0
D44s 200 280 840 2080 36.1 448 439 0.0162 0.0025 234.0
Clls 100 150 450 1000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 58.5
c22s 150 300 900 2000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 180.0
c33s 200 450 1350 3000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 360.0
c44s 225 600 1800 4000 40.0 433 424 0.0134 0.0017 504.0
288 M. D. Kotsovos and M. N. Pavlovik

(4

Mid-ipan
cross-section

09

20-node isoparametric element

3 x 3 x 3 integration rule
/
& Mid-span
X cross-section
Fig. 1. (a) Finite element meshes adopted for the analysis of all beams except beams D; (b) Finite-element
mesh for beams D.

group B beams was half that of the mesh of group A
beams.)
The basi’c difference in the analysis of the two
groups of beams is that for group B, symmetry,
including symmetrical cracking, is imposed by the
prescribed boundary conditions, i.e. by preventing
the displacements of the two planes of symmetry at
right angles to these planes, whereas for group A
preventing only the longitudinal displacements of the
cross-section at mid-span is insufficient to prevent
non-symmetrical cracking.
4. RESULTS OF TESTS
The paper is intended to demonstrate the signifi-
cant effect that load-induced non-symmetrical crack-
ing may have on the load-carrying capacity of
a simply-supported RC beam, without stirrups,
 Size effects in structural concrete

(1.6 - d)/( 1.6 - 0.07) in Ref. 8

/ 289

0 +&Xl
I I
300
d (mm)
I
400
I
500

Fig. 2. Variation of predicted load-carrying capacity (LA)

I
600
&oo I +/
500

,.I
7
/’
/’
O/
/.

for group A beams without stirrups (non-symmetrical

cracking), normalized with respect to that (LB) of their /o’
group B (symmetrical cracking) counterparts, with the size + + Beams D
of the beams. o Beams C

subjected to in-plane loading. As discussed in the pre-
ceding section, such cracking is expected to develop
within the body of group A beams due to the
double-precision accuracy inherent in the technique
used by the paclcage for the identification of the
location where th.e conditions for cracking are the
most critical. In contrast with group A beams, in
which it is possible for cracking to occur only in one
of two locations symmetrical with respect to the
longitudinal plane at the mid-breadth of the beam,
group B beams can only undergo symmetrical
cracking as only one-quarter of the beam has been
analysed.
The values predicted for the load-carrying capacity
of the beams anal:ysed are given in Tables 1 to 4 with
Table 1 also including the relevant experimental
values reported in Ref. [7]. Graphical representations
of the information included in the tables is provided
in Figs 2-5. The effect of non-symmetrical cracking
and its connection with size effects for the cases of
beams both without and with stirrups is indicated
in Figs 2 and 5, respectively, while Figs 3 and 4
depict: (a) the relationship between predicted (non-
symmetrical cracking) and experimental values of
0
/ results, depicted in Fig. 2, shows that the above
/
0 /.
/ latter are defined in practical structural design.
I+ 1 I I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Group B beams @IV)
Fig. 4. Correlation between predicted values of load-
carrying capacity for groups A and B beams with stirrups.
load-carrying capacity for beams without stirrups;
and (b) the relationship between the predicted values
of the load-carrying capacity of the beams with
stirrups suffering symmetrical and non-symmetrical
cracking, respectively.
The crack patterns for a typical beam, both with
and without stirrups, are shown in Figs 6 and 7
for the cases of non-symmetrical and symmetrical
cracking, respectively. It should be noted that Fig. 6
(non-symmetrical cracking) shows the crack patterns
at one side of the beams (this corresponds to that side
where cracking is initiated), with the crack patterns
at the other side being very similar to their
counterparts in Fig. 7 (symmetrical cracking).
5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The predicted values in Tables 1 to 4 clearly
demonstrate that the load-carrying capacity of group
A beams, without stirrups, decreases as a percentage
of that of their group B counterparts with increasing
beam size. The graphical representation of these
reduction in load-carrying capacity exhibits a trend
qualitatively similar to those of size effects as the

1.0
1: ;L.T.-.T.-.-o-.-.-.-.-.n
0

+ Beams D
o Beams C
+ Beams D
0 Beams C I I I
200 400 600
d (mm)
100 200
Fig. 5. Variation of predicted load-carrying capacity (LA)
Experiment (kN) for group A beams with stirrups (non-symmetrical
Fig. 3. Correlation between predicted and experimental cracking), normalized with respect to that (LB) of their
values of load-carrying capacity for group A beams group B (symmetrical cracking) counterparts, with the size
(non-symmetrical cracking), without stirrups. of the beams.
290 M. D. Kotsovos and M. N. Pavlovic

Within this context, size effects are associated with
shear capacity and they are expressed in an empirical
form such as, for example, the expressions rec-
ommended by BS 8110 [8] and CEB-FIP [9],
s.e. = (400/d)“4 and s.e. = 1.6 - d, respectively,
where s.e. is not smaller than 1 and d is the depth of
the critical cross-section. The graphical represen-
tation of these expressions normalized with respect to
their values of beam Dl (d = 70 mm) is also included
in Fig. 2, which indicates that the correlation between
the code and the analysis predictions is satisfactory,
considering both the approximate nature of the code
expressions and the random triggering of early failure
through double-precision numerics. (It should be
noted that the measured values of shear capacity are
characterized by a large variability; in fact the scatter
of these experimental values is often larger than twice
the mean value of the values [lo].)

I
(4
c

LS-44 L=2P=48kN

1 k
I / I I .
11 I I I
f I/ I/ II I I I,
--_---- &/ ----- 1 / //_I 1 1.1 IdI I. ‘-1-j

LS=8 L=96kN

LS=ll L=132kN

/If/ ’
00 / H/ 8) 2’1 I I I
0) fl/ II II II I
( o_;_;_yJ& -L/ _ _!_I_ _r,r__:!’ -_-- t I li
i
LS = 12 L = 144 kN (MSL)

Fig. 6. Typical crack patterns for group A beams (non-symmetrical cracking): (a) without; and (b) with
stirrups, at various load levels (beams D4 and D4s, respectively). (Conrinued opposk.)
 Size effects in structural concrete 291

LS=4 L=2P=72kN

I
LS=8 L=144kN

t P

LS=ll L=198kN

L = 234 kN (MSL)

Fig. 6-Continued.

The correlation between the load-carrying capacity
predicted in the present work for the beams without
stirrups and that established by experiment [7] is
indicated in Fig. 3. The figure indicates that, for the
case of the beams undergoing non-symmetrical
cracking, the correlation is very close except for the
case of beam C with d = 450 mm. Such a close corre-
lation between the analytical and the experimental
values is in support of the postulate that one of the
main causes of size effects is load-induced non-
symmetrical cracking, due to the heterogeneous
nature of concrete, which appears to be adequately
described by the FEA package used in the present
work. Another significant cause of size effects has
been postulated to be the small unintended
eccentricities of the in-plane intended loading due to
secondary testing-procedure effects which are in-
herent in any experimental set-up [l]. The deviation
292 M. D. Kotsovos and M. N. PavloviC
P
(a)
F
t

--- ----_-__---- 44 /I I,1 -----1 I I

LS=4 L=2P=48kN
t

LS=8 L=96kN

LS=II L=132kN

LS = 14 L = 168 kN

Fig. 7. Typical crack patterns for group B beams (symmetrical cracking): (a) without; and (b) with
stirrups, at various load levels (beams D44 and D44s, respectively). (Conrinlced opposite.)
 Size effects in structural concrete 293

I I I I4 #iI /iI/ il 1: I I l
L I &II/ /I/ /I// /II II I I

LS=4 L=2P=72kN

t
P

Fi il;liIi
I
1 I I
I ‘0 RI0 0’0 0’0 0’0 /’ I
I I I.G 0!0 ,!/ at!, .!/ r;/ I! ‘I ’
1 ‘0 /(I /;I r;r +ir /it 1; I I :
r
L -_- L em_ 0 :I _/AL A! _‘lL ,rlL _!lL_LL-‘_I

I
LS=ll L=198kN
t
P

1 I
I- I I
I I cc I
I I I I
I I I I I I I
L I
I I
@I@, 0’0 0’0 I
/l 1
I I. & /l/ & rf, ,‘I: /! : I

I- I ‘0
‘11 I II r;t +I 1 II+ Gil If
L._-_L-_o_~__‘L~_~Jr-U!-~y,lLI_,’~1_~~
LS = 13 L = 234 kN (MSL) I

Fig. 7-Continued.

of the predicted from the experimental value of the
load-carrying capacity for beam C with d = 450 mm
may reflect the latter effects which are not modelled
in the present study.
Non-symmetrical cracking gives rise to transverse
tensile stresses which weaken the path along which
the compressive forces are transmitted to the
supports, thus leading to a reduced load-carrying
capacity in comparison with that of the beams
suffering symmetrical cracking. However, the pres-
ence of stirrups (designed so as to delay shear failure
and hence allow flexural failure to occur first) is
sufficient to sustain the above tensile stresses; this is
indicated in Fig. 4, which shows that the predicted
values for the load-carrying capacity of the beams
with stirrups, undergoing non-symmetrical cracking,
correlate closely with those of the beams suffering
symmetrical cracking. Such behaviour is consistent
with the fact that RC beams with stirrups are
independent of size effects (and, significantly, are
insensitive to secondary effects, such as small
out-of-plane actions and/or heterogeneity, which the
294 M. D. Kotsovos and M. N. PavloviC
“secondary” reinforcement can absorb); in fact, the
load-carrying capacity of group A beams with
stirrups, as a percentage of that of their group B
counterparts, is virtually constant (approximately
equal to 1.O), and hence independent of the size of the
beam (see Fig. 5).
The crack patterns predicted for a typical set of
beams (beams D4, D4s, D44, and D44s) at various
load steps (LS) up to the maximum sustained load
(MSL) are shown in Figs 6 and 7. Comparing the
crack patterns exhibited by the beams without
stirrups, it is interesting to note that non-symmetrical
cracking occurs initially (LS 4) deeper in the region
of the point load and, with increasing load, short
inclined cracks spread faster towards the support
than for the case of symmetrical cracking, the latter
being characterized by a near-constant crack depth
throughout the region that it covers. Eventually,
collapse of the beams is caused by in-plane (i.e.
near-vertical) cracking which, for the case of
non-symmetrical cracking, occurs in the region of the
support (LS 12 in Fig. 6a), while for the case of
symmetrical cracking, it occurs in the region of the
point load at a higher load level (LS 17 in Fig. 7a).
Although the presence of stirrups does not change
the above features characterizing the two different
types of crack patterns, it prevents failure due to
in-plane cracking and allows the beams to develop
their full flexural capacity. Collapse eventually occurs
due to the formation of horizontal cracks within the
compressive zone as indicated in Figs 6b and 7b.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Earlier work [l] showed a consistent “size effect” in
the case of structural-concrete members without
stirrups, and this correlated with the corresponding
overestimate of FEA predictions for which economic
computational modelling constrained the structure to
respond and eventually crack symmetrically with
respect to the vertical plane that bisects the member
along its longitudinal direction. The present results
confirm, complement and extend the earlier find-
ings [l] by means of numerical “mimicking” of
“weaknesses” in the structure which, once the above
symmetry constraint is removed, set off early
cracking, thus reducing the stress level associated
with assumed symmetric behaviour. Therefore, the
RC beams, studied by means of FEA in the present
work, yielded results which are compatible with the
postulate that one of the main causes of size effects
in structural concrete is non-symmetrical cracking
which is inherent in concrete due to its heterogeneous
nature. In fact, the work has led to the following
conclusions:
(1) The reduction in load-carrying capacity due to
non-symmetrical cracking with the size of the beams
investigated is similar to that predicted by the
expressions used in practical structural design to
describe size effects.
(2) The predicted load-carrying capacity of the
beams without stirrups is in close agreement with
published experimental information.
(3) The presence of stirrups, designed to prevent
shear failure, is sufficient to eliminate the effect of
non-symmetrical cracking and hence size effects. This
is also in full agreement with experimental evidence.
While the above conclusions seem to be backed by
a surprisingly good correlation between heterogeneity
in an actual specimen on the one hand, and the
triggering of non-symmetrical cracking due to
small numerical discrepancies in computational (FE)
models where symmetry is not automatically imposed
on the other, present findings should be seen
primarily as a qualitative confirmation of the
postulate that “size effects” arise mainly as a result
of secondary (small out-of-plane/non-homeogeneity)
effects which, in the absence of secondary reinforce-
ment, can precipitate early failure. The actual degree
of heterogeneity in a member and the degree
of numerical asymmetry stemming from double-
precision computations are essentially random effects
which, in nominal problems, are impossible to
quantify a priori. In such instances, therefore, any
very close (numeric) agreement between these two
effects is likely to be due to chance. However, the
trends exhibited by experiments-both laboratory-
based and, as in the present work, computational-
show a main common feature which strongly suggests
that the explanation for the so-called “size effect”
phenomenon in concrete structures lies in the
unavoidable presence of secondary material and/or
loading effects in those members that lack the
secondary reinforcement stiffening to control them.
REFERENCES
1. M. D. Kotsovos and M. N. Pavlov& A possible
explanation for size effects in structural concrete. Archs
Ciu. Engng (Proc. Pal. Acad. Sci.) 40, 243-261 (1994).
2. F. Gonzalez Vidosa, M. D. Kotsovos and M. N.
Pavlovic, A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element
model for structural concrete. Part 1: main features and
objectivity study. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 91, 517-W
(1991). [See. also Discussion and Closure. Struct. Build.
Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 94, 365-374 (1992).]
F. Gonzalez Vidosa, M. D. Kotsovos and M. N.
Pavlovic, A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element
model for structural concrete. Part 2: generality study.
Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 91, 545-560 (1991). [See also
Discussion and Closure. Struct. Build. Proc. Instn Civ.
Engrs 94, 365-374 (1992).]
M. D. Kotsovos, Concrete-a brittle fracturing
material. Mater. Struct. RILE&f 17, 107-l I5 (1984).
M. D. Kotsovos, Mathematical description of the
strength properties of concrete under generalized stress.
Msg. Concr. Res. 31, 151-158 (1979).
F. Gonzalez Vidosa, M. D. Kotsovos and M. N.
Pavlovic, On the numerical instability of the smeared-
 Size effects in structural concrete
crack approach in the nonlinear modelling of concrete
structures. Commun. Appl. Numer. Meth. 4, 799-806
(1988). [See also Discussion and Closure, Commun.
appl. Numer. Meth. 5, 489-493 (1989).]
1. F. Leonhardt and R. Walther, The Stuttgart Shear Tests
I961 (a translation of the articles that appeared in
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, Vol. 56, no. 12, 1961; Vol. 51,
nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, 1962), Translation no. I1 I, Cement
and Concrete Association, London (1964).
295
8. BS 8110, Structural Use of Concrete. Part I: Code of
Practicefor Design and Construction. British Standards
Institution, London (1985).
9. CEB-FIP, Model Code for Concrete Structures (Comite
EuroInternational du Beton). Cement and Concrete
Association, London (1978).
10. A. H. Allen, Reinforced Concrete Design to CP
I l&Simply Explained. Cement and Concrete Associ-
ation, London (1974).