materials
Article
Construction of Discrete Element Constitutive Relationship and
Simulation of Fracture Performance of Quasi-Brittle Materials
Ran Zhu 1,2, *, Hongbo Gao 3, *, Yijian Zhan 1,2 and Ze-Xiang Wu 4






Citation: Zhu, R.; Gao, H.; Zhan, Y.;
Wu, Z.-X. Construction of Discrete
Element Constitutive Relationship
and Simulation of Fracture
Performance of Quasi-Brittle
Materials. Materials 2022, 15, 1964.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma15051964
Academic Editor: Karim Benzarti
Received: 28 January 2022
Accepted: 1 March 2022
Published: 4 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2022, 15, 1964. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051964
1 Shanghai Construction Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200080, China; zhanyj@scg.cn
2 Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Mega Structure High Performance Concrete,
Shanghai 201114, China
3 College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
4 College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou 325000, China;
zexiang.wu@wzu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: zhuran@scg.cn (R.Z.); gaohongbo@hainanu.edu.cn (H.G.)
Abstract: In order to solve the problem that the built-in parallel bond model in the discrete element
software cannot adequately simulate the post-peak fracture behavior of quasi-brittle materials, a linear
cohesive model was established. First, two particles are used to simulate the interface constitutive
behavior in different modes. The results show that the new model can better simulate the behavior of
Mode-I fracture, Mode-II fracture, and Mixed-mode fracture. Then, the influence of micro-parameters
on the newly constructed constitutive model is analyzed, which provides a basis for the determination
of micro-parameter values. Finally, the proposed softening model is applied to a three-point bending
test of mortar, and the fracture behavior obtained is compared to the acoustic emission results. The
simulation results also show that the constitutive model we built can be used to simulate the fracture
behavior of quasi-brittle materials such as mortar and concrete.
Keywords: discrete element method; quasi-brittle material; constitutive model; mortar; fracture
behavior; acoustic emission
1. Introduction
Quasi-brittle materials such as concrete, mortar, rock, or wood are widely used in vari-
ous engineering fields [1]. For quasi-brittle materials, fracture is a common phenomenon
that affects structural safety and durability [2,3]. The failure cracking mechanism of these
materials is usually complex (microcracks, crack bridging, crack rest, etc.), characterized
by the formation of a large microcrack fracture process zone (FPZ) before the main crack.
Due to the damage development in the process zone, the quasi-brittle materials have
some special fracture characteristics, such as R curve and size effect [4]. The stress–strain
relationship of quasi-brittle materials exhibits nonlinear characteristics before reaching the
peak value, and a ‘strain softening’ phenomenon after the peak value. Therefore, research
on the properties of quasi-brittle materials should start with their mesostructure, focus on
their heterogeneous composition, and appropriately investigate the damage and fracture
mechanism of quasi-brittle materials according to their meso-mechanical properties.
The numerical simulation method can effectively solve the limitations of fracture
tests and crack measurements, which is beneficial to systematically estimate the related
performance of the structure, and save the resources required for experimental research.
Simulation of nonlinear problems in quasi-brittle materials, especially damage and degra-
dation, is one of the popular research tasks in current civil engineering [5]. However, due to
the existence of the fracture process zone in quasi-brittle materials, the classical linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM) theory cannot be directly applied to quasi-brittle materials [6],
and the propagation of cracks in quasi-brittle materials is a discrete problem, which should
be studied locally. Compared to the finite element method (FEM), the discrete element
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 2 of 16

method (DEM) focuses on meso-mechanical problems, which can be controlled at the

particle level, and can effectively solve discontinuous problems mentioned previously. The
discrete element method was originally developed by Cundall [7] to solve rock mechanics
problems. Although some studies [8–10] have successfully used the DEM to simulate the
fracture behavior of concrete, how to choose a suitable contact model remains a key issue
of the DEM while simulating the fracture behavior of quasi-brittle materials.
To perform DEM simulations, several computer codes have been implemented, such as
PFC (Particle Flow Code), UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code), LIGGGHTS (LAMMPS
Improved for General Granular and Granular Heat Transfer Simulations), etc., among which
PFC has been extensively used. In PFC, the parallel bond model [11–13] is one of the most
frequently used built-in contact models. The previous studies usually focus on some specific
mechanical behaviors of quasi-brittle materials and focus only on the mechanical response
at peak load, but pay little attention to the post-peak behavior. Zhou et al. [11] successfully
simulated the pre-peak rupture mechanism of concrete using a parallel bond model. Murali
et al. [14] have studied the strength and size effects of tensile concrete using the parallel
bond model, which can be used to describe the pre-peak fracture behavior of concrete
and its peak value. However, Jiang et al. [15] pointed out that the parallel bond model
cannot satisfy both compressive and tensile behavior when using the same microscopic
parameters. The results of Diederichs [16] showed that the tensile strength of rocks was
remarkably overestimated when the parameters were calibrated using compression tests.
Prior to Diederichs, Potyondy [17] and Schopfer [18] obtained similar results in their
simulations of brittle rocks, because the macroscopic tensile and compressive strength
increased simultaneously with the increase in the bond tensile strength in the microscopic
model [13]. In fact, compressive strength is usually one order of magnitude greater than
tensile strength in rock, concrete, and other similar quasi-brittle materials. As a result, the
parallel bond model can no longer be used to simulate quasi-brittle materials with low
tensile/compressive strength ratios, such as rock and concrete.
Nguyen et al. [19] employed the DEM approach to simulate the three-point bending
test using notched soft rock beams, and found that the parallel bond model could match
the load–crack opening displacement (P-CMOD) curve, but could not capture its softening
behavior. Therefore, Nguyen et al. [19] established an improved DEM damage–plastic
cohesion model and verified its reliability. Ma and Huang [20] extended the normal
equation of the built-in parallel bond model with a softening segment. The simulation
results showed that the softening coefficient could reproduce the tension–compression ratio
of quasi-brittle materials. Sinaie et al. [21] successfully developed a cohesive force model to
simulate the behavior of concrete under cyclic loading, where the microscopic parameters
of the material were calibrated only by a monotonic stress–strain test.
The previous studies of DEM simulation mainly focus on geotechnical materials, while
the study on mortar, concrete, and other quasi-brittle materials is relatively inadequate,
particularly with regards to fracture behavior. Due to of the influence of coarse aggregate
inclusion and interface transition zone (ITZ), the fracture behavior of concrete is complex.
It is easy to determine the basic fracture characteristics of mortar, as an important bonding
material in concrete, through the study and simulation of its fracture behavior, because
of the elimination of inclusion effect [22]. Therefore, in this study, the limitation of the
parallel bond model for simulating the three-point bending fracture behavior of notched
mortar beams is verified first, and then a linear cohesion model for the DEM to simulate
the post-peak fracture behavior of mortar is developed.

2. Simulation of Fracture Behavior of Three-Point Bending Beams by Parallel

Bond Model
The parallel bond model is a built-in constitutive model commonly used in the discrete
element software PFC. This model consists of a linear sub-model and a sub-model for the
bonding behavior (Figure 1). A two-dimensional parallel bond model shows that the
two particles are cemented by a rectangular material with a certain strength, and can resist
 2. Simulation of Fracture Behavior of Three-Point Bending Beams by Parallel Bond
2.Model
Simulation of Fracture Behavior of Three-Point Bending Beams by Parallel Bond
Model
The parallel bond model is a built-in constitutive model commonly used in the dis-
The
crete parallel
element bond model
software is a built-in
PFC. This constitutive
model consists of a model commonly and
linear sub-model usedain the dis-
sub-model
crete element software PFC. This model consists of a linear sub-model
for the bonding behavior (Figure 1). A two-dimensional parallel bond model shows and a sub-model that
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 for 3 of 16
thethe
twobonding behavior
particles (Figureby
are cemented 1).a A two-dimensional
rectangular materialparallel
with a bond
certainmodel shows
strength, andthat
can
the twotension
resist particles
andaretorque.
cemented by bonds
When a rectangular material
exist, the force onwith
theamodel
certainisstrength, and can
mainly carried by
resist tension and torque. When bonds exist, the force on the model is mainly
the bond material. When bond failure occurs, the model degenerates into a linear contact carried by
the bond
tension
model. material.
and torque. When
When bond
bondsfailure occurs,
exist, the forcethe
on model
the modeldegenerates
is mainly into a linear
carried contact
by the bond
material.
model. When bond failure occurs, the model degenerates into a linear contact model.

Figure 1. Mechanical behavior of parallel bond model based on [23].

Figure 1. Mechanical behavior
Figure 1. behavior of
of parallel
parallel bond
bond model
model based
based on
on [23].
[23].
Figure2 2shows
Figure showsthetheconstitutive
constitutive relation
relation of the parallel bond model, which reflects the
Figure
relation 2 showsforce
between the constitutive
and failure relation ofof
threshold.
the
the
When
parallel
parallel
the
bond
bond
tensile
model,
model,
stress
which
which
between
reflects
reflects theis
particles
the relation
relation between
between force
force and and failure
failure threshold.
threshold. When
When thethe tensile
tensile stress
stress between
between particles
particles is
isgreater
greater than
than the tensile
the tensilestrength,
strength, thetheparallel bond
parallel bondexhibits tensile
exhibits failure;
tensile when
failure; the shear
when the
greater
stress than
betweenthe tensile strength,
particles is greaterthe parallel
thanthan bond
the shear exhibits
strength, tensile failure;
the parallel when
bondbond the
indicates shear
shear
shear
stress stress
betweenbetween particles
particles is is greater
greater than the the shear
shear strength,
strength, the the parallel
parallel bond indicates
indicates shear
failure.
shear failure.
failure.

Figure 2.Strength
Strength curveofofparallel
parallel bond model.
Figure 2. Strength curve
Figure 2. curve of parallel bond
bond model.
model.
ToTo
seesee if the
if the parallel
parallel bond bond model
model is adequate
is adequate for modeling
for modeling the fracture
the fracture behavior
behavior of quasi-of
To see
quasi-brittle if the parallel
materials, it bond
was model
put to is
the adequate
test. The for
2D modeling
notched the
mortar fracture
beam behavior
(100
brittle materials, it was put to the test. The 2D notched mortar beam (100 mm × 100 mm × 400 mm,mm of
× 100
quasi-brittle
the materials,
mixture shown it was
in Table puttested
1) was to thebytest. The 2D notched
three-point bendingmortar
load. Inbeam (100 mm
the mortar, × 100
ordinary
Portland cement (CEM I 52.5N) was used. The compressive strength was 48 MPa and 59 MPa
on the 7th and 28th days, respectively, and the fineness modulus of natural sand was 2.16. The
acoustic emission (AE) technique was also used to study the fracture process in this experiment.
The acoustic emission transducers were attached to the opposite sides of the specimen through
a coupling agent, organized to reduce inaccuracy in finding the AE occurrences around the
projected position of the fracture process zone (FPZ). Thus, the sensor forms a parallelogram
grid position on one side of the mortar specimen (60 mm × 150 mm), as shown in Figure 3.
 was 48 MPa and 59 MPa on the 7th and 28th days, respectively, and the fineness modulus
of natural sand was 2.16. The acoustic emission (AE) technique was also used to study the
fracture process in this experiment. The acoustic emission transducers were attached to
the opposite sides of the specimen through a coupling agent, organized to reduce inaccu-
racy in finding the AE occurrences around the projected position of the fracture process
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 4 of 16
zone (FPZ). Thus, the sensor forms a parallelogram grid position on one side of the mortar
specimen (60 mm × 150 mm), as shown in Figure 3.
Table 1. Mix design of mortar (kg/m3 ).
Table 1. Mix design of mortar (kg/m3).
Compressive Flexural
Cement Sand Water Superplasticizer
Cement Sand Compressive
Water Strength Flexural Strength
Superplasticizer
Strength Strength
645 1134 258 7.5 74.5 ± 2.84 MPa 5.8 ± 0.08 MPa
645 1134 258 7.5 74.5 ± 2.84 MPa 5.8 ± 0.08 MPa

Figure 3. Schematics of AE instrumentation and positions of AE transducers.

Figure 3. Schematics of AE instrumentation and positions of AE transducers.

According to previous research [24], the mechanical properties of the simulated spec-
imen will be affected by the particle
According size research
to previous when the particle
[24], size is larger
the mechanical than 1/80
properties times
of the of
simulated specimen
the specimen size. Therefore,
will be affected the
by range of particle
the particle radius,the
size when particle density,
particle size isand local
larger damp-
than 1/80 times of the
ing coefficientspecimen
are set tosize.
be 0.5 mm ~ 0.75
Therefore, the mm,
range2100 kg/m3radius,
of particle , and 0.7 [25], respectively.
particle The damping coef-
density, and local
microscopic parameters
ficient are set to be 0.5 mm ~ 0.75 mm, 2100 kg/m , and 0.7 [25], respectively. 40
are determined by the compressive 3strength of the 40 mm × The microscopic
mm × 40 mm specimen
parameters and
arethe flexural strength
determined of the 40 mm
by the compressive × 40 mm
strength × 160
of the 40 mm
mm specimen.
× 40 mm × 40 mm spec-
In most cases,imen
the calibration process
and the flexural is performed
strength of the 40 mmusing
× 40themmso-called
× 160 mm “trial-and-error”
specimen. In most cases, the
method basedcalibration
on a standard test,
process is although
performedthis method
using is time-intensive
the so-called and results
“trial-and-error” method in based
a on a stan-
non-unique combination of micro-parameters.
dard test, although In this paper,
this method is time-intensive anda results
Levenberg–Marquardt
in a non-unique combination of
(LM) algorithm-based calibration
micro-parameters. Inscheme
this paper,is adopted; more detailed information
a Levenberg–Marquardt can be calibration
(LM) algorithm-based
found in the author’s
scheme is previous
adopted;work
more[26]. Many
detailed micro-parameters
information can be foundhaveinto thebeauthor’s
determined
previous work [26].
for DEM modeling, and it is not trivial to obtain the values of these parameters.
Many micro-parameters have to be determined for DEM modeling, and it is not trivial to Never-
theless, the initial
obtainvalues of of
the values normal stiffness and
these parameters. shear stiffness
Nevertheless, for calibration
the initial can stiffness and
values of normal
shear stiffness for calibration can generally be calculated from engineering properties such as
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio using Equations (1) and (2) [27].

E
kn = √ (1)
3(1 − v )

E(1 − 3v)
ks = √ (2)
3(1 − v2 )
where E is the Young’s modulus and v is the Poisson’s ratio.
The calibrated microscopic parameters are listed in Table 2.
 E (1 − 3v )
ks =
3 (1 − v 2 )
(2)

where E is the Young’s modulus and v is the Poisson’s ratio.

Materials 2022, 15, 1964 The calibrated microscopic parameters are listed in Table 2. 5 of 16

Table 2. Micro-parameters determined for the parallel bond model.

Table 2. Micro-parameters determined for the parallel
Micro-Parameters Value bond model.
Micro-Parameters Value
Minimum particle diameter [ d minValue
Micro-Parameters ] (mm) 0.5 Radius multiplier [  ]
Micro-Parameters 1.0
Value
Ratio of maximum
Minimum to minimum particle
particle diameter Ratio of normal to shear
[dmin ] (mm)
0.5 1.5 Radius multiplier [λ] 1.03.0
diameter [ d max d min ] bond stiffness [ k n k s ]
Ratio of maximum to
Ratio of Effective
normal to bond
shear bond
modulus
minimum particle
Effective diameter
modulus 1.5
[ Ec ] (GPa) 31.4 3.0
31.4
stiffness [kn /ks ]
[dmax /dmin ] [ E c ] (GPa)
Effective modulus [Ec ] (GPa) 31.4 EffectiveMoment
bond modulus [Ec ] (GPa)
contribution factor 31.4
Ratio
Ratioofofnormal
normalto shear stiffness [ kn
toshear ks ] 3.0 1.0
3.0 Moment contribution [ factor
] [β] 1.0
stiffness [k n /k s ]
Friction angle [φ] ( ) 
Friction angle◦ [ ] (°) 26.6 26.6 Tensile
Tensile strength
strength [  c ] (MPa) 32.7
[σc ] (MPa) 32.7
Cohesion strength
Cohesion [c] (MPa)
strength 32.7
[ c ] (MPa) 32.7

The
The microscopic
microscopicparameters
parametersobtained
obtainedabove
abovewere
wereused
usedtoto
simulate
simulate the
thefailure
failurebehavior
behav-
of
ioraofnotched
a notchedthree-point
three-point bending
bending beam
beamwith
witha asize
sizeof 100 mm ××100
of 100 100mm × 400
mm× 400 mm. mm.
As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 4, 4,
thethesimulated
simulatedspecimen
specimenwaswascreated
created by
by generating 80,821 particles
particles
within
withinaarectangular
rectangularspecimen
specimen area. Taking
area. the the
Taking computation timetime
computation into account, and ensuring
into account, and en-
that the specimen maintains quasi-static equilibrium during the test,
suring that the specimen maintains quasi-static equilibrium during the test, based based on previous
on pre-
studies [25,28–30],
vious studies a constant
[25,28–30], verticalvertical
a constant velocityvelocity
of 0.002of
m/s wasm/s
0.002 applied at the top
was applied at of
themiddle
top of
span
middle [31]. Figure
span [31].5 Figure
depicts 5the resultsthe
depicts obtained
resultsusing the built-in
obtained parallel
using the built-inbond modelbond
parallel and
the
modelexperimental results.
and the experimental results.

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Mortar
Mortar specimen
specimen shape
shape and
and boundary
boundary condition.
condition.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Comparison of parallel
Comparison of parallel bond
bond model
model results
results and
and test
test results.
results.

The simulation
simulation results
resultsusing
usingthe
thebuilt-in
built-inparallel
parallel bond
bond model
model agree
agree well
well with
with the the
ex-
experimental results
perimental results in the
in the linear
linear elastic
elastic ascending
ascending stage,stage, according
according to theto the load–crack
load–crack open-
opening displacement
ing displacement curvecurve in Figure
in Figure 5. The5.simulation
The simulation
resultresult
is stillisinstill
the in the linear
linear growth growth
stage,
while the experimental result enters the nonlinear stage; therefore, the simulation and test
results diverge gradually. When the loading reaches the post-peak stage, the parallel bond
model degenerates into a linear model and no longer bears tensile load. This results in a
rapidly descending curve, indicating a significant brittle fracture phenomenon. As a re-
 Figure 5. Comparison of parallel bond model results and test results.

Materials 2022, 15, 1964 The simulation results using the built-in parallel bond model agree well with the ex-
6 of 16
perimental results in the linear elastic ascending stage, according to the load–crack open-
ing displacement curve in Figure 5. The simulation result is still in the linear growth stage,
while the experimental result enters the nonlinear stage; therefore, the simulation and test
stage, while the experimental result enters the nonlinear stage; therefore, the simulation and
results diverge gradually. When the loading reaches the post-peak stage, the parallel bond
test results diverge gradually. When the loading reaches the post-peak stage, the parallel
model degenerates into a linear model and no longer bears tensile load. This results in a
bond model degenerates into a linear model and no longer bears tensile load. This results
rapidly descending curve, indicating a significant brittle fracture phenomenon. As a re-
in a rapidly descending curve, indicating a significant brittle fracture phenomenon. As
sult, while the parallel bond model can simulate the peak value that corresponds to the
a result, while the parallel bond model can simulate the peak value that corresponds to the
test results, it can hardly replicate the nonlinear ascending stage and post-peak softening
test results, it can hardly replicate the nonlinear ascending stage and post-peak softening
stage during the test process. Hence, the fracture behavior of quasi-brittle materials cannot
stage during the test process. Hence, the fracture behavior of quasi-brittle materials cannot
be simulated by the built-in model.
be simulated by the built-in model.

3.3.Establishment
Establishmentofofa aLinear
LinearCohesion
CohesionModelModel
Fortunately,users
Fortunately, usersare
are allowed
allowed to to define
definetheir
theirown
owncontact
contact models
models with
withPFC. TheThe
PFC. spe-
cific approach
specific approach requires model
requires model coding
codingin in
C++ language
C++ language andand
compiling
compiling intointo
a “.DLL” file,
a “.DLL”
which
file, is later
which called
is later by by
called PFC’s
PFC’scommand
command flow. This
flow. process
This is illustrated
process is illustratedin Figure 6 and
in Figure 6
the detailed information can be found in the official documentation of
and the detailed information can be found in the official documentation of PFC [32]. The PFC [32]. The user-
defined contact
user-defined model
contact is relatively
model independent
is relatively independent of the PFCPFC
of the command
command flow, because
flow, it has
because it
its its
has own name,
own name,data structure,
data structure,and parameter
and parameter definition
definitionstyle.
style.

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17

Figure6.6.Flow
Figure Flowchart
chartofofuser-defined
user-definedcontact
contactmodel
modelimplementation.
implementation.
Based on a previous researcher’s work [33], a linear cohesion model was established,
Basedinon a previous researcher’s work [33], a( klinear cohesion model was established,
as shown Figure 7. Normal and shear stiffness n , k s ), normal and shear bond force (
as shown in Figure 7. Normal and shear stiffness (k n , k s ), normal and shear bond force (Sn ,
S , Ss ), friction coefficient (  ), normal and shear relative displacement ( un , us ) are all
Ssn), friction coefficient (µ), normal and shear relative displacement (un , us ) are all used in
used in theas
the model model as parameters.
control control parameters. In addition,
In addition, the damage the damage parameters
parameters in the nor-
in the normal and
mal and shear directions are assumed to have the same value in the model.
shear directions are assumed to have the same value in the model. This indicates that This indicates
there
that
is justthere
one is just damage
scalar one scalar damage (D
parameter parameter ( D ), which is commonly accepted in
f ), which is fcommonly accepted in quasi-brittle
material modeling
quasi-brittle [34–36].
material modeling [34–36].

Linear cohesive
Figure 7. Linear cohesive constitutive model.

The linear cohesion constitutive model that has been established is as follows:

Fn = (1 − D f ) kn un
(3)
Fs = (1 − D f ) k s us

Here, F is the normal force, F is the shear force; the equation of D f is:
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 7 of 16

The linear cohesion constitutive model that has been established is as follows:
 
Fn = 1 − D f k n un
  (3)
Fs = 1 − D f k s us

Here, Fn is the normal force, Fs is the shear force; the equation of D f is:

un,s ≤ un,s

 0 e
D f = max( D nf , D sf ) = un,s
 
un,s f − un,s (4)
 1− e
un,s un,s > un,s
un,s n,s
f −ue e

where un,s is the relative normal or shear displacement between two particles, un,s e is the
displacement corresponding to the normal or shear elastic limit, un,s f is the parameter
governing the slope of the normal or shear softening curve.
For in-plane loads, many failure envelopes have been proposed, including linear [37],
elliptic [38], and quadratic [39]. An elliptical envelope is employed in this model.
 2  2
Fn Fs
+ =1 (5)
Sn Ss

4. Validation of the Linear Cohesion Model

In the discrete element program PFC5.0, the linear cohesion model created above
was implemented as a user-defined model. Two particles were used to check the load–
displacement curves under the conditions of Mode-I fracture, Mode-II fracture, and Mixed-
mode fracture in order to evaluate the reliability of the constructed model. Figure 8 depicts
simulations of the two particles under various loading scenarios. The two particles have a di-
ameter of 0.1 m, and the other microscopic properties are stated in Table 3. Until the contact
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
is broken, one particle remains motionless while the other maintains a steady velocity.

v v F

v v v

Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed

Figure 8. Constitutive model verification.

Figure 8. Constitutive model verification.

Table3.3.Micro-parameters
Table Micro-parametersused
usedininthe
thetwo-particle
two-particletests.
tests.

Micro-Parameters
Micro-Parameters Value Value
Friction
Friction coefficient [µ]coefficient [  ] 0.5 0.5
Normal stiffness
Normal stiffness [ kn ] (GPa)
[k n ] (GPa) 2.0 2.0
Shear stiffness [k s ] (GPa) 1.0
Shear stiffness [ ks ] (GPa)
Normal bond force [Ss ] (kN) 1.0 1.0
Shear bondNormal (kN) force [ Ss ] (kN)
force [Ss ]bond 0.5 1.0
Normal softening parameter [unf ] (µm) 1.0
Shear bond force [ Ss ] (kN) 0.5
Shear softening parameter [usf ] (µm) n
1.0
Normal softening parameter [ u f ] (μm) 1.0
s
Shear softening parameter [ u ] (μm) f 1.0

4.1. Validation of the Linear Cohesion Model under Mode-I Fracture and Mode-II Fracture
The load displacement curves of two particles under Mode-I fracture and Mode-II
fracture can be analytically determined from Equation (3)–(5) first, and then the simula-
 s

Normal bond force [ Ss ] (kN) 1.0

Shear bond force [ Ss ] (kN) 0.5
n
Normal softening parameter [ u ] (μm) f 1.0
s
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 Shear softening parameter [ u ] (μm) f 1.0 8 of 16

4.1. Validation of the Linear Cohesion Model under Mode-I Fracture and Mode-II Fracture
4.1. Validation of the
The load Linear Cohesion
displacement Model
curves ofunder Mode-I Fracture
two particles under and Mode-II
Mode-I Fracture
fracture and Mode-II
The load
fracture candisplacement curves
be analytically of two particles
determined under (3)–(5)
from Equation Mode-Ifirst,
fracture and Mode-II
and then the simula-
fracture can be analytically
tion results obtained bydetermined from Equation
DEM simulation (3)–(5) first,
are compared withand
thethen the simulation
analytical results, as
results obtained
shown by DEM
in Figure 9. simulation are compared with the analytical results, as shown
in Figure 9.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Comparison between analytical and numerical results of force–displacement curves: (a)
Figure 9. Comparison between analytical and numerical results of force–displacement curves:
Mode-I fracture; (b) Mode-II fracture.
(a) Mode-I fracture; (b) Mode-II fracture.

The
The load–displacement
load–displacement curves
curves obtained
obtained from
from thethe
DEMDEM simulation
simulation are are in perfect
in perfect
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
agreement with the analytical results, as shown in Figure 9. Therefore, the developed linearlin-
agreement with the analytical results, as shown in Figure 9. Therefore, the developed
ear cohesion
cohesion model
model is readyisfor
ready for the simulation
the simulation of Mode-I
of Mode-I and Mode-II
and Mode-II fractures.
fractures.

4.2.4.2. Verification
Verification of the
of the Linear
Linear Cohesion
Cohesion Model
Model under
under Mixed-Mode
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Fracture
TheThe normal
normal andand shear
shear behavior
behavior during
during thethe Mixed-mode
Mixed-mode loading
loading for for
thethe
twotwo particles
particles
is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 10A.10A. Three
Three loading
loading states
states corresponding
corresponding to different
to different damage
damage levels
levels areare
selected
selected fromfrom Figure
Figure 10A10A to plot
to plot thethe corresponding
corresponding yield
yield surfaces,
surfaces, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 10B.
10B.

(A) (B)
Figure
Figure 10. 10.
(A) (A) Force–displacement
Force–displacement relationship
relationship in normal
in normal andand shear
shear direction;
direction; (B) (B)
the the evolution
evolution of of
force states as the yield surface shrinks.
force states as the yield surface shrinks.

Figure
Figure 10A10A shows
shows thatthat as the
as the normal
normal andand shear
shear displacements
displacements increase,
increase, thethe normal
normal
and shear forces increase first and then decrease linearly, and the two trends are
and shear forces increase first and then decrease linearly, and the two trends are consistent. con-
sistent. The three selected points are all precisely located on their corresponding
The three selected points are all precisely located on their corresponding yield surfaces, yield
surfaces, as shown in Figure 10B. If the conditions of Equation (6) are satisfied while set-
ting the micro-parameters, the yield surfaces under different damage states are parallel.
kn u nf ks u sf
= (6)
Sn Ss
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 9 of 16

as shown in Figure 10B. If the conditions of Equation (6) are satisfied while setting the
micro-parameters, the yield surfaces under different damage states are parallel.

k n unf k s usf
= (6)
Sn Ss

5. Parameter Analysis of Linear Cohesion Model

As described in the previous section, the linear cohesion model is controlled by six mi-
croscopic parameters, namely, stiffness (k n and k s ), bond force (Sn and Ss ), and softening
parameter (un and us ). In this section, the effects of these microscopic parameters on the
simulation results of mortar specimens are studied successively. Note that the mortar mix-
ture, as listed in Table 4, is different when compared with the one in Section 2. In this study,
when one parameter changes, the other microscopic parameters remain the same. In order
to save the time of calibration and simulation, the influence of microscopic parameters is
studied by a notched mortar beam with a relatively small size of 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm,
as shown in Figure 11.

Table 4. Mix design of mortar in the test for parameter analysis of the linear cohesion model (kg/m3 ).

Compressive Flexural
Cement Sand Water Superplasticizer
Strength Strength
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17
668 1175 301 0 54 MPa 4.92 MPa

Figure11.
Figure 11.Specimen
Specimengeometry
geometryand
andboundary
boundarycondition
conditionfor
forthe
thenotched
notchedmortar
mortarbeam.
beam.

The
Themicro-parameter
micro-parametercalibration
calibrationprocess
processofofthe
thenotched
notchedmortar
mortarbeam
beamwas
wasperformed
performed
using
using the method proposed previously by the authors [26]. The obtained parametersare
the method proposed previously by the authors [26]. The obtained parameters are
listed
listedininTable
Table5,5,and
andthe
thesimulation
simulationresults
resultsare
areshown
shownininFigure
Figure12.
12.

Table5.5.Micro-parameters
Table Micro-parametersofof
the linear
the cohesive
linear model
cohesive obtained
model after
obtained calibration
after for for
calibration small beam
small test.
beam
test.
Micro-Parameters Value Micro-Parameters Value
Micro-Parameters
Minimum particle diameter Value Micro-Parameters Value
0.5 Normal stiffness [k n ] (GPa) 6.2
Minimum [dminparticle
] (mm) diameter [ d min ] (mm) 0.5 Normal stiffness [ k n ] (GPa) 6.2
Ratio of maximum to
Ratio of maximum to minimum particle Ratio of
Ratio of normal to normal to shear
shear bond
minimum particle diameter 1.5 1.5 1.77
1.77
stiffness
bond[kstiffness
n /k s ]
/dmin ] [ d max d min ]
diameter
[dmax [ kn k s ]
NormalNormal
bond force [Sn force
bond ] (kN) [ S ] (kN)
1.0 ShearShear
1.0 bond force
bond[Sforce
s ] (kN)
[ Ss ] (kN) 1.01.0
n
Normal softening parameter Shear softening parameter
18 Shear parameter 18
n ] (µm)
Normal[usoftening parameter [ u nf ] (μm) [usf ] softening
(µm)
f 18 s 18
Friction coefficient [µ] 0.5 [ u f ] (μm)
Friction coefficient [  ] 0.5
5.1. Effect of Stiffness
Three different stiffness values (0.5k n,s , 1.0k n,s , and 2.0k n,s ) were selected to study the
effect of normal and shear stiffness on the simulation results of notched mortar beams. The
simulation results are shown in Figure 13.
 Ratio of maximum to minimum particle Ratio of normal to shear
1.5 1.77
diameter [ d max d min ] bond stiffness [ kn ks ]
Normal bond force [ Sn ] (kN) 1.0 Shear bond force [ Ss ] (kN) 1.0
Shear softening parameter
Normal softening parameter [ u nf ] (μm) 18 18
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 [ u sf ] (μm) 10 of 16
Friction coefficient [  ] 0.5

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

Figure12.
Figure 12.Experimental
Experimentaland
andsimulation
simulationresults
resultsof
ofnotched
notchedmortar
mortarbeam.
beam.

5.1. Effect of Stiffness

Three different stiffness values ( 0.5kn , s , 1.0kn, s , and 2.0kn , s ) were selected to study
the effect of normal and shear stiffness on the simulation results of notched mortar beams.
The simulation results are shown in Figure 13.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 13. Effect
13. Effect of stiffness:
of stiffness: (a) normal
(a) normal stiffness;
stiffness; (b) shear
(b) shear stiffness.
stiffness.

Figure
Figure 13a13a shows
shows thatthat
the the ascending
ascending segment
segment of the
of the curve curve becomes
becomes steeper
steeper as the
as the
normal
normal stiffness
stiffness increases.
increases. TheThe
peakpeak value
value increases
increases as the
as the normal
normal stiffness (k n() kincreases
stiffness n ) increases
as well. Figure
as well. 13b13b
Figure shows
showsthat raising
that thethe
raising shear stiffness
shear (k s() khas
stiffness s ) the
has same
the tendency
same tendencyas as
increasing
increasingthe the
normal stiffness,
normal but but
stiffness, with a smaller
with impact
a smaller on the
impact on the peak andand
peak slope.
slope.
5.2. Effect of Bond Force
5.2. Effect of Bond Force
Three different bond force values (0.5Sn,s , 1.0Sn,s , and 2.0Sn,s ) were selected to study
0.5S n , s , 1.0 S n , s , and 2.0Sn , s ) were selected to
the effectThree different
of normal forcebond force force
and shear values
on (the simulation results. The simulation results
study the
of notched effectbeams
mortar of normal force and
are shown shear force
in Figure 14. on the simulation results. The simulation
results of notched
As illustrated mortar14a,
in Figure beams are shown
the peak value in Figure
tends 14. obviously as the normal bond
to rise
force (Sn ) rises. However, as shown in Figure 14b, increasing the shear bond force (Ss ) does
not appear to have a significant effect on the load–crack opening displacement curve. The
reason is that the Mode-I fracture is dominant in the failure process of three-point bending
test; hence, the increase in normal bond force is much more effective than the increase in
shear bond force.
 s
increasing the normal stiffness, but with a smaller impact on the peak and slope.

5.2. Effect of Bond Force

Three different bond force values ( 0.5S n , s , 1.0 S n , s , and 2.0Sn , s ) were selected to
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 11 of 16
study the effect of normal force and shear force on the simulation results. The simulation
results of notched mortar beams are shown in Figure 14.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 14. 14. Effect
Effect of bond
of bond force:
force: (a) normal
(a) normal bondbond force;
force; (b) shear
(b) shear bondbond force.
force.

Asofillustrated
5.3. Effect
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW in Figure 14a, the peak value tends to rise obviously as the normal
Softening Parameters 12bond
of 17
force ( Sndifferent
) rises. However, n,s n,s shear bond n,sforce ( S )
Three values ofassoftening
shown inparameters
Figure 14b,(0.5u
increasing the
f , 1.0u f , and 2.0u f ) were s
does not
selected appear
to study thetoinfluence
have a significant
of normaleffect on the
softening load–crack
parameters opening
and displacement
shear softening curve.
parame-
tersThe reason
parameters
on the is
onthat
failure the the Mode-I
failure
behavior fracture
ofbehavior
notched of is dominant
notched
mortar mortar
beams. in beams.
The the failure
The process
simulation results of
arethree-point
simulation results
shown are
bending
shown15.
in Figure intest;
Figurehence,
15. the increase in normal bond force is much more effective than the
increase in shear bond force.

5.3. Effect of Softening Parameters

Three different values of softening parameters ( 0.5u nf , s , 1.0u nf , s , and 2.0u nf , s ) were se-
lected to study the influence of normal softening parameters and shear softening

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 15. Effect
15. Effect of softening
of softening parameter:
parameter: (a) normal
(a) normal softening
softening parameter;
parameter; (b) softening
(b) shear shear softening param-
parameter.
eter.
The simulation results show that larger values of normal softening parameter unf lead
n
to higherThe simulation
values results
of peak force show15a).
(Figure thatThe
larger valuessoftening
post-peak of normal softening
branch parameter
appears to decay u f
morelead to higher
slowly. The values
reason of peakas
is that force (Figure softening
the normal 15a). The post-peak
parametersoftening
increases,branch appears
the normal
to between
force decay moretheslowly.
particlesThe reason
that can beis that as theaccording
obtained normal softening parameter
to Equation increases, the
(1) consequently
increases.
normalThis will
force affect the
between thebearing capacity
particles that canofbe
theobtained
beam at according
the macro level, characterized
to Equation (1) conse-
by quently
a smoother declineThis
increases. of the load–crack
will affect the opening
bearing displacement
capacity of thecurve.beam For comparison,
at the macro level,
s on the three-point bending test of the notched
thecharacterized
effect of shearbysoftening
a smoother declineuof
parameter f the load–crack opening displacement curve. For
mortar beam is insignificant
comparison, (Figure
the effect of shear 15b). This
softening parameter u sf inonthe
is because thethree-point
three-pointbending
bendingtest,
test of
the the
influence of shear partial softening is limited.
notched mortar beam is insignificant (Figure 15b). This is because in the three-point
bending test, the influence of shear partial softening is limited.

6. Simulation of Fracture Behavior of the Three-Point Bending Beam by the Linear

Cohesion Model
The newly developed linear cohesion model is now applied to the simulation of a
three-point bending test on the notched beam specimen with a size of 100 mm × 100 mm
× 400 mm, as mentioned in Section 2. The parameter calibration technique and accompa-
nying simulation settings remain the same as discussed before; Table 6 shows the acquired
microscopic parameters of the linear cohesion model.
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 12 of 16

6. Simulation of Fracture Behavior of the Three-Point Bending Beam by the Linear

Cohesion Model
The newly developed linear cohesion model is now applied to the simulation of a three-
point bending test on the notched beam specimen with a size of 100 mm × 100 mm × 400 mm,
as mentioned in Section 2. The parameter calibration technique and accompanying simula-
tion settings remain the same as discussed before; Table 6 shows the acquired microscopic
parameters of the linear cohesion model.

Table 6. Micro-parameters of linear cohesive model applied in the structural simulation.

Micro-Parameters Value Micro-Parameters Value

Minimum particle diameter
0.5 Normal stiffness [k n ] (GPa) 24.5
[dmin ] (mm)
Ratio of maximum to
Ratio of normal to shear bond
minimum particle diameter 1.5 1.77
stiffness [k n /k s ]
[dmax /dmin ]
Normal bond force [Sn ] (kN) 1.8 Shear bond force [Ss ] (kN) 1.8
Normal softening parameter Shear softening parameter
35 35
[unf ] (µm) [usf ] (µm)
Friction coefficient [µ] 0.5

The simulation results of the load–crack opening displacement curve are compared
to the experimental results, as shown in Figure 16. One may observe that the load–crack
opening displacement curve obtained from the simulation agrees very well with the experi-
mental results. Subsequently, four stages of the fracture process, i.e., 100%, 80%, 60%, and
40% of the peak load, were selected for comparison with the results of acoustic emission
(AE) during the experiment from the author’s previous work [40].
Previous studies [41,42] have shown that accumulative levels of acoustic emission
can provide relevant information on the fracture zone of mortar and concrete. Therefore,
four energy levels are defined by classifying a 2D AE localization map. From the present
study depicted in Figure 16, it can be noticed that the high energy level of the acoustic
emission event is mainly located in the vicinity of the middle span, which outlines the
fracture path in the specimen at different fracture levels. According to the definition from
Bažant [3], the tensile stress distribution in the fracture process zone gradually increases
from the initial crack tip and reaches tensile strength at the end of the fracture process
zone. In the DEM calculation, the simulated cracks are characterized by two groups of
contact–failure states: (1) the contact between two adjacent particles enters the displacement
softening section (labeled as ‘Softening’ in Figure 16), and (2) the contact–displacement
has reached or exceeded the softening parameters, indicating the full failure of contact
(labeled as ‘Crack’ in Figure 16). This concept is different from the virtual crack model
or the traditional crack model. It can be seen from Figure 15 that when the peak force
(point A) is reached, the ‘Crack’ can be found between the particles at the notch tip of the
beam. Afterwards, the ‘Crack’ propagates towards the top of the beam, accompanied with
an expansion of the ‘Softening’ area; consequently, the bearing force descends progressively
(as indicated by points B to D in the figure). The results show that the implemented linear
cohesion model successfully simulates the fracture process, and the simulation results are
in good agreement with the AE test results.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

experimental results. Subsequently, four stages of the fracture process, i.e., 100%, 80%,
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 13 of 16
60%, and 40% of the peak load, were selected for comparison with the results of acoustic
emission (AE) during the experiment from the author’s previous work [40].

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 16. Cont.

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 14 of 16

(d)
Figure
Figure16.
16.Comparison
Comparisonofof AE results and
AE results andsimulation
simulationresults
resultsinin
thethe center
center section
section of beam:
of the the beam: (a)
(a) Point
Point A (peak force); (b) Point B (post-80% of peak force); (c) Point C (post-60% of peak force); (d)
A (peak force); (b) Point B (post-80% of peak force); (c) Point C (post-60% of peak force); (d) Point D
Point D (post-40% of peak force).
(post-40% of peak force).

Previous studies [41,42] have shown that accumulative levels of acoustic emission
7. Conclusions
can provide relevant information on the fracture zone of mortar and concrete. Therefore,
In this study, an attempt was made to overcome the limitation of the built-in parallel bond
four
model in the DEMare
energy levels definedfor
software, bysimulating
classifyingthe
a 2D AE localization
fracture behavior ofmap. From the
quasi-brittle present
materials.
study depicted in Figure 16, it can be noticed that the high energy level of the acoustic
(1) Theevent
emission built-in parallellocated
is mainly bond modelin thewas reviewed.
vicinity of theThe resultsspan,
middle showwhich
that this modelthe
outlines can
simulate the linear elastic stage and capture the maximum load during
fracture path in the specimen at different fracture levels. According to the definition from the fracture
Bažantfailure
[3], theoftensile
quasi-brittle materials, but
stress distribution it cannot
in the fracturereproduce
process zonethe gradually
nonlinear increases
ascending
and the post-peak softening stages. Therefore, the built-in parallel
from the initial crack tip and reaches tensile strength at the end of the fracture process bond model is
considered inappropriate for simulating fracture behavior of
zone. In the DEM calculation, the simulated cracks are characterized by two groups of quasi-brittle materials.
(2) A linear states:
contact–failure cohesion model
(1) the for DEM
contact simulation
between of quasi-brittle
two adjacent materials
particles enters was con-
the displace-
structed, and the reliability of the model verified by investigating the failure behavior
ment softening section (labeled as ‘Softening’ in Figure 16), and (2) the contact–displace-
of two particles. In addition, the parametric study on the micro-parameters of the
ment has reached or exceeded the softening parameters, indicating the full failure of con-
newly built linear cohesion model was conducted based on a small-scale notched
tact (labeled as ‘Crack’ in Figure 16). This concept is different from the virtual crack model
beam. The results show that the model is able to simulate the fracture behavior
or the traditional crack model. It can be seen from Figure 15 that when the peak force
of quasi-brittle materials under different failure modes, and the impact of different
(point A) is reached, the ‘Crack’ can be found between the particles at the notch tip of the
model parameters are indicated.
beam. Afterwards, the ‘Crack’ propagates towards the top of the beam, accompanied with
(3) The three-point bending test on a notched mortar beam of standard size is simulated
an expansion of the ‘Softening’ area; consequently, the bearing force descends progres-
using the implemented linear cohesion model. The comparison of experimental and
sively (as indicated by points B to D in the figure). The results show that the implemented
simulation results, with respect to the structural behavior and the fracture process,
linear cohesion model successfully simulates the fracture process, and the simulation re-
approves the feasibility of the newly built linear cohesion model.
sults are in good agreement with the AE test results.

7.Author Contributions: R.Z.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project

Conclusions
administration, Resources, Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition. H.G.: Data curation,
In thisValidation,
Software, study, anVisualization,
attempt wasWriting—original
made to overcome theConceptualization,
draft, limitation of the Methodology.
built-in parallel
Y.Z.:
bond model in the DEM software, for simulating the fracture behavior
Writing—review and editing. Z.-X.W.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, ofWriting—review
quasi-brittle
materials.
and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
(1) The built-in
Funding: parallelwas
This research bond model
funded bywas
the reviewed. The results
National Nature Scienceshow that thisofmodel
Foundation Chinacan (No.
simulate the linear elastic stage and capture the maximum load during
52068018, 51878404, 51808407), Shanghai Pujiang Program (No. 20PJ1417600), Shanghai Municipalthe fracture
failure offor
Commission quasi-brittle materials, but
Science and Technology (No.it18DZ2282600)
cannot reproduce
and thethe nonlinear
Basic Scientificascending and
Research Project
the post-peak
of Wenzhou softening stages. Therefore, the built-in parallel bond model is consid-
(No. R2020013).
ered inappropriate for simulating fracture behavior of quasi-brittle materials.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
(2) A linear cohesion model for DEM simulation of quasi-brittle materials was con-
Informed Consent
structed, Statement:
and the Notofapplicable.
reliability the model verified by investigating the failure behavior
DataofAvailability
two particles. In addition,
Statement: Data arethe parametric
available study
on request dueon the micro-parameters
to restrictions, e.g., privacy orofethical.
the
newly built linear cohesion model was conducted based on a small-scale notched
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
beam. The results show that the model is able to simulate the fracture behavior of
quasi-brittle materials under different failure modes, and the impact of different
model parameters are indicated.
(3) The three-point bending test on a notched mortar beam of standard size is simulated
using the implemented linear cohesion model. The comparison of experimental and
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 15 of 16

Nomenclature

kn Normal stiffness
ks Shear stiffness
Ec Young’s modulus of mortar
kn Bond normal stiffness
ks Bond shear stiffness
c Cohesion strength
σc Tensile strength
Ec Effective modulus
γ Maximum shear strength multiplier
R Bond radius
β Moment contribution factor
φ Friction angle
R1 Radius of the bonded particle 1
R2 Radius of the bonded particle 2
Fn Normal force
Fs Shear force
σn Normal contact stress
τmax Maximum shear stress
τs Shear contact stress
µ Friction coefficient
Sn Normal bond force
Ss Shear bond force
unf Normal softening parameter
usf Shear softening parameter
un Relative normal displacement
us Relative shear displacement
une Displacement corresponding to the normal elastic limit
use Displacement corresponding to the shear elastic limit

References
1. Morel, S.; Lespine, C.; Coureau, J.L. Bilinear softening parameters and equivalent LEFM R-curve in quasi brittle failure. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 2010, 47, 837–850. [CrossRef]
2. Shah, S.P.; Swartz, S.E.; Ouyang, C. Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete, Rock and Other
Quasi-Brittle Materials, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1988.
3. Bažant, Z.P.; Planas, J. Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997.
4. Leung, C.K.; Li, V.C. Determination of fracture toughness parameter of quasi-brittle materials with laboratory-size specimens.
J. Mater. Sci. 1989, 24, 854–862. [CrossRef]
5. Peyrot, I.; Bouchard, P.O.; Bay, F.; Bernard, F.; Garcia-Diaz, E. Numerical aspects of a problem with damage to simulate mechanical
behavior of a quasi-brittle material. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2007, 40, 327–340. [CrossRef]
6. Shah, S.P.; Mcgarry, F.J. Griffith fracture criterion and concrete. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1971, 97, 1663–1676. [CrossRef]
7. Cundall, P.A. A computer model for simulating progressive, largescale movements in blocky rock systems. In Proceedings of the
Symposium of the International Society of Rock Mechanics; Society for Rock Mechanics: Nancy, France, 1971.
8. Jing, H.C. Discrete Element Simulation of Asphalt Mixture Based on Aggregate Particle Breakage. Master of Thesis, South China
University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
9. Chen, J.; Huang, X.M. Analysis of asphalt concrete fracture mechanism based on discrete element method. J. Beijing Univ. Technol.
2011, 37, 211–216+259. (In Chinese)
10. Jiang, X.L.; Qian, Z.D.; Song, X. Experimental study on virtual fracture of epoxy asphalt concrete based on discrete element
method. J. Southeast Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2014, 44, 173–177. (In Chinese)
11. Zhou, S.; Zhu, H.; Yan, Z.; Ju, J.W.; Zhang, L. A micromechanical study of the breakage mechanism of microcapsules in concrete
using PFC2D. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 115, 452–463. [CrossRef]
12. Lian, C.; Zhuge, Y.; Beecham, S. Numerical simulation of the mechanical behaviour of porous concrete. Eng. Comput. 2011, 28,
984–1002. [CrossRef]
13. Katsaga, T. Geophysical Imaging and Numerical Modelling of Fractures in Concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada, 2010.
14. Murali, K.; Deb, A. Effect of meso-structure on strength and size effect in concrete under tension. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
2017, 42, 181–207. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 1964 16 of 16

15. Jiang, M.J.; Fang, W.; Sima, J. Calibration of micro-parameters of parallel bonded model for rocks. J. Shandong Univ. Eng. Sci. 2015,
45, 50–56. (In Chinese)
16. Diederichs, M.S. Instability of Hard Rockmasses: The Role of Tensile Damage and Relaxation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2000.
17. Potyondy, D.O.; Cundall, P.A. A bonded-particle model for rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2004, 41, 1329–1364. [CrossRef]
18. Schöpfer, M.P.; Abe, S.; Childs, C.; Walsh, J.J. The impact of porosity and crack density on the elasticity, strength and friction of
cohesive granular materials: Insights from DEM modelling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46, 250–261. [CrossRef]
19. Nguyen, N.H.; Bui, H.H.; Nguyen, G.D.; Kodikara, J. A cohesive damage-plasticity model for DEM and its application for
numerical investigation of soft rock fracture properties. Int. J. Plast. 2017, 98, 175–196. [CrossRef]
20. Ma, Y.; Huang, H. A displacement-softening contact model for discrete element modeling of quasi-brittle materials. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2018, 104, 9–19. [CrossRef]
21. Sinaie, S.; Ngo, T.D.; Nguyen, V.P. A discrete element model of concrete for cyclic loading. Comput. Struct. 2018, 196, 173–185. [CrossRef]
22. Rhee, I.; Lee, J.S.; Roh, Y.S. Fracture parameters of cement mortar with different structural dimensions under the direct tension
test. Materials 2019, 12, 1850. [CrossRef]
23. Sima, J.; Jiang, M.; Zhou, C. Numerical simulation of desiccation cracking in a thin clay layer using 3D discrete element modeling.
Comput. Geotech. 2014, 56, 168–180. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, B.; Jiao, Y.; Lei, S. A study on the effects of microparameters on macroproperties for specimens created by bonded particles.
Eng. Comput. 2006, 23, 607–631. [CrossRef]
25. Ding, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, Q. Effect of model scale and particle size distribution on PFC3D simulation results. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2014, 47, 2139–2156. [CrossRef]
26. Zhu, R.; Alam, S.Y.; Loukili, A. A comprehensive approach for mesoscale discrete element modelling of mechanical and fracture
behavior of concrete. Granul. Matter 2019, 21, 5. [CrossRef]
27. Kim, H.; Buttlar, W.G. Discrete fracture modeling of asphalt concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2009, 46, 2593–2604. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, Q.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, L.; Ding, X. Study of scale effect on intact rock strength using particle flow modeling. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 2011, 48, 1320–1328. [CrossRef]
29. Cai, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zhuang, X. A continuous/discontinuous deformation analysis (CDDA) method based on deformable blocks for
fracture modeling. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7, 369–378. [CrossRef]
30. Nitka, M.; Tejchman, J. Modelling of concrete behaviour in uniaxial compression and tension with DEM. Granul. Matter 2015, 17,
145–164. [CrossRef]
31. Skarżyński, Ł.; Nitka, M.; Tejchman, J. Modelling of concrete fracture at aggregate level using FEM and DEM based on X-ray µCT
images of internal structure. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2015, 147, 13–35. [CrossRef]
32. Itasca consulting Group, Inc. User’s Manual for PFC2D Version PFC5.0; Itasca consulting Group, Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2014.
33. Liu, H.Z.; Lin, J.S.; He, J.D.; Xie, H.Q. Discrete elements and size effects. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2018, 189, 246–272. [CrossRef]
34. Mazars, J. A description of micro-and macroscale damage of concrete structures. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1986, 25, 729–737. [CrossRef]
35. Bobiński, J.; Tejchman, J. Comparison of continuous and discontinuous constitutive models to simulate concrete behaviour under
mixed-mode failure conditions. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2016, 40, 406–435. [CrossRef]
36. Cusatis, G.; Bažant, Z.P.; Cedolin, L. Confinement-shear lattice model for concrete damage in tension and compression: I. Theory.
J. Eng. Mech. 2003, 129, 1439–1448. [CrossRef]
37. Bradt, R.C.; Hasselman, D.; Munz, D.; Sakai, M.; Shevchenko, V.Y. Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics: Fatigue, Composites, and
High-Temperature Behavior, 1st ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
38. Wu, E.M. Application of fracture mechanics to anisotropic plates. J. Appl. Mech. 1967, 34, 967–974. [CrossRef]
39. Petri, F.; Carlos, W. Static and Dynamic Crack Propagation in Brittle Materials with XFEM, 1st ed.; Kassel University Press:
Kassel, Germany, 2013.
40. Zhu, R. Scale and Aggregate Size Effects on Concrete Fracture: Experimental Investigation and Discrete Element Modelling.
Ph.D. Thesis, École centrale de Nantes, Nantes, France, 2018.
41. Saliba, J.; Loukili, A.; Regoin, J.P.; Grégoire, D.; Verdon, L.; Pijaudier-Cabot, G. Experimental analysis of crack evolution in
concrete by the acoustic emission technique. Frat. Integritá Strutt. 2015, 34, 300–308. [CrossRef]
42. Alam, S.Y.; Saliba, J.; Loukili, A. Fracture examination in concrete through combined digital image correlation and acoustic
emission techniques. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 69, 232–242. [CrossRef]