Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Fractal dimension––a measure of fracture roughness

and toughness of concrete
a,*
Mohsen A. Issa , Mahmoud A. Issa b, Md. S. Islam a, A. Chudnovsky a

a
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2095 ERF, 842 West Taylor Street,
Chicago, IL 60607, USA
b
T.Y. Lin International Bascor, 5960 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Chicago, IL 60646, USA
Received 1 May 2000; received in revised form 5 January 2001; accepted 11 January 2001

Abstract
The quantitative description of rough surfaces and interfaces has been an important challenge for many years. This
paper addresses the potential application of fractal geometry to characterize the fracture surface and to determine
whether there is any correlation between fracture properties and the roughness of the fracture surface. Fractured
surfaces of three different size wedge-splitting specimens, dimensions varying from (width
total depth
thickness)
420
420
50 mm to 1680
1680
200 mm with four different maximum aggregate sizes of 9.5, 19, 38, and 76 mm,
were analyzed using a modified slit-island technique. It was found that fractal dimension, i.e., roughness, increases with
an increase in both specimen and maximum aggregate size. A clear correlation exists between roughness (fractal di-
mension) and fracture toughness: the tougher the material, the higher the fractal dimension.
Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fracture surface; Fractal; Toughness; Concrete; Size effect

1. Introduction

Concrete materials are quasi-brittle, and the nature of their fracture behavior continues to be the subject
of intensive research. Quasi-brittle materials exhibit a nonlinear region before the peak of the stress–strain
relationship and substantial post-peak strain softening. Micro-cracking, crack bridging and aggregate in-
terlocking are a few of many specific mechanisms that absorb energy during the fracture process. These
mechanisms contribute to the tendency of the main crack to follow a tortuous path. Fracture surface
texture is a major focus of fractography. It is commonly recognized that the roughness of the fracture
surface of concrete can vary depending on the mix design. High-strength concrete often exhibits brittle
behavior, and cracks propagate directly through the aggregates. In normal strength concrete, less brittle
behavior is associated with more tortuous fracture surfaces dominated by the distribution of various size
aggregates.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-312-996-3432; fax: +1-312-996-2426.
E-mail address: missa@uic.edu (M.A. Issa).

0013-7944/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 3 - 7 9 4 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - X
126 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

The word ‘fractal’ describes objects that are too irregular to fit into a traditional geometrical setting [1].
Man-made objects have in most cases contours and surfaces that are linear or curvilinear, corresponding to
Euclidean geometry in which points, lines, surfaces, and volumes have topological dimensions of 0, 1, 2,
and 3, respectively. However, natural objects like broken rock surfaces are commonly rough, fragmented,
and composed of mountains and valleys. Fractal geometry provides a general framework for the study of
such irregular sets. The main tool of fractal geometry is the fractal dimension of the object in question.
Usually, the ‘fractal dimension’ of an object is greater than its topological dimension.
Fractal analysis is a simple and powerful tool for quantifying the roughness and irregularities of frac-
tured surfaces. The fractured surfaces of over 100 specimens of three different sizes with four different
maximum aggregate sizes were analyzed by a modified slit-island technique. The results obtained furnish
quantitative presentation of roughness of fracture surface that correlate well with the fracture toughness.
The finding of this research is valuable for future practical implementation.

2. Background

Growth of rough surfaces and interfaces play a major role in many phenomena of scientific interest and
practical importance. Rough surface and interfaces can frequently be described quite well in terms of the
concepts of fractal geometry [2]. It has been realized for a long time that many processes of considerable
practical importance take place at or near disorderly interfaces that cannot be adequately described in
terms of simple Euclidean shapes. With the wide dissemination of the concepts of fractal geometry, pro-
cesses occurring near to random rough surfaces are now the subject of a broad range of experimental and
theoretical studies. Mandelbrot et al. [3] were the first to suggest a linkage between fractal dimension of
fracture surfaces and fracture toughness. Subsequent studies have been divided on the issue of whether
fractals can successfully relate fracture surface to fracture parameters.
Winslow [4] used an X-ray scattering technique for measuring the fractal dimension of the fracture
surface of cement paste specimens made with different water–cement ratios of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.6. It was found
that the surface of hydrated cement paste is fractal with high fractal dimension. It was also found that
different water–cement ratios produce variably rough surfaces and the higher ratios yield less irregular
surfaces.
Lee et al. [5] used a divider method to compute the fractal dimension of the fractured surface. The length
of the surface profile was measured stepwise along the curve with rulers of different length. From these data,
the fractal dimension of the surface profile was determined. It was found that the value of the fractal di-
mension is directly proportional to surface roughness. The rougher the surface, the greater the fractal
dimension. The power spectrum technique was also used to compute the fractal dimension. Fractal di-
mension developed from power spectra is much larger in numerical magnitude compared to that obtained
using the divider method.
Brandt and Prokopski [6] used a replica technique in order to determine the fractal dimension of the
concrete fracture surfaces. Specimens of sizes 150
150
150 mm were cast from concrete made with three
kinds of coarse aggregate: crushed basalt, river gravel, and crushed limestone, and were subjected to
shearing in mode II. The profile lines of each replica were subjected to image analysis. They concluded that
fracture surfaces of concrete-like composites are fractal objects and higher fracture toughness is accom-
panied by higher values of fractal dimension of the fracture surfaces.
Lange et al. [7] used an image analysis technique to compute the roughness parameter and fractal di-
mension of the texture of the fracture surfaces of cement and mortar specimens. The ratio of the actual
surface area to the projected surface area was used as the roughness parameter. They found as fracture
surface roughness increases, K1c increases. The fractal dimension was computed from the slope of the curve
of roughness number versus grid size. It was also found that fractal dimension increases as the roughness
 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137 127

number increases. A good correlation between fracture surface roughness and fracture toughness was
demonstrated.
Saouma and Barton [8] tested wedge-splitting specimens made with different types of aggregates and
maximum aggregate sizes. They used the box method to determine the fractal dimension of crack surfaces.
It was observed that the fracture surfaces are fractal over the measured range of scales and that the fractal
dimension is independent of crack trajectory. Fracture toughness values are independent of aggregate sizes
and subangular aggregates yielded smaller fractal dimension values than rounded aggregates. They also
found that the fracture toughness (K1c and GF ) increases with a decrease in fractal dimension in concrete.
Issa et al. [9–11] conducted experiments to evaluate the fractal dimension of concrete and mortar fracture
surfaces. Compact tension specimens (600
525
125 mm) with three different maximum aggregate sizes
of 4.7, 18.8 and 37.5 mm were tested. The fracture surfaces were analyzed using a modified slit-island
technique. It was noticed that the fractal dimension of concrete fracture surfaces increase monotonically
with increasing maximum aggregate size.
Issa et al. [12,13] tested approximately 250 wedge-splitting concrete specimens of dimensions varying
from 105
105
12:5 mm to 1680
1680
200 mm (width
total depth
thickness) made with five
different maximum aggregate sizes. It was found that the energy release rate increases with crack length.
The crack trajectory deviates from the rectilinear path more in the specimens with larger aggregate sizes.
Fracture surfaces of larger specimens exhibit higher roughness than those of smaller specimens. The energy
release rate and the fracture energy increase with increase of specimen and aggregate size.

3. Fractal measuring technique

There are various ways for evaluating experimentally generated rough surfaces. One approach that has
been successfully applied to characterize rough surfaces is the ‘‘slit-island’’ method [3]. In order to avoid
indirect or destructive experimental procedures that are laborious, expensive and generally unsuitable for
concrete, the slit-island method was modified. This method, which was first implemented by Issa et al. [9],
was applied in this study. A 2D fast Fourier transform method was also employed to compute fractal
dimension. A brief description of these test methods is summarized below.

3.1. Slit-island method

Following this method, the rough surface is coated with a layer of a second material and carefully ground
and polished parallel to a reference plane. As material is removed ‘‘islands’’ of the base materials appear in
a ‘‘sea’’ of the coating material. As further material is removed these islands grow and merge. For each
contour line of different elevation over the fracture surface, the perimeter, P, and the area, A, are deter-
mined and then plotted in a log–log scale. The fractal dimension, D, is then obtained from the relation [3]
D ¼ D0 þ 1 ð1Þ
0
where D is determined from a power function of the relationship between the area, A, and perimeter, P, of
the islands
0
A ¼ P ð2=D Þ ð2Þ

3.2. Modified slit-island method

In this method the fracture surface is placed in dyed water, therefore when viewing from the top, higher
regions on the fracture surface appeared lighter than deeper regions. A photo is taken from the top and
128 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

analyzed by an image analyzer. At each threshold level (intensity of light) increment, new islands appear and
their perimeter and area are measured. Then Eqs. (1) and (2) are used to compute the fractal dimension.

3.3. 2D fast Fourier transform method

2D fast Fourier transform function calculates the surface fractal dimension of an image. Within the
Fourier domain, the spectral density has a power law dependence on the wave number. The fractal di-
mension of the surface is related to the slope of the log–log plot of the 2D spectral density versus wave
number by [14]
8  slope
D¼ ð3Þ
2
In this method wave numbers and their corresponding spectral energy density of the image are computed.
This data is then plotted in log–log format and its slope is determined using a linear least squares regression
technique. From this slope the 2D statistical fractal dimension is determined.

4. Experimental procedure

In this study the nondestructive modified slit-island technique was used to characterize the fracture
surfaces of concrete specimens. The configuration and dimensions of three different size wedge-splitting
concrete specimens are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The mix proportions and 28-day compressive strengths
of four different concrete made with four maximum aggregate sizes are listed in Table 2. The specimens
were designated based on the specimen size and the maximum aggregate size; for instance S1A38 corre-
sponds to S1 specimen size as indicated in Table 1, and A38 represents a maximum aggregate size of 3/8 in.
(9.5 mm). The fracture surface of the specimen generated as a result of wedge-splitting test was sprayed with
a very thin coating of white paint in order to have uniform color. The specimen was placed in a separate
water tank and was left to soak for a day or two so that it did not produce bubbles during the measurement
procedure. The fractured specimens were then placed in a tank filled with nonstaining dyed water. The
concentration of the dye was adjusted so that the highest and lowest points on the fracture surface were

Fig. 1. Configuration of wedge-splitting specimen.

 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137 129

Table 1
Specimen dimensions
Specimen Total depth, Depth, Width, Thickness, Initial crack length,
name H (mm) d (mm) W (mm) t (mm) a0 (mm)
S1 1680 1400 1680 200 210
S3 840 700 840 100 105
S4 420 350 420 50 53

Table 2
Mix proportions and compressive strength of concrete
Maximum aggregate size, mm (in.) Mix proportions by weight C:W:S:G Compressive strength, MPa (psi)
9.5 (3/8) 1.0:0.50:2.25:1.90 51.7 (7500)
19 (3/4) 1.0:0.50:2.15:2.30 46.9 (6800)
38 (1 1/2) 1.0:0.50:2.10:2.50 42.7 (6200)
76 (3) 1.0:0.47:1.90:2.75 44.8 (6500)

clearly visible. The entire setup, i.e., the tank and the camera, was placed in a black box in order to avoid
any artificial effects due to disturbance of light. The experimental setup is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Pictures

Fig. 2. Overall view of the experimental setup.

130 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

Fig. 3. Typical S3 specimen in the dyed water tank.

were taken using macro-lenses. Black and white pictures were then scanned and processed using an image
analyzer. For comparison, two different techniques (area–perimeter and wave number–spectral energy
density relationships) were used for fractal analysis. The image of the fractured surface was filtered to
remove high spatial frequency noise.

Fig. 4. Comparison of fracture surfaces of a typical concrete specimen: (a) photographic view of the original fracture surface,
(b) computer simulated fracture surface reconstructed on the basis of the image analysis.
 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137 131

5. Computational technique

An image is represented by a set of pixels, each having a corresponding intensity value ranging from 0 to
255, i.e., intensity variations from low (black) to high (white). At the beginning of the image analysis,
automatic option was prescribed in the software to choose dark objects that will eventually indicate the
upper limit of lower-threshold value. The upper-threshold value (intensity of light) was set for 255 and the
lower-threshold value was manually changed by a decrement of 3. For each applied intensity range, new
islands appeared and subsequently these islands grew and emerged upon increasing the threshold values.
For each intensity range, the area and perimeter of new islands were automatically counted and recorded.
The logarithmic areas of islands and their perimeters appearing at different levels were best fitted by linear
regression and the fractal dimension was computed using Eq. (1).
The technique employed in wave number–spectral energy density involves 2D fast Fourier transform
procedures for processing the images. Wave numbers and their corresponding spectral energy density
values were recorded. Within the Fourier domain, a power law relationship exists between the spectral
energy density and the wave number. The slope of the resulting log–log plot was used to compute the 2D
statistical fractal dimension of the image as presented in Eq. (3).

6. Results and discussions

The fractured surfaces of three different size wedge-splitting specimens with dimensions varying from
420
420
50 mm to 1680
1680
200 mm (width
total depth
thickness) and made with four

Fig. 5. Islands and profiles of a typical specimen.

132 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

different maximum aggregate size of 9.5, 19, 38 and 76 mm were submitted to fractal analysis. The pho-
tographic view of the original fracture surface is shown in Fig. 4(a), while the fracture surface reconstructed
on the basis of the image analysis is shown in Fig. 4(b). The islands and profiles of a typical specimen are
shown in Fig. 5. The results obtained from two different techniques were compared. The results of the area–
perimeter measurements are plotted on a log–log scale and best fitted with linear regression. The com-
putation of the fractal dimension for S1A34 specimens is demonstrated in Fig. 6. It is clear that all three
specimens gave very close results. The coefficient of correlation for the lines was as close to 0.99 as possible.
The data obtained from a typical specimen (S3A32) using wave number–spectral energy density technique
is presented in Fig. 7. It is seen that the data could be fitted up to 80%. Results obtained for all specimens
using both techniques are compared and presented in Table 3. The fractal dimensions computed from
spectral energy density and the wave number (Fourier transform procedure) are higher in magnitude
compared to those obtained by using the area–perimeter method. Results from the area–perimeter tech-
nique were found to be in agreement with data obtained by other methods [10,11] and these data were used
for further comparisons.
The variation of fractal dimension with maximum aggregate size and specimen size is presented in Table
3 and Fig. 8. Fractal dimension results from the three different size specimens were best fitted with a
logarithmic equation as shown in Fig. 8. From Table 3 it is clear that fractal dimension increases with
maximum aggregate size. In specimens with larger size aggregates, bridging and other forms of crack face
interaction take place and cracks form a more tortuous path. For the same maximum aggregate size, the
fractal dimension also increases with specimen size. This is attributed to that fact that the specimen becomes

Fig. 6. Area–perimeter relation for S1 specimens with maximum aggregate size ¼ 19 mm.
 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137 133

Fig. 7. Relationship between spectral energy density and wave number for a typical S3A32 specimen.

Table 3
Comparison of average fractal dimensions computed by different software
Specimen designation Maximum aggregate size, mm Fractal dimension (D)
(in.) Image pro Impact pro
S1 (1680
1680
200 mm) 9.5 (3/8) 2.19 2.28
19 (3/4) 2.22 2.31
38 (3/2) 2.25 2.35
76 (3) 2.29 2.39
S3 (840
840
100 mm) 9.5 (3/8) 2.15 2.26
19 (3/4) 2.19 2.29
38 (3/2) 2.21 2.32
76 (3) 2.24 2.34
S4 (420
420
50 mm) 9.5 (3/8) 2.15 2.25
19 (3/4) 2.17 2.27
38 (3/2) 2.20 2.30

tougher (i.e., the fracture crack path becomes more tortuous) with increase in size. An increase in fracture
toughness with an increase in specimen size is most probably associated with the ratio of process zone and
specimen size. The greater this ratio, the smaller the fracture resistance. Since the process zone is relatively
134 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

Fig. 8. Fractal dimension dependency on specimen and maximum aggregate size.

large in a small specimen, its fracture characteristic is lower. As the specimen becomes bigger, the relative
size of the process zone becomes smaller, and the fracture characteristics rise.
To observe the dependency of fractal dimension on crack length, the fracture surfaces of S1
(1680
1680
200 mm) specimens were divided into four equal regions (segments). A picture of each
segment was submitted to image analysis. It was found that the fractal dimension does not vary with the
crack length and no clear trend was observed. However, the fractal dimension for the bottom quarter
segment (the furthest region from the notch-tip) showed a lower value for all specimens. No correlation was
found between fractal dimension and energy release rate, which was found to increase with crack length
[13]. The observed fractal dimension was compared with observed modified fracture energy as reported
below.

6.1. Modified fracture energy, GF

For various specimens with different maximum aggregate sizes, the modified fracture energy was com-
puted as the area under splitting load (Pc )–crack opening displacement (Dt ) envelopes. The envelopes were
truncated at Pc and Dt corresponding to an a/W value of 0.65, and related to the ligament area (dc
t) as
shown in Fig. 9. The interpretation of the lower tails of the envelopes is much less clear due to a high noise-
to-signal ratio for large crack lengths and a small variation of applied load may lead to the crack extension.
To eliminate the above uncertainty, all Pc –Dt diagrams at the critical load and critical crack opening dis-
placement corresponding to an a/W value of 0.65 were truncated [12]. From Fig. 9 it is obvious that the
 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137 135

Fig. 9. Variation of modified fracture energy with specimen and maximum aggregate size.

fracture energy increases with specimen size and maximum aggregate size. Results from the three different
size specimens were best fitted with a logarithmic equation as shown in Fig. 9.

6.2. Correlation between fractal dimension and fracture energy

The fractal dimension presented in Fig. 8 and the fracture energy presented in Fig. 9 were best fitted with
a similar function. For each specimen, graphs of both figures are very similar except for the magnitude.
Fractal dimension and fracture energy of the specimens of corresponding maximum aggregate size are
plotted in Fig. 10. The observed results were best fitted with linear regression. A correlation between fractal
dimension and fracture toughness (represented by fracture energy) was manifested. The following simple
relationship can be suggested:

GF ¼ G0F ½1 þ kðD  2Þ ð4Þ

where G0F is the fracture energy for smooth (2D) surface and k is the slope of the best-fit line as shown in
Fig. 10. It can be seen that the slopes (k values) of best-fit lines of fracture energy and fractal dimension of
different size specimens are different. This is because the fracture surface (i.e., fractal dimension) and the
fracture energy of various size specimens made with the same maximum aggregate size are different.
It is obvious from the results and observations that the fractal dimension offers not only a unique ap-
proach to the quantitative description of surface roughness, but also correlates well with the toughness of
concrete.
136 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137

Fig. 10. Correlation between fractal dimension and modified fracture energy.
 M.A. Issa et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 125–137 137

7. Conclusions

Over 100 wedge-splitting specimens of three different dimensions cast with four different maximum ag-
gregate sizes were tested for fracture. Fractographic analysis was then performed on the fracture surfaces.
Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Concrete surfaces exhibit fractal characteristics over the range of the scales studied.
2. The modified slit-island method that uses area–perimeter relation in computing fractal dimension is non-
destructive, efficient, and suitable for concrete fracture surface characterization.
3. For the same size specimens with different maximum aggregate size, the fractal dimension increases with
an increase in maximum aggregate size.
4. For the same maximum aggregate size specimens, the fractal dimension increases with the specimen size.
5. The fractal dimension does not vary significantly with crack length. However, a lower value of fractal
dimension is noticed in the bottom quarter segment (the furthest region from the notch-tip) of the spec-
imens.
6. The fractal dimension correlates very well with surface roughness. The rougher the surface, the higher
the fractal dimension.
7. A good correlation also exists between the fractal dimension and fracture toughness. The tougher the
material, the higher the fractal dimension. A simple linear relation between fractal and fracture energy
is recommended.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a contract awarded to the University of Illinois at Chicago by the National
Science Foundation (grant no. CMS 9522306). Its financial support is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are
also due to A. Hammad, A. Yousif, M. Faraj, Cyro L.R. Valle and T. Patton for their help.

References

[1] Mandelbrot BB. Fractals-form, chance and dimension. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1977.
[2] Mandelbrot BB. The fractal geometry of nature. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1983.
[3] Mandelbrot BB, Passoja DE, Paullay AJ. Fractal character of fracture surfaces of metals. Nature 1984;308:721–2.
[4] Winslow DN. The fractal nature of the surface of cement paste. Cement Concrete Res 1985;15:817–24.
[5] Lee YH, Carr JR, Barr DJ, Haas CJ. The fractal dimension as a measure of the roughness of rock discontinuity profiles. Int J Rock
Mech Min 1990;27(6):453–64.
[6] Brandt AM, Prokopski G. On the fractal dimension of fracture surfaces of concrete elements. J Mater Sci 1993;28:4762–6.
[7] Lange DA, Jennings HM, Shah SP. Relationship between fracture roughness and fracture behavior of cement paste and mortar.
J Am Ceram Soc 1993;76(3):589–97.
[8] Saouma VE, Barton CC. Fractals, fractures, and size effects in concrete. J Eng Mech 1994;120(4):835–54.
[9] Issa MA, Hammad AM. Fractal characterization of fracture surfaces in mortar. Cement Concrete Res 1993;23(1):7–12.
[10] Issa MA, Hammad AM, Chudnovsky A. Correlation between crack tortuosity and fracture toughness in cementitious material.
Int J Fract 1993;60:97–105.
[11] Issa MA, Hammad AM. Assessment and evaluation of fractal dimension of concrete fracture surface digitized images. Cement
Concrete Res 1994;24(2):325–34.
[12] Issa MA, Issa MA, Islam MS, Chudnovsky A. Size effects in concrete fracture: Part I, experimental setup and observations. Int
J Fract 2000;102(1):1–14.
[13] Issa MA, Issa MA, Islam MS, Chudnovsky A. Size effects in concrete fracture: Part II, analysis of test results. Int J Fract
2000;102(1):25–42.
[14] Goff JA. Comment on ‘‘Fractal mapping of digitized images: application to the topography of Arizona and comparison with
synthetic images’’, by Huang J, Turcotte DL. J Geophys Res 1990;95(B4):5159.