Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2018, Article ID 8412620, 10 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8412620

Research Article
Peridynamic Model for the Numerical Simulation of
Anchor Bolt Pullout in Concrete

Jiezhi Lu ,1 Yaoting Zhang ,1 Habib Muhammad,1,2 and Zhijun Chen1

1
School of Civil Engineering & Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
2
Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences, Baleli, Quetta, Pakistan

Correspondence should be addressed to Yaoting Zhang; [email protected]

Received 13 September 2017; Accepted 31 January 2018; Published 21 March 2018

Academic Editor: Roman Wendner

Copyright © 2018 Jiezhi Lu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Predictive simulation of anchor pullout from concrete structures is not only a serious problem in structural mechanics but also very
important in structural design safety. In the finite element method (FEM), the crack paths or the points of crack initiation usually
need to be assumed in advance. Otherwise, some special crack growth treatment or adaptive remeshing algorithm is normally used.
In this paper, an extended peridynamic method was introduced to avoid the difficulties found in FEM, and its application on anchor
bolt pullout in plain concrete is studied. In the analysis, the interaction between the anchor bolt and concrete is represented by a
modified short-range force and an extended bond-level model for concrete is developed. Numerical analysis results indicate that
the peak pullout load obtained and the crack branching of the anchoring system agreed well with the experimental investigations.

1. Introduction Alfaiate et al. [8] utilized the interface elements which

are inserted along the interelement boundaries among the
Anchor bolts are very important components of load transfer concrete elements to model the cracking path. Although
in a wide range of civil engineering structures such as multiple cracks can be obtained and no special remeshing
dams, nuclear power plants, highways, and bridges. A better technique is required with such approach, the crack direction
understanding of the pullout behavior of anchor bolts can is still restricted and ladder-shaped crack paths are formed.
contribute not only to the optimization of the design of Etse [9] predicted the distribution of equivalent fracture
the anchor system, but also to the improvement of the strain at peak load of the anchor system by adopting a
durability and stability of a structure. Therefore, the pullout fracture energy-based plasticity formulation. The propaga-
behavior of anchor bolts in concrete structures has become tion of crack is described in terms of an equivalent plastic
a major concern in the past three decades and a lot of softening process, but still it is difficult to obtain the final
experimental studies have been performed [1–6]. Likewise, cracking pattern by this approach. Xu et al. [10] simulated the
various numerical methods have been adopted to analyze crack patterns and mechanical behavior of the anchor bolt
the failure mechanism and the progressive damage of anchor pullout in concrete by using the Mohr–Coulomb criterion
bolts in concrete structures. with tension cut-off. In this approach, the heterogeneity of the
Among previous works, most of the researchers focused concrete material is modeled by randomly assigning strength
on the finite element method (FEM) [7–11]. One of the and elastic modulus to the elements according to Weibull’s
early methods [7] includes modeling of concrete as the four- distribution and the ongoing cracking process is represented
node cracked element. In this approach, the tensile fracture by groups and alignments of failed elements. Feenstra [11]
behavior of the concrete for a solid body containing an used the smeared crack approach to study two-dimensional
internal discontinuous surface is formulated by deriving an pullout problems. In this approach, it is assumed that a crack
incremental formulation. As a result, the crack is distributed can be distributed over a special band in the model and its
in each grid and the localization of microcracking cannot influence on the mechanical behavior of a material can be
be obtained. In order to better simulate the mode-I fracture, represented by adjusting the constitutive matrix irrespective
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

of the real displacement discontinuities within the band.

It is obvious that these aforementioned approaches had
overcome some deficiencies of crack propagation problems,
but still these approaches require remeshing or redefining
of the geometry to model the progressive crack growth.
Furthermore, the accuracy of results heavily relies on the x t㰀
complex adaptive meshing algorithms [12]. Therefore, the low f xt R
efficiency and accuracy of simulation are still a major problem u㰀
x 0㰀
훀
[12–14]. u
Recent developments of mesh-free (or meshless) methods x0
such as diffuse element method (DEM), material point
훿
method (MPM), and element free Galerkin method (EFGM)
y
are invented to circumvent the mesh-dependence problem x
and relieve the volumetric locking for suitable choice of sup-
port size of shape function [15, 16]. Soparat and Nanakorn [14]
and Coetzee et al. [17] used mesh-free methods for pullout x
problems. Though many discussions on the advantages of the
mesh-free methods have been reported [15–18], it should still z
be noted that the treatment of essential boundary conditions Figure 1: Pairwise interaction between 𝑥 and 𝑥󸀠 at time 𝑡.
is not straightforward as the conventional FEM and the
use of shape functions of any desired order of continuity
may lead to computational difficulties and complexity in 2. Introduction of the Peridynamic
deriving the coefficients of the stiffness matrix [18, 19].
Other contributions can be found in the literature regarding Theory (PD)
anchors’ modeling using the microplane model [20, 21]. The PD theory may be viewed as a special version of particle
Silling and Askari [22, 23] proposed peridynamics as an method or mesh-free method. It is based on assumptions that
alternative technique for the solution of crack related prob- an object possesses a spatial domain R modeled as a discrete
lems where direct displacement is used in the formulations set of particles and each particle x owns a subregion Ω within
instead of displacement derivatives, and deformation conti- a certain radius 𝛿 called the material horizon as shown in
nuity is not based on assumptions. Mainly, bonds containing Figure 1. The peridynamic equation of motion at any time 𝑡
constitutive information of the materials are used to repro- is given by Silling [22] as follows:
duce the nonlocal interacting forces between particles over a
certain distance. Moreover, in contrast to the partial differen-
𝜌ü (x, 𝑡) = ∫ f (𝜂, 𝜉) 𝑑𝑉𝑥󸀠 + b (x, 𝑡) , (1)
tial equations used in the classical formulation, this theory Ω
uses spatial integral equations which permit spontaneous 󵄩 󵄩
crack occurring at multiple sites and freely extend along Ω = {x󸀠 ∈ R : ‖𝜉‖ = 󵄩󵄩󵄩󵄩x − x󸀠 󵄩󵄩󵄩󵄩 < 𝛿} , (2)
an arbitrary path without extra remedial techniques [24].
Therefore, the peridynamic theory has obvious advantages where 𝜌 denotes the mass density; b is the prescribed external
in handling cracks problems and predicting the progressive body force density; u(x, 𝑡) and u(x, ̈ 𝑡) are the displacement
failure process in solid mechanics. Numerous achievements vector and acceleration vector, respectively. Also, f is a
have been obtained using this model during the past few pairwise force vector in the peridynamic bond that represents
years including deformation of one-dimensional bar [25, the nonlocal interactions between the particle x and the rest
26], progressive damage of composite laminates [27, 28], of the particles. Unlike MD, in peridynamics, the magnitude
damage and fracture of membranes and fibers [29], static and of f depends upon the initial reference configuration and the
dynamic fracture of plain and reinforced concrete structure state of the bond, that is, the relative position vector 𝜉 and the
[30–34], dynamic fracture in functionally graded materials relative displacement vector 𝜂, as follows:
[35], and coupling with classical continuum mechanics [36].
In this paper, an extended bond-level model for concrete 𝜂 = u󸀠 − u = u (x󸀠 , 𝑡) − u (x, 𝑡) ,
is proposed and the interaction between the anchor bolt (3)
and concrete is represented by a modified short-range force. 𝜉 = x󸀠 − x.
The analysis of anchor bolt pullout problem is carried out The direction of the pairwise force vector can be
using the bond-based peridynamic (PD) model. Moreover, expressed as 𝜉 + 𝜂; thus, a general expression for the
the capabilities of the improved numerical method to capture peridynamic force function f can be written as
the progressive damage process and the extreme load of
the anchor bolt are validated. Finally, a parametric study 𝜉+𝜂
was performed to investigate the influence of the size of f (𝜉, 𝜂) = 𝑓 (𝜉, 𝜂) if 𝜉 ∈ Ω, (4)
𝜁
the horizon and the embedded length. Comparison of the
experiments and simulations with those in the literature is where 𝑓(𝜉, 𝜂) is a scalar-valued force function 𝜉 = ‖𝜉‖
also carried out. and 𝜁 = ‖𝜉 + 𝜂‖. For a microelastic material [22], another
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

expression form of the pairwise force vector can be derived
휀2 =
휀0 2
휀2 = −
휀0
from a pairwise potential function 𝜔 such that
1
𝜕𝜔 (𝜉, 𝜂)
f (𝜉, 𝜂) = . (5)
휀1 =
휀0
휀1 =
휀0
𝜕𝜂
The general form of the linear microelastic potential is
obtained as follows: Uniform normal strain,
휀1 =
휀2 =
휀0 Uniform shear strain,
휀1 = −
휀2 =
휀0

Figure 2: A two-dimensional plate subjected to uniform deforma-

𝑐 (𝜉) 𝑠2 (𝜉, 𝜂) 𝜉
𝜔 (𝜉, 𝜂) = , (6) tion.
2
where 𝑐(𝜉) = 𝑐0 𝜅(𝜉) represents the bond elastic stiffness
known as “micromodulus” function, 𝜅(𝜉) is the scalar-valued where 𝐸 is the elastic modulus, ] is the Poisson ratio, and
Boolean influence function, 𝑐0 is a constant that depends on 𝜀0 denotes the strain. On the other hand, from the two-
𝜅(𝜉), and 𝑠 denotes the relative elongation of a bond and it is dimensional peridynamic theory, 𝑠 = 𝜀0 , the strain energy
given as density can be calculated as [34]

𝜁−𝜉 𝑐0 𝜀02 𝜋𝑡𝛿3

𝑠 (𝜉, 𝜂) = . (7) 𝑈𝑛,pd = ,
𝜉 6
(11b)
If the relative elongation 𝑠 = 0, then the pairwise force f 𝑐 𝜀2 𝜋𝑡𝛿3
𝑈𝑠,pd = 0 0 ,
between the particles does not exist. According to the above 12
expressions, the corresponding pairwise force becomes
where 𝑡 denotes the thickness. By solving the equations 𝑈𝑛,𝑒 =
𝜉+𝜂 𝑈𝑛,pd and 𝑈𝑠,𝑒 = 𝑈𝑠,pd , the constant 𝑐0 can be obtained as
{𝑐 𝑠 (𝜉, 𝜂) 𝜅 (𝜉) 𝜇 (𝑡, 𝜉) if 𝜉 ∈ Ω
f (𝜉, 𝜂) = { 0 𝜁 (8)
6𝐸
{0 otherwise, 𝑐0 = if 𝜉 ∈ Ω. (12)
(1 − ]) 𝑡𝜋𝛿3
where 𝜇(𝑡, 𝜉) is a history-dependent function which depends The critical stretch 𝑠0 is associated with the fracture energy 𝐺𝐹
on the value of 𝑠 and it can be written as and the bond would break when the elongation goes beyond
󸀠 󸀠 the critical value 𝑠0 . In 2D plane stress conditions, the work
{1 if 𝑠 (𝑡 , 𝜉, 𝜂) < 𝑠0 , 0 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 𝑡
𝜇 (𝑡, 𝜉) = { (9) 𝐺𝐹 required to break all the bonds per unit fracture area can
0 otherwise. be derived as in [23]:
{
𝑠0 denotes the critical stretch of the bond and can be obtained
𝛿 𝛿 cos−1 (𝑧/𝜉) 𝑐 (𝜉) 𝑠02 𝜉
𝐺𝐹 = 2 ∫ ∫ ∫ ( ) 𝜉 𝑑𝜑 𝑑𝜉 𝑑𝑧, (13)
by mathematical derivation and by processing the classical 0 𝑧 0 2
fracture parameters. The value of local damage at point x
within a peridynamic material can be denoted by the percent where 𝑧 is the distance between the point 𝑥 and the crack
of broken bonds as surface as shown in Figure 3 and 𝑠0 can be obtained by
substituting 𝑐(𝜉) into (13) as follows:
∫Ω 𝜇 (𝑡, 𝜉) 𝑑𝑉𝑥󸀠
𝜙 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 1 − , (10) 4𝜋𝐺𝐹
∫Ω 𝑑𝑉𝑥󸀠 𝑠0 = √ . (14)
9𝐸𝛿
where 𝜙(𝑥, 𝑡) can be viewed as a matrix representing the
damage of material point. Silling [22] introduced an original 3. Peridynamic Model for Anchor Bolts
constitutive model for quasi-brittle materials; the influence
function 𝜅(𝜉) is assumed to be 1.0, and the micromodulus 3.1. Peridynamic Model for Concrete and Steel. As peridynam-
function 𝑐(𝜉) can be correlated with the classical elastic ics do not need the continuous displacement field, there are
constants through the equivalent of elastic strain energy in no concepts of stress or strain required in the model. Thus,
elasticity and PD theory. For 2D plane stress problems, as the constitutive model is defined through the relationship
illustrated in Figure 2, from the conventional theory of linear between the bond stretch and the pairwise force among
elasticity, the strain energy density due to a uniform principal material particles or, in other words, the material damage
strain state and uniform shear strain state can be calculated as is introduced at the bond level. Analogous to the softening
function proposed by Gerstle et al. [37], a simplified softening
𝐸𝜀02 function is introduced in the present work and the bond force
𝑈𝑛,𝑒 = ,
1−] and bond stretch relationship are illustrated in Figure 4.
(11a) As shown in Figure 4(a), the yield compressive and tensile
𝐸𝜀02 stretch limits of concrete are denoted as 𝑠𝑐 and 𝑠𝑡 , respectively.
𝑈𝑠,𝑒 = ,
1+] For small bond stretches, 𝑠𝑐 < 𝑠 < 𝑠𝑡 , the bond remains
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

3.2. Interaction between Steel and Concrete. Stress is trans-

ferred mainly by adhesion, mechanical interaction, and
friction between steel and concrete. Adhesion comes from
chemical bonding and stresses are generated during curing
Crack surface x㰀 of concrete and experimentally it is very tough to measure
them. Due to the limited experimental information, it is

휃 difficult to determine the friction coefficient. As stresses
due to adhesion and friction are relatively small, therefore,
only mechanical interaction is considered in the present
simulation. In this paper, we introduce a short-range force
z [23, 24, 38] to reproduce the interaction between the concrete
x

휑 and anchor bolt as

휉 𝜉+𝜂 𝜁
f (𝜉, 𝜂) = min {0, 𝑐 ( − 1)} , (19)

훿
𝜁 Δ𝑥
where Δ𝑥 denotes the distance between two types of particles
and the constant 𝑐 denotes the average micromodulus which
is assumed to be
𝑐concrete + 𝑐steel
𝑐= . (20)
2
Figure 3: Evaluation of fracture energy.
3.3. Discretization and Numerical Implementation. Peridy-
namic equations of motion (see (1)) could be solved by
in the linear elastic range. However, if 𝑠 is less than the utilizing a numerical approximation method which involves
compressive stretch limit 𝑠𝑐 , the pairwise force of concrete the discretization of the reference configuration into particles
remains constant. On the other hand, an abrupt drop will with a certain volume. So, the integrals in (1) can be replaced
happen in pairwise force if 𝑠 reaches the tensile stretch limit by the finite sums:
𝑠𝑡 and the pairwise force will become 𝛼𝑓𝑡 until 𝑠 reaches the
critical stretch 𝛽𝑠𝑡 . A brittle fracture will occur at this point 𝑁𝑖
and the pairwise force will drop to zero. As steel may yield 𝜌ü 𝑖𝑛 = ∑ f (𝜂𝑛 , 𝜉) 𝑉𝑖𝑗 + b𝑖𝑛 , (21)
in tension as shown in Figure 4(b), the pairwise force of steel 𝑗=1
remains constant if 𝑠 reaches the tensile stretch limit of steel
𝑠𝑦 . 𝑠𝑡 , 𝑠𝑐 , and 𝑠𝑦 can be given as where ü 𝑖𝑛 denotes the acceleration of the point 𝑥𝑖 at time
step 𝑛, 𝑁𝑖 is the total number of particles within the horizon
𝑓𝑦󸀠 of the point 𝑥𝑖 , f(𝜂𝑛 , 𝜉) and b𝑖𝑛 are the pairwise forces and
𝑠𝑦 = , the body force density at time step 𝑛, and 𝑉𝑖𝑗 denotes the
𝐸
equivalent calculation volume (see [38]). To solve quasi-static
𝑓𝑐󸀠 (15) problems by applying peridynamic equations of motion, Kilic
𝑠𝑐 = − ,
𝐸 and Madenci [39] introduced artificial damping to attain
a steady-state solution. The Adaptive Dynamic Relaxation
𝑓𝑡󸀠 (ADR) scheme proposed by Underwood [40] is used to
. 𝑠𝑡 =
𝐸 determine the most effective damping coefficient at each time
To provide required fracture energy in tension, according to step 𝑛, as follows:
(13),
F𝑖𝑛
𝐺𝐹 ü 𝑖𝑛 + 𝑐𝑛 u̇ 𝑖𝑛 = , (22)
𝜆𝑖
𝛿 𝛿 cos−1 (𝑧/𝜉) 𝑐 (𝜉) 𝑠𝑡2 𝜉2 (16)
= 2∫ ∫ ∫ ( + 𝛼𝑓𝑡 (𝛽 − 1) 𝑠𝑡 𝜉2 ) 𝑑𝜃 𝑑𝜉 𝑑𝑧. where F𝑖𝑛 is the resultant force density vector; 𝑐𝑛 is the
0 𝑧 0 2
damping coefficient at the 𝑛th iteration and 𝜆 𝑖 is the modified
Substituting (11a) and (11b) into (13), the relationship between density at the point 𝑥𝑖 and they can be given as
𝛼 and 𝛽 can be computed as
4𝜋𝐺𝐹 (u𝑖𝑛 )
𝑇1
K𝑖𝑖𝑛 (u𝑖𝑛 )
1 + 2𝛼 (𝛽 − 1) = . (17)
9𝐸𝑠𝑡2 𝛿 𝑐𝑛 = 2√ 𝑇
,
((u𝑖𝑛 ) (u𝑖𝑛 ))
The value of 𝛼 here is 0.5 as advised by Cheng et al. [35], so 𝛽 (23)
value can be obtained as 𝑁𝑖
1 c (𝜉)
4𝜋𝐺𝐹 𝜆 𝑖 ≥ Δ𝑡2 ∑ |𝜉 ⋅ e| ⋅ .
𝛽= . (18) 4 𝑗=1 |𝜉|2
9𝐸𝑠𝑡2 𝛿
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

Table 1: Geometrical parameters used in the simulation.

Group ID 𝑊 (mm) 𝐿 (mm) 𝑎 (mm) 𝑑 (mm) 𝑏 (mm) 𝑡 (mm)

1 300 300 100 50 15 5
2 600 600 200 100 30 10
3 900 900 300 150 45 15

ft

훼ft

f
st
훽st
c㰀sy

sy s
fc

(a) Concrete (b) Steel

Figure 4: Constitutive model of concrete and steel.

Here, Δ𝑡 is the time step size, e is a unit vector along 𝑥, 𝑦, a a

or 𝑧, and 1 K𝑖𝑖𝑛 is the diagonal stiffness matrix of the system, P

given as

1
(F𝑖𝑛 /𝜆 𝑖 − F𝑖𝑛−1 /𝜆 𝑖 )
K𝑖𝑖𝑛 =− . (24) b b
(Δ𝑡u̇ 𝑖𝑛−1/2 ) t

d
Finally, with the assumptions that u𝑖0 ≠ 0 and u̇ 𝑖0 = 0,
W

velocities and displacement at point 𝑥𝑖 for the next time step t

can be obtained by central difference explicit integration as
follows: b

Δ𝑡F𝑖0
u̇ 𝑖1/2 = ,
(2𝜆 𝑖 )

[(2 − 𝑐𝑛 Δ𝑡) u̇ 𝑖𝑛−1/2 + 2Δ𝑡F𝑖𝑛 /𝜆 𝑖 ] (25)

u̇ 𝑖𝑛+1/2 = , L
(2 + 𝑐𝑛 Δ𝑡)
Figure 5: Specimen geometry and the pullout test setup.
u𝑖𝑛+1 = u𝑖𝑛 + Δ𝑡u̇ 𝑖𝑛+1/2 .

Both the numerical algorithm and constitutive modeling

are implemented in Fortran-90 language based on Visual lists the geometrical parameters of the experiment. Figure 5
Studio using an in-house peridynamic code. shows the corresponding geometrical features of the predic-
tion model.
4. Peridynamic Results for Anchor Bolt W and L are the width and length of the concrete block
Pullout in Concrete as shown in Figure 5. a is the support span and it is the
distance from the edge of the anchor to the support and d is
4.1. Problem Setup. Because of the distinctive advantages the embedded depth. The breadth and thickness of the anchor
in solving crack propagation problems, the peridynamic bolt are b and t, respectively. All the concrete blocks and
method is adopted in the present study to model the anchor anchor bolts are 0.1 m thick, which is very small as compared
bolt pullout in concrete. The anchor bolt pullout experiment to other dimensions, so the model is treated as a plane stress
conducted by Vervuurt et al. [6] is considered here. Table 1 problem in the analysis. In most of the past research works
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 2: Material parameters used in the simulation. 35

Material type Concrete Steel 30

Young’s modulus 𝐸 (GPa) 30 200
Yield or tensile strength 𝑓𝑡󸀠 (MPa) 3 400 25

Pullout load (KN)

Compressive strength 𝑓𝑐󸀠 (MPa) 30 -
20
Fracture energy 𝐺𝐹 (N/m) 100 -
Density 𝜌 (kg/m3 ) 2500 7890 15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (
휇m)
Group 2:
훿 = 3 ∗ dx
Group 2:
훿 = 4 ∗ dx
Group 2:
훿 = 5 ∗ dx

Figure 7: Load-displacement response with different horizon sizes.

35

30

25
Pullout load (KN)

Figure 6: Numerical model.

20

15
[9, 10, 14], steel bolt was also not directly modeled and there
were no experimental values of friction coefficients. Pullout 10
load is modeled by controlling the vertical displacement of
the top surface of the bolt head and for the convenience of 5
simulations only the anchor head is assumed to be in contact
with the concrete. As a result, both the friction resistance 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
caused by the pullout movement and the vertical deformation
of the anchor bar were ignored. In the present study, both the Displacement (
휇m)
plain concrete and the steel anchor are modeled as discrete This paper (Group 2:
훿 = 3 ∗ dx)
particles of corresponding volumes. In addition, a short- Experiment by Vervuurt et al. [6]
range force is used to model the frictionless contact between Simulated by Vervuurt et al. [6]
Simulated by Feenstra [11]
concrete and the anchor bolt. To reduce the computation cost
Simulated by Soparat and Nanakorn [14]
and modeling difficulty, a constant in-plane grid number of
240 is used for each prediction model so that the grid spacing Figure 8: Comparison of the numerical load-displacement curve
of three groups is set to be 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, and 3.75 mm, with past research work.
respectively. Representative of quasi-static loading, a very low
velocity of 2.4 × 10−9 m/s was applied on the top particles
of the anchor bolt. The material properties are depicted in larger material horizon, a flatter initial slope and greater peak
Table 2 and the corresponding numerical models are shown displacement are witnessed. As the material horizon is related
in Figure 6. to critical stretch for the proposed concrete model (see (18)), a
lower critical stretch shows that the bond is more brittle than
4.2. Results and Discussions. To investigate the influence the material. As shown in Figure 8, the curve is more close to
of the size of material horizon on the load-displacement the experiment results by Vervuurt et al. [6] when 𝛿 = 3 ∗ 𝑑𝑥
response of the anchor bolt, three different material horizon is adopted; therefore, the default material horizon is set to be
sizes (i.e., 𝛿 = 3 ∗ 𝑑𝑥, 4 ∗ 𝑑𝑥, and 5 ∗ 𝑑𝑥) were used. Figure 7 three times the grid spacing in the following simulation.
shows the relationship between the vertical displacement of Figure 8 also shows the lattice model, FE, and EFG
the top particles and the pullout force in Group 2. It is results by Vervuurt et al. [6], Feenstra [11], and Soparat and
observed that the results obtained with different material Nanakorn [14], respectively. The peridynamic model shows
horizons approximately give the same peak load. For the very good results in the upper section of the experimental
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

Table 3: Comparison of the peak loads.

Damage
0.4
This paper Experimental Relative error 0.3
Group ID
(KN) results (KN) (%) 0.2
1 17.04 13.4 27.2% 0.1
0
2 28.86 24.5 17.8%
3 37.48 33.6 11.6%

40 PD, present study (right half) EFGM, Soparat and

Nanakorn [14]
35
(a) Group 1 (𝑑 = 50 mm, displacement × 100)
30
Pullout load (KN)

25 Damage
0.4
20 0.3
0.2
15 0.1
0
10

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 EFGM, Soparat and
PD, present study (right half)
Displacement (
휇m) Nanakorn [14]
Group 1 (b) Group 2 (𝑑 = 100 mm, displacement × 100)
Group 2
Group 3 Damage
0.4
Figure 9: Load-displacement response for different groups. 0.3
0.2
0.1
0

curve for load-displacement behavior. Figure 9 shows load-

displacement curves for all groups. The predicted peak loads
and experimental values comparison is given in Table 3.
Embedded depth has an influence on the pullout mechanism;
however, the peak load does not increase proportionally with
PD, present study (right half) EFGM, Soparat and
the embedded depth which shows that size has effect on Nanakorn [14]
pullout loads [6].
The values of the predicted peak loads in the present study (c) Group 3 (𝑑 = 150 mm, displacement × 100)
are a little higher than the experimental values which may be Figure 10: Comparison of crack patterns (PD versus EFGM).
because of the higher Poisson’s ratio; 0.33 instead of normal
0.3, based on the peridynamic theory [22, 23] which can be
seen in Figure 8 and Table 3.
Although the precision obtained by the current model is
not very high as compared to EFGM in peak load prediction, Figure 10. The crack branching can be easily captured in PD
it was based on many simplifications [14]. (a) Half of the theory while there is no localized branching in EFGM.
model was considered due to symmetry. (b) Steel bolt was The crack pattern from experimental results is different
not directly modeled. (c) Supports were treated as points. (d) from most of the previous numerical methods results [6,
Crack propagation was assumed from the upper edge corner 11, 14]. The reasons can be the assumption of a 2D model
of the bolt head, among others. These simplifications may instead of the real 3D complex fracture model for simulations,
affect the reliability of simulation results. In peridynamics, heterogeneous nature of concrete [6, 10], and experimental
both support and specimen are modeled as particles, so errors in the tests [10]. Figure 11 compares the failure mode
simulations are more reliable than in [14]. Cracks can appear of the present study with the experimental observations [6].
spontaneously as the material response includes damage It is worth noting that both the crack direction and the
without the need for any special criterion. Crack trajectories crack branching obtained in the present study show good
of the present model are compared with the EFGM results by resemblance with the experimental result by Vervuurt et al.
Soparat and Nanakorn [14] for different groups as shown in [6].
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Damage
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(a) Group 1 (𝑑 = 50 mm, displacement × 50)

Damage
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(b) Group 2 (𝑑 = 100 mm, displacement × 50)

Damage
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(c) Group 3 (𝑑 = 150 mm, displacement × 50)

Figure 11: Comparison of failure modes (PD versus EXP).

5. Conclusions Nomenclature
In this paper, the problem of anchor bolt pullout in plain 𝜌: The mass density
concrete was investigated with an improved peridynamic 𝛿: The material horizon
model. An extended constitutive model was used to refine b: The prescribed external body force density
the behaviors of concrete material simulation. A short-range u: The displacement vector
force was introduced to simulate anchor bolt and concrete 𝜉: The relative position vector
interaction in 2D. The numerical discretization and iteration 𝜂: The relative displacement vector
algorithms were implemented with an in-house peridynamic f: The pairwise force function
FORTRAN code. It was observed that the crack propagation 𝜔(𝜉, 𝜂): The pairwise potential function
of concrete was exposed in more detail by the proposed 𝜅(𝜉): The influence function
approach as compared to conventional FEM or EFGM. Com- 𝑐(𝜉): The micromodulus function
pared with the results from the literatures and experiments, 𝐺𝐹 : The fracture energy
it can be concluded that the extreme failure load and the final 𝜙(𝑥, 𝑡): The damage of material point x at time t
failure mode of the anchor bolt by analysis of the peridynamic 𝑠𝑦 : The tensile stretch limit of steel
approach match well those of the experimental observations. 𝑠𝑐 : The compressive stretch limit of concrete
From all the results and comparisons, this approach was 𝑠𝑡 : The tensile stretch limit of concrete
proved to be a promising method for solving the problem of 𝛼, 𝛽: The adjustment coefficients
anchor bolt pullout in plain concrete. 𝑉𝑖𝑗 : The equivalent calculation volume
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

F𝑖𝑛 : The resultant force density vector [15] T. Belytschko, Y. Krongauz, D. Organ, M. Fleming, and P. Krysl,
𝑐𝑛 : The damping coefficient at the 𝑛th iteration “Meshless methods: An overview and recent developments,”
𝜆𝑖: The modified density at the point 𝑥𝑖 Computer Methods Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 139,
Δ𝑡: The time step size no. 1-4, pp. 3–47, 1996.
1 𝑖𝑖 [16] S. Li and W. K. Liu, “Meshfree and particle methods and their
K𝑛 : The diagonal stiffness matrix.
applications,” Applied Mechanics Reviews, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1–34,
2002.
Conflicts of Interest [17] C. J. Coetzee, P. A. Vermeer, and A. H. Basson, “The modelling
of anchors using the material point method,” International
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
regarding the publication of this paper. vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 879–895, 2005.
[18] A. Charles and H. Claire, “The use of meshless methods in
geotechnics,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
References on Comptational Geomechnics (COMGEO I), Juan-Les-Pins,
[1] W. C. Stone and N. J. Carino, “Deformation and Failure in France, 2009.
Large-Scale Pullout Tests,” ACI Journal Proceedings, vol. 80, pp. [19] S. S. Pandey, P. K. Kasundra, and S. D. Daxini, “Introduc-
501–513, 1983. tion of meshfree methods and implementation of Element
Free Galerkin (EFG) method to beam problem,” International
[2] P. Bocca, “The application of pull-out test to high strength
Journal on Theoretical and Applied Research in Mechanical
concrete estimation,” Matériaux et Constructions, vol. 17, no. 3,
Engineering 2, pp. 85–89, 2013.
pp. 211–216, 1984.
[20] M. Marcon, J. Vorel, K. Ninčević, and R. Wan-Wendner,
[3] R. Ballarini, S. P. Shah, and L. M. Keer, “Failure Characteristics “Modeling adhesive anchors in a discrete element framework,”
of Short Anchor Bolts Embedded in a Brittle Material,” Proceed- Materials , vol. 10, no. 8, article no. 917, 2017.
ings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical
[21] J. Ožbolt, Y. Li, and I. Kožar, “Microplane model for concentre
Sciences, vol. 404, no. 35, 1986.
with relaxed kinematic constraint,” International Journal of
[4] J. Hashimoto and K. Takiguchi, “Experimental study on pullout Solids and Structures, vol. 38, no. 16, pp. 2683–2711, 2001.
strength of anchor bolt with an embedment depth of 30 mm [22] S. A. Silling, “Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinu-
in concrete under high temperature,” Nuclear Engineering and ities and long-range forces,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
Design, vol. 229, no. 2-3, pp. 151–163, 2004. of Solids, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 175–209, 2000.
[5] S.-Y. Kim, C.-S. Yu, and Y.-S. Yoon, “Sleeve-type expansion [23] S. A. Silling and E. Askari, “A meshfree method based on
anchor behavior in cracked and uncracked concrete,” Nuclear the peridynamic model of solid mechanics,” Computers &
Engineering and Design, vol. 228, no. 1-3, pp. 273–281, 2004. Structures, vol. 83, no. 17-18, pp. 1526–1535, 2005.
[6] A. Vervuurt, J. G. M. Van Mier, and E. Schlangen, “Analyses of [24] E. Madenci and E. Oterkus, Peridynamic Theory and Its Appli-
anchor pull-out in concrete,” Materials and Structures, vol. 27, cations, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 2014.
no. 5, pp. 251–259, 1994. [25] O. Weckner and R. Abeyaratne, “The effect of long-range forces
[7] A. Ali, “FEM analysis of concrete structures subjected to mode-I on the dynamics of a bar,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
and mixed-mode loading conditions,” Computers & Structures, of Solids, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 705–728, 2005.
vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1043–1055, 1996. [26] F. Bobaru, M. Yang, L. F. Alves, S. A. Silling, E. Askari, and
[8] J. Alfaiate, E. B. Pires, and J. A. C. Martins, “A finite element J. Xu, “Convergence, adaptive refinement, and scaling in 1D
analysis of non-prescribed crack propagation in concrete,” peridynamics,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Computers & Structures, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 17–26, 1997. Engineering, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 852–877, 2009.
[9] G. Etse, “Finite element analysis of failure response behavior of [27] B. Kilic, A. Agwai, and E. Madenci, “Peridynamic theory for
anchor bolts in concrete,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. progressive damage prediction in center-cracked composite
179, no. 2, pp. 245–252, 1998. laminates,” Composite Structures, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 141–151, 2009.
[28] Y.-L. Hu, Y. Yu, and H. Wang, “Peridynamic analytical method
[10] C. Xu, C. Heping, L. Bin, and Z. Fangfang, “Modeling of anchor
for progressive damage in notched composite laminates,” Com-
bolt pullout in concrete based on a heterogeneous assumption,”
posite Structures, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 801–810, 2014.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 241, no. 5, pp. 1345–1351,
2011. [29] S. A. Silling and F. Bobaru, “Peridynamic modeling of mem-
branes and fibers,” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechan-
[11] P. H. Feenstra, Computational Aspects of Biaxial Stress in Plain ics, vol. 40, no. 2-3, pp. 395–409, 2005.
and Reinforced Concrete, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
[30] W. Gerstle, “Peridynamic modeling of plain and reinforced
The Netherlands, 1993.
concrete structures,” in Proceedings of the 18th International
[12] P. O. Bouchard, F. Bay, Y. Chastel, and I. Tovena, “Crack prop- Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology,
agation modelling using an advanced remeshing technique,” Beijing, China, 2005.
Computer Methods Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 189, [31] D. Huang, Q. Zhang, and P. Z. Qiao, “Damage and progressive
no. 3, pp. 723–742, 2000. failure of concrete structures using non-local peridynamic
[13] M. Jirásek, “Comparative study on finite elements with embed- modeling,” Science China Technological Sciences, vol. 54, no. 3,
ded discontinuities,” Computer Methods Applied Mechanics and pp. 591–596, 2011.
Engineering, vol. 188, no. 1, pp. 307–330, 2000. [32] F. Shen, Q. Zhang, and D. Huang, “Damage and failure process
[14] P. Soparat and P. Nanakorn, “Analysis of anchor bolt pullout of concrete structure under uniaxial compression based on peri-
in concrete by the element-free Galerkin method,” Engineering dynamics modeling,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering,
Structures, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 3574–3586, 2008. vol. 2013, Article ID 631074, 5 pages, 2013.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

[33] D. Huang, G. Lu, C. Wang, and P. Qiao, “An extended

peridynamic approach for deformation and fracture analysis,”
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 141, pp. 196–211, 2015.
[34] D. Huang, G. Lu, and P. Qiao, “An improved peridynamic
approach for quasi-static elastic deformation and brittle fracture
analysis,” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, vol. 94-
95, article no. 2937, pp. 111–122, 2015.
[35] Z. Cheng, G. Zhang, Y. Wang, and F. Bobaru, “A peridynamic
model for dynamic fracture in functionally graded materials,”
Composite Structures, vol. 133, pp. 529–546, 2015.
[36] F. Han, G. Lubineau, Y. Azdoud, and A. Askari, “A morphing
approach to couple state-based peridynamics with classical
continuum mechanics,” Computer Methods Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, vol. 301, pp. 336–358, 2016.
[37] W. Gerstle, N. Sau, and E. Aguilera, “Micropolar peridynamic
constitutive model for concrete,” in Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and
Concrete Structures (SMiRT 19 ’07), Toronto, Canada, June 2007.
[38] M. L. Parks, R. B. Lehoucq, S. J. Plimpton, and S. A. Silling,
“Implementing peridynamics within a molecular dynamics
code,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 179, no. 11, pp.
777–783, 2008.
[39] B. Kilic and E. Madenci, “An adaptive dynamic relaxation
method for quasi-static simulations using the peridynamic
theory,” Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, vol. 53, no.
3, pp. 194–204, 2010.
[40] P. Underwood, “Dynamic relaxation,” in Computational Meth-
ods for Transient Analysis, T. Belytschko and T. J. R. Hughes,
Eds., pp. 245–265, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
1983.
Advances in Advances in Journal of The Scientific Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi
Decision Sciences
Hindawi
Applied Mathematics
Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International
Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Sciences

Journal of

Hindawi
Optimization
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

International Journal of
Engineering International Journal of
Mathematics
Hindawi
Analysis
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of Advances in Mathematical Problems International Journal of Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi
Numerical Analysis
Hindawi
in Engineering
Hindawi
Differential Equations
Hindawi
Nature and Society
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of Journal of Journal of Abstract and Advances in

Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematics
Hindawi
Function Spaces
Hindawi
Applied Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018