You are on page 1of 8

15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference June 2-5, 2002, Columbia University, New York, NY



Karma Yonten1, Student Member, ASCE Majid T. Manzari2, Associate Member, ASCE Azim Eskandarian3

Dhafer Marzougui4
ABSTRACT Dynamic non-linear finite element methods are extensively used to analyze vehicle-to-barrier crashes. The underlying challenge in this analysis is the capability of the constitutive models of concrete to represent a realistic response of the barrier under impact loading. LS-DYNA, a commercial FE code for crashworthiness analysis offers four major constitutive models for concrete. The performance of each of these models is assessed by making a comparison between numerical simulations and some benchmark stress-strain data, obtained from triaxial experiments conducted on plain concrete. Two of the constitutive models failed to produce realistic simulations beyond the elastic range. The smooth transition to non-linear regime and the observed post-peak response of concrete were well captured by Material Model 16 and 72, which relies heavily on a set of empirically obtained curves. Using the calibrated material models, a vehicular impact/crash scenario is then simulated to investigate the prediction of these constitutive models for the concrete barriers subjected to vehicular impact. The findings of the triaxial compression and vehicle-to-barrier crash test simulations are discussed along with the shortcomings of the constitutive models for concrete in LS-DYNA code. Keywords: Constitutive Modeling, Concrete, Crashworthiness, Finite Element, LS-DYNA

INTRODUCTION In roadside structural design, the safety of the people is a primary concern. Such safety structures must provide enough resistance to halt or redirect the vehicle over a short distance or yield and break through without causing rollovers. Many roadside structures are made of concrete material, which continues to challenge engineers in the field of constitutive modeling. These roadside safety devices are crash-tested to evaluate their safety performance. Inasmuch as it is uneconomical to perform crash tests of every possible scenario, numerical simulation of these tests has become desirable. With the advancement of numerical techniques and achievement of high computing speed at a reasonable cost crash-test simulation had become
1 2

Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng., The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Email: Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng., The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Email: 3 Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng., The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Email: 4 FHWA/NHTSA National Crash Analysis Center, Ashburn, Virginia 20147. Email:

feasible. Dynamic non-linear finite element methods are commonly used to analyze vehicles-to-barrier crashes. Numerous finite-element (FE) codes are readily available; one such FE commercial code for crashworthiness analysis is LS-DYNA, developed by Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC). In the vehicular impact test analysis one major challenge is the capability of the constitutive models of concrete to represent a realistic response of the structure under such loading. Although the behavior of concrete can seldom be replicated with perfect accuracy, one must remain satisfied with those constitutive models that can exhibit behavior of concrete as realistic as possible until more advanced models replace them. LS-DYNA offers four major concrete material models. The prediction of each model is evaluated by comparing against some benchmark stress-strain data obtained from a triaxial experiments conducted on plain concrete. Using the calibrated material models, a vehicle-to-barrier impact scenario is then simulated to observe the their predictions of vehicle-barrier crash test. The results of the concrete material models for triaxial test and vehicle-barrier crash test simulations are discussed along with their shortcomings in this paper. CONCRETE MATERIAL MODELS All four constitutive models for concrete in LS-DYNA rely on multiple and complex parameters, the descriptions of some of them are poorly documented in both theoretical and keyword manuals. Material Model 16 (MAT_PSEUDO_TENSOR) is a pseudo tensor geological model with an option for reinforcement. The model offers two major modes: a simple pressure-dependent Mohr-Coulomb yield surface with Tresca limit, and two yield versus pressure functions with the capability to transit from one curve to another. The latter one is used with damage scale option as suggested by the User Manual (Hallquist, 1999). The equation of state (EOS) type 8 is used, which describes the volumetric response of the material. Material Model 25 (MAT_GEOLOGIC_CAP_MODEL) is a kinematic hardening cap model, suggested by Sandler and Rubin (1979) and further implemented by Simo et al. (1988). It consists of a non-softening convex yield surface defined by a failure envelope and a hardening cap, and a plastic strain rate vector normal to the yield surface in stress space. Material Model 72 (MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE) is similar to Material Model 16 with additional parameters to include damage features. Finally, Material Model 78 (MAT_SOIL_CONCRETE) is defined by a deviatoric perfectly plastic, pressure dependent yield function. Cracking can be invoked by setting the residual strength factor, B between 0 and 1. It requires four load curves: pressure-volumetric strain, pressure-yield stress, and pressure-plastic strain at which fracture begins, and lastly, pressure-plastic strain at which residual strength is reached. These sets of required data are not readily accessible in the literature. FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION The finite elements are generated using PATRAN, and imported to LS-DYNA where the concrete material model was defined and was run on a Silicon Graphics Power Challenge parallel-processor supercomputer in the Unix operating system. The results of the simulations were observed using post processor LS-POST, and LS-TAURUS.

Triaxial Test Simulation Following Attard and Setunges (1996) testing procedure, standard triaxial compression test was simulated using one cubical element (with a size of 100 mm), and utilizing symmetry, a quarter of the cylindrical specimen (100 mm in diameter by 200 mm in height) consisting of 96 elements. The high strength concrete (fc = 100 MPa) was tested under three confining pressures: 5, 10 and 15 MPa. The stress-strain plots of the simulation were obtained by using post processor, LS-TAURUS, and comparison was made against the experimental data. Vehicle-Barrier Crash Test Simulations Using the calibrated concrete models, a vehicle-barrier crash scenario was simulated for each material model. The target consists of portable concrete barriers (Pennsylvania Design) connected by steel plates, and with explicitly modeled reinforcements. The barrier is crash tested for a 2000 kg Chevrolet C2500 pickup truck, hitting the barrier at an angle of 25 degree, and at 60 mph. This is a typical Test Level 3 of the NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 350 recommended criteria for testing and evaluation of highway roadside hardware. The vehicle and barrier set up before impact is shown in FIG. 8. The predictions of the concrete material models for the behavior of the barriers impacted by a vehicle are compared. COMPUTER SIMULATION RESULTS Triaxial Test The summary of the one-element and 96-elements simulation results for the confining pressure of 5, 10, and 15 MPa are presented in Figs. 1 to 6. As observed in these figures, Material Models 25 and 78 captured the elastic range of the stress-strain curve, but deviated in the post-peak region. Material Models 16 and 72, however, captured the softening behavior of the concrete for 5 MPa confining pressure, and showed a superior correlation between the simulation and experimental results. The same material parameters for 5 MPa confining pressure were used for other two confining pressures to examine the capability of the models to account for the increase in ductility due to confinement without needing readjustment of the parameters.

FIG. 1. (One-Element Case): Stress-Strain response for 5 MPa confining pressure

As can be seen from Figs 2, 3, 5, and 6, the constitutive models considered in this study were not capable of capturing the effect of confining pressure. The experimental results (Figs. 1, 2, 3) show a decreasing dilatancy of concrete as the confining pressure increases. The reduced dilatancy has led to smaller slopes for the softening part of the stress-strain curve.

FIG. 2. (One-Element Case): Stress-Strain response for 10 MPa confining pressure

FIG. 3. (One-Element Case): Stress-Strain response for 15 MPa confining pressure

FIG. 4. (96 Elements Case): Stress-Strain response for 5 MPa confining pressure

FIG. 5. (96 Elements Case): Stress-Strain response for 10 MPa confining pressure

FIG. 6. (96 Elements Case): Stress-Strain response for 15 MPa confining pressure

For one-element triaxial test, Material Model 72 showed some dilatancy compared to Model 16 (Figs. 2, 3). However for the cylindrical 96-elements case, the former predicted a softer response than the later for all confining pressures. Material Model 25 responded to increase in confinement by increase in gradient of the elastic region of the curve, and thus increasing the shear modulus, G. Vehicle-Barrier Crash Test Figures 9 through 12 show the behavior of the concrete barrier and the trajectory of the vehicle at 0.5 seconds. A total termination time of 1.5 seconds was allowed, and the maximum deflection of the barrier was reached in 0.5 seconds. Also at this time the trajectory of the truck becomes predictable, that is, whether the truck will roll over or get deflected. The maximum displacement of the barriers is shown in Table.1 for the concrete material models; this is obtained by tracing the node at the contact that was displaced the most. The displacement-time plot is

given in Fig. 7; the plot for Material Model 78 is not included due to its large deflection as observed in Fig. 12. TABLE 1. Maximum displacement of concrete barriers Material Model Maximum Displacement (mm) 16 25 72 78 464.6 682.7 1410.6 21321.9

FIG. 7. Displacement-Time plot for the concrete material models The maximum internal energy of the concrete barriers is tabulated in Table 2. Barrier with concrete Material Model 78 absorbed the most energy, and suffered severe damage compared to other barriers. The energy absorbed by the barrier with Material Model 72 is the least despite its significant displacement. TABLE 2. Maximum energy absorbed by the barriers Material Model Maximum Absorption Energy (MPa) 16 25 72 78 3.1549 E+07 1.1934 E+06 1.2895 E+03 1.3107 E+08

In the vehicle-barrier crash analysis, the trajectory of the vehicle provides additional aspects of the response of the concrete barrier. Although the concrete material models are calibrated for the same type of concrete, their predictions of the vehicular impact behavior are significantly different. The barrier with Material Model 78 showed the maximum damage. Experiments show that the high strength plane concrete is brittle in nature under projectile/impulsive loadings, and for the vehicular impact a more realistic prediction would be to exhibit this brittleness characteristics. Material Model 72 and 78 appear to somewhat show some softening response of the barriers.

FIG. 8. Barrier-Vehicle set up

FIG. 9. Material Model 16

FIG. 10. Material Model 25

FIG. 11. Material Model 72

FIG. 12. Material Model 78

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION The performance of the existing concrete material models was investigated by comparing the simulation result with some benchmark stress-strain data obtained from a standard triaxial experiment. Concrete Material Model 25 and 78 failed to predict the softening behavior of concrete, and therefore have significant limitations in modeling concrete behavior. While Material Model 16 and 72 captured the post-peak region of the stress-strain curve the softening response of the concrete for these seemingly successful models was achieved by finding a good

set of data for yield stress factor () and effective plastic strain (p) via trial and error method thus, artificially generating the stress-strain relationship. The drawback of this feature is visible in the simulation for higher confining pressure; a better model would automatically adjust the stress-strain curve to account for the dilatancy property of concrete. This presumes proportionality between stress and strain. Material Model 16 and 72 also provides features for embedded reinforcement; however, the application of it is not elucidated. It does not specify what kind of reinforcement is used since reinforcement depends on the purpose of the structure. Hence, for the barriers the reinforcements are explicitly modeled based on the design code. For the same concrete type (fc = 100 MPa), the predictions of the concrete material models for the behavior of the barriers under vehicular impact loading are significantly different. This shows that constitutive models of concrete are critical in the numerical simulations of roadside safety tests; the type of concrete material models used can influence the outcome of the analysis. In crashworthiness analysis sometimes the significance of concrete material models is undermined because of their complexity of parameters; for simplification the concrete part of the structure is assumed rigid. While this may not affect the result in come cases, the outcome can be drastically different in others. Any numerical analysis where concrete is used, the contribution in deviance of the predictions from actual test is seldom entirely from other factors; the concrete material models have a considerable influence. Hence, the constitutive models of concrete in any analysis must not be neglected. It is desirable to compare the predictions of these material models with the result of an actual barrier-vehicle crash test for the same type of concrete when it becomes available. It is also recommended that a more thorough evaluation be done to confirm the findings of this paper. Future research should be address numerical simulation of concrete for impulsive and cyclic loading and verification with experimental data. The inconvenience of the material models lies in their complex and multiple parameters. While in advanced constitutive models, to incorporate various features of the behavior of concrete in different scenarios, additional parameters become necessary, in such traditional elastoplastic models the success of increasing accuracy of the predictions are low. A simplified triaxial constitutive material for concrete based on plasticity involving only one parameter, fc is currently being investigated. The goal is to develop a simplified, but more efficient concrete model to be implemented in LS-DYNA code after further advancement. REFERENCES Attard, M. M, and Setunge, S., Stress-Strain Relationship of Confined and Unconfined Concrete, ACI Material Journal, V. 93, No. 5, 1996, pp. 432-442. Hallquist, John, O., LS-DYNA Keyword User Manual. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures. Livermore Software Technology Corporation: Livermore, CA, 1999. Hallquist, J., O., LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures. Livermore Software Technology Corporation: Livermore, CA, 1999. Sandler I.S., and Rubin, D., An Algorithm and a Modular Subroutine for the Cap Model, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol 3. 1979, pp. 173-186. Simo, J. C., J-W Ju, and others, Assessment of Cap Model: Consistent Return Algorithms and Rate-Dependent Extension, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 114, No 2, 1988, pp. 191-218.