0 Up votes0 Down votes

4 views21 pagesMay 13, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

You are on page 1of 21

loads with a viscoplastic DruckerPrager model

1

Juan Jose L

opez Cela

Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, ETS Ingenieros Industriales de Ciudad Real, Campus Universitario s/n, 13071 Ciudad

Real, Spain

Received 23 July 1997; received in revised form 27 April 1998; accepted 2 June 1998

Abstract

The behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to dynamic loads is analyzed. The concrete material is

modelled by an elasto-viscoplastic law, whose inviscid counterpart is the DruckerPrager model. A viscous regular-

ization is introduced in order to avoid the mesh dependency eects that usually appear when strain softening occurs.

The model is implemented in a general nite element computer code for fast transient analysis of uid-structure sys-

tems, based on an explicit central dierence scheme. The model is activated to both continuum elements and layered

shell elements. So, realistic numerical analyses of complex 3-D engineering problems are simple and ecient. Three

examples, two of which are modelled with layered shell elements, are presented below. 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.

All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fast transient analysis; Reinforced concrete; Viscoplastic material law; Layered shell elements

Notation

Mathematical model

r stress tensor

r hydrostatic stress

c shear stress

r0 deviatoric stress tensor

e strain tensor

e0 deviatoric strain tensor

e volumetric strain

F r; a; c DruckerPrager yield surface

a; c material parameters dening the yield surface

I identity tensor

Qr; b; c plastic potential function

b; c material parameters dening the plastic potential function

Dt time increment

1

Tel.: +34 926 295 300; fax: +34 926 295 361; e-mail: jlopez@ind-cr.uclm.es.

PII: S 0 3 0 7 - 9 0 4 X ( 9 8 ) 1 0 0 5 0 - 1

496 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

rf viscoplastic stress tensor

q vector of internal variables (a,c for the DruckerPerger model)

g viscoplastic parameter

v fastest elastic wave speed

l mesh size parameter

ep equivalent plastic strain

ep plastic strain tensor

Layered shell formulation

F int vector of internal nodal forces for a given element

Ve volume of an element

B matrix of derivatives of the shape functions

x; y; z coordinates

n; g; f normalized coordinates

W weights of numerical integration

L layer index

NL total number of layers

h thickness of the shell

hL thickness of layer L

uL ratio of the layers thickness to the total thickness

Material parameters

E Young's modulus

v Poisson's ratio

q density

ryield elastic limit

fc maximum compressive strength

ft maximum tensile strength

k cohesion

/ friction angle

W dilatancy angle

K bulk modulus

G shear modulus

1. Introduction

The scope of this work is to analyze the behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to

dynamic loads such as impacts, explosions, etc. For the concrete material a DruckerPrager

elastoplastic model [1] is assumed. This model is relatively simple (only needs two parameters to

dene the yield surface and one more parameter to dene the plastic potential function and

consequently the ow rule) but can reproduce some features considered typical in concrete:

softening and dierent behavior in tension and compression. The softening phenomenon consists

in a reduction of the load-carrying capacity with increasing strain. This results in mesh sensitivity

problems. Regularization procedures are methods for avoiding this sensitivity [2]. One of these

methods, followed in the present work, is the introduction of viscoplastic terms in the material

constitutive law [3,4]. The numerical implementation is based on the radial return algorithm [5]

generalized for the case of strain hardening or softening [6], as summarized for a von Mises model

in Ref. [7]. A viscoplastic regularization is applied after an inviscid solution has been obtained [8].

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 497

Since the DruckerPrager yield surface in stress space is a cone, the developed algorithm includes

a specic treatment of the stress points that lie close to the cone apex, where the normal to the

yield surface is not dened.

This material behavior law has been activated to 2-D and 3-D continuum elements but em-

phasis has been done in to set up a simple but eective method for the numerical representation of

thin reinforced concrete structures. The chosen approach is `macroscopic', in that the structures

to be studied are discretized by shell nite elements. A typical element is viewed as a sandwich

composed of several layers, each one having its own, homogeneous material. For simplicity, no

attempt is done to model relative motions of the layers due e.g. to slip or delamination phe-

nomena. This of course reduces the applicability of the method to the cases (i.e., load regimes or

parts of the time transients) where such extreme phenomena do not play a primary role.

The main advantages of the method are its simplicity and its high computational eciency, due

to the fact that a small number of relatively large shell elements are used to model a given

structure in place of myriads of much smaller continuum elements. Another attractive property is

that it is easily implemented as an extension in any general nite element computer code already

containing (homogeneous) shell elements and a library of suitable materials. The formulation is

such that any meaningful combination of layers and materials is easily obtained and the model

can be used, with the limitations pointed out above, not only for the representation of reinforced

concrete structures but also more generally for any composite material that admits a layered

approximation.

A material identication procedure has been developed in order to derive the concrete material

data dening the yield surface from piecewise linearized experimental stressstrain curves. The

procedure aims at reproducing a uniaxial compression curve and the maximum tension strength

value. Two methods have been investigated: in the rst one, the hardening or softening regime is

obtained by expanding the DruckerPrager yield surface without changing the angle of the cone.

The second method considers only variations of the angle. These evolutions of the yield surface

are directly related to variations, during the plastic ow, of the two physical parameters of this

model: cohesion for the rst case and friction angle for the second one. In the present study, these

two eects have been analyzed independently.

The model is implemented in PLEXIS-3C, a general nite element code for fast transient

analysis of uid-structure systems [9]. PLEXIS-3C is jointly developed since 1986 by the French

Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (CEA-CEN Saclay) and by the European Commission (EC-

JRC Ispra). The code uses a central dierence, explicit time marching algorithm which, combined

with suitable lumping of the mass matrix, leads to a fully explicit implementation. PLEXIS-3C

oers a large library of nite elements, using both continuum and structural representations, and

therefore allows for straightforward implementation of the layer-based technique described in this

work. In addition, the code presents unique capabilities for the simulation of uid-structure in-

teractions. Both the structural and the uid domain can be represented within one single, fully

coupled numerical analysis thanks to sophisticated, yet fully automatic, interfacing algorithms.

These are capable of automatically detecting and properly treating even the most complex uid-

structure interfaces of the permanent type, see e.g. Ref. [10].

Three numerical examples are presented in this work. The rst one, consisting of a reinforced

concrete slab subjected to an impact load at the center, has been analyzed by using two-dimen-

sional continuum elements. The second case is an impact on a natural-draught cooling tower,

which is discretized by triangular layered shell elements. The third test case is an example of fully

coupled uid-structure analysis, a gas explosion in a reactor containment. The geometry is axi-

symmetric and the structures are modelled with layered conical shell elements, while continuum

elements discretize the uids (explosive bubble and air) contained within the reactor building.

498 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

The constitutive model used in the present study is elasto-viscoplastic. Its inviscid counterpart

is the DruckerPrager model with hardening or softening. A DruckerPrager model is repre-

sented by the two-parameter yield surface

F r; a; c ar s c 0; 1

where

1

r tracer hydrostatic stress; 2

3

1 p

s p r0 : r0 shear stress; 3

2

r0 r rI deviatoric stress; 4

where r is the stress tensor, I is the identity tensor and a; c are material parameters related to the

friction angle and the cohesion, respectively.

The numerical implementation of the model is based on the radial return algorithm but by

taking into due account the particularities of a DruckerPrager model [1]. The main dierence

between the two models is the shape of the yield surface in the stress space: while the von Mises

surface is a cylinder, the DruckerPrager surface is a cone. As a consequence, in a Drucker

Prager model an associative plastic ow produces variations in both hydrostatic and deviatoric

stress components. The radial return algorithm gives the time-discrete evolution equations for the

inviscid solutions rn1 , r0n1 , an1 and cn1 at time tn1 tn Dt.

The plastic ow is dened according to the plastic potential function:

Qr; b; c br s c 0 5

in the above equation, b is a material parameter related to the dilatancy, representing an inelastic

volume increase. If a b, an associative ow rule is obtained, otherwise the law is said non-as-

sociative.

Another particularity of the DruckerPrager model is that is necessary to distinguish two zones

in the yield surface:

A normal zone, where the return to the yield surface from the trial stress points is performed

according to the radial return algorithm, but with corrections in the hydrostatic and deviatoric

stress components, as indicated above.

A singular zone, close to the cone apex, where the normal to the plastic potential surface is not

dened and, therefore, it is not possible to return to it as simply as it is done in the previous

zone. This zone is delimited by a cone whose apex coincides with the apex of the DruckerPra-

ger cone and whose generatrix forms a certain angle (depending on the value of the parameter

b) with the cone axis.

For the singular zone a special algorithm is developed. The normal to the plastic potential

function, that describes the plastic ow, is

oQ 1 r0 1

M bI: 6

or 2 s 3

It can be seen that this expression becomes singular at the apex, because s 0. The return to

the yield surface is decomposed into two parts: the rst one is a projection onto the hydrostatic

axis, followed by a translation along this axis until the apex is reached.

In order to obtain the consistency parameter which assures that the nal stress state is in the

yield surface, we impose the continuity of this parameter along the boundary between the normal

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 499

region and the singular one. Since when b 0, it is not possible to return to the apex from the

singular zone, the model requires a positive value (possibly very small) of b.

The radial return algorithm is based on a backward Euler scheme. This means that to compute

the nal stress at time n 1 we need to know, at this time, the normal to the plastic potential

function and the consistency parameter. The normal is that corresponding to the trial stress. To

compute the consistency parameter it is necessary to distinguish if the hardening law is linear or

not. In the most general, non-linear case, the equation of the consistency parameter must be

solved by an iteration procedure. When the hardening law is linear, this equation is amenable to

closed form solution. Because in the kind of problems addressed in this work (fast transient

dynamics with explicit time integration) the time step is very small, the error produced by a

linearization of a non-linear hardening law during the time step is not very important. Then, for a

linear hardening law, this implementation and the ones adopted in Refs. [1,3] are the same. But

for a non-linear hardening law, in the implementation in PLEXIS-3C, it is very important to

perform such a linearization in order to maintain the explicit character of the code.

After an inviscid solution has been obtained the viscoplastic correction can be applied. It is

important to note that this correction is applied a posteriori, and that it is independent of the

model used for the inviscid case and of the kind of algorithm used for solving the equations. For

viscoplasticity, the formulation proposed by DuvautLions [11] extended to accommodate

hardening variables [8] is used. By integrating the viscoplastic constitutive model in closed form

[8], the following expressions are obtained:

h Dt

i 1 eDt=g

rfn1 eDt=g rn 1 e g rn1 Dr; 7

Dt=g

Dt

h Dt

i

qfn1 e g qn 1 e g qn1 ; 8

where q represents a vector of the internal plastic variables, that for the particular case of the

DruckerPrager model includes the two material parameters a and c; Dt is the step increment of

the central dierence scheme and g is a viscoplastic parameter having a time dimension.

The viscoplastic model is linear and therefore appears to be very poor in representing possible

strain rate eects. However, it should be recalled that this part of the model acts as a regular-

ization of the solution and not as a physical contribution to it. In particular, the g parameter is

chosen according to numerical requirements. Being just a regularization, the model should be as

computationally cheap as possible. It is remarkable that the linear assumption leads to an explicit

evaluation of the stresses. In particular, no (conditionally stable) subincrementation algorithm

will have to be included for this evaluation. Because of the application after the inviscid solution

and the integration in closed form, the use of this regularization has a very low computational

cost indeed.

To select the value of the g parameter the criterion proposed in Ref. [4] is followed

l

6 5; 9

vg

where v is the fastest elastic wave speed and l is the mesh size parameter, that following common

practice is taken to be the diameter of the largest element in the mesh.

When g ! 0, Dt=g ! 1 and then rfn1 ! rn1 and the inviscid case is recovered. On the other

hand, if g ! 1 Dt=g ! 0 and then rfn1 ! rn Dr and we have the elastic case. For a given Dt

(xed with numerical criteria for the central dierence scheme) it is needed a value of g as low as

possible but suciently high to regularize the solution. Then, when a non-zero value of g is

adopted, dierent results than a pure elasto-plastic model will be obtained. It is important to

500 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

remark that, when mesh dependency occurs, the results with a elasto-plastic model are numeri-

cally possible but are not longer valid. On the other hand an elastic model of the material is not a

realistic option. With the current viscoplastic model, the results are not completely accurate, but

the achieved approximation can be considered enough for engineering purposes. In any case, the

simplicity of the model and its computational eciency compensates this inconvenient.

The shell nite element formulations implemented in PLEXIS-3C have in common the basic

assumption that bers (straight lines across the thickness of the undeformed element) remain

straight during deformation. This hypothesis is justied by the fact that, in order to be represented

by shell elements, the structures must be relatively thin.

Fibers may or may not be initially normal to some element mid-plane, usually called the

reference surface. If the orientation of the bers with respect to the reference surface is allowed to

change during deformation, then transverse shear strains and stresses are included in the model

and one has a so-called MindlinReissner formulation. Otherwise, no transverse shear eects are

taken into account, and one has a Kirchho formulation.

In the shell formulation, the through-thickness stress is set to zero. In the two examples,

concerning shell concrete structures, presented in this work one is modelled with three-node

triangular plates and the other one with two-node axisymmetric shell elements. For the plate

element, the MindlinReissner formulation is assumed and then, only the component normal to

the plane of the plate is zero. For the conical shell due to the axial symmetry and because this shell

follows Kirchho theory, the three tangential stresses are zero. Therefore, the only non-zero terms

of the stress tensor are the longitudinal and circumferential components, rx and rh .

For any of the shell theories adopted in PLEXIS-3C, the main step in the element formulation

is the calculation of the internal nodal forces equivalent to the state of stress over the element,

which are then used to solve the equilibrium equations. Use is made of the principle of virtual

work which, at the element level, results in an expression of the type:

Z

F BT r dV ;

int

10

Ve

int

where F is the vector of internal nodal forces for a given element e; V e is the volume of the

element in the current conguration, B is the matrix of derivatives of the shape functions and r is

the Cauchy stress tensor.

Because of the special nature of the shell thickness z direction, the previous integral is usually

in the form (x and y being tangent to the reference surface):

0 1

Z Z Z

F int @ BT r dzA dx dy 11

xy z

and, because of the complexity of the functions involved (non-linearity of material behavior, large

strains, etc.) it is often best evaluated numerically:

"N #

XNn XNg X f

F int Wn Wg BT r ngfWf det J : 12

n1 g1 f1

The W coecients are the weights of the numerical integration process (e.g., Gauss rule) and det J

is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix that describes the transformation of the element volume

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 501

the function is evaluated only at a given number of sampling or integration points within the

element.

Let us now compare a homogeneous element with one composed by several layers, see Fig. 1.

In the homogeneous case, the stress prole across the thickness may assume complex shapes

because of material non-linearities (e.g., plasticity), but is a continuous function. In the multilayer

case, instead, if the materials of the various layers have dierent properties then the stress prole

may become discontinuous across layers. The strain proles are continuous in both cases because

of the assumption of straight bers. In order to compute the internal forces, we apply a procedure

similar to 9, but now to each layer of the element separately

( "N #)

X

Nn X

Ng XNL Xf

T

F int Wn Wg uL B r ngfL WfL det J : 13

n1 g1 L1 f1

Here L is the layer index which varies from 1 to NL , the total number of layers. NfL is the

number of Gauss integration points through the thickness in the layer L and fL the normalized

thickness coordinate for the layer. Finally, uL represents

P the ratio of the layers thickness hL to the

total thickness h of the element: uL hL =h hence L uL 1.

The objective of this section is to determine the material parameters a and c of the Drucker

Prager constitutive law in order to reproduce, as closely as possible, the behavior of concrete. The

present identication procedure aims at reproducing the experimental uniaxial curves. In other

words, when a numerical uniaxial compression/tension test is performed, the resulting stress

strain curves should be as similar as possible to the experimental (real) ones. As a preliminary

step, it is common practice to approximate the continuous experimental curves with piecewise

linear ones.

The DruckerPrager criterion, characterized by a conical yield surface, can be considered as a

smooth approximation to the MohrCoulomb criterion, which uses an irregular hexagonal

502 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

pyramid yield surface. Following Ref. [12], the relations between the material parameters of both

surfaces are calculated as follows:

The starting point is the MohrCoulomb yield surface, where the relation between the material

parameters (cohesion k and friction angle /) and the compressive and tensile strength (fc and

ft ) is given by Mohr's circles:

fc ft

sin / ; 14

fc ft

fc 1 sin / 1 p

k fc ft : 15

2 cos / 2

Then, by matching the DruckerPrager surface to the MohrCoulomb surface the desired re-

lations are obtained.

There are several ways to approximate the two surfaces. If matching is imposed at the apex and

either at point A or at point B on the deviatoric plane (Fig. 2), then in the case of point A

matching, the cone circumscribes the hexagonal pyramid along the compressive meridians, while

in the case of point B matching, the DruckerPrager surface is circumscribed by the pyramid

along the tensile meridians.

If the two surfaces are made to agree along both compressive and tensile meridians, the re-

lations of Table 1 are obtained.

These expressions are valid not only for the elastic limit point of the curve, but for all (plastic)

points along the curve. If the expressions of compression tting are used, then the maximum

compression value fc is correctly predicted, but the tensile one ft is overestimated (in this par-

ticular case, about a 30%, i.e., from 4 to 5.5 MPa). The same conclusions can be applied to the

other points. Then, due to the fact that it is not possible to t both curves simultaneously, the

examples presented in this work have been performed matching the compression one.

In the case of non-perfect plasticity, the problem arises of writing the material parameters in

terms of the equivalent plastic strain that is the magnitude used by the model implemented in the

Fig. 2. Fitting between MohrCoulomb and DruckerPrager criteria in the deviatoric plane.

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 503

Table 1

Fitting between MohrCoulomb and DruckerPrager criteria

2 sin / 2 sin /

a p a p

33 sin / 33 sin /

3fc 1 sin / 3fc 1 sin /

c p c p

33 sin / 33 sin /

code. To obtain these relations the yield surface is derived with respect to the material parameters

and it is substituted in the constitutive rate equations, particularized to the case of uniaxial ex-

pressions.

In this work, only one of the two possible material parameters k and / has been considered

variable while the other one has been kept constant. This corresponds to two dierent evolutions

of the yield surface, as shown in Fig. 3: expansion of the cone or variation of the angle of the

cone. Both cases represent a form of isotropic hardening.

The procedure is the following. The constitutive rate equation can be splitted into deviatoric

and volumetric parts:

r_ 0 _

r_ 0 2Ge_0 G k; 16

s

_

r_ K e_ kKb; 17

0

where G and K are the shear and bulk moduli, e_ and e_ the volumetric and deviatoric part of the

rate strain tensor and k_ the consistency parameter.

For an uniaxial compression test along, e.g. direction 1 we have:

1

r r1 ;

3

0 2 1 1

r diag r1 ; r1 ; r1 ;

3 3 3

1 p r1

s p r0 : r0 p ;

2 3

504 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

e e1 2e2 ;

2 1 1

e0 diag e1 e2 ; e1 e2 ; e1 e2 ;

3 3 3

where r1 and e1 are the stress and strain along direction 1, and e2 the transversal strain. A tension

test should be considered if we decide to match the tension curve. Then, Eqs. (16) and (17) be-

come:

volumetric rate equation

1 _

r_ 1 Ke_1 2e_2 kb; 18

3

deviatoric rate equations (there are three deviatoric equations but because they are coincident,

we only write one of them)

p

2 2 2 3 _

r_ 1 2G e_1 e_2 Gk: 19

3 3 3

Combining Eqs. (18) and (19)

" #

k_ p

r_ 1 E e_1 b 3 : 20

3

On the other hand, the plastic strain rate tensor is dened according to the ow rule as

0 " p p #

oQ 1 r 1 k_ p

3 3

e_p k_ k_ bI diag b 3; b ;b 21

or 2s 3 b 2 2

q

2 p k_

e_ p e_p : e_p 2b2 3 22

3 3

or

3e_ p

k_ q : 23

2b2 3

2 3

p

6 b 3 7

r_ 1 E4e_1 q e_ p 5: 24

2b2 3

To obtain the two evolutions above explained independently an expression of the DruckerPrager

yield surface in terms of the cohesion k and friction angle /; is needed. This expression, matched

along compressive meridians with a MohrCoulomb surface, is (Ref. [11])

3 sin /

F r sin / s p k cos / 0 25

2 3

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 505

2k cos /

r1 : 26

1 sin /

The next step is to derive Eq. (26) with respect to k and /.

Expansion of the yield surface (k variable and / constant)

dr1 dk _ p 2 cos / dk _ p

r_ 1 pe e 27

dk de 1 sin / dep

p

dk 0 b 3 1 sin / r_ 1

k E q : 28

dep 2 2 cos / r_ 1 Ee_1

2b 3

dr1 d/ _ p 2 d/ _ p

r_ 1 e e 29

d/ dep 1 sin / dep

and by eliminating e_ p between Eqs. (24) and (29)

p

d/ 0 b 3 1 sin / r_ 1

/ E q : 30

dep 2k r_ 1 Ee_1

2b2 3

The necessary steps to perform the tting are shown in Table 2 in which the previous equations

are written in discrete form.

With these two tting procedures the compression curve is correctly reproduced for every value

of b. However, the tension curve is overestimated and the post-peak regime exhibits a strong

dependence on b. For b 0 (non-associative ow rule) the results are better than with b a

(associative ow rule). In a similar manner, if it is decided to match the tension curve, the same

kind of problems will appear in the compression curve. There is no special reason to select one of

the two curves. Even the code allows the possibility of using both of them: one part of the

structure modelled with parameters obtained from a compression curve and the other with those

parameters that predict the tension curve. Also, another kind of curve can be suggested: for

example, a triaxial test. In this latter case, none of the two uniaxial curves will be accurately

predicted. This highlights not only the troubles for this simple model to predict the complete

behavior of concrete, but also the big diculties we nd in trying to derive realistic material

parameters.

To obtain the value of b, and because the expression of the potential function (Eq. (5)) is

similar to the expression of the yield one (Eq. (1)), we can use

2 sin W

b p ; 31

33 sin W

where W is the dilatancy angle, which represents an increase of plastic volume under pressure.

506 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

Table 2

Material identication procedure

p

Step 1. Compute sin / fc ft =fc ft Step 1. Compute k 12 fc ft

Step 2. For each value of the piecewise linear Step 2. For each value of the piecewise linear compression curve,

compression curve, compute from Eq. (26) compute from Eq. (26)

ri 1 sin / /i r2i 4k 2 =r2i 4k 2

ki

2 cos /

Step 3. Compute the DruckerPrager material Step 3. Compute the DruckerPrager material parameters a and c

parameters a and c

2 sin /i

ai p

2 sin / 3 3 sin /i

a p

33 sin/

3ri 1 sin / 3ri 1 sin /i

ci p ci p

33 sin / 3 3 sin /i

Step 4. Compute dk=dep i k 0 i for each Dr, De Step 4. Compute d/=dep i /0 i for each Dr, De of the curve:

of the curve: p

p b 3 1 sin / Dr

/i 0 E q

b 3 1 sin / Dr 2k Dr EDe

ki 0 E q 2

2b 3

2 2 cos / Dr EDe

2b 3

Step 5. Compute the value of the increment of Step 5. Compute the value of the increment of equivalent plastic

equivalent plastic strain for each increment of the k parameter strain for each increment of the / parameter

Dki D/i

Dep i Dep i

ki 0 /i 0

Note. Because in the expression of /i 0 appears sin/ that is variable along the curve some discretization is needed in the linear

branches of the curve.

5. Numerical examples

Several test cases, using 2-D continuum elements, proposed in Refs. [3,4] have been successfully

reproduced with the present model. The main objective of this calculations was to check the

eectiveness of the viscoplastic regularization introduced in the material law to obtain mesh in-

dependent results. As a further example, a simply supported reinforced concrete slab subjected to

an impact load at the centre was considered. The structure is also modelled with 2-D continuum

elements in a plane strain situation.

Two additional examples are presented in this section: impact on a cooling tower and gas

explosion in a reactor containment. In these cases, the models of the structures are built with

layered shell elements.

In all computations, the steel is modelled with an elastic-perfectly plastic von Mises material

while to represent the concrete the material law is the described above and in some detail in Ref.

[13].

The material properties are the following. For the steel, elastic-perfectly plastic behavior with

E 210 GPa, q 7800 kg/m3 , m 0:3 and ryield 680 MPa. For the concrete, elastoplastic be-

havior with softening, E 20 GPa, q 2400 kg/m3 , m 0:2; dilatancy angle W 10 , maximum

compression strength fc 40 MPa, maximum tension strength ft 4 MPa, and softening be-

havior dened by the compression curve represented in Fig. 4.

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 507

The problem description is shown in Fig. 4. Only one half of the structure was modelled be-

cause of the symmetry and two-dimensional continuum elements with four nodes and four in-

tegration points were used to discretize the concrete domain. Plane strain conditions are

considered.

The reinforcement consisted of 15 steel bars of 18 mm diameter along a 1 m depth of the slab.

The equivalent steel area was A 3817 106 m2 of steel per square meter of concrete. The

discretization of the steel reinforcement was done with beam/shell elements with the nodes rigidly

attached to the nodes of the continuum elements.

To obtain the model parameters for concrete both yield surface evolutions (variation of the

angle of the cone and cone expansion) were used. Because the dilatancy angle W is 10 a non-

associative ow rule was considered and b 0:2.

Three dierent meshes were used in the study with a value of the viscoplastic parameter

g 1 106 . In these conditions, the factor l=vg was 4.12 for the rst mesh, 3.09 for the second

one and 2.47 for the last and nest one. In all cases it was less than 5, fullling Eq. (9).

A rst set of computations was performed in order to verify again the eectiveness of the

viscoplastic correction: unreinforced slab, steel reinforced slab (bottom-only or bottom-and-top

reinforcement) and concrete characteristics derived with the two yield surface evolutions ex-

plained above. In Fig. 5 the deformed meshes of the unreinforced slab are shown for a compu-

tation time of 1.05 ms (corresponding to twenty wave reections across the slab). The results for

the inviscid case are mesh dependent (note that just one row of elements fails in each of the

meshes) while those calculated with the viscoplastic regularization avoid this problem. In the rest

of the analyzed cases, also mesh independent results were obtained.

In Fig. 6 are presented some results in terms of equivalent plastic strain distribution for the

same computation time of 1.05 ms. The presented results are those obtained with bottom rein-

forcement only and with the intermediate mesh, i.e. l=vg 3:09. The concrete characteristics are

508

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

Fig. 5. Concrete slab: deformed meshes for three dierent element size: (a) inviscid case; (b) viscoplastic case.

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 509

Fig. 6. Concrete slab: equivalent plastic strain distributions at 1.05 ms for two possible evolutions of the yield surface.

calculated according the two possible yield surface evolutions. The following conclusions can be

drawn from this gure:

Dierent strain distributions appear in the two computations.

Lower strain values result in the case of characteristics obtained by varying the angle of the

DruckerPrager cone. This is due to the fact that when this tting is used, the tension curve

presents, in the softening part, higher values than those obtained with the other tting, i.e.,

the reduction of the load carrying capacity is less pronounced.

The results obtained considering variations in the angle of the cone seem to be closer to reality

than the ones obtained with the other tting, i.e., expansion of the cone.

As an example, consider the frequent case of concrete shell structures having reinforcement

grids placed in two `layers' within the bulk of the concrete material, close to the inner and outer

surfaces (this typical layout will be assumed in both numerical examples presented below). If each

grid has a large number of bars oriented along various directions, it can be approximated by an

isotropic steel layer in the model. The layer thickness must be chosen so as to represent the real

steel fraction present in the structure. The shell is then composed of 5 layers, of which 3 are of

concrete and 2 of steel, see Fig. 7. All layers have 1 integration point along the ber, except the

central one that, because of its thickness, has 2 Gauss points.

Fig. 7. Layered shell element: Location of integration points along the thickness.

510 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

In Fig. 7 a section across the thickness of a 2-D layered element is represented, where the

concrete and steel layers as well as the location of the integration points are shown. For the

presentation of results, all element quantities will be associated with a lamina, understanding for

that the plane containing all the integration points situated at the same height along a ber. So,

the example of Fig. 7 is composed of 5 layers with 6 integration points altogether and conse-

quently 6 laminae.

The viscoplastic parameter g will be determined separately in each example, because it depends

not only on material parameters but also on the element's length.

This example is concerned with a typical reinforced concrete structure, namely a natural-

draught cooling tower. This 3-D problem is purely structural since the impact loading is simulated

by an imposed external pressure. The main geometric, material and layer characteristics are

shown in Fig. 8. Because of the symmetry, only one half of the structure has been modelled. The

mesh is composed of 800 three-node triangular plate elements.

To select the g parameter, use is made of Eq. (9). One may obtain a good estimate of the ratio

l=v by letting PLEXIS-3C (automatically) compute the critical time integration step

Dt mine l=v, where the minimum is taken over all elements in the mesh. The value is only

approximated because the code uses a weighted average speed between those of concrete and

steel, but, in any case, it is easier to proceed in this way than manually in a possibly quite

complicated 3-D mesh. For security, and due to this average speed value, we use a factor 1 instead

of a factor 5 in Eq. (9), that is l=vg < 1: For this model, the code automatically computes

Dt 0:684 ms. Since PLEXIS-3C applies a safety factor of 0.5 the g parameter is:

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 511

Dt

g> 1:368 103 ) g 2 103 : 32

0:5

The calculation was performed until a physical time of 100 ms. It required 148 time steps and

120 s of CPU on an HP 9000 712 workstation.

In Fig. 9 the equivalent plastic strain distributions are presented for the 4 concrete laminae at

the nal time. For ease of comparison, the same scale is used in all drawings. The strongest

concentration of strain is located in lamina 6, that is the internal one. The pressure acts toward the

center of the tower, so the inner laminae 4 and 6 are under tension in the center and therefore, the

higher values of plastic strain are located in these zones.

This test case is an example of fully coupled uid-structure analysis, a gas explosion within the

reinforced concrete secondary containment building of a nuclear power plant. The geometry of

the problem is given in Fig. 10 and is assumed to be axisymmetric. The lower basement of the

containment is very thick and can be modelled by a rigid boundary. The building walls are rel-

atively thin and can be conveniently represented by two-nodes conical layered shell elements

without a topological thickness. The containment is supposed to be initially lled by air at room

temperature and atmospheric pressure. An explosion is assumed to take place in the lower part of

the building at the initial time of the studied transient.

The explosive is simply represented by a perfect gas at high pressure, which initially occupies

the zone indicated in black on Fig. 11 (t 0). The properties of this gas are: density q 111:5 kg/

m3 , adiabatic exponent c 1:4, specic internal energy i 1:28 MJ/kg. The bulk air is also a

Fig. 9. Impact on a cooling tower: equivalent plastic strain distributions for the 4 concrete laminae at 100 ms.

512 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

perfect gas with q 1:2 kg/m3 , c 4 and i 0:208 MJ/kg. The characteristics of the structural

materials are the same as for the previous example, and those corresponding to the layers are in

the table of Fig. 9.

The mesh is composed of 981 continuum uid elements (mostly 4-node quadrilaterals with a

few 3-node triangles) and 88 conical shells. In this case, proceeding like in the previous example,

one obtains Dt 0:0213 ms, and therefore the viscosity parameter is

Dt

g> 4:26 103 ) g 7 105 : 33

0:5

The calculation required 11750 steps and 4120 s CPU on an HP 9000 712 workstation, for a

physical time of 250 ms.

Fig. 11 shows the evolution of gas pressure within the containment in the rst 120 ms; note the

strong wave propagation and reection eects. Fig. 12 shows the deformation of the structure,

amplied by a factor 10 to highlight the critical spots. The upper drawings correspond to the

present case while the lower ones were obtained by assuming a purely elastic homogeneous

material for the structure. Note that plasticity is reached in the present models's solution both at

the containment top and, even more pronounced, at the inner horizontal oor, which appears to

be seriously damaged at the end of the computer transient.

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 513

6. Conclusions

A fully explicit and non-iterative approach to the modelling of reinforced concrete structures,

including viscous regularization to avoid mesh sensitivity problems, has been proposed. The

concrete constitutive law is based on a DruckerPrager yield criterion with softening or hard-

ening. The numerical implementation is based on the classical radial return algorithm. The ex-

plicit character of the computer code is maintained even in the case of a non-linear hardening law.

This is achieved by performing a linearization in the hardening law during the time step. Due to

the fact that close to the apex of the DruckerPrager cone exists a singular zone where the return

trajectory is not well dened, a special algorithm for the trial stress states that lie in this part of the

stress space has been developed. The main assumption is to impose the continuity of the con-

sistency parameter along the boundary between the normal region and the singular one. Mesh

independent results have been obtained in several test cases modelled with 2-D continuum ele-

ments.

For evaluating the concrete material parameters two possible evolutions of the yield surface

were investigated: more realistic plastic strain distributions were obtained by varying the angle of

the DruckerPrager cone rather than by expanding the cone itself. Both yield surface evolutions

represent a form of isotropic hardening or softening.

The model has been extended to layered shell elements in order to analyze in a simple but

ecient manner thin reinforced concrete structures. No modelling of the relative motions between

layers has been attempted in this formulation. The examples have shown that the method is

correctly implemented and may be applied to realistic analysis, with plausible results. However, a

514 J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515

full validation and calibration campaign remains to be done, by comparison with experiments and

other data available in the literature.

Acknowledgements

This work has been performed during a post-doctoral Human Capital and Mobility fellowship

at the Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety of the Joint Research Center of the European

Commission, Ispra, Italy. The author thanks Dr. F. Casadei and Dr. P. Pegon for the helpful

discussions while carrying out this work.

References

[1] B. Loret, J.H. Prevost, Accurate numerical solutions for DruckerPrager elastic-plastic methods, Comp. Meth.

Appl. Mech. Eng. 54 (1986) 259277.

[2] R. De Borst et al., Fundamental issues in Finite Element analysis of localization of deformation, Eng. Comput. 10

(1993) 99121.

[3] L.J. Sluys, Wave propagation, localization and dispersion in softening solids, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University, 1992.

[4] B. Loret, J.H. Prevost, Dynamic strain localization in elasto-(visco)-plastic solids. Part 1. General formulation and

one-dimensional examples. Part 2. Plane strain examples, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 83 (1990) 247273 and

275294.

J.J. L

opez Cela / Appl. Math. Modelling 22 (1998) 495515 515

[5] M.L. Wilkins, Calculation of elastic-plastic ow, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Rep. UCRL-7322 Rev. 1, 1969.

[6] R.D. Krieg, S.W. Key, Implementation of a time-independent plasticity theory into structural computer programs,

in: J.A. Stricklin, K.J. Saczalski (Eds.), Constitutive equations in viscoplasticity: Computational and engineering

aspects (AMD-20), Amer. Soc. Mech. Eng., New York, 1976.

[7] T.J.R. Hughes, Numerical implementation of constitutive models: Rate independent deviatoric plasticity, in:

S. Nemat-Nasser, R.J. Asaro, G.A. Hegemier (Eds.), Theoretical foundation for large-scale computations for

nonlinear material behaviour, Martinus Nujho Publishers, Boston, MA, 1984, pp. 2657.

[8] J.C. Simo, J.G. Kennedy, S. Govindjee, Nonsmooth multisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/unloading

conditions and numerical algorithms, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 26 (10) (1985) 21612185.

[9] H. Bung et al., PLEXIS-3C: A Computer code for fast transient problems in structures and uids, 10th

International Conference in Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, SMiRT-10, Anaheim, USA, 1419

August, 1989.

[10] F. Casadei, J.P. Halleux, An algorithm for permanent uid-structure interaction in explicit transient dynamic,

Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 128 (1995) 231289.

[11] G. Duvaut, J.L. Lions, Les inequations en Mechanique et Physique, Dunod, Paris, 1972.

[12] W.F. Cheng, Plasticity in reinforced concrete, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 1982.

[13] J.J. Lopez Cela, P. Pegon, F. Casadei, Fast transient analysis of reinforced concrete structures with Drucker-

Prager model and viscoplastic regularization, in: D.R.J. Owen, E. Onate, E. Hinton (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Fifth International Conference on Computational Plasticity, Fundamentals and Applications, Barcelona, Spain,

1720 March 1997 (CIMNE).

- (Karim & Gnanendran, 2008) Review of Visco-plastic Soil Models for Predicting the Performance of Embankments on Soft SoilsUploaded byNeemias Almeida
- Torsion TestUploaded byanon-735529
- H27.pdfUploaded byHồ Thắng
- Finite element simulation on the propagation of Lüders ban ana effecto of stress concentration.docxUploaded byElver Santos Ríos
- 0c96051dab4cde2141000000Uploaded byAaniya Cyril
- Gopalarathnam-Kumar2013 Article NonlinearFiniteElementDynamicAUploaded byDevendra Patel
- Exam1_Oct1-03Uploaded bylmokhtar
- SPE-78189-Constitutive Modeling of Deformation and PermeabilityUploaded byJose Manuel Lezama Santaella
- Mech6441 Project eUploaded byDaniel
- jurnal 2Uploaded byIqra Ganteng
- ME 2254Uploaded byShane Travis
- AER103A Course SpecificationsUploaded byMohamed Khairy
- astm D6773-08Uploaded byBlack Goku
- Tesis Hinge Lenght Upc ColumbiaUploaded byVictor H. Sanchez Escudero
- Get FileUploaded byAnonymous NUn6MESx
- Colorful BendingUploaded bykhayat
- REBOP–FLAC3D Hybrid Approach to Cave ModellingUploaded byDiego Ignacio Veliz
- ECS 238 - Chapter 1 (Stress and Strain)Uploaded bydixn__
- PO4-7_Dahmani_pUploaded byalexzioto
- Glossary.pdfUploaded byamirthraj74
- Questions 1Uploaded byHar Ahmad
- Hooputra 2004Uploaded byLeonardoMadeira11
- RESULTS OF FEA ANALYSES AT NOZZLE-SHELL JUNCTIONS.pdfUploaded bymatteo_1234
- Chap5Uploaded byNhan
- FEA DESIGNUploaded bybetow_
- j.euromechsol.2012.12.008_adbce7de4b70cf372e5a6562b73532cdUploaded byasgharhabibi
- patologiaUploaded byGabrielli Dedordi
- The Effect of Plasticity in Crumpling of Thin SheetsUploaded byapollo2991
- On the Mechanisms of Ductile Failure in High-strength Steels Subjected to Multi-Axial Stress-statesUploaded bysgssgs1
- Indentation of Metals by a Flat-Ended Cylindrical PunchUploaded bySIU KAI WING

- Engineering Statics BookUploaded bySharjeel Faisal
- Seismic Response of Embankment Dams Under Near-fault and Far-fieldUploaded byBMWrider1453
- V4I11_IJERTV4IS110289Uploaded byBMWrider1453
- Analytical Failure Probability Model for Generic Gravity Dam ClassesUploaded byBMWrider1453
- ETABS-Example-RC Building Seismic Load _Time HistoryUploaded byMauricio_Vera_5259
- RC DesignUploaded bygugi
- Reliability Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete FramesUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Health Monitoring of Concrete Dams - A Literature ReviewUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Real-Time Hybrid Simulation of Single and Multiple Tuned Liquid Column Dampers for Controlling Seismic-Induced ResponseUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Incremental Dynamic AnalysisUploaded bymarin_s
- Reliability Sensivity Analysis and Design Optimization of Composite Structures Based on RSMUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Statistical Procedures for Developing Earthquake Damage Fragility CurvesUploaded byBMWrider1453
- A Simulation-based Determination of Cap Parameters of the Modified DP Cap ModelUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Building Fragility Curves of Sliding Failure of Concrete Gravity DamsUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Impact of Foundation Nonlinearity on the Crack Propagation of High Concrete DamsUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Seismic Fragility and Uncertainty Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams Under Near-Fault Ground MotionsUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Structural ReliabilityUploaded byBMWrider1453
- EERC-82-09 Fluid-Structure Interactions Added Mass Computations for Incompressible FluidUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Arch Dam OptimizationUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Acoustic Emission Evaluation of an Arch Dam During Construction Cooling and GroutingUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Three Dimensional Dynamic Response of a Concrete Gravity DamUploaded byBMWrider1453
- DYNAMIC SOIL-FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION APPLIED FOR CONCRETE DAMUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Concrete Repairs Performance in Service and Current PracticeUploaded byMai Kawayapanik
- Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations - LC REESEUploaded byRene Robles
- Californina Structural Engineer Seismic ExamUploaded byehab.attala
- Finite Element Response SensivityUploaded byBMWrider1453
- WilsonbookUploaded bychuncho88
- Earthquakes, Existing Buildings and Seismic Design Codes in TurkeyUploaded byBMWrider1453

- Chapter 8 StaircaseUploaded byParth Gondalia
- Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures p 251-360Uploaded byNarcisa Rudnic
- A Study of the Durability Properties of Waste Tire Rubber Applied to Self-compacting ConcreteUploaded bycova2201
- Cockle ShellUploaded byBEN NARENDRAN
- Australian Standards-projects-by-sector-31-Jan-2013.pdfUploaded byAbhijit Kumar Ghosh
- A Review on Bricks and Stabilized Compressed Earth BlocksUploaded byjacobomr1980
- Chinese Society of Pavement EngineeringUploaded byCláudia Ferreira
- Rate Analysis of WtUploaded byMalav Patel
- ASTM C 1314 2007 - Testing Masonry PrismsUploaded byHaniAmin
- Myths & Realities of Prestressing.pptUploaded byregina_cdeguzman
- lloohggffgUploaded byLove Semsem
- Specification & General Estimate for Your Villa Constructions.Uploaded byAkhil
- GP RM E Composite Steel Concrete AASHTOUploaded byrammiris
- GTSUG_RSA_07Uploaded bymurad_ce
- Waterproof 3Uploaded byRose Samer Rose
- Sikatop 77d Pds EnUploaded byTran Tien Dung
- 6461_7Uploaded byAshok Karanam
- fema306Uploaded by2371964
- Only Fifth Floor BOQUploaded bysabummathew
- Experimental Investigation-786 (3).pdfUploaded byPartha Arpita Saha
- Ian_Gilbert_R._Design_of_Prestressed_Con.pdfUploaded byKhac Hoang Pham
- Characteristic Strength(Fck)Uploaded byswaroop87
- Grout CatalogUploaded byJohneey Deep
- 4. Slab System AssignmentUploaded bySheena Cherian
- Brmca Do and DontsUploaded byLee Tai
- Strap Footing DesignUploaded byWaqar Ahmed
- Freez Thaw of PcUploaded bySathish Kumar
- Ready Mix ConcreteUploaded byYog Aiyappa
- CONCRETE QUALITY CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION.docxUploaded bypaul macharia
- 4 High Work Concrete Bp Mr Alan Wan Mr Cc WaiUploaded byTAHER AMMAR

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.