Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376

International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry
Structures AMCM’2017

Relaxation time in CDP model used for analyses of RC structures

Michaá Szczecina a, Andrzej Winnicki b*
a
Kielce university of Technology, 25-314 Kielce, Tysiąclecia PaĔstwa Polskiego Ave. 7, Poland
b
Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Kraków, Warszawska Street 24, Poland

Abstract

Concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model is one of the most popular material models for plain and reinforced concrete
implemented in Abaqus software. It is theoretically described by Lubliner et al. and Lee and Fenves. Use of this model requires
values of some material constants. The choice of proper values of these constants is still an opened scientific issue and should be
discussed. The article discusses a very important CDP parameter, namely relaxation time (for viscoplastic regularization) with
respect to loading time. It is proven that too high value of relaxation time or too small loading time can lead to an overestimation
of tensile strength of concrete. The analysis of this problem is performed in Abaqus in a tension test similar to laboratory tests by
WoliĔski. The correctness of the calibrated CDP parameters is then checked in Abaqus for an element in complex stress state,
namely for reinforced concrete frame corner under opening bending moment. The analyzed corner has different reinforcement
details and different section heights of elements joining in it. Both SLS and ULS are checked and the propagation and width of
cracks is recreated. Moreover, authors of this paper checked a relationship between reinforcement ratio and corner efficiency
factor and then compared it with results presented by McGregor and Campana et al.
©©2017
2017TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd. This
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New
Peer-review
Concepts in under responsibility
Concrete of the scientific
and Masonry committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in
Structures.
Concrete and Masonry Structures
Keywords: concrete damaged plasticity; calibration; Abaqus; Finite Element Method

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 41 34-24-804.

E-mail address: michalsz@tu.kielce.pl

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and
Masonry Structures
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.226
370 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376

1. Concrete damaged plasticity

The concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model, adapted for quasi-brittle materials, is available in Abaqus [1]
software. The theory of this model is described by Lubliner et al. [2] and developed by Lee and Fenves [3]. The
main assumptions of this model are:

• non-associated plastic flow,

• different definition of tensile and compression behavior of concrete,
• reduction of material stiffness by damage parameters, separately for tension and compression,
• two damage mechanisms: cracking and compressive crushing of concrete.

A proper input of CDP model parameters in Abaqus is a crucial step of numerical analysis of concrete structures.
Full definition of CDP model in Abaqus includes:

• the σ−ε relationship for compression of concrete,

• tension behavior of concrete in post-critical range,
• dilation angle ψ in the p-q plane,
• flow potential eccentricity ε (default value: 0.1),
• the ratio fb0/fc0 of biaxial compressive yield stress to uniaxial compressive yield stress,
• the ratio K of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian for the yield
function (default value: 0.667).

Also a definition of stress-displacement curve of concrete for uniaxial tension is a very important problem.
Abaqus offers three ways to define it, namely by specifying:

• the relationship between cracking strain and yield stress in uniaxial tension,
• the relationship between displacement strain and yield stress,
• fracture energy Gf and yield stress.

In the CDP model the flow potential is assumed as the Drucker-Prager hyperbolic function and the plastic flow is
assumed as non-associated. It is also possible to apply the viscoplastic regularization according to Duvaut-Lions
approach [4]:

εvpl =
1
μ
(ε pl
− ε vpl )
(1)

where μ denotes the relaxation time in seconds, εpl is plastic strain and εvpl denotes viscoplastic strain.
The choice of proper values of CDP model parameters is still an open issue and demands detailed analyses, both
laboratory and numerical tests. Szczecina and Winnicki [5] performed FEM calculations in Abaqus, taking into
consideration an uniaxial tension test (according to WoliĔski [6]), uni- and biaxial compression test (according to
Kupfer [7]) and reinforced concrete frame corner under opening bending moment. They proposed the following
values of some chosen parameters, namely:

• the dilation angle from 5 to 15 degrees,

• the relaxation time 0 or 0.0001 s if the loading time is 1 s.

However, the results of calculations presented in [5] for corners under opening bending moment concerned
mainly ULS and authors of this papers decide to present results of their ongoing work, where SLS (crack width) is
also analyzed.
 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376 371

The rate viscoplastic strain rate (for relatively small time increments) can be approximated as increment of strain
during time step:

dε vpl Δε vpl
≈
dt Δt (2)

hence the value of viscoplastic strain can be derived from formula (3):

Δε vpl
ε vpl = ε pl − ⋅μ
Δt (3)

As we can see, the value of viscoplastic strain depends both on the time increment and the relaxation time. Therefore
the definition of the relaxation time in Abaqus is closely related to the loading time. Authors of this paper are going
to show that an improper definition of these two parameters can lead to an overestimation of tensile strength of
concrete.

2. Uniaxial tension test of a concrete specimen

The specimen in uniaxial tension test has the same geometry as in WoliĔski’s research [6] and its geometry is
presented in Fig. 1. The specimen is modeled in plane stress state. The left edge of the specimen is fixed and
displacement is imposed at the right edge.

Fig. 1. Geometry of specimen in uniaxial tension test.

The material properties of concrete are: compressive strength fc =34.30 MPa, tensile strength ft=3.5 MPa,
Young’s modulus Ec=35 GPa, Poisson’s ratio νc=0.167. The tensile behavior of concrete is assumed as a set of
points on σ−ucr curve taken from WoliĔski’s research [6]. The program of research for uniaxial tension assumes two
different situations, namely:

• the relaxation time varies from 0 through 0.0001 s, 0.001 s until 0.01 s and the loading time is constant and equal
to 1 s,
• the loading time varies from 0.01 s through 0.1 s, 1 s, 10 s and 100 s and the relaxation time is constant and equal
to 0.0001 s.

Relationship between stress and displacement for two assumed situations is presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The
first situation corresponds to a constant loading time, namely 1 s for imposed deformation equal to 1.0 mm. The
second situation meets the case of a constant relaxation time 0.0001 s and different loading times in which the
imposed deformation 1.0 mm is obtained.
372 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376

Fig. 2. Relationship between stress and displacement for different relaxation time.

Fig. 3. Relationship between stress and displacement for different loading time.

As we can see, there is a significant relationship between the maximal stress value and the assumed relaxation time
or loading time. According to the equation (3) higher values of relaxation time of lower values of loading time can
lead to an increase of maximal stress and the results presented in Figures 2 and 3 confirm this statement. Therefore a
user of Abaqus CDP model should very carefully consider the value of relaxation time with respect to the
programmed loading time.

3. RC frame corners under opening bending moment

Geometry and main reinforcement of RC frame corners taken to analyses is presented in Figures 4 a) and b),
where all dimensions are presented in millimeters. The design values of material constants are listed below:

• concrete: fc =34.30 MPa, Ec=35 GPa, ν=0.167, fct = 3.5 MPa, Gf = 146.5 N/m,
• steel: fy = 434.8 MPa, Es=200 GPa, ν=0.3.
 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376 373

Fig. 4. Geometry and main reinforcement of RC corners a) with equal section heights, b) with different section heights.

The opening bending moment value is 30 kNm and modeled as a pair of forces. Authors of this paper use the
following values of CDP parameters, namely: dilation angle ψ = 5, flow potential eccentricity ε = 0.1, the ratio
fb0/fc0 = 1.16, the ratio K = 0.667, the viscosity parameter = 0.0001 s and fracture energy Gf = 146.5 N/m.
Reinforcement details of the corners are presented in the Fig. 5. Details from 1. to 5. were tested by Mayfield et
al. [8], detail 6. was proposed by Skettrup et al. [9]. The last detail is authors’ proposal. The reinforcement was
previously calculated with Strut-and-Tie method and then defined in Abaqus assuming classical metal plasticity
model. The corners are calculated both in plane stress state and plane strain state. The applied load is defined with
load parameter λ which value 1 stands for bending moment equal to 30 kNm.

Fig. 5. Reinforcement details of RC corners.

Authors of this paper focus on two very important types of results, namely crack width and relationship between
reinforcement ratio and corner efficiency factor. Crack width is calculated using formula (4) given by ýervenka et al.
[10, 11]:

w = ε cr Lt
'
(4)

where εcr is crack opening strain, Lt’ is an adjusted crack band derived by the following formula (5):

§ θ ·
Lt = Lt ⋅ ¨1 + (γ max − 1) ⋅ ¸
'

© 45 ¹ (5)
374 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376

where γmax is crack opening strain, Lt is a crack band and θ denotes a minimal angle between the direction of the
normal to the failure plane and finite element sides.
Relationship between reinforcement ratio and corner efficiency factor is also very important information for
reinforcement design. Campana et al. [12] summarized the results of 230 laboratory tests carried on reinforced
concrete corners under opening moment. They also categorized the results due to the reinforcement details. The
results gathered in paper [12] are very similar to those presented by McGregor [13]. Both relationships are presented
in Figures 6 a) and b), respectively. As we can see, an increase of reinforcement ratio leads to a decrease of the
corner efficiency factor. In short, providing too large reinforcement in RC frame corners seems to be thriftless and
authors of this paper try to show it in the obtained results.

Fig. 6. Corner efficiency factor vs reinforcement ratio relationship a) by Campana et al. [12], b) by McGregor [13].

The relationship between crack width and a load parameter is presented in Figures 7 to 10. The results are
introduced separately in plane stress state and plane strain state, and for the same and different cross section height
of column and beam, which join in the corner. The ultimate crack width in SLS (serviceability limit state) is
assumed as 0.3 mm [14, 15]. As we can see, for almost all reinforcement details the load ratio corresponding with
ultimate crack width is equal or higher than 0.6. Only for detail 1. the load ratio is about 0.5 and the conclusion is
that this reinforcement detail is not recommended for RC frame corners under opening bending moment. On the
other hand, details 5., 6. and 7. show a relatively high load ratio when the assumed crack width is 0.3 mm. All those
three reinforcement details are recommended and this conclusion is in agreement with earlier research of Szczecina
and Winnicki [5, 16, 17]. In that papers they concluded, that from the viewpoint of ULS the reinforcement details 5.,
6. and 7. are preferable. Now this conclusion is also true when checking SLS.

Fig. 7. Crack width in plane stress state for the same section heights.
 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376 375

Fig. 8. Crack width in plane strain state for the same section heights.

Fig. 9. Crack width in plane stress state for different section heights.

Fig. 10. Crack width in plane strain state for different section heights.

The relationship between reinforcement ratio and corner efficiency factor for detail 5. and the same section
heights is presented in the Fig. 11, where MFEM denotes the maximal bending moment gained in Abaqus and MRd is
a bearing capacity of RC elements joining in the corner. We can see that an increase of reinforcement ratio leads to a
clear decrease of efficiency factor. Moreover, the values of efficiency factor in plane strain state are higher than in
plane stress state.
376 Michał Szczecina and Andrzej Winnicki / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 369 – 376

Fig. 11. Relationship between reinforcement ration and efficiency factor for detail 5.

4. Conclusions

The results of authors’ numerical simulations lead to the following conclusions:

• taking into account viscoplastic properties of concrete demands a rational choice of relaxation time; this value
should be assumed with respect to the loading time,
• CDP model is able to reproduce crack width of reinforced concrete structure. In the analyzed case of RC frame
corners the crack width equal to 0.3 mm appears for load parameter about 0.6 (for corners with the same section
heights) which corresponds to characteristic value of load. For the corners with different section heights the crack
width 0.3 mm corresponds to higher values of load parameter λ,
• there is a strong relationship between corner efficiency factor and reinforcement ratio, namely the higher is the
ratio, the lower is the corner efficiency.

References

[1] Abaqus/CAE ver. 6-12.2, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., 2012.

[2] J. Lubliner, , J. Oliver, S. Oller, E. Oñate, A plastic-damage model for concrete, International Journal of Solids Structures, 25 (1989) , 229-326.
[3] J. Lee, G. L. Fenves, Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124 (1998), 892–
900.
[4] G. Duvaut, J. L. Lions, Inequalities in Mechanics and Physics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, 1976.
[5] M. Szczecina, A. Winnicki, Selected aspects of computer modeling of reinforced concrete structures, Archives of Civil Engineering, 62
(2016), 51–64.
[6] Sz. WoliĔski, WáasnoĞci betonu rozciąganego i ich zastosowania w nieliniowej mechanice pĊkania (Properties of concrete under tension and
their use in non-linear fracture mechanics), Rzeszów University of Technology, Rzeszów, 1991.
[7] H. Kupfer, Das Verhalten des Betons Unter Mehrachsiger Kurzzeitbelastung Unter Besonderen Berücksichtigung der Zweiachsigen
Beanspruchung, Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, 1973.
[8] B. Mayfield, F. K. Kong, A. Bennison, A., Strength and Stiffness of Lightweight Concrete Corners, ACI Journal, 69 (1972), 420–427.
[9] E. Skettrup, J. Strabo, J. H. Andersen, T. Brondum-Nielsen, Concrete Frame Corners, ACI Journal, 81 (1984), 587–593.
[10] V. ýervenka, L. Jendele, J. Cervenka, Atena Program Documentation, Part 1 – Theory, Prague, 2012.
[11] V. ýervenka, R. Pukl, J. Ozbolt, R. Eligehausen, Mesh sensitivity effects in smeared finite element analysis of concrete fracture, Fracture
Mechanics of Concrete Structures, Proceedings FRAMCOS-2, Freiburg, 1995.
[12] S. Campana, M. Ruiz-Fernandez, A. Muttoni, Behaviour of nodal regions of reinforced concrete frames subjected to opening moments and
proposals for their reinforcement, Engineering Structures 51 (2013) 200–210.
[13] J. MacGregor, Reinforced Concrete. Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.
[14] EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[15] The FIB Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010.
[16] M. Szczecina, A. Winnicki, Numerical models and analyses of rc frame corners under opening moment, Architecture Civil Engineering
Environment, 4 (2015), 67–72.
[17] M. Szczecina, A. Winnicki, FEM and Strut-and-Tie analysis of RC frame corners under opening bending moment, CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group, A Balkema Book, Euro-C 2014 Proceedings (2014), 1041–1050.