Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simplified Damage Plasticity Model For Concrete: Structural Engineering International February 2017
Simplified Damage Plasticity Model For Concrete: Structural Engineering International February 2017
net/publication/313828611
CITATIONS READS
278 46,081
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Farzad Hejazi on 05 June 2017.
cu t0
(1 – dt) E0
c0 0.5cu
(1 – dc) E0 0.2cu C
D
E0 E0
"
A 0.002 "0 .5 "0.8
E0 E0
F i g. 2: Kent and Park model for confined
"c "t
in,h ck,h and unconfined concrete..29 (Units: [–])
"c "t
"
pl,h " el
c "
pl,h "tel
c t
the unconfined cylinder specimen,
F ig . 1: Response of concrete to a uniaxial loading condition: (a) Compression, (b) respectively.
Tension.11 (Units: [–]) Park30 reported that ε’c equaled 0.002,
and this value was also assumed in
determination of the cracking and where σ c and εc were nominal this study. Figure 2 indicated a para-
crushing trends, respectively. They compressive stress and strain, respec- bolic increasing trend (A–B) for the
were responsible for the loss of the tively, and σ cu and ε’c were ultimate hardening stage, while a linear behav-
elastic stiffness and the development of compressive strength and the strain of ior (B–C) was observed for the
the yield surface. The damage states in
compression and tension were charac-
Material’s Plasticity parameters
terized independently by two harden-
ing variables. These were indicated by parameters B20 Dilation angle 31
εcpl, h and εtpl, h , which referred to Concrete elasticity Eccentricity 0.1
equivalent plastic strains in tension E (GPa) 21.2 fb0/fc0 1.16
and compression, respectively. 0.2 K 0.67
Viscosity parameter 0
Uniaxial Compressive Behavior
Concrete compressive behavior Concrete compression damage
In concrete damage plasticity models,
Yield stress (MPa) Inelastic strain Damage parameter Inelastic strain
the plastic hardening strain in com- C
pression εcpl, h played a key role in
finding the relation between the dam- 10.2 0 0 0
age parameters and the compressive 12.8 7.73585E-05 0 7.73585E-05
strength of concrete (see Fig. 1a) as 15 0.000173585 0 0.000173585
follows:
16.8 0.000288679 0 0.000288679
σ c = ð1 −dc ÞE0 εc − εcpl, h ð13Þ 18.2 0.000422642 0 0.000422642
19.2 0.000575472 0 0.000575472
8 σc 19.8 0.00074717 0 0.00074717
> in, h
< εc = εc − E
0 20 0.000937736 0 0.000937736
σc 1 ð14Þ
> ,
: εc = εc −
pl h 19.8 0.00114717 0.01 0.00114717
E0 1 − dc
19.2 0.001375472 0.04 0.001375472
dc σ c 18.2 0.001622642 0.09 0.001622642
εcpl, h = εcin, h − ð15Þ
ð1 −dc Þ E0 16.8 0.001888679 0.16 0.001888679
Generally, uniaxial compressive behav- 15 0.002173585 0.25 0.002173585
ior could be characterized by either 12.8 0.002477358 0.36 0.002477358
experimental tests or existing constitu- 10.2 0.0028 0.49 0.0028
tive models, such as those proposed by
Hognestad28 and Kent et al.29 for 7.2 0.003141509 0.64 0.003141509
unconfined concrete. However, the 3.8 0.003501887 0.81 0.003501887
present study employed the Kent and Concrete tensile behavior Concrete tension damage
Park parabolic constitutive model for
Yield stress (MPa) Cracking strain Damage parameter Cracking strain
unconfined concrete, which was
T
expressed by the following equation:
" # 2 0 0 0
εc εc 2 0.02 0.000943396 0.99 0.000943396
σ c = σ cu 2 ’ − ’ ð16Þ
εc εc
Table 1: Material properties for concrete with SCDP model in class B20
(b) S, Mises
(Avg: 75%)
+1.847e+01
+1.663e+01
+1.479e+01
+1.295e+01
+1.111e+01
+9.277e+00
+7.439e+00
+5.601e+00
+3.763e+00
+1.925e+00
+8.737e–02
(c) U, U2
+0.000e+00
–5.385e+00
–1.077e+01
–1.616e+01
–2.154e+01
–2.693e+01
–3.231e+01
–3.770e+01
–4.308e+01
–4.847e+01
–5.385e+01
F ig . 4: The results of the analysis on concrete B20: (a) damage in tension, (b) stress distribution (MPa), and (c) displacement
distribution (mm)
(a) DAMAGET
(Avg: 75%)
+9.900e–01
+8.910e–01
+7.920e–01
+6.930e–01
+5.940e–01
+4.950e–01
+3.960e–01
+2.970e–01
+1.980e–01
+9.900e–02
+0.000e+00
(b) S, Mises
(Avg: 75%)
+2.536e+01
+2.283e+01
+2.031e+01
+1.778e+01
+1.526e+01
+1.274e+01
+1.021e+01
+7.687e+00
+5.163e+00
+2.639e+00
+1.147e–01
(c) U, U2
+0.000e+00
–5.986e+00
–1.197e+01
–1.796e+01
–2.394e+01
–2.993e+01
–3.591e+01
–4.190e+01
–4.789e+01
–5.387e+01
–5.986e+01
F ig . 5: The results of the analysis on concrete B30: (a) damage in tension, (b) stress distribution (MPa), and (c) displacement
distribution (mm)
(a) DAMAGET
(Avg: 75%)
+9.900e–01
+8.910e–01
+7.920e–01
+6.930e–01
+5.940e–01
+4.950e–01
+3.960e–01
+2.970e–01
+1.980e–01
+9.900e–02
+0.000e+00
(b) S, Mises
(Avg: 75%)
+3.259e+01
+2.935e+01
+2.610e+01
+2.286e+01
+1.961e+01
+1.637e+01
+1.312e+01
+9.877e+00
+6.632e+00
+3.387e+00
+1.420e–01
(c) U, U2
+0.000e+00
–6.983e+00
–1.397e+01
–2.095e+01
–2.793e+01
–3.492e+01
–4.190e+01
–4.888e+01
–5.587e+01
–6.285e+01
–6.983e+01
F i g. 6: The results of the analysis on concrete B40: (a) damage in tension, (b) stress distribution (MPa), and (c) displacement
distribution (mm)
(b) S, Mises
(Avg: 75%)
+3.897e+01
+3.509e+01
+3.121e+01
+2.733e+01
+2.344e+01
+1.956e+01
+1.568e+01
+1.180e+01
+7.924e+00
+4.044e+00
+1.638e–01
(c) U, U2
+0.000e+00
–7.464e+00
–1.493e+01
–2.239e+01
–2.986e+01
–3.732e+01
–4.478e+01
–5.225e+01
–5.971e+01
–6.718e+01
–7.464e+01
Fi g. 7: The results of the analysis on concrete B50: (a) damage in tension, (b) stress distribution (MPa), and (c) displacement
distribution (mm)
69.83 74.64
Subscripts “H” and “FE” denoted the
59.7774
53.8059
contributions made by the empirical
formulation and finite element model-
ing, respectively.
32.59 38.97
18.47 25.36
Furthermore, SCDP in tabular form
was verified through comparison with
Mid Span Displacement (mm)
finite element models of the available
B20
CDP models given in extant litera-
B30
B40
Maximum Principal Stress (Mpa)
ture. Two comparisons were carried
B50 out for concrete strength classes of
Fi g . 8: Concrete stress and mid-span displacement of the simply supported prestressed 30 MPa and 50 MPa. Von Mises
concrete beam with different concrete grades stress, damage in tension and mid-
span displacement were obtained by
2000 B20 B30 B40 B50 utilizing nonlinear finite element tech-
1800
niques of a partially prestressed con-
1600 crete beam as presented in Figs. 10
Reaction force (kN)
Table 5: concrete stress and mid-span displacement in the SCDP and empirical formulation
S, Mises
U, U2
(c) +0.000e+00
–6.526e+00
–1.305e+01
–1.958e+01
–2.610e+01
–3.263e+01
–3.915e+01
–4.568e+01
–5.221e+01
–5.873e+01
–6.526e+01
F ig . 10 : The results of the analysis on concrete B3027 : (a) damage in tension, (b) stress distribution (MPa), and (c) displacement
distribution (mm)
(a) DAMAGET
(Avg: 75%)
+9.900e–01
+8.910e–01
+7.920e–01
+6.930e–01
+5.940e–01
+4.950e–01
+3.960e–01
+2.970e–01
+1.980e–01
+9.900e–02
+0.000e+00
(b) S, Mises
(Avg: 75%)
+3.231e+01
+2.910e+01
+2.588e+01
+2.266e+01
+1.944e+01
+1.623e+01
+1.301e+01
+9.791e+00
+6.573e+00
+3.355e+00
+1.378e–01
(c) U, U2
+0.000e+00
–6.807e+00
–1.361e+01
–2.042e+01
–2.723e+01
–3.404e+01
–4.084e+01
–4.765e+01
–5.446e+01
–6.126e+01
–6.807e+01
F ig . 11 : The results of the analysis on concrete B5032: (a) damage in tension, (b) stress distribution (MPa), and (c) displacement
distribution (mm)
With respect to the results obtained SCDP model and the studied FE Conclusions
and summarized in Table 6, it was models. The maximum reaction force
observed that the compressive stress of the beam with the Tiwari and This paper developed the present
and mid-span displacement values of SCDP models in concrete class B30 damage plasticity model (SCDP). This
the available concrete damage plastic- showed a difference of approximately model simplified the procedure of
ity models and SCDP model had good 4.6%. However, the discrepancy in existing damage plasticity model called
agreement. the concrete class of B50 between CDP. It combined a stress-based plas-
Jankowiak model and SCDP model ticity part with a strain-based damage
Figure 11 clearly demonstrated a rea-
was approximately 16%. mechanics model for the unconfined
sonable correlation between the
prestressed concrete beam based on a
tabular format for four different con-
Compressive Compressive Mid span Mid span crete grades (B20, B30, B40, and B50).
stress stress displacement displacement Accordingly, the findings in this paper
CDP models (MPa)B30 (MPa)B50 (mm) B30 (mm) B50 indicated the following conclusions
from the simplification provided by
Tiwari 26.4 – 65.26 –
the proposed tabulated concrete dam-
Jankowiak – 32.3 – 68.07 age plasticity model:
SCDP 25.36 38.97 59.86 74.64 • Due to its simplicity, the SCDP
Table 6: Comparison of results between concrete stress and mid-span displacement model was a suitable solution to