Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2017, Vol. 9(9) 1–10
Ó The Author(s) 2017
Concrete plastic-damage factor for DOI: 10.1177/1687814017719642
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
finite element analysis: Concept,
simulation, and experiment

Yangjian Xiao1, Zengshun Chen2, Jianting Zhou1, Yanling Leng3 and

Runchuan Xia1

Abstract
The plastic-damage factor of concrete structures is important for structural load-capacity assessment, while it has not
been determined properly. In this article, two methods perspectively based on the strain equivalent principle and Sidiroff
energy equivalent principle are proposed to determine the plastic-damage factor of the concrete uniaxial constitutive
relation in a specification. Both of them were applied to a finite element analysis model of a simply-supported beam for
nonlinear load-capacity analysis. The load-capacity experiment of the beam was carried out in unison. From the compari-
son of the result obtained by the energy equivalent principle method coincides better with the experimental result,
which suggests that the energy equivalent principle method is reasonable and applicable. Therefore, the factor could be
recommended for further consideration in specification and finite element analysis calculations.

Keywords
Plastic-damage factor, energy/strain equivalence principle, nonlinear analysis, simply-supported concrete beam

Date received: 2 October 2016; accepted: 13 June 2017

Academic Editor: Tatsushi Nishi

Introduction problem mentioned above, but the premise should be

More and more long-span bridges have been built over
the past decades.1,2 With the rapid development of
finite element technology and computer industry, the
large general finite element software has provided a
new channel to solve some complex engineering prob-
lems, especially owning broad application prospects in
the safety assessment field of the large-span bridge in
service. Many bridges in the world were built a long
time ago. Therefore, with the consideration of the social
and economic needs for continued uses, it becomes sig-
nificant to assess their current levels of integrity.3 But
the inaccuracy of the structural safety assessment will
cause a series of problems, such as the too conservative
design, unnecessary maintenance reinforcement, disec-
onomy, radicalness, and safety accidents. The existing
finite element method can accurately evaluate the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of the structure and avoid the
that the constitutive relation of the material can be
simulated accurately. For the common reinforced con-
crete structure, the bilinear elastic–plastic constitutive
model applied to the rebar has basically reached a con-
sensus in academic circles.4–6 However, how to reason-
ably combine the constitutive relation of concrete in the
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University,
Chongqing, China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong
3
National Engineering Laboratory for Bridge Structure Safety Technology,
Research Institute of Highway, MOT, Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Zengshun Chen, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Email: zchenba@ust.hk

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
specification with the finite element concrete damage
plasticity (CDP) model still exist disputes. That is the
method to determine the reasonable value of the
plastic-damage factor in CDP model. At home and
abroad, two methods were adopted to calculate the
plastic-damage factor of concrete, which were the strain
equivalent principle (SEP) and the Sidiroff energy
equivalent principle (EEP).7 In the literature,8,9 the for-
mula for calculating the plastic-damage factor was
based on the hypothesis of strain equivalent, while it is
based on the hypothesis of energy equivalent in the lit-
erature.10 Even though the two methods could be
achieved, which is more reasonable still need to be dis-
cussed and verified. Based on the situation, two meth-
ods were adopted to calculate plastic-damage factors of
concrete. Then, the differences between the damage fac-
tors estimated by two methods were analyzed. What’s
more, the test model of the reinforced concrete simply-
supported beam was analyzed by involving a complete
nonlinear process. Meanwhile, the verification experi-
ment was carried out only to find that the finite element
analysis (FEA) result of the damage factors determined
by the energy equivalence principle coincided better
with the test result. Finally, the method to determine
the value of plastic-damage factor accurately was
proposed.
CDP model
Before concrete bearing external loads, some micro-
cracks and holes which are called ‘‘damage’’ have
existed in the concrete. In other words, the failure pro-
cess is caused by the development and evolution at var-
ious scales of the cumulative damages (micro-cracks,
holes, and so on). Then, the nonlinear characteristics of
stress–strain are mainly resulted from the micro-
cracks.11 The stiffness degradation of concrete is often
associated with plastic deformation, presenting not
only the extension of micro-cracks and defects in the
microscopic mechanism but also the sliding and defor-
mation related to the mechanism of the material flow.
So, the reasonable constitutive relation should be the
elastic–plastic damage constitutive model reflecting two
kinds of mechanism which are the elastic damage and
plastic deformation.12 In order to avoid the trouble of
analyzing the microstructure of the material, it is gener-
ally considered that the concrete is a macroscopic and
isotropic material so that its mechanism of deformation
and failure can be studied.
The CDP model of concrete in finite element soft-
ware9 is established on the basis of the model by
Lubliner et al. Combined with the isotropic tensile or
compressive plasticity, this model uses isotropic elastic-
damage model to simulate the inelastic behavior of
concrete.12 It depended on the assumption that the
same damage existed in every direction, which is appli-
cable to the concrete in case of arbitrary loading forces
including cyclic loading. Simultaneously, not only the
degradation of elastic stiffness resulting from the tensile
and compressive plastic strain but also the recovery of
stiffness under cyclic loading is considered.
In elastic stage, the CDP model adopts the elastic
model to describe the mechanical properties of materi-
als. After stepping into the stage of damage, the rela-
tion between the elastic modulus in the CDP model can
be described as8
E = (1  d)E0 ð1Þ
where E0 indicates the initial elastic modulus, d indi-
cates the plastic-damage factor dt or dc in tension or
compression and ranges from 0 to 1, in which 0 indi-
cates that the material is not damaged and 1 indicates
that the strength of the material is completely lost.
CDP model under uniaxial cyclic loading
Under the action of uniaxial reciprocating loading, the
model uses wt and wc to control the recovery of material
stiffness under the reverse loading.13–15
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of the elastic
modulus recovery in CDP model under the uniaxial
cyclic loading (from tension to compression, and to
tension again) when the weighting factors of tension
and compression are, respectively, described as wt = 0
(from compression to tension) and wc = 1 (from the
tension to compression). Under the axial tension, the
tensile stress of concrete increases. If the stress reaches
the peak value (point A), the concrete will crack, and if
the loading is added to point B, the tensile stiffness will
decrease where the stiffness reduction factor dt can be
expressed as E = (1  dt )E0 . If it is unloaded at that
time, the curve will decrease by slope of the effective stiff-
ness (1  dt )E0 , namely, the path BC. When the concrete
is imposed on reverse axial pressure, if the weighting fac-
tor wc = 0 (that the compressive stiffness does not recov-
ery with tensile damages), it will be loaded on the path
CD, and if the weighting factor wc = 1, then on the
CMF path. When reaching the point F, it is unloaded
and imposed on reverse tensile loading. If the stiffness
recovery factor is 1, it will be loaded on the path GJ and
if the factor is 0, on the path GH.
CDP model under single uniaxial tension/compression
As to the tensile stress–strain curve of concrete, the
data which exceed the range of the elastic part will be
entered into the finite element software with the form
16
of st  eck
t . The tensile cracking strain is defined as
the total strain minus the elastic strain of the material,
which is shown in Figure 2.
Xiao et al. 3

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the concrete elastic modulus recovery under tension—compression stress transformation.

Figure 2. Tensile stress–strain curve of CDP model.

In Figure 2, eun and sun , respectively, indicate the

strain and stress of the unloading point; eel el
0t and et ,
Figure 3. Compressive stress–strain curve of CDP model.
respectively, indicate the tensile plastic strain of con-
crete which is not damaged and damaged; and epl t and
entered into the finite element software with the form
eck
t , respectively, indicate the tensile plastic and crack- of sc  ein c . The compressive cracking strain is defined
ing strain of concrete. as the total strain minus the elastic strain of the mate-
The data of tensile damage will be entered into the rial with no damage, which is shown in Figure 3.
finite element software with the form of dt  eck t . The
In Figure 3, eun and sun , respectively, indicate the
program will automatically convert the cracking strain strain and stress of the unloading point; eel el
0c and ec ,
into the plastic strain according to the following respectively, indicate the compressive plastic strain of
formula concrete which is not damaged and damaged; epl c and
ein
c , respectively, indicate the compressive plastic and
dt st cracking strain of concrete.
epl ck
t = et  ð2Þ
1  dt E0 The data of the compressive damage will be entered
into the finite element software with the form of
If the plastic strain value epl
t is negative or the crack- dc  einc . Then, the program will automatically convert
ing strain eck
t is small, which means the tensile unloading the cracking strain into plastic strain according to the
path intersects, the finite element software will warn to following formula
errors that there will not exist tensile damage in the case
of epl ck
t = et . dc sc
epl in
c = ec  ð3Þ
As to the compressive stress–strain curve, the data 1  dc E0
which exceed the range of the elastic part will be
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

If the plastic strain value epl

c is negative or the crack- when the tensile crack occurs in concrete is regarded as
ing strain ein
c is small, which means the compressive the initial elastic modulus, namely, E0 = eftt .
unloading path intersects, the finite element software
will warn to errors that there will not exist compressive
damage in the case of epl in Simplified uniaxial tensile stress–strain curves of
c = ec .
concrete
The uniaxial tensile stress–strain curve equation of con-
Formula derivation of plastic-damage crete can be determined by formula (5). The first part
factor in CDP model of the calculation adopts the linear elasticity while the
damage occurs just after the peak value. Then, the
Uniaxial constitutive model of concrete
curve is shown in Figure 5
From the literature,17 a uniaxial constitutive model of
8
concrete is shown in Figure 3 and the exact expression < y = x(x  1)
is given as x ð5Þ
:y= (x  1)
at (x  1)1:7 + x
s = (1  dk )Ec e (k = t, c) ð4Þ

where dk indicates the uniaxial tensile/compressive Simplified uniaxial compressive stress–strain curves
damage evolution parameters of concrete, and t and c,
of concrete
respectively, indicate the uniaxial tension and
compression. According to the uniaxial compressive stress–strain
In Figure 4, fcr indicates the value of uniaxial com- curve of concrete in the specification,17 using the
pressive strength of concrete, ftr indicates the value of searching of linear interpolation, the stress point of
uniaxial tensile strength of concrete, ecr indicates the which modulus is E0 in the initial compression zone
peak compressive strain corresponding to fcr , and etr secant is found. It is regarded as the linear elasticity
indicates the peak tensile strain corresponding to ftr . before this stress point, while damages occur after this
stress point. In this article, C40 is taken as an example:
the equation of the uniaxial compressive stress–strain
Simplification of the uniaxial constitutive model of curve of concrete can be determined according to equa-
concrete tion (6), in which the x  0.124 part is taken as linear
elasticity and the x  0.124 part is taken as nonlinear
The uniaxial constitutive relationship of concrete pro- elasticity. The uniaxial compressive stress–strain curve
posed by the literature17 is a curve. In order to fit the of concrete is shown in equation (6) (Figure 6)
CDP model in the finite element software, it is neces-
8  
sary to simplify the constitutive relation to a piecewise > E 0 ec
>
> y= x (x  0:124)
curve, in which the straight line represents the elastic >
> fc
<
stage and the curve represents the plastic stage. To
> y = aa x + (3  2aa )x2 + (aa  2)x3 (0:124  x  1)
describe Young’s modulus E0 in the elastic phase of the >
>
> x
CDP model, considering that the CDP model adopts >
:y= (x  1)
the isotropic strengthening model, the secant modulus ad (x  1)2 + x
ð6Þ

Figure 4. Uniaxial stress–strain curve of concrete. Figure 5. Tensile stress–strain curve of concrete.
Xiao et al. 5

of the non-damaged material as long as the stress is

replaced by equivalent stress or the elastic modulus at
the time of damage.

Elastic residual energy of non-damaged material

s2
W0e =
2E0
Elastic residual energy of equivalent damaged
material

s0 2
Figure 6. Compressive stress–strain curve of concrete. Wde =
2Ed
Thus, the formula below is obtained
where ft is the uniaxial tensile strength of concrete; et is
Ed = E0 (1  D)2
the peak tensile strength corresponding to ft; at is the
parameter value of the upward section in the uniaxial Then
tensile stress–strain curve, of which calculations can be
found in the specification17 Appendix C. 2.1; fc is the sE = E0 (1  DEc )2 e ð9Þ
uniaxial compressive strength of concrete, ec is the peak
compressive strain corresponding to fc; aa and ad, Combining equations (5) with (8), the tensile plastic-
respectively, indicate the parameter value of the upward damage factor determined by the SEP is expressed as
section and downward section of the uniaxial tensile 8
stress–strain curve, of which calculations can be found < 0(x = e=et  1)
e 1
in the specification17 Appendix C. 2.1. Dt = 1  (x = e=et  1) ð10Þ
:
at (x  1)1:7 + x

Calculation formula of plastic-damage factor of Combining equations (5) with (9), the tensile plastic-
concrete damage factor determined by the EEP is expressed as
At present, the plastic-damage factor of concrete at 8
< 0(x =
> se=e t  1)
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
home and abroad is usually determined by the strain E 1
Dt = ð11Þ
equivalent and EEP. : 1  a (x  1)1:7 + x(x = e=et  1)
>
t

Strain equivalent hypothesis. In 1971, Lematire proposed Similarly, combining equations (6) with (8), the com-
that the strain response of the damage element under pressive plastic-damage factor determined by the SEP is
the action of stress se is identical with that of the non- expressed as
damage element under the action of the defined effec- 8
> 0(x = e=ec  0:65)
tive stress.8,9 The constitutive relationship of the dam- >
>
> fc
< 1  (aa + (3  2aa )x + (aa  2)x2 ) (0:65  x = e=ec  1)
aged material under external force can adopt the form Dec = E0 ec
>
> fc 1
of non-damage as long as the Cauchy stress is simply >
>
:1  (x = e=et  1)
replaced by the effective stress. In the one-dimensional E0 ec ad (x  1)2 + x
linear elastic problems, e indicates the damaged elastic ð12Þ
strain, which is shown in formula (7)
Combining equations (6) with (9), the compressive
s 0
s e
s e plastic-damage factor determined by the energy equiva-
e= = = 0 ð7Þ lence principle is expressed as
E0 E0 (1  D) E
8
>
> 0(x = e=ec  0:65)
Then, formula (8) is obtained >
< qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
E
Dc = 1  Ef0cec (aa + (3  2aa )x + (aa  2)x2 ) (0:65  x = e=ec  1)
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
se = E0 (1  Dec )e ð8Þ >
>1 
: fc 1
E0 ec a (x1)2 + x (x = e=et  1)
d

ð13Þ
Energy equivalent hypothesis. According to Sidiroff
EEP,10 the elastic residual energy produced by the where at is the parameter values of the upward section
damaged material under stress is the same form as that of the uniaxial tensile stress–strain curve and
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 7. Compressive damage factor–strain curve determined
by strain equivalent and energy equivalent.
Figure 8. Tensile damage factor–strain curve determined by
strain equivalent and energy equivalent.
calculations can be found in the specification17
Appendix C. 2.1; aa and ad , respectively, indicate the
parameter values of the upward section and downward
section of the uniaxial tensile stress–strain curve and
calculations can be found in the specification17
Appendix C. 2.1.
In this article, C40 concrete is taken as the object of
study, and the plastic-damage factor–strain curves
under the uniaxial tension and compression can be
obtained from equations (10)–(13), as shown in
Figures 7 and 8.
From Figures 7 and 8, we can see that (1) under the
uniaxial tension and compression condition, the
plastic-damage factor determined by the equivalent
strain principle of concrete is bigger than that by the
EEP. Therefore, when strain equivalent assumption is
adopted, the concrete damage of the constitutive model
grows faster under the same load; (2) the curves of the
Figure 9. Finite element model of simply-supported beam.
tensile/compressive damage factor–strain obtained by
the two methods have the same trend, and the slope of
curves changes from the initiatively infinite value to
nearly 0, which indicates that the damage process of
concrete is developing rapidly.
Non-linear FEA and model test of RC
simply-supported beam
Finite element model
The reinforced concrete (RC) simply-supported beam is
based on the simply-supported plate girder bridge
which is widely used in domestic highway. The 1:2 scale
model is adopted as the test model with rectangular
double reinforcement design, of which length is 4.98 m,
section size is 230 mm 3 300 mm, and concrete is C40
type. The compressive region is designed with four
HRB335 steel bars with a diameter of 16 mm and the
tensile region is designed with two HRB335 steel bars
with a diameter of 8 mm. Meanwhile, stirrups are
HRB235 steel bars with a diameter of 8 and 12 mm.
The three-dimensional (3D) solid element with eight
nodes in format of integral element (C3D8R) is adopted
to simulate the concrete, and the linear 3D truss steel
element with two nodes (T3D2) is adopted to simulate
the rebar. In addition, the contact surface of steel and
concrete is treated by the embedded method.16,18,19 The
model of single beam is meshed using a sweep mesh
control, creating 504 elements, and containing 6 degrees
of freedom. The mesh converges well without analysis
errors and warnings, as shown in Figure 9.
Calculation parameters
The concrete plastic-damage factor can be determined
by the strength grade of concrete. The C40 concrete is
taken for example, of which the standard values of uni-
axial compressive and tensile strength are 26.8 and
2.39 MPa, respectively.17 Meanwhile, as for elastic
modulus of cracked concrete, the secant modulus which
Xiao et al. 7

Table 1. Table of constitutive model parameters of C40 concrete in CDP model.

Uniaxial compression Uniaxial tension

Compressive Inelastic Plastic-damage factor dc Tensile Inelastic Plastic-damage factor dt
strength (MPa) strain (31023) strength (MPa) strain (31023)
Energy Strain Energy Strain
equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent

6.42 0 0.000 0.000 2.39 0 0.000 0.000

9.33 0.1 0.018 0.036 2.32 0.01 0.059 0.115
10.69 0.15 0.027 0.054 2.19 0.02 0.123 0.231
17.05 0.42 0.078 0.150 1.84 0.045 0.268 0.464
19.70 0.56 0.105 0.200 1.61 0.064 0.355 0.584
25.10 0.98 0.190 0.344 1.45 0.08 0.415 0.657
26.80 1.39 0.279 0.481 1.29 0.1 0.476 0.725
25.05 1.83 0.383 0.620 0.82 0.206 0.661 0.885
20.51 2.44 0.511 0.761 0.57 0.346 0.766 0.945
11.22 4.31 0.723 0.923 0.50 0.413 0.795 0.958
7.10 6.37 0.818 0.967 0.44 0.5 0.822 0.968
4.57 9.33 0.879 0.985 0.38 0.608 0.847 0.977
2.55 15.78 0.930 0.995 0.26 1.031 0.900 0.990
0.39 95.32 0.989 1.000 0.07 6.258 0.977 0.999

Figure 11. Ideal elastic–plastic constitutive model of steel bar.

Figure 10. Experimental stress–strain curve of HRB335 rebar.

is 22.9 3 105 MPa is regarded as the initial elastic mod-
ulus of concrete and Poisson’s ratio is 0.2.
When the material steps into plasticity, the tensile
and compressive plastic-damage factors in the CDP
model can be obtained by formulas (10)–(13), which
can be seen in Table 1.
The design yield strength of HRB335 steel bars is
fsk = 335 MPa and from the stress-strain curve of the
HRB335 steel bar obtained by a tensile test,
fskactual = 450 MPa, as is shown in Figure 10. The von
Mises yield criterion is used to simplify the constitutive
model into the bilinear elastic–plastic dynamic harden-
ing model of the steel bar, as shown in Figure 11.
Model test
In order to verify which method is more reasonable to
determine the plastic-damage factor, the test was
simultaneously carried out. The reinforcement of the
test was consistent with that of the finite element
model, of which the layout is shown in Figure 12.
Among all the equipments, hydraulic jacks are shown
in Figure 13, the pressure sensor controlling loading
levels is shown in Figure 14, and the steel gaskets set in
the position of bearing and loading to prevent the stress
concentration through the whole process of loading are
shown in Figure 15.
Some electrical measurement indicators were
arranged in the mid-span of the test and the deflection
information could be collected by the strain gauge. In
order to ensure the accuracy of the data, the deflection
of the mid-span was simultaneously observed by the
precision level. Finally, the P-D curve going through
the whole test process was obtained. The criterion for
determining the ultimate bearing capacity of the beam
through the test is that when the width of crack exceeds
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 12. Sketch map of reinforcement and loading in simply-supported beam.
Figure 13. The hydraulic jack equipment.
Figure 14. The pressure sensor (50t).
2 mm, the loading cannot continue to increase. The
fracture distribution of the test beam is shown in
Figure 16.
In Figure 16, the data outside of the brackets indi-
cate the loading level with the unit of kN, while the data
Figure 15. The loading picture of test sample.
in brackets indicate the width of cracks related to load-
ing level with the unit of mm. Figure 15 shows that (1)
cracks began to develop from bottom of the mid-span
and the initial crack appeared as P equals to 25 kN; (2)
when loading P grew up to 75 kN, the crack width
developed stably, and a large amount of cracks gener-
ated with the developing tendency from the mid-span to
the two ends; (3) as loading P added up to 90 kN, the
width of cracks in mid-span developed rapidly but the
number of cracks essentially unchanged, which indi-
cated that the yield strength of rebar was attained; and
(4) if P exceeded 90 kN, the loading failed to increase
further while the plastic hinge occurred in mid-span,
reaching its ultimate bearing capacity.
Comparative analysis of results
In this research, the damage constitutive model of con-
crete was determined using EEP at first. Then, the non-
linear finite element model which is based on the ideal
elastic–plastic model of rebars (shown in Figure 11) was
established. Two curves named strain equivalent
(450 MPa) and strain equivalent (335 MPa) in Figure 17
were obtained. In a similar way, the other two curves
named energy equivalent (450 MPa) and energy equiva-
lent (335 MPa) in Figure 17 were gotten. The P-D
Xiao et al.
Figure 16. Fracture distribution of the test beam.
Figure 17. The P-D curve of FEA and model experiment of
the beam.
curves calculated by the nonlinear FEA and measured
are shown in Figure 17.
As can be seen from Figure 17:
1. When the same concrete damage model and dif-
ferent ideal elastic–plastic models of rebar are
adopted in the finite model, the limit bearing
capacity of the model based on the measured
strength of rebars is higher. It proves the cor-
rectness of the finite element model because the
measured strength of rebars is greater than the
theoretical one (as shown in Figure 11);
2. When the models are established by different
concrete damage models and the same ideal
elastic–plastic model of rebar, the P-D curves
present the same tendency. The distinction is
that the limit-bearing capacity determined by
the EEP is greater than that by SEP of concrete
9
in CDP model, which is due to the damage fac-
tor of the energy equivalence principle growing
more slowly and absorbing more in the process
of damages;
3. By means of combining CDP model with mea-
sured ideal yield model of rebar in the nonlinear
finite element model, the P-D curve of EEP
coincides better with the measured P-D curve,
which not only verifies the rationality of the
energy equivalent method to determine the
plastic-damage factor of concrete but also shows
the correctness of simplifying the ideal elastic–
plastic model of rebar;
4. The load of the model experiment was added up
to 90 kN. Then, a plastic hinge occurred in the
mid-span of the beam. What determined the
beam’s ultimate bearing capacity with 90 kN is
that the beam counteracted the continuing load-
ing work by the plastic deformation.
Conclusion
Through the comparative analysis of the CDP model
and the uniaxial constitutive model of concrete in the
specification,17 the principle of Sidiroff energy equiva-
lent and strain equivalent was adopted and the method
of determining plastic-damage factors in CDP model
was obtained. The nonlinear finite element models com-
bined with the ideal elastic–plastic model of rebar were
established. Meanwhile, the test model of a simply-
supported beam verified the correctness of the above
method. The main conclusions show that
1. Based on the continuum damage mechanics
model, the calculation formulas (10)–(13) of the
damage factor determined by EEP and SEP
10
were deduced. It is found by analysis that the
curves of the plastic-damage factor strain
obtained by the two methods present the same
tendency while the damage factor based on the
principle of equivalent strain develops faster.
2. The uniaxial constitutive model proposed by
the specification17 was reasonably simplified,
and the piecewise function curves of the con-
crete constitutive relation in formulas (5) and
(6) which coincided with the CDP model were
obtained.
3. By means of combining CDP model with mea-
sured ideal yield model of rebar in the nonlinear
finite element model, the P-D curve based on
the EEP coincides better with the experiment
measured result. On this basis, it verifies the
rationality of the energy equivalent method to
determine the plastic-damage factor of concrete,
and the correctness of simplifying the ideal
elastic–plastic model of rebar.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This study was financially supported by the National
Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China
(no. 51425801), the Ministry of Transport Construction
Science and Technology Project (no. 2014318223030), the
National Key Research and Development Program of China
(no. 2016YFC0802202), the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (no. 51508058), the Graduate Research
Innovation Project of Chongqing (no. CYB15111), and the
National Key Research and Development Program of China
(no. 2017YFC0806007).
References
1. Chen Z-S, Tse TKT, Liu S-M, et al. Application of a
self-adaptive Kalman filter approach in alignment con-
trol for an extra long span rail transit cable-stayed
bridge. Struct Infrastruct E 2017; 13: 1186–1197.
2. Chen Z-S, Zhang C, Wang X, et al. Wind tunnel mea-
surements for flutter of a long-afterbody bridge deck.
Sensors 2017; 17: 335.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
3. Savor Z and Novak MS. Procedures for reliability assess-
ment of existing bridges. Gradev 2015; 67: 557–572.
4. Omidi O and Lotfi V. Finite element analysis of concrete
structures using plastic damage model in 3-D implemen-
tation. Int J Civ Eng 2010; 8: 187–203.
5. Zhao Y and Shen X. Nonlinear analysis of which based
on ABAQUS of concrete damaged plasticity model in
two-way slab experiment. J Anhui Inst Archit Ind: Nat
Sci 2014; 2: 12.
6. Buuml A. Finite element analysis of the beam strength-
ened with prefabricated reinforced concrete plate. Sci
Res Essays 2010; 5: 533–544.
7. Oller S, Onate E, Oliver J, et al. Finite element nonlinear
analysis of concrete structures using a ‘‘plastic-damage
model’’. Eng Fract Mech 1990; 35: 219–231.
8. Ming G. Research and application of damage factor in
concrete plastic-damage model. J Civ Eng Manag 2011;
28: 128–132.
9. Wu J and Li J. Unified plastic-damage model for con-
crete and its applications to dynamic nonlinear analysis
of structures. Struct Eng Mech 2007; 25: 519–540.
10. Wu H and Ran H. Bearing behavior research on steel lined
reinforced concrete penstocks based on the CDP model.
Hong Kong, China: CRC Press, 2014.
11. Stauffer JD, Woodward CB and White KR. Nonlinear
ultrasonic testing with resonant and pulse velocity para-
meters for early damage in concrete. ACI Mater J 2005;
102: 118–121.
12. Nguyen GD and Korsunsky AM. Development of an
approach to constitutive modelling of concrete: isotropic
damage coupled with plasticity. Int J Solids Struct 2008;
45: 5483–5501.
13. Omidi O and Lotfi V. Continuum large cracking in a
rate-dependent plastic–damage model for cyclic-loaded
concrete structures. Int J Numer Anal Met 2013; 37:
1363–1390.
14. Omidi O and Lotfi V. Numerical analysis of cyclically
loaded concrete under large tensile strains by the plastic-
damage model. Sci Iran Trans A 2010; 17: 194–208.
15. Lee J and Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic
loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech: ASCE 1998;
124: 892–900.
16. Barbosa A, Idelsohn S, Oñate E, et al. Analysis of rein-
forced concrete structures using ANSYS nonlinear con-
crete model. Comput Mech 1998; 13: 77–84.
17. Chinese Standard GB 50010:2002. Code for design of
concrete structures.
18. Fanning P. Nonlinear models of reinforced and post-
tensioned concrete beams. Electr J Struct Eng 2001; 1:
111–119.
19. Wu JY, Li J and Faria R. An energy release rate-based
plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct
2006; 43: 583–612.