You are on page 1of 64

Presentation on

Constitutive Models for Concrete In


Plasticity
Presented By
Ansari Abu Usama

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS


GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
AURANGABAD
2015-16

Guided By
Dr. M. G. Shaikh

CONTENT

Introduction
Objectives
Literature survey
System Development
Performance Analysis
References

Introduction
Constitutive modeling of concrete.
Theory of Plasticity
Yield criteria
Hardening rule
Flow rule

Objective
To study the elastoplastic behavior of concrete
under different loading conditions and to simulate
the same by computational model.

Literature survey
Han
and Chen (1985)
In this work, the five-parameter model of Willam-Warnke, and
the four-parameter model of Hsieh-Ting-Chen was adopted.

For the Willam-Warnke five-parameter model

In which rc and rt are the compressive and tensile deviatoric


lengths at the meridians 0 and 60 respectively and are related
to by


where, are material constants, and the constants satisfy the condition
For the Hsieh-Ting-Chen four-parameter model

where a, b, c and d are material constants.

Figure 2.1. A non uniform


hardening plasticity model

Figure 2.2. Yield Surface and Failure


Surface in the Model


Here
a Drucker-Prager type of plastic potential function is assumed
where = constant, represents the plastic dilatation factor
The incremental elastic-plastic constitutive relation is given by
where the plastic stiffness tensor has the form
in which

Figure 2.3. Comparison for compression-compression loadings to


Kupfer's data (Kupfer et al., 1969) (a) Comparison for uniaxial and
biaxial compressive loadings to Kupfer's data. (b) Comparison for
biaxial compressive loading to Kupfer's data

Figure 2.4. Comparison for compression-tension loadings to Kupfer's data


(Kupfer et al., 1969)

Figure 2.5.Comparison for tension-tension loadings to Kupfer's data


(Kupfer et al., 1969).

The author concluded that the model has been shown to


produce results in good agreement with experimental data
for a wide range of stress states.
The model has also representing the important
characteristics of concrete behavior, including brittle failure
in tension, ductile behavior in compression, pressure
sensitivity, and volumetric dilatation under compressive
loading.
The model is flexible and can fit a wide range of
experimental data.

Han
and Chen (1987):
In this paper constitutive model include Willam-Warnke fiveparameter or Hsieh-Ting-Chen four-parameter failure surface,
the non uniform hardening rule, the nonassociated flow rule.
The failure surface can be expressed in a general form as
For the Willam-Warnke five-parameter model

For the Hsieh-Ting-Chen four-parameter model

A nonassociated flow rule with a Drucker-Prager type of plastic


potential function is adopted

The incremental elastic-plastic constitutive relation is given by

where = isotropic elastic tensor


h= a scalar which is expressed as

Figure 2.6.Comparison for

Figure 2.7.Comparison for Triaxial

Biaxial Compressive Loading to

Compressive Loading to AFWL Data

AFWL Data

Strain
Softening
The constitutive equation is given by

Figure 2.8 Schematic Description of Strain-Space Formulation for Material with


Elasto- Plastic Coupling Effect: (a) Stress and Strain Increments; (b) Plastic-Fracturing
Work

The proposed constitutive model was applied in Nonlinear Finite


Element Program NFAP to obtain the deformational response of a
concrete split-cylinder test.

Figure 2.9Finite Element Mesh for


Analysis of Splitting Tension of
Concrete Cylinder

Figure 2.10Load-Deflection
Curve

Author has verified in an extensive comparison with a


wide range of available experimental results, the
proposed work-hardening model.
Works well in modeling the important features of
concrete behavior, e.g. the brittle failure in tension,
the ductile behavior in compression, the hydrostatic
sensitivities, and the volumetric dilation under
compressive loadings.
The proposed strain-softening model works well in
biaxial and triaxial compressive loadings with a
relatively low hydrostatic compressive stress.


Hsuam-Teh Hu et al. (1989) :
In this paper an elastic strain-hardening plastic model is proposed.
Yield functions is define as
The failure surface for biaxial tension in this investigation is defined
as

where
= the maximum compressive strength of concrete.
= mean normal stress.
= octahedral shear stress.


and = principal stresses, with
When concrete is subjected to a combined tension-compression stress
state, the yield function is defined as
Where
For biaxial compression, the yield function is defined as

where

Figure 2.11. Yield surface of concrete in two-dimensional


principal stress plane

The simplest von mises yield function used as plastic


potential function

Finally the incremental stress strain constitutive equation for


concrete can be expressed as

where

Figure 2.12. Comparison of model with biaxial Figure

2.13 Comparison of model with combined


tenstion test (a) =1/1
tension-compression test -1/0.052

Figure
2.14. Comparison of model with biaxial
compression test (a) = -1/-0.52

Imran et al.(2001):
Iswandi

In this model damage is quantified by the volumetric expansion.


The four-parameter Hsieh-Ting-Chen (HTC) criterion was used as
the functional shape for the loading, failure.

Drucker-Prager type criterion was selected as the plastic potential


function for nonassociated plastic flow in the model

A constitutive equation is given as

Figure2.15 Comparison of Triaxial

Figure 2.16. Maximum and Residual

Responses between Analytical and

Strength Envelope of Axisymmetric

Experimental Results of Xie et al.

Triaxial Compression: Comparison of

(1995)

model with Test Results of Xie et al.


(1995) and Ansari and Li (1998)

The proposed constitutive model is used to analyze the mechanical


response of reinforced-concrete columns with a circular cross section
using FE package.

Figure 2.17 (a) FE Mesh of Test Columns; (b) Analytical versus


Experimental Results of Columns

Author concluded that


A model show good agreement with experimental result.
In simulating the experimental response of reinforcedconcrete columns with circular cross section, the model
produced strength and deformation estimates consistent
with observed values.
The rate of post peak softening was somewhat affected
by

such

limitations

as

neglecting

longitudinal steel and hoop fracture.

buckling

of

Peter
Grassl et al. (2002):
The aim of authours is to model the load resistance and the
deformation capacity in uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial compression.
A three-parameter yield surface is used which is given by

where m is defined as
and the elliptic function as

The plastic potential function used here is


The novel hardening parameter is define as

Figure

2.18 The yield surface in Figure 2.19 The shape of the yield
the plane.

surface in the deviatoric plane for


different hydrostatic stresses

Figure 2.20 Uniaxial compression tests

( ) reported by Kupfer et al. (1969)


compared to the model prediction

Figure2..21 Biaxial compression test

( ) reported by Kupfer et al. (1969)


compared to the model prediction

Figure 2.22 Triaxial compression tests from Imran (1994) compared to the constitutive
model

The author concluded that the model predicts the load resistance and
the deformation capacity of plain concrete in uniaxial, biaxial and
triaxial compression.
Experimental results for strength and deformation behaviour were
found to be in good agreement with the model prediction.

Andrzej
Litewka et al.(2002) :

The generalized stress strain relations for anisotropic elastic solids
where is the strain tensor, is the stress tensor and is the material
constants of orthotropically damaged solid
substituting the value of in the above stress strain
relation the following tensor function was obtained


of the brittle rock-like materials due to load
Deterioration

applied can be described by the damage evolution equation


expressed in the form of the tensor function

where as the third one is equal to zero and A, B, F and H are


constant
Therefore

Peter
Grassl and Milan Jirasek (2005)
The general stressstrain relation for this model is

where
=stress
=damage variable
=isotropic elastic stiffness
= effective stress
The damage variable w is a function of the internal variable ; i.e.

where the damage function monotonically grows from zero to


one

Figure 2.23Model response under uniaxial

Figure 2.24 Model response under

tension with unloading compared to

uniaxial compression with unloading

experimental results reported by

compared to experimental results reported

Gopalaratnam and Shah

by Karsan and Jirsa.

Three-point
bending test

The material parameters are E=20 GPa; = 0:2;
ft =2.4 MPa; fc = 24 MPa; =0.001025 and As = 2 and R =25 mm and
m=1

Figure 2.25,2.26 Geometry, loading set-up and finite element mesh for the three-point bending
test. Comparison of the analysis of the test on the fine mesh with the experimental bounds

Figure 2.27 Comparison of the analyses of the three-point bending test on three
different meshes

Author shows that the non-local damage-plastic model for concrete


can provide a mesh independent description of various
combinations of tensile and compressive failure.
To keep the number of parameters limited, only one scalar damage
variable was considered.

Vassilis
K. Papanikolaou et al.(2007) :

Aim to describe the strength and deformational behaviour of both
normal and high-strength concrete under multiaxial compression.
A three-parameter hydrostatic-pressure- sensitive loading surface
was selected

The hardening parameter is define as


A
softening function (c) is assumed to have following form

Plastic potential function taken here is

Figure 2.28 Comparison between

Figure 2.29 Comparison between

analytical and experimental results

analytical and experimental results

(Kupfer et al., 1969) for concrete under

(Kupfer et al., 1969) for normal concrete

uniaxial compression in both axial and

under equibiaxial compression

lateral directions

Figure 2.30 Comparison between analytical and experimental results (Imran, 1994) for
normal concrete under triaxial compression and various confinement levels

Author concluded that the model performance was evaluated against


experimental results and it was verified that the ultimate strength,
deformation capacity and residual strength of confined concrete were
properly captured.
Model follows an open structure, allowing easy recalibration using selected
experimental datasets

Qiang
Xu et al. (2013) :
In this study, a four-parameter yield function proposed by Hsieh
et al. (1983) is adopted.

The elasto-plastic damage constitutive equation can be written


as

The material parameter used for numerical simulation are fc=12.8


MPa, E=26.7 GPa, =0.25. The parameters a, b, c, and d, are
2.0006, 0.9814, 9.1312, and 0.22120, respectively, and w=1106.

Figure 2.31 Stress-strain curves of uniaxial


tension (a) and compression (b) (unit: MPa

Figure 2.33 Maximum first principle


Figure 2.32 Dam system and monitoring points
stress distribution of the slice of
dam

Figure 2.34 Damage factor contour map of the slice of dam using the damage model
proposed in software Abaqus

Figure 2.35 Comparison of horizontal displacement (a) and vertical displacement (b)
of the slice of dam head

The author concluded that the model reduce the limitation and lacuna
of the traditional damage constitutive models for concrete.
The model reflect different strength characteristics of concrete in
tension and compression.
model can also be applied in concrete gravity dam.

System Development
Experiment Procedure:Nineteen standard cubical specimens of the ordinary concrete C20
split into three group as Group 1(four specimens), Group 2(seven
specimens) and Group 3(eight specimens), were uni-axially tested.
Specimen of Group 1,were subjected to compressive stress in main
configuration as shown in Figure 3.1.
The loading programme for Group 2 and Group 3 specimens
consisted of four cycles.
cycle 1, the compressive load in the direction of the x2 axis.
cycle 2 ,the compressive load in the direction of the x3 axis above
the point of initial cracking of the concrete.
cycle 3, the compressive load in the direction of the x2 axis.
Cycle 4,compressive load applied in the direction of the x3 axis
increasing from zero up to material failure.

Figure 3.1 Cycles of the loading of Figure 3.2 Cycles of the loading of
the specimens of group 2 and 3
the specimens of group 2 and 3
tested in main configuration
tested in auxiliary configuration

Theoretical Description of Model: stress strain relations for anisotropic elastic solids
where is the strain tensor, is the stress tensor and is
the material constants of orthotropically damaged solid
Substituting the value of in the above stress strain
relation the following tensor function was obtained


The
following non-linear stress strain relations were obtained for
uniaxial compression.

where is a longitudinal principal strain and are transvers principal


strain.
The following non-linear stress strain relations were
obtained for biaxial compression.


where

Simulation of the Model in MATLAB: Litewka et al.(2002) have conducted analytical and experimental
study of damage induced Anisotropy of concrete as explain above. In
this dissertation work the same model is simulated in MATLAB.
Table 3.1. Material properties and constants for concrete C20 [Litewka
et al.(2002)]
Const

Unit

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

E0

MPa

20200

19500

19500

V0

0.21

0.20

0.20

fc

MPa

-23.9

-23.9

-23.9

MPa-2

2.244*10^

2.255*10^

2.150*10^-3

-3

-3

6.174*10^

6.195*10^

-4

-4

-1.293*10^-

4.877*10^

3.508*10^

-6
1.352*10^

-6
0.867*10^

1.778*10^-5

-5

-5

ant

B
C

MPa-2
MPa-1

MPa-1

5.101*10^-4


vector for the uniaxial compression case were taken from the
Stress

experiment for longitudinal strain calculation is


=[0 ; -2.8451; -2.7922; -5.7364; -8.8356; -11.5711; -14.3537;
-17.0277; -19.6969; -21.6331; -23.6636 ].
Longitudinal strain vector obtained as an output of the MATLAB
program is
= [ 0; -0.0001; -0.0002; -0.0003; -0.0005; -0.0006; -0.0008;
-0.0010; -0.0012; -0.0014; -0.0017 ].
Similarly stress vector for the uniaxial compression case were taken
from the experiment for lateral strain calculation is
=[0 ; -2.8800; -6.0745; -9.5827; -12.3572; -15.1833; -19.8340;
-22.1755; -23.7675].
Lateral strain vector obtained as an output of the program is
= [ 0; 0.0301; 0.0648; 0.1070; 0.1462; 0.1967; 0.3444; 0.5314;
0.8793].

Figure 3.3 Normalized stress v/s


longitudinal strain curve for uniaxial
compression

Figure 3.4 Normalized stress v/s


lateral strain curve for uniaxial
compression

Table
3. 2. Experimental data and constants for Concrete A and B tested by
Ligeza. [Litewka et al.(2002)]
Constant

Unit

Concrete A

Concrete B

MPa

27900

30800

0.19

0.19

fc

MPa

-14.92

-28.14

MPa-2

4.432*10^-3

1.845*10^-3

MPa-2

3.233*10^-4

2.9791*10^-4

MPa-1

-3.645*10^-6

-1.4575*10^-6

MPa-1

9.338*10^-6

6.2054*10^-6

Stress vector for the Biaxial compression case were taken from the
experiment [concrete A], for longitudinal strain calculation is
=[ 0;-2.0008; -5.1620; -7.9230; -11.0042; -12.6048; -14.2855;
-15.6460; -17.0465; -18.2070].
Longitudinal strain vector obtained as an output of the MATLAB program is
=[ 0; -0.0001; -0.0002; -0.0003; -0.0005; -0.0006; -0.0007; -0.001;
-0.0016; -0.0022].


vector for the Biaxial compression case were taken from the
Stress

experiment [concrete A], for lateral strain calculation are


=[ 0; -2.1567; -3.7143; -5.1920; -7.3887; -10.4240; -12.6207;
-14.4179; -16.0554; -17.2536; -18.1721].
=[ 0; -1.1183; -3.1951; -5.1920; -7.7881; -10.1045; -12.5009;
-14.8173; -16.8142; -17.7727; -18.2919].
Lateral strain vectors obtained as an output of the MATLAB program
are
=[ 0; -0.0241; -0.0422; -0.0603; -0.0896; -0.1426; -0.1933;
-0.2479; -0.3494; -0.4735; -0.6152].
=[ 0; 0.0115; 0.0334; 0.0569; 0.0918; 0.1374; 0.2006; 0.2906;
0.5447; 0.7655; 0.8636].

Figure 3.5 Normalized stress v/s lateral strain curve for biaxial compression

Figure 3.6 Normalized stress v/s


longitudinal strain curve for biaxial
compression.

Performance Analysis
To validate the performance of the model employed in the
MATLAB, simulated results were compared to the
experimental and theoretical results.
Comparison of the stress strain curves obtained by
simulation in MATLAB for the specimens of Group 1,
Group 2 and Group 3 with the theoretical as well as
experimental results for concrete under uniaxial
compression is shown in Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

Figure 4.1. Longitudinal and transverse


strain for Group 1 of the specimen v/s
longitudinal compressive stress

Figure 4.2. Longitudinal and transverse


strain for Group 2 of the specimen v/s
longitudinal compressive stress

Figure 4.3. Longitudinal and transverse strain for Group 3 of the specimen v/s
longitudinal compressive stress

The above curves


shows good agreement with
experimental and theoretical prediction for the specimens
under uniaxial compression

Comparison of the stress-strain curves obtained by simulation in


MATLAB for biaxial compression with experimental data for
Concrete A and Concrete B tested by Ligza and the relevant
theoretical results is shown in Figure 4.4 and 4.5.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.4. Stress-strain curves for Concrete A subjected to bi-axial compression:


a) k = 2 / 3 = 0.5, b) k = 1.0

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.5. Stress-strain curves for Concrete A subjected to bi-axial compression:


a) k = 2 / 3 = 0, b) k = 1.0

References
1. Helmut kupfer. Hubert k. Hilsdorf and hubert rusch,(1969) Behavior of
Concrete Under Biaxial Stresses ACI journal august .
2. Willam, K. J., and Warnke, E. P.,(1974) "Constitutive Model for the Triaxial
Behavior of Concrete," IABSE Seminar on Concrete Structure Subjected to
Triaxial Stresses Paper III-l, Bergamo, Italy, May, 1974
3. D.J. Han and W.F. Chen,(1985) a nonuniform hardening plasticity model for
concrete materials Mechanics of Materials 4 (1985) 283-302.
4. D.J. Han and W.F. Chen,(1987) constitutive modeling in analysis Of
concrete structures Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 113, No. 4, April,
1987. ASCE.
5. Hsuam-Teh Hu and William C. Schnobrich,(1989) constitutive modeling of
concrete by using nonassociated plasticity Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4, November, 1989. ASCE,
6. Sheikh, S. A., and Toklucu, M. T. (1993). Reinforced concrete columns confined by
circular spirals and hoops. ACI Struct. J., 90(5), 542553
7. By Iswandi Imran and S. J. Pantazopoulou,(2001) plasticity model for concrete under
triaxial compressionJournal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 127, No. 3, March, 2001.
ASCE.

References
8. Peter Grassl , Karin Lundgren, Kent Gylltoft,(2002) Concrete in
compression: a plasticity theory with a novel hardening law
International Journal of Solids and Structures 39 (2002) 52055223.
9. R. Raveendra Babua, Gurmail S. Benipala and Arbind K. Singhb(2005),
constitutive modelling of concrete:An overview asian journal of civil
engineering (building and housing) vol. 6, no. 4 Pages 211-246
10.Peter Grassl and Milan Jira sek,(2006) Plastic model with non-local
damage applied to concrete international journal for numerical and
analytical methods in geomechanics Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
Geomech., 2006; 30:7190.
11. Vassilis K. Papanikolaou , Andreas J. Kappos,(2007) Confinementsensitive plasticity constitutive model for concrete in triaxial
compression International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007)
70217048

Thank you

You might also like