Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3 Zhang2016
3 Zhang2016
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study aims to develop a versatile constitutive framework for concrete that can be used in various
Received 5 October 2015 stress states and under reversed cyclic loading. A multi-axial compression stress state is decomposed into
Revised 20 March 2016
a hydrostatic confining part and a biaxial net part to distinguish concrete behavior in triaxial and biaxial
Available online 6 May 2016
compression while preserving their similarity. This novel decomposition is combined with the positive–
Keywords: negative decomposition of stress, and on its basis is developed a 3D elastoplastic damage model. The
Stress decomposition suppression on damage of the net part of stress from the presence of the confining part is introduced
Confining effect through an increase in microscopic fracture strains, and confining effects in ductility and lateral defor-
Unilateral effect mation are introduced, respectively, by hardening slowdown and dilation reduction. In the meantime,
Damage independent damage/plasticity evolution in tension and compression is incorporated in the proposed 3D
Plasticity model with two damage variables and two hardening variables. An elastic–plastic–damage operator split
Concrete
integration algorithm with the backward Euler return mapping is derived, and a series of numerical sim-
ulations are carried out in comparison with tests under uniaxial, biaxial, pseudo-triaxial, and true triaxial
loading with satisfactory agreement.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction pure plasticity and fail to describe stiffness degradation (Imran and
Pantazopoulou, 2001; Grassl et al., 2002; Papanikolaou and Kap-
Nonlinear analysis of concrete structures has drawn broad at- pos, 2007; Carrazedo et al., 2013; Chi et al., 2014), which are also
tention and extensive efforts in the civil engineering community dedicated to multiaxial compression and are not intended for use
for half a century, in which constitutive modeling remains a criti- in tension; some are pure damage mechanics and cannot represent
cal issue owing to the diverse and complex mechanical behavior of irrecoverable deformation (Mazars et al., 2014); some employ dam-
concrete materials under various loading scenarios. age mechanics for tension and plasticity for compression but not
Research on constitutive relations is of everlasting interest in simultaneously (Cervenka and Papanikolaou, 2008; Sánchez et al.,
solid mechanics. As for concrete, different types of theories have 2012); and some really combine plasticity and damage simulta-
been proposed, among which plasticity models (e.g. Lubliner et al., neously and take tension into account, but do not reflect the in-
1989; Lee and Fenves, 1998; Grassl et al., 2002; Papanikolaou and dependent hardening (Luccioni and Rougier, 2005; Grassl and Ji-
Kappos, 2007; Carrazedo et al., 2013) and damage models (e.g. rasek, 2006; Jason et al., 2006; Caner and Bažant, 2013a; Grassl
Ju 1989; Faria et al., 1998; Wu et al., 2006; Cicekli et al., 2007; et al., 2013; Valentini and Hofstetter, 2013) or damage (Luccioni
Abu Al-Rub and Kim, 2010; Grassl et al., 2013; Mazars et al., 2014; and Rougier, 2005; Grassl and Jirasek, 2006; Jason et al., 2006;
Zhang and Li, 2014a) are the most fully developed. Valentini and Hofstetter, 2013) in tension and compression (under
While plasticity/damage models have achieved more and more multiaxial tension–compression or reversed cyclic loading), among
success in their characterization of concrete behavior under biaxial which the powerful microplane models (Caner and Bažant, 2013a)
loading (and triaxial loading with tensile stress components), the are formulated in terms of stress and strain vectors rather than
situations are much more difficult for nonlinear analysis involving tensors, leading to much greater computational cost.
triaxial compression. There exist plasticity and/or damage models In particular, Caner and Bažant (2013a) and Grassl et al.
developed with special attention to triaxial compression: some are (2013) possess a wide scope of applicability since not only are tri-
axial confining effects successfully characterized, but the stiffness
∗
recovery during transition between tension and compression can
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 65983526; fax: +86 21 65983944.
E-mail addresses: zhang_ji@hust.edu.cn (J. Zhang), lijie@tongji.edu.cn (J. Li),
be captured with independent formulation for tensile and com-
juj@ucla.edu (J.W. Ju). pressive damage. In these theories, however, the independency
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2016.04.038
0020-7683/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
126 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137
With the present decomposition in Eq. (8), it is natural to for- 3.4. Damage evolution laws
mulate a three-parameter damage expression as
Damage is driven by the thresholds as reflected in the ten-
σ = (1 − d+ )σ̄ + + (1 − d− )σ̄ − + (1 − d≡ )σ̄ ≡ , (10) sile/compressive damage evolution function
where d≡ is the damage variable in equi-triaxial compression. d ± = G± ( r ± ), (18)
Since hydrostatic compression tests of concrete (e.g. Green and
which is expected to meet the requirements for initial/final value
Swanson, 1973; Gabet et al., 2008) indicate that stiffness degrada-
and monotonicity
tion hardly occurs (despite considerable plastic deformation) un-
til the stress level reaches a very high value, d≡ is neglected (i.e. dG± ( r ± )
G± ( 0 ) = 0, lim G± (r ± ) = 1, ≥ 0. (19)
σ ≡ = σ̄ ≡ ) here and Eq. (10) is simplified to r ± →∞ dr ±
where t is the current instant. Y± and r± build up the ten- where H( ) is the Heaviside step function. As the fibers become
sile/compressive damage criterion infinitely thin, i.e. max {Al } → 0, the limit of Eq. (22) is
1
g± (Y ± , r ± ) = Y ± − r ± = 0. (17) d± = H[ε ±,e − ± (x )]dx, (23)
0
128 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137
Fig. 2. Microspring bundles. (a) Uniaxial tension. (b) Uniaxial compression. (c) Equi-triaxial compression.
Assume that the microscopic fracture strains ± (x) are log- where lch is the characteristic length of an element, which is intro-
normally distributed similar to the fracture strength of concrete duced to achieve mesh objectivity (Oliver et al., 1990).
(Bazant and Becq-Giraudon, 2002), and then the general expres-
sions in Eqs. (24) and (25) can be specifically calculated as 4.3. Superimposed basic stress states
±,e
ln ε − μ± The damage evolution in uniaxial tension (Fig. 2a) and that in
E[d ] =
±
±
(26)
V uniaxial compression (Fig. 2b) are tentatively taken to be indepen-
dent from each other for convenience as treated in many other
and theories (e.g. Wu et al., 2006; Cicekli et al., 2007; Caner and Ba-
±,e
1
ln ε − μ± ln ε ±,e − μ± žant, 2013a; Grassl et al., 2013).
D[d± ] = 2 ( 1 − r )
, ; r dr The presence of the third kind of basic stress state, equi-triaxial
0 V± V±
±,e compression (Fig. 2c), suppresses the damage evolution in uniaxial
ln ε − μ± compression (Fig. 2b). To account for this interaction, the super-
−
2 ±
, (27)
V position of uniaxial compression and equi-triaxial compression is
J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137 129
considered, i.e. the pseudo-triaxial compression in the compressive Replacing ε −,e in Eqs. (32) and (33) with ε˜−,e (r − ) leads to
meridional plane (σ̄1 = σ̄2 ). 1
In the present bundle model, this suppression on damage is re- d − = G− ( r − ) = H[ε˜−,e (r − ) − −
≡ (x )]dx (42)
flected through an increase in the microscopic fracture strains un- 0
−
−
, (33) where C and C̄ are the nominal and effective elastic stiffness, re-
V≡ spectively. From Eqs. (44) and (45)b, one gets the elastoplastic re-
lation in the effective stress space
where
−σ̄1 σ̄ = C̄:(ε − εp ). (46)
μ−≡ = E ln −≡ = μ− + c , (34)
fc In isotropic elasticity, Ē and ν are all that are needed to deter-
and mine C̄ and construct a linear elastic relation. A plastic relation
comprises several intertwined components and becomes rather
V≡− = D [ln − −
≡] = V . (35) complex when multiple hardening is introduced. Here the rel-
Remark 4.3. From a micromechanical view, this interaction be- atively simple Lubliner–Lee plasticity (Lubliner et al., 1989; Lee
tween the net part σ̄ − and confining part σ̄ ≡ comes from the sup- and Fenves, 1998) with tension–compression double hardening is
pression on shear sliding between crack surfaces (damage) by the adopted with some enrichment for triaxial compression.
normal pressure on them (confinement).
5.1. Yield criterion
4.4. General stress states
The yield function assumes the form
which takes the place of ε −,e (Fig. 2b) in general multiaxial com- where η0 is the parameter controlling dilation, is sufficient for bi-
pression. axial loading. To reflect the decrease in plastic dilation of concrete
130 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137
where
−σ̄1
η = η0 exp −cη (52)
fc
where f¯y±
is the initial effective yield stress in uniaxial ten-
sion/compression, K̄ ± the effective tensile/compressive strength in-
dex, and n± the tensile/compressive hardening exponent.
where ε1p
and ε3p
are the major and minor principal plastic strains,
respectively, and the weight factor
σ̄i
w = i . (55)
i |σ̄i |
In the present model, the increase in ductility of concrete in
triaxial compression is reflected by slowing down the evolution in
Eq. (54)b as
−σ̄1
κ˙ = wε
+
˙ 1p , κ˙ = −(1 − w )ε exp −cκ
−
˙ 3p , (56)
fc
κ˙ ± = λ˙ h± , (57)
Fig. 4. Evolution of yield surface. (a) Tensile hardening. (b) Compressive hardening.
where the tensile and compressive hardening functions are, respec-
tively,
It is noticed from Fig. 4b that the biaxial tensile strength de-
+ ∂ gp − ∂ gp −σ̄1 creases with compressive hardening. Detailed discussion on this is-
h =w , h = − (1 − w ) exp −cκ . (58)
∂ σ̄1 ∂ σ̄3 fc sue can be found in Zhang and Li (2012). For multiaxial tension,
tensile hardening is not independent in a strict sense from com-
5.5. Loading/unloading conditions pressive hardening.
Remark 5.3. From Eqs. (5), (31), (52), and (56), it can be seen
Finally with the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker loading/unloading condi-
that the present decomposition of stress uses −σ1 , the mini-
tions
mum principal compressive stress, to evaluate triaxial confinement,
f p ≤ 0, λ˙ ≥ 0, λ˙ f p = 0 (59) in contrast with the traditional spherical–deviatoric decomposi-
tion, which employs I1 . In the critical case of biaxial compression
and the consistency condition (σ1 = 0), there is no triaxial confinement at all according to the
λ˙ f˙ p = 0, (60) present theory.
Box 1
Split of rate constitutive equations.
2
previous sections are replaced here with the elastic, plastic, and
∂ d+ 1 1 ln ε˜+e − μ+
damage parts in Box 1, where is the displacement. It can serve = √ exp − (66)
∂ r + 2 2π V + r + 2 V+
as a mathematical foundation for developing first-order accurate
algorithms. and
These three parts are taken as split problems in a series, which ⎧ 2 ⎫
⎨ ln ε˜−e − μ− + c −fσ̄c 1 ⎬
add up to the original elastoplastic damage problem. The elas- ∂d −
1 1
= √ exp − ,
tic predictor problem and damage corrector problem are straight- ∂ r − 2 2π V − r − ⎩ 2 V− ⎭
forward and involve no iteration. For the plastic corrector prob-
lem, the spectral version (Lee and Fenves, 20 02; Wu, 20 04) of (67)
the closest-point projection return mapping algorithm (Simo and
Hughes, 1998) is employed. and for ∂ r± /∂ σ̄ one can use Eqs. (13)/(14) and (16) to get
∂ r+ 1 + −1 −1
= (σ̄ : C̄ + P+ : C̄ : σ̄ ) (68)
6.2. Consistent tangent stiffness ∂ σ̄ 2
and
The differentiation with respect to the strain increment εn+1
of the resulting σ̄n+1 and σn+1 give, respectively, the tangent stiff-
−
∂ r− 2C − − 3 s
ness consistent with the updating algorithms in elastic–plastic = α I 1 + 3J 2 αI + . (69)
∂σ E 2 s−
steps and elastic–plastic–damage steps,
∂ σ̄n+1 ∂ σn+1 The differentiation of the three parts from stress decomposition
C̄n+1 = , Cn+1 = , (61) in Eq. (64) generates three fourth-order tensors: ∂ σ̄ ≡ /∂ σ̄ can be
∂ εn+1 ∂ εn+1
obtained from Eq. (5) to be
which lead to
∂ σ̄ ≡
∂ σn+1 P≡ = = H (−σ̄1 )I N11 ; (70)
Cn+1 = : C̄n+1 . (62) ∂ σ̄ ]
∂ σ̄n+1
∂ σ̄ + /∂ σ̄ is derived in Faria et al. (20 0 0) as
In Eq. (62) C̄n+1 is already given as (Wu, 2004)
−1 ∂ σ̄ + σ̄i − σ̄ j
∂ gp ∂ ( λ ) ∂ 2 gp P+ = = H (σ̄i )Nii Nii + 2 Ni j Ni j ; (71)
C̄n+1 = C̄
−1
+ + λ (63)
∂ σ̄ i
]
i< j
σ̄i − σ̄ j
∂ σ̄n+1 ∂ σ̄n+1 ∂ σ̄n2+1
and the remaining ∂ σ̄ − /∂ σ̄ is
from conventional elastic–plastic algorithm, and ∂ σn+1 /∂ σ̄n+1
needs to be derived in accordance with the present damage for- ∂ σ̄ −
P− =
mulation. ∂ σ̄
From Eq. (11) one can obtain −σ̄ j − −σ̄i
= H (σ̄1 ) H (−σ̄i )Nii Nii + 2 Ni j Ni j
∂σ ∂ σ̄ + ∂ σ̄ − ∂ σ̄ ≡ ∂ d+ σ̄i − σ̄ j
− σ̄ +
[ [
= (1 − d + ) + (1 − d − ) + i i< j
∂ σ̄ ∂ σ̄ ∂ σ̄ ∂ σ̄ ∂ σ̄
+ H (−σ̄1 )(I − I N11 ), (72)
∂ d −
− σ̄ − . (64) ]
∂ σ̄
In Eq. (64) ∂ d± /∂ σ̄ is broken down into where Ni j = I is the fourth order symmetric iden-
∂ d± ∂ d± ∂ r± tity tensor, and the left-/right-continuous Heaviside step function
= , (65) is defined as
∂ σ̄ ∂ r± ∂ σ̄
where ∂ d± /∂ r ± can be acquired from Eqs. (39)/(43) and (37)/(40) 1, x>0 1, x≥0
H (x ) = 0, x≤0
, H (x ) = 0, x<0
. (73)
as ] [
132 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137
Further, they constitute a partition of unity: Remark 7.1. Although plastic deformation of concrete in tension
is much smaller than that in compression, it is still quite consid-
I = P+ + P− + P≡ . (74)
erable compared to elastic deformation in tension. The reason to
Remark 6.1. Wu and Xu (2013) demonstrate that the derivative neglect tensile plastic free energy is that tensile plastic deforma-
expressed by Eq. (70) also serves as the thermodynamically con- tion does not involve much frictional sliding and energy locking as
sistent projection operator such that discussed before Eq. (13). Plastic flow in tension generated by the
present model is attributed to microcrack opening without promi-
σ̄ + = P+ : σ̄ . (75) nent frictional effects.
Apparently, the derivative expressed by Eq. (69) satisfies
7.1.2. Cyclic compression
σ̄ = P≡ : σ̄ .
≡
(76) For cyclic uniaxial compression, the test by Karsan and Jirsa
And with Eq. (73), one has (1969) is simulated. The material parameters are calibrated as
listed in Table 3. The calculated stress–strain curve is shown along
σ̄ = P− : σ̄ .
−
(77) with the test data in Fig. 6.
Substituting Eqs. (74)–(76) into Eq. (10), comparing it to the
common representation of σ̄ with the damage effect tensor M 7.1.3. Reversed cyclic loading
For reversed cyclic uniaxial loading, appropriate test results are
σ̄ = M : σ , (78) not available. The material parameters listed in Table 4 in the next
and using Eq. (73), one gets section are used in this simulation, which are calibrated from the
tests by Kupfer et al. (1969). The calculated stress–strain curve is
M = (I − d+ P+ − d− P− − d≡ P≡ )−1 . (79) shown in Fig. 7.
Since d≡ is neglected in the present study, Eq. (78) is simplified In comparison with those successful 3D models (Caner and Ba-
to žant, 2013b; Grassl et al., 2013), which employ single hardening
plasticity, the present model (with tension–compression double
M = (I − d+ P+ − d− P− )−1 . (80) hardening) appears to produce more realistic behavior for concrete
under reversed cyclic loading. The performance of double harden-
7. Validations ing will be further examined later in Fig. 10 for biaxial loading.
It is seen that most of the basic characteristics of concrete un-
To validate the present constitutive theory, a series of typical der uniaxial loading, such as hardening, softening, stiffness degra-
mechanical tests of concrete specimens are simulated. For all these dation, irrecoverable deformation, and unilateral effects, can be
simulations, some of the material parameters are set fixed as listed represented appropriately with the proposed model. It is also
in Table 1, where ft is the uniaxial tensile strength. noted that the hysteresis between unloading and reloading fails
In the following simulations of uniaxial loading, the uniaxial to be characterized, which can be included through introduction
material parameters are just calibrated to reproduce the experi- of microsliders into the microspring systems in Fig. 2, leading to
mental results. As for multiaxial loading, part of the multiaxial test much more complex formulation.
data are set aside to calibrate the multiaxial material parameters,
which, together with the already calibrated uniaxial material pa- 7.2. Biaxial loading
rameters, are then used to blindly predict the other multiaxial test
data. For proportional biaxial loading, the tests by Kupfer et al.
(1969) are simulated. First the uniaxial material parameters Ē , ft , fc ,
7.1. Uniaxial loading
Table 3
7.1.1. Cyclic tension
Parameters for cyclic compression simulation.
For cyclic uniaxial tension, the test by Geopalaeratnam and
Shah (1985) is simulated. The material parameters are calibrated as Effective Young’s modulus Ē 34.7 × 103 N/mm2
Uniaxial compressive strength fc 27.4 N/mm2
listed in Table 2. The calculated stress–strain curve is shown along
Mean value of natural logarithm of μ− 7.33
with the test data in Fig. 5. compressive fracture strain
Standard deviation of natural logarithm V− 0.53
of compressive fracture strain
Table 1 Effective compressive strength index K− 0.045 Ē
Parameters for all simulations.
μ+ , μ− , V + , V − , K + , and K − are calibrated to fit the experimental the x axis; and then the displacement in this direction is kept con-
uniaxial stress–strain curves; and then they are used to predict the stant (εx ≡ 0.4 × 10−3 ), and the specimen is subjected to compres-
biaxial behavior with fbc calibrated from the peak stresses. These sion along the y axis. The material parameters listed in Table 4 are
parameters are collected in Table 4. used. The calculated stress–strain curves are displayed in Fig. 10. A
simulation of free uniaxial compression (without lateral restraint)
7.2.1. Tension–compression is also presented in Fig. 10b as a reference. Figs. 7 and 10 demon-
The calculated stress–strain curves in biaxial tension– strate the ability of the present model to formulate independent
compression are displayed along with the test data in plasticity/damage evolution in tension and compression.
Fig. 8. It is observed that the variation in strength and ductility, the
lateral deformation, and the independent tensile and compressive
7.2.2. Compression–compression plasticity/damage evolution of concrete under biaxial loading can
The calculated stress–strain curves in biaxial compression are be represented appropriately with the proposed model.
displayed along with the test data in Fig. 9.
7.3. Triaxial loading
7.2.3. Successive tension and compression
For compression that follows preceding tensile failure in a per- 7.3.1. Pseudo-triaxial compression
pendicular direction, a special loading scenario is simulated: first For pseudo-triaxial compression, the tests by Candappa et al.
a specimen is loaded in tension to almost complete failure along (2001) are simulated. First the uniaxial material parameters Ē ,
134 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137
fc , μ− , V − , and K − are calibrated to fit the experimental uniax- calculated stress–strain curves are exhibited along with the test
ial stress–strain curves, the triaxial material parameters c and data in Fig. 11.
cκ to fit the longitudinal stress–strain (σ 3 –ε 3 ) curve, and cη to This set of numerical examples demonstrate the ability of the
fit the longitudinal stress–lateral strain (σ 3 –ε 1 ) curve under the proposed model to reflect three basic confining effects: increase in
confining pressure σ 1 = σ 2 = −4 N/mm2 ; and then all these cali- strength, increase in ductility, and decrease in dilation.
brated parameters are used to predict the triaxial behavior under
σ 1 = σ 2 = −8 and −12 N/mm2 . They are collected in Table 5. The
Table 5
7.3.2. True triaxial compression
Parameters for pseudo-triaxial compression simulations. For true triaxial compression, the tests by van Mier (1984) are
simulated. First the uniaxial material parameters Ē , fc , μ− , V − , and
Effective Young’s modulus Ē 50.9 × 103 N/mm2
Uniaxial compressive strength fc 60.6 N/mm2
K − are set to produce the uniaxial stress–strain curve, and the tri-
Mean value of natural logarithm of μ− 7.65 axial material parameters c , cκ , and cη are calibrated to fit the
compressive fracture strain stress–strain curves in the loading path σ 1 : σ 2 : σ 3 = −0.05 :
Standard deviation of natural logarithm of V− 0.4 −0.1 : −1; and then all these calibrated parameters are used to
compressive fracture strain
predict the triaxial behavior in σ 1 : σ 2 : σ 3 = −0.05 : −0.33 : −1
Effective compressive strength index K− 0.035 Ē
(the cylindrical strength of the specimen is a bit lower than that
Coefficient of fracture enhancement c 3 of the one for calibration). They are collected in Table 6. The cal-
Coefficient of hardening slowdown cκ 5
Coefficient of dilation reduction cη 10.5
culated stress–strain curves are exhibited along with the test data
in Fig. 12.
J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137 135
Fig. 10. Longitudinal compression after transversal tension. (a) Transversal stress. (b) Longitudinal stress.
136 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 94–95 (2016) 125–137
This confining–net decomposition can be combined naturally Grassl, P., Xenos, D., Nyström, U., Rempling, R., Gylltoft, K., 2013. CDPM2: A dam-
with the positive–negative decomposition, which deals with uni- age-plasticity approach to modelling the failure of concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct.
50, 3805–3816.
lateral effects successfully. Consequently, the 3D damage model Green, S.J., Swanson, S.R., 1973. Static Constitutive Relations for Concrete Report No.
developed on the basis of the novel decomposition of stress, in AFWL-TR-72-2. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albu-
conjunction with the tension–compression double hardening plas- querque, NM.
Imran, I., Pantazopoulou, S.J., 2001. Plasticity model for concrete under triaxial com-
ticity, is also applicable under multiaxial tension–compression or pression. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 127, 281–290.
reversed cyclic loading. Jason, L., Huerta, A., Pijaudier-Cabot, G., Ghavamian, S., 2006. An elastic plastic dam-
More reliable experimental results in true triaxial compression age formulation for concrete: Application to elementary tests and comparison
with an isotropic damage model. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 195, 7077–
are warranted to further examine and improve the proposed the-
7092.
ory and to calibrate stochastic damage evolution. Ju, J.W., 1989. On energy-based coupled elastoplastic damage theories: Constitutive
Finally, with the neglected third damage variable restored and modeling and computational aspects. Int. J. Solids Struct. 25, 803–833.
Karsan, I.D., Jirsa, J.O., 1969. Behaviour of concrete under compressive loadings. J.
a closed yield surface employed, the presented framework can be
Struct. Eng. ASCE 95, 2543–2563.
extended to a more complex form for use under very high confine- Kupfer, H., Hilsdorf, H.K., Rusch, H., 1969. Behavior of concrete under biaxial
ment and hydrostatic compression. stresses. ACI J. Proc. 66, 656–666.
Ladeveze, P., 1983. Sur une Theorie de l’endommagement Anisotrope. Laboratoire de
Mecanique et Technologie, Cachan, France.
Acknowledgments Lee, J., Fenves, G.L., 1998. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete struc-
tures. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 124, 892–900.
The financial support from the National Science Foundation of Lee, J., Fenves, G.L., 2002. A return-mapping algorithm for plastic-damage models:
3D and plane stress formulation. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 50, 487–506.
China (NSFC) Projects (Grant nos. 51378377 and 51108336) and Li, J., Ren, X.D., 2009. Stochastic damage model for concrete based on energy equiv-
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant no. alent strain. Int. J. Solids Struct. 46, 2406–2419.
2016YXMS094) is greatly appreciated. The third co-author (J.W. Ju) Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., Oñate, E., 1989. A plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 25, 229–326.
acknowledges the financial support from the 10 0 0 Talents Program Luccioni, B.M., Rougier, V.C., 2005. A plastic damage approach for confined concrete.
of Tongji University and the Central Organization Department. Comput. Struct. 83, 2238–2256.
Mazars, J., Hamon, F., Grange, S., 2014. A new 3D damage model for concrete under
References monotonic, cyclic and dynamic loadings. Mater. Struct. 1–15.
Oliver, J., Cervera, M., Oller, S., Lubliner, J., 1990. Isotropic damage models and
smeared crack analysis of concrete. In: Proceedings of the Second International
Abu Al-Rub, R.K., Kim, S., 2010. Computational applications of a coupled plastici-
Conference on Computer Aided Analysis Design Concrete Structure. Zell am See,
ty-damage constitutive model for simulating plain concrete fracture. Eng. Fract.
pp. 945–957.
Mech. 77, 1577–1603.
Ortiz, M., 1985. A constitutive theory for inelastic behaviour of concrete. Mech.
Bazant, Z.P., Becq-Giraudon, E., 2002. Statistical prediction of fracture parameters of
Mater. 4, 67–93.
concrete and implications for choice of testing standard. Cem. Concr. Res. 32,
Papanikolaou, V.K., Kappos, A.J., 2007. Confinement-sensitive plasticity constitutive
529–556.
model for concrete in triaxial compression. Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 7021–7048.
Candappa, D.C., Sanjayan, J.G., Setunge, S., 2001. Complete triaxial stress–strain
Sánchez, P.J., Huespe, A.E., Oliver, J., Diaz, G., Sonzogni, V.E., 2012. A macroscopic
curves of high-strength concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. ASCE 13, 209–215.
damage-plastic constitutive law for modeling quasi-brittle fracture and ductile
Caner, F.C., Bažant, Z.P., 2013. Microplane model M7 for plain concrete. I: Formula-
behavior of concrete. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 36, 546–573.
tion. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 139, 1714–1723.
Shang, H.S., Ji, G.J., 2014. Mechanical behaviour of different types of concrete under
Caner, F.C., Bažant, Z.P., 2013. Microplane model M7 for plain concrete. II: Calibra-
multiaxial compression. Mag. Concr. Res. 66, 870–876.
tion and verification. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 139, 1724–1735.
Simo, J.C., Hughes, T.J.R., 1998. Computational Inelasticity. Springer-Verlag, New
Carrazedo, R., Mirmiran, A., Hanai, J.B.D., 2013. Plasticity based stress–strain model
York, NY.
for concrete confinement. Eng. Struct. 48, 645–657.
Valentini, B., Hofstetter, G., 2013. Review and enhancement of 3D concrete models
Cervenka, J., Papanikolaou, V.K., 2008. Three dimensional combined fracture-plastic
for large-scale numerical simulations of concrete structures. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
material model for concrete. Int. J. Plast. 24, 2192–2220.
Meth. Geomech. 37, 221–246.
Chi, Y., Xu, L., Yu, H., 2014. Constitutive modeling of steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber
Van Mier, J.G.M., 1984. Strain-Softening of Concrete under Multiaxial Loading Con-
reinforced concrete using a non-associated plasticity and its numerical imple-
ditions Ph.D. thesis. Eindhoven University Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
mentation. Compos. Struct. 111, 497–509.
Wu, J.Y., 2004. Damage Energy Release Rate-based Elastoplastic Damage Constitutive
Chorin, A.J., Hughes, T.J., McCracken, M.F., Marsden, J.E., 1978. Product formulas and
Model for Concrete and its Application to Nonlinear Analysis of Structures Ph.D.
numerical algorithms. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 31, 205–256.
thesis. Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Cicekli, U., Voyiadjis, G.Z., Abu Al-Rub, R.K., 2007. A plasticity and anisotropic dam-
Wu, J.Y., Li, J., Faria, R., 2006. An energy release rate-based plastic-damage model
age model for plain concrete. Int. J. Plast. 23, 1874–1900.
for concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct. 43, 583–612.
Faria, R., Oliver, J., Cervera, M., 1998. A strain-based plastic viscous-damage model
Wu, J.Y., Xu, S.L., 2013. Reconsideration on the elastic damage/degradation theory
for massive concrete structures. Int. J. Solids Struct. 35, 1533–1558.
for the modeling of microcrack closure-reopening (MCR) effects. Int. J. Solids
Faria, R., Oliver, J., Cervera, M., 20 0 0. On Isotropic Scalar Damage Models for the Nu-
Struct. 50, 795–805.
merical Analysis of Concrete Structures. CIMNE Monograph, No.198, Barcelona,
Zhang, J., Li, J., 2012. Investigation into Lubliner yield criterion of concrete for 3D
Spain.
simulation. Eng. Struct. 44, 122–127.
Gabet, T., Malécot, Y., Daudeville, L., 2008. Triaxial behaviour of concrete under high
Zhang, J., Li, J., 2014. Elastoplastic damage model for concrete based on consistent
stresses: influence of the loading path on compaction and limit states. Cem.
free energy potential. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 57, 2278–2286.
Concr. Res. 38, 403–412.
Zhang, J., Li, J., 2014. Microelement formulation of free energy for quasi-brittle ma-
Geopalaeratnam, V.S., Shah, S.P., 1985. Softening response of plain concrete in direct
terials. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 140, 06014008.
tension. ACI J. Proc. 82, 310–323.
Zhang, J., Zhang, Z.X., Chen, C.Y., 2010. Yield criterion in plastic-damage models for
Grassl, P., Jirasek, M., 2006. Damage-plastic model for concrete failure. Int. J. Solids
concrete. Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 23, 220–230.
Struct. 43, 7166–7196.
Grassl, P., Lundgren, K., Gylltoft, K., 2002. Concrete in compression: A plasticity the-
ory with a novel hardening law. Int. J. Solids Struct. 39, 5205–5223.