TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

CENTRAL CAMPUS, PULCHOWK

THESIS NO: S105/069

“Constitutive Modeling of Plain Concrete in Multiaxial Tensile Loading Utilizing

Damage Mechanics Theory”

by

Himal Kafle

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL

NOVEMBER, 2014
 COPYRIGHT©

The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of
Engineering, Central Campus, Pulchowk may make this thesis freely available for
inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of
this thesis for scholarly purpose may be granted by professor(s) who supervised the
thesis work recorded here in or, in their absence, by the Head of Department of
concerning M.Sc. Program coordinator or the Dean of the Institute wherein the thesis
work was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this
thesis and to the Department Of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Central
Campus, Pulchowk in any use of the material of thesis. Copying or publication or the
other use of the thesis for financial gain without approval of Department Of Civil
Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Central Campus, Pulchowk and author’s
written permission is prohibited.

Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of material in this thesis in
whole or in part should be addressed to

Head

Department of Civil Engineering

Institute of Engineering

Central Campus, Pulchowk

Lalitpur, Nepal

2
 TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

PULCHOWK CAMPUS

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled “Constitutive modeling of plain
concrete in multiaxial tensile loading utilizing damage mechanics theory”
submitted by Mr. Himal Kafle (069/MSS/105) in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Structural Engineering.

…………………………….

Supervisor, Dr. Kamal Bahadur

Thapa

Department of Civil
Engineering

Institute Of
Engineering

……………………………….

External Examiner, Sagar

Joshi

Department of Urban Development and Building

Construction

………………………………...

Program Coordinator, Prof. Dr. Gokarna Bahadur

Motra

Department of Civil Engineeri

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Kamal

Bahadur Thapa, for his valuable suggestions, helpful guidance and encouragement.
The efforts of Dr. Thapa were a major factor in bringing this work in present form.

I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Hikmat Raj Joshie, Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey,
Prof. Dr. Hariram Parajuli, Dr. Rajan Suwal, Er.Nabin Chandra Sharma, Er. Sidhharth
Sankar, Er. Alin Chandra Shakya for their valuable guidance during my course work.

I would also like to express my deepest gratefulness to my family. Although

thousands of miles away, their love and support enlightened me and gave me hope
when I needed it most.

Lastly all concerned staff of M.Sc. program in structural engineering also deserves
thanks for their help.

HIMAL KAFLE

069/MSS/105

4
 ABSTRACT

In this work, constitutive modeling of plain concrete in multiaxial tensile loading is

established. In order to represent concrete behavior under tensile loading, a continuum
damage mechanics formulation in stress-space is outlined wherein damage is reflected
directly in the fourth-order material compliance tensor. The continuum damage
mechanics is cast within general framework of internal variable theory of
thermodynamics in which dissipation inequality was established. A new damage
function in uniaxial tension is formulated. Program codes in MATLAB are developed
for theoretical as well as proposed models. Result show that model predicted stress-
strain curves agree well with that obtained experimentally.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT©………………………………………………………………………..2
CERTIFICATE………………………………………………………………………..3
ACKNOWLEGEMENT………………………………………………………………4
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………...5
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………...6
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….8
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS…………………………………….10
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….12
1.1 Background ................................................................. ……………………..12
1.2 Rationale of study.......................................................................................... 13
1.3 Objectives of the present research ................................................................. 13
1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 13
1.5 Software to be used: ...................................................................................... 14
1.6 Organization of thesis.................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………15
2.1 Mechanical Behavior of Concrete ..................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Uniaxial Compression ................................................................................. 16
2.1.2. Uniaxial Tension ........................................................................................ 19
2.1.3 Biaxial Compression ................................................................................... 21
2.1.4 Triaxial Compression .................................................................................. 22
2.2 Constitutive Modeling of concrete .................................................................. 24
2.2.1 Michael Ortiz (1984, Brown University) .................................................... 24
2.2.2 V.S. Gopalratnam and Surendra P. Shah (1985, University of Missouri,
NorthwesternUniversity)...................................................................................... 24
2.2.3 W.A.M. Brekelmans P.J.M. Schreurs and J.H.P. de Vree (1991, Eindhoven
Netherlands). ........................................................................................................ 25
2.2.4 R. Raveendra Babu, Gurmail S. Benipal and Arbinda K. Singh ( IIT Delhi
,IITGuwahiti). ...................................................................................................... 25
2.2.5 K.R. Wu ,W.Yao (Tongji Univercity ) And Z.J. Li (Hongkong University)
.............................................................................................................................. 25
2.2.6 Graham Baker (2005, University of Southern Queensland) ....................... 25
2.2.7. Kondo,Djemedo and Welemane,Helene and Cormery Fabrice(2007) ...... 26
CHAPTER: 3 THERMODYNAMICS OF MATERIAL…………………...27
3.1 Thermodynamic potential and property: ............................................................ 27

6
 3.2 Entropy:.............................................................................................................. 27
3.3 Enthalpy and Free Energy: ............................................................................... 28
3.4 First law of thermodynamics ............................................................................. 30
3.5 Second Law (Clausius-Duhem inequality) ........................................................ 31

3.6 Legendre transformation and thermodynamic potentials .................................. 32

CHAPTER 4 GENERAL FORMULATION……………………………………33
4.1 Anisotropic Damage .......................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 5 CALCULATIONS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………….40
RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………...49
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...51
APPENDIX A (Program Codes)…………………………………………………..53
Program code for uniaxial tension ........................................................................... 53
Program code for triaxial tension ............................................................................. 54
Program code for multiaxial tension ........................................................................ 55
Program code for sress vs Eok ................................................................................. 56
Program code for comparison of Theoretical and Experimental curve in uniaxial
tension ...................................................................................................................... 56
Program code for Proposed model ........................................................................... 58
APENDIX B (Calculation of stress and strains)………………………………..59

7
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1 Material parameters are taken for the calculations: (S. Yazdani)…………40

Table B.1 Sample Calculation for uniaxial tension…………………………………..60

Table B.2 Experimental data for uniaxial tension (Gopalratnam and Shah(1985)…..64

8
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Stress-strain behavior of concrete under monotonic and cyclic

compressive loading (Bahn and Hsu, 1998)………………………………………….16

Figure 2.2 Typical stress-volumetric strain curve for concrete in uniaxial compression
(data from Kupfer et al., 1969)………………………………………………………18
Figure 2.3 Typical tensile stress-strain curve for concrete (Hughes and Chapman,
1966)………………………………………………………………………………….19
Figure 2.4 Stress-strain relationships of concrete under biaxial compression(Kupfer et
al.,1969)………………………………………………………………………………22
Figure 2.5 Stress-strain curves of concrete in triaxial compression (Balmer, 1949)...23
Figure 2.6. Schematic representation of pressure-volumetric strain curve for
concrete………………………………………………………………………………24
Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of stress-strain behavior of a brittle solid in
tension………………………………………………………………………………..37
Figure 5.1 Theoretical Stress-strain curve of plain concrete under uniaxial
tension………………………………………………………………………………..41
Figure 5.2 Stress-strain curve for plain concrete under Biaxial tension.……………42

Figure 5.3 Stress-strain curve for plain concrete under Triaxial tension…………43
Figure 5.4 Stress-strain curve for plain concrete under Triaxial tension…………….44
Figure 5.5 Stress-strain curve for plain concrete under multiaxial tensile
loading………………………………………………………………………………..45
Figure 5.6 Comparison of theoretical and experimental axial stress-strain curve for
plain concrete under uniaxial tension………………………………………………...46

Figure 5.7 Comparision of proposed and experimental axial stress-strain curve for
plain concrete under uniaxial tension………………………………………………...47

Figure 5.8 Variation of damage with damage parameter…………………………….48

9
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS

A Helmholtz free energy per unit

volume

Eo Initial stiffness tensor

ED Degraded stiffness tensor

σ Stress tensor

σ+ Positive cone of stress tensor

σ- Negative cone of stress tensor

σ1/σ2,σ3 Axial/lateral stress

ԑ Strain tensor

ԑ1/ ԑ2,ԑ3 Axial/lateral strain

𝜀𝑢 Strain corresponding to peak

stress

L(ԑ) Fourth order response tensor

k Damage parameter for

theoretical model

Ψ(𝜀, 𝑘) Damage function

𝑡(𝜀, 𝑘) Hardening softening

function

C Compliance tensor

Co Initial Compliance tensor

Cc (k) Added Compliance tensor

R Fourth order response tensor

M Second order response tensor

s Specific entropy

10
u Specific internal energy

𝜂 Entropy per unit mass

V Thermodynamic substate

𝜃 Temperature

𝜏𝑗 Thermodynamic Tensions

h Enthalpy

g Gibbs function

G Gibbs free energy

n Unit outward normal

𝛾 Concrete material parameter

ft Ultimate tensile strength of

concrete

H(•) Heaviside function

I Fourth order identity tensor

i Second order identity tensor

: Tensor contraction

⊗ Tensor multiplication

µ Damage parameter for

proposed model

µ* Damage parameter

corresponding to peak stress

11
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Concrete is most commonly used man made construction material. Concrete is getting
more popularity due to simple fact that except cement all ingredients of concrete are
commonly available local materials like aggregate and water. Therefore concrete is
being used as construction material from small pavements to run-ways and express-
ways, from small hutments to multi-storied buildings, from small culverts to long
multi-span bridges. Concrete is a non-homogeneous mixture of coarse aggregates,
sand and hydrated cement paste. The behavior of concrete under mechanical loads is
affected by the development, growth and coalescence of microcracks leading to the
formation and propagation of microcracks eventually to rupture. Classical fracture
mechanics is unable to predict crack initiation appropriately while crack propagation
can only be described when crack-path is known beforehand. Continuum damage
mechanics is the constitutive theory that describes the progressive loss of material
integrity due to the propagation and coalescence of microcracks, microvoids and
similar defects. These changes in the microstructure lead to a degradation of the
material stiffness observed on the macroscale.

The continuum damage approach, first elaborated by Kachanov (1958) using effective
stress concept for modeling creep rupture, has been used extensively by many authors
(Ortiz,1985; Simo and Ju 1987; Yazdani and Schreyer,1988; Yazdani,1993; Yazdani
and Karnawat,1997; Geers et al, 2000; Jirasek and Patzak,2002; Khan et al,2007 etc.)
to describe progressive deterioration of mechanical properties of brittle material due
to developments of cracks and microcracks. It has been argued that a successful
utilization of damage theories as an engineering tool for the analysis of complex
structural system would enhance our capability for a more reliable design.

Tensile strength of concrete is an important property of concrete because concrete

structures are highly vulnerable to tensile cracking due to various kinds of effects and
applied loading itself. Two indirect test methods are established to find out tensile
strength of concrete i.e. split cylinder test and flexure test. Experiments were carried
out by Gopalratnam and Shah (1885) to establish stress-strain relation in uniaxial
tension. Due to many advantages of continuum damage mechanics over other

12
theories, in this research it is used for constitutive modeling of plain concrete in
multiaxial tensile loading.

1.2 Rationale of study

Most of the constitutive modeling of brittle material like concrete is established

utilizing plasticity approach which considers that the stiffness of material remains
constant throughout the loading and permanent deformation occurs due to particle
dislocation and relocation. Actually the material stiffness degrades as it is function of
damage. Stiffness degrades due to formation of microcracks and microvoids. For this,
a proper model taking damage and stiffness degradation into account, is very essential
for engineers to understand actual behavior of concrete under loading.

1.3 Objectives of the present research

The primary objectives of the present research are;

 To develop suitable constitutive model for plain concrete in multiaxial tensile

loading.
 To compare the validity of established model by comparing with experimental
results.
 To propose a suitable constitutive model for uniaxial tension.

1.4 Methodology

Following procedures are adopted to accomplish the objectives of this thesis work:

 Review of various literatures

 General formulation for the proposed model
 Development of analytical model utilizing continuum damage mechanics
theory, addressing important material parameters like stiffness, material
damage parameter, stress and strain
 Computation work using MATLAB
 Generation of stress-strain curves for plain concrete in multiaxial tensions
 Comparison of proposed model with experimental works of the previous
researchers.
13
1.5 Software to be used:
 MATLAB
 Plot Digitizer
 Microsoft office excel

1.6 Organization of thesis

Logical sequence of this research work is presented in the following way:
 Chapter1 gives an introduction to concrete behavior and continuum
damage mechanics, rationale of study, objectives of research and
methodologies of research.
 Chapter 2 deals with review of researches on the analytical and
experimental stress-strain modeling and their limitations are also
presented.
 Chapter 3 is concerned with thermodynamics of materials.
 Chapter 4 is the main body the present research, dealing with formulation
and development of the constitutive model for plain concrete under
multiaxial tension utilizing damage mechanics theory.
 Chapter 5 accounts for results, discussions and limitations of this thesis
work.
 The details of calculations and experimental data concerned parameters for
the concerned parameters are included in appendices A and B.

14
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Mechanical Behavior of Concrete

The general mechanical behavior of concrete furnishes important information in the
development of constitutive damage theory of concrete. The term damage indicates
the material deterioration due to the formation of cracks and microcracks. Before
establishing constitutive relation for concrete by employing any proposed continuum
damage theory, it is better to understand its phenomenological behavior. Shrinkage,
segregation, thermal expansion and volume changes are the main factors responsible
for microcracks in concrete prior to external loadings. The growth of these preexisting
microcracks and the nucleation of new microcracks under external loadings lead to
the nonlinear stress-strain behavior. Highly extended and widened cracks near
ultimate load causes dilatation in concrete. To develop a good and reliable continuum
damage mechanics theory for brittle solids, one needs to incorporate the kinematics
associated with the microcrack formation in constitutive relation. Many researchers,
from their experimental results, have believed that the progressive development and
growth of cracks and microcracks gradually increases the compliance of the concrete
material. In other words, it can be said that the gradual reduction of the stiffness of
concrete is the result of the growth of cracks and microcracks. In the damage
mechanics theory of Ortiz (1985) and Yazdani & Schreyer (1988), the effect of
microcracks is incorporated in the compliance tensor of the material.
The mechanical behavior of concrete in different loading situations is explained and
summarized in this chapter. This provides a solid background for the development of
new damage mechanics model for concrete. The mechanical behavior of concrete is
also affected by some factors such as the water cement ratio, the shape and size of
aggregate, the kind of cement used, etc. However, they are not mentioned here and the
material is considered as a continuum with initial isotropic behavior.

15
2.1.1 Uniaxial Compression
Stress-strain curves for concrete in monotonic and cyclic compressive loadings are
shown in Figure 1. The stress-strain curve is highly nonlinear in compression. The
reason behind this nonlinearity in stress-strain curve is the development and growth of
cracks during the application of compressive load. Based on the crack formation and
failure, this stress-strain curve is divided into four regions. These four major stages in
the development of microcracking and failure are briefly explained below.

Figure 2.1 Stress-strain behavior of concrete under monotonic and cyclic compressive
loading (Bahn and Hsu, 1998).

1. Linear elastic range: In the initial region up to about 30% of maximum

compressive strength, f c , the stress-strain curve follows linear elastic relation. In this
region, the naturally occurred microcracks in concrete are almost inactive. This
indicates that the available internal energy is not sufficient enough to create new
microcrack surfaces. The microcracking process begins from this stress level (i.e.,
30% of f c ). The stress level of about 0.3 f c is defined as an elastic limit of concrete
because of the onset of cracking(Kotsovos and Newman, 1977).

2. Range of stable crack propagation: In the range between 30 to 50% of f c′

, the
development and growth of bond cracks is observed due to stress concentrations at the
crack tips. Stress on the interface of aggregate and mortar exceeds the bond strength
of the aggregate. This stress range has negligible effect on the mortar cracks, and they

16
remain unchanged. In this stress range, the available internal energy is approximately
equal to the required crack release energy. The final lengths of cracks will remain
unchanged, if the stress level is maintained constant. In other words, under constant
applied stress, no further growth of cracks is observed. This means the crack
propagation is stable in this stress range.
3. Range of stable mortar cracks: This region lies between 50 to 75% of f c′in the
uniaxial compressive stress-strain curve. Bond cracks propagate through the mortar.
Moreover, some of the new bond cracks are also formed slowly. The propagation of
mortar cracks is approximately stable. Under constant applied load, cracks continue to
grow and slowly reach their final lengths with no further growth. In this range, the
load increment is fully utilized in the development and growth of cracks.
4. Range of unstable crack propagation: When the stress is above about 75% of f c′
,
cracks extended in the direction of applied compressive stress gradually become
wider and wider. The rate of crack propagation also increases. As the extended cracks
attain their critical lengths, the system becomes unstable. The available internal
energy is greater than the required crack release energy. After this stress range,
complete failure of concrete may take place even though the loading is maintained
constant.
In uniaxial compression tests of concrete, microcracks developed are approximately
parallel to the applied load. These extended cracks are mainly responsible for the
progressive failure of concrete. The nonlinear ascending portion of the stress-strain
curve is called the strain hardening regime, whereas the descending part of the curve
indicates the strain softening regime. The peak in the curve represents the maximum
compressive strength, f c′
.
The initial Poisson’s ratio of concrete, which is usually taken as 0.2 in uniaxial
compression, varies with the monotonically increasing compressive loads. Shah and
Chandra (1968) reported that concrete, under monotonically increasing uniaxial
compression, attains a certain stress level at which its Poisson’s ratio begins to
increase continuously and considerably. This stress level is called initiation stress.
Another phenomenological behavior of concrete in uniaxial compression test is shown
in Figure 2.This figure shows the relationship between axial stress and volumetric
strain in uniaxial compression test of concrete. Within stress level up to about 75 to
90% of f c′
, the volumetric strain (ε v ) of concrete is nearly linear. Maximum

17
compaction is attained at this stress level. As the concrete specimen is loaded above
this stress level, the lateral strain abruptly increases due to the widening of the
extended cracks, and the volume

Figure 2.2 Typical stress-volumetric strain curve for concrete in uniaxial

compression (data from Kupfer et al., 1969).

expansion takes place. This phenomenon of increase in volume is termed as dilatation.

The composite nature of concrete is the main reason for this inelastic behavior (Shah
and Chandra, 1968). It was found experimentally (Shah and Chandra, 1968) that the
cement paste in concrete does not participate in this volume expansion under
compressive loading. The stone aggregates present in the concrete results in dilatation
at a certain level of stress. The stress level at which the volume of concrete starts to
increase is termed critical stress. In concrete under monotonically increasing uniaxial
compression, the beginning of volume expansion may be an indicator of internal
disruption (Brandtzaeg, 1927). The reversal of the stress-volumetric strain curve in
Figure 2 depicts the dilatational behavior of frictional material like concrete.

Actually, cracks are not exactly parallel to the axis of compressive loading. They are
inclined at certain angle with the loading axis. The inclined bond cracks are mainly
due to the irregular shapes of the aggregates used in concrete. Due to the inclination
of these pre-existed bond cracks, shear stress components of the applied stress are
developed. The components of these shear stresses are mainly responsible for shear
sliding and the surface separation in two sides of the crack. The phenomena of shear

18
sliding and surface separation completely destroy the aggregate-mortar interface, and
the interface cracks start to penetrate through the mortar. With the addition of further
load in concrete, the propagation of cracks follows the preferred cleavage planes and
cracks become parallel to the axis of loading.

2.1.2. Uniaxial Tension

The experimentally observed deformation process for concrete in uniaxial tension is
different from that in uniaxial compression. Concrete is weak in tension and strong in
compression The strength of concrete in uniaxial compression is approximately 10 to
20 times as high as that in uniaxial tension. The low tensile strength of aggregate-
mortar interface, which serves as the weakest link, makes the concrete weaker in
tension than in compression. The crack patterns in tension are also quite different
from that in compression. In uniaxial tension, the existing microcracks have complete
freedom to open in the direction of loading. It is also believed that microcracks and
cracks opening in the direction of tensile stress significantly reduce the load bearing
area, and makes concrete weaker in tension than in compression. Failure takes place
due to splitting of the material in the direction of loading along the cleavage plane
formed by few bridging cracks. The sudden failure of highly unstable major crack is
referred to as brittle failure. Figure 3 shows the experimental stress-strain curve for
concrete in uniaxial tension reported by Hughes and Chapman (1966).

Figure2.3: Typical tensile stress-strain curve for concrete (Hughes and Chapman,
1966).

19
The stress level of about 60% of the uniaxial tensile strength, f t′
, up to which the
existing microcracks are passive, can be regarded as the limit of elasticity in tension.
Also, the new microcracks are not initiated in this stress range. Above 60% of stress
level, the growth of bond cracks is observed. From 60 to 75% of f t′
, the crack
propagation is stable. The interval of stable crack propagation in uniaxial tension is
found to be shorter than that in uniaxial compression because of its lower crack
arresting capacity. Unstable crack propagation begins, when the stress level is just
above 75% of f t′
. Due to the rapid propagation of unstable cracks, it becomes very
difficult to present the experimental data in the descending portion of the tensile
stress-strain curve.
Some other experimentally observed behaviors of concrete under loading are
the existence of permanent deformation, strain softening beyond the peak stress,
stiffness degradation, both in tension and in compression. The main causes of the
irreversible strains are the formation of microcracks and the flow of aggregates within
the concrete material. The descending part of the stress-strain curve represents the
strain softening behavior. Strain softening is regarded as a decrease in strength with
the gradual increase in strain after the peak strength value is reached. The stiffness
degradation, which is more pronounced after post-peak range, is mainly due to the
formation of cracks and microcracks (i.e. damage) in concrete. However, due to the
crack closure effect, stiffness of concrete degraded in tensile loading will be
recovered in reversed compressive loading. In this tension-compression load reversal,
cracks opened due to tensile loading will be closed by the reversed compressive
loading, and stiffness recovery happens.

Another aspect of concrete behavior is the preloading effect in tension or

compression. Concrete specimen which has already been subjected to loading-
unloading sequence in a given direction is said to be preloaded concrete. Such
preloading effect in one direction, in tension or compression, reduces the strength of
concrete in the orthogonal direction. Stankowski (1990) reported, in his numerical
simulation, that brittle material sacrifices some strength in one direction due to the
effect of preloading in the orthogonal direction. Experimental observations by van
Mier (1984) on concrete cubes in the presence of lateral pressure also reported the
effect of preloading on the strength of concrete.
20
2.1.3 Biaxial Compression
Structural concrete members such as beams, shells, plates and various containment
structures are generally subjected to biaxial stress states due to the complexity of
external loadings. Therefore, it is essential to fully understand the behavior of
concrete under biaxial stress states. Many researchers have conducted experiments on
concrete for the past 100 years to fully understand its stress-strain relationships in
biaxial stress paths. Moreover, the strength and failure criterion for concrete under
biaxial stress paths plays very important role in the design of structural concrete. Most
of the experimental works done so far are restricted in the range of biaxial
compression, and few data on the behavior of concrete in biaxial tension and in
combined compression-tension are available. Kupfer et al. (1969) reported in their
experimental work that the strengths of concrete in uniaxial and biaxial tensile stress
paths are nearly the same, and is approximately independent of stress ratio σ1 /σ 2 .
However, their test results in combined compression and tension have indicated that
the increase in tensile stress reduces the compressive strength of concrete.
In biaxial compression test, concrete specimen is subjected to monotonically
increasing compressive stresses in two mutually perpendicular directions leaving the
third direction as stress free. Figure 4 shows the experimental results of Kupfer et al.
(1969). It is seen in the figure that the strength of concrete in biaxial compression is
dependent on the stress ratio σ1 / σ 2 . They are different for different stress ratio. It is
seen that the biaxial strength of concrete increases with stress ratio, but the maximum
strength is obtained at the stress ratio of 0.5. At stress ratio of σ1 / σ 2 = 0.5 , the
maximum strength is about 27% higher than the uniaxial compressive strength of
concrete f c′
, while the increase is about 16% at an equal biaxial compression (

σ1 / σ 2 = 1 ). Strength and ductility both increases, to some extent, in biaxial

compression stress state of concrete. In biaxial compression of concrete, volume
expansion occurs near the peak load (Refer Kupfer et al., 1969).

21
 1.4 σ/f'c
-σ1/-σ2 = -1/-0.52
1.2

1 -σ1/-σ2 = -1/-1

-σ1/-σ2 = -1/0
0.8

0.6
f'c = -4.757 Ksi
0.4 εc = -0.0022

0.2
Tensile strain Compressive strain
0
-2 -1 0 1 2
Strain, ε/εc

Figure 2.4 Stress-strain relationships of concrete under biaxial compression (Kupfer et

al., 1969).

2.1.4 Triaxial Compression

The general mechanical behavior of concrete in triaxial compression is quite different
from those observed in uniaxial and biaxial compression. In triaxial compression test,
material under constant confining pressure is subjected to monotonically increasing
axial compressive load until material fails. It can be carried out at low, moderate and
high confining stress. Balmer (1949) adopted very high confining pressure in triaxial
compression tests for plain concrete. Based on the level of confinement, concrete
reveals three distinct features such as quasi-brittle, plastic softening, and plastic
hardening. One important clarification for this is that under increasing hydrostatic
pressure the development and growth of cracks and microcracks are restricted, and
concrete fails due to crushing rather than splitting. Balmer (1949) reported the
enhancement of strength and ductility with increasing confining pressure. Figure 5,
obtained experimentally by Balmer (1949), is treated here as a typical axial stress-
strain behavior for concrete in triaxial compression.

22
 72

60

Pressure
48
Axial stress (Ksi)

20 Ksi
15 Ksi
36
7.5 Ksi
2.5 Ksi

24 1 Ksi
0 Ksi
Hydrostat
12

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Axial strain

Figure 2.5 Stress-strain curves of concrete in triaxial compression (Balmer, 1949).

However, concrete under pure hydrostatic pressure possesses different behavior than
that observed in triaxial compression. The possibility of cracks to open is negligible in
hydrostatic compression, and thus completely obscures the process of crack
formation. Therefore, under hydrostatic compression, no damage is assumed to occur
in concrete due to the passive microcrack field. The above explanations are supported
by the experimental work of Resende (1987) where the unloading curve in pure
hydrostatic compression path is shown to be parallel to the initial modulus.
Another phenomenological behavior of concrete to be discussed is the shear enhanced
compaction. Hardening of concrete during loading is mainly due to pore compaction.
Void closure in concrete is caused both by shear stress and by hydrostatic pressure.
However, the shear stress present at the material point is more effective in closing the
voids than that of hydrostat. This means the shear stress governs the compaction
behavior of concrete. Figure 6 shows the schematic representation of pressure-
volumetric strain curve for concrete under hydrostatic pressure and uniaxial strain (in
the presence of shear stress). It is seen from the figure that pressure required to
compact concrete to a given volumetric strain in the presence of shear stress (i.e.,

23
uniaxial strain state) is lower than that in the absence of shear stress (i.e., hydrostatic
pressure). This behavior is also found in most geological materials.

HYDROSTATIC
COMPRESSION

UNIAXIAL
STRAIN

εv
Figure 2.6 Schematic representation of pressure-volumetric strain curve for concrete

2.2 Constitutive Modeling of concrete

2.2.1 Michael Ortiz (1984, Brown University)

Michael Ortiz proposed a general theory for the inelasticity of concrete, the main
constituents being new, rate independent model of distributed damage for mortar and
the application of mixture theories for the composite nature of concrete. The proposed
theory of damage was capable of accommodating fully anisotropic elastic degradation
both in tension and compression in a manner ideally suited for computation. Mixture
theories on the other hand are found to provide a simple yet effective for
characterizing the values of phase stresses that act on mortar and aggregate and which
derive damage and plastic flow.

2.2.2 V.S. Gopalratnam and Surendra P. Shah (1985, University of Missouri,

NorthwesternUniversity)
V.S. Gopalratnam and Surendra P. Shah developed a method to obtain reliable load-
deformation behavior in tension including post peak softening response. To
characterize softening response, strains at various locations on the specimen,
elongation for various gage length and optical measurement of crack widths were

24
made. An analytical expression was developed to describe the entire response of plain
concrete.

2.2.3 W.A.M. Brekelmans P.J.M. Schreurs and J.H.P. de Vree (1991, Eindhoven
Netherlands)
Continuum damage mechanics was used to model the failure behavior of brittle
material. In the constitutive relation a damage parameter was incorporated. A damage
criterion was postulated to show the difference between tension and compression
strength. A damage growth law was quantified based on experimental data of
concrete. For the elaboration of mathematical formulation finite element method.
Numerical results obtained for a plain strain example showed the merit of procedure.

2.2.4 R. Raveendra Babu, Gurmail S. Benipal and Arbinda K. Singh ( IIT Delhi
,IITGuwahiti)
R. Raveendra Babu, Gurmail S. Benipal and Arbinda K. Singh described the various
developments in this based on different approaches elasticity, plasticity, continuum
damage mechanics, plastic fracturing, indocronic theory, microplane models, etc. they
assumed that the material undergo small deformations. Only time dependent
constitutive models and issues related to their implementation are discussed.

2.2.5 K.R. Wu ,W.Yao (Tongji Univercity ) And Z.J. Li (Hongkong University)

Damage Mechanics was used to investigate concrete subjected to uniaxial tensile

loading. Three mixtures of concrete specimens were tested to establish the damage
equations. Moreover a rather simple strain softening model of concrete, containing an
adjustable material parameter is, deduced. It was found that calculated results based
on the proposed model were in remarkably good agreement with sample experimental
data.

2.2.6 Graham Baker (2005, University of Southern Queensland)

Graham Baker provided general overview of main concepts of thermodynamic

processes as they applied to studies in non linear solid mechanics. He gave descriptive
commentary on the (physical) interpretation of these concepts and related these where
appropriate to behavior of solids under thermo-mechanical conditions.

25
2.2.7. Kondo,Djemedo and Welemane,Helene and Cormery Fabrice(2007)

Kondo, Djemedo and Welemane, Helene and Cormery Fabrice presented the basic
elements macroscopic modeling of damage. They recalled the general approach of
continuum damage mechanics based on the thermodynamic irreversible processes and
its application to isotropic damage modeling. The study of damage induced anisotropy
was treated by considering second order tensorial damage variable. Finally they
presented an original microscopic approach through which is addressed the question
of uniaxial lateral effects due to the microcracks closure.

26
 CHAPTER: 3
THERMODYNAMICS OF MATERIAL

3.1 Thermodynamic potential and property:

Thermodynamic potential are quantities from which all characteristics of the system
can be deduced. Energy is the obvious thermodynamic potentials. Specific form of
energy is most suitable form of thermodynamic potential for various uses.

Thermodynamic potential is function of set of independent variables. Some examples

include plastic strain or a damage variable. Associated with this set of independent
variables, there is set of dependent variables, called thermodynamic properties.

If we write energy as a function of state variables, Π = Π(𝜒0, 𝜒1 …………….),then

the chain rule yields,
𝜕Π 𝜕Π
𝑑Π = 𝜕𝜒 𝑑𝜒0 + 𝜕𝜒 𝑑𝜒1 + ⋯. (3.1)
0 1

In this very general expression, the derivatives like 𝜕Π 𝜕𝜒𝑗 are the thermodynamic
properties associated with independent variable 𝜒𝑗 .

3.2 Entropy:

Associated with every thermodynamic state, there is level of entropy. Claussius

coined the entropy and in a material it is defined as a tendency towards disorder.
Claussius developed the concept to relate the heat exchanged in a reversible process at
constant temperature. The change in entropy, S, from one state 𝜺𝟏 to another state 𝜺𝟐 ,
is represented by the closed integral of heat exchange over temperature
𝑑𝑄
𝑆 𝜀1 − 𝑆 𝜀2 = , (3.2)
𝜃

Where dQ is the actually the heat entering the system across all boundaries in the
isothermal process, and 𝜃 is the absolute temperature. This leads simply to 𝑑𝑄 = 𝜃𝑑𝑆
for a reversible process. More accurately, we write equation (3.2) with closed
boundary integral

𝑡2 𝑑𝑞
𝑆 𝜀1 − 𝑆 𝜀2 = 𝑡1 𝑠 𝜃
𝑑𝑠𝑑𝑡, (3.3)

Where dq is inward normal heat flux, and s is the boundary coordinate.

27
Entropy is thus associated with change in state, and plays a crucial role in
thermodynamics since it can distinguish between heat and work. That in itself leads to
the second law of thermodynamics. The second law recognizes that heat and work and
work are not equivalent because mechanical energy can be completely converted to
thermal energy while thermal can be partially converted to the mechanical energy
during any cyclic process. There must be then dissipation.

In fact entropy is an appropriate state variable governing internal energy, associated

with the transfer of heat. The elementary exchange of heat is then
𝜕𝐸
𝑑𝑄 = 𝑑𝑆 = 𝜃𝑑𝑆. (3.4)
𝜕𝑆

The latter term comes by comparison with equation (3.2), so that we deduce
𝜕𝐸
𝜃= , (3.5)
𝜕𝑆

The incremental increase in energy, 𝜕Π, involves the sum of many partial differential
terms, the first of which is the elementary heat exchange equations (3.2) and (3.4): the
remainder must be the change in work. Since the state variables are independent,
work is independent of entropy, and so entropy separates heat and work in energy
exchange. Furthermore, the rate of heat exchange is thus 𝑄 = 𝜃𝑆 , and so total heat
exchanged is then 𝜃𝑆.

3.3 Enthalpy and Free Energy:

Free energy is defined as internal energy minus heat exchanged, by a Legendre
transformation

𝐹 = 𝐸 − 𝜃𝑆 (3.6)

Then, by simple differentiation, noting that E depends upon S not on 𝜃, we have

𝜕𝐹
𝑆 = − 𝜕𝜃 (3.7)

The consequence is that the temperature becomes independent variable for free
energy and entropy its thermodynamic property.

This form of energy is known as Helmholtz free energy is dominant in the study of
solids. For a solid internal energy is the function of entropy, strain and independent
variable specific to problem: 𝐸 = 𝐸 𝑆, 𝜀, … … … . . Thus the common stress-strain
laws are

28
 𝜕𝐸 𝜕𝐹
𝜎= so that 𝜎 = 𝜕𝐸 . (3.8)
𝜕𝜀

Enthalpy is the concept more suited to gases, but it may play role in the study of
porous media, and partial phases of water and steam. When internal energy is function
of volume i.e.𝐸 = 𝐸 𝑆, V, … . . , and pressure is its thermodynamic property, then
𝑑𝐸
𝑝 = − 𝑑V . (3.9)

In such cases, it is convenient to introduce enthalpy, H, as thermodynamic potential,

defined by
𝜕𝐻 𝜕𝐻
𝐻 = 𝐸 + 𝑃𝑉 with 𝜃 = and 𝑉 = (3.10)
𝜕𝑆 𝜕𝑃

In case of solids the internal energy is taken as function of strain, not volume, for
which stress is the thermodynamic property. The relationship is then
𝜕𝐸
𝜎= (3.11)
𝜕𝜀

With is consistent with equation (3.9) because tensile stress is taken as positive where
as pressure is being compressive is taken as negative. Enthalpy for a unit volume is
then written
𝜕𝐻
𝐻 = 𝜎: 𝐸 − 𝐸 Such that 𝜀 = . (3.12)
𝜕𝜎

Free energy is effectively that which can be released to the system. It is the quantity
most often used to begin constitutive modeling. The most common form of energy
used for description is Gibbs and Helmholtz functional.

Where volume is a state variable and pressure is its thermodynamic property. We

apply transformation to internal energy so that the temperature and pressure become
the independent variable, and entropy and volume become the thermodynamic
properties.

𝐺 = 𝐸 − 𝜃𝑆 + 𝑃𝑉 (3.13)

For solid the above equation can be written as

𝐺 = 𝜎: 𝜀 − 𝐸 + 𝜃𝑆 (3.14)

It is vivid from equations (3.6) and (3.14) that (F and G per unit volume) form
complementary energies

29
𝐹 + 𝐺 = 𝜎: 𝐸 (3.15)

From which duality of constitutive descriptions follow

𝜕𝐹 𝜕𝐺
𝜎= ↔𝜎= . (3.16)
𝜕𝜀 𝜕𝜀

3.4 First law of thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is the application of conservation of energy principle

to the thermodynamic processes. It states that the rate of change of total energy of the
system is equal to the power input due to mechanical work plus the heat input due to
internal heat source( sink) and heat flux through the boundary surface of the system.

Mathematically,

𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎 𝑙 = 𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 + 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 (3.17)

For the body of volume V , enclosed by surface S and subjected to traction t per unit
area and body force f per unit mass, the power input is given as

𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 = 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑓. 𝑣𝑑𝑉 + 𝑠
𝑡. 𝑣𝑑𝑆 (3.18)

With the use of t=𝜎. 𝑛 where 𝜎 denotes the Cauchy stress tensor and n the outer
normal vector, it follows that

𝑃𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑡 = 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑓. 𝑣𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
𝑣. 𝜎 . ∇𝑑𝑉

= 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑓 + 𝜎. ∇ . 𝑣𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
𝑡𝑟 𝜎. ∇𝑉 𝑑𝑉

= 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑣 . 𝑣𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
𝑡𝑟 𝜎. ∇𝑉 𝑑𝑉 (3.19a)

𝑑 1
𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 = 𝑑𝑡 𝑉 2
𝑝 𝑣. 𝑣 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐿𝑇 𝑑𝑉 (3.19b)

Where the divergence theorem and the equation of motion have been used in
obtaining equation (3.19) and L is the velocity gradient tensor.

On the other hand, the total input is given by

𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 = 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑟 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑆
𝑕. 𝑛 𝑑𝑠 (3.20)

The total energy of the system will be considered as the sum of the kinetic energy and
the internal energy u. Then from the equation (3.17) together equations (3.19) and
(3.20), it follows that

30
𝑑 1 𝑑 1
= 𝑉 2
𝑝 𝑣. 𝑣 + 𝑝𝑢 𝑑𝑉 = 𝑑𝑡 𝑉 2
𝑝 𝑣. 𝑣 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐿𝑇 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑟 𝑑𝑉 −
𝑑𝑡

𝑆
𝑕. 𝑛 𝑑𝑆 (3.21a)

Which reduces to

𝑑 1
𝑝𝑢𝑑𝑉 = 𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐿𝑇 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑝. 𝑟 𝑑𝑉 − 𝑕. 𝑛 𝑑𝑠
𝑑𝑡 𝑉 2 𝑉 𝑉 𝑆

= 𝑉
𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑉
(𝑝. 𝑟) 𝑑𝑉 − 𝑉
∇. 𝑕 𝑑𝑉 (3.21b)

Where D is the symmetric part of velocity gradient tensor L and is called the rate of
deformation tensor. The term 𝜎: 𝐷 is referred to as external power tensor.

Equation (3.21) then reduces to

𝑑𝑢
𝑉
𝑝 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 − 𝑝𝑟 + ∇. h 𝑑𝑉 = 0 (3.22)

For an arbitrary V, Thus

𝑑
= 𝑝𝑢 = 𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 − 𝑝𝑟 − ∇. 𝐻 (3.23)
𝑑𝑡

Equation (3.23) is the well known energy equation, and in the absence of any internal
heat source reduces to

𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 + 𝑝𝑟 − ∇. 𝐻 (3.24)

The energy equation can be written in terms of HFE by using equation (3.17):

𝑃 𝐴 + 𝜃𝑠 + 𝑠𝜃 = 𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 − ∇. 𝑕 (3.25)

3.5 Second Law (Clausius-Duhem inequality)

The second law of thermodynamics is the postulate that the rate of entropy increases
is greater than or equal to entropy input rate, where the inequality implies an
irreversible process and the inequality holds for a reversible process.

The statement of the second law in the notion of continuum mechanics leads to the
integral form of the Clausius-Duhem inequality. Mathematically, the second law is
written as

𝑟 1
𝑉
𝑝. 𝑠 𝑑𝑉 ≥ 𝑉
𝑝. 𝑑𝑉 + 𝑆 𝜃
𝑕. 𝑛 𝑑𝑠 (3.26)
𝜃

Where 𝜃 the absolute temperature and n is is the unit outward normal as before.
31
In the absence of any internal heat source r, and the use of the divergence theorem in
the last term of equation (2.26), it follows that

𝑕
𝑉
𝑝. 𝑠𝑑𝑉 ≥ − 𝑉
∇. 𝜃 𝑑𝑉

(3.27)
𝑑𝑠 1 𝑕
For an arbitrary volume, Therefore, 𝑑𝑡 + ∇. 𝑝 ≥0 (3.28a)
𝜃

Or equivalently
∇.𝑕 𝑕.∇𝜃
𝑝𝜂 = 𝑝𝑠 + − ≥0 (3.28b)
𝜃 𝜃2

Where 𝜂 is the internal entropy production per unit mass.

Equations (3.28a) and (3.28b) are Clausius-Duhem inequality. Combining the later
equation with equations (3.27) and (3.28) leads to alternate expression in terms of the
internal energy function and the HFE.
𝑢 𝑕.∇𝜃
𝜂 = 𝑠 − 𝑝𝜃 𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 − ≥0 (3.29a)
𝑝𝜃 2

1 𝑕.∇𝜃
𝜃𝜂 = −𝐴 − 𝑠𝜃 + 𝑝 𝑡𝑟 𝜎. 𝐷 − ≥0 (3.29b)
𝑝𝜃

3.6 Legendre transformation and thermodynamic potentials

In this section, the thermodynamic potentials are introduced via application of

Legendre transformation technique. A Legendre transformation is defined as follows:
0 0
For the function 𝑦 =𝑓 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … … … … … , 𝑥𝑛 , there are m first order partial
derivatives of 𝑦 (0) with each of m independent variables
𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … … … … … 𝑥𝑚 .Defining these derivatives as 𝜉𝑖 ,

i.e.,

𝜕𝑦 0
𝜉𝑖 = (3.30)
𝜕𝑥 𝑖 𝑥 1,𝑥 2 ,…………..𝑥 𝑚

Then the function

1 1 0
𝑦 =𝑓 𝜉1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 , … … … . . 𝑥𝑚 = 𝑦 − 𝜉1 𝑥1 (3.31)
0
called first order Legendre Transform of 𝑦 with respect to 𝑥1 .

Legendre transformation of total energy with respect to entropy gives Helmholtz free
energy.

32
 CHAPTER 4
GENERAL FORMULATION

It will be assumed that a continuum approach can effectively be taken for the
modeling of a class of brittle solids whose microstructures are altered by the
nucleation and growth of distributed microcracks. With the assumption that a
neighboring equilibrium state exists for all irreversible processes, the formulation can
be cast within the general setting of internal variable theory of thermodynamics
(Kestin and Rice, 1970; Nemat-Nasser, 1976; Truesdell, 1984). For a stress space
formulation and for a non-polar continuum, the Gibbs free energy, G is given as
1
𝐺 = 𝐺 𝜎, 𝑘 = 2 𝜎: 𝐶 𝑘 : 𝜎 + 𝜎: 𝜀 𝑖 𝑘 − 𝐴𝑖 𝑘 (4.1)

Where the symbol “:” indicates tensor contraction. The Cauchy stress tensor is given
by σ, and the material compliance and total irrecoverable strain tensor are represented
by C and ԑi(k), respectively. The last term in equation (4.1) represents the inelastic
component of the Helmholtz free energy and is associated with the surface energy of
microcracks. The internal variable parameter k is a monotonically increasing scalar
and is used to reflect the total dissipated energy associated with material damage.
Assuming that only damage (cracking) contributes to the alteration of the elastic
properties ( Budiansky and O’Connell, 1976: Horii and Nemat- Nasser, 1983; Ortiz
and Popov, 1982; Ortiz, 1985), the following decomposition of the compliance tensor
is adopted

𝐶 𝑘 = 𝐶𝑜 + 𝐶𝑐 𝑘 (4.2)

Where Co and Cc( k) denote the initial and added flexibility tensors, respectively. The
dependence of C on k allows for the description of damage through the fourth order
material compliance tensor. For a purely mechanical state, the Clausius-Duhem
inequality must be satisfied. This inequality is given as

𝐺 − 𝜀: 𝜎 ≥ 0 (4.3)

Where the super dots reflect the rate forms. The substitution of the expression for G in
the above stated inequality would lead to the following alternate form of the
dissipation inequality
𝜕𝐺 𝜕𝐺 𝜕𝐺
− 𝜀 : 𝜎 + 𝜕𝐶 ∷ 𝐶 + 𝜕𝜀 𝑖 : 𝜀 𝑖 − 𝑔2 𝑘 ≥ 0 (4.4)
𝜕𝜎

33
Where the scalar function g2 is given by g2= 𝜕𝐴𝑖 𝜕𝑘 . Following the standard
arguments (Coleman and Gurtin, 1967; Lubliner, 1972) and assuming that unloading
is an elastic process, the following relations are established
𝜕𝐺
𝜀= = 𝐶 𝑘 : 𝜎 + 𝜀𝑖 𝑘 (4.5)
𝜕𝜎

An equation which indicates that, for a stress space formulation, The Gibbs free
energy is a potential for the infinitesimal strain tensor, 𝜀, and that
𝜕𝐺 𝜕𝐺
𝑑𝑠 = 𝜕𝐶 ∷ 𝐶 + 𝜕𝜀 𝑖 : 𝜀 𝑖 − 𝑔2 𝑘 ≥ 0 (4.6)

Where 𝑑𝑠 is the rate of dissipation indicating that the rate of work done by the
thermodynamic affinities, 𝜕𝐺 𝜕𝐶 , 𝜕𝐺 𝜕𝜀 𝑖 , and g2 , through their respective
fluxes 𝐶 , 𝜀 𝑖 , and 𝑘 , must be non- negative. The rate form of the total strain tensor in
terms of its components is expressed as

𝜀 = 𝜀 𝑒 + 𝜀 𝑑 + 𝜀 𝑖 = 𝐶: 𝜎 + 𝐶 𝑐 : 𝜎 + 𝜀 𝑖 (4.7)

Where 𝜀 𝑒 = 𝐶: 𝜎 is the rate of elastic deformation in the absence of any further

damage and 𝜀 𝑑 represents the rate of elastic damage process. To progress further,
evolutionary equations are needed for fluxes 𝐶 𝑐 and 𝜀 𝑖 . Consider the following
relations

𝐶 𝑐 = 𝑘𝑹,𝜀 𝑖 = 𝑘𝑴 (4. 8)

Where R and M are fourth and second order tensors that determine the direction of
elastic and inelastic damage process. If R is taken to be proportional to to the fourth
order identity tensor, then damage formulation would be isotropic. If R is chosen to
reflect directionality for damage, then an anisotropic damage formulation is obtained.
For a thermodynamically consistent formulation, R and M must be postulated such
that the dissipation inequality is satisfied. With the assumption that damage is
irreversible i.e., 𝑘 ≥ 0; equation (4.6) in terms of R and M becomes
1
𝑑 = 2 𝜎: 𝑅: 𝜎 + 𝜎: 𝑀 ≥ 0 (4.9)

Where, 𝑑𝑘 = 𝑑𝑠 + 𝑔2 𝑘 . If M is set to zero, the material response is said to be elastic-

perfectly fracturing. This implies that a material would display no permanent
deformation upon unloading, although it would be more compliant than in the virgin
state due to accumulated damage. In this case, the inequality given by equation (4.9)

34
will always be satisfied if R is a positive semi-definite tensor. Let 𝑑 = 𝑑1 + 𝑑2 where
𝑑1 = 1 2 𝜎: 𝑹: 𝜎 and 𝑑2 = 𝜎: 𝑀 for convenience. If R is positive semi-definite and
M is chosen such that 𝑑2 ≥ 0, equation (4.9) will always be satisfied. This approach
is taken in this thesis. Two other possible situations are (1) when 𝑑1 ≥ 0 and 𝑑2 ≤ 0,
and (2) when 𝑑1 ≤ 0 and 𝑑2 ≥ 0 with the constraint that 𝑑1 + 𝑑2 ≥ 0. Such
combinations are not considered here and can be found in Schreyer and Nielsen(
1991), a study of negative damage or healing in concrete.

For the onset of a rate-independent inelasticity process, a criterion is needed. Consider

a state function 𝜓(𝜎, 𝑘) such that 𝜓 < 0 corresponds to nondissipative processes,
𝜓 = 0 defines a surface (called damage surface), and the condition 𝜓 > 0 is not
allowed. Such a criterion can be established by considering a hardening- softening
function 𝑡 𝜎, 𝑘 and using equation (4.6) and (4.9) such that
1 1
𝜓 𝜎, 𝑘 = 2 𝜎: 𝑅: 𝜎 + 𝜎: 𝑀 − 2 𝑡 2 𝜎, 𝑘 = 0 (4.10)

With 1 2 𝑡 2 𝜎, 𝑘 = 𝑔2 + 𝑓 2 𝜎, 𝑘 for the same scalar function 𝑓. The loading-

unloading statement is given in the standard Kuhn-Tucker form

𝜓 ≤ 0, 𝑘 ≥ 0, 𝑘𝜓 = 0 (4.11)

With the terms satisfying equation (4.11) simultaneously. When the energy is
dissipated, 𝑘 > 0, which requires that 𝜓 be zero. During elastic process, 𝜓 is less than
zero. For computational purposes, the rate of 𝑘 and tangent compliance tensor are
needed. 𝑘 is obtained from the consistency condition of the damage surface as
𝜕𝜓
𝜕𝜎
:𝜎 (𝜎 :𝑅+𝑀−𝑡𝑡 𝜎 )
𝑘 =− 𝜕𝜓 = :𝜎 (4.12)
𝑡𝑡 𝑘
𝜕𝑘

In which symmetric second order tensor 𝑡 𝜎 and the scalar function 𝑡𝑘 are defined as
𝑡 𝜎 = 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝜎 and 𝑡𝑘 = 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑘 , respectively. The tangent compliance tensor is
obtained by considering the rate form of total strain tensor and substituting the
expression for 𝑘 from equation (4.12) as

𝜀 = 𝐶𝑇 : 𝜎 (4.13)

Where 𝐶 𝑇 denotes the tangent compliance tensor and is given by

𝜕𝜓
(𝜎 :𝑅+𝑀)⨂
𝐶𝑇 = 𝐶 + 𝜕𝜎
(4.14)
𝑡𝑡 𝑘

35
In which all terms has been defined previously. The symbol ⨂ indicates the tensor
product. It can be readily shown that if R and M are symmetric, the tangent
compliance tensor will be symmetric. If the damage function 𝑡 is taken as function of
damage parameter only, 𝑡 𝜎 will vanish and the original formulation of Ortiz (1985)
and Yazdani and Schreyer (1988) will be obtained. The dependence of 𝑡 on both state
variables is more general and allows for the description of an alternate damage
function, as will be presented later in this Thesis.

4.1 Anisotropic Damage

Two damage modes are usually identified in brittle solids. One is cleavage cracking
mode, where crack opening vector is parallel to the applied tensile stresses, and the
second is the compressive mode, which represents a combination of shear sliding and
crack opening. Spectral decomposition of the stress tensor is subsequently performed
in order to incorporate the two modes into the formulation. Denoting the positive and
negative cones of stress tensor as 𝜎 + and 𝜎 −, respectively, it follows that

𝜎 = 𝜎+ + 𝜎− (4.15)

𝑅 = RI + RII , M = MI + MII (4.16)

With subscripts I and II referring to the two damage models described above. If R I and
RII are expressed as tensorial functions of 𝜎 + and 𝜎 − , respectively, the formulation
would imply decoupling between two damage modes. The validity of such
decomposition then becomes questionable, as has been explained by Krajcinovic
(1989), whose comments were based on micromechanics of shear cracks. The
decomposition, however, does provide a convenient, although perhaps an
approximate, approach to a fundamental and complicated problem abd thus will be
retained in the present model.

To progress further, particular forms of RI, RII, MI and MII must be specified. The
following discussions and representations are particularly relevant to concrete, with
potential application to other quasi-brittle solids such as mortar, rocks, and ceramics.

36
Mode I

For the cleavage cracking mode, Ortiz (1985) proposed the following expression for
RI

(𝜎 + ⨂𝜎 − )
RI= (4.17)
(𝜎 + : 𝜎 + )

Which was also used by Yazdani and Schreyer (1988) . This particular expression
leads to the prediction of anisotropy due to changes in Youngs’s moduli but cannot
model changes in the apparent poisson’s ratio, which is responsible for the nonlinear
behavior when the lateral strains are considered. To illustrate this point, consider
figure 1, where the material responses in both axial and lateral directions are shown
schematically with solid lines. This representation is consistent with the work of
Krajcinovic and Fonseka (1981). By using equation (4.17), the theoretical results
would predict that the material response would be along the broken line designated as
“OA”. To improve on the perceived shortcoming of the formulation, the following
modification is proposed. Let the maximum Eigen value of 𝜎 + be 𝜆1 and define
𝜙1 = 𝐻 𝜆1 for convenience where 𝐻 ∙ represents the Heaviside function. With
these, RI is postulated to be

(𝝈+ ⨂𝝈− )
𝑅𝐼 = + ΥΦ1 I − i⨂i (4.18)
(𝝈+ : 𝝈+ )

Where Υ is a material parameter. I is the fourth order intensity tensor, and i represents
the second order identity tensor.

Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of stress-strain behavior of a brittle solid in

tension.

37
For uniaxial tension equation (4.18) reduces to
1
𝜀1 = +𝑘 𝜎 (4.19)
𝐸

𝜐
𝜀2 = 𝜀3 = − + 𝑘𝛾 𝜎 (4.20)
𝐸

A particular form of t(k) was obtained from the uniaxial tensile tests of Smith and
Young(1955) was given by Ortiz (1985) as
ln ⁡
(1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘)
𝑡 𝑘 = 𝑓𝑡 𝑒 (4.21)
1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘

Substituting expression for t(k) form equation (4.22) in equation (4.10),excluding

plastic term we obtain,
ln ⁡
(1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘)
𝑡 𝑘 = 𝜎 = 𝑓𝑡 𝑒 (4.22)
1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘

For equal biaxial tension equation (4.18) reduces to

1 𝜐
𝜀1 = 𝜀2 = [𝐸 + 1 − 𝛾 𝑘 − 𝐸 ]𝜎 (4.23)

𝜐
𝜀3 = −2(𝑘 + 𝛾𝑘)𝜎 (4.24)

And, 𝑡 𝑘 = 2 1−𝛾 σ

𝑓𝑡 𝑒 𝑙𝑛 ⁡
(1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘)
𝜎= (4.25)
2 1−𝛾 (1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘)

Similarly for equal triaxial tension

1 2𝜐
𝜀1 = 𝜀2 = 𝜀3 = (𝐸 + 𝑘 − − 2𝛾𝑘)𝜎 (4.26)
𝐸

And 𝑡 𝑘 = 3 1 − 2𝛾 𝜎 (4.27)

𝑓𝑡 𝑒 ln ⁡
(1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘)
𝜎= (4.28)
3 1−2𝛾 1+𝐸𝑜 𝑘

The constitutive relations given by equations (4.24), (4.26) and (4.28) for uniaxial,
biaxial and triaxial tensile loading respectively shows more ductile nature of concrete
even after peak stress is achieved. The fact is that the theory assumes the uniform
propagation of crack in direction of stress throughout the volume of concrete. In fact
there is localized crack formation occur after peak stress causing brittle failure of

38
concrete. Considering localized crack formation we may modify the constitutive
relation for uniaxial tensile loading as

𝜎1 = 𝐸 𝑜 − 𝜇 𝜀1 (4.29)

𝜇 <𝜇 −𝜇 ∗ >
Where,𝜀1 = 𝜀𝑢 and 𝛼 = 1+
(𝐸 𝑜 −𝜇 )𝛼 𝐸𝑜

Where,𝜇 = 1/𝑘, 𝜇 ∗ is the value corresponding to peak stress and 𝜀𝑢 is the strain
corresponding to peak stress and the numerical values of 𝐸 𝑜 is taken as 31000MPa
same as the value taken by Gopalratnam and Shah(1985).

39
 CHAPTER 5
CALCULATIONS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

CALCULATIONS:

For the calculation purpose equations (4.20) to (4.29) as derived in previous chapter
are used and Computations is done in MATLAB. Program codes (as shown in
appendix A) are developed. Different trial values of Eok are assumed and then
corresponding values of stress (σ), axial strain (ԑ1) and transverse strain (ԑ2, ԑ3) for
different magnitude of Eok are obtained from the equations are obtained. Stress- stain
curves for uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial tensions are plotted also the stress-strain curve
for proposed uniaxial tension model is plotted and compared with experimental
results obtained by Gopalratnam and Shah(1985)(as shown in appendix B and C)
from the equations mentioned above.

A plot between axial stress-axial strain and axial stress-transverse strains is made as
shown in the figure.

Table 5.1 Material parameters are taken for the calculations: (S. Yazdani)

Parameters Values

Eo 32000Mpa (Young’s modulus)

Υ 0.2 (poison’s ratio)

ft 3.48N/mm2 (ultimate tensile strength)

𝛾 0.2 (material parameter)

40
Figure 5.1 Stress-strain curves for plain concrete under Uniaxial tension.

41
Figure 5.2 Stress-strain curves for plain concrete under equal biaxial tension.

42
Figure 5.3 Stress-strain curves for plain concrete under equal triaxial tension

43
Figure 5.4 Theoretical Stress-strain curve of plain concrete under multiaxial tension

44
Figure 5.5 Multiaxial stress vs Eok curves for plain concrete

45
 Figure 5.6 Comparison of theoretical and experimental axial stress-strain curve for
plain concrete under uniaxial tension

46
Figure 5.7 Comparison of proposed and experimental axial stress-strain curve for
plain concrete under uniaxial tension

47
Figure5.8 Variation of damage with damage parameter for proposed model

48
 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Results:

From the analytical modeling of plain concrete under multiaxial tensile loading
following results are obtained:

1) The strength of plain concrete decreases successively when the tensile loading
changes from uniaxial to biaxial and triaxial i.e. damage increases which is
indicated by figure 5.4 and figure 5.5.
2) The damage mechanics deals with distributed cracks not with localized crack
which results more ductile failure of concrete as compared to experimental
results which is clarified by figure 5.6.
3) The proposed new damage model which is based on damage mechanics is
almost similar to that obtained from experimental work as seen in figure 5.7.

Conclusions:

The formation of microcracks and microvoids highly influences the behavior of

concrete. These internal defects destroy the material bonds and affects elastic
properties. The progressive weakening of solids due to formation and development of
microcracks and microvoids is depicted by the continuous damage mechanics theory,
which provides natural basis for constitutive modeling of brittle materials like
concrete. In this work, a damage mechanics model for plain concrete in multiaxial
tensile loading. In order to represent concrete behavior, a continuum damage
mechanics formulation in stress-space based is outlined wherein damage is recorded
directly in material compliance tensor. The damage mechanics formulation is cast
within the general formwork of the internal variable theory of thermodynamics, and
necessary conditions for satisfying dissipation inequality are examined. Damage
response tensors for mode-I cracking developed by S.Yazdani is used for modeling of
non linear behavior plain concrete. Constitutive relations for plain concrete in
multiaxial tensile loadings are established. The uniaxial constitutive relation is
compared with available experimental data. While comparing the theoretical and
experimental data of uniaxial tension the peak value of stress is nearly same but the
theoretical model shows more ductile failure of concrete while experimental results
49
shows abrupt fall of stress beyond peak value. This is due to fact that the theoretical
model assumes that the cracks opening in the direction of stress increases with
increase in tensile stress but practically there is localized crack formation occurs
causing brittle failure of concrete. A model is proposed based upon continuum
damage mechanics which is almost similar to the experimental results, which
indicates that there will be maximum damage when the peak stress is achieved.

Recommendations for further study

 Fracture mechanics can be used in modeling of plain concrete in tensile

loading.
 Combined damage-plasticity approach can be considered in the modeling of
plain concrete under tensile loading.
 This approach can be extended in situation of fatigue.

Limitations of study:

The proposed model is casted within the following boundaries:

 The model considers only damage mechanics approach.

 Damage mechanics deals with the progressive crack formation which indicates
more ductile failure of concrete while failure occurs suddenly after formation
of localized crack.
 Dealt with uniform structure concrete (no any initial cracks) we did not
address notched specimen i.e. there may present moisture crack, hair cracks
etc.
 Fatigue damage modeling is not accounted.
 Viscoelastic behavior of concrete is not considered.

50
 REFERENCES

Bazant, Z.P. and P.C. Prat. 1988.”Micro-Plane Model For Brittle-Plastic

Material,Part I,”J. Engng. Mech., ASCE, 114(10):1689-1702.

Budiansky, B. O’Connell RJ, “Elastic moduli of a cracked solid,” Int. J. Solids

Struct., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 81 -97, 1976.

Coleman BD, Gurtin ME, “Thermodynamics with internal state variables,” J.

Chem. Phys., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 597-613, 1967.

Gopalratnam, V.S. And S.P. Shah. 1985.”Softening Response of Plain

Concrete in Direct tension”, Proc. ACI, 87:310-323.

Green, S.J. and S.R. Swanson. 1973.”Static Constitutive Relations for

Concrete”,AFWL-TR-74-244,U.S. Air force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland
Air Force Base, NM.

Huang, J. and V.C. Li.1989 “A Meso-Mechanical Model for the Tensile

Behavior of Concrete .Part I: Modeling of the Prepeak Stress-Strain Relation”,
Composites, 204(4):361-369.

Kestin J, Rice JR, “Paradoxes in the application of thermodynamics to strained

solids,” A Critical Review of Thermodynamics, E. B. Stuart et al., eds.,
Baltimore, MD: Mono Book Corp., pp. 257-297, 1970.

Lubliner J, “On the thermodynamic foundations of non-linear solid

mechanics,” Int. J. Book Corp., pp. 257-297, 1970.Lubliner J, “On the Non-
Linear Mech, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 237 -254, 1972.

Krajcinovic, D. 1989. “Continuous Damage Mechanics Revisited: Basic

Concepts and Definitions”,J.Appl. Mech., ASME, 52:829-834.

51
Kupfer, H., H.K. Hilsdorf and H. Rusch. 1969. “Behavior of Concrete under
Biaxial Stress”, J.Am. Concr. Inst., 66(8):656-666.

Lubliner,J. 1972. ”On the Thermodynamics Foundations of Non-Linear Solid

Mechanics,”Int. J. Non-Linear Mech., 7(3):237-254.

Nemat-Nasser, S. “On nonequilibrium thermodynamics of continua”,

Mechanics Today,vol.2,S.Nemat-Nasser,ed.,New York, NY: Pergamon Press
Inc., pp. 94-158,1976.

Ortiz M, Popov EP, “A physical model for the inelasticity of concrete,” Proc.
Roy. Soc. London, A383, pp. 101-125, 1982.

Ortiz, M. 1985. “A Constitutive Theory for the Inelastic Behavior of

Concrete”,Mech. of Mat., 4(1):67-93.

Resend, L. 1987. ”A Damage Mechanics Constitutive Theory for the Inelastic

Behavior of Concrete”, Comp. Method App. Mech. Engng., 60(1):57-93.

Smith, G.M. and L. E. Young 1955.”Ultimate Theory in Flexure by

Exponential Function”, Proc. ACI, 52(3):349-359.

Truesdell, C. ”Rational Thermodynamics”,2nd Ed.,New York, NY:Springer-

Verlag,1984.

Yazdani, S. and H.L. Schreyer.1988.”An Anisotropic Damage Model with

Dilation for Concrete”,Mech. Of Mat., 7(3):231-244.

52
 APPENDIX A

Program codes

Program code for uniaxial tension

Eo=32000;

ft=3.48;

gamma=0.2;

nu=0.2;

Eok=0:0.1:10;

sigma=ft*2.72*log(1.+Eok)./(1.+Eok);

e1=(1/Eo+Eok./Eo).*sigma;

e2=-(nu/Eo+gamma*Eok./Eo).*sigma;

plot(e2,sigma);

title('Uniaxial stress vs strain');

xlabel('strain');

ylabel('stress in MPa');

legend('axial strain','lateral strain',1);

grid on

Program code for biaxial tension

Eo=32000;

ft=3.48;

gamma=0.2;

nu=0.2;

Eok=0:0.1:10;

sigma=ft*2.72/sqrt(2*(1-gamma))*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

53
epsilon1=(1/Eo+(1-gamma)*Eok./Eo-nu/Eo).*sigma;

epsilon2=-2*(nu/Eo+gamma*Eok./Eo).*sigma;

plot(epsilon2,sigma);

title('Biaxial Stress vs Strain');

xlabel('strain');

ylabel('stress in MPa');

legend('axial strain','lateral strain',1);

grid on

Program code for triaxial tension

Eo=32000;

ft=3.48;

gamma=0.2;

nu=0.2;

Eok=0:0.1:10;

sigma=ft*2.72/sqrt(3*(1-2*gamma))*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

epsilon1=(1/Eo+Eok./Eo-2*nu/Eo-2*gamma*Eok./Eo).*sigma;

epsilon2=-(1/Eo+Eok./Eo-2*nu/Eo-2*gamma*Eok./Eo).*sigma;

plot(epsilon2,sigma);

title('Triaxial stress vs strain');

xlabel('strain');

ylabel('stress');

legend('axial strain','lateral strain',0);

grid on

54
Program code for multiaxial tension

Eo=32000;

ft=3.48;

gamma=0.2;

nu=0.2;

Eok=0:0.1:10;

unisigma=ft*2.72*log(1.+Eok)./(1.+Eok);

bisigma=ft*2.72/sqrt(2*(1-gamma))*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

trisigma=ft*2.72/sqrt(3*(1-2*gamma))*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

unie1=(1/Eo+Eok./Eo).*unisigma;

unie2=-(nu/Eo+gamma*Eok./Eo).*unisigma;

bie1=(1/Eo+(1-gamma)*Eok./Eo-nu/Eo).*bisigma;

bie2=-2*(nu/Eo+gamma*Eok./Eo).*bisigma;

trie1=(1/Eo+Eok./Eo-2*nu/Eo-2*gamma*Eok./Eo).*trisigma;

trie2=-(1/Eo+Eok./Eo-2*nu/Eo-2*gamma*Eok./Eo).*trisigma;

plot(unie1,unisigma,unie2,unisigma,bie1,bisigma,bie2,bisigma,trie1,trisigma,trie2,tris
igma);

title('Multiaxial stresses(\sigma) vs strains(\epsilon)');

xlabel('strain(\epsilon)');

ylabel('stress(\sigma)in MPa');

legend('uniaxial axial strain',' uniaxial lateral strain','biaxial axial strain','biaxial lateral

strain','triaxial axial strain','triaxial lateral strain',0);

grid on

55
Program code for sress vs Eok
Eo=32000;

ft=3.48;

gamma=0.2;

Eok=0:0.1:10;

sigmauniaxial= ft*2.72*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

sigmabiaxial=ft*2.72/sqrt(2*(1-gamma))*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

sigmatriaxial=ft*2.72/sqrt(3*(1-2*gamma))*log(1+Eok)./(1+Eok);

plot(Eok,sigmauniaxial,Eok,sigmabiaxial,Eok,sigmatriaxial);

title('stress(\sigma)vs Eok')

xlabel('Eok');

ylabel('stress(\sigma)in MPa');

legend('uniaxial','biaxial','triaxial',0);

grid on

Program code for comparison of Theoretical and Experimental curve in uniaxial

tension
Eo=32000;

ft=3.48;

gamma=0.2;

nu=0.2;

Eok=0:0.1:10;

sigma=ft*2.72*log(1.+Eok)./(1.+Eok);

epsilon1=(1/Eo+Eok./Eo).*sigma;

sigmaexperimental=[0

0.85633

1.69218

56
2.7114

3.2619

3.38376

2.19987

1.72922

1.4634

1.11483

0.868086

0.765232

0.599675

0.515898

0.41297

0.329636

0.224564];

epsilonexperimental=[0.00E+00

2.42E-05

5.07E-05

8.58E-05

0.000101259

0.000118697

0.000124762

0.000161537

0.000176652

0.000224343

0.000278596

0.000302469

57
0.000369797
0.000432808
0.000458855
0.000508823
0.000597913];
plot(epsilon1,sigma,epsilonexperimental,sigmaexperimental,'--');

title('COMPARISION OF THEORITICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STRESS-

STRAIN CURVE');

xlabel('strain(\epsilon)');

ylabel('stress(\sigma)in MPa');

legend('uniaxial theoritical','uniaxial experimental',0);

grid on

Program code for Proposed model

Eo=31000;
ft=3.48;
gamma=0.2;
nu=0.2;
mu=0:500:30500;
for i=1:length(mu)
if mu(i)<=15500;
strain(i)=0.000225*sqrt(mu(i)./(31000.-mu(i)));
stress(i)=(31000.-mu(i)).*strain(i);
elseif mu(i)>15500
strain(i)=0.000225*sqrt(mu(i)./(31000.-mu(i)).^sqrt((31000.-mu(i))./31000));
stress(i)=(31000.-mu(i)).*strain(i);
end
plot(strain,stress)
end

58
 APENDIX B
(Calculation of stress and strains)

1. Sample calculation of stress and strains in uniaxial tension.

2. Experimental data for uniaxial tension.(Gopalratnam and Shah )

59
Table B.1 Sample Calculation for uniaxial tension

Sigma=2.72*ft* k= ԑr=-
Eok ln(1+Eok)/(1+Eok) Eok/Eo ԑ=Sigma*(1/Eo+k) (nu/Eo+k*gamma)

0 0 0 0 0

0.1 0.820153 3.13E-06 2.82E-05 -5.63855E-06

0.2 1.438152 6.25E-06 5.39E-05 -1.07861E-05

0.3 1.910335 9.38E-06 7.76E-05 -1.55215E-05

0.4 2.274937 1.25E-05 9.95E-05 -1.99057E-05

0.5 2.558647 1.56E-05 0.00012 -2.39873E-05

0.6 2.780541 1.88E-05 0.000139 -2.78054E-05

0.7 2.954538 2.19E-05 0.000157 -3.1392E-05

0.8 3.090974 0.000025 0.000174 -3.47735E-05

0.9 3.197648 2.81E-05 0.00019 -3.79721E-05

1 3.280527 3.13E-05 0.000205 -4.10066E-05

1.1 3.34423 3.44E-05 0.000219 -4.3893E-05

1.2 3.392374 3.75E-05 0.000233 -4.66451E-05

1.3 3.427819 4.06E-05 0.000246 -4.92749E-05

1.4 3.452849 4.38E-05 0.000259 -5.17927E-05

1.5 3.469297 4.69E-05 0.000271 -5.42078E-05

1.6 3.47865 0.00005 0.000283 -5.65281E-05

1.7 3.48212 5.31E-05 0.000294 -5.87608E-05

1.8 3.480702 5.63E-05 0.000305 -6.09123E-05

1.9 3.475216 5.94E-05 0.000315 -6.29883E-05

2 3.466341 6.25E-05 0.000325 -6.49939E-05

2.1 3.454645 6.56E-05 0.000335 -6.69337E-05

2.2 3.4406 6.88E-05 0.000344 -6.8812E-05

60
2.3 3.424604 7.19E-05 0.000353 -7.06325E-05

2.4 3.406991 0.000075 0.000362 -7.23986E-05

2.5 3.388044 7.81E-05 0.000371 -7.41135E-05

2.6 3.368002 8.13E-05 0.000379 -7.578E-05

2.7 3.347069 8.44E-05 0.000387 -7.7401E-05

2.8 3.325417 8.75E-05 0.000395 -7.89787E-05

2.9 3.303195 9.06E-05 0.000403 -8.05154E-05

3 3.280527 9.38E-05 0.00041 -8.20132E-05

3.1 3.257522 9.69E-05 0.000417 -8.3474E-05

3.2 3.23427 0.0001 0.000424 -8.48996E-05

3.3 3.210853 0.000103 0.000431 -8.62917E-05

3.4 3.187335 0.000106 0.000438 -8.76517E-05

3.5 3.163777 0.000109 0.000445 -8.89812E-05

3.6 3.140226 0.000113 0.000451 -9.02815E-05

3.7 3.116725 0.000116 0.000458 -9.15538E-05

3.8 3.093311 0.000119 0.000464 -9.27993E-05

3.9 3.070013 0.000122 0.00047 -9.40192E-05

4 3.046859 0.000125 0.000476 -9.52143E-05

4.1 3.02387 0.000128 0.000482 -9.63859E-05

4.2 3.001066 0.000131 0.000488 -9.75346E-05

4.3 2.978461 0.000134 0.000493 -9.86615E-05

4.4 2.95607 0.000138 0.000499 -9.97674E-05

4.5 2.933902 0.000141 0.000504 -0.000100853

4.6 2.911968 0.000144 0.00051 -0.000101919

4.7 2.890273 0.000147 0.000515 -0.000102966

61
4.8 2.868824 0.00015 0.00052 -0.000103995

4.9 2.847625 0.000153 0.000525 -0.000105006

5 2.82668 0.000156 0.00053 -0.000106

5.1 2.80599 0.000159 0.000535 -0.000106978

5.2 2.785557 0.000163 0.00054 -0.00010794

5.3 2.765382 0.000166 0.000544 -0.000108887

5.4 2.745465 0.000169 0.000549 -0.000109819

5.5 2.725805 0.000172 0.000554 -0.000110736

5.6 2.706401 0.000175 0.000558 -0.000111639

5.7 2.687252 0.000178 0.000563 -0.000112529

5.8 2.668356 0.000181 0.000567 -0.000113405

5.9 2.649711 0.000184 0.000571 -0.000114269

6 2.631315 0.000188 0.000576 -0.00011512

6.1 2.613165 0.000191 0.00058 -0.000115959

6.2 2.595259 0.000194 0.000584 -0.000116787

6.3 2.577592 0.000197 0.000588 -0.000117603

6.4 2.560163 0.0002 0.000592 -0.000118408

6.5 2.542969 0.000203 0.000596 -0.000119202

6.6 2.526005 0.000206 0.0006 -0.000119985

6.7 2.509269 0.000209 0.000604 -0.000120759

6.8 2.492758 0.000213 0.000608 -0.000121522

6.9 2.476468 0.000216 0.000611 -0.000122276

7 2.460395 0.000219 0.000615 -0.00012302

7.1 2.444537 0.000222 0.000619 -0.000123755

7.2 2.428889 0.000225 0.000622 -0.000124481

62
7.3 2.413449 0.000228 0.000626 -0.000125198

7.4 2.398213 0.000231 0.00063 -0.000125906

7.5 2.383178 0.000234 0.000633 -0.000126606

7.6 2.36834 0.000238 0.000636 -0.000127298

7.7 2.353695 0.000241 0.00064 -0.000127982

7.8 2.339242 0.000244 0.000643 -0.000128658

7.9 2.324976 0.000247 0.000647 -0.000129327

8 2.310894 0.00025 0.00065 -0.000129988

8.1 2.296994 0.000253 0.000653 -0.000130642

8.2 2.283271 0.000256 0.000656 -0.000131288

8.3 2.269723 0.000259 0.00066 -0.000131928

8.4 2.256347 0.000263 0.000663 -0.00013256

8.5 2.24314 0.000266 0.000666 -0.000133186

8.6 2.230098 0.000269 0.000669 -0.000133806

8.7 2.21722 0.000272 0.000672 -0.000134419

8.8 2.204502 0.000275 0.000675 -0.000135026

8.9 2.191941 0.000278 0.000678 -0.000135626

9 2.179535 0.000281 0.000681 -0.000136221

9.1 2.167281 0.000284 0.000684 -0.00013681

9.2 2.155176 0.000288 0.000687 -0.000137392

9.3 2.143218 0.000291 0.00069 -0.00013797

9.4 2.131404 0.000294 0.000693 -0.000138541

9.5 2.119731 0.000297 0.000696 -0.000139107

9.6 2.108198 0.0003 0.000698 -0.000139668

9.7 2.096802 0.000303 0.000701 -0.000140224

63
9.8 2.08554 0.000306 0.000704 -0.000140774

9.9 2.07441 0.000309 0.000707 -0.000141319

10 2.063411 0.000313 0.000709 -0.000141859

Table B.2 Experimental data for uniaxial tension(Gopalratnam and Shah(1985)

Strain Stress

0.00E+00 0

2.42E-05 0.85633

5.07E-05 1.69218

8.58E-05 2.7114

0.000101 3.2619

0.000119 3.38376

0.000125 2.19987

0.000162 1.72922

0.000177 1.4634

0.000224 1.11483

0.000279 0.868086

0.000302 0.765232

0.00037 0.599675

0.000433 0.515898

0.000459 0.41297

0.000509 0.329636

0.000598 0.224564

64