MULTISURFACE CHEMOPLASTICITY.

I: MATERIAL MODEL FOR SHOTCRETE

By Christian Hellmich,1 Franz-Josef Ulm,2 and Herbert A. Mang3

ABSTRACT: Employing a thermodynamic framework, chemomechanical couplings for shotcrete are treated in
this paper. A new material model based on multisurface chemoplasticity is presented. It accounts for hydration
kinetics and chemomechanical couplings related to the strength growth and the evolution of stiffness properties
as well as for autogeneous shrinkage in early-age shotcrete. The underlying intrinsic material functions, which
are independent of field and boundary conditions, are determined from standard material tests. As for the
numerical treatment of the constitutive equations of the material model, an extended form of the return mapping
algorithm is proposed. The constitutive equations are applied to a two-surface chemoplastic model, consisting
of a Drucker-Prager loading surface and a tension cut-off. In a companion paper, the proposed material model
is employed for 2D structural analyses of tunnels driven according to the New Austrian Tunneling Method.

INTRODUCTION is concerned with the application of this strategy to early-age

According to Neville (1981), shotcrete is ‘‘the name given
to mortar or concrete conveyed through a hose and pneumat-
ically projected at high velocity onto a backup surface.’’ Shot-
crete plays an important role in the New Austrian Tunneling
Method (NATM) (Rabcewicz 1948). The effectiveness of this
method results from the integration of the shotcrete liner and
the surrounding soil to a powerful support structure, exploiting
the load-bearing capacity of shotcrete at a very early age. This
capacity is a consequence of the rapid hardening of shotcrete.
In the design of tunnels, the time-dependent evolution of
the compressive strength of shotcrete is generally considered
a measure of the structural safety (Richtlinie 1997). It is de-
termined on site or in laboratories. Time-dependent evolutions,
however, depend on the field conditions at the tunnel site and
in the laboratory, respectively. This drawback can be overcome
by extracting the intrinsic material behavior (i.e., the behavior
independent of field and boundary conditions) from laboratory
tests comprising the time-dependent evolution of strength and
stiffness as well as of the creep and shrinkage strains. A large
number of such experiments have been carried out during the
last decade. In the context of such experiments, reference to
work reported by Huber (1991) is made. The aforementioned
intrinsic relations can be used directly for constitutive mod-
eling of shotcrete at the macroscopic level of the description
of the material.
In this paper, a multisurface chemoplastic constitutive
model for shotcrete at an early age is presented. Within the
framework of reactive porous media (Coussy 1995), the gen-
eral strategy of modeling thermo-chemo-mechanical couplings
of concrete at an early age was reported in Ulm and Coussy
(1995). Recently, it was extended to consideration of irrevers-
ible skeleton evolutions, treating strength growth as chemo-
plastic hardening (Ulm and Coussy 1996). The present paper
1
Univ. Asst., Inst. for Strength of Mat., Univ. of Technol. of Vienna,
Karlsplatz 13/202, A-1040 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: christian.hellmich@
tuwien.ac.at
2
Assoc. Prof., Massachusetts Inst. of Technol., Dept. of Civ. and Envir.
Engrg., 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-4307; formerly,
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France. E-mail:
ulm@mit.edu
3
Prof., Inst. for Strength of Mat., Univ. of Technol. of Vienna, Karls-
platz 13/202, A-1040 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: herbert.mang@tuwien.ac.at
Note. Associate Editor: Gilles Pijaudier-Cabot. Discussion open until
November 1, 1999. Separate discussions should be submitted for the in-
dividual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publi-
cation on May 19, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, Vol. 125, No. 6, June, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399/99/
0006-0692–0701/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 18448.
692 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999
shotcrete. It is divided into two parts.
This paper starts with the extension of the chemoplastic
model to multisurface chemoplasticity. Then, the experimental
determination of the intrinsic material relations from standard
material tests are described. Thereafter, algorithmic aspects
concerning the governing chemoplastic constitutive equations
are treated. The material law is then applied to a two-surface
chemoplastic model, consisting of a Drucker-Prager loading
surface and a tension cut-off.
The companion paper deals with the application of the pro-
posed material model to 2D finite-element (FE) studies con-
cerning the structural behavior of tunnels driven according to
the NATM.
MULTISURFACE CHEMOPLASTICITY
Concrete is considered a porous medium composed of a
skeleton and a fluid-saturated porous space (capillary pores ⱖ
1 ␮m). For the sake of clarity, the elementary system is as-
sumed to be closed with respect to the fluid phases. This is
the case if the rate of external fluid mass supply per unit vol-
ume is equal to zero (sealed conditions). Focusing on the de-
scription of chemomechanical couplings of shotcrete, multi-
surface chemoplasticity will be developed herein only for
isothermal conditions. For the extension of the model to
thermo-chemo-mechanical couplings, one may refer to Ulm
and Coussy (1995). Moreover, the investigation will be re-
stricted to geometric linearity. For a broad range of practical
applications, also including the numerical simulation of tun-
neling, reasonable results are obtained on the basis of this re-
striction. The thermodynamic state of the porous medium is
characterized by four state variables, ␧, ␧p, ␹, and m. The
tensor of observable strains, ␧, refers to the skeleton (aggre-
gate, unhydrated cement, and hydrates). ␧p and ␹ denote the
tensor of the plastic strains and the vector of hardening and
softening variables, respectively. With regards to macroscopic
modeling, ␧p and ␹ represent the irreversible skeleton defor-
mation resulting from microcracking. m is referred to as the
mass of water per unit volume combined with cement to form
hydrates. It equals, with opposite sign, the change of liquid
water mass density in the capillary space (mass conservation
in the closed porous medium).
Applying standard thermodynamics, the intrinsic dissipation
of the closed system reads:
˙ ⱖ0
␸ = ␴ : ␧˙ ⫺ ⌿ (1)
where ␴ denotes the stress tensor; and ⌿ = free Helmholtz
energy. The latter depends on the aforementioned state vari-
ables, i.e.
 ⌿(␧, ␧p, ␹, m) = ␺(␧ ⫺ ␧p, m) ⫹ U(␹, m) (2)
where ␺ = elastic strain energy; and U(␹, m) = frozen energy.
The latter is the elastic energy stored at the microlevel of the
material, which, as a consequence of the inhomogeneous mi-
crostructure of concrete, cannot be recovered by unloading or
at load reversal; for more details, see Coussy (1995) and Ulm
and Coussy (1996). Inserting (2) into (1) leads to
␸ = ␴ : ␧˙ p ⫹ ␨ ⭈ ␹
˙ ⫹ Amṁ ⱖ 0 (3)
with the state equations for the chemically reactive closed po-
rous medium reading as follows:
moplastic coupling [(9)] accounts for the effect of the hydra-
tion reaction on the irreversible skeleton deformation. In fact,
like in standard multisurface plasticity [see, e.g., Simo and
Hughes (1998)], the plastically admissible stress states are de-
fined by N loading functions f␣:
␴ 僆 CE ⇔ f␣ = f␣(␴, ␨(␹, m)) ⱕ 0 ᭙␣ 僆 [1, 2, . . . , N ] (10)
Because of (9), the elastic domain CE depends on the hydration
reaction (chemical hardening). Standard expressions can be
used for the flow rule and the hardening rule (Koiter 1960).
Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, associative hardening
plasticity, these expressions read

␴=
⭸⌿
⭸ε
⭸␺
= ⫺ p,
⭸␧
⭸U
␨=⫺ ,
⭸␹
Am = ⫺
⭸⌿
⭸m
(4a–c) d␧p = 冘
␣僆Jact
d␭␣
⭸f␣
⭸␴
, d␹ = 冘
␣僆Jact
d␭␣
⭸f␣
⭸␨
(11a,b)

In (4), ␨ denotes the hardening force; and Am = chemical af- where d␭␣ = plastic multipliers; Jact denotes the set of n active
finity. Am roughly represents the difference of chemical poten- yield surfaces, n ⱕ N. It is defined by Jact := {␣ 僆 1, 2,
tials of the reactant (water, cement) and the product phase . . . , N兩 f␣(␴, ␨) = 0}. All yield surfaces obey the Kuhn-Tucker
(hydrates). The chemical affinity is the driving force of the loading/unloading (complementarity) conditions
hydration reaction. Autogeneous shrinkage, aging elasticity,
and strength growth represent (thermodynamic) cross-effects f␣ ⱕ 0, d␭␣ ⱖ 0, f␣d␭␣ = 0 (12)
between chemical, elastic, and plastic hardening evolutions. along with the consistency requirement
These cross-effects result from Maxwell symmetries on the
free energy ⌿. To obtain these couplings, it is useful to intro- d␭␣df␣ = 0 (13)
duce the Legendre-Fenchel transform of ␺, defined as
For all active yield surfaces, the consistency requirement, (13),
␺* = ␴ : (␧ ⫺ ␧p) ⫺ ␺, ␺* = ␺*(␴, m) (5) together with the hardening rule, (11b), results in
yielding
⭸␺* ⭸(␺* ⫺ U)
df␣ = 0 ⇔
⭸f␣
⭸␴
: d␴ ⫹
⭸f␣ ⭸␨
⭈
⭸␨ ⭸m
⭸f␣ ⭸␨
dm = ⫺ ⭈ ⭈
⭸␨ ⭸␹ ␤僆Jact
d␭␤
⭸f␤
⭸␨
冘 (14)

␧ ⫺ ␧p = , Am = (6)
⭸␴ ⭸m Eq. (14) constitutes a system of n equations for the n unknown
plastic multipliers d␭␤. In matrix notation, these unknowns can
The (infinitesimal) increment of ␧ ⫺ ␧pl is obtained as be determined from
⭸2␺* (d␭) = [H]⫺1(d␴f ⫹ dmf ) (15)
d␧ ⫺ d␧p = ⌳ : d␴ ⫹ bdm, b= (7)
⭸␴⭸m
where the n components of vectors (d␴f ) and (dmf ) are given
where ⌳ = C⫺1 denotes the elastic compliance tensor; and C by
= elastic stiffness tensor. As suggested by experiments by By-
fors (1980) and Boumiz et al. (1996), C depends on m (aging ⭸f␣ ⭸f␣ ⭸␨
d␴ f␣ = : d␴; dm f␣ = ⭈ dm (16a,b)
elasticity). The second-order coupling tensor b relates the in- ⭸␴ ⭸␨ ⭸m
crease of hydrate mass, dm, to the strain increment of chemical [H] is a quadratic matrix with n ⫻ n coefficients:
origin, d␧shr. In a stress-free experiment, b reduces to an iso-
tropic tensor
᭙(␴ = 0) : d␧shr = b1dm (8)
H␣␤ = m 冉 ⭸f␣
⭸␨
嘸
⭸f␤ ⭸2U0(␹)
⭸␨
:
⭸␹2 冊 (17)

These coefficients may be referred to as hardening moduli.

with the chemical dilatation coefficient b. ␧shr represents au-
(d␭) contains all plastic multipliers d␭␣ associated with active
togeneous shrinkage, including hydration shrinkage and cap-
yield surfaces. It is noteworthy that for the case of a single
illary shrinkage related to the water consumption in the hy-
surface (i.e., N = n = 1), (15) reduces to ‘‘standard’’ chemo-
dration reaction. It constitutes a chemomechanical cross-effect
plasticity (Coussy and Ulm 1996)
resulting from the Maxwell symmetries on ␺*.
In the same manner, other couplings can be considered in
the modeling, namely, the chemoplastic one. More precisely,
the strength of early-age concrete increases quasi-linearly as a
d␭ =
1
H
冋⭸f
⭸␴
: d␴ ⫹
⭸f ⭸␨
⭸␨ ⭸m
dm 册 (18)

function of the hydration products (Mindess et al. 1978), with the hardening modulus H given as

冉冊
which may also affect the hardening/softening properties of 2
the material. With regards to constitutive modeling, this im- ⭸f ⭸2U0(␹)
H=m (19)
plies the dependence of the hardening force ␨ on both the ⭸␨ ⭸␹2
plastic hardening variable ␹ and the hydrate mass m. Assum-
If kinematic hardening/softening is accounted for, it is nec-
ing, for the sake of simplicity, a linear chemoplastic coupling,
essary to introduce the hardening force ␨ as a second-order
U(␹, m) = mU0(␹), the (infinitesimal) incremental state equa-
tensor, together with a corresponding second-order tensor for
tion resulting from (4b) reads
the internal variable, ␹. In this case, the flow rule and the
⭸2U0(␹) hardening rule are still given by (11). The expression for the
d␨ = ⫺␳0 dm ⫺ m ⭈ d␹ (9) plastic multipliers remains to be (15), together with (16a)
⭸␹2
whereas the components of the vector (dmf ) are now given as
where the first term represents the strength growth because of
chemical hardening (with ␳0 = ⭸2U(␹, m)/⭸␹⭸m), whereas the ⭸f␣ ⭸␨
dm f␣ = : dm (20)
second term refers to plastic hardening/softening. The che- ⭸␨ ⭸m

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999 / 693

and the hardening moduli are now defined as EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION

H␣␤ = m 冉⭸f␣
⭸␨
嘸
⭸f␤
⭸␨
::冊⭸2U0(␹)
⭸␹2
(21)
The described chemoplastic material model involves three
material functions depending on the hydration degree. As
shown in the following, they can be determined uniquely from
Next, a suitable evolution law for the hydration kinetics standard material tests, exploring the Maxwell symmetries of
must be designed, linking the rate ṁ to its driving force, i.e., the material model. The experimental data used hereafter are
to the chemical affinity Am. The following expression may be taken from Huber (1991). The experimentally investigated
used [e.g., Ulm and Coussy (1995)]: shotcrete is characterized by a water-cement ratio of 0.45. It

冉 冊
Ea
Am = ␩ṁ exp (22)
RT
where the Arrhenius factor exp(Ea/RT) accounts for the ther-
mal activation of the hydration reaction. Ea denotes the acti-
vation energy of the shotcrete; and R = universal constant of
ideal gas. The viscosity ␩ = ␩(m) increases with increasing
hydrate mass m, since the free water has to bypass the growing
layers of hydrates. This leads to an increase of the microdif-
fusion time of the free water to reach the unhydrated cement.
It is noted that the couplings [(6)] a priori imply the depen-
dence of the chemical affinity Am on the loading history and
the hardening history (i.e., on microcracking) of the material
[i.e., Am = Am(␴, ␨, m)]. Fortunately, these couplings can be
considered as weak. Hence, it can be assumed that the affinity
Am depends mainly on m (Ulm and Coussy 1995), resulting in
the partial decoupling hypothesis
is composed of 350 kg cement per m3 of shotcrete and of 1,800
kg aggregate per m3 of shotcrete, with the size of the aggregate
ranging from 0 to 12 mm. The rapid hardening of this shot-
crete results from the admixture of an alkali-based accelerator.
[For more details concerning the test device, sample prepara-
tion, etc., see Huber (1991).]
Hydration Kinetics
The prediction of the hydration degree ␰ (and, thus, of its
influence on the growth of strain and strength) requires knowl-
edge of the function Ã(␰). On the macroscopic level of a con-
crete sample, the hydration kinetics can be followed indirectly
through the cross-effects between the hydration and the evo-
lution of strength and autogeneous shrinkage. Thus, if the kind
of the coupling is known, the Maxwell symmetries of the
model provide direct macroscopic access to the hydration de-
gree and, thus, to the kinetics of hydration. In particular, the

Am ⬵ A0 ⫺ a(m) = ␩ṁ exp 冉 冊

Ea
RT
(23)
evolution of the compressive strength of shotcrete fc(t) is stan-
dardly determined according to the Austrian guideline for shot-
crete (Richtlinie 1997). [See Fig. 1(a) for experiments carried
where A0 denotes the initial chemical affinity, starting the re- out by Huber (1991).] As for the kind of the chemoplastic
action; and a(m) = chemical equilibrium function. The reaction coupling, reflected by fc(␰), experimental results obtained, e.g.,
stops for Am = 0 (thermodynamic equilibrium); this leads to by Catharin (1978), Mindess et al. (1978), Byfors (1980), Tor-
the definition of the hydration degree ␰ as in cement chemistry: renti (1992), and Boumiz et al. (1996) suggest a linear chem-
ical hardening, as illustrated in Fig. 2. In this figure, ␰0 denotes
m the percolation threshold (Acker 1988) beyond which the ma-
␰= , 0ⱕ␰ⱕ1 (24)
m⬁ terial can support a stress deviator. From this threshold on, the
material strength increases linearly with the hydration degree.
where m⬁ denotes the asymptotic hydrate mass. Because of
(23), m⬁ only depends on the initial affinity A0, i.e., m⬁ =
m⬁(A0) (Ulm and Coussy 1996). Finally, the kinetics law, (23),
can be recast in the more convenient form

Ã(␰) = ␰˙ exp 冉 冊
Ea
RT
(25)

where à = Am/(m⬁␩) is the so-called normalized affinity, which

was recently proposed as an intrinsic function for the macro-
scopic hydration kinetics of concrete (Ulm and Coussy 1996).
To complete the modeling of the material, a change of var-
iables, m → ␰, based on (24), can be carried out in the che-
moplastic constitutive equations, (4)–(21). In particular, the
state equation for the stresses [see (4a)] is given by
␴ = C(␰) : (␧ ⫺ ␧p ⫺ 1εshr(␰)) (26)
The (infinitesimal) increments of the stress tensor (for isotropic
elasticity) and of the hardening force ␨ follow from (26) and
(9), respectively
⭸E(␰)/⭸␰
d␴ = ␴ d␰ ⫹ C(␰) : (d␧ ⫺ d␧p ⫺ ␤1d␰) (27)
E(␰)
⭸2U⬁(␹)
d␨ = ⫺␳⬁d␰ ⫺ ␰ ⭈ d␹ (28)
⭸␹2
where E = Young’s modulus; ␤ = bm⬁ denotes the (relative)
chemical dilatation coefficient (negative for shrinkage); ⫺␳⬁
= vector of factors of proportionality between the hydration
degree and the strengths; and U⬁ = frozen energy at complete FIG. 1. Evolution of: (a) Compressive Strength of Shotcrete;
hydration. (b) Temperature during Hydration

694 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999

 FIG. 2. Linear Chemical Hardening

FIG. 4. Evolution of: (a) Young’s Modulus; (b) Chemical

Shrinkage Strains
FIG. 3. Hydration Kinetics for Shotcrete: Normalized Affinity
Ã(␰)

Combining fc(t) [Fig. 1(a)] and fc(␰) (Fig. 2) yields the evo-
lution of the hydration degree, described by ␰(t):
␨(t) fc(t) ⫺ fc,0 fc(t)
␰(t) = = = ␰0 ⫹ (1 ⫺ ␰0) (29)
␳⬁ fc,⬁ ⫺ fc,0 fc,⬁
where fc,0 (ⱕ0) is a reference value at ␰ = 0. Substituting (29)
into (25) yields a parameter form of the kinetics function Ã
with t as the parameter, namely

Ã(t) =
dfc(t)/dt
fc,⬁ ⫺ fc,0
exp 冉 冊
Ea
RT(t)
(30)

where Ea/R ⬵ 4,000 K (Byfors 1980) and T = (absolute) shot-

crete temperature. For isothermal conditions, T = T0. In Huber
(1991), the current shotcrete temperature T(t) was measured
by a temperature gauge, cast in a prismatic specimen [Fig.
1(b)]. Twenty-four hours after shotcreting, the sample reached
the air temperature in the laboratory, which was held constant
at 23⬚C. Combining (29) and (30) gives direct experimental
access to the kinetics function Ã(␰) for shotcrete, as shown in
Fig. 3.

Aging Elasticity
Similarly, the treatment of aging elasticity only requires ex-
perimental determination of the elastic properties and of the
hydration degree as functions of the material age [i.e., C =
C(t)]. Assuming an isotropic elastic law, two material param-
eters, namely Young’s modulus E and Poisson’s ratio ␯, are
involved. The elasticity tensor is given by
E E
C = 1 嘸 1K ⫹ 2GIdev, K= , G=
3(1 ⫺ 2␯) 2(1 ⫹ ␯)
with the bulk modulus K and the shear modulus G. 1 is the
second-order unit tensor; and Idev = I ⫺ 1/3 ⭈ 1 嘸 1 denotes
the deviatoric operator, with I standing for the fourth-order
unit tensor. At a very early age of shotcrete, ␯ may be consid-
ered a constant; see, by analogy, Byfors (1980) and Laplante
FIG. 5. Chemomechanical Couplings for Shotcrete: (a) Aging
Elasticity E(␰); (b) Dependence of Chemical Shrinkage Strains
on Degree of Hydration
(1993). Fig. 4(a) shows the evolution of E(t) according to the
(31) test series performed by Huber (1991). Then, using (29), E =
E(␰) can be determined, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Since ␯ is a
constant, C = C(␰) is known. The points shown in Fig. 5(a)
are mean values of a series of tests. It is noted that the evo-
lution of the modulus of elasticity of shotcrete as a function
of the hydration degree is quasi-linear. Most probably, this is
a consequence of the rather small aggregate, with diameters
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999 / 695
not exceeding 12 mm. In fact, similar results were found for and
mortar and cement pastes (Boumiz et al. 1996). In contrast to
the macroscopic determination of material characteristics cho- f␣,n⫹1 ⱕ 0, ⌬␭␣,n⫹1 ⱖ 0, f␣,n⫹1⌬␭␣,n⫹1 = 0, ⌬␭␣,n⫹1⌬f␣,n⫹1 = 0
sen for the present research, in Boumiz et al. (1996), the elastic (37)
properties and the degree of hydration were determined by
Jact denotes the set of active yield surfaces at tn⫹1
ultrasonic measurements and by calorimetric experiments, re-
spectively. The similarity of the relations between E and ␰, in Jact = {␣ 僆 1, 2, . . . , N兩 f␣(␴n⫹1, ␨n⫹1) = 0} (38)
the sense of their linearity, demonstrates the intrinsic nature of
the sought material function E = E(␰). In order to be able to use the standard return mapping scheme,
at first, the trial state needs to be defined. It is attained by
Autogeneous Shrinkage means of freezing the plastic flow (i.e., ⌬␧ p,trial
n⫹1 = 0, ⌬␹ n⫹1 =
trial

Analogously, on the basis of ␧shr(t) [Fig. 4(b)], the chemical 0):

dilatation coefficient ␤ can be determined. It links the hydra- ␴ trial
n⫹1 = C(␰ n⫹1) : (␧n⫹1 ⫺ ␧ n ⫺ 1␧
trial p shr
(␰ trial
n⫹1)) (39)
tion degree to the strain caused by chemical and capillary
shrinkage resulting from the water consumption during the hy- 具␰ n⫹1
trial
⫺ ␰0典 ⭸U⬁
dration reaction [see (8) and (27)]. Fig. 5(b) illustrates a quasi- ␨ trial
n⫹1 = ⫺ (␹n) (40)
1 ⫺ ␰0 ⭸␹
linear chemomechanical coupling between the hydration de-
gree and the autogeneous shrinkage of shotcrete. The In contrast to standard plasticity, in chemoplasticity the trial
coefficient ␤ is equal to the slope of the straight line in Fig. state is not defined just by a trial stress state ␴ trial
n⫹1, but also by
5(b). The non-negligible magnitude of autogeneous shrinkage n⫹1 ≠ ␨n. Both trial states
a trial chemical hardening state ␨ trial
of the present shotcrete mixture seems to be a consequence of depend on the hydration degree ␰ trial
n⫹1. In other words, the trial
the alkali-based accelerator. It can be twice or three times the stress state in chemoplasticity is defined as the solution of the
cracking strain of concrete (⬃0.01%). If this shrinkage is re- chemoelastic problem, (39) and (40).
strained, tensile stresses are generated in the structure. This The case of single-surface chemoplasticity will be consid-
may lead to cracking. ered first. Then, as in classical plasticity, the trial state defined
by (39) and (40) determines whether or not plastic evolution
RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM occurs:
In this section, the return mapping algorithm for standard
n⫹1, ␨ n⫹1) > 0 ↔ ⌬␭n⫹1 > 0
f (␴ trial trial
(41)
multisurface plasticity (Simo and Hughes 1998) is adapted for
multisurface chemoplasticity. Herein, only the partially decou- trial
f (␴ n⫹1 , ␨ n⫹1
trial
) < 0 ↔ ⌬␭n⫹1 = 0 (42)
pled case, given by (23), will be dealt with. It is assumed that
the state of the considered chemoplastic system at the end of The aforementioned trial state also holds for multisurface
the nth time interval of an incremental-iterative FE analysis, chemoplasticity. It obeys the standard format of computational
is known, i.e. multisurface plasticity (Simo and Hughes 1998), i.e.
{␧, ␧p, ␹, ␰}兩t=tn = {␧n, ␧ np, ␹n, ␰n} n⫹1, ␨ n⫹1) > 0 ↔ ⌬␭␣,n⫹1 > 0 ⵪ ⌬␭␣,n⫹1 = 0
f␣(␴ trial trial
(32) (43)
Then, knowing the displacement increment of the next time trial
f␣(␴ n⫹1 , ␨ n⫹1
trial
) < 0 ↔ ⌬␭␣,n⫹1 = 0 (44)
step, ⌬un⫹1, and, consequently, the respective increment of the
total strains In other words, as in standard multisurface plasticity, in mul-
tisurface chemoplasticity, the trial state is not sufficient to de-
⌬␧n⫹1 = ⵜ (⌬un⫹1)
s
(33)
termine which loading surfaces are actually active. Therefore,
the actual state of the system at t = tn⫹1, {␧n⫹1, ␧ , ␹n⫹1, p
n⫹1 during the closest-point projection, it must be checked whether
␰n⫹1}, can be determined. For this purpose, the chemoplastic conditions (37) are fulfilled.
constitutive equations have to be discretized with respect to According to the partial decoupling hypothesis, (23), the
time. hydration process does not depend on the loading history and
Evaluating ␴ = ⭸⌿/⭸␧ [(4a) and (26)] at t = tn⫹1 gives on the history of plastic hardening. Hence, from an algorithmic

␴n⫹1 = 冏
⭸⌿
⭸␧ n⫹1
= C(␰n⫹1) : (␧n⫹1 ⫺ ␧ pn⫹1 ⫺ 1␧shr(␰n⫹1)) (34)
viewpoint, it follows that
⌬␰n⫹1 = ⌬␰ trial
n⫹1 (45)
where ␧ refers to the material function illustrated in Fig.
shr
where ⌬␰n⫹1 = increment of the hydration degree. Conse-
5(b). quently, ⌬␰n⫹1 is obtained from the ordinary differential equa-
Evaluating the state equation ␨ = ⭸⌿/⭸␹ [(4)] at t = tn⫹1 and tion (25). The solution of (25) is uncoupled from the mechan-
accounting for the linear chemomechanical coupling shown in ical problem. For example, applying a first-order integration
Fig. 2 yields scheme with ␰˙ = ⌬␰n⫹1/⌬tn⫹1, the following relation is ob-

␨n⫹1 =
⭸⌿
冏 =⫺
⭸U
冏 =⫺
具␰n⫹1 ⫺ ␰0典 ⭸U⬁
冏 tained:

冉 冊
(35)
⭸␹ n⫹1 ⭸␹ n⫹1 1 ⫺ ␰0 ⭸␹ n⫹1 EA
⌬␰n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬tn⫹1 exp ⫺ ˜ n⫹1) = Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1) = 0
A(␰ (46)
where 具x典 = (x ⫹ 兩x兩)/2. RT
The evolution equations of plasticity (11) as well as the
Kuhn-Tucker conditions (12), along with the consistency re- where Ã(␰) denotes the normalized chemical affinity, shown in
quirement (13), are integrated by means of a Euler backward Fig. 3.
scheme for the interval [tn, tn⫹1], resulting in As far as the solution of the nonlinear equation (46) is con-

冘 冏
cerned, the Newton algorithm is not unconditionally stable,
⭸f␣ because Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1) is not necessarily a convex function [Fig.
⌬␧ pn⫹1 = ⌬␭␣,n⫹1 (36a)
␣僆Jact ⭸␴ n⫹1 6(a)].

⌬␹n⫹1 = 冘
␣僆Jact
⌬␭␣,n⫹1
⭸␨
冏
⭸f␣
n⫹1
(36b)
In order to find an unconditionally stable algorithm for the
solution of (46), the following characteristics of the material
function Ã(␰) are noted:
696 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999
 APPLICATION: DRUCKER-PRAGER CRITERION WITH
TENSION CUT-OFF
In this section, the preceding developments will be applied
to a plasticity model suitable for shotcrete. A Drucker-Prager
yield surface and a tension cut-off are chosen to describe the
behavior of shotcrete under primarily uniaxial and biaxial
stress states.
The Drucker-Prager loading surface is given by
f1 = ␣I1 ⫹ 兩s兩 ⫺ kDP(␹1, ␰) = 0 (51)
FIG. 6. Characteristic Shapes of Function Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1): (a) With
One Point of Inflection; (b) Without Point of Inflection The tension cut-off reads
f2 = I1 ⫺ TC(␹2, ␰) = 0 (52)
I1 = tr ␴ denotes the first invariant of the stress tensor; s = ␴
⫺ (I11)/3 denotes the stress deviator; and ␣, kDP, and TC =
material parameters. Fig. 7 shows the loading surfaces in the
I1-兩s兩-stress space.

Choice of Hardening Variables

For concrete, the plastic volume dilatation ε pv = tr ␧p is a
reasonable measure for the hardening and softening state of
the material. Therefore, the writers choose

FIG. 7. Drucker-Prager Loading Surface with Tension Cut-Off ␹1 ⫹ ␹2 = 1 : ␧p = tr ␧p (53)

where ␹1 and ␹2 = components of the vector of hardening
˜ ⱕ ␰ < 1) > 0,
A(0 ˜ ⱖ 1) = 0
A(␰ (47) variables, ␹. Subsequently, it will be shown that this choice
of ␹ implies the following format of yield surfaces (51) and
Therefore (52):
Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1 = 0) < 0, Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1 = 1) > 0 (48) f1 = ␣(I1 ⫹ 3␨1) ⫹ 兩s兩 = 0 (54)
It follows from the type of functions occurring in the ex- f2 = I1 ⫹ 3␨2 = 0 (55)
pression for Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1) that the number of points of inflection
of Ã(␰n⫹1) is greater than or equal to the number of such points where ␨1 and ␨2 = components of the hardening force vector
of Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1). In the given case, Ã(␰n⫹1) has one point of in- ␨, given by
flection (Fig. 3), denoted as ␰ = ␰*. In case of ␰n < ␰*, Ᏻ also
⭸U kDP(␹1, ␰) ⭸U
exhibits one point of inflection, and the curvature of the func- ␨1(␹1, ␰) = ⫺ =⫺ , ␨2(␹2, ␰) = ⫺
tion Ᏻ at ⌬␰n⫹1 = 0 is positive [Fig. 6(a)]. If ␰n ⱖ ␰*, the ⭸␹1 3␣ ⭸␹2
function Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1) has no point of inflection [Fig. 6(b)]. Thus,
1
in both cases Ᏻ(⌬␰n⫹1) has one root in [0, 1]. This feature of = ⫺ TC(␹2, ␰)
Ᏻ, together with (48), suggests the use of the regula falsi with 3 (56)
an upper and a lower starting value for ⌬␰n⫹1 of 1 and 0, In fact, using Koiter’s flow rule (11a), the (infinitesimal)
respectively, for the solution of (46). increment of the plastic volume dilatation ␧p reads
Algorithmically, the introduction of the partial decoupling
hypothesis (23) results in chemical inertness during purely d␧ pv = tr d␧p = 3␣d␭1 ⫹ 3d␭2 (57)
plastic evolutions. Thus, the standard closest-point projection
Moreover, the increments of the internal variables are given
(Simo and Hughes 1998) can be applied with initially updated
by Koiter’s hardening rule (11b) as
chemical hardening. For the case of a single yield surface, the
plastic flow and the hardening residuals for the Newton iter- d␹1 = d␭13␣ (58)
ation scheme to obtain ␴n⫹1 and ␨n⫹1 read as

冉 冊 冉 冊
d␹2 = d␭23 (59)
⫺⌬␧ p,k ⭸␴ f (␴ kn⫹1, ␨(␹ kn⫹1, ␰n⫹1))
R kn⫹1 := n⫹1
⫹ ⌬␭ kn⫹1 (49) Hence
⫺⌬␹ n⫹1
k
⭸␨ f (␴ n⫹1
k
, ␨(␹ n⫹1
k
, ␰n⫹1))
with k indicating the number of the iteration step. For multi- d␹1 ⫹ d␹2 = d␭13␣ ⫹ d␭23 (60)
surface chemoplasticity, the plastic flow and hardening resid- Comparison of (60) and (57) yields
uals are given as

冉 冊 冘 冉 冊
d␹1 ⫹ d␹2 = tr d␧p (61)
⫺⌬␧ p,k ⭸␴ f␣(␴ kn⫹1, ␨(␹ kn⫹1, ␰n⫹1))
R k
:= n⫹1
⫹ ⌬␭ k
␣,n⫹1
n⫹1
⫺⌬␹ n⫹1
k
␣僆Jact
⭸␨ f␣(␴ n⫹1
k
, ␨(␹ n⫹1
k
, ␰n⫹1)) resulting in (53), q.e.d. Note that, depending on the number
(50) of active yield surfaces, both, one, or none of the plastic mul-
tipliers d␭1 and d␭2 in (57)–(60) are equal to zero [Kuhn-
For strategies to obtain the actual set of active yield surfaces Tucker conditions; (12)].
Jact during the Newton iteration scheme, one may refer to Simo Next, some comments on the structure of the matrix of hard-
and Hughes (1998). ening moduli, [H], defined by (17), for the chosen yield sur-
In the same manner, the consistent tangent operators for the faces are made. Because
global Newton-Raphson equilibrium iteration (Simo and
Hughes 1998) are defined for purely plastic evolutions with ⭸fi
=0 for i ≠ j, i, j = 1, 2 (62)
initially updated aging elasticity and chemical hardening. ⭸␨j

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999 / 697

and
⭸2U
=0 for i ≠ j, i, j = 1, 2 (63)
⭸␹i⭸␹ j
the expression (17) reduces to a diagonal matrix with the com-
ponents
⭸2U ⭸2U
Hij = 0 for i ≠ j, i, j = 1, 2, H11 = 9␣2 , H22 = 9
⭸␹ 12 ⭸␹ 22
(64)

Calibration of Loading Surfaces

The material parameter ␣ as well as the components of the
vectors of both the hardening force ␨ and the internal variables
␹ can be determined by means of the uniaxial compressive
strength fc, the initial uniaxial compressive threshold fy defin-
ing the elastic limit, the biaxial compressive strength fb, the
uniaxial tensile strength ft, and the uniaxial compressive strain
associated with fc at complete hydration, ε uc,⬁. Experimental
results (Byfors 1980) suggest the assumption of isotropic
chemical hardening. In this case, the ratios ␬ = fb / fc, ␻ = fy /
fc, and ␦ = ft / fc remain constant during hydration. The Drucker-
Prager yield surface is calibrated by means of a uniaxial and
a biaxial compression test. Inserting the two triplets of the
principal normal strsses (⫺fc兩0兩0) and (⫺fb兩 ⫺ fb兩0) into (54)
and (55), the material parameters ␣ and ␨1 can be determined.
They are obtained as
FIG. 8. Linear Chemoplastic Coupling; Quadratic Hardening
Law for Two Different Degrees of Hydration
For the analyses reported in the companion paper, Poisson’s
ratio ␯ is set equal to 0.2; Young’s modulus at complete hy-
dration, E⬁, is taken as 40 GPa; and the uniaxial compression
strength at complete hydration, fc,⬁, is set equal to 30 MPa.
The values of the ratios introduced previously are chosen as
␬ = fb / fc = 1.16, ␻ = fy / fc = 0.25, ␦ = ft / fc = 0.1, and ε cu,⬁ =
0.0022. Plastic hardening is defined by the threshold (67) (Fig.
8), with ␹1,u resulting from (69).
Return Mapping Algorithm for Chosen Yield Surfaces

␣= 冑 2 ␬⫺1
3 2␬ ⫺ 1
(65)
Next, the general return mapping algorithm [(32)–(50)] will
be specialized for the chosen yield surfaces. Because of the
comparatively simple mathematical structure of these yield

冉 冊
surfaces, this specialization results in a significant simplifica-
1 2␬ ⫺ 1
␨1(␹1, ␰) = 1⫺ Rc(␹1, ␰) (66) tion of the general formulation.
3 ␬⫺1 First, the increment of the degree of hydration, ⌬␰n⫹1 =
where Rc = uniaxial chemoplastic compressive threshold. Em- ⌬␰ trial
n⫹1, is computed by solving (46). Then the trial state is

ploying a quadratic plastic hardening law and the linear determined. It is defined by (39), whereas the trial hardening
strength evolution described by fc(␰) (Fig. 2), Rc can be ex- forces for the chosen yield surfaces read as follows [see (66)
pressed as and (70)]:

Rc(␹1, ␰) = fc(␰)␻ ⫹ fc(␰)(1 ⫺ ␻)[1 ⫺ (␹1 ⫺ ␹1,u)2/␹ 2u]

for ␹1 < ␹1,u, and as
(67) ␨ trial
1,n⫹1 =
1
3
冉 1⫺
2␬ ⫺ 1
␬⫺1
冊 Rc(␹1,n, ␰n⫹1) (71)

1
具␰ ⫺ ␰0典 ␨ trial
2,n⫹1 = ⫺ ft(␰n⫹1) (72)
Rc(␰) = fc(␰) = fc,⬁ (68) 3
1 ⫺ ␰0
The trial values of the yield surfaces are obtained [(54) and
for ␹1 ⱖ ␹1,u (Fig. 8). (55)] as
The first term in (67) accounts for pure chemical hardening,
1,n⫹1 = ␣(I 1,n⫹1 ⫹ 3␨ 1,n⫹1) ⫹ 兩s n⫹1兩
f trial trial trial trial
whereas the second term is associated with plastic hardening. (73)
␹1,u denotes the value of the internal variable ␹1 when fc is f trial
=I trial
⫹ 3␨ trial
(74)
2,n⫹1 1,n⫹1 2,n⫹1
reached. As a consequence of the assumption of linear che-
moplastic coupling, i.e., of U(␹, m) = mU0(␹), [see (9)], ␹1,u Afterwards, the active yield surfaces are determined, and
can be determined from a uniaxial compression test at com- the trial state is projected back onto the yield surface.
1,n⫹1 < 0 and f 2,n⫹1 < 0, the (n ⫹ 1)th load step is
If f trial trial
plete hydration
(chemo)elastic. In the stress space, the trial stress state is sit-
9␣兹2(E⬁ε uc,⬁ ⫺ fc,⬁) uated within the elastic domain. It coincides with the actual
␹1,u = ⫺ (69)
E⬁(3␣兹2 ⫺ 2兹3) stress state.
If f trial trial
1,n⫹1 > 0 and f 2,n⫹1 < 0, only the Drucker-Prager yield
Thus, ␹1,u is independent of the degree of hydration, as illus-
surface is active. If f trial trial
1,n⫹1 < 0 and f 2,n⫹1 > 0, only the tension
trated in Fig. 8.
cut-off is active. Projection of the trial state from outside the
Concerning the tension cut-off, perfect chemoplasticity
elastic domain onto the yield surface allows determination of
(purely chemical hardening) is assumed, i.e.
the actual stress state. The respective projection algorithms are
1 1 具␰ ⫺ ␰0典 described in Appendix I.
␨2 = ⫺ ft(␰) = ⫺ ft,⬁ (70) In the case of f trial trial
1,n⫹1 > 0 and f 2,n⫹1 > 0, either both yield
3 3 1 ⫺ ␰0
surfaces or one of them are active. First, both yield surfaces
Thus, the stress relaxation resulting from plastic softening is are assumed to be active. If the projection algorithm for the
neglected. Nevertheless, since experiments for shotcrete under corner region (see Appendix I) yields ⌬␭1,n⫹1 > 0 and ⌬␭2,n⫹1
tension are lacking, purely chemical hardening in the tensile > 0, this assumption is correct. If, however, either ⌬␭1,n⫹1 or
regime is considered to be a reasonable assumption. ⌬␭2,n⫹1 is negative, only the second and the first yield surface,
698 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999
respectively, are active. In this case, the respective projection ⌬␹1,n⫹1 = ⌬␭1,n⫹13␣ (76)
algorithm (see Appendix I) has to be employed.
Appendix II contains the derivation of the consistent tangent Inserting (75) into (34), making use of
moduli for the chosen yield surfaces. C(␰n⫹1) = 2G(␰n⫹1)Idev ⫹ K(␰n⫹1)1 嘸 1 (77)
with G and K according to (31), and recalling the definition
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS of the trial stress state (39), yields
This paper has dealt, in a thermodynamic framework, with ␴n⫹1 = ␴ trial
n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹1[3K(␰n⫹1)␣1 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1)nn⫹1] (78)
chemomechanical couplings for shotcrete. The main items of
The stress deviator can be written as follows:
the paper may be summarized as follows:
sn⫹1
sn⫹1 = ␴n⫹1 : Idev = s trial
n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹12G(␰n⫹1) (79)
• For constitutive modeling, the chemoplastic model pro- 兩sn⫹1兩
posed by Ulm and Coussy (1996) was extended to mul- Solving (79) for s trial
n⫹1 gives

冉 冊
tisurface chemoplasticity. It is noteworthy that the as-
sumption of the partial decoupling hypothesis, stating the ⌬␭1,n⫹1
s trial
n⫹1 = sn⫹1 1 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1) (80)
independence of hydration kinetics from the loading and 兩sn⫹1兩
hardening history, leads to the introduction of the degree
of hydration as in cement chemistry. It follows from (80) that (Simo and Hughes 1998)
• For the experimental determination of the involved intrin- sn⫹1 s trial
n⫹1
sic material functions, the normalized chemical affinity, nn⫹1 = = trial = n trial (81)
兩sn⫹1兩 兩s n⫹1兩
n⫹1
constituting the driving force of the hydration reaction,
was determined on the basis of the time-dependent In other words, for a Drucker-Prager yield surface, the direc-
strength evolution, taking both the linear chemoplastic tion of the plastic flow at the time instant t = tn⫹1, ␣1 ⫹ nn⫹1,
coupling between the degree of hydration and strength is known as soon as the trial state has been evaluated. This
and the current temperature of the specimen into account. allows reduction of the residuals (49) to a single nonlinear
Knowledge of the hydration kinetics and the time-depen- equation.
dent evolutions of stiffness and autogeneous shrinkage al- If the Drucker-Prager loading surface is active, the consis-
lowed the determination of the intrinsic material functions tency condition
for stiffness and autogeneous shrinkage.
• For the numerical treatment of the constitutive equations f1(␴n⫹1, ␨1,n⫹1) = 0 (82)
of the material model, the return mapping algorithm must be fulfilled [see (37)]. Inserting (78) and (66) into (82),
(Simo and Hughes 1998) was extended to multisurface and accounting for (76) and (81), one gets
chemoplasticity. In contrast to classical multisurface plas-
ticity, the trial hardening force is not equal to the hard- f1,n⫹1 = ␣I trial
1,n⫹1 ⫹ 兩sn⫹1兩 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹1[9K(␰n⫹1)␣ ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1)]
trial 2

冉 冊
ening force at the end of the preceding load increment.
However, because of the partial decoupling hypothesis, 2␬ ⫺ 1
⫹␣ 1⫺ Rc(␹1,n ⫹ ⌬␭1,n⫹13␣, ␰n⫹1) = 0
the degree of hydration can be updated independently ␬⫺1 (83)
from the mechanical state variables. Hence, the standard Eq. (83) represents a nonlinear equation for determination of
return mapping algorithm was performed with an initially the plastic multiplier ⌬␭1,n⫹1. Using the threshold Rc according
updated chemical hardening. In the same manner, the con- to (67), (83) can be solved in an unconditionally stable man-
sistent tangent moduli were derived with an initially up- ner, using Newton’s method. Then, (75) yields the plastic
dated aging elasticity and chemical hardening. strains, whereas (78) gives the actual stress state.
• For the application of the material model, the constitutive
equations were elaborated for a Drucker-Prager loading Projection Algorithm for Tension Cut-Off
surface with a tension cut-off. The Drucker-Prager loading
surface represents the behavior of shotcrete under uniaxial For the tension cut-off, the discretized form of the flow rule
and biaxial compression, whereas the tension cut-off ac- [(36a)] reads
counts for the material behavior in tension.
⌬␧ pn⫹1 = ⌬␭2,n⫹11 (84)
Inserting (84) into (34), making use of (77) and of (39), gives
In the companion paper, the presented material model is
applied to 2D structural analyses of tunnels driven according ␴n⫹1 = ␴ trial
n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬␭2,n⫹13K(␰n⫹1)1 (85)
to the NATM.
If the tension cut-off is active, the consistency condition

APPENDIX I. PROJECTION ALGORITHMS f2(␴n⫹1, ␨2,n⫹1) = 0 (86)

Projection Algorithm for Drucker-Prager Yield
Surface
For the Drucker-Prager yield surface, the discretized form
of the flow rule [(36a)] reads
must be fulfilled [see (37)]. Inserting (85) and (70) into (86)
yields
1,n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬␭2,n⫹19K(␰n⫹1) ⫺ ft(␰n⫹1) = 0
f2,n⫹1 = I trial (87)
Eq. (87) constitutes a linear equation for determination of the
plastic multiplier ⌬␭2,n⫹1, which is obtained as

⌬␧ pn⫹1 = ⌬␭1,n⫹1 冉
␣1 ⫹
sn⫹1
冊
兩sn⫹1兩
= ⌬␭1,n⫹1(␣1 ⫹ nn⫹1) (75) ⌬␭2,n⫹1 =
1
9K(␰n⫹1)
1,n⫹1 ⫺ ft(␰n⫹1)]
[I trial (88)

with n = s/兩s兩. The discretized form of the hardening rule, With the help of (88), the plastic strains are obtained from
(36b), reads (84) and the actual stress state from (85).
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999 / 699
Projection Algorithm for Corner Region df1 df1
df1 = 0 = : d␧ ⇔ =0 (97)
If both loading surfaces are active, the discretized form of d␧ d␧
the flow rule [(36a)] reads permits computation of the derivative of the plastic multiplier
⌬␧ p
= ⌬␭1,n⫹1(␣1 ⫹ nn⫹1) ⫹ ⌬␭2,n⫹11 (89) with respect to ␧:

冏 冉 冏冊
n⫹1
⫺1

In this case, the discretized form of the hardening rule [(36b)] d⌬␭1 d␨1
= 9K(␰n⫹1)␣2 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1) ⫺ 3␣
is obtained as d␧ n⫹1 d␹1 n⫹1

⌬␹1,n⫹1 = ⌬␭1,n⫹13␣ (90) ⭈ [3K(␰n⫹1)␣1 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1)nn⫹1] (98)

Inserting (89) into (34), making use of (77) and of (39), yields
Consistent Tangent for Tension Cut-Off
␴n⫹1 = ␴ trial
n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹1[3K(␰n⫹1)␣1 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1)nn⫹1]
Analogously to the procedure described in the preceding
⫺ ⌬␭2,n⫹13K(␰n⫹1)1 (91) subsection, the consistent tangent can be determined for the
tension cut-off as
Analogous to the procedure described for the Drucker-Prager
loading surface, it can be shown that nn⫹1 = n trial
n⫹1.
C ep
n⫹1 = 2G(␰n⫹1)Idev (99)
If both the Drucker-Prager loading surface and the tension
cut-off are active, the consistency conditions Consistent Tangent for Corner Region

f1(␴n⫹1, ␨1,n⫹1) = 0 and f2(␴n⫹1, ␨2,n⫹1) = 0 (92) Considering (91), evaluation of d␴/d␧ at t = tn⫹1 gives

must be fulfilled [see (37)]. Inserting (91), (66), and (70) into
(92) and accounting for (81) and (90) gives
Cep =
d␴
d␧ 冏
n⫹1
= C(␰n⫹1) ⫺ [3K(␰n⫹1)␣1 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1)nn⫹1]

f1,n⫹1 = ␣I trial
1,n⫹1 ⫹ 兩s n⫹1兩 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹1(9K(␰n⫹1)␣ ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1))
冏
trial 2
d⌬␭1 1
嘸 ⫺ 4G2(␰n⫹1)⌬␭1,n⫹1 (Idev ⫺ nn⫹1 嘸 nn⫹1)

冉 2␬ ⫺ 1
冊 d␧ n⫹1 兩s trial
n⫹1兩

冏
⫹␣ 1⫺ Rc(␹1,n ⫹ ⌬␭1,n⫹13␣, ␰n⫹1)
␬⫺1 d⌬␭2
⫺ 3K(␰n⫹1)1 嘸
⫺ ⌬␭2,n⫹19K(␰n⫹1)␣ = 0 (93) d␧ n⫹1 (100)
The consistency conditions [see (13)]:
1,n⫹1 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹19K(␰n⫹1)␣ ⫺ ⌬␭2,n⫹19K(␰n⫹1)
f2,n⫹1 = I trial
df1 df2
⫺ ft(␰n⫹1) = 0 (94) =0 and =0 (101)
d␧ d␧
Eqs. (93) and (94) constitute a system of two equations for form a system of two linear equations for the two unknowns
determination of the two unknown plastic multipliers ⌬␭1,n⫹1 d⌬␭1/d␧兩n⫹1 and d⌬␭2/d␧兩n⫹1, resulting in
and ⌬␭2,n⫹1. This system of equations is linear with respect to
⌬␭2,n⫹1. Therefore, it can be reduced to one nonlinear equation d⌬␭1
冏 2G(␰n⫹1)n trial

冏
n⫹1
= (102)
for ⌬␭1,n⫹1, namely d␧ d␨1

冉 冊
n⫹1
2G(␰n⫹1) ⫺ 3␣
2␬ ⫺ 1 d␹1 n⫹1
兩s trial
n⫹1兩 ⫺ ⌬␭1,n⫹12G(␰n⫹1) ⫹ ␣ 1⫺
␬⫺1 and
⭈ Rc(␹1,n ⫹ ⌬␭1,n⫹13␣, ␰n⫹1) ⫹ ␣ft(␰n⫹1) = 0 (95) d⌬␭2
冏 1 2G(␰n⫹1)␣n trial

冏
1⫺
n⫹1
= (103)
Using the threshold Rc according to (67), (95) can be solved d␧ n⫹1 3 d␨1
in an unconditionally stable manner, using Newton’s method. 2G(␰n⫹1) ⫺ 3␣
d␹1
Then, ⌬␭2,n⫹1 can be determined from (94), the increment of
n⫹1

plastic strain from (89), and the actual stress state from (91).
APPENDIX II. CONSISTENT TANGENTS
Differentiation of (78), (85), and (91) with respect to ␧ re-
sults in the consistent tangents, which are a necessary prereq-
uisite for a quadratic rate of convergence of the global New-
ton-Raphson equilibrium iteration.
Consistent Tangent for Drucker-Prager Loading
Surface
Considering (78), evaluation of d␴/d␧ at t = tn⫹1 gives
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research work was done through close cooperation between the
Vienna University of Technology and the Laboratoire Central des Ponts
et Chaussées, Paris. The writers would like to express their gratitude to
these institutions for having made this scientific exchange possible.
APPENDIX III. REFERENCES
Acker, P. (1988). ‘‘Comportement mécanique du béton: apports de
l’approche physico-chimique [mechanical behavior of concrete: a phys-
ico-chemical approach].’’ Tech. Res. Rep. LCPC 152, Laboratoires des
Ponts et Chaussées, Paris (in French).
Boumiz, A., Vernet, C., and Cohen Tenoudij, F. (1996). Mechanical prop-

冏
erties of cement pastes and mortars at early age.’’ Advanced Cement
d␴ Based Mat., 3, 94–106.
C ep
n⫹1 = = C(␰n⫹1) ⫺ [3K(␰n⫹1)␣1 ⫹ 2G(␰n⫹1)nn⫹1] Byfors, J. (1980). ‘‘Plain concrete at early ages.’’ Tech. Rep., Swedish
d␧ n⫹1
Cement and Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

嘸
d⌬␭1
d␧ 冏n⫹1
⫺ 4G2(␰n⫹1)⌬␭1,n⫹1
1
兩s trial
n⫹1兩
(Idev ⫺ nn⫹1 嘸 nn⫹1)
Catharin, P. (1978). ‘‘Hydratationswärme und Festigkeitsentwicklung [hy-
dration heat and strength evolution].’’ Tech. Rep. 31, Forschungsinstitut
des Vereins der österreichischen Zementfabrikanten, Vienna (in
(96) German).
Coussy, O. (1995). Mechanics of porous continua. Wiley, Chichester,
The consistency condition [see (13)]: U.K.

700 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999

Coussy, O., and Ulm, F.-J. (1996). ‘‘Creep and plasticity due to chemo-
mechanical couplings.’’ Archive of Appl. Mech., 66, 523–535.
Huber, H. (1991). ‘‘Untersuchungen zum Verformungsverhalten von jun-
gem Spritzbeton im Tunnelbau [investigations concerning the defor-
mation behavior of young shotcrete in tunnelling],’’ MS thesis, Uni-
versity of Innsbruck, Austria (in German).
Koiter, W. (1960). General theorems for elastic-plastic solids, Vol. 1.
North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Laplante, P. (1993). ‘‘Propriétés mécaniques des bétons durcissants: an-
alyse comparée des bétons classiques et à très hautes performances
[mechanical properties of hardening concrete: a comparative analysis
of ordinary and high performance concretes],’’ PhD thesis, Ecole Na-
tionale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris (in French).
Mindess, S., Young, J., and Lawrence, F.-J. (1978). ‘‘Creep and drying
shrinkage of calcium silicate pastes. I: Specimen preparation and me-
chanical properties.’’ Cement and Concrete Res., 8, 591–600.
Neville, A. (1981). Properties of concrete. 3rd Ed., Pitman Publishing,
London.
Rabcewicz, L. (1948). Patentschrift: Österreichisches Patent Nr. 165573
[patent specification, Austrian patent no. 165573] (in German).
Richtlinie für Spritzbeton [guideline for shotcrete]. (1997). Öster-
reichischer Betonverein, Vienna (in German).
Simo, J., and Hughes, T. (1998). Computational inelasticity. Springer,
Berlin.
Torrenti, P. (1992). ‘‘La résistance du béton au très jeune age [strength
of concrete at very early age].’’ Bull. Liaison Labo. P. et Ch., 179, 31–
41 (in French).
Ulm, F.-J., and Coussy, O. (1995). ‘‘Modeling of thermochemomechan-
ical couplings of concrete at early ages.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE,
121(7), 785–794.
Ulm, F.-J., and Coussy, O. (1996). ‘‘Strength growth as chemo-plastic
hardening in early age concrete.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 122(12),
1123–1132.
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS / JUNE 1999 / 701