2019 DSSIMULIA - Established - An Inelastic Constitutive Model For Concrete

6/27/2021 2019 DSSIMULIA_Established - An inelastic constitutive model for concrete
© 1995-2021 Dassault Systèmes. All rights reserved.
An inelastic constitutive model for concrete

This section describes the smeared crack model provided in Abaqus/Standard for Related Topics
plain concrete.
The following topics are discussed: In Other Guides
Elastic-plastic model for concrete Concrete smeared cracking

Strain rate decomposition
Compression yield
Hardening
Flow
Crack detection and damaged elasticity
Yield
Flow
Hardening
Damaged elasticity
Cracking
Integration of the model
Products: Abaqus/Standard
The material library in Abaqus also includes a constitutive model for concrete based on theories of scalar plastic damage,
described in Damaged plasticity model for concrete and other quasi-brittle materials, which is available both in
Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit. In Abaqus/Explicit plain concrete can also be analyzed with the cracking model
described in A cracking model for concrete and other brittle materials. It is intended that reinforced concrete modeling be
accomplished by combining standard elements, using this plain concrete model, with “rebar elements”—rods, defined singly
or embedded in oriented surfaces, that use a one-dimensional strain theory and that may be used to model the reinforcing
itself.
These elements are superposed on the mesh of plain concrete elements and are used with standard metal plasticity models
that describe the behavior of the rebar material. This modeling approach allows the concrete behavior to be considered
independently of the rebar, so this section discusses the plain concrete model only. Effects associated with the
rebar/concrete interface, such as bond slip and dowel action, cannot be considered in this approach, except by modifying
some aspects of the plain concrete behavior to mimic them, such as the use of “tension stiffening” to simulate load transfer
across cracks through the rebar.
The theory described in this section is intended as a model of concrete behavior for relatively monotonic loadings under
fairly low confining pressures (less than four to five times the largest compressive stress that can be carried by the concrete
in uniaxial compression). Cracking is assumed to be the most important aspect of the behavior, and it dominates the
modeling. Cracking is assumed to occur when the stresses reach a failure surface, which we call the “crack detection
surface.” This failure surface is taken to be a simple Coulomb line written in terms of the first and second stress invariants,
p and q, that are defined below. The anisotropy introduced by cracking is assumed to be important in the simulations for
which the model is intended, so the model includes consideration of this anisotropy. The model is a smeared crack model, in
the sense that it does not track individual “macro” cracks: rather, constitutive calculations are performed independently at
each integration point of the finite element model, and the presence of cracks enters into these calculations by the way the
cracks affect the stress and material stiffness associated with the integration point. Various objections have been raised
against such smeared crack models. The principal concern is that this modeling approach inherently introduces mesh
sensitivity in the solutions, in the sense that the finite element results do not converge to a unique result. For example,
since cracking is associated with strain softening, mesh refinement will lead to narrower crack bands. Crisfield (1986)
discusses this concern in detail and concludes that Hillerborg's (1976) approach, based on brittle fracture concepts, is
adequate to deal with this issue for practical purposes. This aspect of the model is discussed below in the section on
cracking. For simplicity of discussion in what follows, the term “crack” is used to mean a direction in which cracking has
been detected at the single constitutive calculation point in question: the closest physical concept is that there exists a
continuum of micro-cracks at the point, oriented as determined by the model.
When the principal stress components are dominantly compressive, the response of the concrete is modeled by an elastic-
plastic theory, using a simple form of yield surface written in terms of the first two stress invariants. Associated flow and
isotropic hardening are used. This model significantly simplifies the actual behavior: the associated flow assumption
generally overpredicts the inelastic volume strain; the simple yield surface used does not match all data very accurately (the
third stress invariant would be needed to improve this aspect of the model); and, especially when the concrete is strained
beyond the ultimate stress point, the assumption of constant elastic stiffness does not reproduce the observation that the
unloading response is significantly weakened (the elastic response of the material appears to be damaged). In addition,
when concrete is subjected to very high pressure stress, it exhibits inelastic response: no attempt has been made to build
this behavior into the model. In spite of these limitations the model provides useful predictions for a variety of problems
involving inelastic loading of concrete. The limitations are introduced for the sake of computational efficiency. In particular,
assuming associated flow leads to enough symmetry in the Jacobian matrix of the constitutive model (the “material stiffness
matrix”) that the overall equilibrium equation solution usually does not require nonsymmetric equation solution for this
reason. All of these limitations could be removed at some sacrifice in computational cost.
The cracking and compression responses of concrete that are incorporated in the model are illustrated by the uniaxial
response of a specimen shown in Figure 1.
https://help.3ds.com/2019/english/DSSIMULIA_Established/SIMACAETHERefMap/simathe-c-concrete.htm?ContextScope=all&format=P&value=1 1/10
Figure 1. Uniaxial behavior of plain concrete.
When concrete is loaded in compression, it initially exhibits elastic response. As the stress is increased, some
nonrecoverable (inelastic) straining occurs, and the response of the material softens. An ultimate stress is reached, after
which the material softens until it can no longer carry any stress. If the load is removed at some point after inelastic
straining has occurred, the unloading response is softer than the initial elastic response: this effect is ignored in the model.
When a uniaxial specimen is loaded into tension, it responds elastically until, at a stress that is typically 7–10% of the
ultimate compressive stress, cracks form so quickly that—even on the stiffest testing machines available—it is very difficult
to observe the actual behavior. For the purpose of developing the model, we assume that the material loses strength
through a softening mechanism and that this is dominantly a damage effect, in the sense that open cracks can be
represented by loss of elastic stiffness (as distinct from the nonrecoverable straining that is associated with classical
plasticity effects, such as what we are using for the compressive behavior model). The model neglects any permanent strain
associated with cracking; that is, we assume that the cracks can close completely when the stress across them becomes
compressive.
In multiaxial stress states these observations can be generalized through the concept of surfaces of failure and of ultimate
strength in stress space. These surfaces are defined below and are fitted to experimental data. Typical surfaces are shown
in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Figure 2. Concrete failure surfaces in plane stress.
Figure 3. Concrete failure surfaces in the (p–q) plane.
This model makes no attempt to include prediction of cyclic response or of the reduction in the elastic stiffness caused by
inelastic straining because the model is intended for application to relatively monotonic loading cases. Nevertheless, it is
likely that—even in such cases—the stress trajectories will not be entirely radial and the model must predict the response in
such cases in a reasonable way. An isotropically hardening “compressive” yield surface forms the basis of the model for the
inelastic response when the principal stresses are dominantly compressive. In tension once cracking is defined to occur (by
the “crack detection surface” of the model), the orientation of the cracks is stored and oriented, damaged elasticity is then
used to model the existing cracks. Stress components associated with an open crack are not included in the definition of the
crack detection surface for detecting additional cracks at the same point, and we only allow cracks to form in orthogonal
directions at a point.
Since Abaqus/Standard is an implicit, stiffness method code and the material calculations used to define the behavior of the
concrete are carried out independently at each integration point in that part of the model that is made of concrete, the
solution is known at the start of the time increment. The constitutive calculations must provide values of stress and material
stiffness at the end of the increment, based on the current estimate of the kinematic solution for the response at the spatial
integration point during the increment that provides the (logarithmic) strain, ε, at the end of the increment.
Once cracks exist at a point, the component forms of all vector and tensor valued quantities are rotated so that they lie in
the local system defined by the crack orientation vectors (the normals to the crack faces). The model ensures that these
crack face normal vectors will be orthogonal, so that this local system is rectangular Cartesian. This use of a local system
simplifies the computation of the damaged elasticity used for the components associated with existing cracks.
The model, thus, consists of a “compressive” yield/flow surface to model the concrete response in predominantly
compressive states of stress, together with damaged elasticity to represent cracks that have occurred at a material
calculation point, the occurrence of cracks being defined by a “crack detection” failure surface that is considered to be part
of the elasticity. The details of this model are now presented.
Elastic-plastic model for concrete

The model uses the classical concepts of plasticity theory: a strain rate decomposition into elastic and inelastic strain
rates, elasticity, yield, flow, and hardening.

We begin with a strain rate decomposition:
el pl
dε = dε + dεc , (1)
el
where dε is the total mechanical strain rate, dε is the elastic strain rate (which includes crack detection strains—this
pl
elastic strain will be further decomposed when we describe the elasticity), and dεc is the plastic strain rate associated
with the “compression” surface.
We assume that the elastic part of the strain is always small, so this equation can be integrated as
pl
el
ε = ε + εc . (2)
Compression yield
The “compression” surface is
fc = q − √3a0 p − √3τc = 0, (3)
where p is the effective pressure stress, defined as
1
p = − trace (σ) ,
3
and q is the Mises equivalent deviatoric stress:
3
q = √ S : S,
2
where S = σ + pI are the deviatoric stress components; a0 is a constant, which is chosen from the ratio of the ultimate
stress reached in biaxial compression to the ultimate stress reached in uniaxial compression; and τc (λc ) is a hardening
parameter (τc is the size of the yield surface on the q-axis at p = 0, so that τc is the yield stress in a state of pure shear
stress when all components of σ are zero except σ12 = σ21 = τc ). The hardening is measured by the value of λc : the
τc (λc ) relationship is user-specified.
This simple surface is a straight line in (p–q) space and provides a good match to experimental data over a fairly wide
range of pressure stress values (up to four to five times the maximum compressive stress that can be carried by the
concrete in uniaxial compression). This form of the surface means that, as the hardening (λc ) changes, the surfaces in
(p–q) space are similar, so—for example—the ratio of flow stress in biaxial loading to flow stress in uniaxial loading is the
same at all flow stress levels. This does not appear to be contradicted by any experimental data, and it means that only
one constant (a0 ) is needed to define the shape of the surface.
1
The value of a0 is established from the user's data as follows. In uniaxial compression p = σc and q = σc , where σc is
3
the stress magnitude. Therefore, on fc = 0 ,
τc 1 a0
= ( − ). (4)
σc 3
√3
In biaxial compression p = 2/3 σbc and q = σbc , where σbc is the magnitude of each nonzero principal stress.
Therefore, on fc = 0 ,
τc 2a0
1
= ( − ). (5)
σbc √3 3
u σ σ
The value of σ
bc
u
/σc = r
bc
is specified by the user as part of the failure surface data (typically r
bc
≈ 1.16). a0 can be
calculated from Equation 4 and Equation 5 as
σ
1 − r
bc
a0 = √3 .
σ
1 − 2r
bc
The “compression” surface is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Hardening
The user defines the hardening by specifying the magnitude of the stress, |σ11 |, in a uniaxial compression test as a
function of the inelastic strain magnitude, |ε11 |. These data are used to define the τc (λc ) relationship, as follows.
1
In uniaxial compression p = σc and q = σc , where σc is the stress magnitude. During active plastic loading fc = 0 , so
3
by using the definition of fc (Equation 4), we obtain τc immediately as
1 a0
τc = ( − ) σc . (6)
√3 3
Flow
The model uses associated flow, so if fc = 0 and dλc > 0,
2
pl p ∂ fc
dεc = dλc (1 + c0 ( ) ) ; (7)
σc ∂σ
pl
otherwise, dεc = 0.
pl pl
In the definition of dεc , c0 is a constant that is chosen so that the ratio of ε
11
in a monotonically loaded biaxial
pl ε
compression test to ε
11
in a monotonically loaded uniaxial compression test is r
bc
, a value specified by the user as part of
ε ε
the failure surface data (typically r
bc
≈ 1.28). The equation defining c0 from r
bc
and the other constants in the
compression surface is derived next.
The gradient of the flow potential for the compressive surface is
∂ fc ∂q ∂p
= − √3 a0 .
∂σ ∂σ ∂σ
Since
∂p 1
= − I
∂σ 3
and
∂q 3 S
= ,
∂σ 2 q
then
∂ fc 3 S a0
= + I.
∂σ 2 q √3
1 2
In uniaxial compression p = σc , q = σc , and S11 = − σc , so Equation 7 defines
3 3
c
pl c0 a0
(dεc ) = dλc (1 + ) ( − 1) . (8)
9 √3
11
This equation can be integrated immediately to give
c
pl c0 a0
(εc ) = λc (1 + ) ( − 1) , (9)
9 √3
11
c
pl
so λc is known from (εc ) and the constants a0 and c0 . Equation 6 and Equation 9, therefore, define the τc (λc )
11
relationship from the concrete model input data once c0 is known.

bc c
pl pl
The constant c0 is calculated from the user's definition of r
ε
bc
, the ratio of (εc ) to (εc ) , the total plastic strain
11 11
components that would occur in monotonically loaded biaxial and uniaxial compression tests. In biaxial compression when
2 2 σ σ 1 σ
both nonzero principal stresses have the magnitude σbc , p = σbc = r
bc
σc , q = σbc = r
bc
σc , and S11 = − r
bc
σc ,
3 3 3
so the flow rule gives
bc a0 1
pl 4 2
σ
(dεc ) = dλc (1 + (r ) c0 ) ( − ).
bc
11 9 √3 2
Using this equation and Equation 8 then defines c0 from r

ε
bc
and the other constants as
ε
r (√3 − a0 ) + (a0 − √3/2)
bc
c0 = 9 .
2
ε σ
r (a0 − √3) + (r ) (2√3 − 4a0 )
bc bc
Crack detection and damaged elasticity

Cracking dominates the material behavior when the state of stress is predominantly tensile. The model uses a “crack
detection” plasticity surface in stress space to determine when cracking takes place and the orientation of the cracking.
Damaged elasticity is then used to describe the postfailure behavior of the concrete with open cracks.
Numerically we use the “crack detection” plasticity model for the increment in which cracking takes place and
subsequently use damaged elasticity once the crack's presence and orientation have been detected. As a result there is at
least one increment in which we calculate crack detection “plastic” strains. Since these are really just the outcome of a
numerical device to treat cracking, they are recast as elastic strains in the direction of cracking and as plastic strains in
the other directions. (This means that we retain the stresses calculated for equilibrium purposes, as well as the strain
decomposition of Equation 1.)
The basis of the postcracked behavior is the brittle fracture concept of Hilleborg (1976). We assume that the fracture
energy required to form a unit area of crack surface, Gf , is a material property. This value can be calculated from
measuring the tensile stress as a function of the crack opening displacement (Figure 4), as
Gf = ∫ σt du.
Figure 4. Cracking behavior based on fracture energy.
Typical values of Gf range from 40 N/m (0.22 lb/in) for a typical construction concrete (with σc ≈
u
20 MPa, 2850 lb/in2)
to 120 N/m (0.67 lb/in) for a high strength concrete (with u
σc ≈ 40 MPa, 5700 lb/in2).
The implication of assuming that Gf is a material property is that, when the elastic part of the displacement, u
el
, is
eliminated, the relationship between the stress and the remaining part of the displacement, u
cr
= u − u
el
, is fixed,
regardless of the specimen size. For example, consider a specimen developing a single crack across its section as tensile
displacement is applied to it: ucr is the displacement across the crack and is not changed by using a longer or shorter
specimen in the test (so long as the specimen is significantly longer than the width of the crack band, which will typically
be of the order of the aggregate size). Thus, one important part of the cracked concrete's tensile behavior is defined in
terms of a stress/displacement relationship. In the finite element implementation of this model we must, therefore,
compute the relative displacement at an integration point to provide ucr . We do this in Abaqus by multiplying the strain
by a characteristic length associated with the integration point. The characteristic crack length is based on the element
geometry and formulation: it is a typical length of a line across an element for a first-order element; it is half of the same
typical length for a second-order element. For beams and trusses it is a characteristic length along the element axis. For
membranes and shells it is a characteristic length in the reference surface. For axisymmetric elements it is a characteristic
length in the r–z plane only. For cohesive elements it is equal to the constitutive thickness. This definition of the
characteristic length is used because we do not necessarily know in which direction the concrete will crack and so cannot
choose the length measure in any particular direction. Thus, if there are elements in the model that have large aspect
ratios, the model will likely provide different results if it is loaded in different directions and cracking occurs in such
elements. This effect should be considered by the user in defining values for the material properties.
In reinforced concrete the σ–ucr relationship must also represent the action of the bond between the concrete and the
rebar as the concrete cracks. We assume this is accommodated by increasing the value of Gf based on comparisons with
experiments on reinforced material.
We first describe the crack detection plasticity model and then discuss the damaged elasticity.

We decompose the elastic strain rate of Equation 1 as
el el pl
dε = dε + dε , (10)
d t
el el pl
where dε is the total mechanical strain rate for the crack detection problem, dε
d
is the elastic strain rate, and dε
t
is
the plastic strain rate associated with the crack detection surface.
Yield
The crack detection surface is the Coulomb line
σt b0 σt
ft = q̂ − (3 − b0 u
) p̂ − (2 − u
) σt = 0, (11)
σ 3 σ
t t
where σ
u
t
is the failure stress in uniaxial tension and b0 is a constant that is defined from the value of the tensile failure
stress, σI , in a state of biaxial stress when the other nonzero principal stress, σI I , is at the uniaxial compression ultimate
stress value, u
σc . σt (λt ) is a hardening parameter (σt is the equivalent uniaxial tensile stress). The hardening is
measured by λt , with the σt (λt ) relationship defined from the user-specified tension stiffening data (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. “Tension stiffening” model.
The stress measures p̂ and q̂ are defined in the same way as p and q, except that all stress components σαβ associated
with open cracks (that is, if α or β is a crack direction in which the direct strain ε
αα
¯
¯¯
el
¯¯
> 0 or ε
¯
¯¯¯
¯
el
> 0) are not included in
ββ
these measures: they are invariants in subspaces of the stress space.

This surface has a simple mathematical form but matches plane stress data quite well. The hardening is introduced in the
particular form shown in Equation 11 so that, as σt → 0, the surface becomes q − 3 p = 0, which in (p–q) space is the
cone containing the principal axes of stress. This means that, as the tension stiffening is exhausted in a plane stress test,
the stress point will drop back onto the nearest principal stress axis.
The value of b0 is obtained as follows. The failure surface data include a definition of f, a ratio that states that, in a plane
u u
stress test cracking would occur when one principal stress has the value σI = −σc (σc is the magnitude of the ultimate
u
stress in uniaxial compression) and the other nonzero principal stress has the value σI I = f σt . Another value provided
σ
as part of the failure surface data is r
t
, which defines
u uσ
σ = r σc .
t t
Cracking would, therefore, occur at the point with principal stresses u

−σc , σ
f r σc
t
u
, and 0. For these values
1
σ u
p = (1 − f r ) σc
t
3
and
2
u σ σ
q = σc √1 + (f r ) + fr .
t t
u
Therefore, with σt = σ
t
,
2 1 b0
u σ σ σ u σ u
ft = σc √1 + (f r ) + fr − (3 − b0 ) (1 − f r ) σc − (2 − ) r σc = 0,
t t t t
3 3
so
2
σ σ σ
1 + (2 − f ) r − √1 + (f r ) + fr
t t t
b0 = 3 .
σ
1 + r (1 − f )
t
The crack detection surface is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Flow
The crack detection model uses the assumption of associated flow, so if ft = 0 and dλt > 0,
pl ∂ ft
dε = dλt ; (12)
t ∂σ
pl
otherwise, dε
t
= 0.
Hardening
The user defines the tension stiffening behavior by specifying the magnitude of the stress, σt , in a uniaxial tension test as
a function of the inelastic strain. (When the fracture energy concept is used to define the postfailure behavior, “strain” is
cr
now defined as u /c, where c is the characteristic length associated with the integration point.) The σt (λt ) relationship
is defined as follows.
Using the definition of ft , Equation 11, in the flow rule above we write
pl 3 S b0 σt
dε = dλt ( + (1 − ) I) .
t u
2 q 3 σ
t
2
In uniaxial tension S11 = σt and q = σt . Therefore, in uniaxial tension,
3
pl
b0 σt
(dε ) = dλt (2 − );
t u
11 3 σ
t
and, hence,
b0
/ (2 −
pl σt
dλt = (dε ) u
) . (13)
t 3 σ
11 t
pl
Upon integration Equation 13 gives λt from (dε
t
) ; and, therefore, the σt (λt ) relationship is obtained from the
11
tension stiffening input data.
Damaged elasticity
Following crack detection we use damaged elasticity to model the failed material. The elasticity is written in the form
el
σ = D : ε , (14)
where D is the elastic stiffness matrix for the concrete.
Let α represent a cracked direction, with corresponding direct stress σ¯

αα
¯¯¯¯
and direct elastic strain ε
¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
el
. In these
expressions and in the remainder of this section, no summation is implied by repeated indices with a bar over them. If the
fracture energy concept is used, the strains are related to the user-specified stress/displacement definition for the tension
stiffening behavior by ε = u/c, where c is the characteristic length associated with the integration point.
open
Then, in D, D¯
ααβγ
¯¯¯¯ is the usual elasticity of the concrete if ε¯
αα
¯¯¯¯ ≤ 0. If εαα
¯
¯¯¯¯
> ε¯
αα
¯¯¯¯ > 0,
D¯
αααα
¯
¯¯¯
¯¯¯
¯¯
= σ
¯
open
αα
¯¯¯¯
/ε open
¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
,
open open
where σ
αα
¯
¯¯¯¯
is the stress corresponding to ε
αα
¯
¯¯¯¯
(as defined in the tension stiffening data), and
open el
ε = max (ε ).
¯
αα
¯¯¯¯ ¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
over history
open
If ε¯
αα
¯¯¯¯ = εαα ¯
¯¯¯¯
,
D¯
αααα
¯
¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯ = dσ
¯ ¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
open
/dε open
¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
,
which follows from the tension stiffening data.

el
We also assume no Poisson effect for open cracks: for εαα > 0, D¯
¯
¯¯¯¯ ααβγ
¯¯¯¯ = 0 for β ≠ α, γ ≠ α.
The shear terms in the elasticity associated with existing crack directions are
ˆ
D¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ = G , β ≠ α,
αβαβ
ˆ ˆ
where G = ϱ
close
G for ε¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
≤ 0, and G = ϱ
open
G for ε¯
αα
¯¯¯¯
> 0. In these expressions G is the elastic shear modulus,
close
ϱ is a constant defined by the user as part of the shear retention data (see Figure 6),
Figure 6. Shear retention.
and ϱ
open
is a linear function of ε̄
el
, ϱ
open
= (1 − ε̄
el
αα
¯
¯¯¯¯
/ε
max
) and is also defined by the user in the shear retention data.
Here ε̄
el
= ⟨ε
el
αα
¯
¯¯¯¯
⟩ + ⟨ε
¯
¯¯¯
¯
el
⟩, where ⟨ and ⟩ are Macauley brackets, defining
ββ
f if f ≥ 0
⟨f ⟩ = {
0 otherwise
for any function f.
Cracking
As soon as the crack detection surface (ft ) has been activated, we assume that cracking has occurred. The crack
direction, nα , is taken to be the direction of that part of the maximum principal plastic strain increment conjugate to the
pl
crack detection surface, Δε
t
, that is orthogonal to the directions of any existing cracks at the same point. This crack
orientation is stored for subsequent calculations, which are done for convenience in a local coordinate system oriented so
that one of the coordinate directions is the crack direction, nα . Cracking is irrecoverable in the sense that, once a crack
has occurred at a point, it remains throughout the rest of the calculation. Following crack detection, the crack affects the
calculations by damaging the elasticity, as defined above. In addition, if the elastic strain across a crack is tensile, the
invariants used in the crack detection surface are defined in the stress sub-space in which all stress components
associated with the open crack direction are neglected, as described in the section above on yield. This implies that no
more than three cracks can occur at any point (two in a plane stress case, one in a uniaxial stress case).
Integration of the model

The model is integrated using the backward Euler method generally used with the plasticity models in Abaqus. A material
Jacobian consistent with this integration operator is used for the equilibrium iterations.
https://help.3ds.com/2019/english/DSSIMULIA_Established/SIMACAETHERefMap/simathe-c-concrete.htm?ContextScope=all&format=P&valu… 10/10

2019 DSSIMULIA - Established - An Inelastic Constitutive Model For Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2019 DSSIMULIA - Established - An Inelastic Constitutive Model For Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 DSSIMULIA - Established - An Inelastic Constitutive Model For Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/27/2021 2019 DSSIMULIA_Established - An inelastic constitutive model for concrete

© 1995-2021 Dassault Systèmes. All rights reserved.

An inelastic constitutive model for concrete

Elastic-plastic model for concrete Concrete smeared cracking

Elastic-plastic model for concrete

Strain rate decomposition

fc = q − √3a0 p − √3τc = 0, (3)

and q is the Mises equivalent deviatoric stress:

the stress magnitude. Therefore, on fc = 0 ,

The “compression” surface is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

by using the definition of fc (Equation 4), we obtain τc immediately as

This equation can be integrated immediately to give

relationship from the concrete model input data once c0 is known.

so the flow rule gives

Using this equation and Equation 8 then defines c0 from r

Crack detection and damaged elasticity

Figure 4. Cracking behavior based on fracture energy.

Strain rate decomposition

Figure 5. “Tension stiffening” model.

these measures: they are invariants in subspaces of the stress space.

Cracking would, therefore, occur at the point with principal stresses u

The crack detection surface is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

tension stiffening input data.

where D is the elastic stiffness matrix for the concrete.

Let α represent a cracked direction, with corresponding direct stress σ¯

which follows from the tension stiffening data.

for any function f.

Integration of the model

You might also like