institute for building materials - eth z · institute for building materials | | mechanics of...
Post on 08-Jun-2018
253 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
||Institute for Building Materials
Mechanics of Building MaterialsConcrete Plasticity
F. Wittel
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete plasticity
Challenges:
Non-linear stress-strain relation in multi-axial stress states.
Stain softening and anisotropic elastic degradation.
Progressing crack formation by tensile stress, or strain.
Pullout of reinforcement, aggregate interlocking.
Time dependent behavior like creep or shrinkage.
Concrete behavior and failure
hardening models for concrete
softening models for concrete
damage models for concrete
||Institute for Building Materials
Mechanical concrete behavior - uniaxial
• Linear region, inelastic region and localization.• Tensile strength/ ultimate tensile strain approx. 10% of compressive values.• Non-linear, elastic behavior under tension t=0.015% .
Growth of a dominant crack brittle failure.• Non-linear growth under compression c=0.25%.
Simultaneous growth of multiple cracks Dilatancy• Unloading along linear-elastic paths.• MOE depends on damage progress.• Reloading at identical MOE, damage starts to evolve, when «yield stress»
is reached.
1 2 3v
||Institute for Building Materials
Tensile strain Compressive strain Dilatation Contraction Tensile strain Compressive strain Tensile strain Compressive strain
Mechanical behavior of concrete - biaxial
Ductility for biaxial compressive-compressive failure higher than uniaxial one. Aggregate detachment is retarded by compressive stress. Reduced dilatancy by biaxial compressive stress, since cracks are compressed. Compression-tension combination reduces the strength and «ductility». Tensile-tensile uni- and biaxial ultimate strength approx. 0.08%
Compressive-compressive Compressive-tensile Tensile-tensile
(Kupfer etal 1969, Nelissen 1972)
||Institute for Building Materials
Mechanical behavior of concrete - triaxial
Pressure has significant influence on deformation behavior. Under hydrostatic stress the aggregate detachment is strongly reduced. Failure is no longer dominated by the growth of single cracks.
Ductility increases with increasing hydrostatic load. Ultimate strain and strength increase significantly under hydrostatic load.
(Palaniswamy und Shah 1974,Balmer 1949)
Strain
Long
itudi
nal s
tres
s [M
Pa]
||Institute for Building Materials
Failure criteria for concrete - triaxial
1 2 3 1 2 3( , , ) 0 ( , , ) 0 ; ( , , ) 0f f I J J f
Failure envelopes are functions of the three principal stresses, stress invariants or in HAIGH-WESTERGAARD coordinates and mainly path dependent.
Failure modes depend on the combination of stress components. Biaxial compressive-compressive failure is higher than uniaxial compressive failure (up to 25%) Compressive-tensile combination reduces the strength with increasing tensile stress. Tension-tension is identical to uniaxial tensile failure.Non-affine intersections in the deviatoric plane as function of Merges from triangular to circular shape with increasing volumetric stress.Non-linear function in the meridional plane,
(Kupfer etal 1969, Nelissen 1972)
2
.tf
c o n s
2 11 0 .8t cf f
2
1 2 1
23 .6 5 0
c c c
c
f f f
f
||Institute for Building Materials
1 2 2 2 1
2
111 23
111 23 3
( , , ) 1 0
( , , ) 3 1 02 2
c o s c o s ( c o s 3 ) fü r c o s 3 0
c o s c o s ( c o s 3 ) fü r c o s 3 0
f I J a J J b I
af b
k k
k k
OTTOSEN criterion (4P):
Tests:1. Uniaxial compressive test fc (=60°)2. Uniaxial tensile test ft=0.1fc (=0°)3. Biaxial compressive test 1= 2=-1.16fc4. Triaxial stress state at (fc, fc)=(-5,4) on the compressive meridian
(=60°).
Example: (a=1.2759,b=3.1962, k1=11,7365, k2=0,9801)
Valid for large span width of stress combinations but complicated expression for
Failure criteria for concrete - triaxial
Compressive meridian
Tensile meridian
Biaxialenvelope
Deviatoric plane
||Institute for Building Materials
Tests:1. Uniaxial compression fc (=60°)2. Uniaxial tension ft=0.1fc (=0°)3. Biaxial compression 1= 2=1.15fc4. Triaxial stress state at (oct/fc, oct/fc)=(-1.95,1.6) on the compressive
meridian (=60°).
Example: (a=2.0108, b=0.9714, c=9.1412, d=0.2312;A=a/2=1.0054, B=(2/3)1/2c=7.4638, C=b/21/2=0.6869, D=31/2(d+B/61/2)=5.678
Acceptable predictions, however for high I1 rather conservative. Not continuous differentiable!
2
1 1
1 2 1 2 2 1 1
( , , ) ( c o s ) 1 0
m it c o s ( 3 2 6 )
( , , ) 1 0
f A B C D
I
f I J a J b J c d I
HSIEH-TING-CHEN (HTC) criterion (4P):
! All stresses are normalized by fc !
(Launay et al 1970)
Failure criteria for concrete - triaxial
||Institute for Building Materials
Tests:1. Uniaxial cylinder compression strength2. Uniaxial tensile strength
for the strength ratio3. Uniform biaxial compressive strength
for the strength ratio4. High compressive stress
in the tensile meridian5. High compressive stress
on the compressive meridianAdditionally the parabolas have to intersect at the apex at the hydrostatic axis:
a0=0.1025; a1=-0.8403; a2=-0.0910; b1=-0.4507; b2=-0.1018
WILLAM-WARNKE criterion (1974) (5P):
! All stresses normalize by fc !Intersection of meridians on hydrostatic axis a0=b0
20 1 2
20 1 2
m t t
m c c
a a a
b b b
1 / 3m I
( 6 0 , 0 )c cf f ( 0 )tf
t t cf f f( 0 , 0 )b c b cf f
b c b c cf f f
2 2, ,m c m cf f
1 1, ,m c m cf f 1( 0 , 0 )
2( 6 0 , 0 )
00 0 0( ) ( ) 0 a t 0m
t ccf
Failure criteria for concrete - triaxial
||Institute for Building Materials
WILLAM-WARNKE criterion (1974) (5P):
122 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
( ) 4 ( ) c o s 2 ( 2 ( ) c o s
2 4 ( ) c o s 5 4 )
c t c t c c t
c t c c t t t c
Valid for all stress combinations and gives in practically relevant regimes good agreement with reality.
Contains for different parameter sets all other models (VM, DP, 3P WW) Failure envelope opens up to negative hydrostatic axis No failure for
very high
Failure criteria for concrete - triaxial
||Institute for Building Materials
Comparison:
Failure criteria for concrete - triaxial
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete plasticity: hardening behavior
Basic concepts for concrete plasticity:
1. Definition of an initial yield surface and if a failure surface in stress space limitation of the elastic domain and the hardening domain.
2. Hardening ruleDevelopment of a loading function as well as of hardening parameters.
3. Flow rule incremental stress-strain relation.
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete Plasticity: Hardening behavior
Initial yield surface:
Early approaches:Scaling of failure surface with 0.3fc.
Problem: Plastic volume change under hydrostatic load is ignored. Behavior at different stress states is from a mechanical point
of view not identicalIsotropic scaling must be wrong
||Institute for Building Materials
Hardening rule:
Subsequent yield surfaces:
Non-uniform, plastic hardening model (Han, Chen 1985): Only one hardening parameter k0
Model with multiple plastic hardening (Ohtani, Chen 1988): Three hardening parameters c,bc,t
Functions of the effective plastic strains
Different modes like (Vermeer, Deborst 1984) via MC.
1 2( , , , . . . , ) 0i j nf
Concrete Plasticity: Hardening behavior
||Institute for Building Materials
Flow rules:
Only non-associated flow rules due to dilatation
i scalar parameter (i)
Non-uniform, plastic hardening model (Han, Chen 1985): DRUCKER-PRAGER type of potential surface
Other models (Onate 1988, Vermeer 1984) used potential surfaces of MOHR-COULOMB-type:
Dilatational angle
Modell with multiple plastic hardening (Ohtani, Chen 1988): we will have a closer look later...
1 2( , , , . . . , ) 0i j ng g
1 1 2( , )i jg I J
22i jp
ij i ji j
sgd d d
J
3p pV iid d d
1 11 23 3
( , ) s in c o s s in s ini jg I J
Concrete Plasticity: Hardening behavior
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete plasticity: Non-uniform plastic hardening model
Non-uniform plastic hardening model (Han, Chen 1987): Closed initial yield surface, Subsequent yield surfaces determined by hardening parameter k0
Failure surface limits all subsequent surfaces.
( , , ) ( , ) 0 ; 6 0m f mf General form of failure surface:
22 J with
OTTOSEN 4P model: 212( , ) 2 2 8 ( 3 1)f m ma a b
HSIEH-TING-CHEN 4P model: 212( , ) ( c o s ) ( c o s ) 4 ( 3 1)f m mA B C B C A D
WILLAM-WARNKE 5P model: 1( , ) ( )f m v s t 2 2( , ) 2 ( ) c o sm c c ts s ( , ) 2m c t ct t u
2 2 2 2( , ) 4 ( ) c o s 5 4m c t t t cu u 22 2 2( , ) 4 ( ) c o s 2m c t c tv v
2 21 1 2 0 1 1 2 0
2 2
1 14 ( ) ; 4 ( )2 2c m t mb b b b a a b a ab a
Parabolic meridians:
||Institute for Building Materials
Initial yield - and subsequent yield surfaces:(Meridians)
1. T-T zone mt) Yield surface identical to failure surface Brittle failure.2. C-T zone tmc): Plastic hardening zone slowly develops.3. C zone with small hydrostatic pressure cmk): Meridians are proportionally reduced failure surfaces.4. C-C zone mk): Yield surface gradually closes at the hydrostatic axis large hardening domain emerges.
12 0
3IJ 1
2 03
IJ
12 10 u n d 0
3IJ I 1
2 10 u n d 03
IJ I
0( , , ) ( , ) ( , ) 0m m f mf k k Subsequent surfaces: with 0 1yk k
Concrete plasticity: Non-uniform plastic hardening model
||Institute for Building Materials
Incremental stress-strain relations:- General relations
( )e pij ijk l k l ijk l k l k ld C d C d d
e pk l k l k ld d d
2
1 2i jk l ik jl il jk ij k lC G
0i j pij p
f fd f d d
Subsequent yield surface withConsistency condition.
pH( ) 0p p
ijk l k l k l pij
f fd f C d d H d
:pd d
:pij
ij
gd d
Flow rule1
p q k l k lp q
fd C d
h
pm n p q
m n p q
f g fh C H
with
pij ijk l ijk l k ld C C d
*1pijk l ij i jC H H
h
*ij i jm n
m n
ij p q k lp q
gH C
fH C
Constitutive law:
Concrete plasticity: Non-uniform plastic hardening model
||Institute for Building Materials
Incremental stress-strain relation:- Constitutive equation with associated flow rule
f g
0 1 2i j i j i ji j i j
g fB B s B t
2 2 3 2 20 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
1 22 3 2 6
1 2 3p f
h G B B J B B J B J H
*
0 1 2
12
1 2i j i j i j i j i jH H G B B s B t
1p
ijk l i j k lC H Hh
Plastic stiffness tensor
223 233 ;i j ij i j jk k i ij ijt s s s s J t t J with
- Constitutive equation with non-associated flow rule g=Drucker-Prager function
20 1 2 3
2
312 3
1 2 2pB f
h G B B J J HJ
*
2
1 12
1 2 2i j i j i jH G s
J
f g
0 1 2
12
1 2i j i j i j i jH G B B s B t
Concrete plasticity: Non-uniform plastic hardening model
||Institute for Building Materials
Effective stress – effective strain dp
2 3 ; 3;m f c
2 3 0 3 2c cf k k
d
pp ij i j i j p
ij
gd W d d d
Uniaxial compression test (0,0)
1ij
ij
g
dp:
• Associated flow:0 1 1 2 2 32 ( 2 3 )
3 c
B I B J B J
k
• Non-associated flow:
1 22 ( )
3 c
I J
k
:f
0ij
ij
f fd f d d
3 3d d
3 3
2
3 33c c
m m
df f k d k
d d
3 3
3 3
3 3
2 3
3m
with
Concrete plasticity: Non-uniform plastic hardening model
||Institute for Building Materials
Parameters and model prediction 4-5 strength tests for material constants, depending on failure surface. Uniaxial compression test for hardening behavior. Knowledge on deformation behavior for modification parameters N(m,). Definition of dilatation factor for flow behavior.
Concrete plasticity: Non-uniform plastic hardening model
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete plasticity: Multiple hardening plasticity model
Definition of segments, that can evolve independent from each other.
First version of independent hardening models by Murray (2D)
3 independent hardening parameters (1compressive yield stress, 2 tensile yield stresses).
3D Extension by Ohtani and Chen
3 hardening parameters with physical meaning adjustment to experimental data
Associated flow is assumed.
||Institute for Building Materials
General form of failure surfaces:
1 2( , , , . . . , ) 0 ;ij Nf ( )M M M
1( , , . . . , )M M M ij N Td d M-th hardening parameter
p pp p ij i jd d d 1 2( , , , . . . , , )M M ij N pd d
Damage parameter:
1 21 2
. . . 0i j Nij N
f f f fd f d d d d
Consistency condition:
M MM M M p
M M
d dd d dd d p
ij ij
g gd
0i jk l k l i ji j k l i j i j
f g g gd f C d d d d
1 2
1 21 1 2 2
. . . NN
N N
f f f
with
1i jk l k l
i j
fd C d
h
with em n s t
m n s t m n m n
f g g gh C
Concrete plasticity: Multiple hardening plasticity model
||Institute for Building Materials
Initial yield surfaces and subsequent loading surfaces:
Ohtani and Chen model
( , , , ) 0 ;i j c b c tf
c Momentary yield stress in uniaxial compressionValues in between initial yield stress and strength fc< c< f’c
bc Momentary equal biaxial compressive yield stress fbc< bc< f’bc
t Momentary uniaxial tensile yield stress ft< t< f’t
C-C zone:21
2 13( ) 0i j c cf J A I 2 2
2
b c cc
b c c
A
2 ( 2 )
3 ( 2 )c b c c b c
cb c c
with
T-T and T-C zones:2 21 1
2 1 16 3( ) 0i j t tf J I A I 12 ct tA 2 1
6t c t with
( , , , ) 0 ;i j c b c tf f f f
( , , , ) 0 ;i j c b c tf f f f ( , , , ) 0 ;i j c b c tf f f f
Before hardening:
Hardening:
Failure:
Concrete plasticity: Multiple hardening plasticity model
||Institute for Building Materials
Evolution of hardening parameters
Hardening parameter: ( )
( )
( )
c c p c
b c b c p b c
t t p t
1
2
3
( , , , )
( , , , )
( , , , )
p c p c ij c b c t p
p b c p b c ij c b c t p
p t p t i j c b c t p
d d
d d
d d
Effective strain:
Conditions (for In pure states i = 1. The resulting yield surface has to be convex. Plastic strains in C-C- zone have no influence of tensile hardening and vice
versa. Plastic strain in T-C and C-T zone result in tension and compression
hardening.
1 2 31; 0 1 2 30 ; 1 1 11 2 3;t t
c t c t
I I
C-C C-T; T-C T-T
Concrete plasticity: Multiple hardening plasticity model
||Institute for Building Materials
Incremental stress-strain relation:
*1( ) ; m it p p
ij i jk l ijk l k l i jk l i j i jd C C d C H Hh
*i j i j i jk l
k l
fH H C
Associated flow:
With loading functions:
2 20 0 2 23 2 ; 9 4 3 2i j i j i jH K B G s h K B G J J 0 1
1
1
3
fB A n I
I
with
13
, 0
,c
t
A A n
A A n
C-C::T-T / T-C:1 1 2 2 3 3
p p pc b c tQ H Q H Q H
; ; ;p p pc b c tc b c t
p c p b c p t
d d dH H H
d d d
C-C:2 2
1 1
2 22 12
3
1 1( 4 )( 2 )
3 ( 2 )
2 1( 4 )( 2 )
3 ( 2 )
0
c c b c b c b cc b c c
c c b c b c b cb c b c c
t
fQ I
fQ I
fQ
T-T / T-C
1 1
2
3 1
1( 2 )
6
0
1( 2 )
6
tc
b c
ct
fQ I
fQ
fQ I
Concrete plasticity: Multiple hardening plasticity model
||Institute for Building Materials
Parameter and model prediction
Experimental stress-strain curve for the 3 loadings: uniaxial tension and compression, biaxial compression
T-C curves exhibit large discrepancy with experiments for 2,3 due to strong slope of the yield curve in this stress region in combination with associated flow.
T-T gives almost brittle failure for tension hardening.
C-C describes well the trend of dilatation, however non-linearity is more pronounced in the experiment.
, , , , ,c c b c b c t tf f f f f f , ,p p pc b c tH H H
1 .1 5; 0 .0 9 1; 0 .6 ; 0 .4 5;
0 .5; 9 9 0 .0 ; 0 .2
b c c t c c c b c b c
t t c
f f f f f f f f
f f E f
Concrete plasticity: Multiple hardening plasticity model
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete plasticity: Softening behavior
Conditions for tests:
1. Homogeneous sample
2. Homogeneous stress state
3. No significant change of specimen geometry.
Strain softening:
1. Transition from continuum to a structure with significant cross sectional change.
2. Behavior is not a real material behavior but structural property size effects.
3. Strain localization formation of a shear band.
4. Shear band width is independent on sample size.
5. Similar behavior under tension.
6. Insertion of localization zone (crack band model / fictitious crack model) or smeared over sample length (plasticity model).
||Institute for Building Materials
Formulation of plasticity in strain space.
Generalization of the uniaxial behavior to multi-axial stress states.
Problem: When formulations are in stress space, inwards directed stress increments only result in elastic strain increments, while outwards pointing ones result in hardening. Strain hardening is not part of the theory.
For strain hardening also inwards directed increments must result in plastic strain increments.
Formulation of the loading surface F in strain space:
Hardening and softening can be simultaneously studied.
DRUCKER’s stability postulates render invalid.
Weak stability criteria that allow for instable behavior.
Concrete plasticity: Softening behavior
||Institute for Building Materials
Basic equations:Previously:
e pij ij ij
Now:e p
ij ij ij eij ijk l k lC
(1 ) (1 2 )
( )2 (1 )
ijk l ij k l
ik jl il jk
EC
E
p pij ijk l k lC
eij ijk l k lD 1
( )2i jk l ij k l ik jl i l jkD
E E
e p pij ij i j ijk l k l ij
e p pij ij ij ijk l k l ij
C
E
Loading surface / relaxation surface: ( , , ) 0p
ij ijF k
0i ji j
Fd
Unloading(elastic)
Neutral loading
Loading(plastic)
0i ji j
Fd
0i ji j
Fd
0pijd 0p
ijd 0pijd
Concrete plasticity: Softening behavior
||Institute for Building Materials
Flow rule
0pij i jd W d d
p
iji j
Fd d
1
k lk l
F Fd d
h h
( , , ) ( , , )p pij ij ij ij ij
k lk l
F F d d k F d k
Fd
1pij k l
ij k l
F Fd d
h
Il-yushin’s postulate:
Normality condition (flow rule):
Stress relaxation increment:
Concrete plasticity: Softening behavior
||Institute for Building Materials
Incremental constitutive relation:1p
ij k lij k l
F Fd d
h
1i j ijk l k l
ij k l
F Fd C d
h
e pij i j i jd d d
1e p pijk l ijk l ijk l ijk l
ij k l
F FC C C C
h
Concrete plasticity: Softening behavioreij ijk l k lC
m n ijm n
FD
Compliance tensor:
1i j ijk l k l
ij k l
F Fd C d
h
p q k l k lp q
m n rsm n rs
FD d
dF F
h D
e p pij i j ij ijk l k l i jtu tud d d D d D d
ijtu p q k ltu p q
ij i jk l k l
m n rsm n rs
F FD D
d D dF F
h D
1
i j m n ij k l m n ij i jk l m n ij k lm n m n m n ij k l
F F F F Fd D d D C D d
h
d h d 1
p
iji j
Fd d
||Institute for Building Materials
Consistency condition:0p p
ij ij ijp pij ij ij
F F F kd F d d d
k
1
i j
i j
d Fd
h
m n p q m n p qp pm n p q m n p q
F F F k Fh D D
k
Concrete plasticity: Softening behavior
p pk l ij m n ijd d D
p
iji j
Fd d
0
i j m n ijp pij i j i j i j
F F F k Fd d D
k
/ m n
F
||Institute for Building Materials
Concrete plasticity: Formulation with plastic failure Ideal plastic body, if unloading and reloading paths are parallel to initial tangent
For concrete stiffness decreases with increasing plastic strain damage development
Model for progressively damaged body (Dougill) considers damage but no remaining plastic strain.
Combination = Model for plastic failure (Bazant, Kim) Plastic deformation via plastic yield theory Stiffness degradation via fracture theory by Dougill.
Stress and strain increment Plastic damage work increment
Dougill 1975
||Institute for Building Materials
Basic relation:e p f
ij ij ij ijd d d d
ijk l k lC d pijk l k lC d f
ijk l k lC d
e p fij i j ij ijd d d d
ijk l k lD d
Relaxation surface and flow rule: ( , , ) 0p p fij i jF W
0i ji j
Fd
Unloading (elastic) Neutral loading Loading (plastic)
0i ji j
Fd
0i ji j
Fd
0p fi jd 0p f
i jd 0p fi jd
p f p fij i j i jd d d 0p f
ij i jd W d d p f
ijij
Fd d
Normality conditionIl’yushins postulate
Concrete plasticity: Formulation with plastic failure
elastic plastic failure
||Institute for Building Materials
Energy dissipation rate and decomposition
1 12 2( )p f p e e e p f
ij ij ijk l ij k l i j ij ijD d W d d C d d Plastic deformation Stiffness reduction
( )p fijk l ijk lC C W ijk l
ijk l p f
d CC
d W Stiffness reduction rate:
12( )i jk l p f e p f
ijk l ijk l m n m n m np f
d Cd C d W C d d
d W
12( ) f e e e p f f p f
i j i jk l k l i jk l k l m n m n m n ijk l k ld d C C d d T d Transformation tensor :
fijk l i jm n m n k lT M N 1 1
2e e
ijm n im jn ijp q p q m nM C e e
m n k l m n p q p q k lN C p p p f
ij ijk l k ld T d Transformation tensor
p p fijk l ik jl ijk lT T
Constitutive relation1
i jij
Fd d
h
12( )p e p f
ijm n m n k l m n m n k l m n k lp p fij k l k l
F F F Fh D T T T
W
1e p f p fij ij ij ijk l k l ij ijk l k l
ij k l
F Fd d d C d d C d
h
Concrete plasticity: Formulation with plastic failure
||Institute for Building Materials
Development of the CDMBasic assumptions of CDMThermo dynamic basics
Strain basedStress based
Scalar damage modelScalar damage model for concreteUnilateral, elastic damage model for concrete
Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM)
A
AD
P
P
dAn
dAD
||Institute for Building Materials
Basic assumptions of the CDM
Elastic-plastic body
Progressively damaged body
Plastic-damagedbody
Plastic deformations Progressive damage both
Plasticity theory Damage mechanics CDM
Description:
Source for non-linearity:
Approach:
Stereotypes of material behavior:
||Institute for Building Materials
Dusan Krajcinovic, "It is often argued that the ultimate task of engineering research is to provide not so much a better insight into the examined phenomenon but to supply a rational predictive tool applicable in design”
||Institute for Building Materials
Typical approach of CDM:1. Representation of the damage state by internal state variables.2. Description of the mechanical behavior of the damaged material.3. Damage progress via initiation and evolution laws for state variables.
Ductile damage (Lemaitre, Voyiadjis, Kattan, Duffaily)Fatigue (Lemaitre, Chaboch)Creep (Leckie, Hayhurst, Hult, Lemaitre, Chaboche)
Micro scale: Scale inherent to mechanisms of strain and damage:Atoms - Displacements - Inclusions - Micro cracks
Macro scale: Scale on which RVEs are valid (~. 0.1mm metal, 1mm polymers, 10mm wood, 100mm concrete). A macro crack is that large, that the phenomenological constitutive equations dominate the behavior on the scale.
Structural scale: Scale of mechanical components, on which the crack is several mm or cm long.
Basic assumptions of the CDM
||Institute for Building Materials
Basic assumptions of the CDM – damage variablesContinuum mechanical variables phenomenologic variables
2
* 23 (1 ) 3(1 2 ) H
e qe q
32 ( ) ( )e q ij H ij i j H ij
13H k k
Equivalent and hydrostatic stress
230
t p pij i jp
0
tp pij i jw d t
• Equivalent damage stress
• Accumulated plastic strain (vonMises)
• Plastic deformation energy
vP
V
• Porosity= rel. Pore volume c a vr• Pore radius
( )n
S
S
• Real micro crack surface and intersection of pores in arbitrary planes (normal vector n)
( )n
A A
A
( )
( )
0
1
n
n
Undamaged
Fully damaged
||Institute for Building Materials
Elimination of cracks and pores
Hypothesis of strain equivalence:
(1 )e E E
Decomposition into distinct mechanisms:Elimination of pores
Elimination of cracks
Elimination of cracks
Elimination of pores
(1 ) (1 )c v
1 1 1v c
c v v c
Basic assumptions of the CDM – damage variables
||Institute for Building Materials
Thermo dynamic Basics (strain based)
( , )i j D Free energy potential:Scalar damage:
12 (1 ) i jk l i j k lD C
0i j i j Clausius-Duhem inequality:
0i j i j i ji j
DD
0 o r
0
i j i ji j i j
DD
Conditions:
Ydissipative flux
2 2
i j k li j k l ij
d d d DD
Stress-strain relation:
Thermodynamic force
||Institute for Building Materials
CDM- damage evolution (strain based)
Damage evolution law:• In principle each component of the damage variable is function of the present value of all state
variables and internal variables.• Analogy to plasticity via potential surface normality condition
0Y D Clausius-Duhem inequality:
0pij i j
Drucker’s stability postulate:
( , , ) 0i jf f D Y Dissipation potential surface:
State variables= parameters
fD
Y
Damage rate vector
• Damage evolution law or dissipative potential function correlates directly to the microstructural changes in the material.
||Institute for Building Materials
CDM- damage evolution (stress based)
Stress based formulation:
0i j i j Clausius-Duhem inequality:
1( , )
2 (1 )i j i jk l i j k lD DD
i ji j
0DD
Y
2
1 22 2
1 1 (1 2 ) (1 )
61 1i jk l i j k lY D I J
E ED D
2 2
i j k li j k l i j
d d d DD
Stress-strain relation
||Institute for Building Materials
CDM – Scalar damage model12 (1 ) i jk l i j k lD C Free energy: Undamaged damaged0 1D
(1 )i j i jk l k lij
D Cd
0 0Y D D Clausius-Duhem inequality:
12 i jk l ij k lY C
d D
Damage criterion:2
ii
0
0 0i i
ii
fo r
fo r
( ) ( ) 0F D K D
Equivalent Strain:
0( 0 )K KInitial condition:
0 0 0 0
( ) 0 0
fo r f a n d f o r fD
F fo r f a n d f
0
( ) ( ) ( )M
M MD F d F
||Institute for Building Materials
10 D
A
A
AreationalsecCrossTotal
DamageofAreaTotalD D
D = 0: free of damageD = 1: failure
n
nD
dA
dAD nx,
A
AD
P
P
dAn
dAD x – locationn – normal vector
CDM – Scalar damage model
||Institute for Building Materials
Damage variables Dt and Dc ( )
( )t t
c c
D F
D F
Compression:
Tension:
t t c cD D D c, t Parameter that depend on the stress state
i j i j i j Positive negativePrincipal stresses
Partitioniung of the stress tensor:
1 i i i i i iI
i j i j t i j c Partitioning of the strain tensor:
1
1
i j t i j i i
i j c ij i i
E E
E E
2
2
( )
( )
ti t i c it i
i
c i t i c ic i
i
H
H
i ti c i 1 0
0 0i
ii
fo rH
fo r
CDM – Scalar damage model for concrete
||Institute for Building Materials
Damage evolution Dt and Dc
00
00
(1 )( ) 1 e x p [ ( ) ]
(1 )( ) 1 e x p [ ( ) ]
tt t t
cc c c
K AD A B K
K AD A B K
Compression:
Tension:
Mazars 1986loading Initial surface
K0 Limit value for damageAt Bt material parameter from bending testAc Bc material parameter from compression test
CDM – Scalar damage model for concrete
||Institute for Building MaterialsMazars 1986
Only for uniformly distributed cracks
NO large single cracks!
CDM – Scalar damage model for concrete
||Institute for Building Materials
CDM – Unilateral, elastic damage model
( ) ( ) ( )i j i j i j
1 1( )
2 1
1 1( )
2 1
i j i jk l i j k lt
i j i jk l i j k lc
DD
DD
i ji j ij
1 1
(1 ) (1 )
11
(1 )
11
(1 )
i j i jk l k l i jk l k lt c
ij i j k k ijt
i j k k ijc
D DD D
D E
D E
Complementary free energy:
Stress-strain relation:
21 22
21 22
1 (1 2 ) (1 )
(1 ) 6
1 (1 2 ) (1 )
(1 ) 6
tt t
cc c
Y I JD D E E
Y I JD D E E
Thermodynamic force:
0t t c cY D Y D 0 a n d 0t cD D Clausius-Duhem inequality:
||Institute for Building Materials
Damage criterion:
( ) 0
( ) 0t t t t
c c c c
f Y K D
f Y K D
Initial value: 0 0( 0 ) u n d ( 0 ) t t c cK Y K Y
0 2 0 20 0( ) ( )
u n d 2 2
t ct cY Y
E E
From uniaxial test:
Loading condition:Unloading:
Loading:
0 o r 0 a n d 0 , th e n 0
0 o r 0 a n d 0 , th e n 0
t t t t
c c c c
f f f D
f f f D
0 a n d 0 , th e n ( )
0 a n d 0 , th e n ( )
t t t t t t
c c c c c c
f f D F Y Y
f f D F Y Y
Damage evolution law:0
3 / 2 0
0
3 / 2 0
(1 ),
2 ( ) 2 e x p [ ( ) ]
(1 )
2 ( ) 2 e x p [ ( ) ]
t t t tt
t t t t t
c c c cc
c c c c c
Y a a bF
Y Y b Y Y
Y a a bF
Y Y b Y Y
CDM – Unilateral, elastic damage model
||Institute for Building MaterialsMazars 1986
0 3
0 3
1
2 1
3 1
0 .2
1 5 0 /
5 .1 6 7 /
0 .8 ; 0 .1 6
1 .5 6 5; 0 .5 1 0
t
c
t t
c c
E G P a
Y N m m
Y N m m
a b P a
a b P a
CDM – Unilateral, elastic damage model
||Institute for Building Materials
Summary on Concrete Plasticity
Concrete behavior and failure envelopes
Hardening models for concrete
uniform plastic hardening
multiple plastic hardening
Softening models for concrete
plasticity formulations in strain space
damage plasticity models
Damage models for concrete (CDM)
Scalar damage model
Unilateral elastic damage model
||Institute for Building Materials
Thank you for your attention.
09.09.2013 55
top related