Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ABSTRACT
A refined plasticity model for concrete stress-strain relationships is proposed. The proposed failure
surface has the ability to evolve its form based on empirical formulation in which being extracted from
the experimental results via the frictional driver parameter (). Two main features are highlighted in
this paper such as the peak stress prediction and residual stress prediction of the proposed model. In
this paper the comparison of proposed models with experimental results weighted on uniaxial-triaxial
compression in axial direction. In the next part of the research a non-associative flow rule in which has
an inclusion of size effect to be applied in the constitutive driver is proposed and experimental
comparison in both axial and lateral direction is discussed.
KEYWORDS
Plasticity model, concrete stress-strain, triaxial-compression, peak stress, residual stress.
INTRODUCTION
Plasticity model is one of the most widely used method in predicting the stress-strain in concrete
material under complex state of stress. One of the most important aspect in modelling using plasticity
model is relied on the calibration with experimental results. The parameter that is used in the yielding
function and also flow rule must be sensitive enough to be able to take account the characteristic
behaviour of concrete material in uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial state. In this research the improvement
over the one of the most cited yielding function of (Menetrey and Willam 1995) is discussed. New
parameter in which it is called frictional driver parameter () is introduced. By using this parameter a
suitable failure surface in which derived from empirical equation in peak axial level and also in
residual axial level can be accommodated automatically. This will gives a different view of extending
plasticity model to a new material by only feeding the empirical equation that have been calibrated
with experimental results in both peak and residual stress level. Some comparison with experimental
results (e.g. Dahl 1992; Hurlbut 1984; Xie, Elwi et al. 1995; Attard and Setunge 1996) that cover the
wide range of concrete compressive strength in uniaxial and triaxial compression is shown and
discussed. The proposed flow rule will be discussed in detail in the next part.
Where , , r, m, , e, qh, qs and are hydrostatic length, deviatoric length, elliptic function, frictional
parameter, lode angle, eccentricity of roundness, hardening parameter, softening parameter, parameter
that controlling the peak stress and residual stress. Some of above expressions in detail are
I
(2)
1 , I
1
3 fc
2J2
1
1
2
2
2
, J 2 sij sij , J 2 1 2 2 3 3 1
fc
2
6
m3
4 1 e2 cos 2 2e 1
f c2 ft 2 e
, r , e
0.5
f c ft e 1
2 1 e2 cos 2e 1 4 1 e2 cos 2 5e2 4e
(3)
(4)
Where I1, J2, sij, 1, 2, 3, fc and ft are first invariant of stresses, second invariant of deviatoric stresses,
component of deviatoric stresses, 1st principal stress (lateral pressure), 2nd principal stress (lateral
pressure), 3rd principal stress (axial pressure), concrete compressive strength and concrete tensile
strength.
The value of ft used herein is not the common value adopted by several researcher (e.g. Papanikolaou
and Kappos 2007; Bao, Long et al. 2013) where it is equal to 0.1 fc or fc/ft=10. The value of ft will be
based on the works of (Attard and Setunge 1996) where two equation for concrete with silica fume and
without silica fume is adopted and has a general form as follows:
0.67
, Without silica fume, for fc < 50 MPa
(5)
f t 0.9 f sp 0.9 0.32 f c
f t 0.9 f sp
> 50 MPa
(6)
The frictional driver parameter () that has been introduced before consist of a function that control
the frictional parameter (m) in peak stress level where here will be denoted as peak and in residual
stress level where here will be denoted as res. The empirical formulation for peak stress is based on
(Attard and Setunge 1996) and it has a general form as follows:
f
f cc f c r 1
f
t
k1
f
0.21
, k1 1.25 1 0.062 r f c
f
c
(7)
Where fcc, fr and k1 are peak axial stress, confinement pressure and parameter of peak axial stress,
respectively. In residual stress level the empirical formulation is based on (Samani and Attard 2012)
and it has a general form as follows:
0.694
(8)
fr
f res
1
'
f cc
k2
f
a1 r 1
fc
fc
1.301
Where fres, a, k2 are the axial stress at residual level and parameters of axial stress in residual stresses.
In order to implement the empirical formulation into the yielding function via the frictional driver
parameter (), two set of equation that related to boundary condition at peak axial level and residual
level is required. The first equation can be defined by setting the failure criteria of yielding function at
the peak stress where 1 = 2 = lat, 3 = fcc and qh(kpeak) = 1, qs(kpeak) = 1. The second equation can be
defined by setting the failure criteria of yielding function at residual stress where 1 = 2 = lat, 3 =
fres and qh(kres) =1, qs(kres) = 0. By using the boundary condition into Eq.(1) we have:
2
(9)
1.5 m. peak peak 1 0
peak
peak
ACMSM23 2014
1.5res
(10)
peak
1.5 peak
peak
peak
, res
1.5 res
res
(11)
res
3
6
As mentioned earlier in order to be applied at different stages this two value need to be combined
together when implemented into the yielding function. Thus resulting in proposed equation for
frictional driver parameter () are as follows:
(12)
peak qs k res 1 qs k
From Eqn (12) if k is equal to 1 (at peak) then qs(k) = 1 this condition will gives the value of equal
to peak and if k is equal to (at residual) then qs(k) = 0 this condition will gives the value of equal
to res. When k is between 1 < k < the value of will be somewhere between peak and res. The
effect of frictional driver parameter () into the yielding function in compression meridian can be seen
in Figure 1.
Attard-Setunge
Hurlbut
Jamet
Imran
Richart
Xie
Smith
Candappa
=1.50
=1.25
=1.00
=0.75
4
3
2
1
qh=1, qs=1
0
1
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Hydrostatic Axis [/fc]
-6
-7
-8
Figure 1. Effect of frictional driver parameter in yielding function at compression meridian section
Hardening and Softening Laws
Hardening parameter (qh) is based on the proposed equation by (Carrazedo, Mirmiran et al. 2013)
where the general expression is rewritten here as:
1 cr .r1.k
(13)
q k
h
cr
vp
vp,peak
r1 1 k r1
, r1
3 pr
Ea
, Eb 1 cr , cr '
Ea Eb
fc
(14)
Where vp, vp,peak, k, Ea, cr and 3pr are the plastic volumetric strain at specific incremental, plastic
volumetric strain at peak in uniaxial compression or triaxial compression, ratio that defined the nondimensional plastic volumetric incremental, initial tangent modulus of q-k curve in hardening function,
critical stress that is based on the behavior under uniaxial compression, normalized parameter of stress
that represent the elastic limit under uniaxial compression (usually varies from 0.3 fc to 0.45 fc),
respectively. Both Eb and r1 are parameters of ascending hardening function.
From the experimental results conducted by (Dahl 1992) the relationship between the concrete
compressive strength (fc) and Ea is shown in Figure 2a where it can be expressed in equation as
Ea=107.01(fc)-0.962. For simplicity in general purpose modeling of stress-strain relationship the value of
Ea can be set to 4.
ACMSM23 2014
The softening function used herein is derived from previous researcher (e.g. Bao, Long et al. 2013 ;
Papanikolaou and Kappos 2007), the general expression are
t2
qs k 2
t vp,peak 2 k 12
(15)
Where vp,peak and t are the plastic volumetric strain at the peak and parameter that control the rate of
softening function. The value of parameter t will be discussed more detail on implementation of size
effect and it is differ with the proposed equation by (Papanikolaou and Kappos 2007). The effect of
hardening and softening function on the shape of q-k curve are shown in Figure 2b.
Value of Parameter q = qh x qs
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.8 cr = 0.8
0.6
cr = 0.5
0.4
t = 0.025
t = 0.015
0.2 cr = 0.2
Ea = 4
t = 0.005
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Concrete Compressive Strength (fc)
120
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Value of Parameter k
400
45 Degree Line
Richart
Xie
Smith
Candappa
350
300
250
Attard-Setunge
Hurlbut
Jamet
Imran
In this section the comparison of peak stress and residual stress with experimental results from the
original yielding function (Menetrey and Willam 1995) and the proposed yielding function with
frictional driver parameter is shown in Figure 3. It can be inferred from Figure 3 that the proposed
yielding function perform better in predicting the peak axial stress in concrete with active confinement
pressure compared with the original yielding function that shown an underestimate as the confinement
is increasing.
200
150
100
50
0
0
400
45 Degree Line
Richart
Xie
Smith
Candappa
350
300
250
Attard-Setunge
Hurlbut
Jamet
Imran
200
150
100
50
0
0
(a) fc/ft = 10
(b) ft based on Eq. (5), Eq. (6) ( is used)
Figure 3 Comparison of peak axial stress prediction of original model with different ratio of f t/fc
The comparison of residual stress between experimental results, original yielding function and
proposed yielding function is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen from Figure 4 that as the confinement
stress is increasing the difference between residual stress and peak axial stress is become smaller.
While both yielding function is able to predict this but the experimental results shown that at low
confinement there is quite a large scatter of data due to differences in concrete compressive strength. It
can be infered from Figure 4 that the original yielding function is not entirely suitable to predict the
ACMSM23 2014
residual stress. On the other hand the proposed yielding function in which has a frictional driver
parameter () able to outperform the original model in predicting the residual stresses.
Ratio of fresidual/f0
1
0.8
0.6
Ansari et. al
Smith et. al
Xie et. al
Attard-Setunge
Menetrey-Willam Yielding Function
Proposed Model fc = 20 MPa
Proposed Model fc = 100 MPa
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Ratio of fr/fc
0.8
(kg/m3)
1710
2000
2150
2300
2400
2400
2250
1800
2600
Ec
(MPa)
14196
21684
30441
38286
49053
52125
43020
31497
21897
fr
(MPa)
5,10,15
0~44.5
0~13.76
Ea
tuniaxial,ttriaxial
5.52
3.89
2.46
1.93
1.35
1.20
4
4
4
0.022272,0.014832,0.010518,0.008266,0.006377,0.006001,0.0058,0.0163
0.0101,0.0196
0.0143,0.0064
90
80
Axial Stress (MPa)
100
fc
(MPa)
21.80
31.79
50.43
65.16
94.14
106.3
132.0
92.00
18.76
80
60
40
20
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Axial Strain
0.005
0.006
100,200
55.5,110
54,108
fr = 13.76MPa
60
50
fr = 6.890MPa
40
30
fr = 3.450MPa
20
fr = 0.689MPa
fr = 0 MPa
0
0
100,200
ACMSM23 2014
Silica
Fume
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
70
10
d, h
(mm)
300
250
fr = 44.5 MPa
fr = 35.5 MPa
200
fr = 26.3 MPa
fr = 21.8 MPa
fr = 16.6 MPa
fr = 13.8 MPa
fr = 8.30 MPa
150
100
50
fr = 3.80 MPa
fr = 0 MPa
200
250
fr = 15 MPa
150
fr = 10 MPa
100
fr = 5 MPa
50
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.005
0.01
Axial Strain
0.015
0.02
ACMSM23 2014