LA-UR

-78-2873

TITLE:

A COMPARISON OF ELASTIC-PLASTIC AND VARIABLE MODULUS-CRACKING

CONSTITUTIVE MODELS FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE REACTOR VESSELS

AUTHOR(S):

Charles A. Anderson Paul D. Smith

SUBMITTEDTO

To be presented at the 2nd Japan-U.S. Seminar on HTGR Safety Technology -. on November 24-25, 1978 in Fuji, Japan.

r
By acceptance of this article for publication. the pnblisher recognizes the Governmwtte (license) rights in any copyright and the Government and its G uthorized representatives have unrestricted right to reproduce in whole or in part said article under any copyright secured by the publisher. The Ims AlamosScientific Laboratory rectuests that the publisher identify this article as work performed under the auspices of the UFJERDA.

NOTICE Tfu. wport WI pr?pzrcd M m account of work sponwred by the thed States Gowmnnnt, Naithel the

Umted States nor the Unlled Wt., mpMIIIWnt Of EIWW, nor my of IIIeU rmploym, nor my of heir K41tr1ct011, :ubc.antraclors, or lheu mm t,.vgq ~kes lnY wIYmtY, w.preu or Implied, w . . . . ..Ms any ksd Iubillty w tap.:, nbdtty for h awu, y, C.j@eWWM of any lniotrrmthon, apparatus, prtiuct that 11, u a would not

w Mefulneu

PIWU duclo=d, or ltpmlHIU lnflln#e privately owntd fishII, !Zl

10s
oftho
LOS

scientific

~ (D
Univordty
ALAMOS, NEW Action./Equol

a Iamos
laboratory
of California
MEXIC087544

,, ~..-?.

. .. . .. .JTu)

An Affirmative

Opportunity

Emplove~

FOYSSINO.1336 N&o. W29

UNITED STATES ENER(3YRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT W.7405.ENG. 36

A COMPARISON OF ELASTIC-PLASTIC AND VARIABLE MODULUS-CRACKING CONSTITUTIVE MODELS FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE REACTOR VESSELS
bv

Charles P Anderson Paul .. Smith Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico USA INTROI?UCTION Numerical predictions of the behavior of prestressed concrete reactor vessels (PCRVS) under static, dynamic, and long-term loadings are complicated by the currently ill-defined behavior of concrete under stress together with the three dimensional nature of a PCRV. Although much research has recently been supported to carry out both theoretical and experimental investigations of concrete behavior under stress, it is clear that the question of which of the many constitutive models most closely approximates the behavior of concrete in a PCRV under load has not yet been settled. Furthermore, the large number of equations that result from accurate modeling of the three dimensional behavior of a PCRV, with even the simplest constitutive law, can tax the capabilities of the most up-to-date computing system. The main purpose of this paper is to compare the characteristics cf two constitutive models that have been proposed for concrete and to compare the behavior of representative concrete structures whose material obeys these constitutive laws. The first concrete mod+l is a variable modulus-cracking model th t w;~sdescribed in the first JAEB/USNRC Seminar on HTGR Safety.! This model treats nonlinear compressive concrete behavior by a variable modulus approach, it accounts for crack formation and th~ development of stress-dependent orthotropy, and it represents the elastic-plastic behavior of any reinforcement present in the concrete. The second model is an elastic-plastic mode12 whose development closely follows the mathematical theory of plasticity with an arbitrary strain hardening yield surface. This model takes into account the influence of biaxial stress on concrete yielding that has been observed experimentally. Concrete cracking is not treated explicitly but is modeled by the contracted nature of the yield surface whenever at least one Of the principal stresses is in tension. Both of these concrete models have been incorporated in a finite element code, called NONSAP-C, that has been developed at the Los Alamos Scientif c Laboratory for the threedimensional structural analysis of PCRVS.4 Comparisons of the predictions of the NONSAP-C code using the elastic-plastic concrete model and the variable modulus-cracking concrete model and the results of experiments, where available, are given below. The concrete structures that are modeled include a thick-walled ring under internal pressure, a reinforced concrete plate under transverse pressure and an unreinforced PCRV end slab model under transverse pressure. This latter structure was one of an extensive series of PCRV models that were tested to destruction at th 8 Structural Engineering Laboratory of the University of Illinois.

PCRV STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO INiERNAL PRESSURE Extensive model tests4~5~6 have demonstrated the structural response of PCRVS to internal pressure loading. Generally, the PCRV heads act as thick plates and show small deflections at increasing pressures. For unreinforced heads, the failure mode has been observed to be either a shear or flexure failure with sudden and catastrophic rupture of the head.4 For the PCRV barrel, the load-detection behavior is characterized by a linear elastic response up to a certain pressure, called the reference pressure PR, where the prestress is overcome and cracking of the concrete starts. This is folluwed by a range of slightly nonlinear behavior characterized by progressive cracking and transfer of load to the reinforcement and the tendons. Finally, at a pressure Py, a limiting region of plastic behavior begins in which the concrete no longer participates in the structural response and the load is carried by the PCRV liner, the tendons, and the reinforcement up until the ultimate strength of the PCRV at an ultimate pressure Pu is reached. This limiting region is characterized by relatively large incremental deflections per incremental load. Figure 1 shows schematically a typical load deflection curve for a PCRV loaded by internal pressure. The difference between the ultimate pressure P and the reference (design) pressure PR is the reserve pressure capabiY ity of the vessel. Ideally a finite element code should be capable of predicting al- of the above aspects of PCRV behavior - complicated as they are by the cracking phenomena and the heterogeneity provided by the reinforcement. The esser~iialingredients of such a predictive capability are modeling of the reinforcement and an adequate concrete model to represent its stiffness, strength, and cracking characteristics. Those features of the concrete model, reinforcement, and prestress that influence the three ranges of ?CRV behavior are iven in Table I. Degree of contribution is indicated byS (small!( , M moderate), and L (large). A blank indicates very little contribution,

A
P -----------
-----PLASTIC BEHAVIOR OF TCNOONS -------------RWRVE EkI ENSIVC CRAtKINO FAILt UE

cArAlllLITv

NONLINEAR RtSPONSt, CONCRETECRACKINIJ

-----R !!

-----INITIATION

.OF HINOR CRACKINO

I/
Fig, 10

LINtAR RUPONW

OWLIcfION

Typical PCRV response to internal pressure loading,

TABLE I CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PCRV STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR Elastic Behavior L -~ M. L -r.. --. ... M .. T L M M . --M L CONCRETE CONSTITUTIVE MODELS The variable modulus-cracking concrete model was presented at the first JAEB/USNRC Seminar on HTGR Safety and will not be discussed in detail here. As mentioned previously, it treats concrete compressive bshavlor by a variable modulus approach, it accounts for crack format.!on,and it handles the reinforcement present in the concrete by a smeared representation. The second model is the elastic-plastic constitutive relation for concrete undar general three-dimen ional stress states that has been proposed recently by Chen and Chen3 in which the concrete is assumed to be acuntinuous, isotropic, and elastic-plastic material with a strain-hardening yield surface. In this theory, an initial discontinuity surface, subsequent loading surfaces, and a failure surface for concrete are defined, and elastlc-plastic stress-strain incremental relationships are derived usirqjthe classical theory of plasticity. Figure 2 illustrates the failure and initial discontinuity surfaces in principal stress space for this type of material. The failuresurface is presumed to be dependent on the first stress invariant, 11 (proportional to the pressure), and the second intariant of the deviatoric stress tensor, J2, of the quadratic form . L -. L_ .Cracking Behavior L .r. Limiting Behavior

PF6jEFty

Modulus and Poissons R. Concr~i, Stren@h Yoncrete Compress

~aF Cornressive Stren@h + Concrete oppressive - Stress-Strain Behavior Concrete Tens~ Stress-Strain Behavior Reinforcement .-. Prestress

(1)

where A and are material constants that can e determined from the concrete tensile and compressive strengths. K ) is a geometric parameter and when IC2= 3 a good fit to experimental biaxial concrete

cr2

A
FAILURESU~ INITIAL OtSCONllNUOUS SURFACE 0 /

&,s

&2x

INTERSECTION LINE COMPRESSION ZONE

1
TENSION-COMPRESSION

Fig. 2.

Failure and initial discontinuous surfaces in triaxial principal stress space.

failure data is obtained. Constltutive relations for incremental stresses in terms of incremental strains are derived in Ref. 2 based on the normality rule of plasticity as applied to the initial discontinuity and subsequent loading surfaces. The three-dimensional form gf these relations has been incorporated in the NONSAP-C code.~ The input parameters for this concrete model are the elastic properties of the concrete, the ultimate compressive strain, the tensile, compressive, and biaxial compressive yield stresses, and the tensile, compressive, and biaxial compressive ultimate strengths. TEST PROBLEMS Over the past year, a series of test problems has been analyzed with the vari ble modulus-cracking and elastic-plastfc models of the NONSA -C code9 and the variable modulus-cracking model of the ADINA code.! Direct comparison of the two models Is given only for the first test problem presented below. THICK-WALLED CONCRETE RING Figure 3 illustrates afinlte element mesh of a thick-walled unreinforced circular rit]gwhose response to internal pressure loading was calculated using the NONSAP-C code with the material models discussed previously. Five 12-node Isoparametrlc elements were used to describe the ring geometry.
\

= 5
/

Fig. 3.

Concrete ring finite element model.

Concrete properties described in Table II were used. Based on the formation of a radial tensile crack in the elastic stress field, the ultimate pressure that the ring can withstand is 1.2 MPa (178 psi), which is predicted by the variable modulus theory. For the elasticplastic concrete model, a plastic zone propagates from the inner element through the ring until the plastic zone permeates the ring at an internal pressure of about 1.12 tiPa(160 psi). From 1.12 MPa up to 1.4 MPa the concrete work hardens corresponding to stress states between the initial discontinuity and failure surfaces. At 1.4 MPa the stress state throughout the ring is on the failure surface and rupture occurs. Calculated response of the ring to the internal pressure loading is shown in Fig. 4, and Fig. 5 shows the development of the crack pattern of the variable modulus concrete model and the growth of the inelastic zones for the elastic-plastic model. TABLE II CONCRETE PROPERTIES USED IN TEST PROBLEMS Modulus of Elasticity (E) Poissons Ratio (v) Compressive Stren th (fc) Tensile Strength ?ft) Ultimate Strain (~u) Biaxial Compressive Strength (fbc) 26000 MPa (3.8x106psi)

0.20
46.OMPa (6800 psi) 3.1 MPa (450 psi)

0.003
1.16 fc

INNERSURFACE LOADVS DEFLECTION

P/PMx VARIABLE MODULUS 1(

. /

ELASTIC-PLASTIC
o

0(

0(

OF

II

0,0125

0,0250
INNER

0,0375
WALL

Ot05CI0 0,0625
(MM)

DEFLECTION

Fig. 4.

Response of the concrete ring to internal pressure loading,

SENAVICIR PROPAGATION OFNONLINEAR

VS INTERNAL PRESSURE

WHwHnv; Ii !
ELASTICpLWIC

!5

a.

Fig. 5.

Propagation of nonlinear behavior for variable modulus-cracking and elastic-plas.lc concrete models.

RECTANGULAR CONCRFTE PLATE A reinforced concrete slab, simply supported on three sides, free on the fourth, and loaded with a uniform transverse pressure was analyzed with NONSAP-C using the variable modulus cracking concrete model. The finite element mesh, consisting of twenty-four 16-node isoparametric elements, was one element thick. Equal amounts (0.5%) of tension and compression reinforcement located as shown in Fig. 6 were included. Using a steel tensile strength of 300 MPa and a concrete compressive strength of 30 MP-!a limit load of 28.3 kPa was load-deflection predicted using yield line theory. Figure 7 shows t.:~e curve calculated by NONSAP-C with the finite element model; a limit or ultimate load of 30 kPa is indicated, which is in good agreement with the prediction of the yield line theory.

rlOM ,

F
10 M
SIMPLE

SIMPLE

SUPPORT

SUPPORT

FREE

SIMPLE 1

SUPPORT

PLANVIEW

i m ,1 M
COMPRESSION SIDE

0,5M

-.. 1ss 041 M f ~ .

.
TEhSION

SIDE

SECTION VIEU

Fig. 6.

Concrete plate showing reinforcement.

NONSAP-C CALCLJLATIO:J

STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERING

LIMIT

LOAD

DEFLECTION

INNM

Fig. 7.

Response of the concrete plate.

ANALYSIS OF PV-26 WITH THE ADINA CODE PV-26 is an axisymmetric concrete pressure vessel that was tested to destruction at the S ructural Engineering Laboratory of the i Rupture occurred primarily as a shear University of Illinois. failure of the head. The vessel was analyzed usi g the variable modulus-cracking concrete model in the ADINA code with concrete The head of PV-26 was unreinforced. properties of Table II. Figure 8 shows the two-dimensional finite element mesh used to model PV-26. Seventy-eight 8-node isoparametric elements were employed in the calculation; prestressing and boundary conditions for An internal pressure loading was applied the vessel aye as shwn. incrementally with the onset of cracking of the outer surface of the vessel head occurring at slightly under 6.1 MPa (900 psi). Cracking continues with substantial stress readjustment up to an internal pressure of 11.5 MPa (1690 psi) where divergence of the equilibrium iteration method indicated that head failure had occurred. Since the load step was 27 psi, a strength of 11.3 MPa (1663 psi) was attributed to the vessel. Figure 9 illustrates the load-deflection behavior of the center of the head of PV-26 as calculated by 4DINA and Fig. 10 shows the developing cracked regions in the head of PV-26. Dotted regions indicate the presence of a single crack whereas lined regions

1300PSI

PRESTRESSED

Fig. 8.

PV-26 finite element model.

indicate the presence of a double or triple crack. The ultimate pressure sustained in the experiment was 17.8MPa (2610 psi); the ultimate pressure predicted by ADINA was 64 percent of the experirmtally observed value. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions developed from this study are as follows: 1. The variable modulus-cracking model is capable of predicting the behavior of reinforced concrete structures (such as the reinforced plate under transverse pressure described previously) well into the range of nonlinear behavior including the prediction of the ultimate load. 2. For unreinforced thick walled concrete vessels under internal pressure the use of elastic-plastic concrete models in finite element codes enhances the apparent ductility of the vessels in contrast to variable modulus-cracking models that predict nearly instantaneous rupture whenever the tensile strength at the inner wall is exceeded. 3. For unreinforced thick-walled end slabs representative Uf PCRV heads, the behavior predicted by finite element codes using variable modulus-cracking models is much stiffer in the nonlinear range than than that observed experimentally. Althotighthe shear type failures and crack patterns that are observed experimentally are predicted by such concrete models, the ultimate load carrying capacity and vesselductility are significantly underestimated. It appears that such models do not adequately model such features as aggregate interlock that could lead to an enhanced vessel reserve strength and ductility.

K -RUpTLSRE
/
13

/ a /
@-I NI(IAL

cRACKING

/
1 1

0,25
CENTRAL HEAD DEFLECTION

0,50
IN MM

0,75

Fig. 9.

Experimental and calculated load-deflection curves for PV-26.

............................. . ..:.:.:.:.:.:,: c;.:.:. ~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
,.<...O.<. O.....,. . . $

p = 142C

psi

L-J= ... , .....

p = l16n
psi w: . ..+ :.% ........ ... .....
,.,...O.O. . . . . . . . .

:,>:.::.

Fig. 10. Developing crack patterns calculated for the head region of PV-26.

REFERENCES 1. P, D. SMITH and C. A. ANDERSON, Constitutive Models for Colrete and Finite Element Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Reactor ~Proceedings of the Japan-UIS. Seminar on HTGR Safety ~ogy-Seismic Research, Vol. I. Brookhaven National Laboratroy report BNL-NUREG-50689, pp. 282-297, September 1977. A. C. T. CHEN and W. F. CHEN, Constitutive Relations for Concrete, Journal of the Engineering ?@chanics Division, ASCIL,Vol. 019 PP* 465-481, August 1975. P. D. SMITH and C. A. ANDERSON, NONSAP-C: A Nonlinear Stress Analysis Program for Concrete Containment Under Static, Dinimic, Long-Term Loadings, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report 7496-MS,November 1978.

2.

3.

4.

J. D. REINS, J. L. QUIROS, W. C. SCHNOBF?ICH,and M. A. SOZEN, Shear Strengths of End Slabs or Prestressed Concrete Reactor Vessels, University of Illinois report UILU-ENG-76-2022, July 1976.
FORT ST. VRAIN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, Publishec by Public Service Co. of Colorado, Appendix E, PCRV Design Data. T. TAKEDA, T. YAMAGUCHI, and K. IMOTO, Inelastic Analysis of a . Multicavity PCRV under Internal Pressure, 3rd International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, paper H2/5, 1975. K. J. BATHE, ADINA; A Finite Element Program for Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysl~ssachusetts Institute of Technology Report 82448-1, September 1975.

5. 6.

7.