Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Evaluation of nonlinear constitutive properties of concrete|
|Authors:||University of Texas at Austin.|
United States. Air Force. Ballistic Missile Office.
United States. Defense Nuclear Agency.
Norman, C. Dean.
Fracture Energy Based Model
Endochronic Concrete Plasticity Model
|Publisher:||Structures Laboratory (U.S.)|
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
|Series/Report no.:||Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; SL-90-1.|
Abstract: This report describes the development of a methodology that allows for the objective evaluation of the predictive capabilities of concrete constitutive models. The structural analysis and design of concrete structures is often based on large-scale finite element computations. A key component of the finite element method is the constitutive model that is usually selected and calibrated based on a few simple tests. The primary reason for this is the lack of understanding of the complex response features of concrete and numerical difficulties encountered when attempting to model these features. Also, the error in response predictions due to an inappropriate constitutive model is difficult to define in a complex large-scale structural analysis problem. The method of evaluation, as developed herein, consists of the following steps: (1.) The design and execution of a series of material properties tests which provide data sufficient for the calibration of the constitutive model under consideration. (2.) Calibration of the model using the data developed in Step 1. (3.) Design and execution of the series of verification tests which provide data sufficient for defining key complex material response features that are to be modeled. (4.) Direct comparison of model predicted response with experimental measurements through the use of a constitutive driver. The constitutive models were evaluated, the Fracture Energy Based Model (FEBM) and the Endochronic Concrete Plasticity Model (ECPM). While there are very many constitutive models for concrete currently available in the literature, it was not possible within the scope of this research project to evaluate all of them, although the methodology presented should be equally applicable to all. The selection of the FEBM and the ECPM is not intended to endorse these models as the better ones. The results show that, although they are able to predict qualitatively some key response features observed in the verification tests, they fail to predict accurately other response features. These models were selected because they are two of the more recent and comprehensive ones and also the theoretical development of the two is significantly different. NOTE: This file is large. Allow your browser several minutes to download the file.
|Rights:||Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.|
|Appears in Collections:||Report|