Development and numerical implementation of an anisotropic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Dec 11, 2023 157 likes •344 views

Development and numerical implementation of an anisotropic continuum damage model for concrete Juha Hartikainen 1 , Kari Kolari 2 , Reijo Kouhia 3 1 Tampere University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering 2 VTT 3 Tampere University of

SLIDE 1

Development and numerical implementation of an anisotropic continuum damage model for concrete

Juha Hartikainen1, Kari Kolari2, Reijo Kouhia3

1Tampere University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering 2VTT 3Tampere University of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Systems 15th International Conference on Fracture and Damage Mechanics, 14-16 September 2016, Alicante, Spain

SLIDE 2

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Outline

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 2/18

SLIDE 3

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 3/18

SLIDE 4

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Introduction

The non-linear behaviour of quasi-brittle materials under loading is mainly due to damage and micro-cracking rather than plastic deformation. Damage of such materials can be modelled using scalar, vector or higher order damage tensors. Failure of rock-like materials in tension is mainly due to the growth

f the most critical micro-crack

Failure of rock-like materials in compression can be seen as a cooperative action of a distributed microcrack array

http://mps-il.com Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 4/18

SLIDE 5

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 5/18

SLIDE 6

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Ottosen’s 4 parameter model

AJ2 σc + Λ

J2 + BI1 − σc = 0,

Λ = k1 cos[ 1

3 arccos(k2 cos 3θ)]

if cos 3θ 0 k1 cos[ 1

3π − 1 3 arccos(−k2 cos 3θ)]

if cos 3θ ≤ 0 . cos 3θ = 3 √ 3 2 J3 J3/2

, : Lode angle σc: the uniaxial compressive strength I1 = trσ: the first invariant of the stress tensor J2 = 1

2s : s, J3 = det s = 1 3trs3 : deviatoric invariants

A, B, k1, k2: material constants

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 6/18

SLIDE 7

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Meridian plane & plane stress

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 −1 −2 −3 −4 −5 1 θ = 0◦ θ = 60◦ σe/fc σm/fc θ = 0◦ −0.2 −0.4 −0.6 −0.8 −1.0 −1.2 −1.4 −0.2 −0.4 −0.6 −0.8 −1.0 −1.2 −1.4 σ1/fc σ2/fc

Green line = Mohr-Coulomb with tension cut-off Blue line = Ottosen’s model Red line = Barcelona model

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 7/18

SLIDE 8

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Deviatoric plane

σ1 σ2 σ3 σ1 σ2 σ3

π − plane σm = −fc Green line = Mohr-Coulomb with tension cut-off Blue line = Ottosen’s model Red line = Barcelona model

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 8/18

SLIDE 9

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 9/18

SLIDE 10

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Thermodynamic formulation

Two potential functions ψc = ψc(S), S = (σ, D, κ) Specific Gibbs free energy γ = ρ0 ˙ ψc − ˙ σ : ǫ, γ 0 Clausius-Duhem inequality ϕ(W; S), W = (Y , K) Dissipation potential γ ≡ BY : Y + BKK Define Y = ρ0 ∂ψc ∂D K = −ρ0 ∂ψc ∂κ

∂ψc ∂σ − ǫ

: ˙

σ +

D − BY

: Y + (−˙

κ − BK) K = 0 ǫ = ρ0 ∂ψc ∂σ , ˙ D = BY , ˙ κ = −BK

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 10/18

SLIDE 11

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 11/18

SLIDE 12

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Specific model

Specific Gibbs free energy ρ0ψc(σ, D, κ) = 1 + ν 2E

trσ2 + tr(σ2D)
− ν

2E (1 + 1

3trD)(trσ)2 + ψc,κ(κ)

Elastic domain Σ = {(Y , K)|f(Y , K; σ) 0} where the damage surface is defined as f(Y , K; σ) = A ˜ J2 σc0 + Λ

J2 + BI1 − (σc0 + K) = 0

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 12/18

SLIDE 13

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Invariants in terms of Y

˜ J2 = 1 1 + ν

EtrY − 1

6(1 − 2ν)(trσ)2

˜ J3 = 2 3(1 + ν)

E [tr(σY ) − trσtrY ] + 1

9(1 − 2ν)(trσ)3

ϕ(Y , K; σ) = IΣ(Y , K; σ) where IΣ is the indicator function IΣ(Y , K; σ) =

(Y , K) ∈ Σ +∞ if (Y , K) / ∈ Σ (BY , BK) =    (0, 0), if f(Y , K; σ) < 0

λ ∂f ∂Y , ˙ λ ∂f ∂K

, ˙

λ ≥ 0, if f(Y , K; σ) = 0 ˙ D = ˙ λ ∂f ∂Y , ˙ κ = − ˙ λ ∂f ∂K

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 13/18

SLIDE 14

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 14/18

SLIDE 15

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Some results

Uniaxial compression - ultimate compressive stength σc = 32.8 MPa σc0 = 18 MPa, σt0 = 1 MPa, (I1, √J2) = (−5 √ 3σc0, 4σc0/ √ 2) A = 2.694, B = 5.597, k1 = 19.083, k2 = 0.998 K = [a1(κ/κmax) + a2(κ/κmax)2]/[1 + b(κ/κmax)2] a1 = 85.3 MPa, a2 = −12.65 MPa, b = 0.7032

exp. model −ε11/εc −σ11/σc 2 1.5 1 0.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 Damage −ε11/εc D11 D22 = D33

Experimental results from Kupfer et al. 1969.

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 15/18

SLIDE 16

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Young’s modulus and apparent Poisson’s ratio

10 20 30 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 E (GPa) −ε11/εc 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −σ11/σc νapp Const. Exp.

Biaxial compression

exper. model −ε11/εc −σ11/σc 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.2 0.4 0.6 Damage −ε11/εc D11 = D22 D33

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 16/18

SLIDE 17

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s 4 parameter model 3 Thermodynamic formulation 4 Specific model 5 Some results 6 Conclusions and future work

Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 17/18

SLIDE 18

1 Introduction 2 Ottosen’s model 3 Thermodynamic 4 Specific model 5 Results 6 Conclusions

Conclusions and future work

Continuum damage formulation of the Ottosen’s 4 parameter model Can model axial splitting Implementation into FE software (own codes, ABAQUS) Development of directional hardening model Regularization by higher order gradients Thank you for your attention!

Juana Franc´ es (1926-1990) ∼ 1960 Anisotropic damage – R. Kouhia 15.9.2016 18/18