Uniaxial Compression and Extension Tests with Concrete Model

Note

The project file for this example may be viewed/run in 3DEC. The data files used are shown at the end of this example.

In this example to test the Concrete model, a 1 m x 1 m single hexahedral zone is generated, and the material properties are listed in Table 1. The model behavior is compared to laboratory data from Lee and Fenves (1998).

Table 1: Concrete Model Properties

Parameter

Value

\(E\) (MPa)

3.14e4

\(\nu\)

0.18

\(f_t^m\) (MPa)

3.48

\(f_t^0\) (MPa)

3.48

\(G_t\) (MN/m)

40e-6

\(l_t\) (m)

0.0826

\(D_t^{half}\)

0.5

\(f_c^m\) (MPa)

27.6

\(f_c^0\) (MPa)

16.04

\(G_c\) (MN/m)

5690e-6

\(l_c\) (m)

0.0826

\(D_c^{peak}\)

0.4

\(f_b^0/f_c^0\)

1.16

\(a_p\)

0.2

\(s_0\)

0.2

The first test is the uniaxial compression loading. The 3DEC results compared to the laboratory results are shown in Figure 1. The numerical model correctly duplicated the whole loading, which can be verified by the elastic slope (Young’s modulus), initial and peak compression yield stress.

../../../../../_images/ss-compression.png

Figure 1: Uniaxial stress vs. uniaxial strain in compression. Compression is positive.

The second test is the uniaxial tension loading. The 3DEC results compared to lab results are shown in Figure 2. Since \(f_t^0=f_t^m\), the uniaxial tension stress vs train curve has immediate softening, which has been correctly simulated by the numerical model the whole loading.

../../../../../_images/ss-tension.png

Figure 2: Uniaxial stress vs. uniaxial strain in extension.

References

Lee, J., & Fenvas, G. L. (1998). Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. Journal of engineering mechanics, 124(8), 892-900.

Data File