See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314112459

A new method for CDP input parameter identification of the ABAQUS software
guaranteeing the uniqueness and precision

Article  in  International Journal of Structural Integrity · April 2017

DOI: 10.1108/IJSI-03-2016-0010

CITATIONS READS

4 468

3 authors, including:

Mojtaba Labibzadeh
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
41 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh on 23 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Structural Integrity
A new method for CDP input parameter identification of the ABAQUS software
guaranteeing uniqueness and precision
Mojtaba Labibzadeh, Mojtaba Zakeri, Abdol Adel Shoaib,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mojtaba Labibzadeh, Mojtaba Zakeri, Abdol Adel Shoaib, (2017) "A new method for CDP
input parameter identification of the ABAQUS software guaranteeing uniqueness and
precision", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 8 Issue: 2, pp.264-284, doi: 10.1108/
IJSI-03-2016-0010
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-03-2016-0010
Downloaded on: 05 May 2017, At: 21:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 17 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 30 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"On the effect of hydrostatic stress on fatigue crack propagation", International Journal of
Structural Integrity, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 240-255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-06-2016-0021

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-9864.htm

IJSI
8,2 A new method for CDP input
parameter identification of the
ABAQUS software guaranteeing
264 uniqueness and precision
Received 2 March 2016
Revised 1 June 2016
Mojtaba Labibzadeh, Mojtaba Zakeri and Abdol Adel Shoaib
Accepted 25 July 2016 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahwaz, Iran

Abstract
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a new method for determining the input parameters of the
concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model of ABAQUS standard software. The existing available methods in
the literatures are case sensitive, i.e., they give different input parameters of CDP for a unique concrete class
used in different finite element (FE) simulation of concrete structures. In this study, the authors attempt to
introduce a new approach for the identification of the input parameters of the CDP model, which guarantees
the uniqueness and precision of the model. In other words, by this method, the input parameters obtained for
a specific concrete class with a unique characteristic strength can be used for FE simulation of the different
concrete structures which were constructed by this concrete without the need to additional modifications
raised from any new application.
Design/methodology/approach – For the input parameter identification of the CDP model, different
standard tests of plain concrete are simulated by the ABAQUS standard software. These test simulations are
performed for various set of input parameters. In the end, those set of input parameters which represents the
best curve fitting with the experimental results is chosen as the optimum parameters.
Findings – By comparison of the FE simulation results obtained from the ABAQUS for two different
concrete structures using the proposed input parameters for the CDP model with the experimental results, it
was shown that the presented method for determining those parameters can guarantee the uniqueness and
precision of the CDP model in simulation.
Originality/value – The method described for determining the input parameters of the CDP model of the
ABAQUS standard software has not been previously presented.
Keywords Identification, ABAQUS, CDP, Input parameters, RC two-way slab,
Three-point bending of notched beams
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Precise description of the concrete behavior has always been a challenging issue in the
numerical simulation of reinforced concrete structures. Several concrete material models
have been developed until today by researchers to overcome this difficulty with a main
common target simulating the concrete behavior as precisely as it is possible under various
load situations. In fact, this reflects the versatility of the model. The most cited recent works
are the models introduced by Papanikolaou and Kappos (2007) and Wang et al. (2008).
A complete classified review of the constitutive models of concrete can be found in the work
of Wai-Fah Chen (2007). Concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model of the ABAQUS standard
software ABAQUS6 (2011) is one of those concrete material models which has been
developed based on the two invaluable works conducted by Lubliner et al. (1989), Lee and
Fenves (1998). This model has a unique feature that characterizes it from the other existing
concrete models; the CDP model is formulated within a multipurpose finite element (FE)
International Journal of Structural
Integrity package, i.e., the ABAQUS software. So, it can be used by the practical and academic
Vol. 8 No. 2, 2017
pp. 264-284
engineers easily in a wide range of applications.
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-9864
In spite of the above-mentioned merit advantage, the big challenge in using this material
DOI 10.1108/IJSI-03-2016-0010 model is the lack of a method used for proper definition of its input parameters. The only
 available method in this area is the method presented by Jankowiak and Lodygowski (2005). CDP input
In that worthy paper, the authors proposed a curve fitting of the flow potential surface in the parameter
compressive meridian (CM) plane with the available envelope of failure results of the triaxial identification
compressive tests for the determination of the two input parameters of the CDP model, i.e.,
dilation angle and eccentricity. They considered the other three remained input parameters of
the plastic part of the CDP model, i.e., the ratio of the equibiaxial compressive to the uniaxial
compressive strength of concrete ( fbo/fco), the ratio of the second invariant of the deviatoric 265
stress tensor in tensile meridian (TM) to the corresponding value in the CM measured in the
plane normal to hydrostatic stress axis (Kc) (see Figure 1), and finally the viscosity parameter
as the predefined constants. TM is the location of the triaxial stress state produced in the
principal stress space which corresponds to a force exerted in the axial direction followed by a
lateral pressure applied in the radial direction (σr ¼ σ1 ¼ σ2 oσz ¼ σ3). Accordingly, the CM
defined as the location of the triaxial stress state produces in the principal stress space
corresponds to a hydrostatic pressure exerted in the radial direction followed by a force
applied in the axial direction (σr ¼ σ1 ¼ σ2 Wσz ¼ σ3). They used the potential function because
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

the first two above-mentioned parameters (dilation angle and eccentricity) are appeared in that
function in the formulations of the CDP model. They implemented the stress coordinates of the
end points of the experimental triaxial compressive tests in the p-q coordinate system
(hydrostatic stress vs von Mises equivalent stress) for their curve fitting. The authors of this
paper believe that the method suggested by Jankowiak and Lodygowski (2005) for input
parameter identification of the CDP model has no sound foundation, because the stress points
they used are the failure points and must be located on the yield surface or failure surface, not
necessarily on the potential surface according to the theory of classical plasticity.
Furthermore, the end points of the triaxial compression tests are the damaged points, so in
those points the Caushy stress tensor cannot be used for curve fitting and the effective stress
tensor must be used instead and the last tensor cannot be determined until the damages
are known. Moreover, the potential yield criterions are the two coupled constraints in the

–S2 Kc = 2/3 –S1

Kc =1

(TM)

Figure 1.
Yield surfaces in the
deviatoric plane,
(CM) corresponding to
different values of Kc
–S3
 IJSI plasticity which must be satisfied simultaneously in each stress point of the stress space.
8,2 In other words, the yield surface cannot be determined in the stress space without using the
potential function for deriving the equivalent plastic strain. In fact, the equivalent plastic
strain governs the evolution of the yield surface in the stress space. In other available works
using the CDP model, the researchers attempted to find the CDP model input parameters
using the trial and error methods, which attempt to calibrate the developed FE model with a
266 specific curve obtained from experiment. This makes the obtained input parameters to be
dependent on the FE model, that is, if the FE model changes, the input parameters also must
be changed to get the desirable results.
On the basis of the above discussion, the authors of this paper were motivated to
present a new method for obtaining the input parameters of the CDP model guaranteeing
the uniqueness and accuracy of the obtained CDP model. The authors have some
experiences on using the CDP model for the FE analysis of concrete structures
(Labibzadeh and Elahifar, 2015; Labibzadeh, 2015a, b). In those works, the behavior of a
normal weight concrete with a 28-day compressive strength of 37.5 MPa was simulated by
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

the CDP model of the ABAQUS software and used for predicting the load capacity of a set
of reinforced two-way concrete slabs as well as reinforced concrete beams. For those
simulations, only the results of the uniaxial compression and tension tests on that concrete
were implemented for the CDP input parameter identification. Moreover, in the previous
works of the authors on the CDP model, similar to the other existing applications of this
model, the verification of the input parameters was performed based on calibrating the
behavior of the RC concrete structure, e.g., in the author’s previous works, the behavior of
the RC two-way slabs or RC beams. This makes the identification procedure of the CDP
model to be dependent on the application. That is for a specific concrete, the input
parameters will be obtained different for different applications of that concrete in RC
structures. The novelty of this new study is that for the above-mentioned input parameter
identification, it was attempted to consider all different behavioral aspects of the plain
concrete solely, and then attempted to use this verified model in the reinforced and
unreinforced concrete structures made with this concrete and investigate its versatility
and precision. To this end, it was decided to involve a relatively complete set of stress
paths for the verification of the CDP input parameters. In fact, the two stress paths,
i.e., uniaxial compressive and tensile paths are directly inputted into the CDP model and
the other stress paths must be considered for calibrating the other remaining input
parameters of the model. These stress paths were incorporated into the process of input
parameter identification in the current study by simulating the following standard tests in
the ABAQUS software: uniaxial and biaxial compression, uniaxial direct and splitting
tension, uniaxial cyclic compression and triaxial compression.

2. Solution procedure
For the parameter identification procedure, an error function has been defined and obtained
for each of the above-mentioned test simulations by the ABAQUS software. This error
function was considered as the sum of the squares of the differences between the stresses
obtained from the ABAQUS model and those extracted from the corresponding
experimental curve obtained from the valid scientific most cited literatures for each tests.
These stresses are measured for the same strains. By this way, for each trial set of the five
input parameters of the plastic part of the CDP model defined in the next, six tests
corresponding to six different stress paths were simulated by the ABAQUS software and
consequently six error functions were computed. Then, for each of these six test simulations,
an average error function was calculated. At the end, a trial set of five input parameters
which gave the minimum average error was considered as the final optimum CDP input
parameters. For obtaining each trial set of the five input parameters, each of the five input
 parameters of the plasticity part of the CDP model is set to be varied in a maximum CDP input
admissible range of variation. Since the test simulations in the ABAQUS were made by the parameter
explicit module of the software, the viscosity parameter was automatically set to zero by the identification
package. Hence, four remained input parameters are as the dilatation angle, eccentricity,
ratio of the equibiaxial compressive to uniaxial compressive characteristic strength of
concrete ( fbo/fco), and finally the ratio of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
in TM to the corresponding value in CM measured in the plane normal to hydrostatic stress 267
axis (Kc). For dilatation angle the range of variation from 0° to 40° was considered. For
eccentricity, the variable range from 0 to 1 was chosen. For the ( fbo/fco) input parameter the
range of variation between 1.1 and 1.2 was assigned and finally for the (Kc), the values from
0.5 to 1 were selected. Then for each random obtained trial set of the above-mentioned four
parameters, six standard tests were simulated by the ABAQUS software and an average
error function was calculated. At the end, a trial set of four input parameters, which
minimizes the average error function, was defined as the final result. Table I presents this
final result. From this table, the optimum values for dilation angle and eccentricity are
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

obtained as 35° and 0.1, respectively. The ( fbo/fco) and Kc are also obtained as 1.12 and 0.67,
respectively. Tables II-VI present other needed input parameters of the CDP model
considered as invariable parameters in the proposed parameter identification approach.
Table II shows the elastic parameters of the CDP model. The way of computing initial elastic
modulus presented in this table will be brought in Section 3. Table III gives the compressive
behavior of the CDP model which is derived in this study from the empirical model of
Mander et al. (1988) for a concrete with 37.5 MPa characteristic strength and inputted into
the CDP model (Mander et al., 1988). This compressive behavior will be explained in Section
3. The tensile behavior of the concrete under study is represented in Table IV. The data of
this table were derived from the model of Rots and Borst (1989). Tables V and VI represent
the proper damage data of the CDP model. These are damage input parameters for uniaxial
tensile and compressive stress regimes which must be defined in the model when load
reversal is expected to occur. These damages control the unloading and reloading paths of
the stress-strain curves. In other words, these damages reduce the elastic stiffness of a
concrete point under load reversals. Hence, these damages are needed and incorporated into
the CDP model in this study only for the uniaxial cyclic compression test simulation during
the procedure of the input parameter identification.
In the following, for the sake of brevity, some final test simulations and their final results
obtained from the above final set of the input parameters have been illustrated. It is worth
mentioning that because of the average minimizing of the error function, the model curves in the
following tests are not exactly coincident with the corresponding experimental or empirical curves.

ψ ¼ dilatation angle 35° Table I.

e ¼ eccentricity 0.1 CDP input data for
F ¼ σbo/σco 1.12 concrete with f c0 ¼
37:5 MPa with
Κ c ¼ qqTM
CM 0.67 plasticity

Table II.
CDP input data for
Young’s modulus (MPa) 33,000 concrete with f c0 ¼
Poisson’s ratio 0.18 37:5 MPa
Mass density 1E-5 with elasticity
 IJSI Compressive behavior
8,2 Stress (MPa) Inelastic strain % Stress (MPa) Inelastic strain % Stress (MPa) Inelastic strain %

9.211 0 34.865 0.0029 22.845 0.0058

12.277 0.0001 34.431 0.003 22.527 0.0059
15.224 0.0002 33.985 0.0031 22.216 0.006
18.027 0.0003 33.53 0.0032 21.614 0.0062
268 20.663 0.0004 33.069 0.0033 21.038 0.0064
23.112 0.0005 32.605 0.0034 20.485 0.0066
25.362 0.0006 32.138 0.0035 19.958 0.0068
27.406 0.0007 31.672 0.0036 19.452 0.007
29.238 0.0008 31.207 0.0037 18.968 0.0072
30.86 0.0009 30.745 0.0038 18.504 0.0074
32.276 0.001 30.286 0.0039 18.059 0.0076
33.493 0.0011 29.833 0.004 17.632 0.0078
34.522 0.0012 29.384 0.0041 17.223 0.008
35.374 0.0013 28.941 0.0042 16.829 0.0082
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

36.061 0.0014 28.505 0.0043 16.452 0.0084

36.597 0.0015 28.075 0.0044 16.089 0.0086
36.995 0.0016 27.652 0.0045 15.74 0.0088
37.27 0.0017 27.237 0.0046 15.405 0.009
37.433 0.0018 26.829 0.0047 15.082 0.0092
37.498 0.0019 26.429 0.0048 14.77 0.0094
37.476 0.002 26.036 0.0049 14.471 0.0096
37.377 0.0021 25.651 0.005 14.182 0.0098
37.213 0.0022 25.274 0.0051 13.904 0.01
36.991 0.0023 24.905 0.0052 11.586 0.012
Table III. 36.72 0.0024 24.543 0.0053 9.893 0.014
CDP input data for 36.408 0.0025 24.188 0.0054 8.61 0.016
concrete with 36.061 0.0026 23.842 0.0055 7.607 0.018
f c0 ¼ 37:5 MPa with 35.685 0.0027 23.502 0.0056 6.803 0.02
compressive behavior 35.285 0.0028 23.17 0.0057

Tensile behavior
Stress (MPa) Inelastic strain %

3.5 0
Table IV. 3.15 2.24E-005
CDP input data for 2.45 0.000269
concrete with 1.75 0.000448
f c0 ¼ 37:5 MPa with 1.05 0.000628
tensile behavior 0.35 0.000807

3. Uniaxial compression test of the concrete cylinder

For assigning appropriate quantities for the material input parameters of the CDP model
considering the uniaxial compressive behavior, i.e., input parameters outlined in
Table III, the authors decided to find at first a valid stress-strain curve for the concrete
under study in the uniaxial compression test. There are extensive experimental
studies conducted on the uniaxial compressive behavior of the normal weight concretes.
One of the most versatile of them which has been cited extensively in the scientific
literature is the work of Mander et al. (1988). They have tried in that work
 Compression damage
CDP input
Damage parameter Inelastic strain % parameter
identification
0 0
0.08 0.003
0.2 0.004
0.31 0.005
0.4 0.006 269
0.48 0.007
0.54 0.008 Table V.
0.58 0.009 CDP input data for
0.6 0.01 concrete with
0.6 0.011 f c0 ¼ 37:5 MPa with
0.6 0.012 compression damage
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Tension damage
Inelastic strain % Damage parameter

0 0
0.1 2.24E-005 Table VI.
0.3 0.000269 CDP input data for
0.5 0.000448 concrete with
0.7 0.000628 f c0 ¼ 37:5 MPa with
0.9 0.000807 tension damage

to derive an empirical relation (mathematical function) capable to fit the stress-strain data
obtained from the standard uniaxial compression tests conducted in the laboratory under
different confining (lateral or radial vs axial) pressures for a range of concretes with
different 28-day compressive strengths (Mander et al., 1988). The following relation is
their final finding:
f 0cc xr
fc ¼ (1)
r1 þxr
Ec
x¼ (2)
Ecc

0 
f
Ecc ¼ Eco 1 þ5 cc0 1 (3)
f co

Ec
r¼ (4)
E c E sec
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
E c ¼ 5;000 f 0co ðMPaÞ (5)

f 0cc
E sec ¼ (6)
Ecc
 IJSI In the above relations, fc denotes the uniaxial compressive stress, Ec the corresponding strain,
8,2 f 0cc the compressive strength of the confined concrete, f 0co and Eco the unconfined concrete
strength (in this study considered as 37.5 MPa) and the corresponding strain, respectively.
Eco is generally considered as 0.002 and the same value is used in the current study.
Ec is defined as the tangent initial modulus of elasticity of concrete. In this study, according to
relation (5), the initial elastic modulus was considered as 33,000 MPa (see Table II). According
270 to relation (1), it was attempted in this study to model the standard uniaxial compression test
for a cylindrical specimen of the concrete under study in the ABAQUS software using the CDP
model. Note that in this stage of the study, the effects of the confining pressures were not
considered, so the f 0cc was set equal to f 0co and Ecc was set equal to Eco, which resulted in
x ¼ (Ec/Ecc) ¼ 1 in relation (2). For modeling the standard compression test, the dynamic explicit
type of the analysis in ABAQUS was implemented in order to make the possibility of using the
displacement control regime with a defined rate of displacement imposing in the axial direction
of the cylinder in the analysis. The displacement control means that the uniaxial compressive
displacements instead of the compressive loads were specified as a boundary condition in the
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

software. This approach gives an opportunity to model the post-peak branch as well as the pre-
peak portion of the stress-strain curve. 3D deformable part was used for modeling the cylinder
and two analytical rigid parts were implemented to model the two end steel platens. The above-
mentioned displacement was imposed on the cylinder at a reference point defined on the upper
end steel platen as a displacement control point. The lower end steel platen was fixed in the
model. The interaction between the platens and the specimen was defined using the penalty
formulation for tangential behavior with a friction coefficient equal to 0.05 (approximately
frictionless) and using the hard contact for normal behavior. A distance of 3 mm was defined as
the ultimate axial compressive displacement and the smooth step type for imposing
displacements from 0 to that ultimate value was considered. By this type of inputting axial
displacement, the dynamic effects are removed. The FE model of the concrete cylinder is shown
in Figure 2. In all, 8,130 linear hexahedral elements of type C3D8R with a mesh size of 10 mm
and a total number of 9,176 nodes were used in the modeling after performing several analyses

RP

Y
Y

Z X X
Z

RP
Figure 2.
Compression test of
the concrete cylinder
in ABAQUS software
 to obtain a mesh-insensitive model. As the explicit/dynamic type of analysis was used for CDP input
modeling, no convergence difficulty was observed. parameter
Figure 3 compares two stress-strain curves, one obtained from the developed proposed identification
model in the ABAQUS software and the other obtained from relation (1). For obtaining the
stress values of the curve, the reaction forces computed at the lower rigid plate by the
software are divided by the initial area of the cylinder. Hence, it can be said that these values
are the mean or average stresses and are the best representative of the nominal stresses 271
obtained in the experiment. For the strains, the axial displacements extracted from the
software at the upper rigid plate were divided by the initial height of the cylinder, i.e.,
300 mm. As it can be seen from Figure 3, there is a good agreement between the simulated
curve with the proposed model and that obtained from the empirical relation (1).

4. Uniaxial direct tension test of the concrete cylinder

For verifying the performance of the CDP model during the uniaxial tension state of stress, the
developed FE concrete cylinder model used in Section 3 was subjected to a uniaxial tensile
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

displacement. So, the similar number and type of the elements were used. By this way,
the effect of the FE mesh becomes vanished and only the CDP material parameters influence
the results. The upper and lower steel platens were bonded to the cylinder with a tie
constraint. For defining the tension behavior part of the CDP model, i.e., the necessary input
data of Table IV required for this test simulation, the experimental curve was extracted from
the work of Rots and Borst (1989) as an extensive cited valid reference. Figure 4 compares the
obtained nominal stress-strain curve for this concrete cylinder predicted by the proposed
model with the corresponding curve presented by Chen (2007) under direct tension test. It can
be seen that the peak stress level obtained from test simulation by the CDP model, i.e., 3.335
MPa, has a good agreement with the direct uniaxial tensile strength of the proposed concrete,
i.e., 3.5 MPa (error is about 4.7 percent). Furthermore, the obtained curve is very similar to the
curve presented by Chen (2007) in page 81 of his book.

5. Splitting test of the concrete cylinder

As another verification test of the model under tensile stress path, the split-cylinder test of the
proposed concrete according to the standard test ASTM C496/C496 M11 was modeled with

40
Empirical
35 Numerical

30

25
Stress (MPa)

20

15

10

Figure 3.
5 Uniaxial compressive
stress-strain curves
0 for the proposed
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 concrete
Strain (mm/mm)
 IJSI 3.5
Current study
8,2 Chen (2007)
3

2.5

Tensile stress (MPa)

272 2

1.5

Figure 4. 0.5
Uniaxial direct tension
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

test – stress-strain
curve obtained with 0
the model 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Tensile strain (mm/mm) ×10–4

the ABAQUS software (Nihal Arioglu et al., 2006). Again, due to the reason mentioned in the
previous section, the same ABAQUS concrete cylinder FE model used in Sections 3 and 4 was
implemented for this test simulation. Figure 5 shows the tensile damage evolution in the
cylinder model which can properly represent the cleavage of the real specimen. Figure 6
presents the maximum principal stresses obtained in the model of the split-cylinder test. From
this figure, it can be seen that the splitting tensile strength of the proposed concrete is obtained
as 3.669 MPa. This value has an error equal to 1.7 percent with the corresponding
experimental value (Nihal Arioglu et al., 2006).

6. Cyclic compressive test of the concrete cylinder

After examining the behavior of the concrete cylinder model under different monotonic
loadings, it was decided to investigate its performance under the effect of cyclic compressive
load. To this end, different steps in ABAQUS software in the step module were defined
and for each of them proper boundary conditions were assigned. After the initial step,
seven steps were defined in the module step. For steps 1-7 the following boundary axial
displacements were assigned, respectively: −0.55, +0.28, −1.2, +0.32, −1.8, +0.23, and

W Z X

Z X

Figure 5.
Split-cylinder test –
tensile damages at
peak stress level
 Y
CDP input
Z X parameter
identification

273
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Y Figure 6.
Split-cylinder test –
Z X
maximum principal
stresses (MPa)

−3.6 mm. As it was mentioned in Section 2, only for this specific test simulation, the tensile
and compressive damages must be inputted into the CDP model. The values of Tables V and
VI were used for this purpose. The FE mesh specifications of this model are the same as
the models used in the previous test simulations. The obtained stress-strain curve from
the developed model under cyclic compression test is depicted and compared with the
experimental curve (Byong Youi and Cheng-Tzu Thomas, 1998) in Figure 7. As it can be
seen from this figure, the proposed tensile and compressive damages could simulate well the
reduction in the recovered compressive strength during the successive reloading. However,
these damages could not represent well the reduction in the elastic stiffness for these
successive reloading paths. This issue is under investigation by the authors.

40

Experiment – Byong
35 Youi and Cheng-Tzu
Thomas (1998)
Cyclic Compressive Stress (MPa)

Current Study
30

25

20

15

10

5
Figure 7.
Cyclic compression
0 test of the concrete
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 cylinder
Compressive strain (mm/mm) ×10–3
 IJSI 7. Biaxial compressive test of the concrete cube
8,2 For verifying the performance of the CDP model in the biaxial stress states, a
200 mm × 200 mm × 50 mm cube was modeled in ABAQUS software. This cube was
selected according to the experimental works done by Kupfer (1969). At first, the biaxial
compression test was simulated. On the basis of the above work, three stress states were
modeled: σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/0; σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/−1; σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/−0.52. For modeling, the symmetry
274 conditions in each case were properly used in the corresponding model. Hence, in the first
case, one-half of the cube and in the others, one-quarter of the cube was modeled. C3D8R
elements with a size of 5 mm gave the most exact and mesh-insensitive results and
therefore was used for all these models. Figure 8 shows the test model in the stress state of
σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/−1 with its corresponding damage evolutions. For the sake of brevity, the
obtained stress-strain curves of the models corresponding to the stress states σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/0
and σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/−1 were compared with the experimental work of Kupfer (1969) in
Figures 9 and 10. A good agreement between the numerical and experimental curves can
be observed from these figures.
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

(a) (b)

+1
+1

Y
Y

Z X
Z X

+2 +2

Figure 8.
Biaxial compression
test of the concrete
cube: σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/−1
Notes: (a) Compressive damages; (b) tensile damages

Biaxial Compression: 1/2 = –1/0

f ′c = 37.5 MPa
Current study
Kupfer 1969
1.2

0.8
1/f ′c

0.6

0.4

0.2
Figure 9.
Biaxial compression 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
test: σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/0
Axial Strain (mm/mm)
 Biaxial Compression: 1/2 = –1/–1 CDP input
f ′c = 37.5 MPa parameter
Current study
Kupfer 1969
identification
1.4
1.2
1
275
0.8
1/f ′c

0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 10.
0 Biaxial compression
–0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
test: σ1/σ2 ¼ −1/−1
Axial Strain (mm/mm)
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

8. Triaxial compressive test of the concrete cylinder

To investigate the applicability of the proposed CDP model under triaxial stress state, the
concrete cylinder model with the same FE mesh characteristics used in Sections 3-6 was
subjected to the three different confining (lateral or redial) pressures; 10, 20, and 50 percent
of the compressive strength of the concrete under study correspond to confining pressures
of 3.75, 7.5, and 18.75 MPa, respectively. It should be noted here that for modeling the test,
two steps are defined; step 1 imposes the confining pressure smoothly and step 2 imposes
the axial displacement. Figure 11 shows the ABAQUS model of the concrete used for
simulating the triaxial compression test. In Figures 12 and 13, the obtained stress-strain
curves of the model is compared with the result of Papanikolaou and Kappos (2007).

RP

Z X

RP

Figure 11.
ABAQUS model for
triaxial compression
test
 IJSI Triaxial Compression – 10% Confinement
8,2 Papanikolaou and Kappos (2007)
Current study
1.60
1.40
1.20

276 1.00

3 /fc
0.80
0.60
Figure 12.
The effect of confining 0.40
pressures on the 0.20
stress-strain curve in
triaxial compression 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
test
3 /c ; c = 0.002
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Triaxial Compression – 20% Confinement

Papanikolaou and Kappos (2007)
Current study
2.50

2.00

1.50
3 /fc

1.00

Figure 13.
The effect of confining 0.50
pressures on the
stress-strain curve in
0.00
triaxial compression 0 5 10 15
test
3 /c ; c = 0.002

As it can be observed, there is a good agreement between these two sets of results. The
difference which is observable between the model and the experimental curves is due to the
fact that in Papanikolaou and Kappos (2007), the above-mentioned triaxial tests were
conducted on the cube specimen and in the current study, these tests are simulated on the
cylindrical specimen. In other words, this proves the shape and size effects of the concrete
specimens on the results in a similar test simulation with the same concrete mixture.

9. Practical examples
After obtaining the final optimized set of input parameters of the CDP model (summarized
through Tables I-VI, it was decided to apply this CDP model for simulating the behavior of
two reinforced concrete structures:

9.1 RC two-way slab as a reinforced concrete structure

A two-way RC slab which was investigated experimentally and numerically by Enochsson
et al. (2007) was selected as a practical example in the current study. This slab has been
modeled in ABAQUS/Explicit standard software considering steel beam supports as the
elastic supports.
 All the geometric and material data which are needed for the modeling of the slab in CDP input
ABAQUS were obtained from Enochsson et al. (2007). In that reference, several kinds of the parameter
two-way slabs have been tested. In this study, only the homogeneous type with label “H” was identification
selected for simulation. Homogeneous means that the slab has no opening. The slab shape is
square with a length of 2.6 m. The slab thickness is 100 mm. The slab is reinforced with two
steel bar layers in the x and z axes. The diameter of the steel bars is 5 mm and the space between
them is 150 mm. The yield strength of the steel bars is 510 MPa. Uniaxial compressive strength 277
of the concrete of the slab is 40 MPa which is very close to the concrete strength, the CDP model
of which has been identified in the current study (37.5 MPa). Figure 14 shows the assembly of
the slab in ABAQUS and Figure 15 indicates the mesh of the slab. For the slab mesh, 26,928 of
3D solid elements labeled as C3D8R from ABAQUS element library with a size close to 50 mm
has been implemented. For steel bars, 468 of two-node linear truss element labeled as T3D2 from
the above library was used. Figure 16 illustrates the loading conditions. As it can be seen from
the figure, the load is applied upside down in the laboratory according to Enochsson et al. (2007).
Vertical displacement distributions in the slab for the above-mentioned support conditions are
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

shown in Figure 17. It should be noted that the interaction between the beam supports and the
slab was considered as rough for the tangential behavior and hard contact for normal behavior
in the ABAQUS code. The obtained load-deflection curve for the slab is compared with the
experimental curve obtained from the laboratory as reported by Enochsson et al. (2007) is shown

Z X
RP

Z X

RP RP

Figure 14.
Y
ABAQUS model of
RP
the RC two-way slab
Z X

Z X
RP

Z X

RP RP

Figure 15.
Y
ABAQUS mesh of the
Z X
RP
RC two-way slab
 IJSI Y

Z X
8,2

RP RP

278 Z X

Figure 16. RP RP

Upside-down
uniformly distributed Y

pressure on the slab Z X

Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Z X

Figure 17.
Vertical deflections Y

of the slab Z X

in Figure 18. As it can be seen from the figure, the proposed model predicts the maximum load
carried with the slab to be approximately 35 kN per square meter which is very close
(3 percent error) to the experimental result reported by Enochsson et al. (2007) as 36.1 kN per
square meter (see Table VII). The CDP model of ABAQUS can indicate the regions which
experience damage during the application of load. Figure 19 shows the tensile damages
developed in the tensile face of the slab during loading with the elastic support. It can be seen
from this figure that the cracking of the slab similar to the experimental slab (Figure 20)
concentrates in two regions: central region and the corners of the slab.

9.2 Three-point bending beam as an unreinforced concrete structure

A three-point bending test of a pre-notched beam was considered for testing the
precision of the obtained CDP model in simulating the behavior of the unreinforced
concrete structures. The test was selected from the work of Chen and Su (2013), which was
done for investigating the tension stiffening curves of the plain concrete range from
40 to 90 MPa as the characteristic strengths Chen and Su (2013). In the current
study, a concrete with a characteristic strength of 40 MPa was selected from the
above-mentioned work which is close to the characteristic strength of the concrete under
study. Figure 21 shows the setup of the test in the laboratory (Chen and Su, 2013).
The supports and the load edge were considered as rigid parts. The simulated test in
 Load-Deflection curves of two-way RC slab CDP input
Enochsson et al. (2007) parameter
Current study identification
40

35

30
279
25
Load (kN)

20

15

10

5
Figure 18.
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

0 Load-deflection curves
0 20 40 60 80
of the slab
Deflections (mm)

Slab qcrack (kN/m2) qfailure (kN/m2) qcrack/qdesign qfailure/qdesign Table VII.

Failure results of slab
H 7 36.1 0.5 2.41 reported by
Note: Load capacity of the slab reported by Enochsson et al. (2007) Enochsson et al. (2007)

Z X

Figure 19.
Tensile damage
Y
evolution in the slab
Z X
with elastic support

the ABAQUS by the authors is presented in Figure 22. For modeling the beam in the
ABAQUS software, 27082 C3D4-type elements were used to obtain a minimum
mesh-insensitive model (see Figure 23). The evolution of the resulted mode one crack
predicted by the proposed model is illustrated in Figure 24. The obtained load-deflection
curve from the current model is compared with the experimental load-deflection curve
reported by Chen and Su (2013) in Figure 25. The predicted ultimate load by the presented
model is 2.55 kN and the corresponding experimental value is 2.8 kN. The error is obtained
to be about 8 percent.
 IJSI
8,2

280
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Figure 20.
Crack pattern of a
slab in the laboratory
Source: Enochsson et al. (2007)

(a) (b)
P

150
45
80
Steel plate
P/2 Roller 300 300 P/2
710
Measuring
Zone
CMOD
(c)
LVDT Frame

ESPI
sensor
Clip b
a0
gauge
t

Figure 21. P/2 LVDT P/2

Experimental setup of
the three-point test Notes: (a) Loading and measuring system; (b) schema of front view; (c) schema of rear view
Source: Chen and Su (2013)

10. Conclusions
Most of the existing applications of the CDP model in the scientific literatures assume the
default values suggested by the manual of the ABAQUS software for the input
parameters. A few of them performed a verification procedure to find the proper values for
these input parameters; however, this verification was done based on the calibration of
 CDP input
parameter
Y identification
Z X

281

Figure 22.
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Three-point bending
test setup simulated in
ABAQUS

Z X

Figure 23.
Mesh of the beam in
the three-point
Y
bending test
Z X

some behavioral aspects of their RC structural applications. This makes the obtained
input parameters to be sensitive to the application. In other words, for a unique concrete,
different sets of input parameters for the CDP model can be obtained depending
on the different applications of the CDP model in the RC structures. This motivated
the authors to conduct this research. In this study, the identification of the input
parameters has been done considering just the different behaviors of the plain concrete
mixture. Different valid tests which represent those different behaviors were selected
and simulated by the ABAQUS software. The same error functions were defined
for each of these tests: the sum of the squared of the differentials of the stresses at the
same strains. Differential was defined as the difference between the experimental
stress obtained from the laboratory and the corresponding model stress. Then it was
attempted to minimize the error functions. At the end, a set of input parameters which
gave the minimum average error was selected as the final result. Using this set of
input parameters of the CDP model for simulating the behavior of a reinforced
concrete slab and a three-point pre-notched bending beam gave satisfactory results.
By this way, a unique set of input parameters of the CDP model can be obtained for each
specific class of concrete.
 IJSI
8,2 Y

Z X

282

Z X

Y
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

Z X

Z X

Z X

Z X

Z X

Figure 24.
Crack growth in the
beam at different
stages of loading
monitored by the Y

tensile damage Z X

parameter of the
developed CDP model
in the current study
 Load-Deflection CDP input
curves of three-point bending test parameter
Chen and Su (2013)
Current study
identification
3

2.5

2 283
Load (kN)

1.5

0.5 Figure 25.

Load-deflection curves
0 in the three-point
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
bending test
Deflections (mm)
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

References
ABAQUS6 (2011), 11 Theory Manual, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI.
Byong Youi, B. and Cheng-Tzu Thomas, H. (1998), “Stress-strain behavior of concrete under cyclic
loading”, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 178-193.
Chen, H.H. and Su, R.K.L. (2013), “Tension stiffening curves of plane concrete”, Journal of Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 44, pp. 440-451.
Chen, W.F. (2007), Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, J. Ross Publishing Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Enochsson, O., Lundqvist, J., Täljsten, B., Rusinowski, P. and Olofsson, T. (2007), “CFRP strengthened
openings in two-way concrete slabs – an experimental and numerical study”, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 21, pp. 810-826.
Jankowiak, T. and Lodygowski, T. (2005), “Identification of parameters of concrete damage plasticity
constitutive model”, Foundation of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Kupfer, H. (1969), “Das verhalten des betons unter zweiachsiger beanspruchung”, Techn. Hochsch.
Munchen, Lehrstuhl Massivbau Ber, 18.
Labibzadeh, M. (2015a), “Damaged-plasticity concrete model identification for prediction the effects of
CFRPs on strengthening the weakened RC two-way slabs with central, lateral and corner
openings”, International Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 3.
Labibzadeh, M. (2015b), “The numerical simulations of the strengthened RC slabs with CFRPs using
standard CDP material model of ABAQUS code”, European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1268-1287.
Lee, J. and Fenves, G.L. (1998), “Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures”, Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 124 No. 8, pp. 892-900.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oliver, S. and Onate, E. (1989), “A plastic-damage model for concrete”,
International Journal of Solid Structures, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 299-326.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988), “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114 No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
Nihal Arioglu, Z., Canan, G. and Ergin, A. (2006), “Evaluation of ratio between splitting tensile strength
and compressive strength for concretes up to 120 MPa and its application in strength criterion”,
ACI Materials Journal, pp. 18-24.
Papanikolaou, V.K. and Kappos, A.J. (2007), “Confinement-sensitive plasticity constitutive model for
concrete in triaxial compression”, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 44,
pp. 7021-7048.
 IJSI Rots, J.G. and Borst, R. (1989), “Analysis of concrete fracture in ‘direct’ tension”, International of Solids
8,2 and Structures, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1381-1394.
Wang, Z.L., Liu, Y.S. and Shen, R.F. (2008), “Stress-strain relationship of steel fiber-reinforced concrete
under dynamic compression”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 22, pp. 811-819.

Further reading
284 Labibzadeh, M. and Elahifar, T. (2015), “An enhanced finite element model for reinforced concrete
two-way slabs strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymers”, Structural Engineering
International, Vol. 1, pp. 81-90, doi: 10.2749/101686614X14043795570093.

Corresponding author
Mojtaba Labibzadeh can be contacted at: labibzadeh_m@scu.ac.ir
Downloaded by Mojtaba Labibzadeh At 21:24 05 May 2017 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats