Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Plasticity models for concrete material based on different criteria including


Bresler–Pister
Tayfun Dede *, Yusuf Ayvaz
Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study is to investigate nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) structures with
Received 25 March 2009 the plasticity modeling. For this aim, a nonlinear finite element analysis program is coded in MATLAB.
Accepted 12 June 2009 This program contains several yield criteria and stress–strain relationship for compression and tension
Available online 17 June 2009
behavior of concrete. In this paper, the well-known criteria, Drucker–Prager, von Mises, and Mohr Cou-
lomb, and a new criterion-Bresler–Pister are taken into account. The elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz
Keywords: stress–strain relationships in compression and tension stiffening in tension behavior of concrete are used
Failure analysis
with four different yield criteria mentioned above. The proposed models are in good agreement with the
Concrete
Plastic behavior
experimental and analytical results taken from the literature. It is concluded that the coded program, the
Bresler–Pister criterion proposed models, and Bresler–Pister criterion can be effectively used in nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete beams.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Stramandinoli and Rovere [11] and Dede and Ayvaz [12] studied
on RC structures by considering tension stiffening effect.
Considerable constitutive models have been proposed to define Among the models given above, plasticity models need a yield
nonlinear behavior and stress–strain relationship of reinforced function, a hardening rule, a flow rule and a stress–strain relation-
concrete (RC) material. These models can be classified into ortho- ship to construct the plastic material matrix for the plastic behav-
tropic models, nonlinear elastic models, plasticity models, endo- ior of concrete. A review of the literature indicates that there are
chronic models, fracture mechanics models and micromodels [1]. not any studies based on the Bresler–Pister criterion for plastic
Using these models, several studies have been made in the field behavior of concrete. This yield function can be found in the books
of nonlinear analysis of RC structure to predict the behavior of concerning with the plasticity theory. But, its plasticity material
reinforced concrete structures more reliable. Arslan [2] investi- matrix or any application of this function to the RC structures is
gated the sensitive of the Drucker–Prager modeling parameters not found.
and the use of it in plasticity theory for shear design of RC beams. In this paper, derivation of plastic material matrix based on
Park and Klingner [3] presented a nonlinear analysis study of RC Bresler–Pister yield function and two applications of this function
members by using plasticity multiple failure criteria. Wang and to the RC beams are presented. For this aim, a nonlinear finite ele-
Hsu [4] applied the nonlinear finite element analysis to various ment analysis program is coded in MATLAB. This program contains
types of RC structures using a new set of constitutive models. Bra- several yield criteria and stress–strain relationship for compressive
tina et al. [5] presented a study on materially and geometrically and tensile behavior of concrete. In the nonlinear analysis, the
nonlinear analysis of RC planar frames by dealing with the fiber- well-known criteria, Drucker–Prager, von Mises, and Mohr Cou-
based constitutive equations of concrete and steel. Zhao et al. [6] lomb and as a new criterion, Bresler–Pister, are taken into account.
studied the load-deflection and failure characteristics of deep RC The elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz stress–strain relationship in
coupling beams. Pankaj and Lin [7] used two similar continuum compressive and tension stiffening in tensile behavior of concrete
plasticity material models to examine the influence of the material are used with four different yield criteria mentioned above.
modeling on the seismic response of RC frame structures. Belmou-
den and Lestuzzi [8] investigated post peak modeling and nonlin- 2. Yield criteria for concrete
ear performance of RC structural walls. Bischoff [9,10],
The concrete is assumed to be elastic until it reaches the yield
limit. Beyond yielding, plastic deformations take place. So, residual
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 462 3772638; fax: +90 462 3772606. plastic deformations remain after removing the loading. A consid-
E-mail address: tayfundede@gmail.com (T. Dede). erable amount of formulations have been proposed for concrete as

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.06.018
T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286 279

Nomenclature

fc0 uniaxial compressive cylinder strength D elastic material-stiffness tensor


ft0 uniaxial tensile strength Dc material matrix of concrete
h angle of similarity Dep elastic–plastic material-stiffness tensor
s effective von Mises stress Dp plastic material-stiffness tensor
/ internal friction angle Ds material matrix of equivalent reinforcing bar elements
d kronecker delta E Young’s modulus
a, k material parameters f yield function
ecr cracking strain of concrete Hp plastic hardening modulus
rcr cracking stress of concrete I1 first invariant of stress tensor
rf, ef control point coordinates on stress–strain curve J2 second invariant of stress deviator tensor
roct octahedral normal stress J3 third invariant of deviatoric stress tensor
soct octahedral shear stress K initial tangent modulus
ep concrete strain corresponding to rp s deviatoric stress
rp peak concrete compressive stress e strain
qx reinforcement ratio in global direction of the X axis ee elastic strain
qy reinforcement ratio in global direction of the Y axis ep plastic strain
c cohesion r stress

a yield function such as Drucker–Prager, von Mises, Mohr Cou- When these experimental test data are substituted into Eq. (5), the
lomb, Tresca, Rankine, William Warnke, Ottosen, Hsieh Ting Chen, parameters a, b and c can be obtained by solving a system of three
and Bresler–Pister [13]. The well-known yield function for Druc- linear equations given below.
ker–Prager, von Mises, and Mohr Coulomb are given by the follow- pffiffiffi
2 0 0 0
ing equations, respectively [14]. a¼ f t f bc ð8f bc þ f 0t  3Þ=D
pffiffiffiffi 3
pffiffiffi
f ¼ aI1 þ J 2  k ð8Þ
ð1Þ b ¼ 2ð4f 02 0 0 0 0 0
bc  f bc  f bc f t þ f t Þð1  f t Þ=D
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi
f ¼ J2  k ð2Þ c ¼ 3 2ð3f 0 f 0  f 0  2f 0 Þ=D
t bc bc t

1h pffiffiffi ipffiffiffiffi
where
f ¼ I1 sin / þ 3ð1  sin /Þ sin h þ 3ð3 þ sin /Þ cos h J 2
2
D ¼ ð2f 0bc  1Þð2f 0bc þ f 0t Þð1 þ f 0t Þ ð9Þ
 3c cos / ð3Þ
pffiffiffi Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) and rewriting Eq. (5), the Bresler–
3 3 J3
cosð3hÞ ¼ : ð4Þ Pister yield function in terms of stress invariant can be obtained,
2 J3=2
2 and it is given as
where f is yield function, a and k are the material parameters, c is     pffiffiffiffi !
c 2 b J pffiffiffiffi
cohesion, / is internal friction angle, I1 is the first invariant of stress f ¼ I 1  I 1  p ffiffiffi 2 J 2  a: ð10Þ
9fc
02 3fc0
3fc0
tensor, J2 is the second invariant of deviator stress tensor, J3 is the
third invariant of deviator stress tensor, and h is angle of similarity.
The Bresler–Pister criterion is the extension of Drucker–Prager
3. Plastic material matrix for concrete based on Bresler–Pister
criteria. This yield function in terms of octahedral stresses is given
criterion
by
    In the plasticity theory, total strain can be assumed to be the
soct roct roct 2
¼ab þ c : ð5Þ sum of the elastic strain and plastic strain as given in Eq. (11),
fc0 fc0 fc0
and stress increment, drij, for strain increment, deij, is given in
where a, b, and c are the material parameters of this yield function. Eq. (12) [15].
These parameters can be established by using available experimen-
tal test data given in Table 1 [14]. In this table, f 0t and f 0bc are the nor- deij ¼ deeij þ depij ð11Þ
malized strengths, ft0 is uniaxial tensile strength, fc0 is uniaxial drij ¼ Dep e
ijkl d ij ð12Þ
0
compressive cylinder strength, fbc is equal biaxial compressive
strength, roct is octahedral normal stress and soct is octahedral shear where Dep
is elastic–plastic material matrix. In the case of associ-
ijkl

stress. ated flow rule the general form of this matrix is given as,
The octahedral normal and shear stresses are given by the fol- Dep p
ijkl ¼ Dijkl þ Dijkl ð13Þ
lowing equations, respectively.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
soct ¼ J
3 2 ð6Þ
Table 1
I Test data for Bresler–Pister Criterion.
roct ¼ 1
3 Test roct =fc0 s 0
oct =fc
pffiffi
The normalized strengths are given by the following equations. r1 ¼ ft0 1 0
3ft
2 0
3 ft
pffiffi
0 0 r3 ¼ fc0  13 2
f 0 ¼ ft ; f 0 ¼ fbc : ð7Þ
3
pffiffi
t
fc0 bc
fc0 r2 ¼ r3 ¼ fbc0  23 f 0bc 2 0
3 f bc
280 T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286

where Dijkl is the elastic material matrix of the element (see Section 4. Stress–strain curves for concrete
5), and
In order to define stress–strain relationship for concrete several
Dijkl @@fr @f
@ rpq
Dpqkl
Dpijkl ¼ ij
ð14Þ stress–strain curves are proposed by researchers [4,16–25]. The
h þ @@fr Dijkl @@fr Saenz [19] and elastic–perfectly plastic stress–strain relationship
ij kl
used for the behavior of concrete in compression are given in
where Eqs. (23) and (24), respectively, and they are given in Fig. 1.
@f    2
h ¼ UHp ð15Þ K eepc  eepc
@s
rc ¼ rp    2  3 ð23Þ
where
1 þ A eepc þ B eepc þ C eepc
1 @f
U¼ r ð16Þ
s @ rij ij ec
 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  rc ¼  r if ep < ec < 0
where s is von Mises effective stress s ¼ 3J 2 and Hp is slope of ep p ð24Þ
uniaxial stress–strain curve. rc ¼ rp if ec < ep < 0
The gradient @@frij can be written as
where
@f @f @I1 @f @J2 @f @J 3
¼ þ þ : ð17Þ ðK r  1Þ 1
@ rij @I1 @ rij @J2 @ rij @J 3 @ rij A ¼ C þ K  2; B ¼ 1  2C; C ¼ K  ð25Þ
ðK e  1Þ2 Ke
Taking the derivatives of Eq. (10) with respect to I1, J2 and J3, the fol- ep ef rp
lowing equations can be obtained. K¼E ; K ¼ ; K ¼ ð26Þ
rp e ep r rf
@f 2c b
¼ I1  0 where ef and rf are the control point coordinates on descending
@I1 9fc02 3fc
branch of stress–strain curve, rc is concrete compressive stress, ec
@f 1 is concrete compressive strain, rp is peak concrete compressive
¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð18Þ
@J 2 6J 2 fc0 stress, ep is concrete compressive strain corresponding to rp, and
@f E is modulus of elasticity of concrete.
¼0 The stress–strain curve of concrete in tension proposed by
@J 3
Wang and Hsu [4] is shown in Fig. 2a. The ascending and descend-
The gradient @@Ir1 and @@Jr2 are called to be the kronecker delta and ing braches of this curve are given by the following equation.
ij ij
deviatoric stress tensor, respectively, and they are given in Eqs.
(19) and (20), respectively. rt ¼ Eet if et  ecr
2 3  0:4 ð27Þ
1 0 0 e
rt ¼ rcr cr if et > ecr
@I1 6
¼ dij ¼ 4 0 1 0 5
7
ð19Þ
et
@ rij
0 0 1 where rt is concrete tensile stress, et is concrete tensile strain, rcr is
@J 2 I1 concrete cracking stress, and ecr is concrete cracking strain.
¼ sij ¼ rij  dij : ð20Þ The other stress–strain curve of concrete in tension used in this
@ rij 3
paper is Vecchio 1982 curve [26]. This curve is shown in Fig. 2b and
By substituting Eqs. (18)–(20) into Eq. (17), the following equation its stress–strain relationship is given by the following equation.
can be obtained. r
  ! rt ¼ pcr
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi if 0 < ecr < et ð28Þ
@f 2c b 1 1þ 200et
¼ I1  0 dij  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sij ð21Þ
@ rij 9fc02 3fc 6J 2 fc0
5. Material matrix of finite element
The gradient @@fs based on Bresler–Pister criterion can be obtained,
and it is given below.
pffiffiffi The material matrix of a finite element is constructed to be the
@f 2 sum of the material matrices of the concrete and reinforcement. In
¼ 0: ð22Þ
@s 3fc this calculation, the reinforcement embedded in the concrete ele-
ments is represented by an equivalent element. The material
matrices of concrete and reinforcement are given, respectively, as:

σp
a K=1.0 b
K=1.2 σp
K=1.4
Stress, σ

Stress, σ

K=1.6
K=1.8
K=2.0

Strain, ε εp Strain, ε

Fig. 1. Stress–strain curve of (a) Saenz and (b) elastic–perfectly plastic model for concrete under compression.
T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286 281

σcr
a σcr b

Stress, σ

Stress, σ
εcr Strain, ε εcr Strain, ε

Fig. 2. Stress–strain curve of: (a) Wang and Hsu [4] and (b) Vecchio 1982 model for concrete under tension.

2 3 2 3
1 v 0 qx Es 0 0 ing on the mesh size used to solve the problem. Therefore, for the
E 6 7 6
½D ¼ ½Dc  þ ½Ds  ¼ 4v 1 0 5þ4 0 q y Es 0 7
5 sake of accuracy in the results, rather than starting with a finite
1  v2 element mesh size, the mesh size to produce the desired accuracy
0 0 ð1  v Þ=2 0 0 0
is determined. To find out the required mesh size, convergence of
ð29Þ the maximum displacement is checked for different mesh sizes.
In conclusion, the results have an acceptable error when using
where Dc and Ds are the material matrices of concrete and equiva-
approximately 70 elements. Therefore, 70 elements which is also
lent reinforcement elements, respectively, Es is the modulus of elas-
the number of the elements used in the literature are used in this
ticity of reinforcement, qx and qy are the reinforcement ratios in
study in order to compare the results obtained in this study with
global directions of the x and y axes, respectively.
the experimental and theoretical results given in the literature. Fi-
nite element modeling of this beam is given in Fig. 4.
6. Applications The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield
function of Drucker–Prager criterion with two different tension
The applicability and verification of the developed program are stress–strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior
demonstrated by comparing the results obtained in this study with of concrete and with two different compression stress–strain
the experimental and analytical results of two different RC beams, curves (elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression
Bresler–Scordelis beam and J4 beam, given below. behavior of concrete are given in Fig. 5. These results are compared
with each other and with the experimental result taken from the
6.1. Bresler–Scordelis beam literature [4,27]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement
curves obtained in this study are in good agreement with the
The first RC member used to validate the program coded is Bres- experimental result.
ler–Scordelis beam. It is simply supported RC beam [4,27] and is The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield
shown in Fig. 3. The longitudinal reinforcement consists of four function of von Mises criterion with two different tension stress–
steel bars with total area of 2580 mm2. The concrete has a com- strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior of con-
pressive strength of 24.5 MPa and elastic modulus of 21,300 MPa. crete and with two different compression stress–strain curves
The elastic modulus of steel bars is 191,400 MPa. (elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression behavior
In the finite element modeling, 4-noded rectangular plane- of concrete are given in Fig. 6. These results are compared with
stress element is used. This element has two displacement degrees each other and with the experimental result taken from the litera-
of freedom at a point and eight displacement degrees of freedom in ture [4,27]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement curves
an element. Perfect bond between concrete and reinforcement is obtained in this study are in good agreement with the experimen-
assumed. tal result.
Since the method used herein is a numerical method, the finite The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield
element method, there is always some error in the results, depend- function of Mohr Coulomb criterion with two different tension

Fig. 3. Bresler–Scordelis beam.


282 T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286

78 61 70 88

425.5 mm
12 11

127
1 1 2 2 3 10 11

1828.8 mm

1,2, …, 88 : Node numbers


1 , 2 ,…, 70 : Element numbers

Fig. 4. Finite element modeling of Bresler–Scordelis beam.

300

200
Load (kN)

This study
Tension model Compression model
100 Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic perfectly plastic
Wand and Hsu (2001) Saenz
Vecchio 1982 Elastic perfectly plastic
Experimental Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. Load–displacement curves of Bresler–Scordelis beam for Drucker–Prager criterion.

300

200
Load (kN)

This study
Tension model Compression model
100 Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic perfectly plastic
Wand and Hsu (2001) Saenz
Vecchio 1982 Elastic perfectly plastic
Experimental
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Load–displacement curves of Bresler–Scordelis beam for von Mises criterion.

stress–strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior of stress–strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior
concrete and with two different compression stress–strain curves of concrete and with two different compression stress–strain
(elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression behavior curves (elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression
of concrete are given in Fig. 7. These results are compared with behavior of concrete are given in Fig. 8. These results are compared
each other and with the experimental result taken from the litera- with each other and with the experimental result taken from the
ture [4,27]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement curves literature [4,27]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement
obtained in this study are in good agreement with the experimen- curves obtained in this study are in good agreement with the
tal result. experimental result.
The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield In general, the results obtained using the compression models,
function of Bresler–Pister criterion with two different tension tension models and the yield criteria considered in this study are
T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286 283

300

200

Load (kN)
This study
Tension model Compression model
100 Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic perfectly plastic
Wand and Hsu (2001) Saenz
Vecchio 1982 Elastic perfectly plastic
Experimental
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. Load–displacement curves of Bresler–Scordelis beam for Mohr Coulomb criterion.

300

200
Load (kN)

This study
Tension model Compression model
100 Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic perfectly plastic
Wand and Hsu (2001) Saenz
Vecchio 1982 Elastic perfectly plastic
Experimental
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Load–displacement curves of Bresler–Scordelis beam for Bresler–Pister criterion.

in good agreement with the experimental result. Especially, the re- The finite element mesh convergence of this beam is also stud-
sults of new criterion, Bresler–Pister, show excellent agreement ied. It is concluded that the results have an acceptable error when
with the results obtained by using the other criteria and with the using approximately 45 elements. This element number is also the
experimental result. number of the elements used in the literature. Therefore, using this
element number makes possible compare the results obtained in
6.2. Simply supported J4 beam this study with the experimental and theoretical results given in
the literature. Finite element modeling of this beam is given in
The second RC member used to validate the program coded is J4 Fig. 10.
beam. It is simply supported [28,29] and is shown in Fig. 9. The lon- The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield
gitudinal reinforcement consists of two steel bars with total area of function of Drucker–Prager criterion with two different tension
1021 mm2. The concrete has a compressive strength of 33 MPa and stress–strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior
elastic modulus of 26,200 MPa. The elastic modulus of steel bars is of concrete and with two different compression stress–strain
203,000 MPa. curves (elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression

Fig. 9. J4 beam.
284 T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286

51 60
37 45

457 mm
10
11

51
1 1 2 2 3 9 9 10
1850 mm

Fig. 10. Finite element modeling of J4 beam.

200

160

Demir (1998)
Load (kN)

120 Barzegar and Schnobrich (1986)


Experimental
This study
80 Tension model Compression model
Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Wang and Hsu (2001) Saenz
40
Vecchio 1982 Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Load–displacement curves of J4 beam for Drucker–Prager criterion.

behavior of concrete are given in Fig. 11. These results are com- The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield
pared with each other and with the experimental [29] and analyt- function of Mohr Coulomb criterion with two different tension
ical results [28,30]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement stress–strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior
curves obtained in this study are in good agreement with the of concrete and with two different compression stress–strain
experimental and analytical results. curves (elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression
The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield behavior of concrete are given in Fig. 13. These results are com-
function of von Mises criterion with two different tension stress– pared with each other and with the experimental [29] and analyt-
strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior of con- ical results [28,30]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement
crete and with two different compression stress–strain curves curves obtained in this study are in good agreement with the
(elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression behavior experimental and analytical results.
of concrete are given in Fig. 12. These results are compared with The results of the nonlinear analysis of this beam by using yield
each other and with the experimental [29] and analytical results function of Bresler–Pister criterion with two different tension
[28,30]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement curves ob- stress–strain curves ([4], Vecchio 1982) for the tension behavior
tained in this study are in good agreement with the experimental of concrete and with two different compression stress–strain
and analytical results. curves (elastic–perfectly plastic and Saenz) for the compression

200

160

Demir (1998)
Load (kN)

120 Barzegar and Schnobrich (1986)


Experimental
This study
80 Tension model Compression model
Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Wang and Hsu (2001) Saenz
40
Vecchio 1982 Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 12. Load–displacement curves of J4 beam for von Mises criterion.


T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286 285

200

160

Demir (1998)

Load (kN)
120 Barzegar and Schnobrich (1986)
Experimental
This study
80 Tension model Compression model
Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Wang and Hsu (2001) Saenz
40
Vecchio 1982 Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Load–displacement curves of J4 beam for Mohr Coulomb criterion.

200

160

Demir (1998)
Load (kN)

120 Barzegar and Schnobrich (1986)


Experimental
This study
80 Tension model Compression model
Wang and Hsu (2001) Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Wang and Hsu (2001) Saenz
40
Vecchio 1982 Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Vecchio 1982 Saenz
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Load–displacement curves of J4 beam for Bresler–Pister criterion.

behavior of concrete are given in Fig. 14. These results are com- The proposed models and Bresler–Pister criterion can be effec-
pared with each other and with the experimental [29] and analyt- tively used in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete beams.
ical results [28,30]. As seen from this figure, the load–displacement
curves obtained in this study are in good agreement with the References
experimental and analytical results.
In generally, the results obtained using the compression mod- [1] Ayoub A, Filippou FC. Nonlinear finite-element analysis of RC shear panels and
els, tension models and the yield criteria considered in this study walls. J Struct Eng 1998;124(3):298–308.
[2] Arslan G. Sensitivity study of the Drucker–Prager modeling parameters in the
are in good agreement with the experimental and analytical re- prediction of the nonlinear response of reinforced concrete structures. Mater
sults. Especially, the results of new criterion, Bresler–Pister, show Des 2007;28:2596–603.
excellent agreement with the results obtained by using the other [3] Park H, Klingner RE. Nonlinear analysis of RC members using plasticity with
multiple failure criteria. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):643–56.
criteria and with the experimental and analytical results. [4] Wang T, Hsu TTC. Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures
using new constitutive models. Comput Struct 2001;79:2781–91.
[5] Bratina S, Saje M, Planinc I. On materially and geometrically nonlinear analysis
7. Conclusions
of reinforced concrete planar frames. Int J Solids Struct 2004;41:7181–207.
[6] Zhao ZZ, Kwan AKH, He XG. Nonlinear finite element analysis of deep
Analytical models are presented for the nonlinear finite element reinforced concrete coupling beams. Eng Struct 2004;26:13–25.
analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Based on the Bresler– [7] Pankaj P, Lin E. Material modeling in the seismic response analysis for the
design of RC frames structures. Eng Struct 2005;27:1014–23.
Pister yield function, a plastic material matrix for concrete material [8] Belmouden Y, Lestuzzi P. Analytical model for predicting nonlinear reversed
is constructed. Also, different stress–strain curves of concrete for cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls. Eng Struct
tension and compression behavior are taken into account and the 2007;29:1263–76.
[9] Bitchoff PH. Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in
well-known criteria, Drucker–Prager, von Mises and Mohr Cou- reinforced concrete. Can J Civil Eng 2001;28:363–74.
lomb are also used for the plastic behavior of concrete. [10] Bitchoff PH. Tension stiffening and cracking of steel fiber-reinforced concrete. J
The computer program coded in this study is useful for predict- Mater Civil Eng 2003;15(2):174–82.
[11] Stramandinoli RSB, Rovere HLL. An efficient tension-stiffening model for
ing the behavior of reinforced concrete structures. This program nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete members. Eng Struct
contains the well-known criteria (Drucker–Prager, von Mises, and 2008;30:2069–80.
Mohr Coulomb), a new criterion (Bresler–Pister), stress–strain [12] Dede T, Ayvaz Y. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete beam with/without
tension stiffening effect. Mater Des. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.02.003.
curves for the compression behavior of concrete (elastic–perfectly
[13] Bresler B, Pister KS. Strength of concrete under combined stresses. J Am Concr
plastic and Saenz model), and tension stiffening model ([4], Vec- Inst 1958;55:321–45.
chio 1982 model). [14] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982.
286 T. Dede, Y. Ayvaz / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 278–286

[15] Chen WF. Constitutive equation for engineering materials. New York: Elsevier; [23] Bentz EC. Sectional analysis of reinforced concrete members. Ph.D. Thesis.
1994. University of Toronto; 1999.
[16] Hognestad E. A study of combined and axial load in reinforced concrete [24] Izumo J, Shin H, Maekawa K, Okamura H. An analytical model for RC panels
members. Bulletin series, vol. 399. University of Illinois Engineering Station; subjected to in-plane stresses. Concr Shear Earthq 1992:206–15.
1951. p. 1. [25] Turgay T, Köksal HO, Polat Z, Karakoç C. Stress–strain model for concrete
[17] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress–strain curve of confined with CFRP jackets. Mater Des. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.11.022.
concrete. Cem Concr Res 1973;3(5):583–99. [26] Wong PSL. User facilities for 2D nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced
[18] Collins MP, Porasz A. Shear design of high strength concrete. CEB Bull d’ Inform concrete. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Toronto; 2002.
1989;193:77–83. [27] Bresler B, Scordelis AC. Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams – series II.
[19] Saenz LP. Discussion of equation for the stress–strain curve of concrete by SESM Report No. 64-2. University of California, Berkeley; 1964.
Desayi and Krishnan. Am Concr Inst J 1964;61(3):1229–35. [28] Demir F. Applications of finite element in reinforced concrete elements. Ph.D.
[20] Hoshikuma J, Kazuhiko K, Kazuhiko N, Taylor AW. A model for confinement Thesis. Istanbul Technical University; 1998 [in Türkish].
effect on stress–strain relation of reinforced concrete columns for seismic [29] Burns NH, Siess CP. Load–deformations characteristics of beam–column
design. In: Proceedings of the 11th World conference on earthquake connections in reinforced concrete. Civil Engineering Studies. SRS No. 243.
engineering. London: Elseiver Science; 1996. p. 825. University of Illinois, Urbana; 1962.
[21] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. United States of [30] Barzegar F, Schnobrich WC. Nonlinear finite element analysis of RC under short
America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1975. term monotonic loading. Civil Engineering Studies. SRS No.530. University of
[22] Desayi P, Krishnan S. Equation for the stress–strain curve of concrete. ACI J Illinois, Urbana; 1962.
1964;61:345–50.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi