06 ATI V5 Issue5 Lie and Purnomo Finite Element Modeling Incorp

Finite element modeling incorporating non-linearity of material behavior
based on the fib Model Code 2010 | ATI, November 2011

- 52 - 2011 Prague Development Center
Peer-reviewed & Open access journal
www.academicpublishingplatforms.com
ATI - Applied Technologies & Innovations
Volume 5 | Issue 2 | November 2011 |pp.52-62
Finite element modeling incorporating non-
linearity of material behavior based on the fib
Model Code 2010
Han Ay Lie,
1
Joko Purnomo
2

1
Civil Engineering Department, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
2
Researcher, Structural and Material Laboratory, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
e-mails: ayliehan@indosat.net.id, a.joko.purnomo@gmail.com
Non linearity is a prominent characteristic of most cement-based material. This nonlinear
behavior is observed even at very low loading levels. When strain softening is present, the
increase in loading will result in a decrease of structural stiffness. Most existing programs,
including SAP 2000, takes into account geometric nonlinearity, but assumes a constant
stiffness modulus throughout the loading process. This will result in a less accurate outcome,
and can further significantly influence analysis of the overall behavior of the structure. A
Finite Element Program written in the Visual Basic programming language was developed to
take into account nonlinear behavior of the modulus of elasticity and the Poisson Ratio, as a
function of increasing principal stresses. The results of this program were validated by
laboratory tested specimens to compare the load-deformation response and accuracy of the
model. The Federal Institute of Technology, Europe Model Code 2011 was used to model the
material behavior and failure criterion.
Keywords: Modulus, principal stresses, nonlinearity, FEM.
Introduction
Finite element modeling is a process of subdividing all systems into their individual
components, whose behavior is readily understood, and then rebuilding the original
system from such components, to study its behavior (Cook et al., 2002; Bathe, 2002;
Zienkiewicz et al., 2006). In analysis, an idealization of the real system to a form that can
be analyzed based on equilibrium equations is constructed. From thereon, the obtained
results are interpreted. The stiffness matrix of the structural system is assembled as:
[ ] [ ]
0 1
1
[ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
T T
V
V
K k B E B d t B E B rds
= = =

(1)
The properties of material are included by the introduction of the material constitutive
matrix [E] as:
[ ]
2
1 0
1 0
1
1
0 0
2
E
E
(
(
(
= =
(
(

(2)
- 53 -

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

2011 Prague Development Center
Where:
[E] - is the material properties constitutive matrix
E - is the modulus of elasticity, were:
E
c
- is the material modulus of elasticity in compression in MPa
E
t
- is the material modulus of elasticity in tension in MPa
E
ct
- is the material modulus of elasticity in compression-tension in MPa
- is the Poissons ratio of material
Material nonlinearity is incorporated through the [E] matrix. As the material stiffness
modulus decreases under increasing load, the corresponding structural stiffness undergoes
a softening response. At low loading levels the stiffness modulus tend to be linear, but at
higher loading the behavior becomes significantly nonlinear. Assuming a constant stiffness
modulus will lead to substantial deviation from the real behavior.
Most finite element analysis models integrate geometric nonlinear behavior, but assume a
constant stiffness modulus and Poissons ratio throughout the overall loading stage. The
CEB-FIB Model Code 2010 deals with material nonlinearity in detail. The finite element
model developed is based on the material constitutive model and failure criteria as
proposed by this code. The model is written in the Visual Basic language and constructed
as a two dimensional plain stress model.
Constitutive models for cementitious materials
The most recent CEB-FIB Code is based on the CEB-FIB Report 2008 (Bulletin 42, Task
Group 8.2) and research conducted by Ottosen (1977, 1979); Hillerborg (1983); Vecchio
and Collins (1986) and Dahl (1992).
Modulus of elasticity
The material behavior for concrete is expressed either in terms of the three stress
invariants
1 2 3
( , , ) 0 f = in the Haigh-Westergaard system, or in the hydrostatic system
as; ( , , ) 0 f = . Tensile stresses are signed positive and compression negative.
Expressed in terms of their invariants, the function becomes
1 2
( , , cos3 ) 0 f I J = .
Ottosen (1977) constructed a four parameter model for compression behavior that was
validated by numerous experimental test results. The model is written as:

2 2
1
1
4 ( 1)
2
cm cm
J
I
A B
f A f

(
= +
(
(

(3)

Where,
2
J - is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor =
1
2
ij ji
S S
I
1
- is the first invariant of stress tensors =
ii

- is a coefficient as a function to K
1
and K
2

A, B, K
1
and K
2
- are Ottosen (1977) parameters , as a function of
tm
cm
f
k
f
=

cm
f - is the uniaxial compressive strength in MPa from experimental test results
tm
f - is the uniaxial tensile strength in MPa from experimental test results
Further, Ottosen (1979) developed an algorithm to incorporate nonlinearity by
introducing the nonlinearity index , relating the actual minor principal stress in
compression
2
to the stress at failure state in compression
2 f
f .
At failure the value of
1 = .
2
2 f
f
=

(4)
Where:
2
- is the minor principal compression stress in MPa,
2
<
1

f
2f
-

is the compression failure stress of concrete in MPa assuming a constant
1

For this research work, the failure surface is further transformed to the octahedral plane
f(
oct
,
oct
). The transformation of the meridian system to the octahedral stresses is as
following:
1
3
oct
I
=
and
2
2
3
oct
J
=
(5)

FIGURE 1. FAILURE SURFACE TRANSFORMATION FROM THE
MERIDIAN TO THE OCTAHEDRAL PLANE

oct
cm
f

- 55 -

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s


The failure surfaces based on experimental data are presented in Figure 1. The value of f
2f

having a constant
1
is derived from the octahedral - relationship based on the Mohrs
circle theorem.
The expression of the secant modulus under multi-axial loading is generated from the
stress-stain curves developed by Sarin and further elaborated by Ottosen (1979).
2
0
1
1 2
3
cf cf
f
cf
cf cm
J E
E
J
E
E f
= =
(
+
(
(

(6)
The modulus of elasticity for concrete in compression E
c
at any given stress level can be
calculated using the following equation.
2
2
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
c f f f
E E E E E E E E
(
=
(

(7)
The two equations (6) and (7) are used to generate the stiffness modulus at any loading
stage in the Finite Element model.
For tensile behavior, the code proposed a bilinear function. The first branch holds till
90% to the tension strength f
tm
, than micro cracks significantly reduce the stiffness of the
material. Stresses and deformations in the facture process are described using a stress-crack
opening diagram (Hillerborg, 1983). The equations incorporated into the FEM are:
0 t
E E = for
1
0.9
tm
f
(8)
0
0
0
0.1
0.00015 0.9
tm
t
tm
f E
E E
E f
=
for
1
0.9
tm tm
f f <
(9)
Where:
E
0
- is the initial Youngs Modulus in compression MPa
oct
= f(J
2
)
oct
= f(I
1
)
2

f
2f

Octahedral failure curve
D E = +

2 1
2
f
f

(
i
,
i
)
1 2
2
f
f +

E
E
cf
-

is the uniaxial secant modulus at failure in compression in MPa
E
t
- is modulus in tension as a function of strain
f
cm
- is the uniaxial compressive strength in MPa
f
tm
- is the uniaxial tensile strength in MPa
- is the nonlinearity index from (4)
J
2
- is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
1
-

is the major principal tensile stress in MPa from
When non uniforms stresses (tension and compression) are present, the work of Vecchio
and Collins (1986) is used to modify the stiffness modulus (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2. STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR FOR BIAXIAL STRESSES
(VECCHIO AND COLLINS, 1986)

For elements in combined tension and compression, the relationship is expressed as:
1
2max /
1
0.8 0.34
cm
cm
f

=

(10)

2max

f
cm

1
cm

2max
f
cm

1
2max /
1
0.8 0.34
cm
cm
f

=

- 57 -

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

2
2 2
2 2max
2( ) ( )
cm cm
f

(
=
(

and
1 1
f =
(11)
From the equations, the principal stresses taking into account the biaxial stress effect, can
be calculated. The secant modulus of elasticity is calculated.
2
1
(2 )
0.8 0.34
cm
ct cm
cm
E E

(
=
(

and
1 1
f =
(12)
Where:
f
1
- is the major principal stress in tension in MPa
f
2
- is the minor principal stress in compression in MPa
f
cm
- is the concrete compressions strength in uniaxial compression in MPa
E
cm

- is the modulus of elasticity at peak stress in MPa
cm
- is the strain at peak stress in uniaxial compression
1
-

is the principal tensile strain at the i
th
iteration
2
- is the principal compression strain at the i
th
iteration
Poissons ratio
The Poissons ratios for concrete based on tests results vary from 0.14 to 0.26 which fall
within the elastic range (FIB Bulletin Nr. 55, 2010). To account for non-linearity, the
following equations are introduced (Ottosen, 1979; CEB-FIB Bulletin Nr. 42, 2008). The
non-linear Poissons ratio
c
is a function of (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. POISSONS RATIO BEHAVIOR

c i
= for
0

(13)
2
0
0
( ) 1
1
c f f i

| |
=
|
\
for
0
> (14)
N
o
n
-
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
t
y

i
n
d
e
x

o

0.8
1.0
0.2
Where:
i
- is the initial Poissons ratio taken as 0.2
o
- is the initial non-linearity index taken as 0.8
f
- is the secant Poissons ratio from experimental test results
c
- is the Poissons ratio taking into account non-linearity
As for tensile and tensile-compression behavior, the stresses exhibited are low, and the
Poissons ratio is taken as to be the initial Poissons ratio
i.
Failure criteria
The failure criterion is evaluated based on the principal stresses at the Gauss points.
Failure criterion is distinguished as either crushing, or fracture of the matrix. Based on the
Kupfer-Hilsdorf-Ruschs (1969) failure envelope crushing will occur in the third quadrant,
when all principal stresses are in compression. The first quadrant is fracture due to
tension, while the remaining quadrants characterize the tension-compression failure.
Fracture of a Gauss point under a certain loading condition, will influence the stiffness of
its element, and a reduction in the element stiffness matrix will be resulted. Progressive
incremental loading will lead to failure of one or more Gauss point up till collapse of the
element as a whole.
Compression behavior
The ultimate strength under biaxial compression is higher than the strength under uniaxial
compression, resulting in a 15% to 20% increase of the uniaxial compression strength.
The relationship is expressed by an ellipse in the third quadrant (Kupfer et al., 1969; Dahl,
1992; Hampel et al., 2002; 2009). This ellipse depends on the two parameters a and b that
characterize the radii of this ellipse. The center of the ellipse is expressed as c. All these
parameters are a function of the uniaxial compression strength f
cm
. The function is written
as:
2 2
1 2 2 1
2 2
( 2 ) ( )
1
2 2
cm cm cm cm
c
f f f f
a b

+
+ =

(15)
With:
a = f
i
(f
cm
); b = f
2
(f
cm
); c = f
3
(f
cm
)
f
i
(f
cm
)=A
i
(f
cm
)
2
+B
i
f
cm
+C
i
with i =1,2,3
A
i
, B
i
, C
i
are coefficients (Hampel et. al., 2002)
When stress combinations at any loading stage exceed the value in equation (15), the Gauss
point under consideration has failed in compression.
Tensile behavior
The failure envelope of the biaxial tensile stresses lies in the first quadrant of the Kupfer-
Hilsdorf-Ruschs curve. Since the envelope is a symmetrical square, the failure criteria can be
analyzed based on the uniaxial tensile strength. A crack will form when the principal major
tensile strain exceeds the ultimate tensile strain of the material.
Compression-tension behavior
- 59 -

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

The biaxial compression-tension failure envelope can be approached by a linear
relationship. The intersection point between the compression-compression and the tension-
compression area can be considered as a bifurcation point. A boundary of 5% is assumed to
the compression margin, to identify the failure criteria to the compression-compression
failure.
Finite Element Modeling
In the finite element analysis, the model chosen is a four node quadrilateral, having 2 x 2
Gauss Points. The numbering of elements follows the designations as shown in Figure 4.
FIGURE 4. FOUR NODE QUADRILATERAL ELEMENT

The notation X and Y refer to the global coordinate system, while r and s refer to the
natural coordinate system. The notation G
i
for i = 1 to 4 are denoting the Gauss points in
each element.
In order to incorporate the nonlinear material behavior, the program should update the
stiffness modulus of the material for ever loading increment. At primary stages, linear
behavior is assumed, and the constitutive material matrix [E] is set as constant. The initial
tangent stiffness and Poissons ratio are used. For the next increments, the stiffness
matrix is adjusted to the actual secant stiffness, generated from the material behavior
under biaxial stress condition. The resulting load-displacement curves are validated against
the outcome of an identical structure ran through the SAP 2000 program. As the two
resulting curves coincide, the program in considered valid for a constant [E]. Further,
nonlinearity is introduced by reconstructing the [E] matrix to adjust the secant stiffness
modulus of the material, at each loading stage. This stiffness modulus modification is
based on the principal stresses, acting on the Gauss point. The combinations of principal
stresses are distinguished as tension, compression or tension-compression.
Upon reaching convergence, the stress failure criteria based on the Kupfer-Hilsdorf-
Ruschs curve is evaluated. If the particular Gauss point has failed, the stiffness matrix for
this point is set to zero. When this zero matrix is assemblage into the structural matrix, a
reduction in stiffness is resulted. The procedure is repeated, and at every loading
increment, the stresses in the Gauss points will increase, while the material stiffness will
decrease as a result of the softening of the concrete stress-strain curves. As soon as all
r
s

s=+1
s=-1
r=+1
r=-1

r=+
1
3

1
3
r =

1
3
s =

1
3
s = +

Node point
Gauss point
G
i

Y
X
four Gauss points in an element have failed, the element is taken out of the structure. The
remaining nodes are re-arranged and numbered. The process is repeated, consequentially
in the reduction of the size of the structural stiffness matrix.
The program is developed to show the stages of failure at Gauss points, and all resulting
data such as stresses and strains, both in the global system as well as in their principal
direction, are recorded. For the model discussed in this paper (Davies and Nath, 1967),
only half of the structure was generated, since the model was symmetrical. This approach
will provide the opportunity for smaller elements. Meshing was performed by the mesh
generator QUAD beta-version developed in Australia by Dr. Alexander Tsvelikh. The
program consist of two base programs: the QB and QPRO40, the later is to observe the
mesh structure and to evaluate the outputs. The generator is based on the Lagrangian
(Joseph Louis Lagrange, 1813) analysis.
Results and evaluation
The FEM program was validated with the experimental data of Davies and Nath (1967)
who performed flexure tests on plain-concrete beams size 4x4x20. The supports were
placed at a distance of 18 apart, and the two point loadings were positioned at 6 from the
supports. The concrete compression strength was measured to be 5400 lb/inch, and the
ratio of tensile-to-compression strength was 9.1%. The material behavior model was
constructed using the CEB-FIB 2010 code. The compression strength, initial stiffness
modulus, the modulus at peak stress and failure were inputted into the FEM. The
Poissons ratio was taken as 0.3.
To validate the model in the elastic range, an identical model was run by the SAP 2000
program. At this linear stage, the programs load-displacement curve coincides perfectly
with both the SAP 2000 outcome as well as the experimental test results. Then material
non linearity was introduced and the resulting curves, compared.
The size, geometrical configuration and number of elements in a structure will influence
the outcome of the finite element analysis. Using non uniform meshing patterns have the
advantage that areas in tension, which are more susceptible to early failure, can be meshed
closely so that this area is observed in depth. To analyze the influence of the meshing
pattern to the load-displacement curves predicted by the Finite Element Model program, a
range of meshing types were evaluated (Table 1).
TABLE 1. INFLUENCE OF MESHING ANALYSIS MODEL LIST
Notation Element-to-structure
area ratio
Geometric element size
and area
Configuration
A1 1:320 12.7x12.7/ 161.3

A2 1:1280 6.3x6.3/ 40.3

A3 1:640 12.7x12.7/ 161.3
12.7x6.35/ 80.7

A4 1:80 25.4x25.4/ 645.2

- 61 -

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

The loading increment is set as a constant and is 1/20 of the ultimate experimental load.
For all four meshing types the angles are taken 90 degrees and the area difference between
adjacent elements are within the guideline boundaries of 50 to 200% to avoid poor
elements. The resulting curves are presented in Figure 5.
FIGURE 5. LOAD-DISPLACEMENT CURVE COMPARISON

Based on the results, it can be concluded that the ideal element size for this FEM program
lies between 165 to 600 mm
2
, thus an element-to-structure area ratio of 1/80 to 1/640, and
with an element dimension of 12.5 to 25 mm is ideal. It is therefore suggested that the
element meshing for the developed FEM program follows the following guidelines:
1. An element area of 250 to 500 mm
2
, with an element-to-structure area ratio of 1/100 to
1/250 to avoid instability of the structure at high stress stages.
2. Square elements or trapezoids with a ratio of length-to-width ratio close to one, and
interior angles approaching 90
0
to avoid poor elements
3. A progressive loading increment of 20% to the ultimate load at loading for the initial
loading up till 30% of the ultimate load; a 10% loading increment for stages of loading
till 70% of the ultimate load; and a 5% loading increment for stages above these levels,
up till failure.
4. The difference between adjacent elements should be within the guideline boundaries of
50 to 200%.
The model showed a remarkably close prediction to the actual behavior. It is therefore
concluded that the CEB-FIB 2010 code in conjunction with the developed FEM program
is accurate and versatile to predict material non linearity.

18 inch
6 inch
6 inch
References
Bathe, K-J., 2006. Finite element procedures, First edition, Prentice-Hall
Cook, R., Malkus, D., Plesha, M., and Witt, R., 2002, Concepts and applications of finite element analysis,
Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons
Dahl, K., 1992. Rapport 7.6, Project 7, Uniaxial stress-strain curves for normal and high strength concretes,
Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University Denmark
Davies, J. and Nath, P., 1967. Complete load-deformation curves for plain concrete beams, Building
Science, Vol. 2, pp. 215-221, Pergamon Press
Hampel, T., Scheerer, S., Speck, K. and Curbach, M., 2001. High strength concrete under biaxial and triaxial
loading, Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength/High
Performance Concrete, Vol.2, Leipzig, Germany, pp.1027-1036
Hillerborg, A, 1983. Analysis of one single crack, in: Wittman, F. (Ed.), Facture mechanics of concrete,
development in civil engineering 7, Elsevier Science Publisher, Amsterdam, pp.223-49
Kupfer, H., Hilsdorf, H., and Rusch, H., 1969. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses, American
Concrete Institute Journal, Proceedings Vol.66, No.8, August, pp.656-66
Ottosen, N. S., 1977. A failure criterion for concrete, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, Vol.103, No.EM4, pp.527-35
Ottosen, N., 1979. Constitutive model for short-time loading of concrete, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol.105, No.EM1, pp.127-41
Task Group 8.2, CEB-FIB, 2008. State-of-art report on Constitutive modeling of high strength/high
performance concrete, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Switzerland
Vecchio, F. and Collins, M., 1986. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced concrete elements
subjected to shear, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol.83, No.2, pp.219-31
Zienkiewicz, O., Taylor, R., and Zhu, J., 2006. The finite element method for solid and structural
mechanics, Sixth Edition, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, UK
FIB Bulletin, Nr.55 and 56, 2010. Model Code 2010, First Complete Draft, Vol.1 and 2, Federal Institute of
Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

06 ATI V5 Issue5 Lie and Purnomo Finite Element Modeling Incorp

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

06 ATI V5 Issue5 Lie and Purnomo Finite Element Modeling Incorp

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Finite element modeling incorporating non-linearity of material behavior

based on the fib Model Code 2010 | ATI, November 2011

Você também pode gostar