International Journal of Structural Integrity

A new method for CDP input parameter identification of the ABAQUS software guaranteeing the
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 the uniqueness and precision ", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp.
-
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-03-2016-0010
Downloaded on: 07 March 2017, At: 13:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2017*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543096 []
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

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.

 A New Method for CDP Input Parameter Optimization of the ABAQUS
Software Guaranteeing the Uniqueness and Precision
1. Introduction

Precise description of the concrete behavior has always been a challenging issue in the numerical
simulation of the 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, Liu and Shen (2008) [1, 2]. A
complete classified review of the constitutive models of concrete can be found in the work of
Wai-Fah Chen (2007) [3]. CDP or Concrete Damaged Plasticity model of the ABAQUS standard
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

software [4] is one of those concrete material models which has been developed based on the two
invaluable works conducted by Lubliner et al. (1989) and Lee and Fenves (1998) [5, 6]. This
model has a unique feature that characterizes it from the other existing concrete models; the CDP
model is formulated within a multi-purpose finite element package, i.e., the ABAQUS software.
So, it can be used by the practical and academic engineers easily in a wide range of applications.

In spite of the above mentioned merit advantage, the big challenge in using this material model is
the lake 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 in 2005 [7]. In that
worthy paper, the authors proposed a curve fitting of the flow potential surface in the
compressive meridian plane with the available envelope of failure results of the triaxial
compressive tests for 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 equi-biaxial compressive to uniaxial compressive


strength of concrete ( ), the ratio of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor in


tensile meridian (T.M.) to the corresponding value in the compressive meridian (C.M.) measured
in the plane normal to hydrostatic stress axis ( ) (see Fig. 1) and finally the viscosity parameter
as the predefined constants. Tensile meridian is the location of the triaxial stress state produces in
the principal stress space corresponds to a force exerted in the axial direction followed by a
lateral pressure applied in the radial direction ( = 
=  <  =  ). Accordingly, the
compressive meridian defines 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 ( = 
=  >  =  ). They used the potential function
because that the first two mentioned above 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 versus von-Mises equivalent stress ) for their curve fitting. The author
of this paper believes that the method suggested by Jankowiak and Lodygowski (2005) for input
 parameter identification of the CDP model has not a sound foundation, because that the stress
points they used are the failure points and must be located on the yield or failure surface, not
necessarily on the potential surface according to the theory of the 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 which the last tensor cannot be determined until the damages are known.
Moreover, the potential and yield criterions are the two coupled constraints in the plasticity
which must be satisfied simultaneously in each stress points of the stress space. 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 try and error methods which
attempt to calibrate the developed finite element model with a specific curve obtained from
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

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 desirable results.

Based on the above discussion, the author of this article was 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 author has some experiences on using the CDP model for FE
analysis of concrete structures [7-9]. In those works, the behavior of a normal weight concrete
with 28-days compressive strength of 37.5 MPa was simulated by 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 author on the CDP model
similar to the other existing applications of this model, the verification of the input parameters
was performed based on the calibrating of 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 the 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 remained 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 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 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, every single of
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

the five input parameters of the plasticity part of the CDP model is set to be varied in a
maximum admissible range of variation. Because that the test simulations in the ABAQUS were
made by the Explicit module of the software, so the viscosity parameter was automatically set to
zero by the package. Hence, four remained input parameters are as the dilatation angle,
eccentricity, ratio of the equi-biaxial compressive to uniaxial compressive characteristic strength


of concrete (
 ) and finally the ratio of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor in

tensile meridian to the corresponding value in compressive meridian measured in the plane
normal to hydrostatic stress axis ( ). For dilatation angle the range of variation from zero to 40
degrees was considered. For eccentricity, the variable range from zero to 1 was chosen. For the (




) input parameter the range of variation between 1.1 to 1.2 was assigned and finally for the
( ), 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 1 presents this final
result. From this table, the optimum values for dilation angle and eccentricity are obtained as 35º


and 0.1 respectively. The (

) and  are also obtained as 1.12 and 0.67 respectively. Tables 2
through table 6 present other needed input parameters of the CDP model considered as invariable
parameters in the proposed parameter identification approach. Table 2 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 3 gives the compressive behavior of the CDP model
which derived in this study from the empirical model of Mander, Priestley and Park (1988) for a
concrete with 37.5 MPa characteristic strength and inputted into the CDP model [10]. This
compressive behavior will be explained in section 3. Tensile behavior of the concrete under
study was represented in table 4. The data of this table was derived from the model of Rots and
Borst (1989) [11]. Tables 5 and 6 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.

At 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.
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

3. Uniaxial Compression Test of Concrete Cylinder

For assigning the appropriate quantities for the material input parameters of the CDP model
considering the uniaxial compressive behavior, i.e., input parameters outlined in table 3, the
author 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 which citing them here seems useless. One
of the most versatile of them which has been cited extensively in the scientific literature is the
work of Mander, Priestley and Park (1988) [10].They have tried in that work 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 versus axial) pressure for a range of concretes with different 28-days compressive
strengths [10]. The following relation is their final finding:

  
 =   (1)




 =  (2)





 =  1 + 5  − 1"# (3)



%
$=% (4)
 %&'

( = 5000*
+ (MPa) (5)


(,- =  (6)

 In the above relations,  denotes the uniaxial compressive stress,  indicates the corresponding
strain+ is the compressive strength of the confined concrete, +
and  denotes the unconfined
concrete strength (in this study considered as 37.5 MPa) and corresponding strain respectively.
 is generally considered as 0.002 and the same value is used in the current study. ( is defined
as the tangent initial modulus of elasticity of concrete. In this study, according to the relation (5),
the initial elastic modulus was considered as 33000 MPa (see table 2). According to the 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 CDP model.
Note that in this stage of the study, the effects of the confining pressures were not considered, so

the + was set equal to 
+
and  was set equal to  which resulted in  =   = 1 in the

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 displacement
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

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 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 plate was fixed in the model. The
interaction between the platens and 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. 3 mm was defined as the ultimate axial compressive
displacement and the smooth step type for imposing displacements from zero to that ultimate
value was considered. By this type of inputting axial displacement, the dynamic effects are
removed. F.E. model of the concrete cylinder has been shown in Fig. 2. 8130 linear hexahedral
elements of type C3D8R with the mesh size of 10 mm and the total number of 9176 nodes were
used in the modeling after performing several analyses to obtain a mesh-insensitive model.
Because that the Explicit/Dynamic type of analysis was used for modeling, no convergence
difficulty was observed.

Fig. 3 compares two stress-strain curves, one obtained from the developed proposed model in the
ABAQUS software and that 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 for the nominal stresses 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 Fig. 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 Concrete Cylinder

For verifying the performance of CDP model in uniaxial tension state of stress, the developed
F.E. concrete cylinder model used in section 3 was subjected to a uniaxial tensile displacement.
So, the similar number and type of the elements were used. By this way, the effect of finite
element mesh becomes vanish 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 4 required for this
test simulation, the experimental curve was extracted from the work of the Rots and Borst (1989)
as an extensive cited valid reference [11]. Fig. 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 [3]. It can be seen that the peak stress level
obtained from test simulation by CDP model, i.e., 3.335 MPa, has a good agreement with the
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

direct uniaxial tensile strength of the proposed concrete, i.e., 3.5 MPa (error is about 4.7%).
Furthermore, the obtained curve is very similar to the curve presented by Chen (2007) in the
page 81 of his book [3].

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 the
ABAQUS software [12]. Again, due to the reason mentioned in previous section, the same
ABAQUS concrete cylinder F.E. model used in sections 3 and 4 was implemented for this test
simulation. Fig. 5 shows the tensile damage evolution in the cylinder model which can properly
represent the cleavage of the real specimen. Fig. 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 % with the corresponding experimental value [12].

6. Cyclic Compressive Test of Concrete Cylinder

After examining the behavior of the concrete cylinder model under the 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 initial step, seven steps were
defined in the module Step. For steps one to seven the following boundary axial displacements
were assigned respectively: -0.55, +0.28, -1.2, +0.32, -1.8, +0.23, -3.6 mm. As it was mentioned
in section 2, only for this specific test simulation, the tensile and compressive damages must be
inputted in the CDP model. The values of tables 5 and 6 were used for this purpose. The finite
element mesh specifications of this model are the same as the models used in the previous above
test simulations. The obtained stress-strain curve from the developed model under cyclic
compression test is depicted and compared with the experimental curve [13] in Fig.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 investigated by the author.

7. Biaxial Compressive Test of Concrete Cube

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 et al. (1969) [14]. At first, the biaxial compression test was
simulated. Based on the above work, three stress states were modeled: 
/=-1/0; 
/=-1/-1;

/=-1/-0.52. For modeling, the symmetry 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
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

of the cube was modeled. C3D8R elements with the size of 5 mm gave the most exact and mesh-
insensitive results and therefore was used for all these models. Fig. 8 shows the test model in the
stress state of 
/=-1/-1 with its corresponding damage evolutions for example. For the sake
of brevity, the obtained stress-strain curves of the models corresponding to the stress states 
/
 =-1/0 and 
/=-1/-1 were compared with the experimental work of Kupfer et al. (1969) [14]
in Figs 9 and 10. A good agreement between the numerical and experimental curves can be
observed from these Figs.

8. Triaxial Compressive Test of Concrete Cylinder

To investigate the applicability of the proposed CDP model under triaxial stress state, the
concrete cylinder model with the same F.E. mesh characteristics used in sections 3 through 6 was
subjected to the three different confining (lateral or redial) pressures; 10%, 20% and 50% of the
compressive strength of the concrete under study corresponds to the 3.75, 7.5 and 18.75 Mega
Pascal’s confining pressures 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. Fig. 11 shows the ABAQUS model of the concrete used for simulating the triaxial
compression test. In Figs. 12 and 13, the obtained stress-strain curves of the model has compared
with the result of the reference [1]. 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 the reference [1], 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 1 to 6, 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 and
his co-workers in 2007 [15] 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 ABAQUS
were obtained from the reference 15. In that reference, several kinds of the two-way slabs have
been tested. In this study, only the homogeneous type with the label ‘H’ was selected for
simulation. Homogeneous means that the slab has no opening. The slab shape is square with the
length of 2.6 m. Slab’s thickness is 100 mm. Slab is reinforced with two steel bar layers in x and
z axes. The diameter of the steel bars is 5 mm and the space between them is 150 mm. The yield
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

strength of the steel bars is 510 MPa. Uniaxial compressive strength of the concrete of the slab is
40 MPa which is very close to the concrete strength which its CDP model has been identified in
the current study (37.5 Mpa). Fig. 14 shows assemble of the slab in ABAQUS and Fig. 15
indicates the mesh of the slab. For the slab mesh, 26928 of 3D solid elements labeled as C3D8R
from ABAQUS element library with the size of near 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. Fig.
16 illustrates the loading conditions. As it can be seen from this Fig., the load is applied upside-
down in the laboratory according to reference 15. Vertical displacement distributions in the slab
for the above mentioned support conditions are shown in Fig. 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 lab
reported by Enochsson et. al. (2007) in Fig. 18. As it can be seen from this Fig., the proposed
model predicts maximum load carried with the slab as about 35 kN per square meter which is
very close (3% error) to the experimental result reported by Enochsson et. al. (2007) as 36.1 kN
per square meter (see table 7).The CDP model of ABAQUS can indicate the regions which
experience damage during the applying load. Fig. 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 Fig. that
the cracking of the slab similar to the experimental slab (Fig. 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
[16]. In the current study, a concrete with characteristic strength of 40 MPa was selected from
the above mentioned work which is close to the characteristic strength of the concrete under
 study. Fig. 21 shows the setup of the test in the lab [16]. The supports and load edge were
considered as rigid parts. The simulated test in the ABAQUS by the author has been presented
in Fig 22. For modeling the beam in the ABAQUS software, 27082 C3D4 type elements were
used to obtain a minimum mesh-insensitive model, see Fig. 23. The evolution of the resulted
mode one crack predicted by the proposed model is illustrated in Fig. 24. The obtained load-
deflection curve from the current model has compared with the experimental load-deflection
curve reported by Chen and Su (2013) [16] in Fig. 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 about the 8 percent.

10. Conclusions
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

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 calibrating of some behavior 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 set of input parameters for CDP
model can be obtained depending on the different applications of the CDP model in the RC
structures. This motivated the author 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. A same error functions were defined for each of these test:
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 this 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 CDP model for simulating the behavior of a reinforced
concrete slab and a three-point pre-notched bending beam gave the satisfactory results. By this
way, a unique set of input parameters of CDP model can be obtained for each specific class of
concrete.

References
[1] Papanikolaou, V. K. and Kappos, A. J. “ Confinement-sensitive plasticity constitutive model for concrete in
triaxial compression”. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44, pp. 7021-7048, (2007).

[2] Wang, Z. L., Liu, Y. S. and Shen, R. F. “ Stress-strain relationship of steel fiber-reinforced concrete under
dynamic compression”. Construction and Building Materials, 22, pp. 811-819, (2008).
 [3] Chen, W. F. “ Plasticity in reinforced concrete”. J. Ross Publishing, Inc., 5765 N. Andrews Way, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33309, USA, 2007.

[4] ABAQUS6.11 Theory Manual. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA, (2011).

[5] Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oliver, S. and Onate, E. “ A plastic-damage model for concrete”. International Journal of
Solid Structures, 25 (3), pp. 299-326, (1989).

[6] Lee, J. and Fenves, G. L. “ Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures”. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 124 (8), pp. 892-900.

[7] Jankowiak, T., Lodygowski, T. “ Identification of parameters of concrete damage plasticity constitutive model”.
Foundation of Civil and Environmental Engineering, No. 6, pp. 53-69, 2005.

[7] Labibzadeh, M. and Elahifar, T. “ 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:
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

10.2749/101686614X14043795570093, (2015).

[8] Labibzadeh, M. “ 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, DOI:
10.1080/19648189.2015.1013637, (2015).

[9] Labibzadeh, M. “ 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, 6 (3), (2015).

[10] Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. “ Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete”. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 114 (8), pp. 1804-1826, (1988).

[11] Rots, J. G., and Borst, R. “ Analysis of concrete fracture in “direct” tension”. International of Solids and
Structures, 25 (12), pp. 1381-1394, (1989).

[12] Nihal Arioglu, Z. Canan Girgin, and Ergin Arioglu. “ 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, (2006).

[13] Byong Youi Bahn and Cheng-Tzu Thomas Hsu. “ Stress-strain behavior of concrete under cyclic loading”. ACI
Material Journal, pp. 187-193, (1998).

[14] Kupfer, H. “ Das verhalten des betons unter zweiachsiger beanspruchung ”. Techn. Hochsch. Munchen,
Lehrstuhl Massivbau Ber. 18., (1969).

[15] Enochsson, O., Lundqvist, J., Ta¨ljsten, B., Rusinowski, P. and T., Olofsson. “CFRP strengthened openings in
two-way concrete slabs –An experimental and numerical study”. Construction and Building Materials, 21:810-826,
(2007).

[16] Chen, H. H., and Su., R. K. L. “ Tension stiffening curves of plane concrete”. Journal of Construction and
Building Materials, 44, pp. 440-451, (2013).
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. 1. Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane, corresponding to different values of


Fig. 2. Compression test of concrete cylinder in ABAQUS software

Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. 3. Uniaxial compressive stress-strain curves for proposed concrete

Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. 4. Uniaxial direct tension test- Model obtained stress-strain curve

Fig. - 5. Split-cylinder test – tensile damages at peak stress level

Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. - 6. Split-cylinder test- Maximum principal stresses (Mpa)

 Fig. - 7. Cyclic compression test of concrete cylinder

 

 
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

A) B)

Fig. 8. Biaxial compression test of concrete cube:  /=-1/-1

A) Compressive damages B) Tensile damages

Biaxial Compression : σ1/σ2=-1/0
f'c=37.5 MPa
Current study
Kupfer 1969-[14]
1.2

0.8
σ1/f'c

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Axial Strain (mm/mm

Fig. 9. Biaxial Compression test- σ1/σ2=-1/0

 Biaxial Compression : σ1/σ2=-1/-1
f'c=37.5 MPa
Current study
Kupfer 1969-[14]
1.4
1.2
1
σ1/f'c

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

0
-0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Axial Strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 10. Biaxial Compression test- σ1/σ2=-1/-1

 Fig. 11.Abaqus model for triaxial compression test

Triaxial Compression-10% Confinement

Papanikolaou 2007- [1]
Current study

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
σ3/fc

0.80
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10

ε3/εc ; εc=0.002

Fig. 12. Effect of confining pressures on the stress-strain curve in triaxial compression
test
 Triaxial Compression-20% Confinement

Papanikaou 2007- [1]

Current study
2.50

2.00
σ3/fc

1.50

1.00
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

0.50

0.00
0 5 10 15

ε3/εc ; εc=0.002

Fig. 13. Effect of confining pressures on the stress-strain curve in triaxial compression
test

Fig. 14. Abaqus model of the RC two-way slab

Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. - 15. Abaqus mesh of the RC two-way slab

Fig. 16. Upside-down uniformly distributed pressure on the slab

Fig. 17. Vertical deflections of the slab

 Load-Deflection curves of two-way RC slab
Enochsson et. al. 2007- [15]

Current study

40
35
30
Load (kN)

25
20
15
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80
Defflections (mm)

Fig. 18. Load-deflection curves of the slab

Fig. 19. Tensile damage evolution in the slab with elastic support
 Fig. 20 Crack pattern of a slab in laboratory [15]
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. 21. Experimental setup of three-point test: (a) loading and measuring system; (b) schema of
front view; (c) schema of rear view [16]

Fig. 22. Three-point bending test setup simulated in ABAQUS

Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Fig. 23. Mesh of the beam in three-point bending test

 Fig. 24. Crack growth in the beam at different stages of loading monitored by tensile damage
parameter of developed CDP model in current study
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Load-Deflection curves of three-point bending test

Chen and Su 2013- [16]

Current study

2.5

2
Load (kN)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Defflections (mm)

Fig. 25. Load-deflection curves in three-point bending test

 Table 1. CDP input data for concrete with
 = 37.5 MPa-Plasticity

ψ = Dilatation Angle 35º

e= Eccentricity 0.1

F= σ bo / σ co 1.12

qTM
Κc = 0.67
q CM

Table 2. CDP input data for concrete with
 = 37.5 MPa-Elasticity
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

Young's Modulus (MPa) 33000

Poisson's Ratio 0.18

Mass density 1e-5

Table 3. CDP input data for concrete with
 = 37.5 MPa-Compressive Behavior

Compressive Behavior

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
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
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
36.72 0.0024 24.543 0.0053 9.893 0.014
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

36.408 0.0025 24.188 0.0054 8.61 0.016

36.061 0.0026 23.842 0.0055 7.607 0.018
35.685 0.0027 23.502 0.0056 6.803 0.02
35.285 0.0028 23.17 0.0057

Table 4. CDP input data for concrete with
 = 37.5 MPa-Tensile Behavior

Tensile Behavior

Stress (MPa) Inelastic Strain %

3.5 0
3.15 2.24E-005
2.45 0.000269
1.75 0.000448
1.05 0.000628
0.35 0.000807
Table 5. CDP input data for concrete with
 = 37.5 MPa-Compression Damage

Compression Damage

Damage parameter Inelastic Strain %

0 0
0.08 0.003
0.2 0.004
0.31 0.005
0.4 0.006
0.48 0.007
0.54 0.008
 0.58 0.009
0.6 0.01
0.6 0.011
0.6 0.012

Table 6. CDP input data for concrete with
 = 37.5 MPa-Tension Damage

Tension Damage

Damage parameter Inelastic Strain %

0 0
0.1 2.24E-005
0.3 0.000269
Downloaded by Fudan University At 13:01 07 March 2017 (PT)

0.5 0.000448
0.7 0.000628
0.9 0.000807

Table 7. load capacity of the slab reported by Enochsson et. al. (2007) [15]