Identification and Interpretation of Microplane Material Laws

The present paper addresses the so-called microplane formulation which became recently more and more popular for the description of quasi-brittle materials. The essential feature of this material formulation is a split of the local microplane strains and stresses allowing one to resort to simplified or in certain cases even unidirectional constitutive laws. The main attraction of the microplane concept is that an initial or evolving anisotropic material behavior can be described in a natural and simple way. Motivated from a macroscopic viewpoint, it is advocated to restrict the microplane concept to the pure volumetric-deviatoric split, as a constraint subset of the most often applied volumetric-deviatoric-tangential split. This variant has the particular advantage that typical macroscopic responses are directly reflected on the mesoscale. It will be shown that in certain cases the present version of a microplane formulation is closely related to well-known macroscopic models although being much more general than those macroscopic formulations. This close relation is exploited to derive physically sound microplane constitutive laws. Therefore the characteristic damage mechanisms of materials at two levels of observation, (1) at the macroscale in the sense of classical continuum damage mechanics, and (2) at the mesoscale utilizing the so-called microplane concept, are examined. The comparison of the microplane formulation to a well-known macroscopic one-parameter damage model enables the identification and interpretation of the microplane constitutive laws. The constitutive formulations are embedded in a thermodynamically consistent framework. Finally, the performance of the attained microplane formulation is analyzed in a mixed-mode fracture simulation of concrete.

[1]  Ekkehard Ramm,et al.  A comparison of damage models formulated on different material scales , 2003 .

[2]  Gian Antonio D'Addetta,et al.  A comparison of discrete granular material models with continuous microplane formulations , 2000 .

[3]  Zdenek P. Bazant,et al.  Geometric damage tensor based on microplane model , 1991 .

[4]  Rhj Ron Peerlings Enhanced damage modelling for fracture and fatigue , 1999 .

[5]  Z. Bažant,et al.  Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials , 1997 .

[6]  Jean Lemaitre,et al.  A Course on Damage Mechanics , 1992 .

[7]  Ferhun C. Caner,et al.  MICROPLANE MODEL M5 WITH KINEMATIC AND STATIC CONSTRAINTS FOR CONCRETE FRACTURE AND ANELASTICITY. II: COMPUTATION , 2005 .

[8]  J. C. Simo,et al.  Strain- and stress-based continuum damage models—I. Formulation , 1987 .

[9]  Rhj Ron Peerlings,et al.  Gradient enhanced damage for quasi-brittle materials , 1996 .

[10]  Wam Marcel Brekelmans,et al.  Comparison of nonlocal approaches in continuum damage mechanics , 1995 .

[11]  H.E.J.G. Schlangen,et al.  Experimental and numerical analysis of fracture processes in concrete : proefschrift , 1993 .

[12]  Zdenek P. Bazant,et al.  Compression Failure of Quasibrittle Material: Nonlocal Microplane Model , 1992 .

[13]  R.H.J. Peerlings,et al.  Computational damage mechanics , 1999 .

[14]  Zdenek P. Bazant,et al.  Microplane Constitutive Model and Metal Plasticity , 2000 .

[15]  Egidio Rizzi,et al.  A unified theory of elastic degradation and damage based on a loading surface , 1994 .

[16]  Jiann-Wen Ju,et al.  ISOTROPIC AND ANISOTROPIC DAMAGE VARIABLES IN CONTINUUM DAMAGE MECHANICS , 1990 .

[17]  Rhj Ron Peerlings,et al.  Gradient‐enhanced damage modelling of concrete fracture , 1998 .

[18]  J. Ju,et al.  On energy-based coupled elastoplastic damage theories: Constitutive modeling and computational aspects , 1989 .

[19]  Ekkehard Ramm,et al.  An anisotropic gradient damage model for quasi-brittle materials , 2000 .

[20]  Paul Steinmann,et al.  A thermodynamically consistent approach to microplane theory. Part II. Dissipation and inelastic constitutive modeling , 2001 .

[21]  Ferhun C. Caner,et al.  Microplane Model M4 for Concrete. I: Formulation with Work-Conjugate Deviatoric Stress , 2000 .

[22]  Milan Jirásek,et al.  Nonlocal integral formulations of plasticity and damage : Survey of progress , 2002 .

[23]  Ignacio Carol,et al.  Damage and plasticity in microplane theory , 1997 .

[24]  Dusan Krajcinovic,et al.  Damage tensors and the crack density distribution , 1993 .

[25]  Kanatani Ken-Ichi DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECTIONAL DATA AND FABRIC TENSORS , 1984 .

[26]  Milan Jirásek,et al.  A thermodynamically consistent approach to microplane theory. Part I. Free energy and consistent microplane stresses , 2001 .

[27]  Pere C. Prat,et al.  Microplane Model for Brittle-Plastic Material: I. Theory , 1988 .

[28]  Z. Bažant,et al.  CRACK SHEAR IN CONCRETE: CRACK BAND MICROPLANE MODEL , 1984 .

[29]  Jan Cervenka,et al.  Equivalent localization element for crack band approach to mesh‐sensitivity in microplane model , 2005 .

[30]  Zdeněk P. Bažant,et al.  New explicit microplane model for concrete: Theoretical aspects and numerical implementation , 1992 .

[31]  Byung H. Oh,et al.  Microplane Model for Progressive Fracture of Concrete and Rock , 1985 .