Mechanics of Materials 2010 Part 14 doc

Since the damage flow rule is now derived from the secant compliance evolution law, the compliance evolution law must be defined.. Fortunately, it can be defined in a similar manner as the

Draft20.1 “Plasticity” format of damage mechanics 3 Multiplying Eq 20.10 by C−1 s from the right side and introducing this relation into Eq 20.9 results in the expression for the degrading strain in terms of the compliance evolution:

This expression may be attributed to Ortiz (Ortiz and Popov 1985), Neilsen and Schreyer (?), and Carol

et al (?) It relates the change of compliance to the change of degrading strain Thus the damage flow

rule may be determined if the evolution of the secant compliance is known

Since the damage flow rule is now derived from the secant compliance evolution law, the compliance evolution law must be defined Fortunately, it can be defined in a similar manner as the damage strain flow rule, such that

˙

where ˙λ d is still the damage multiplier, and Md is defined as the direction of the rate of change of the secant compliance, a fourth order tensor Substituting this new relation into Eq 20.10 results in a

relation between Md and the damage flow direction md,

Thus by defining the fourth order tensor Md, the evolution of both the secant compliance Cs and the degrading strains dmay be determined

The previous relations provide a general framework for material degradation based on a failure surface This surface can take many forms, resulting in damage formulations ranging from simple (1− D) scalar damage to fully anisotropic damage Before discussing anisotropic damage, however,

concepts from the simpler isotropic damage will be presented

20.1.1 Scalar damage

Before considering anisotropic damage, where material degradation is based on the direction of loading, first consider the case of simple isotropic damage, in which material degradation is expressed through a

scalar parameter D In scalar damage, the reduction of the elastic stiffness E o to the secant stiffness E s

due to material damage is defined by

where the damage parameter D provides a measure of the reduction of the stiffness due to the formation

of microcracks

One of the key concepts in damage mechanics is the idea of nominal and effective stresses and strains Material degradation may be thought of as the average effect of distributed microcracks As microcracks form in a material subjected to load, the area of the material cross-section that remains intact and able to transmit force decreases This decrease in “load-bearing” cross-sectional area leads

to the idea of “effective” stress and strain Effective stress and effective strain are defined as stress and strain experienced by the material skeleton between microcracks, in other words the stress and strain

in that “load-bearing” cross-section However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the stresses

in the material between microcracks The stresses and strains obtained in the laboratory are measured externally and satisfy equilibrium and compatibility at the structural level These stresses and strains

Draft4 DAMAGE MECHANICS

ε zz

σ zz

eff

σ zz eff

ε zz

Figure 20.2: Nominal and effective stress and strain

and nominal quantities are equal Therefore, again considering a scalar damage factor D, the

nomi-nal/effective relations for strain are

W = 1

2σE = W

eff= 1

2σ

effEeff

σeffEeff= σE with σeff= E o Eeff , σ = (1 − D)E o E

σ = √

1− Dσeff

; Eeff=√

Defining a change of scalar variable to φ and φ, such that

φ = 1

φ =

√

results in the nominal and effective stress/strain relations:

σ = φσeff ; σeff= φσ ; Eeff= φE ; E = φEeff (20.18)

While defining degradation in terms of a scalar parameter such as D provides a simple means of

quantifying material damage, it is in fact too simple for many situations The basic idea of scalar damage is that damage is isotropic; the material strength and stiffness degrades equally in all directions due to a load in any direction However, this is generally not the case The orientation of microcracks (and thus the direction of strength and stiffness reduction associated with the average effect of these microcracks) is related to the direction of the tensile load causing the microcracks The material integrity

in other directions should not be greatly affected by cracking in one direction A more general damage formulation is needed, one which only considers damage in the direction(s) of loading This direction-sensitive formulation is anisotropic damage

Chapter 21

OTHER CONSITUTIVE MODELS

21.1.1 Microplane Models

Models based on the microplane concept represent an alternative approach to constitutive modeling Unlike conventional tensorial models that relate the components of the stress tensor directly to the components of the strain tensor, microplane models work with stress and strain vectors on a set of

planes of various orientations (so-called microplanes) The basic constitutive laws are defined on the

level of the microplane and must be transformed to the level of the material point using certain relations between the tensorial and vectorial components The most natural choice would be to construct the stress and strain vector on each microplane by projecting the corresponding tensors, i.e., by contracting the tensors with the vector normal to the plane However, it is impossible to use this procedure for both the stress and the strain and still satisfy a general law relating the vectorial components on every microplane The original slip theory for metals worked with stress vectors as projections of the stress

tensor; this is now called the static constraint Most versions of the microplane model for concrete and soils have been based on the kinematic constraint, which defines the strain vector e on an arbitrary

microplane with unit normaln as

e = ε · n

where ε is the strain tensor and the dot denotes a contraction In indicial notation, equation (21.1.1)

would read1

e i = ε ij n j

The microplane stress vector, s, is defined as the work-conjugate variable of the microplane strain

vector, e The relationship between e and s is postulated as a microplane constitutive equation A

formula linking the microplane stress vector to the macroscopic stress tensor follows from the principle

Draft2 OTHER CONSITUTIVE MODELS

Ω is taken as one half of the unit sphere, and the integral is normalized by the area of the unit hemisphere,

2π/3.

Substituting (21.1.1) into (21.1.1) and taking into account the independence of variations δ ε, we

obtain (after certain manipulations restoring symmetry) the following formula for the evaluation of macroscopic stress components:

σ = 3

4π

 Ω (s ⊗ n + n ⊗ s) dΩ

where the symbol⊗ denotes the direct product of tensors (s⊗n is a second-order tensor with components

s i n j)

In summary, a kinematically constrained microplane model is described by the kinematic constraint (21.1.1), the stress evaluation formula (21.1.1), and a suitable microplane constitutive law that relates the microplane strain vector,e, to the microplane stress vector, s If this law has an explicit form (Carol,

I., Baˇzant, Z.P and Prat, P.C., 1992)

s = ˜s(e, n)

then the resulting macroscopic stress-strain law can be written as

σ = 3

4π

 Ω [˜s(e, n) ⊗ n + n ⊗ ˜s(e, n)] dΩ

Realistic models for concrete that take into account the complex interplay between the volumetric and deviatoric components of stress and strain (Baˇzant and Prat 1988, ?, Baˇzant 1996) usually lead to more general microplane constitutive laws of the type

s = ˜s(e, n; σ)

that are affected by some components of the macroscopic stress,σ, for example by its volumetric part.

Instead of a direct evaluation of the explicit formula (21.1.1), the macroscopic stress is then computed

as the solution of an implicit equation, and the stress-evaluation algorithm involves some iteration

Bibliography

399, A.: n.d., Standard Test Method for Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, E399–74,

Annual Book of ASTM Standards

Anon.: 1985, RILEM Draft Recommendation (50–FCM): Determination of the Fracture Energy of

Mortar and Concrete by Means of Three–Point Bend Tests on Notched Beams, Materials and

Structures 18, 287–290.

Baˇzant, Z.: 1996, Is no tension design of concrete or rock structures always safe?-fracture analysis, ASCE

J of Structural Engineering 122(1), 2–10.

Baˇzant, Z and Prat, P.: 1988, Effect of temperature and humidity on fracture energy of concrete, ACI

Materials Journal 85(4), 262–271.

British Standards Institution, BS 5447, London: 1977.

Broek, D.: 1986, Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 4th Edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Carol, I., Baˇzant, Z.P and Prat, P.C.,: 1992, Microplane type constitutive models for distributed damage

and localized cracking in concrete structures, Proc Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures,

Elsevier, Breckenridge, CO, pp 299–304

Chen, W and Zhang, H.: 1990, Structural Plasticity, Springer-Verlag.

Cherepanov, G.: 1979, Mechanics of Brittle Fracture, McGraw-Hill.

Erdogan, F and Sih, G.C.: 1963, On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse

shear, Journal of Basic Engineering 85, 519–527.

Foreman, R., Kearney, V and Engle, R.: 1967, Numerical analysis of crack propagation in cyclic-loaded

structures, J of Basic Engineering 89, 459–464.

Gdoutos, E.: 1993, Fracture Mechanics; An Introduction, Kluwer Academic Press.

Griffith, A.: 1921, The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Phil Trans Roy Soc London

Draft2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Irwin, G.: 1962, The crack extension force for a part through crack in a plate, Transactions ASME, J.

Appl Mech.

Kelly, A.: 1974, Strong Solids, second edn, Oxford University Press.

Miller, M and Gallagher, J.: 1981, An analysis of several fatigue crack growth rate (fcgr) descriptions, in

S Hudak Jr and R Bucci (eds), Fatigue Crack Growth Measurements and Data Analysis, ASTM

STP 738, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 205–251.

Mostovoy, e a.: 1967, Use of crack-line loaded specimens for measuring plane strain fracture toughness,

J of Materials 2(3), 661–681.

Murakami, Y.: 1987, Stress Intensity Factors Handbook, Pergamon Press (2 Vols).

Newman, J.: 1971, An improved method of collocation for the stress analysis of cracked plates with

various shaped boundaries, Technical Report NASA TN D-6376, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA

Newman, J and Raju, I.: 1981, An emperical stress intensity factor equation for surface cracks,

Engi-neering Fracture Mechanics 15, 185–192.

Ortiz, M and Popov, E.: 1985, Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic

consti-tutive relations, Int J Num Meth Eng 21, 1561–1576.

Ouchterlony, F.: 1982, Fracture toughness testing of rock, Technical report, SveDeFo, Swedish Detonic

Research Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden

Ouchterlony, F.: 1986, Suggested methods for determining fracture toughness of rock material, Technical

report, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on Testing Methods.

Paris, P and Erdogan, F.: 1963, A critical analysis of crack propagation laws, J of Basic Engineering,

ASME.

Rooke, D and Cartwright, D.: 1976, Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors, HMSO, London.

Sih, G., Paris, P and Irwin, G.: 1965, On cracks in rectilinearly anisotropic bodies, International Journal

of Fracture Mechanics.

Tada, H., Paris, P and Irwin, G.: 1973, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Del Research

Corpo-ration, Hellertown, PA

Walker, E.: 1970, The effect of stress ratio during crack propagation and fatigue for 2024-t3 and 7075-t6

aluminum, in M Rosenfeld (ed.), Effects of Environment and Complex Load History on Fatigue

Life, ASTM STP 462.

Westergaard, H.: 1939, Bearing pressures and cracks, J Appl Mech.

Wheeler, O.: 1972, Spectrum loading and crack growth, J of Basic Engineering 94, 181–186.

Willenborg, J., Engle, R and Wood, R.: 1971, A crack growth retardation model using an effective stress

concept, Technical report, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Report, AFFDL-TM-71-1-FBR.