Simulations of Concrete Response to Impact Loading Using Two Regularized Models

Wosatko, Adam; Winnicki, Andrzej; Pamin, Jerzy

doi:10.24423/cames.270

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results for double-edge-notched test are compared with the experiment performed in [ 39 ]. The second numerical test with dynamic direct tension caused by impact loading is carried out for the configuration without or with reinforcement and it is a continuation of the research published in [ 44 ]. The last example concerns tension in the L-shaped specimen, for which static or dynamic problem is solved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second example concerns a dynamic analysis of tensile wave propagation in a concrete specimen without or with reinforcement. The results of an analogical test, but only for one discretization, were presented in [ 44 ]. There were compared two regularized models: Hoffman viscoplasticity and conventional gradient damage (CGD).…”

Section: Numerical Examples Of Direct Tensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not only two, but even three standing waves corresponding to localization zones occur (case dc-LGD-C-2 for mesh C); hence, this response results from an artificial numerical effect and the FEM analysis is mesh-dependent. When

is increased to 8 mm

, then one central zone of localization is anticipated based on the results for the CGD model shown in [ 44 ], but still two damage zones appear. The case of mesh A (dc-LGD-A-8) deviates from those of meshes B (dc-LGD-B-8) and C (dc-LGD-C-8).…”

Section: Numerical Examples Of Direct Tensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first benchmark in the current paper is a double-edge-notched specimen under direct static tension according to [ 39 ]. In addition, based on the numerical analysis presented in [ 44 ], a study of the LGD model is performed for a dynamic direct tension test of plain and reinforced concrete bar. A slightly different investigation refers to fracture in an L-shaped concrete specimen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The split in the concrete cylinder under a static as well as an impact loading can be reproduced using different regularized models, cf. [ 44 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. The tensile strength is also determined for notched or unnotched beams under three-point bending.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Survey of Localizing Gradient Damage in Static and Dynamic Tension of Concrete

Wosatko

2022

Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continuum damage model should be regularized to ensure mesh-insensitive results in simulations of strain localization, e.g., for concrete cracking under tension. The paper confronts the conventional gradient damage model with its upgrade including a variable internal length scale. In these models, the Helmholtz free energy depends additionally on an averaged strain measure and its gradient. In the formulation for dynamics the equations of motion are discretized simultaneously with an averaging equation. If gradient regularization is employed with a constant internal length parameter, then an artificially expanded damage zone can occur in the strain softening analysis. This broadening effect can be inhibited by a gradient activity function. The localizing character of the gradient activity has physical motivation—the nonlocal interactions in the fracture zone are reduced with the damage growth. The internal length can decrease exponentially or as a cosine function. After presentation of the theory, including the free energy definition, the finite element analyses of three different examples connected with tensile cracking in concrete are discussed: static tension of a double-edge-notched specimen, dynamic direct tension for a configuration without or with a reinforcing bar and tension of an L-shaped specimen under static and dynamic loading.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Numerical Examples Of Direct Tensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

is increased to 8 mm

Section: Numerical Examples Of Direct Tensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%