4.7 Article

Evaluation of typical concrete material models used in hydrocodes for high dynamic response simulations

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 132-146

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.010

Keywords

Concrete material; Constitutive model; Equation of state; Numerical simulation; Shock and impact loads

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the advancement of the computational capabilities, it is now possible to carry out high fidelity simulation of the complex responses of concrete structures subjected to severe shock and impact loads such as those generated by an explosion. A reliable simulation of the detailed response can play a significant role in the understanding of the physical mechanisms and the development of practical design guidelines based on parametric investigations using validated computational models. Among other influencing factors, a fundamental requirement in simulating concrete structures under shock and impact loadings is a realistic modelling of the behaviour of the concrete material under complex and rapid loading conditions. This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation study of several widely used concrete material models. The model formulations are scrutinized and numerical tests are carried out to examine their actual performances under various loading conditions. Comments on the limitations and the appropriate use of these models are given. Furthermore, a physical explosion test on a concrete slab is simulated to demonstrate the behaviour of the material models in a real application environment. Comparison of the results shows that the Concrete Damage Model implemented in LS-DYNA (material #72) describes the concrete response satisfactorily. Using a modified parameter setting, the RHT model implemented in AUTODYN also exhibits a generally acceptable behaviour. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available