Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BY
TIANXI TANG
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1990
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C.
C.
and
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ii
ABSTRACT
vi
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER
2.2
2.3
2.4
1
6
Background
The Configurations of the SHPB System ..
Stress Wave Theories Applied to the
SHPB System
Dynamic Tests of Concrete and Mortar ...
2.4.1 Introduction
2.4.2 Dynamic Tests of Mortar
2.4.3 Dynamic Tests of Five Concretes
.
CHAPTER
3.3
CHAPTER
4.2
26
34
34
35
37
43
17
43
62
62
68
77
82
82
85
CHAPTER
5.2
5.3
CHAPTER
6.2
6.3
95
96
96
99
101
101
106
CHAPTER
95
Introduction
Concrete Specimens and Experimental
Procedures
5.2.1 Concrete Specimens and Test
Procedures
5.2.2 Petrographic Examination
Procedures
Test Results
5.3.1 Results of Dynamic Tests
5.3.2 Crack Patterns and Crack Surface
Area
Background
6.1.1 Introduction
6.1.2 Failure Surface or Perfect-Yield
Surface
6.1.3 Strain-Hardening Cap
6.1.4 Overstress-Type Viscoplastic
Model
An Elastoplastic Model for High-Strength
Concrete
6.2.1 Introduction
6.2.2 Fundamentals of Plasticity
6.2.3 The Willam-Warnke Five-Parameter
Surface
6.2.4 Proposed Elastoplastic Cap Model
for High-Strength Concrete
6.2.5 Plastic Strain Increments in the
Cap Model
An Elastoviscoplastic Model for HighStrength Concrete
6.3.1 Proposed Elastoviscoplastic
Model
6.3.2 Determination of Viscosity
Parameter and Function
6.3.3 Discussion
Ill
Ill
112
114
116
118
118
119
122
12 6
132
13 9
139
141
145
148
14 8
...
148
150
153
2
3
1
CHAPTER
8
8
.
.
Introduction
Conclusions
Recommendations
...
155
156
160
160
160
163
182
182
182
186
REFERENCES
190
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
200
May 1990
Unconfined high-strength
From the
As a computation
constitutive model.
In addition to the extensive experimental investigation
of high-strength concretes and the modeling and
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Some
As a result, regardless
The uncertainty of
histories of a specimen.
The 3-
strength.
This model
An elastoplastic model
existing models.
principal-stress space.
In a preliminary experimental
The
A more extensive
In Chapters
3,
while the
4.
Chapter
Chapter
damage.
7,
Chapter
Finally,
6.
CHAPTER 2
THE SHPB SYSTEM AND DYNAMIC TESTS
Background
2. 1
Malvern et al
(1986b,
1989a)
summarized the
as follows.
At
By using cushioned
(1977).
who used a
The specimen
The anvil
drop heights up to
Seabold (1970)
feet.
metal plates on top and bottom and mounted atop a steel load
Hughes and
dynamic tests over the static strength was greater for lowstrength concrete than for high-strength concrete.
Lundberg (197 6)
m/s.
when the stress was about 1.8 times the static strength for
Bohus granite and 1.3 times for Solenhofen limestone.
modified concrete.
Their vertical
(1981)
This
10
(1977)
who had
The static
Kormeling et al.
They
significant increases in impact tensile strength in fiberreinforced concrete over that of plain concrete (Hoff,
1979)
11
12
initially imposed.
but
13
many cases the high-rate curves even fell below the static
curve at the same initial lateral pressure, because the
lateral pressure was constant in the static test.
Gran et al.
in triaxial compression.
Their
14
10"V sec )
Christensen et al.
cone striker bars to spread out the rise time of the loading
(1974)
Lindholm et
They found
over the
The dependence of
The
The
15
Both the
experimental and the theoretical approaches to the strainrate dependent behavior of metals are more mature than those
of concrete and geological materials.
Though concrete
Therefore,
16
1982)
The
I.
Taylor in
The
strain rate.
Since
For the
17
2.2
specimens.
Reflecting
goes back and forth and makes the stress along the
specimen
The
By
18
transmitted pulses.
The Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and
in
they will be referred to as the Small Bar and the Big Bar,
respectively, in the following for brevity.
Their
Figure 2.1 is an
The gas
As currently
up to 57.5 ft/sec
Higher speeds
19
Figure 2.1
20
Specification
3-in system
3/4-in system
Diameter of bars
0.0762 m
0.01905 m
Length of the
striker bar
0.81 m
0.58 m
(32 in)
(23 in)
Length of the
incident bar
3.10 m
1.78 m
(122 in)
(70 in)
Length of the
transmitter bar
3.10 m
1.78 m
(122 in)
(70 in)
Gages on incident
bar from specimen
1.52 m
(59.9 in)
0.88 m
Gages on trans,
bar from specimen
1.52 m
(59.9 in)
0.89 m
Bar-wave speed
C = J(E/ P
5160 m/sec
(2.03xl0 5 in/s)
5210 m/sec
(2.05xl0 5 in/s)
Density of the
bar material p
7650 kg/m 3
(7.65 g/cm 3
7830 kg/m 3
(7.83 g/cm 3
Poisson's ratio
0.32
(35 in)
(35 in)
0.28
The 3-in-
125-in-diameter gun
Both the Small Bar and the Big Bar employ strain gages
to measure the strain pulse along the incident bar and the
transmitter bar.
21
completed.
It not only
In all the
The Nicolet
22
bars.
e 9
and
In
23
h/
K>n^
l^v^
jr
\lyr
SO
l-ao-1
Figure 2.2
80
so
so
-HW
TRANSMITTED
24
Incident Pulse
Secondary Reflection
Reflected Pulse
(a)
(b)
25
(is,
The distance between the specimen end face and the gage
transmitter bar.
The
two tests acquired the same result, which was 590.0 ps.
The
(b)
(a)
26
2
27
with strain
considered positive in
(2.1)
where C
2.2)
Therefore, if the
v " -C
i
VT = C
(fi -i
(2.3)
eT
(2.4)
I
Co
(
Lo
t-i+*r)
28
Co
"
( i
- h-t)
(2.5)
where L
stresses
ay
and
The
a2
of the specimen, if the specimen and the bar have the same
EC^
"i
"2
= Ee T
+e R
and
(2.6)
(2.7)
(a
loading)
"i
In that case, a x = a 2 or
This approximation
1984)
29
2.5 and 2.7, a l and a 2 obtained from the pulse records shown
in Figure
discrepancies.
The solution to the stress wave along an infinitely
long cylinder with the stress-free lateral surface was given
by Pochhammer in 1876 and by Chree in 1889, independently as
an eigenvalue problem.
different frequency.
In considering the
At the University of
30
which increased
After
CTl
In Figures
2.7 and 2.8, stress, strain rate and strain are in units of
31
MPa,
a2
well.
32
260 -
VT3
340 -
/
320 200 -
UD
/\
a2
160 -
/H
'''A
tn
o
o
o
D
//a
130 -
^~/
//
/ <
en
SO
60
40
f"
*->
30
ro
CM
x:
l/
\i
I
n
/'
'
Sjy
Sjs
vt^Cs,
Ui
GO
100
ISO
200
350
^r?-^
300
350
Time (microsecond)
T3
/
/
OV/ \
/
/
/ft
/-'
\\
^
A
in
l/l
\f
\i
-'"/
//
//Is
JT~
"
' -*r
CI
^ T?=>
Time (microsecond)
33
VT3
QJ
IT
260 -
no MO
ISO
120
-i
.J
1L
m
f
(d
*->
CO
100 -
BO
t/l
60
in
id
to
\
V-''
ft
\l
13},
\
-~
>^
&
Strain (X)
Strain (X)
34
2.4
2.4.1
Introduction
The SHPB
Detailed data
2.4.2
1984).
cured specimens as
max
= f c + Ki
(2-8)
The
35
is the
MPa/sec)
The two
upper lines are for a few specimens aged dry before testing.
The extent of scatter in the 28-day test results is
The
They
were cut from 28-day cured bars that had been prepared in
the Civil Engineering Department, University of Florida with
the assistance of Mr. Devo Seereeram, who was then an
After 24 hours,
36
Standard ASTM
3x6
Average
Table 2.2
Mortar Specification
Cement
Portland Type
Aggregate
Mix
2.4.3.
37
STRAIN HA TV
(;-'!
I.**"*)
38
cured and cored from blocks by Terra Tek, Inc. of Salt Lake
City.
Station (WES)
ai
and
az ,
which were
calculated from test records t^e of 3-in-diameter and 3-inlong specimens without wave-dispersion correction, is
39
The
hollow inverted triangles represent tests in which the 120in-long incident bar impacted the specimen directly in order
to provide a longer pulse.
where V
R(t)
= V
+ CR(t)
(2.9)
,
40
Table 2.3
Water/Cement Ratio
c,)
<b>
0.26
Water
7.52 lb
<c>
3.9 lb
Flyash
3.9 lb
Coarse Aggregate
l
'
b
'
'
(d)
9C
18.33 lb
425 CC
39.9 lb
41.67 lb
<c
'
(d)
Table 2.4
0.27
Type
850 lb
Portland Cement
Silica Fume
150 lb
1860 lb
1008 lb
Water
270 lb
20 lb
41
amm
ocsa
10
MM
too-
A
4
.
A
io-
JO
T
T
too-
T
IB
1
e-
_...!.
muafMTHf)
-m*i
(USD
(MPs)
3D
aoo<
ISO-
>
a
too-
10
10-
so
too
42
WES concrete were performed, and all the pulse records for
CHAPTER 3
DYNAMIC TESTS AND STRAIN-RATE DEPENDENCE OF THE
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND YIELD STRESS OF CONCRETE
3.1
taken as positive.
ax
and
a2
have
az
<x
A higher firing
43
44
e.g. S64.
in Figure 3.1).
inches.
Their actual
45
Table 3.1
I.D.
Firing Impact
Pressure Speed
(psi)
W24
W03
W02
W42
W10
W43
W20
W21
W32
W36
W08
W40
WT1
W09
WT3
W26
Wll
WT4
W4 4
W15
W46
W19
W39
W37
W30
W35
W28
180
200
210
225
250
250
250
275
275
275
300
300
350
350
350
350
400
400
400
450
450
500
500
550
600
600
600
Table 3.2
(in/s)
276
259
333
324
307
377
380
390
428
442
400
434
439
450
451
468
492
505
530
544
588
582
621
625
665
683
690
Details of
Firing
Impact
03W
04W
05W
01W
06W
07W
08W
02W
200
300
350
400
400
450
500
600
231
376
469
506
519
569
605
674
Maximum
Stress
(ksi)
19.1
19.3
22.9
21.9
20.9
23.6
24.7
25.4
24.5
25.5
25.7
26.0
26.4
25.2
26.4
25.5
25.2
25.1
27.0
28.9
29.1
29.6
29.4
29.0
29.9
31.9
30.3
Maximum
Stress
17.
23.
27.8
29.1
29,
29,
31.
33.
(1/sec)
132
133
158
151
144
163
170
175
169
176
177
179
182
174
182
176
174
173
186
200
201
204
203
200
206
220
209
Tests on
(ksi)
Strain Rate
Max Stress
(MPa)
(MPa)
118
160
192
201
202
201
216
231
5.2
0.0
8.1
11.6
9.5
18.9
15.8
15.2
37.7
32.7
21.2
33.4
30.0
41.2
34.4
41.7
43.32
45.3
53.0
49.6
69.2
63.2
92.9
105
125
125
135
1.
Critical
Strain
(%)
0.36
0.32
0.40
0.41
0.41
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.50
0.53
0.44
0.49
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.49
0.48
0.52
0.50
0.47
0.54
0.47
0.56
0.54
0.57
0.57
0.61
LC
NF
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
Strain Rate
@ Max Stress
(1/sec)
Critical
Strain
(%)
0.
52
42.
90.
45
61
107
132
184
186
219
58
68
72
70
68
NF
46
Impact
S41
S31
S23
S51
S12
S32
S15
S33
S22
S63
S25
Sll
S45
S54
S55
S43
S21
S14
S13
S61
S52
S62
150
175
185
185
200
200
200
225
250
250
250
300
300
300
350
350
400
400
400
450
450
500
500
600
600
600
600
S44
S34
S24
S64
S53
215
262
274
283
294
299
316
333
368
369
376
418
441
446
464
469
500
535
538
546
584
578
603
632
681
684
690
Maximum
Stress
(ksi)
(MPa)
15.7
19.0
19.4
19.9
21.2
20.6
20.9
22.0
22.8
22.6
22.3
25.1
24.4
26.1
28.9
26.0
26.1
28.3
26.2
28.1
28.6
31.3
29.6
31.4
30.9
30.5
30.9
108
131
1.
Strain Rate
Max Stress
(1/sec)
0.0
0.0
4.7
5.8
9.6
6.9
20.6
25.3
41.4
47.8
53.3
42.0
72.1
48.2
62.9
73.5
116
121
137
146
157
145
164
180
226
215
214
134
137
146
142
144
152
157
156
154
173
168
180
199
179
180
195
181
194
197
216
204
217
213
210
213
Critical
Strain
(%)
0.34
0.19
0.39
0.47
0.46
0.49
0.64
0.49
0.58
0.60
0.71
0.63
0.60
0.65
0.50
0.66
0.69
0.70
0.94
0.71
0.73
0.64
1.01
0.67
0.85
0.95
1.03
NF
NF
L
CC
cc
c
cc
L
c
cc
c
cc
cc
cc
cc
Impact
SB
SE
SD
SF
SA
200
300
400
500
600
317
456
539
610
697
Maximum
Stress
Strain Rate
@ Max Stress
Critical
Strain
(ksi)
(MPa)
(1/sec)
(%)
21.0
25.8
25.5
27.0
29.4
145
178
176
186
203
10.4
39.1
56.2
86.9
114
0.49
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.60
CC
CC
CC
47
The specimens
which letters NF mean the specimen did not fracture, and one
letter L indicates one strain gage mounted on the specimen
mounted circumferentially.
48
SO
100
ISO
'50
300
3So
400
50
Time Cnicrosecond)
Figure 3.1
Stresses, Strain Rate and Strain
Versus Time Curves of Specimen W24 Calculated
After Wave Dispersion Correction
49
zoo
03
1*0
1*0 0)
140
110
100
-i
tn
o
o
o
o
'\
f/02
<W/ ^ \
,
to -
M*
-10
-0
Ns^
a)
S3
-60 -
en
ISO
100
100
350
300
350
450
*00
500
Time CEicrosecond)
Figure 3.3
Stresses, Strain Rate and Strain
Versus Time Curves of Specimen W03 Calculated
After Wave Dispersion Correction
rt
W03
140 220 -
200
1*0 CT)
110 -
^*^^
100 -
[H
80 -
60
40
to
20
OJ
Ul
-SO
0*-"-^_^*^-^
ft.
^>*^^
^^^J^^
^0^--
...-;~':
- ...
Ss*ip^^
"'--
tZ^^f
'
--...
...--'
t/3
Strain (X)
50
Figure 3.5
Stresses, Strain Rate and Strain
Versus Time Curves of Specimen W20 Calculated
After Wave Dispersion Correction
3M
W20
ISO aj
in
360 -
1*0 ai
no
;no
lao -
160 -
tn
(0
140 -
100
aj
tn
en
80
60
40
20
oJ
1
W
'
X
'
\
\
^^^--J^
'
Strain (%)
51
V09
2:0
/
/
/
CO
St
<by& :*>
a
160 -
en
o
o
Q
o
140 -
//
OiJ
110 -
\\
I/
100 90 -
f\
'
60 -
40 -
&
///
20 -
./!
\v
^^^
""
^4?
~ZU^
i/l
en
SO
100
ISO
300
250
30 D
350
Time (microsecond)
Figure 3.7
Stresses, Strain Rate and Strain
Versus Time Curves of Specimen W09 Calculated
After Wave Dispersion Correction
300 -
V09
230
MO
0)
*J
to
Z10 -
to
en
140 120 -
CM
in
in
0)
ffl
/a2
*0 -
\j\
f'g\
SD
60
\ij
13
*
en
10 -
>:?**-=s-^~
W
3
Strain (*)
52
|V15
0J
in
/
/
Q)
(Ti/-^
ISO ISO
tn
o
o
o
o
1*0 -
(0
80 -
/>'
30 -
V /\
i
/lj/
s.
to
SB
x\
40 -
in
///
60 -
pu
130 100 -
en
/
...-/""
100
v*
300
ISO
^^x__ c.
M
ISO
350
Tine (microsecond)
Figure 3.9
Stresses, Strain Rate and Strain
Versus Time Curves of Specimen W15 Calculated
After Wave Dispersion Correction
300 -
15
0>
in
260 -
^
2;n
-A
100 -
ISO -
+j
100
20
-<
02
1
A\
/'/"'
""
1*0
no-
in
OJ
en
^ ^-^7^_
r/
^
3
Strain (S)
53
na
Strain (%)
54
s-
- ''
100
ISO
Time (microsecond)
300 -
W35
260 -
s
in
U0
0)
to
100 -
01
ISO
(0
/l
/'
/o\
M
*->
140 -
130
100
\\
*
CO IA
QJ
to
40 -
30
"
V\
13
Strain
3,
(Hi)
55
V28
'0i\
'(/
v^
^^/\
/
?*-
^
i
Strain (*)
56
260 -
S51
0)
240 -
tn
330 0J
200 -
(0
ISO -
C
160 -
O
o
o
o
/02
1*0 -
/"^
no 100
60
-i
Vi
V/
4->
tn
j___
40 -
\\
..-
\
c
SO
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Tine (microsecond)
57
Figure 3.2
Stresses and Strain Rate Versus
Strain Curves of Specimen W24 Calculated
After Wave Dispersion Correction
58
S63
Qj
*J
MO
KM
ko
*J
.-'
lto _
to
(fry*
>
ItO -
o
H
100 _
SO -
CO
so-
ar
IA
7^~\
'
i
v ^
f'A
/
/
"
i
to
/a2
.....
j,
,-/
(0
JA
1
50
'
-A;
^>.
-
100
ISO
200
2S0
Si7 ^C3"J00
3S0
Time (microsecond)
59
554
j
/
ft
irk
7*- -V
/
/
//
'*
/
1
/
'
'J
'-'
'"
>;
\\
^^'^h ^^S^a
*t~>w
Time (aicrosecond)
60
IN
SO
JOB
ISO
2SD
300
3S0
Tine (microsecond)
300 -
S52
MS
OJ
tn
no
OJ
2Z0 -
Ol/N
c
-"/
ISO -
/.
V\v
u
in
1*0 120
tea
...
^^v
<s<
OJ
tn
*~~t
30 -
Strain
~VI
~^^^-~r
3
(JS)
61
260 -
S24
01
140
/jK
a>
ce
110 -
ti
140 -
!':
120 100
c
CO
80
40
40
!
I
r
\v
/vyfas
20 -
-w1 yte
to
J
l
to
gj
04
en
o
o
o
o
h\\
200 -
50
\T
100
150
,'
200
J^K^ ^rt<^
250
300
35
Time (microsecond)
62
in 1/100.
except for the figures for the specimens W24 and wo 3 tested
at very low impact speeds, where the maximum strains are
Further analysis of
3.2
3.2.1
maximum stress
stress
o2
u2
The
at the maximum
In low-
speed impact tests, e.g. W24 (Figures 3.1 and 3.2), stress
63
as delayed fracture.
For
Max
o-
Max
a2
i,
= A + B In (e/
= a (k/i
(3.!)
(3-2)
One is
64
Senllogarithmic Regression
Power-Law Regression
ISO
200
3"
Semilogarlthmic Regression
Power-Law Regression
"
30
i0
100
120
10
t*0
180
joo
220
o-
65
Semilogarithmic Regression
Power-Law Regression
3"
Semlogarithnic Regression
Power-Law Regression
66
It-
....
1.7 -
+
I
u
I -
1 -
"
so
too
iao
no
isd
ibo
zoo
3"
100
ISO
140
100
3'
67
Coeff
WES
SRI
103 MPa
(14.9 ksi)
93.6 MPa
(13.6 ksi)
21.3 MPa
(3.09 ksi)
(3.03 ksi)
116 MPa
(16.8 ksi)
108 MPa
(15.6 ksi)
Semilogarithmic
21.1 MPa
Power Law
0.119
0.122
(2)
if max
<r
is replaced by general a.
These results
e.g., Balmer,
1949; Kupfer,
1969,
1973).
In the
68
In
In
the SHPB tests reported here failure occurs only after many
3-2.2
For
partly fractured, e.g. W03 and W24 (Figures 3.2 and 3.4),
during unloading the stress went down with strain along a
69
loading path.
These phenomena
Figures 3.35 to
and
e9
e z
e2
versus strain
which
in Figure 3.40,
and
S2
are
versus
f ,
or
curve keeps
This point is
70
from the
a2
a2
starts to the
In
data and shows that yield stress increases with the average
strain rate.
<7
= C + D k,
(3.3)
e s
versus
or
a2
was
71
72
60 -
via
SO -
o
o
o
o
40 -
<D
30
20
c
CO
^>/
to
10 -
30
40
Strain z
GO
B0
1C
(l/i0000)
73
S52
24D 120 -
o
o
Q
a
/\
ZOO ISO
160 -
140 <D
Ozi
120 -
100 -
(0
^\N
01
40 20 -
<i
\^^^
JJ
'^^^T^Tr
itw
Strain
zoo
300
(1/10000)
s
s
74
Yield Stress
(MPa)
W24
114
Young
'
(ksi)
(GPa)
16.5
38.7
0.237
W02
39.6
5740
0.256
39.9
W20
148
21.5
42.9
6210
0.240
53.9
W40
146
21.2
43.3
6810
0.214
74.5
40.6
31.8
WT3
5890
0.306
60.4
W44
152
22.0
42.3
6140
0.231
88.6
W46
156
22.6
41.2
5970
0.286
72.0
W39
161
23.4
40.1
5820
0.307
81.8
W28
158
22.9
39.0
5650
0.291
88.3
Yield Stress
(MPa)
S15
Young
'
(ksi)
(GPa)
131
19.0
26.1
3780
0.274
78.1
3770
0.261
79.4
S25
137
19.9
26.0
S45
131
19.0
32.9
4770
0.249
107
S14
159
23.1
33.8
4900
0.303
137
S52
153
22.2
31.2
4520
0.293
114
S24
172
24.9
30.0
4330
0.254
136
SB
119
17.3
31.0
4490
0.276
44.4
SA
142
20.6
34.6
5020
0.248
63.4
75
WES
96.4 MPa
(14.0 ksi)
0.753 MPa -sec
(0.109 ksi sec)
SRI
86.0 MPa
(12.5 ksi)
76
VES
3"
Specimens
77
reached.
strain
e e
versus
tt
or
Young's Modulus
Poisson Ratio
3.3
WES
SRI
41.3 GPa
(5990 ksi)
30.7 GPa
(4450 ksi)
0.263
0.270
78
Shear stresses
coordinate r is given by
u = rc 9
(3.4)
(3.5)
at 2
da 2
to give
p ;, r
(3-6)
3r
1
whence
<r
- -
- p
ie
R 2 [i - (r/R)
(3.7)
pressure
i e
= - where
is
the axial strain rate from the SHPB records, since the
SHPB
strain rates were directly recorded and were much
smoother
79
In this regime
|a r
were
maximum
(2)
and
point.
Plots of the
dr
0,
and
i
|
i,
of the
80
28
sure
39
Pres
46
__40
Constraint
>< T3
20
02
24
Inertial
0.3
D.I
OS
0.0
0.0
r/R
Figure 3.44
Lateral Inertial Confining Pressure
Versus r/R of WES Specimens Based on Average Hoop
Strain Acceleration Between Beginning and Time of
Maximum Axial Strain Rate
Figure 3.45
Lateral Inertial Confining Pressure
Versus r/R of SRI Specimens Based on Average Hoop
Strain Acceleration Between Beginning and Time of
Maximum Axial Strain Rate
81
zero.
Then
i,
ac
calculated
CHAPTER 4
DEFORMATION MODEL AND FAILURE CRITERION OF
CONCRETE UNDER DYNAMIC COMPRESSIVE LOADING
4.1
As
curve.
e e
versus
e z
v)
stress increases with the average strain rate from the test
start to the yield, Ae/At (see Equation (3.3) for strainrate dependence of the yield stress
Y
)
A rate-dependent
82
is assumed to
e
and
83
i'
(4.1)
unloading starts.
e'
= i/E
(4.2)
where
- a/E
(4.3)
az
was calculated
The finite-difference
(4.4)
2At
Values of stress
a2
unloading are chosen from the SHPB test records of the seven
WES specimens and the eight SRI specimens, and plotted in
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 for WES and SRI concrete respectively.
84
VES
H
cc
M
(0
^^^
J*2-J&
**y^
90
SD
0125X
in
0250*
60
ill.
tQO
110
130
0.0375X
0.0500X
0.0625X
160
IBO
JOO
220
SRI
1C
M
oa
--
^JLX
s^
(0
15
::b
60
<T/
zt
0.0125*
0250*
0.0375*
0.0500*
0625*
to
mi
ta
100
1ZU
M0
10
ISO
ZOO
20
85
3.31.
In other
words,
i.
Inversely,
- A
exp(
(4.5)
or
i"
llb
(4.6)
where coefficients A,
B,
a and b for
= 1/sec (compression
Though
86
The Apparent
Poisson's Ratio
W24
0.347
9.85
W02
0.326
10.4
W20
0.620
22.9
W4
0.636
34.9
W44
0.560
75.2
W46
0.458
98.1
W39
0.588
114
W28
0.627
155
The Apparent
Poisson's Ratio
S15
0.715
30.9
S25
1.99
48.7
S45
0.304
98.9
S14
0.312
141
S64
1.64
226
SB
2.45
15.0
SA
1.34
134
87
Yield
after
Ratio
Poisson's
pparent
<
'
20
'
*0
'
60
BO
100
120
HO
1
1
16
Figure 4.3
88
So far as WES
W24 and W20, the apparent Poisson's ratio was less than 0.5,
4.2
The
89
Even for
SRI specimens during the SHPB tests has yet been made,
90
Table 4.3
I.D.
We
(kPa)
Wyl
wy2
W 11
W 12
rfES
Specimens
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kpa)
W24
167
69.7
77.3
59.8
71.2
539
9.85
W2
255
143
75.0
61.7
101
502
22.9
W40
227
164
89.0
73.5
71.5
510
34.9
W44
273
230
98.6
486
75.2
W46
294
279
91.3
491
98.1
W39
323
303
131
500
114
W28
320
411
169
530
155
(Pa- sec)
(1/sec)
I.D.
W"
(kPa)
Wy2
W 11
W 12
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kpa)
of SRI Specimens
(1/sec)
S15
320
104
69.9
35.1
82.3
410
30.9
S25
355
239
66.0
143
72.0
422
48.7
S45
275
265
45.0
94.1
51.9
432
98.9
S14
365
332
146
314
141
S52
363
462
216
435
171
S24
479
543
283
359
226
SB
217
91.5
SA
352
341
47.7
27.3
37.8
55.0
389
15.0
538
134
91
designated as Wy2
as W u and W i2
denoted
and 4.4 for all the WES and SRI specimens listed in Tables
4.1 and 4.2.
of W\ Wyl
Wy \ W 11
and W 12
("yield
<7
it -,
(4.7)
z d
(4.8)
"2 de
(4.9)
begins
imax
yi.ld
max ?2 ends
max
ff
2 begins
max
cr
2 begins
"2 df
and
i:
(4.10)
"2 de'
(4.11)
max a 2 begins
fracture tests.
increased
92
stress.
tests.
delayed-failure cases.
A possible cumulative criterion for predicting the time
at which the maximum stress is reached is here suggested in
(a
- a
dt
(4.12)
yield instant
where
recorded
a2
o2
The K c
inches long, and the rest of the SRI specimens in Table 4.4
is
93
1982)
(a
where
X
)
dt
(4.13)
experimental data.
of the damage
parameter K is reached.
Formula (4.12) is a case specific for the concretes
with A=l.
Yield stress
is
Stresses
and
in Formula (4.12)
94
the
As a material parameter,
However, the
K" is
specimen thickness.
CHAPTER 5
CRACK OBSERVATION OF IMPACTED CONCRETE SPECIMENS
5.1
Introduction
96
examination.
To
confinement.
5.2
5.2.1
diameters of
5
inches (44.5 mm) long were sawed from the central regions of
97
dynamic testing.
A steel collar 1.707 inches (43.36 mm) in length with a
The
Unconfined
Table 5.1
32.7 lb.
*
94.2 lb.
60.4 lb.
Water
16.5 lb.
Water/Cement Ratio
0.50
Slump
2.25 in.
93
collar^
incident
transmitter
bar
bar
specimen
1.
Figure 5.1
707 in
99
began to act.
approximately 0.002.
The second series of tests used a hydraulic press to
100
using
using no lubricant.
Large cracks
101
employed.
2/ir
to equal
jr/2
so
that the intercept count per unit length gives the crack
5.3
5.3.1
Test Results
102
ax
Even after
and Stress
a2
versus
ax ,
Stress
a2 ,
Strain Rate
i,
and
percent strain or
percent strain.
recorded Stress
ai
and Stress
az
103
100
150
J00
250
300
350
00
Time (microsecond)
104
unloaded.
The
remarkable consistency.
a2
SPECIMEN
No.
F21
PREDICTED
Strain
RESIDUAL
Strain
MAXIMUM
Strain
0.0029
0.0023
0.0041
F22
0.0047
0.0046
0.0065
F23
0.0064
0.0068
0.0092
F24
0.0081
0.0082
0.0103
F25
0.0091
0.0102
0.0128
F04
0.0116
0.0106
0.0126
105
120
110 100 -
90 -
BO
(0
01
in
70
60
50
40
QJ
H
30 -
en
20
10 )
0.002
0.004
0.006
008
0.01
0.012
0.011
0.016
o.oia
Strain
0.02
106
before unloading.
just at the failure strain, and the other four are from the
strain softening regime.
Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show typical crack patterns for one
When all 12
In the dynamic
107
>
K\
o
Figure 5.6 Crack Pattern Tracing of Static Test
Specimen with Maximum Strain of 0.0049
108
X
A
Untested Specimen
Static Tests
Dynamic Tests
Q)
D
H
O _
>
,4
^H
'
cu
wH
5 -
A
u
=1
tn
'-
A
A
X
0.002
0.004
006
0.008
OOi
Strain
Figure 5.7
109
Table 5.3
Specimen
No.
Predicted
Strain
Maximum
Strain
Surface/Unit
Vol. (in 2 / in 3
F21
0.0029
0.0041
2.14
F22
0.0047
0.0065
5.78
F23
0.0064
0.0092
7.46
F24
0.0081
0.0103
4.76
F2 5
0.0099
0.0128
7.68
F04
0.0116
0.0126
6.06
Specimen
No.
Estimated
Predicted
Strain
Maximum
Strain
Surface/Unit
Vol. (in 2/ in 3
F51
0.0012
0.0014
1.16
F52
0.0029
0.0031
0.28
F53
0.0047
0.0049
0.94
F54
0.0081
0.0083
3.34
F55
0.0099
0.0101
5.92
F56
0.0116
0.0118
3.46
Untested Specimen
Specimen No.
F50
110
For the
CHAPTER 6
AN EIA3T0VISC0PLASTIC MODEL FOR CONCRETE
6.1
6.1.1
Background
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to propose an
it is necessary
The employment of
convenience in taking advantage of research results in rateindependent plasticity, which often provides an idealization
for behavior of a certain rate-sensitive material before
112
In
compression (1951)
a Mises
described as
all + J&2 - k =
where
Ij
(6.1)
material constants.
1^
and Jj 2
and the
113
To overcome
arisen.
models.
1982)
models.
model.
suggested three-parameter
In addition to I t and J3 2
an azimuth angle,
i,
This
and
J3
The Willam-Warnke
and
114
Drucker-Prager model.
Willam-Warnke surface is employed; therefore the WillamWarnke model will be described in detail later.
Strain-Hardening Cap
6.1.3
Many
the hardening
115
are involved in
It seems not
116
6.1.4
independently.
= F[<7-g(0,
for
> g(e)
(6.2)
c]
= 0, and
According to
is based on
(6.3)
plastic work W p
strain rate as
117
ij
+ 7<*(
1)>
(6.4)
JJ 2
(W p )
where <(F)> =
for F s
>
0;
uu
Perzyna considered it as an
where
vj 2 -
su
+ 7<*(
")
)>
(6.5)
been expressed by
strain 7.
on
It is
118
Perzyna.
follows.
Motivations
of
adopting
Perzyna
's
An Elastoplastic Model
for Hiah-Htrf> nqth Concrst-P
6.2
6.2.1
Introduction
119
Fundamentals of Plasticity
6.2.2
<
or for f(T)
0,
f(T)
at
=0
and
and
T 4J <
T i > o
always.
(6. 6. a)
(6.6.b)
The yield
if the material is
T2
T3
=
(
7)
tensor,
f(I 1(
I2
I,)
= 0.
(
8)
120
f(I lf J 2
or
J,)
f(I lr Jj 2
0)
(6.9)
(6.10)
is the angle of
Equation
6 . 14 . c)
where the
e?,
Then the
(6.11)
3T.J
is a
For some
f,
Such materials
plasticity.
To
121
some assumptions.
(6.12)
The
= 0.
to another,
d f(T) =
(6
13)
According to
such that
(1)
(2)
stresses is nonnegative.
122
discussed above.
The Willam-Warnke Five-Parameter Surface
6.2.3
The (T lf T 2
T3 )
the space.
T T 2
1/73,
1/73)
the
ir
0)
Thus, the
(6. 14. a)
123
designated as
p
p,
= |NP| = 7(2J 2 ).
(6.14.b)
T^,
TJ
Ty-axis to
OP'
and
and
on the *
TJ
COS
(6.14.C)
The quantities
J 23
'2
and
For an
function
r(CT,
S)
- r(a m ,
om
S)
(= Z/JZ),
=0.
p,
The
and
jt/3,
and in a
and
ir/3
respectively, the
124
deviatoric-stress axis.
6.2.b).
= a
+ at
+ a2 (
f.
t.
= b
b^
rc
for
(6. 15. a)
for
= */3
(6.15.b)
f.
rc
+ b2 (
am
is the
T.-J2
and
tt/3,
respectively.
In order to
Therefore
there are not six, but five parameters in the two quadratic
functions.
and
ir/3
o,
= o
125
and
with a
ir/3
After the
(r,
e)
r(o,
S)
(6. 16. a)
where s = 2r c (r e 2 -r t 2 )cos
(6.16.b)
+ 5r t 2 -4r t r c
(6.16.d)
t = r c (2r t -r c )u 1/2
u = 4(r c 2 -r t 2 )cos 2
(6.16.c)
= - arccos(
3
(6.16.e)
373 J 3
)
(6.16.f)
J 2 3/2
everywhere.
According to Equation
the Willam-
S(a,
JJ 2I
S)
yj 2
m p -
7(2J 2 ) - r(a B
r(<7,
6)
S)
am
and
e)
6
(6.17)
( CT ,
J (2J 2 )
e)
and
If
is
126
to
to i, is taken,
ranges
7r/3
b 2 = -0.1018
(Chen,
1984).
am
and
with
kept zero
It
127
11
II
11
A Deviatoric Plane
Hydrostatic axis
>^
(a)
(b)
/I\y
128
(a)
I,"
o
ff,*02+tr3 )/ft
Eipirlntantal Data
Tahin Fran
Lama)
at al.
1970
V?r
(b)
129
a
8
<-
Gran (I9B4)
Balttar et al.
e -
(1585)
*e
*"
Tensile fleridian
=
'-
-1
-3
-3
-i
0* ft*
130
It increases
Faruque
follows.
i
X =
ej
In (1 D
where
+ Z
(6.18)
are
However,
131
expressed as
X
el
d,(f
X
- Z)
+ d2
x
Z)
+ d3
Z)
fc
<=
where d lf d d 3 and
(6.19)
fc
cap over f c
can be expressed as
F(",
7J 2
0,
X)
F ("'
JJ
X)
7(2J 2 ) - r(a m
P
~ r( ff ,
I,
X)
S,
X)
=0
(6 .20)
( >-!
>'
(6. 2 l. a ,
132
pressure of 5 ksi.
solved as follows:
d 3 = 1.360xl0" 3
6.2.5
and
^=
2.719x10"*, d 2 = -5.650x10"*,
Z =
0.400.
(6.22)
is determined by the
is the
CT
7(2J 2 ),
e,
F,
am
/(2J 2 ) and
6,
133
- PC ------i
JK
~z :P4 TE'<
ll^
h
SAT? -
.SAplNG
"
1
1
\
1
!/'
1
I
|
Ai
J_4-
>''
1
1
1
TgafiA ~Z< HS
CONFINING PRESSURE
- S K3
!
Ml.
1
it
I
l/l
l/l
yi
J-n
**:*L STRAIN
(in,
134
Figure 6.7
135
at
3F
3F
3l!
+
ST,
= Cj
3T t
3 J,
+ C,
3J 3
83,
3T,
3J,
+ C,
(6. 23. a)
3T ij
3T,
3F
+
3J 2
31,
3J 2
8T,
3F
Ci
(6.23.b)
3F
(6.23.C)
3J 2
dF
(6.23.d)
8J.
(for i = j)
aii
=
(for i a
(6.23.e)
S<
j)
3J 2
(6.23.
aT J
f)
3J,
SluSvi
3T ij
*"
-J,s
2ij
(6.23.g)
136
373
(r -r )J 3
C2 -
2v(4cos 0-l) j|
/2
(6.24.b)
73
(r -r
2
)
C3 =
2
v(4cos 0-l)J^
/2
(6.24.C)
where
2a-X
*Tt
r,
and
r=
dl x
dr e
2a-X
-Y
37[X 2 -(2a-X)
(6. 25. a)
yc
(6.25.b)
=
fll,
ff
2
]
approaches
?r/3,
it is
v
for
tt/3
(6. 26. a)
for
= n/3
(6.26.b)
*-2
ur c
and
2
76 (r -r 2 )
c3 =
ur 2
From Equat ion (6.21),
3F
dX
3X
defv
dF = ddl, + C 2 dJ 2 + C 3 J 3 +
dtfi,
(6.27)
but
3F
*&-
JA
(6.28)
aii
therefore,
= -
C^dlj + C 2 dJ 2 + C 3 dJ 3
3F
dX
ax
d fk
Jc i
(6.29)
137
where
= di + 2d 2 (X-Z) +3d 3 (X-Z)2
(6.30)
dX
derived as follows.
as
rt = V t q
(6. 31. a)
rc = * c q
(6.31.b)
where
2
q =
2
V[(X/2) -
(a m -X/2)
2
]
(6.31.C)
Thus
art
aq
=
a*t
-
ax
ax
(6. 32. a)
(6.32.b)
ax
and
ar
3q
-
"
<5V C
*t
5X
ax
ax
where
3q
=
ax
3*t
ax
2o m
2"
-
X>q
- l)
(6.31.C)
X
l
2
V[a -4a 2 (a -X/2f c ) 2 ]
(6.32.d)
and
av c
ax
(6.32.e)
138
Furthermore,
3t/flr t =
av/3r
(6.33)
as
ar t
ax
ar t
ax
ar c
ax
at
at
ar t
at
ar c
ar c
ax
av
ar c
3r c
ax
"
"
ax
as
+
ar c
,
(6. 34. a)
(6.34.b)
(6.34.C)
ar t
ax
av
ar t
ar t
ax
and
av
=
ax
ax
ax
v
as
"
s + t
at
"
("
dX
av
+ r
3X
3X
(6.35)
139
6.3
6.3.1
dynamic loading.
The
aa
- r(am ,
T u - 7(3/2) r c ]
6)
at the same
$
= [7(3/2)16
(6.36)
3g
i?t =
7 <*(G)>
where
3g
1'2
aT u
J"
3Tto 3Tkln
(6
37)
140
for G s
<*(G)>
(6.38)
for G >
*(G)
and G =
(6.17).
For G
>
Willam-Warnke surface.
am
and
y
as the
and the
(6.24)
=0
is the
e)
However,
r't
and
rj
in these
(6. 39. a)
dlj
3[ ai +2a 2 (r/r c )]
and
dr c
(6.39.b)
dl!
3[b,.+2b 2 (r/r c )]
Because of a shortage of data from tests under threedimensional dynamic loading, the hardening cap is assumed
In summary,
141
when G <
and
\a m
< X/2,
or F <
and
|a|
concrete
a X/2,
and
\a m
> X/2,
it is elastoplastic and
are
Tu - 7(3/2)
MTu/3)
(6.40)
<?
= Tn/3.
in
142
Wax Stress
1
20
10
"
BC
Strain Rate at
a
3"
Specimens
100
n~ax
120
110
stress
x
160
180
ZOO
Cl/sec)
1.5" Specimens
'
x
1.5" Specimens
143
SRI
3*0 -
zao
1M
_*_
T^
__
r*
'
tlax
Stress
r"
1
01
8(1
to
Overstress
j*~-s-,r
so
~"
*r^x"^
to
60
bo
too
no
no
3"
Specimens
ito
ion
zoo
zao
(1/sec)
1,
5"
Specimens
Overstress
Strain Rate at
a
3"
Specimens
flax
Stress
+
(1/sec)
1.5" Specimens
144
or
where
.(i i/S)'
= ei[{*}/
(6. 41. a)
"
(6.41.b)
The maximum
As
4,
and
*(G)
and
are obtained as
- [J (3/2)6/ K,) 1"
|J|
= 1/sec
(6.42)
(6.43)
145
SRI
1.35 ksi
Ko
0.311
1.02 ksi
0.336
Discussion
6.3.3
Willam-Warnke surface.
am
Overstress is defined as
(=p/j3) minus the
aa
and
- r/73.
and
146
parameter equations
aa
= Tn/3 and
= */3 with
= y(2/3)T u
and has an
= f c /3,
= 7(2/3)f c ).
am >
fc ,
Analysis
hydrostatic stress.
Failure criterion and postfailure behavior are not
included in the proposed model.
147
next chapter.
CHAPTER 7
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELASTOVISCOPLASTIC MODEL
IN A TIME-VARYING FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM
7.1
7.1.1
Introduction
The finite element method has rapidly become a very
constitutive laws,
148
149
10 of the book Finite Elements in Plasticity by D. R. J.
Owen
proposed model;
(2)
Isoparametric
4,
A special mass
150
tK] Vk-tAraMda
]Vdn
t as
follows.
[uj tdr =
(7.1)
t is
b is
<r
is the
the vector of
pn
boundary tractions
displacements
on which
on which
are specified.
relationships
" = NJdJ,,,
,
= B i [d 1 ]
where at time
displacements,
for node i,
, = NiCSdJ,,
(7.2)
= BitidiJ,
(7.3)
8e
151
The total
displacements
[odj,,,
become
M.A +
+ Kd =
C,,!,,
(no sum on n)
(7.4)
H..
I
[Cijl^/n [N 1 ] c[Nj ]dn is a submatrix of the damping matrix
Cm
[Kij]n = Jo [Bi]
matrix
[HJ^dn
K,
+ /r
[Hj^dr
is the total
boundary forces.
and
in the
N2 ...Nm
and B^Bi
Alternatively, H, c,
BJ...B.].
and
can
given by
[M-Wn"^^..^^^
(7.5)
,
]
(7. 6)
[D][B*]dn e
(7.7)
[f]n=/n.[M'] t n elO* +
&.t*l\flr*
(7.8)
N2 ...Nr
(N 1 =N 1 I)
152
K
For simplicity,
the mass and damping matrices are often assumed not varying
It is customary to assume
stiffness matrix
C = qM + BK
(7.9)
in linearly-elastic analysis.
7.1.3
is proposed in Chapter 6,
i"
is in the form of
vp
i
(7.10)
3G
[i?]
- 7<.()>
3G
8G
)" 1/2
3K)
(7.11)
8(Brk ) B 3( CTk ) n
(no sum on n)
where
for G <
<*(G))> =
(7.12)
.
* n (G)
for G >
The subscript n
aL
and
el"
are
defined as
153
[a x ,
ay ,
r^] 1
= [,
y ,
7jcy
a =
and
(7.13.a)
(7.13.b)
and
["r>
9>
"*
r r]
= [
e,,
s,
7ly ]
(7. 14. a)
(7.14.b)
= Dt!
(7.15)
where
1
D =
i/
i/l
(W>
(7.16)
(l-./)/2
1+./
1-1/
1/
l-i/
(1-2./)
(7.17)
(l-2i/)/2
i/O
1-./
l-i/
i/
i/
l-i/
(l+i/)( l-2i/
(7.13)
(l-2i/)/2
D(-0
154
As a result, it
Equation (7.4)
is rewritten as
MA
where
p = /
= fn
Pr,
n sum on n)
(7.20)
representation
Euler,
pj.
?+ i?At
(7.21)
consistency condition.
programming with
7.1.4
fj*
replaced by
el
p.
d=
1
:
(At)
(d + i-2dn +dn - 1 )
(7.22)
d=
(dn+i-dn-i)
2At
(7.23)'
155
By substituting
in terms of
f,
and
d^
d n
is obtained.
for
(7.24)
and
(dvi)nti
n. 1
ll
(7.25)
i)
represents the
direction.
(7.25)
n-1.
for
dj,
conditions.
gives
d -i = -2(At)v +d!
(7.26)
156
where v
By substituting (7.26)
in (7.24),
dj
is
obtained
(d^h =
(At) (2m 11
)" 1
(-(p ul ) +(f ul )
>
+ (dui )o
(7.27)
Small
The implicit
A program,
into MIXDYN.
7.1.5
157
is determined from the current stress state at a Gauss
different indices in a plane containing the hydrostaticstress axis in the principal-stress space.
At every time
yj 2
r(o,
S)
for a
.),
- p - r(c7 m ,
6)
the index = 5.
yj 2
=3;
if G s
Q
and
<
>
Zones
the index =
0,
and
stress-state index is
elastic analysis.
Zone
0,
CTm
then
is evaluated, where
$),
where r(o m
2
,
When F >
.),
or 4.
6)
0,
is the radius of
the index = 4;
am >
- p - r(<7 m ,
8)
aJt
when F
if
as in (6.17)
S)
and meanwhile
if G <
F(<7,
0.
the index =
or
2,
158
3,
the
zone
where G >
0.
Willam-Warnke surface,
and
aa
and r(a m
0)/f c
components
T/,
P.
In the evaluation of
or
5,
Plastic
proportion constant
x,
159
Meridian
of
the Cap
a /t.
Tii at
Tiae Step n
160
7.2
Introduction
7.2.1
7.2.2
ax
and
a2
0.
direction.
Pressures
Chapter
3,
and
a2
<7!
and
a2
161
16
17
18
13
14
15
10
11
12
<
>B
<
>A
3
1
0<
>
1. 5
in
^"
162
Young s Modulus E
Poisson's Ratio
'
Static Compressive
Strength f c
101 MPa
(14.6 ksi)
= b
i
-0.8403
a2
-0.0910
b>
-0.4507
b2
-0.1018
0.0002719
D2
-0.0005650
D3
0.001360
Viscosity Constants' 3
<2
'
'
-1.0/sec
(3)
'
0.4000
(1>
'
0.1025
1.35 ksi
0.311
(6.42)
and (6.43)
163
Computation Results
The computation results for the case of no friction are
given first.
to 5.
Strains of
e 2
The
164
ej
All
B.
',
cj
and
ej
e,
are shown in
e z
and
e 9
for
Computational longitudinal
e e
e'g
Though the
ej
and
and
4)
The
characters
and
for specimens W2
b,
c,
d,
165
= 1.394 inch.
The radial
respectively.
f,
<j
2r
on a section
negative r-direction.
CT
rl
that
o tr is
relatively large.
a 9S
at e and f are
normal stresses for W28 are larger than those for W20, while
the longest intervals of tensile
30 microseconds,
in W28.
a tr
and
au
166
Time (microsecond)
167
'
168
'
169
V28
160
140 -
ao
30
-i
iV"
10
150
200
250
Time (microsecond)
^ L
'
*'
170
Figure 7.8
171
20
V20
15 -
ID
l-S
C
/
/a
CO
to
a'
in
fi
W/
QJ
tn
-10
-IS -
30
t0
60
SO
ISO
120
140
IS a
leo
ion
Time (microsecond)
Figure 7.10
Figure 7.11
172
Figure
12
W28
,d
2S0 -
X,
a,
1
M
to
UN
50
/T
en
HI
/?
-SO c
t'a
20
30
40
SO
60
70
Time (microsecond)
Figure 7.13
173
Figure 7.14
Figure 7.15
174
The inelastic-strain-
3,
and
was based
uniaxially loaded.
analysis with friction to check reasonability of the nofriction assumption used in analysis before.
In the analysis with friction,
It is
this extreme friction case were calculated for all the same
e'z
e',
c z
and
as shown, but
'
computed
that
175
0,
0.5,
respectively as well as
strains.
ej
n
,
and
a tI
Friction causes
tensile a and
a ee
specimen remains.
a zz
distribution
176
d*
and
d',
and d 1
In another
([ 0A5jl
e'z(0Ai}
Figure
'
e'
and
e z
and
mw
t'
e'e
strains and hoop strains from the two cases all coincide
well with the test data.
and
(0 15)
177
178
in
V28
3M
,-.
*"'
if.
r*
:'
ai
/\
180 -
160 -
/'
O
o
140 -
ft
130 -
?
ao
'
Zz ana e coaputea
/
tn
\/i
/u
#\/
/'/
&
L
c
iz
n
100
ISO
7\r\^. ^ ^*~
.-.
^fc"
200
ISO
300
Tine (microsecond)
179
10
50
70
60
Time (microsecond)
V28
3S0 -
e^<
/b
300 -
Z50 -
M
H
tA
150
CD
100 -
rnction
*^f
i'o
20
30
50
CO
TO
Tine (microsecond)
180
V28
19
10
^
DM
s -
U
N
wfvn
fi
1/1
en
O)
en
-10
''<y
....
Z0
40
30
60
SO
70
Tine (Microsecond)
Figure 7.20
W28
18 -
10
"^
'"va
-S
10
15
j?S\ >k
9#
\\
\\
fl/7
\\L
40
Sfl
Time (microsecond)
181
100 -
\/l
tam
N
\tL
A
iXfft*""*-
o
o
o
o
TO -
'
-
30
10
100
^
\
V~\\'
y^Bto.isj
"--
xA^i
i\l
/ H
-mS^w-X
20 -
\
'
If
c:
A\ ?
60 -
SO
lq
!\
\r\n.f
150
300
Time (microsecond)
JS0
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
A cycle of macroscopic
follows.
8.2
1.
(SHPB)
Conclusions
182
183
2
The
A cumulative criterion of
This
184
these tests.
The
the same.
An over-stress type of
185
7
two end faces of the specimen (assumed uniform over the end
faces) were input as loads, UFCONC yielded the time
The prediction of
With friction
the whole specimen length were not uniform, but the SHPB
186
1.
Recommendations
So far
it took a
187
errors.
ir/3
similarity equal to
ir/3.
(1989)
histories were available, that time was the time when the
188
A closely spaced
More sections, on
Stress
The crack
It should be
It might then be
Fluorescent-dye
189
(1986).
REFERENCES
Argyris, J. H. G. Faust, J. Szimmat, E. P. Warnke, and
K. J. Willam (1974)
Recent Developments in the Finite
Element Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Reactor
Vessels, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 28., 42-75.
,
Bathe, K. J.
165.
190
191
Constitutive
Bodner, S. R. and V. Partom (1975)
Equations for Elastic-Viscoplastic Strain-Hardening
Materials, J. Appl. Mech. ASME, 42, 385-389.
,
Strength of
Bresler, B. and K. S. Pister (1958)
Concrete Under Combined Stresses, Journal of American
Concrete Institute, September 1958, 321-345.
,
950.
Drucker, D. C. (1951b)
Some Implications of WorkHardening and Ideal Plasticity, Quarterly of Appl.
Math., 7, 411-418.
,
192
Drucker, D. C. (1956)
On Uniqueness in the Theory of
Plasticity, Quarterly of Appl Math., 14, 35-42.
,
Math.
Drucker, D. C.
R. E. Gibson and D. J. Henkel (1957),
Soil Mechanics and Work-Hardening Theories of
Plasticity, Trans. ASCE, 122 338-346.
,
Faruque, M. 0. (1987)
A Cap Type Constitutive Model for
Plain Concrete, Constitutive Laws for Engineering
Materials eds. C. S. Desai, E. Kremple, P. D. Kiousis
and T. Kunda, Elsevier Science Publishing Co.
New York,
,
395-402.
Felice, C. W. (1985)
The Response of Soil to Impulsive
Loads Using the Split-Hopkinson's Pressure Bar
Technique, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Utah,
Salt Lake City.
,
Gardner, K. L. (1980)
Impregnation Technique Using
Colored Epoxy to Define Porosity in Petrographic Thin
Sections, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 17
1104-1107.
,
Gerstle, K. H.
H. Aschl, R. Bellotti, P. Bertacchi, M.
D. Kotsovos, H. Ko, D. Linse, J. B. Newman, P. Rossi, G.
Schickert, M. A. Taylor, L.A. Traina, H. Winkler, and R.
M. Zimmerman (1980), Behavior of Concrete Under
Multiaxial Stress States, J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE, 106
EM6, 1383-1403.
,
193
Gainesville.
A. L. Florence and J. D. Colton (1989),
Dynamic Triaxial Tests of High-Strength Concrete, J.
115 891-904.
Gran, J. K.
Gran, J. K.
Green, H.
(1964)
Gregson, V. G. (1971)
A Shock Wave Study of Fondu-Frye
WA-1 and a Concrete, General Motors Materials and
Structures Laboratory, Report MSL-70-30.
,
Griner, G. R. (1974)
Dynamic Properties of Concrete,
Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
,
Hill, R.
Hobbs, D. W.
Hoff, G. C.
194
Combo Viscoplasticity: an
(1980)
Introduction with Incremental Formulation, Computers and
Structures, 11, (3), 217-224.
Katona, M. G.
195
Lade, P. V.
317-335.
187-197.
1-20.
196
Mould, Jr., J. C. and H. Levine (1987), A ThreeInvariant Viscoplastic Concrete Model, Constitutive Laws
for Engineering Materials eds. C. S. Desai, E. Kremple,
P. D. Kiousis and T. Kunda, Elsevier Science Publishing
Co., New York, 707-716.
,
197
Fundamental Problems in
Perzyna, P. (1966)
Viscoplasticity, Advances Appl. Mech. 9, 343-377.
,
Prager, W. (1949)
Recent Developments in Mathematical
Theory of Plasticity, J. Appl. Phys., 20, No. 3, 235,
241.
Sierakowski, R. L.
L. E. Malvern, J. A. Collins,
E. Milton and C. A. Ross (1977)
Penetration Impact
Studies of Soil/ Concrete, Final Report, AFOSR Grant No.
77-3029 and AFAL TR-78-9, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, 109-110, November 30.
,
J.
198
Takeda, J. H.
H. Tachikawa and K. Fujimoto (1984),
Proceedings of the Symposium on the Mechanical Behavior
of Materials, Kyoto, August 21-24, Vol. II, 479-486.
,
Tang,
T.
L.
E.
Zienkiewicz, O. C. and I. C. Cormeau (1974), Viscoplasticity - Plasticity and Creep in Elastic Solids - A
United Numerical Solution Approach, Int. J. Num. Meth.
Eng. 8, 821-845.
199
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
University in fall 1963 and met his future wife Yaoqi Pang
there.
December 1968.
He
Dagang.
200
panieixf. Drucker
Graduate Research Professor of
Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics
and Engineering Science
CCXAADavid A. Jenkins
Associate Engineer of Aerospace
Engineering, Mechanics and
Engineering Science
John M. Lybas
Associate Professor' of Civil
Engineering
Edward K. Walsh
Professor of Aerospace Engineering,
Mechanics and Engineering Science
May 1990
iLu<r
a,
&JU*
Winfred M. Phillips
Dean, College of Engineering
Madelyn M. Lockhart
Dean, Graduate School
mmmm^Zl
OF Florida