Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance Assessment of Concrete and Steel Material Models in LS-DYNA for Enhanced Numerical Simulation, A State of the Art Review

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges associated with modelling the behaviour of reinforced concrete is the difficulty of incorporating realistic material models that can represent the observable behaviour of the physical system. Experiments for relevant loading rates and pressures reveal that steel and concrete exhibits a complicated nonlinear behavior that is difficult to capture in a single constitutive model. LS-DYNA provides several material models to simulate the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete. To provide some guidance in selecting the proper one for users who have limited experience on numerical simulation of steel and concrete, this paper reviews the background theory and evaluates performance of different material models to predicting the response of reinforced concrete structures to dynamic loads as well as advantageous and disadvantageous of models. Comparisons of several widely available concrete constitutive models are presented pertaining to their ability to reproduce basic laboratory data for concrete and steel as well as predict the response of structures subjected to shock and impact loadings. The performance of these models was assessed by comparison of finite element analysis model and experimental results of reinforced concrete structures to insure that the overall behaviour prediction is qualitatively acceptable, even if the exact parameter fit or material characterization is not available. The authors concluded that the accuracy of the finite element results relied on the selection of material model as well as the input parameter values. The material model assessment presented in this study can be used in the numerical simulation to generate appropriate models for concrete and steel.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bischoff PH, Perry S (1991) Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates. Mater Struct 24(6):425–450

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weerheijm J (2013) Understanding the tensile properties of concrete. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kong X et al (2018) A new material model for concrete subjected to intense dynamic loadings. Int J Impact Eng 120:60–78

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wu Y et al (2014) Validation studies for concrete constitutive models with blast test data. In: Proceedings of 13th international LS-DYNA® users conference, LSTC, Livermore, CA

  5. Saheen ML (2015) Numerical modeling of blast loads effects on a reinforced concrete structure using LS-DYNA software. Numerical modeling of blast loads effects on a reinforced concrete structure using LS-DYNA software

  6. Abedini M et al (2019) Pressure–impulse (P–I) diagrams for reinforced concrete (RC) structures: a review. Arch Comput Methods Eng 26(3):733–767

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gholipour G, Zhang C, Mousavi AA (2018) Effects of axial load on nonlinear response of RC columns subjected to lateral impact load: ship-pier collision. Eng Fail Anal 91:397–418

    Google Scholar 

  8. Markovich N, Kochavi E, Ben-Dor G (2011) An improved calibration of the concrete damage model. Finite Elem Anal Des 47(11):1280–1290

    Google Scholar 

  9. Riedel W (2009) 10 years RHT: A review of concrete modelling and hydrocode applications. In: Predictive modeling of dynamic processes. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0727-1_9

  10. Xu J, Lu Y (2013) A comparative study of modelling RC slab response to blast loading with two typical concrete material models. Int J Prot Struct 4(3):415–432

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tu Z, Lu Y (2009) Evaluation of typical concrete material models used in hydrocodes for high dynamic response simulations. Int J Impact Eng 36(1):132–146

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bao X, Li B (2010) Residual strength of blast damaged reinforced concrete columns. Int J Impact Eng 37(3):295–308

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zhanga C, Abedini M, Mehrmashhadi J (2020) Development of pressure-impulse models and residual capacity assessment of RC columns using high fidelity Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian simulation. Eng Struct 224(111219):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Buyukozturk O, Shareef SS (1985) Constitutive modeling of concrete in finite element analysis. Comput Struct 21(3):581–610

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Mutalib AA, Tawil NM, Baharom S, Abedini M (2013) Failure probabilities of FRP strengthened RC column to blast loads. Jurnal Teknologi 65(2)

  16. Hu H-T, Schnobrich WC (1989) Constitutive modeling of concrete by using nonassociated plasticity. J Mater Civ Eng 1(4):199–216

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mussa MH, Mutalib AA, Hamid R, Naidu SR, Radzi NAM, Abedini M (2017) Assessment of damage to an underground box tunnel by a surface explosion. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 66:64–76

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mohammed TA, Parvin A (2013) Evaluating damage scale model of concrete materials using test data. Adv Concr Constr 1(4):289–304

    Google Scholar 

  19. Murray YD (2007) Manual for LS-DYNA wood material model, vol 143. Federal Highway Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  20. Xu H, Wen H (2016) A computational constitutive model for concrete subjected to dynamic loadings. Int J Impact Eng 91:116–125

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abedini M, Mutalib A, Raman S, Baharom S, Nouri J (2017) Prediction of residual axial load carrying capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) columns subjected to extreme dynamic loads. Am J Eng Appl Sci 10:431–448

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tu Z, Lu Y (2010) Modifications of RHT material model for improved numerical simulation of dynamic response of concrete. Int J Impact Eng 37(10):1072–1082

    Google Scholar 

  23. Riedel W, Kawai N, Kondo K-I (2009) Numerical assessment for impact strength measurements in concrete materials. Int J Impact Eng 36(2):283–293

    Google Scholar 

  24. Riedel W (2000) Beton unter dynamischen Lasten: Meso-und makromechanische Modelle und ihre Parameter. EMI, ‎London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schwer LE, Malvar LJ (2005) Simplified concrete modeling with* MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3. JRI LS-Dyna User Week. pp 49–60

  26. Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR (2011) A computational constitutive model for glass subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high pressures. J Appl Mech 78(5):051003

    Google Scholar 

  27. Herrman R (1969) A combination strain gage-photoelastic techniques for pressure vessel analysis. In: Society for experimental analysis, fall meeting, Houston, Tex

  28. Nilsson L (1979) Impact loading on concrete structures: a constitutive modelling, finite element analysis, and experimental study of nonlinear wave propagation. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gang H, Kwak H-G (2017) A strain rate dependent orthotropic concrete material model. Int J Impact Eng 103:211–224

    Google Scholar 

  30. Li S-m, Li X-J (2011) Review on current dynamic damage constitutive models of concrete. Concrete 201(6):6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li H, Shi G (2017) Material modeling of concrete for the numerical simulation of steel plate reinforced concrete panels subjected to impacting loading. J Eng Mater Technol 139(2):021011

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li L et al (2019) Assessment of typical concrete material models used in simulation of concrete slab under blast in air. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. IOP Publishing

  33. Hong J et al (2017) Numerical predictions of concrete slabs under contact explosion by modified K&C material model. Constr Build Mater 155:1013–1024

    Google Scholar 

  34. Xu M, Wille K (2015) Calibration of K&C concrete model for UHPC in LS-DYNA. In: Advanced materials research, vol 1081. Trans Tech Publications, pp 254–259. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1081.254

  35. Kong X et al (2017) Modified K&C model for cratering and scabbing of concrete slabs under projectile impact. Int J Impact Eng 108:217–228

    Google Scholar 

  36. Häussler-Combe U, Panteki E, Kühn T (2015) Strain rate effects for spallation of concrete. In: EPJ web of conferences. EDP Sciences

  37. Malvar LJ, Morrill KB, Crawford JE (2004) Numerical modeling of concrete confined by fiber-reinforced composites. J Compos Constr 8(4):315–322

    Google Scholar 

  38. Thabet A, Haldane D (2000) Three-dimensional simulation of nonlinear response of reinforced concrete members subjected to impact loading. ACI Struct J 97(5):689–702

    Google Scholar 

  39. William KJ, Warnke EP (1974) Constitutive models for the triaxial behavior of concrete. In: Concrete structures subjected to triaxial stresses, international association of bridge structural engineering proceedings. Bergamo, Italy

  40. Cui J, Hao H, Shi Y (2017) Discussion on the suitability of concrete constitutive models for high-rate response predictions of RC structures. Int J Impact Eng 106:202–216

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tanapornraweekit G et al (2007) Modelling of a reinforced concrete panel subjected to blast load by explicit non-linear FE code. In: Proceedings of earthquake engineering in Australia conference

  42. Tuler FR, Butcher BM (1968) A criterion for the time dependence of dynamic fracture. Int J Fract Mech 4(4):431–437

    Google Scholar 

  43. Govindjee S, Kay GJ, Simo JC (1995) Anisotropic modelling and numerical simulation of brittle damage in concrete. Int J Numer Methods Eng 38(21):3611–3633

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Favre R, Charif H (1994) Basic model and simplified calculations of deformations according to the CEB-FIP model code 1990. Struct J 91(2):169–177

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hallquist JO (2007) LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual. Livermore Softw Technol Corp 970:299–800

    Google Scholar 

  46. Broadhouse B, Neilson A (1987) Modelling reinforced concrete structures in DYNA3D. UKAEA Atomic Energy Establishment, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ottosen NS (1977) A failure criterion for concrete. Am Soc Civ Eng Eng Mech Div J 103(4):527–535

    Google Scholar 

  48. Iwalekar AA (2018) Finite element analysis and experimental validation of reinforced concrete single-mat slabs subjected to blast loads. Master Thesis, University of Missouri, Kansas City, pp. 111. https://hdl.handle.net/10355/67037

  49. LS-DYNA (2015) Keyword user’s manual V971,CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation(LSTC),Livermore, California

  50. Wittmann F et al (1988) Fracture energy and strain softening of concrete as determined by means of compact tension specimens. Mater Struct 21(1):21–32

    Google Scholar 

  51. Broadhouse B, Attwood G (1993) Finite element analysis of the impact response of reinforced concrete structures using dyna3d

  52. Jiang H, Zhao J (2015) Calibration of the continuous surface cap model for concrete. Finite Elem Anal Des 97:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  53. Magalhaes Pereira L, Weerheijm J, Sluys L (2013) Damage prediction in a concrete bar due to a compression and tension pulse: A comparison of the K&C, the CSCM and the RHT material models in LS-DYNA. In: 15th ISIEMS conference: international symposium on the interaction of the effects of munitions with structures, Potsdam, Germany, 17–20 September 2013; presented paper. Citeseer

  54. Pereira L, Weerheijm J, Sluys L (2017) A new effective rate dependent damage model for dynamic tensile failure of concrete. Eng Fract Mech 176:281–299

    Google Scholar 

  55. Murray YD (2004) Theory and evaluation of concrete material model 159. In: 8th international LS-DYNA users conference

  56. Drucker DC (1957) A definition of stable inelastic material. Brown University, Providence

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Lim D, Oh B (1999) Experimental and theoretical investigation on the shear of steel fibre reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 21(10):937–944

    Google Scholar 

  58. Malvar LJ et al (1997) A plasticity concrete material model for DYNA3D. J Impact Eng 19:847–873

    Google Scholar 

  59. Shi Y, Hao H, Li Z-X (2007a) Numerical derivation of pressure-impulse diagrams for prediction of RC column damage to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng

  60. Tawadrous A, Preece D, Glenville J (2012) Modification of the RHT model for enhanced tensile response predictions of geologic materials. Electr Measur Instrum Measur 309

  61. Zhang P et al (2013) Numerical back analysis of simulated rockburst field tests by using coupled numerical technique. In: Proceeding of seventh international symposium on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian centre for Geomechanics, Perth

  62. Wang S et al (2017) Research on RHT constitutive model parameters of fiber reinforced concrete based on experiment and numerical simulation. In: 2017 2nd international conference on civil, transportation and environmental engineering (ICCTE 2017). Atlantis Press

  63. Esteban B, Gebbeken N (2017) A detailed comparison of two material models for concrete in the dynamic loading regime, RHT and HPG. Int J Prot Struct 8(2):260–286

    Google Scholar 

  64. Grunwald C et al (2017) A general concrete model in hydrocodes: verification and validation of the Riedel–Hiermaier–Thoma model in LS-DYNA. Int J Prot Struct 8(1):58–85

    Google Scholar 

  65. Borrvall T, Riedel W (2011) The RHT concrete model in LS-dyna, 8th European LS-DYNA users conference. Strasbourg, France

    Google Scholar 

  66. Brannon RM, Leelavanichkul S (2009) Survey of four damage models for concrete. Sandia Natl Lab 32(1):1–80

    Google Scholar 

  67. Borrvall T, Riedel W (2011) The RHT concrete model in LS-DYNA. In: Proceedings of the 8th European LS-DYNA user conference

  68. Hillerborg A (1980) Analysis of fracture by means of the fictitious crack model, particularly for fibre reinforced concrete. Int J Cem Compos 2(4):177–184

    Google Scholar 

  69. Gylltoft K (1983) Fracture mechanics models for fatigue in concrete structures. Luleå tekniska universitet, Luleå

    Google Scholar 

  70. Hillerborg A (1985) The theoretical basis of a method to determine the fracture energyG F of concrete. Mater Struct 18(4):291–296

    Google Scholar 

  71. Leppänen J (2006) Concrete subjected to projectile and fragment impacts: modelling of crack softening and strain rate dependency in tension. Int J Impact Eng 32(11):1828–1841

    Google Scholar 

  72. Yonten K et al (2005) An assessment of constitutive models of concrete in the crashworthiness simulation of roadside safety structures. Int J Crashworthiness 10(1):5–19

    Google Scholar 

  73. Strack OE, Brannon RM, Wells JM (2010) Validating theories for brittle damage. Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  74. Fossum A, Brannon R (2004) Unified compaction/dilation, strain-rate sensitive, constitutive model for rock mechanics structural analysis applications. In: Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6th North America rock mechanics symposium (NARMS). American Rock Mechanics Association

  75. Fossum A, Brannon R (2004) Unified compaction/dilation, strain-rate sensitive, constitutive model for rock mechanics structural analysis applications, ARMA/NARMS 04-546

  76. Zhang C, Gholipour G, Mousavi AA (2019) Nonlinear dynamic behavior of simply-supported RC beams subjected to combined impact-blast loading. Eng Struct 181:124–142

    Google Scholar 

  77. Abedini M, Mutalib AA, Zhang C, Mehrmashhadi J, Raman SN, Alipour R et al (2020) Large deflection behavior effect in reinforced concrete columns exposed to extreme dynamic loads. Front Struct Civ Eng 14(2):532–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0604-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Abedini M et al (2018) Modeling the effects of high strain rate loading on RC columns using Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) technique. Revista Internacional de Métodos Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería 34(1):23. https://doi.org/10.23967/j.rimni.2017.12.001

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  79. ArcelorMittal (2006) Mittal products—automotive application: high strength steels. http://www.mittalsteel.com

  80. Johnson GR (1983) A constitutive model and data for materials subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of 7th international symposium of ballistics. pp 541–547

  81. Meyer Jr, HW, Kleponis DS (2001) An analysis of parameters for the Johnson-Cook strength model for 2-in-thick Rolled Homogeneous Armor. Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground MD

  82. Dannemann K (2009) Mechanical characterization of aluminum 2139-T8 for determination of Johnson–Cook constitutive constants. SWRI San Antonio TX SWRI Rep 18:013

    Google Scholar 

  83. Murugesan M et al (2017) A comparative study of ductile damage models approaches for joint strength prediction in hot shear joining process. Procedia Eng 207:1689–1694

    Google Scholar 

  84. Hallquist JO (2006) LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Softw Technol Corp 3:25–31

    Google Scholar 

  85. Abedini M, Mutalib AA, Raman SN, Akhlaghi E, Mussa MH, Ansari M (2017) Numerical investigation on the non-linear response of reinforced concrete (RC) columns subjected to extreme dynamic loads. J Asian Sci Res 7(4):86

    Google Scholar 

  86. Lu G, Li X, Wang K (2012) A numerical study on the damage of projectile impact on concrete targets. Comput Concr 9(1):21–33

    Google Scholar 

  87. Majidi L, Usefi N, Abbasnia R (2018) Numerical study of RC beams under various loading rates with LS-DYNA. J Central South Univ 25(5):1226–1239

    Google Scholar 

  88. Abedini M, Mutalib AA (2020) Investigation into damage criterion and failure modes of RC structures when subjected to extreme dynamic loads. Arch Comput Methods Eng 27(2):501–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09317-z

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  89. Gholipour G, Zhang C, Mousavi AA (2019) Loading rate effects on the responses of simply supported RC beams subjected to the combination of impact and blast loads. Eng Struct 201:109837

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kyei C (2014) Effects of blast loading on seismically detailed reinforced concrete columns. Carleton University, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  91. Farouk S (2013) Experimental program conducted to test near-field blast loading on reinforced concrete columns. Masters Thesis in Progress, Civil Engineering Department, Carleton

  92. Magallanes JM (2008) Importance of concrete material characterization and modelling to predicting the response of structures to shock and impact loading. Struct Under Shock Impact X 98:241–250

    Google Scholar 

  93. Gram M et al (2012) Laboratory simulation of blast loading on building and bridge structures. WIT Trans State-of-the-Art Sci Eng 60:75–86. https://doi.org/10.2495/978-1-84564-750-6/08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Pereira L, Weerheijm J, Sluys L (2013) Damage prediction in a concrete bar due to a compression and tension pulse: a comparison of the K&C, the CSCM and the RHT material models in LS-DYNA. In: The 15th ISIEMS conference: international symposium on the interaction of the effects of munitions with structures, Potsdam, Germany

  95. Shuaib M, Daoud O (2015) Numerical modelling of reinforced concrete slabs under blast loads of close-in detonations using the Lagrangian approach. In: Journal of physics: conference series. IOP Publishing

  96. Tsubota H et al (1999) Scale model tests of multiple barriers against aircraft impact: part 1. Experimental program and test results. In: Transactions of the 15th international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research is financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0703603), the Taishan Scholar Priority Discipline Talent Group program funded by the Shandong Province.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, 266033, China

    Masoud Abedini & Chunwei Zhang

Authors
  1. Masoud Abedini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunwei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chunwei Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abedini, M., Zhang, C. Performance Assessment of Concrete and Steel Material Models in LS-DYNA for Enhanced Numerical Simulation, A State of the Art Review. Arch Computat Methods Eng 28, 2921–2942 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09483-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09483-5

Search

Navigation