General Mechanical

General Mechanical

Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion for Modeling a Simply Supported Concrete Beam in WB

    • Ramsey

      Hi guys,

      I have tried to model a simply supported concrete beam (actually a cement mortar for now) under the three-point cyclic flexural load using ANSYS WB (I’m using 2020 R1). The cyclic loading procedure, which included 13 cycles, utilized a zero-to-peak loading regime with successive cycles incremented by 0.1-mm to a total displacement of 1.3-mm (see Figure below). Both the loading and unloading rates were set to be 1.0-mm/min.

    • John Doyle
      Ansys Employee
      With regards to the Drucker-Prager plasticity, it looks like you are using an undocumented option (tbopt=DPC).  "DPC" is not documented to work with SOLID65.  The error trap that you are getting (...insufficient data) is certainly not as clear as it could be.  It is worth noting also that SOLID65 is an old legacy element, meaning no new development will be done on this particular element type.  You can still use it though. The tbopt=DPC option is documented to work with the microplane plasticity/damage material model and the coupled pore-pressure-thero elements (CPT2xx), which is probably more than you need for this simulation.   nBefore you abandon the SOLID65, have you tried using the simpler classic Drucker Prager (TB,dp,,)?  The yield surface must lie inside the concrete failure (cracking/crushing) surface.   Otherwise, failure (cracking/crushing) will occur before yielding takes place.  Also, the cracking and crushing result available with the SOLID65 is just an element status.  You cannot postprocess crack width.nIf SOLID65 does not suffice, you might also consider using the latest 18x element technology with some of the newer geomechanical material options like Menetrey-Willam. Perhaps that would give you a more robust plasticity solution.n See Section 4.9 of Material Reference Guide
Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.