MICROPLANE MODEL M4 FOR CONCRETE: II. ALGORITHM AND CALIBRATION

By F. Caner, Zdenek P. Bazant. 2000

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a2e9dd83d9862a1212887b6ba389bbe3eb81088

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

1. Gianluca Cusatis
2. Zdenek P. Bazant
3. Milan Jirásek
4. P. Grassl
5. Alessandro Beghini
6. S. Akers
7. M. Adley
8. F. Caner

In Mechanics of Materials

1. Gianluca Cusatis
2. Zdenek P. Bazant
3. P. Grassl
4. Milan Jirásek
5. S. Akers
6. M. Adley
7. F. Caner
8. I. Carol

Citations in the corpus

• Large-Strain Generalization of Microplane Model for Concrete and Application (2000, methodology): “Model M4, generalized for rate effects and finite strain (Bažant et al. 2000b; Caner and Bažant 2000), has provided excellent results in finite-element simulations of experiments of two kinds: (1) The penetration of projectiles into concrete walls, with or without perforation of the wall; and (2)…”
• Spectral Stiffness Microplane Model for Quasibrittle Composite Laminates—Part I: Theory (2008, background): “Since its introduction in the early eighties, the microplane model for concrete has evolved through five progressively improved versions labeled as M1 [20, 21], M2 [24], M3 [25], M4 [22, 26, 27] and M5 [28, 29].”
• CDPM2: A damage-plasticity approach to modelling the failure of concrete (2013, methodology): “Furthermore, the performance of the model is evaluated for triaxial tests reported in Caner and Bažant (2000). The material parameters for this test are E = 25 GPa, ν = 0.”
• Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM) for failure behavior of concrete. II: Calibration and validation (2011, unknown): “As a check, at least hydrostatic compression simulations were always performed with the assumed parameters, and it was checked that the numerical response was within the range of typical hydrostatic experimental data reported in the literature [12,17,28,29,13, 7,15,30,31] shown in Fig.”
• Fracturing Rate Effect and Creep in Microplane Model for Dynamics (2000, methodology): “Thus, according to the approximation (14) by the Maxwell model, the equation preceding (2) (in step 5 of the algorithm) in Caner and Bažant (2000) [or (13a) on p. 248 of Bažant et al. (1996a), which reads = 1 ED(εDe is sD D 2 needs to be replaced byiε )],D ve i is = s 1 E 0 (ε 2 ε ) 2 Ds0 (15)D D…”
• Microplane Model M4 for Concrete. I: Formulation with Work-Conjugate Deviatoric Stress (2000, methodology): “Formulation of a numerical algorithm, experimental calibration, and application examples are relegated to the second part of this study (Caner and Bažant 2000).”