1 Topic by student (edited by student 2011-08-21 14:38:57)

  • Registered: 2011-08-20
  • Posts: 1

Topic: ATENA 2D: SBeta vs 3DNLC2

I'm studying shear behavior in reinforced concrete via 2D analyses, what differences may be expected from the use of one or the other constitutive model (SBeta and 3DNLC2)? Or why is one better than other one.

Many thanks in advance.

Quote Post 1

  • dpryl
  • CC software developer
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-07-13
  • Posts: 1,107

Re: ATENA 2D: SBeta vs 3DNLC2

Please see the ATENA Theory Manual for detailed descriptions of the two material models - Chapters
2.1 Constitutive Model SBETA (CCSbetaMaterial)
and
2.2 Fracture–Plastic Constitutive Model (CC3DCementitious, CC3DNonLinCementitious, CC3DNonLinCementitious2, CC3DNonLinCementitious2User, CC3DNonLinCementitious2Variable, CC3DNonLinCementitious2SHCC, CC3DNonLinCementitious3).

Normally, we recommend to prefer the NLCem2 model, however, there are situations where SBETA is better.

A few differences that come first into my mind:
- SBETA is only Plane Stress, NLCem2 can be used for Plane Stress and Plane Strain
- multiple tensile softening functions choice in SBETA (usefull e.g., for simplified FRC modelling), including the Hordijk law used in NLCem2 (use NLCem2 User to define your own softening function(s))
- more options to define tensile-compressive and compression-cracking interactions and shear behaviour in NLCem2
- differences in compressive response (e.g., more advanced confinement modelling in NLCem2)

dpryl's Website

Quote Post 2