5. Verification

The model is verified by means of the test cases: SSNS106C, H, I, I, J, J, L, L, L, M, M, N, O see [bib8], comparing with the GLRC_DM model results, whose parameters are identified in a consistent way and the ENDO_ISOT_BETON constitutive relationship for the concrete and elastic rebar grids in a multi-layer RC plate modeling. The studied cases are:

ssns106 c

Tensile-compressive with bending coupling loading cycle, low load level

ssns106 h

Tensile-compressive loading cycle, high load level

ssns106 i	Pure bending alternate cyclic loading, high load level
ssns106 j	Tensile-compressive with bending coupling loading cycle, high load level
ssns106 l	Pure Shear Stress and Shear Shear Strain Alternate Cyclic in Plane Loading, High Load Level
snss106 m	Pure Shear Stress and Bending Coupling Alternate Cyclic in Plane Loading, High Load Level
ssns106 n	Anticlastic Bending Alternate Cyclic in Plane Loading, High Load Level

ssns106 o

Thermoelastic pure membrane loading cycle

Post-elastic shear responses of the two DHRC and GLRC_DM models are significantly different. Indeed, the calibration done to align the two models in tension is no longer effective in shear strain stemming from the fact that DHRC shear strain behavior comes from the identification of the parameters by homogenization while with the GLRC_DM model this behavior is deduced from tensile and compressive responses working in the eigen-frame of the macroscopic membrane strains. Furthermore, the primary damage thresholds values GLRC_DM and DHRC are a little bit different. We can observe the significant contribution of sliding in the total dissipated energy obtained by the DHRC constitutive model, which is not get-at-able by the GLRC_DM one. Moreover, we observe that with model we get an increasing damage at each alternate cycle, which is not reproduced with the GLRC_DM one.