Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures -

Recent Advances in Fracture Mechanics of Concrete - B. H. Oh, et al.(eds)

2010 Korea Concrete Institute, Seoul, ISBN 978-89-5708-180-8

The dynamic fracture energy of concrete.

Review of test methods and data comparison.
J. Weerheijm & I. Vegt
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands and TNO Defence Security and Safety, Rijswijk, The

Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Data on the dynamic fracture energy of concrete are scarce and also not consistent due to dif-
ferent test methods, data analyses and definitions. This paper intends to facilitate the discussion on dynamic
fracture energy and start the standardization process for dynamic tensile testing. The response and failure
mechanisms in statics and dynamics are addressed. Definitions of the fracture process zone, the fracture zone
and the fracture energy are recalled. Test methods to derive strength and, especially fracture energy data for
concrete in tension are summarized and reviewed. For dynamics, the uniaxial set-ups are the most suitable. To
illustrate the dependency of G data to the applied diagnostics and data analysis, a comparison of two data sets
f

for loading rates in the order of 1000 GPa/s is given. The paper ends with an overview of recommended test
methods for uniaxial dynamic tensile testing.

1 INTRODUCTION high loading rates, a modified Split Hopkinson Bar

The response of concrete up to complete failure in
tension is represented in the load-deformation rela-
tion. The characteristic parameters are the ultimate
strength, stiffness in the ascending branch and the
fracture energy. All these properties are rate depend-
ent. The observed response of concrete at macro
level is determined by the damage initiation and
damage accumulation mechanisms at meso and mi-
cro scale level. The failure process is governed by (i)
the stress condition, (ii) the ability to absorb energy
in fracture and (iii) the energy flow from the sur-
rounding material into the fracture zone. In dynam-
ics all three conditions vary in time and depend on
the loading rate. Especially at loading rates beyond
50 GPa/s these mechanisms are strongly rate de-
pendent resulting in an extensive strength increase.
In collaboration with TNO Defence Security and
Safety (TNO DSS), the Delft University of Technol-
ogy (DUT) studies the dynamic response of concrete
under tensile loading. The research comprises ex-
perimental and computational studies.
The focus of this paper is on the fracture energy and
especially on the possibilities to quantify the fracture
energy experimentally in dynamic tensile tests. First,
the fracture energy will be discussed and defined
theoretically. Next, the material conditions for de-
formation controlled static testing and dynamic test-
ing are addressed and the applied test methods are
reviewed.
The authors developed a test and measurement tech-
nique for the Split Hopkinson Bar (SHB) and, for
(MSHB) to quantify the stress - and deformation
conditions independently as a function of time.
Combined, these result in a load-deformation curve
from which the fracture energy is obtained. The ex-
perimental results will be discussed and compared
with available data from literature. Finally, specific
test methods are recommended.
2 FRACTURE ENERGY STATIC CONDITIONS
The concrete response in tension up to failure is
studied and described extensively in literature (e.g.
Bazant, Carpinteri, Wittmann, Hillerborg, Reinhardt,
van Mier). In this section a summary of the main
characteristics is given as a reference for the dy-
namic response.
The response of concrete up to failure is governed
by its heterogeneous composition and dominated by
the extension of initially existing damage. Being
aware of the supporting subscale material structure,
the mechanical response of concrete is mainly domi-
nated by the response at meso-scale which is charac-
terized by aggregates, mortar matrix, the ITZ (inter-
face transition zone) and the pores and flaws.
Due to the differences in stiffness of the various
components and the induced stresses during the
hardening process, the internal stress distribution is
not equally distributed and initial microcracks and
defects exist.
When the material strength is locally exceeded,
damage will start to grow. Available deformation en-
 D (h, Tinto
J = flows
ergy )h the fracture zone and is absorbed in the
(1) explicitly
equalsaccounts for below
the surface the evolution of hydration
the load-deformation
fracture process. Because of the coarse heterogeneity reaction
curveandforSF content.
uniaxial This
tensile sorption isotherm
loading.
the The
fracture does not consist
proportionality of the formation
coefficient D(h,T) isof called
a sin- reads
gle crack. The macrocrack is preceded by
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear functiona zone in
which multiplehumidity
of the relative microcracking occurs. ThisT (Baant
h and temperature zone is 3 STATIC FRACTURE ENERGY TESTS
called the fracture process zone (FPZ). First
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires the micro we (h c s ) = G ( c s )
+ 1
cracks
that the variation in time of the water mass per with
start to grow, interfering with each other, unit 3.1 , ,
Direct uniaxial
1 tension
, 1

(g

c )h
defects
volume and aggregates.
of concrete (waterAfter
contenta while
w) be aequal
dominant
to the To determine the Mode I fracture
e c energy
10

(4)
directly,
1

macro crackofisthe
divergence formed, which
moisture fluxgrows. This process is the uniaxial tensile test is the(gmost fundamental
)h one.
J
well represented in the fictitious fracture model of But the test is Knot( ceasy )e to c
perform,
10
cspecial
equip-
Hillerborg (Hillerborg 1976, 1985), see
1
,
s 1

= J (2) ment is needed and discussions on the boundary

1
w

t conditions and the minimum specimen size to be ap-
plied,
wheretoarethe still
firstongoing
term (gel (vanisotherm)
Mier 2002). The tests
represents the
The water content w can be expressed as the sum have
physically be deformation
bound (adsorbed)controlled
water also
and during
the the
second
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water failure process. This
term (capillary results represents
isotherm) into requirements
the and on the
capillary
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable length of
water. This the specimen,
expression the test
is valid equipment
only forfully diag-
low rotating
content
(chemically bound) water wn (Mills 1966, nostics. E.g.,
of non-rotating the
SF. The coefficient clamping conditions,
G1 represents the amount of
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to or
water per unit platens,held
volume will affect
in the the
gel recorded
pores at load-
100%
assume that the evaporable water is a function of deformation
relative curve and
humidity, and thus
it cantheberecorded
expressed -value.
G(Norling
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, c, and
f

In spite
Mjornell of the unfinished discussions on the ideal
degree of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=we(h,c,s) test, the 1997)
direct astension test is recommended to de-
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm termine the uniaxial properties of concrete if the
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and G k c s (5)
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one
equipment
1
( , ) =
vg c vg s s
c s is available.
c + k
obtains
3.2
where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
Three point bending test

w h maximumtheamount
Because specialofequipment
water perfor unituniaxial
volumetesting
that canis
e + ( D h) = we we &+ &s + w&n
Figure 1. Crack tip fracture process; fictitious crack concept.

(3) fill all pores (both capillary pores

not commonly available, a special procedure has and gel pores), one
h approach
t h is quite can calculate K1 as
similarto
to one obtains
c
The c s the energy bal- been developed derive the fracture energy from
ance approach in which a certain amount of energy the load-deflection curve measured in a three point
iswhere
absorbed
we/h byisthetheformation
slope of the of asorption/desorption
unit area of crack bending test. The need for a practical
g method

c h initi-
10
c

surface.
isotherm (also called moisture a capacity).
When a crack propagates, certain amount

The ated a major w flow cof
0.188 s + research
s G on
0.22
s e
concrete
1
fracture
1

of (deformation)
governing equation energy is released.
(Equation 3) mustCrack propaga-
be completed (6)
0 1

mechanics
K ( c s ) = and size effects in the

80s and 90s.
A
tion is controlled
by appropriate by the balance
boundary and initial of conditions.
released and ab- standard RILEM bending-test
1
,
has
g h
been developed to
sorbed
The relation between the amountInoftheevaporable
energy (the energy criterion). fictitious determine the fracturee energy.
10
c cG is defined by the
1
1

crack model the crack initiation is controlled by the

f

water and relative humidity is called adsorption recorded load-displacement relation corrected by the
strength
isothermcriterion, the maximum
if measured material strength,
with increasing f.
relativity
t The material
absorbed energyparameters
due to the kdead-weight
c
vg and k s
vg and g1 can
(Hillerborg
To helpandthedesorption
humidity discussionisotherm
and description of the
in the opposite 1985). In order to derive the material property Gto,
be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant
Mode I fracture process we recall (Xiand suggest
1994),the
f

case. Neglecting their difference et al. in free this

from (evaporable)
structural watertest, two content
important in concrete
energy re-at
following definitions:
the following, sorption isotherm will be used with varioustest
lated ages (Di Luziohave
conditions & Cusatis 2009b). These are:
to be fulfilled.
- The toFracture
reference Processand
both sorption Zone (FPZ) isconditions.
desorption the zone (i) the absorbed energy outside the Mode I failure
By the ahead way,of theif tip
theofhysteresis
a physical,ofmacrocrack.
the moisture Mi- zone should be ignorable and (ii) the compressive
crocracking in the FPZ leads
isotherm would be taken into account, two different to the growth of 2.2 Temperature
strength should be evolution
much larger than the tensile
the evaporable
relation, macro crack.water The vs FPZ is coupled
relative to themust
humidity, ma- Note that,else
strength, at early age, since
too much energy the ischemical
absorbedreactions
in the
be used terial characteristics
according to the atsign meso- andvariation
of the microlevel. of the associated with
compressive zonecement
and no hydration
representative and SFvalue reaction
can
Gf
- The humidity.
relativity Fracture Zone The (FZ) shapecovers the material
of the sorption are exothermic,
be obtained. In the temperature field is
90s Elices, Guinea and Planas not uniform
that is involved in the energy
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters, exchange of the for non-adiabatic
analyzed the bending systems even if the and
test thoroughly environmental
quantified
fracture
especially those process. In this zone
that influence extenttheandfinal
ratefailure
of the temperature
the most important is constant. Heat conduction
error sources and proposed can an be
chemicalcrackreactions
is formedand, by the in branching
turn, determineand coales-
pore describedprocedure
analysis in concrete,to dealat with
leastweight
for temperature
compensation not
cence
structure andofpore
individual macrocracks
size distribution (see Fig. 1 for
(water-to-cement exceeding
and the energy 100C (Baantat the
dissipation & end Kaplanof the1996),
deforma- by
ratio, the uniaxial
cement tensile test).
chemical The zone SF
composition, includes the
content, Fouriers
tion tail. law, which reads
curingFPZ timeofandthese macrocracks
method, plus themix
temperature, surrounding
additives, For dynamic testing, the main lesson learned
etc.). material from which
In the literature deformation
various energycan
formulations is re-
be from
q = all
Tthe research and publications on how to de- (7)
foundleased into crack
to describe the formation.
sorption isotherm of normal termine the fracture energy from 3-point bending
- The(Xi
concrete material
et al. fracture energy G inis the
1994). However, f the present
energy tests
whereis thatq is the the
stressheat
distribution
flux, Tandis thetheenergy dis-
absolute
paperabsorbed within a single
the semi-empirical fracture
expression zone and
proposed by sipation in the whole specimen
temperature, and is the heat conductivity; in this during the whole
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it load-cycle have to be known.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

4 DYNAMIC CONDITIONS micro cracks andJ =the D (coalescence
h , T ) h into the final
macro crack. Besides the internal (dynamic) stress
4.1 Dynamic response distribution, the meso Thestructure and the number
proportionality coefficient and D(h,T)
Concrete is probably the most rate dependent struc- distribution of themoisture
initial defects will determine
permeability and it is a nonlinea t
frac .
tural material. Especially in tension concrete exhib- To estimate the order
of the ofrelativemagnitude humidity of l h ,and
FZ it istemperature
as-
its a pronounced increase in strength for loading sumed that the dominant defects are coupled
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc to the
rates exceeding 15 GPa/s (corresponds to strain rate aggregates (e.g. that diameter
the variation8 mm),in time the maximum
of the water mas
in the order of 1/s). For concrete, one can distinguish crack velocity is volume
in the order of 500
of concrete (water m/s (seecontent
Weer-w) be eq
two regions for rate dependency. For loading rates heijm 1992), so the failure time
divergence of theis moisture
about 8 sec flux Jand
ranging from static (10 GPa/s) to intermediate rate
-4 l is about 55 mm. At higher loading rates more de-
FZ

of 50 GPa/s, a moderate rate effect in tensile fects in a wider zone can be activated which will re-
sult in more energy absorption,
= J
w
a delay of coales-
strength is observed. Beyond the rate of 50 GPa/s a
cence, a longer t and consequently a larger FZ.
t

very steep strength increase occurs. The rate effects To understand theThe
frac

mechanisms of dynamic
occur due to the additional resistance to damage water content w can befrac- expressed a
growth at micro- and meso level. The main mecha- ture, it is recommended to gain also
of the evaporable water we (capillary information on wa
nisms can be summarized as follows. In the moder- t and the crack vapor,
frac patternsand from dynamic testing.
adsorbed water) and the non-e
ate loading regime the moisture in the capillary In analogue with static testing,
(chemically possibilities
bound) waterof the wn (Mil
pores causes the dominant effect. The water adds re- drop weight test Pantazopoulo
and the uniaxial & Mills Hopkinson
Split 1995). It is reas
sistance to pore-widening (Stephan effect) under dy- bar tests to quantify
assume G will thatbethe
f discussed
evaporable in thewater next is a fu
namic loading, which results in the observed sections. The lessons learned from static
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration testing are:
- The fracture energy should be related to a single
strength increase (see e.g. Vegt et al. 2009). With degree of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=w
increasing loading rate the inertia effects at micro fracture zone;= age-dependent sorption/desorption
- The energy (re)distribution in the specimen dur-
level become dominant. Inertia affects the stress (Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
fields in the heterogeneous material, around the ma- ing testing upby tosubstituting
failure has Equation to be known 1 into and Equati
terial defects and the (micro) cracks. Stress singu- unique. obtains
- In a fracture energy test, energy absorption should
larities decrease and damage initiation and growth occur in only one zone, i.e. the fracturewzone. w
are delayed. These micro inertia effects cause the w h
e e & + e & + w
pronounced strength increase beyond 15-50 GPa/s. + ( D h ) =
h t h c
s
Ignoring the pre-peak non-linearity and damage 4.2 Drop weight bending test c s
initiation at micro level, it is stated that the main Referring to the difficulties
fracture and failure process starts when maximum where weto /hderive
is itthe Gslope
f-values of theunder sorption/
strength is reached. Comparing the processes in stat- static conditions, itisotherm
is obvious that
(also will
called be hardly
moisture im- capac
ics and dynamics, the ruling mechanism is basically possible to fulfill governing
the mentioned equation test requirements
(Equation 3) in
must be
the same, i.e. the energy balance between the re- dynamic impact by bending
appropriate tests. boundary
Due to the and impact
initial conditi
leased deformation energy that flows into the frac- event, stress waves are The induced
relation in the specimen.
between the These
amount of e
ture zone and is absorbed in the fracture process. In waves interfere and watera stationary
and stresshumidity
relative field only is oc-
called
dynamics a part of the available energy is temporar- curs after a certainisotherm
period afterifwhich measured the specimen re-
with increasing
ily stored into kinetic energy. The key difference is sponses in its firsthumidity
(quasi static) mode. Consequently,
and desorption isotherm in th
the factor time. For the purpose of this paper, the au- the method shouldcase. be restricted to relatively
Neglecting their difference low load- (Xi et al.
thors want to focus on this aspect and the conse- ing rates. It shouldthealso be notedsorption
following, that the true relationwill be
isotherm
quences for the definition and determination of the between the induced and absorbed
reference energy inand
to both sorption thedesorption
fail- c
fracture energy. ure zone is hard toByderive the way, if the hysteresistheof the
from the test because of
Time governs the size of the fracture zone (FZ) as time delay. isotherm would be taken into account, two
defined previously. The FZ contains the material In spite of therelation,
limitations the impact
evaporable water testvsisrelative
used humi
that is involved in the energy exchange process. The (e.g. Zhang et al.be2009) used according to the sign ofthe
because it is, just like the varia
width of FZ is determined by the duration of the static bending test,relativity
easy to perform.
humidity.TheThe mainshape devel- of the
fracture process (t ) and the longitudinal wave ve- opers of the G -impact
isotherm
f testforareHPC Banthia and Mindess
is influenced by many p
frac

locity (c ) at which energy can be transferred into (1987). The procedure

especially they developed,
those that influence is the follow- extent and
p

the fracture process. The width of FZ (l ), and the ing, see also Figure 2.
chemical reactions and, in turn, determ
- The impact hammer is instrumented to record
structure and pore size distribution (water-
FZ

intermediate distance between two final macro the load as aratio,

function of time, P(t); composition, SF
cracks is given by cement chemical
- The beam is instrumented with accelerometers
curing time and method, temperature, mix
lFZ = 2.c p .t frac
to record theetc.).deformation
In the literature of the various
beam asformulatio a
function of found
time. to describe the sorption isotherm
- A quasi static failure mode is assumed with a
The wave velocity in concrete is in the order of concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
failure hinge
paperinthe the semi-empirical
notch section. expression The re- pro
3500 m/s, while the duration of the fracture process sponse is split
Norling Mjornell (1997) is and
into a dynamic inertia term adopted b
is governed by the velocity of crack growth of the
Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010
J = Da (hstatic
, T )hbending term. The load P(t) is subdi-
(1) explicitly
4.3 Uniaxial accounts
dynamicfortesting. the evolution of hydration
vided into: reaction
The split and SF content.
Hopkinson This sorption
bar technique isotherm
is commonly
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called reads
used to determine the dynamic tensile strength in the
moisture
P(tpermeability
) = Pi (t ) + Pb (and
t ) it is a nonlinear function loading rate regime 10 100 GPa/s. For higher load-
of the relative humidity h and temperature T (Baant ing rates the Hopkinson/Kolsky spalling bar tech-
& Najjar
- Tests 1972).
showThe thatmoisture mass balance
the deformation moderequires
can be nique
we (h isc recently
s ) = G (used s by
) TNO/TU-Delft, EMI
1
+ and
that the variation inbytime
re-presented of theshape
a linear waterformass percon-
plane unit
, ,
c
the University of Metz. Because
1
,

1

(g

thec Hopkinson
)h bar
andcthe energy
10

volume of concrete
crete (water content
and a sinusoidal w) for
shape be equal to the
reinforced offers a uniaxial loading condition e 1
(4)
divergence of the
concrete. Formoisture
a plane flux
concrete
J beam with cross distribution in the systemcan(gbe recorded, )h the set-up
section A, Pb(t) is quantified by using the re- offers also the Kpossibility( ) e to
10
1c
quantify c the
dynamic
corded c,
s 1
J hammer load P(t) and the mid span (2) ac- fracture energy. In the next sections the techniques
1
=celeration,
w

a (t), according to:

t 0 will be presented and discussed.
The water content w can belexpressed as the sum where Split
4.3.1 the Hopkinson
first term (gel isotherm) represents the
Bar, TU-Delft.
8.b
3

of the Pevaporable
(t ) = P (t ) A
water
. .a w(t +
(capillary
).[ ] water, water physically
In the (capillary bound
1980s Reinhardt (adsorbed) water anddeveloped
andrepresents
co-workers the seconda
b t 0 e
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable
3 3.l term
gravity isotherm)
drivenexpression
Split Hopkinson bar the
forforthelow capillary
regime of
(chemically bound) water wn (Mills 1966, water.
10 -50 This
GPa/s. Specimen is valid
height only
and diameter content
are 100
- The work performed by the static load contri- of SF. The respectively.
coefficient GThe 1 represents the amount of
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It
bution Pb(t) equals the bending energy which is reasonable to and
water 75permm unit volume held research
in the gel was focused
pores at 100%on
assume that the evaporable water
is defined as the (dynamic) fracture energy of is a function of the tensile
relative strength.and
humidity, Zielinski
itthecan reported
be expressed also some
(NorlingGf
relative
thehumidity,
concrete beam. h, degree of hydration, c, and values he
Mjornell 1997) derived from recorded stresses and the
degree of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=we(h,c,s) deformation of asthe whole specimen. He concluded
= age-dependent t sorption/desorption isotherm that the rate effect on sfracture energy is of the same
(Norling
G f Mjonell
= Eb (t ) =1997). Under
du0 this assumption and c
0 Pb (t ). G
orderc as sthe rate
( , ) = k vg
c c +k
effect vg ons s tensile strength. Because (5)
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one multiple fracture occurred, see section 4.1, the total
1

obtains fracture cenergy ofs multiple fracture zones was quanti-

whereandk vgnotandthek vgGfarevalue material of a parameters. From the
hammer accelerometers
fied single fracture zone.
maximum amount of water applied per unit notched,
volume that can
1 2 3

e + ( D h) = we
w h w Weerheijm and Reinhardt instru-

h &c + e &s + w&n (3) fill all pores (both capillary

mented specimen to reconstruct the dynamic load-pores and gel pores), one
h t can calculatecurve K1 asfor onea obtains
b l c b s deformation single fracture zone. The de-
P (t)
formation of the fracture zone is derived from the to-
where we/h is the slope of the sorption/desorption
t

tal deformation of the specimen minus g

the
c elastic

10 h de-

c
isotherm (also calledu moisture capacity). The formation woutside 0.188
c s
this + 0.22 s GThe
zone. s estress-deformation
1
1

governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed (6)

0 1

curve
K ( c iss )obtained by synchronizing
the stress signal
in
o

by appropriate boundaryP (t) and initial conditions. the upper bar and the fracture
1
, =
g h
zone deformation. Gf is

The relation between the amount of evaporable given by the surface eof thisc curve c in analogue with
t
10
1
1

water and Inertia relative

load humidity is called adsorption fictitious crack model of Hillerborg for statics, see
isotherm if measured with increasing relativity The 3.material
Figure For theparameters
moderate kloading c
vg and k vg and
rate
s
regime g1 can
the
humidity
Figure and desorption
2. Scheme drop weight impact isotherm
test andinanalysis.
the opposite rate effect on Gf for the single fracture zone proves to
be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in freemuch
be (evaporable)
lower than on water contentstrength.
the tensile in concreteQuantita-at
theReviewing
following, this sorption
analysisisotherm will bethat
it isdesorption
concluded useditwith
is a various
tive results agesare(Di Luzio
given & Cusatis
in Vegt 2009 and 2009b).section 5.
reference
quasi-static to both
approach. sorption and conditions.
By the
with way,
midspan if the Loading
deflection hysteresis
u
Pb(t)ofis synchronized
the moisture
o(t) and complete fracture 2.2 Temperature evolution
Strain

isotherm
occurs would
when Pb(t)beistaken
reducedintotoaccount, two different
zero. humidity,
Consequently,
relation,
the evaporable
constraints of the water
staticvs relative
3-point bending must
tests to Note that, at early age, sinceStrainthe chemicalTime t
reactions

be used
determine according
Ghumidity. to the sign of the variation
f, count also for the drop weight test. On
of the associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity
top of that, it is assumed Thethatshape
all of the sorption
deformation energy are exothermic, the temperature field is Timenott uniform
isisotherm forintoHPCtheis fracture
influenced by many parameters, for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
Deform. w
released
especially those thatisinfluence zone. This
extent only
ratecounts
andmoment of the temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
when
chemical the specimen
reactions stress
and, in free
turn,at the
determine poreof described in concrete, at leastStrain for temperature not
Time t
complete
structure fracture.
and porelead Because
size of these
distribution assumptions,
(water-to-cement exceeding 100C (Baant & Kaplan 1996), by

this method
ratio,notcement will chemical to an overestimation
composition, SFofregimes.
Gf and
content, Fouriers law, which reads
can
curing time be applied for the high loading rate Time t

Because
etc.). In of and
the themethod,
literature
temperature,
limitations,
various the mix additives,
authors
formulations advice
can be q = 3.Instrumented
Figure T notched specimen and scheme of SHB
against (7)
found tothedescribe
drop weight test to determine
the sorption isothermGof f values.
normal instrumentation.
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by temperature, and is the heat conductivity; in this
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

4.3.2 Spalling technique, TNO-TU Delft New deformation D (h, T )hhave been developed
J = gauges
For the high loading rate regime (>1000 GPa/s), a which are almost weightless and can measure de-
Modified Split Hopkinson Bar (MSHB) set-up has formations at very high The loading rates. Thecoefficient
proportionality measured D(h,T)
been developed at TNO Defence, Security and deformations at the moisture permeability and itthe
notch are combined with is are-nonlinea
Safety in Rijswijk. The feasibility of the set-up was sulting stresses inof the relative
notch tohumidityobtain the h anddesired
temperature
demonstrated by the TNO prototype test set-up stress-deformation&curve. This method
Najjar 1972). The moisture mass is analogue to balanc
(Weerheijm et al 2004 and 2007). The MSHB is the method applied in statics and for the SHB
that the variation in time of the water mas in the
based on the principle of spalling. The MSHB set-up moderate loadingvolumeregime.ofAgain, concrete the (water
area undercontent thisw) be eq
consists of a horizontal steel bar (length 2m, curve represents the fracture ofenergy
divergence G . In Section
the moisturef flux J 5
74mm), supported by strings (Figure 4). A compres- the results of static and dynamic tests are presented.
sive shock wave is introduced into the rod by deto- The diagnostic technique enables us to determine
nating an explosive charge at one end of the bar. At the fracture energy consistently
= J
w
with the methods

the other end, a concrete specimen is attached. The applied in statics and the moderate loading regime.
t

specimen is first loaded in compression, but will fail in The dynamic Youngs The watermodulus and wthe
content caninduced
be expressed a
tension due to the reflected tensile wave (spalling). loading pulse areofalso the evaporable water we can
recorded. The strength be wa
(capillary
determined and vapor,
the failure process can be
and adsorbed water) and the non-e recon-
structed. These (chemically
are major advantages. bound) water The draw wn (Mil
backs are the scatter in the local measurements,
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
which makes theassume analysisthatdifficult and the uncer-
the evaporable water is a fu
tainty of the effectrelative humidity, h, degree of re-
of structural inertia to the hydration
corded stress-deformation
degree of curve. silica fumeThe latter
reaction,aspect s, isi.e. we=w
currently studied =in a age-dependent
computational project. sorption/desorption
Alternative diagnostic
(Norlingand analysis
Mjonell techniques
1997). Under this for assum
spalling tests are presented in the next sections.
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
obtains
4.3.3 Spalling technique, EMI

Figure 4. MSHB set-up with instrumented concrete specimen. At the Ernst MachwInstitute in Germany, w
spall ex- w
periments are performed e h in a Hopkinson e
bar set-up e & + w

h t
+ ( D h ) =
h & c +
The measurement set-up of the MSHB is compa- without the transmitter bar. The loadingc pulse iss s

rable to the set-up of the SHB, section 4.3.1. The generated by projectile impact. The concrete speci-
transmitted pressure wave in the concrete specimen, men itself is onlywhere
instrumented
we/h iswith the an
slopeaccelerome-
ofstrength
the sorption/
the wave propagation and the reflection process are ter at the rear faceisotherm
to determine (also the called
dynamicmoisture capac
recorded with strain gauges distributed along the (Curran et al. 2003). Notched
governing and unnotched
equation (Equation speci-
3) must be
notched specimen (Figure 4-5). The loading rate and men are applied and the fractureboundary
by appropriate process isand recorded
initial conditi
applied load are derived from the strain measure- with high speed The photography.
relation between Diagnostics the amount and of e
ments on the steel bar and the specimen. The result- analysis are aiming water at the
andaverage,
relative global
humidity response
is called
ing stress at the failure zone (notch) is determined and quantify the isotherm
average response. The transmitted
if measured with increasing
using the uniaxial wave theory. (Vegt, et al. 2007). pressure pulse tohumidity
the concrete specimen is isotherm
and desorption derived in th
To derive the desired stress-deformation curve, it is from the recordedcase. strainNeglecting their differencebar
history at the incident (Xi et al.
necessary to determine the deformation of the frac- (LE-wave theory).theThe dynamicsorption
following, Youngsisotherm
moduluswill be
ture zone directly. in concrete follows from the
reference to same strain record
both sorption and
and desorption c
the arrival time ofBythethe pressure pulse at the
way, if the hysteresis of therear face
Notch
(accelerometer record).
isotherm Morewould interesting
be takenisinto the account,
deri- two
vation of the fracture
relation,energy. No stress-deformation
evaporable water vs relative humi
is obtained but the be used accordingenergy
total fracture to the issign derived
of the varia
from the impulse relativity
transfer during the spalling
humidity. The shape of the process
that starts at t and ends atfort HPC
isotherm
1 2(Schuler, et al. 2007).
is influenced by many p
The stress distribution
especially in those
the specimen
that influence is recon- extent and
R5-16 R9-17 notch structed assumingchemicalLE wave propagation
reactions and, inwithout turn, determ
dispersion. Time structure
t is the and
1 moment pore size the
that dynamic (water-
distribution
strength is reached somewhere
cement in the specimen. At
R ek _V 2

R 17

ratio, chemical composition, SF

that moment the spall
curingprocess starts, the average ve- mix
R15 R16

time and method, temperature,

R11 R 12

R 2/R 1 R 6/R 5 R 1 0/R 9

locities of the specimen
etc.). In parts at both sides
the literature variousof formulatio
the
fracture plane at tfoundare calculated. Both time t when
R 4/R 3 R 8/R 7
R 13 R 14

R ek _V 1 1
to describe the sorption isotherm 2
0 35 80 12 5 16 0 19 5 21 0 2 35 2 60 3 00

the crack is completely

concreteopened (Xi etand al. the velocities
1994). However, of in th
40mm
both specimen parts paper at t the
, aresemi-empirical
2 obtained from the high pro
expression
Figure 5. Instrumented concrete specimen.
110mm
speed recordings.Norling
Consequently the method
Mjornell (1997) is adopted relies on b
the sample frequency of the high speed recordings,
Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010
an D (h, T )criterion
J =objective h for complete separation and (1) explicitly The
concrete. accounts for the
strain rate in the evolution
tests varied of hydration
from 2/s
linear time dependency of the separation velocity reaction
8/s, which and corresponds
SF content.to This sorption
the regime isotherm
of the SHB
andTheforceproportionality
during failure process. TheD(h,T)
coefficient fractureis energy
called readsin Delft (section 4.3.1). The tests showed in-
tests
of the specimen is obtained from the
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear changefunction
in mo- crease of KIc with a factor of 2, which is a consider-
mentum of thehumidity
of the relative spall debris
h and(I spall) and the
temperature mean
T (Baant able increase within the limited range of strain rates.
crack opening velocity ( ) during the fracture
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires
proc- The results
we (h c and indicate the rate dependency of the
s ) = G ( c s ) + 1

ess.
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit strength, ,
fracture process for(g the
1
, 1
tested
)h concrete,

but cannot be directly related e to Gcf. Thec theoretical
10

volume of concrete (water content w) be equal to the

1
(4)
G f = I spall of
divergence the moisture flux J relation of Gf=KIc /E cannot be used
2
to quantify the
g c c )assumed
h that
.
rate effect because then it is (implicitly
K (stress-deformation
10

c s )e remains

the shape of the curve
1
, 1

The= specific fracture energy is obtained by divid-

(2)
1
w
J constant for all loading rates. Consequently,the rate
ing this value by the fracture surface. Schuler pro-
t
dependencies of strength and fracture energy are as-
poses to derive the fracture surface from the ratio of where tothebefirst
sumed term which
the same, (gel isotherm)
is in general represents
incorrect.the
the The water content
accumulated w can
crack be expressed
length as the sum
at the surface and physically
Because bound (adsorbed)
this method doeswater and the provide
not directly second
the circumferential length. eEspecially at high water
of the evaporable water w (capillary water, load- term on(capillary
data the fractureisotherm)
energy represents
and very specificthe capillary
speci-
vapor,
ing ratesand adsorbed
multiple water)zones
fracture and occur
the non-evaporable
in unnotched water. This expression is valid only for low content
(chemicallyConsequently
specimen. bound) water wn (Mills
these have 1966,
to be distin- men geometry is required, it is less suitable as a
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to of SF. The
standard testcoefficient G1 representsset-ups.
than the 1D-Hopkinson the amount of
guished to derive the Gf value for the single FZ (see water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
assume that the
discussion in 5). evaporable water is a function of relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
relative humidity,
The applied , degreeandofdiagnostics
test hmethod hydration, arec,rela-
and
degreesimple
tively of silicaandfume reaction,
straight s, i.e.Awdraw
forward. e=we(h, c,iss)
back 5Mjornell
DATA1997) as
COMPARISON OF GF-DATA FROM
= dependency
the age-dependent sorption/desorption
of subjective isotherm
criteria and visual in- SPALLING TESTS
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and c c+ ks s
terpretation of high speed recordings.
by Insubstituting
G ( c s ) = k vg
Reviewing
,
c vg stest methods presented(5)
the different in
section 5 theEquation 1 intobyEquation
data obtained Schuler and2 one
the
1

obtains will be compared and discussed.

authors literature, the 1D-Hopkinson bar set-up seems to be
most
wheresuitable
kcvg and to ksvgquantify
are material the dynamic
parameters. strength
From the as
w Spalling
4.3.4 technique, w Metz University
w
well as the dynamic fracture energy.
maximum amount of water per unit volume that can The data analy-
h
e
Spalling tests
+ (on h) = e are
Dh concrete &c +also eperformed
&s + w&n at (3) the sis forpores
fill all these(bothmethods is also
capillary poresconsistent
and gel pores),with onethe
h t static uniaxialKtests,
can calculate 1 as onewhich
obtains is a major advantage to
Metz University. The set-up c is similar s to the EMI
device. The main focus of the research is on the dy- study and quantify the rate dependency. To illustrate
where w
namic e/h is
tensile the slopewhich
strength, of theissorption/desorption
derived from the the currently available data and need gfor bench mark
h
isotherm
rear (also called
face velocity recordedmoisture
opticallycapacity).
using a laser.The activities, wthe available G -data
s + f s G e

for the
high
c c loading

10
1

c
0.188
s
rate regime from EMI (Schuler 2006) and Delft (6)
0.22 1
are
governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed
0 1

Recently, the shape of the impactor was modified presented

K ( c s ) = and discussed.
by appropriate
and optimized to boundary
realize aand initial conditions.
homogeneous stress dis- 1
,

g c c h

The relation between part the amount of evaporable

10

tribution for a large of the specimen. (Erzar et MPa e 1 1

water
al. andwhich
2009), relative
is ahumidity is calledtoadsorption
major advantage obtain rep- 16

isotherm material
resentative if measured strengthwithdata.increasing relativity The material
14
parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
humidity and desorption isotherm
The focus of the current paper is on in the
the opposite
fracture be calibrated
12
by fitting experimental data relevant to
case. Neglecting
energy and therefore theirthe difference
previously (Xireported
et al. 1994), in
results free (evaporable)
10
8
water content in concrete at
theMetz
of following, sorption
(Klepaczko andisotherm
Brara 2007) will behave usedtowith
be various ages
6 (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
reference toInboth
mentioned. thesorption and desorption
2007-paper, fracture energy conditions.
data 4
By the way, if the hysteresis
is presented that is derived from high speed of the moisture
re- 2.2 Temperature
2
evolution
isotherm would
cordings, be taken intobased
stress distribution account, two different
on LE-wave the- 0
relation,
ory and evaporable
quite somewater vs relativeonhumidity,
assumptions must
the fracture Note that, at0 early50 age,100since150the chemical
200 250
m
reactions
be used according to the sign of
process. The mathematical approach is not very the variation of the associated
MPa with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity humidity. The shape of
clearly presented. Because of these observations it is the sorption are exothermic,
16
14
the temperature field is not uniform
isotherm forbyHPC
concluded is influenced
the authors that thebyresults
many parameters,
on fracture for non-adiabatic
12
systems even if the environmental
especially
energy those that
presented influence
in (Brara et al.extent
2007)and arerate of the
question- temperature
10 is constant. Heat conduction can be
chemical reactions and, in turn,
able and unfortunately can not be used as reference determine pore described 8in concrete, at least for temperature not
structure
data. and pore size distribution (water-to-cement exceeding6 100C (Baant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content, Fouriers law,
4 which reads
curingDynamic
4.3.5 time andBrasilian
method, temperature,
impact test mix additives, 2
etc.). In the literature various
Another method presented in literature formulations is thecanBra-
be q = T 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 (7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm
silian splitting test in a Split Hopkinson Pressure bar of normal m
concreteLambert
set-up. (Xi et al. and1994).
Ross However,
(2000) tested in thespecimen
present Figure
where6.condition.
qStressdeformation
is the heat curves
flux, forT normal
is the(top)absolute
and wet
papera the
with semi-empirical
specially designed inner expression
notch, to proposed
determineby (bottom)
temperature, and is the heat conductivity; in this
the rate effect on the fracture toughness of microit
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 The concrete specimens tested by EMI had a J = Dis
brittle behavior ( h,observed
T ) h for these high
length of 250 mm and a diameter of 74.2 mm. The loading rates. This is in contradiction with
compressive cube strength f was 35 MPa, the static
c the data of Delft
The (for all moisture coefficient
proportionality conditions) D(h,T)
tensile strength f was 3.24 MPa and the Youngs
t and the microscopic
moisture permeability and itfracture
research of the is a nonlinea
modulus E =38.9 GPa. The maximum aggregate
stat zone, see Figure 6 and Figure
of the relative 7. Ahmore
humidity duc-
and temperature
size was 8 mm. tile behavior and an increase in the amount
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
Details about the concrete tested at Delft are of micro cracking and width
that the variation in of
timetheoffracture
the water mas
given in (Vegt 2007). The properties f , f and E
c t stat zone werevolume
observed.
of concrete (water content w) be eq
are respectively 48.2 Mpa, 3.4 Mpa and 35.1 GPa . - The widthdivergence
of the MSHB fracture flux
of the moisture zoneJ is
Note that the diameters of the specimen as well as 25 mm for Delft. Using the EMI photograph
the maximum aggregates size are the same for EMI of a crack pattern
= Jat the specimen surface,
and Delft. the width is in
the same order (22 mm).
w

In the Delft research program the dynamic

t

strength and the load-deformation curves were de- 350

The water content w can be expressed a
rived for the reference concrete at normal, dry and 300
of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
Macro Con Micro Iso Micro

wet conditions (see Vegt 2009). The stress deforma- )

250 vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
tion curves are given in Figure 6, the data in the Ta- m
m (chemically bound) water wn (Mil
ble Table 1. The data given by Schuler for normal
(
200
ht
g Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
conditions is summarized in Table 2. n
150
e
L assume that the evaporable water is a fu
100

Table 1. Strength, fracture energy and loading rate and dy-

relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
namic/static ratios (Delft data).
50
degree of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=w
0
Norm Stat
= age-dependent sorption/desorption
Norm SHB Norm MSHB Wet Stat Wet SHB Wet MSHB Dry Stat Dry SHB Dry MSHB
(Norling
Figure 7. Width of fracture zone
Mjonell
for all
1997).
Delft test
Under this assum
conditions.
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
To examine theobtains
consequences of assuming a lin-
ear time dependency of the separation velocities and
we h
force, the derived velocity-time curve in w
ethe w
Delft e & + w
set-up is given in Figure + ( D h ) =
h t 8. The hmaximum
& c +
velocity s

of 2.5 m/s corresponds to the EMI-velocity of c s

2-2.6 m/s. From the wheredisplacement recordings
/h is theoccurs
wepro-cess slope of itthewas
sorption/
concluded that the failure
isotherm (also called between
moisture capac
t = 465-500 sec.governing
Note this time is much
equation longer 3)
(Equation than
must be
the 8 sec estimated
by for the bridging
appropriate boundary timeandbetween
initial conditi
dominant defects (section 4.1). Calculating
The relation between the Gamount ac- of e f

cording to water and relative humidity is called

Table 2. Strength, fracture energy and loading rate and dy-
namic/static ratios (EMI data). isotherm if measured with increasing
G = F (t ). (t ).humidity
f
dt and desorption isotherm in th
t frac
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
the following, sorption isotherm will be
a linear time dependency
reference ofto the
bothseparation
sorption and velocity
desorption c
and softening force By will
the lead
way,to ifan theunderestimation
hysteresis of the
of G . f isotherm would be taken into account, two
Combining these observations,
relation, evaporablethe water preliminary
vs relative humi
conclusion is thatbethe dataaccording
used analysis toand theoptical
sign ofob- the varia
servations at EMIrelativity
probably result in an The
humidity. underestima-
shape of the
tion of the fracture energy.
isotherm forThe
HPCconclusion
is influenced is pre-
by many p
liminary because especially
the data comparison
those that isinfluence
very limited extent and
Comparing the MSHB-results for normal con- and the Delft data most probably
chemical reactionsoverestimates
and, in turn, G determ
crete, the observations and comments are:
f

because of the structural

structureresponse
and poreeffects in the de- (water-
size distribution
- Concrete composition and static properties formation recordings ratio,resulting
cementinchemical
the bulges in the
composition, SF
are not the same, but similar. Therefore, dif- softening branch (Figure 6). and method, temperature, mix
curing time
ferences in observed rate effects are due to etc.). In the literature various formulatio
testing device, diagnostics and data analysis. found to describe the sorption isotherm
- Ratio of rate effect on f and G are
t f : 4/2.3= 1.7 concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
for EMI and 3.1/6.1= 0.5 for Delft. Because paper the semi-empirical expression pro
the ratio for EMI data is larger than 1, a more Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 = D h , T ) h
J mm/s (
10^3
(1) explicitly
Strengthaccounts for the evolution
f (alternative): notchedofspecimen
hydration
4.0
reaction and energy
SF content.
G : This sorption isotherm
t,dyn

Fracture notched specimen and

3.5
readsdiagnostics to record stress conditions and de-
f,dyn

The
3.0 proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called
moisture
2.5 permeability and it is a nonlinear function formation in notched area directly.
of the
2.0 relative humidity h and temperature T (Baant
& Najjar
1.5 1972). The moisture mass balance requires weInternational
gram onc dynamic
s
cooperation
(h ) = G ( )
tensile
and a benchmark
c s testing are

+ pro-
recommended.
1

that1.0the variation in time of the water mass per unit

, , , 1

(g
c c )h of
1

volume
0.5 of concrete (water content w) be equal to the A direct comparison of dataeand exchange infor-

10

(4) 1

divergence of the moisture flux J mation can lead to standardization in dynamic

of )dynamic test-
(g h test
0.0
-0.5
ing and will enable the comparison
K ( c s ) e
c c
10

data.
1
, 1

-1.0 400 (2)

1
w
= J
t 440 480 520 560 600
s
Figure
The8. water
Separation velocity-time
content w can be curve in Delft set-up.
expressed as the sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
REFERENCES
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
The
vapor,data comparison
and adsorbed presented, illustrates
water) and benchmarking the
the non-evaporable need term (capillary
Bazant, Z.P. and Oh,isotherm)
B.H. 1983.represents the capillary
Crack band theory for frac-
of international
(chemically bound)cooperation,
water w (Mills and
1966, water.
ture ofThis expression
concrete. RILEM isMaterials
valid only for low content
and Structures, 16 (93),
standardization pp 155-177.
&in order 1995).
to compare dynamic test of SF. The coefficient represents
Gof1 fracture theinamount of
n
Pantazopoulo
data. Referring toMills
the long, butIt also
is reasonable
inspiring to
re- Carpinteri,
water per A.unit
1984. Stabilityheld
volume in the process
gel pores RC
at beams.
100%
assume
search that
and the evaporable
development water
episode is a function of J. Structural engineering.110, pp 2073-2084.
relativeD.R,
humidity, andRazorenov,
it can beS.V. expressed (Norling
relative
adegree humidity,
trilateral h, degree
cooperation of of
between
the RILEM
hydration,
Metz, c, test,
EMI and
and
Curran,
Mjornell
Kanel, G.I.,
1997)ISBN
Spall fracture.
Utkin, A.V.
as 0-387-95500-3. Springer Verlag.
2003.
Delft of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=we(h,c,s)
would be a goodsorption/desorption
start. Duan, K., Hu, X. and Wittman, F.H. 2007. Size effect on spe-
= age-dependent isotherm cific fracturecenergy of sconcrete. Engineering Fracture Me-
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and G chanics
( 74. ) = kpp.
s An Experimental Method(5)to
c c +F.k vg2009.
vg 87-96. s
Erzar,cB. sand Forquin,
,

6by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one 1

CONCLUSIONS
obtains AND RECOMMENDATIONS Determine the Tensile Strength of Concrete at High Rates
where kcvg and
of Strain. ksvg are Mechanics,
Experimental material parameters.
accepted August From 2009 the
Dataw h
on the dynamic fracture w
energy
w
of concrete are Elices,
maximum M., Guinea, GV.,
amountusing Planas,
of water J.
per1992.
unit Measurement
volume of
that can the
scarce and also not consistent due to fracture energy 3-point bend tests. 3. Influence of

methods,
e + ( D h ) = e
c +
e
&definitions. &s different
w&n paper
+ This test
(3) fillcutting
all pores (both capillary
the p-delta tail. Materialspores andand gel pores),
Structures. 1992;one 25:
h t data analysis h and
calculate K1 as one obtains
can327-35.
c
intends to facilitate the discussion and the standardi- s
Elices, M., Guinea, GV., Planas, J. 1997. On the measurement
zation
where process of dynamic tensile tests. of the fracture energy using 3-point bend tests. Materials
w e/h is the slope of the sorption/desorption g h

Test methods
isotherm energy (also data to derivemoisture
called strength capacity).
and, especially The and Structures.
w 1997; 30: 375-6
s + s G e

c 10
c1
fracture for concrete inbetension are Guinea, GV., Planas, J.,
0.188
c Elices,s M. 1992.
0.22
Measurement
1

of the

governing equation (Equation 3) must completed tests. 1. Influence of(6)

0 1

summarized andboundary
reviewed. fracture energy using 3-point bend ex-
by appropriate
ture process zone, andDefinitions
initial of the frac-
conditions. K ( c s ) =
perimental procedures. Materials
,

g c c and
h Structures. 1992;
between the amount of the
the fracture zone and fracture 1

The are relation evaporable 25:212-8

10

energy recalled. e 1 1

water Hillerborg, A. Modeer, M and Petersson, P.E. 1976. Analysis

It is and
isotherm
relativethathumidity
concluded
if measured for with
dynamicsis called
increasing
adsorption
the uniaxial set-
relativity of
The crack formation
material and crack growth
parameters kcvg and in kconcrete bygmeans
vg and 1 can
s
ups are theand
humidity most suitable because
desorption isotherm the instress
theordistribu-
opposite
of fracture
be Concrete
calibrated
mechanics
by fitting
and finite
experimental
elements.
data
Cement
relevant
and
to
tion as a function of time can be recorded (easily) Res., 6, pp 773-782.
case. Neglecting
derived for the their difference
specimen and the (Xi et al.zone.
fracture 1994), It in
is free (evaporable)
Hillerborg, A. 1985. Thewater content
theoretical basis ofina method
concrete to de-at
the following,
strongly sorption
recommended isotherm
to invest will
in be used
measurement with various
termineages (Di Luzio
the fracture energy & Cusatis
G of concrete.
f 2009b). RILEM Materi-
reference totoboth sorption and desorptionofconditions. als and Structures, 18 (106), pp 291-296.
techniques
By the way, measure
if the the deformation
hysteresis of the the frac-
moisture Mier, J.G.M. 1996. Fracture processes of Concrete: assessment
ture zone
isotherm directly.
would betotaken into account, two5, different 2.2of Temperature
material parameters evolution
for fracture models. CRC Press.
With reference
relation, evaporable the sections
water vs 4.3 humidity,
relative and the must
rec- Mier, J.G.M. van, Vliet, M.R.A. van. 2002. Uniaxial tension
Note
ommended test methods and specimen geometries test that,
for the at determination
early age, since the chemical
of fracture parametersreactions
of con-
be used
for dynamic according
tensile totestingthe sign of the variation of the associated
crete: statewith of thecement hydration
art. Engineering and Mechanics
Fracture SF reaction 69,
relativity humidity. The are: shape of the sorption arepp.exothermic,
235-247. the temperature field is not uniform
Planas, J., Elices, M.,systems
Guinea, GV. even1992. Measurement of the
isotherm for HPC istension
Split Hopkinson influenced byformany
barsextent the parameters,
loading forfracture
non-adiabatic if the environmental
especially
regime those
in the that
order influence
of =10 -100 andGPa/s ofrate
rate (order
the temperature energy using 3-point bend tests. 2. Influence of
is constant.
bulk energy dissipation. Heatandconduction
Materials Structures. 1992; can 25: be
chemical reactions
1- 10 1/s).
and, in turn, determine pore described
305-12. in concrete, at least for temperature not
structure
Strength and pore f :size distribution
un-notched (water-to-cement
specimen (preferred) exceeding
Schuler, 100C (Baant
H., Mayrhofer, C. and Thoma, & Kaplan 1996),
K. 2006. Spall by
experi-
ratio,
cementenergy
Fracture chemical
t,dyn

G composition,
: notched SF
specimen content, Fouriers law, which reads
ments for the measurement of the tensile strength and frac-
curing time and method, f,dyn
temperature, mix additives, ture energy of concrete at high strain rates. Int. J. of Impact
NoteInthat
etc.). the strength
literature data can also
various be obtainedcanfrom
formulations be q =Engineering
TH.W.32, 1635-1650.
notched experiments. Reinhardt, 1984. Fracture mechanics of an elastic soften- (7)
found to
Hopkinson describe the sorption isotherm of normal ing material like concrete. HERON, 29 (2), 42 pp.
concrete
beyond (Xi
100 etSpalling
al. 1994).
GPa/s.
technique
However, for inloading rates
the present Vegt,
where I., Weerheijm,
q is theJ. and heatVan Breugel,
flux, T K.is2007. theTheaabsolute
fracture
paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by energy
temperature, of concrete under
and is CONSEC impact tensile
the heat Conference loading-
conductivity; new ex-
Strength
Norling Mjornell f : (1997)
t,dyn specimen is unnotched
adopted and veloc-
because it perimental technique. Junein2007, this
ity recording by laser. (preferred) Tours, France.
Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010
Vegt, I. Breugel, K. van and Weerheijm, J. 2007. Failure Weerheijm, J. and van D (h, T )J.C.A.M.
J =Doormaal h 2004. Tensile fail-
mechanisms of concrete under impact loading. FraMCoS-6, ure at high loading rates; Instrumented spalling tests. Inter-
Catania, Italy, 17-22 June 2007. national Conference FramCoS 5, April 200
Weerheijm, J. and van Doormaal, J.C.A.M. ,2007. Tensile Zhang, X.X., Ruiz, G., Yu,TheR.C.
proportionality coefficient
and Tarifa, M. 2009. Fracture D(h,T)
failure of concrete at high loading rates: New test data on moisture permeability
behaviour of high-strength and itrange
concrete at a wide is a ofnonlinea
strength and fracture energy from instrumented spalling loading rates. Int.ofJ.the relativeEngineering,
of Impact humidity h36,and
pp temperature
1204-
tests. Int. J. of Impact Engineering 34 (2007), pp 609-626. 1209. & Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
that the variation in time of the water mas
volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
divergence of the moisture flux J

= J
w

The water content w can be expressed a

of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
(chemically bound) water wn (Mil
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
assume that the evaporable water is a fu
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
degree of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=w
= age-dependent sorption/desorption
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
obtains
w h
e + ( D h) = we w
&c + e &s + w
h t h
c s
where we/h is the slope of the sorption/
isotherm (also called moisture capac
governing equation (Equation 3) must be
by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
The relation between the amount of e
water and relative humidity is called
isotherm if measured with increasing
humidity and desorption isotherm in th
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
the following, sorption isotherm will be
reference to both sorption and desorption c
By the way, if the hysteresis of the
isotherm would be taken into account, two
relation, evaporable water vs relative humi
be used according to the sign of the varia
relativity humidity. The shape of the
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many p
especially those that influence extent and
chemical reactions and, in turn, determ
structure and pore size distribution (water-
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF
curing time and method, temperature, mix
etc.). In the literature various formulatio
found to describe the sorption isotherm
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
paper the semi-empirical expression pro
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010