ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no.92-M5

Effects of Strain Rate on Concrete Strength

by C. Allen Ross, Joseph W. Tedesco, and Steven T. Kuennen

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995 37

 The effects of strain rate on the tensile and compressive properties of plain
concrete specimens 51 mm in diameter were studied both experimentally
and numerically. Quasistatic tests at strain rates of 10 –7/sec to 10–3/sec
were conducted using a standard material test machine. Higher strain rate
tests of 1.0/sec to 300/sec were conducted in a 51-mm-diameter split-Hop-
kinson pressure bar (SHPB). Numerical simulations of both the static and
dynamic tests were conducted through a comprehensive finite element
method investigation. Experimentally observed crack patterns agreed very
well with the predicted numerical responses. Both tension and compression
strengths increase with strain rate and exhibit a critical strain rate beyond
which large increases in strength occur. This critical strain rate is approxi-
mately 5/sec for tension and approximately 60/sec for compression. Beyond
these critical strain rates, the tensile strength shows a larger percentage
increase than the compressive strength. The effect of moisture on the
dynamic compressive strength of concrete was also examined in the experi-
mental study.
Keywords: compressive strength; concretes; cracking (fracturing);
dynamic loads; finite element method; splitting tensile strength; strains;
tensile strength.
Most materials exhibit some load-rate or strain-rate sensi-
tivity relative to strength. Strain-rate effects in materials,
induced by high-amplitude short-duration impulse loads, are
important in the design and analysis of structures to resist
dynamic loads from conventional weapons explosions, acci-
dental explosions, and high-speed impact. Analytical and
numerical modeling of such events requires knowledge of
dynamic material properties, response mechanisms, fracture
mechanics, and constitutive relations. Laboratory experi-
ments and equipment required to investigate material prop-
erties at high load or strain rates must simulate an
environment very similar to that of the field. The split-
Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) is capable of producing
high strain-rate loadings in the range of 10/sec to 104/sec on
small specimens, inducing uniform stress over the length of
the specimen.
A 51-mm-diameter SHPB was used in this study to exper-
imentally determine high strain-rate material properties and
observe failure/fracture mechanisms of plain concrete. The
SHPB was first used by Kolsky1 to measure dynamic material
properties. Many researchers have used the SHPB to study
dynamic properties of a variety of materials such as metals,
ceramics, concrete, oil shale, soil, foams, plastics, and
composite materials. The applications and principles of
38
operation of the SHPB are presented in detail by Kolsky1 and
Nicholas.2 A very detailed examination of the theory and prin-
ciples involved in the SHPB is given by Jerome,3 and specific
details of the 51-mm-diameter SHPB are given by Ross.4
The basic assumption of the SHPB is that the stresses in
the specimen are uniformly distributed along the length and
through the cross-sectional area of the specimen. To more
accurately establish actual stress distributions in the concrete
specimens tested in this study, a comprehensive finite
element method (FEM) analysis was conducted using the
ADINA5 computer programs. Both linear and nonlinear
analyses were performed.
Three types of experiments were conducted in the SHPB
testing program: 1) direct compression, 2) direct tension, and
3) splitting tensile. The basic specimens used in the experi-
ments were right cylindrical, 51 mm in length and diameter.
For the direct tension experiments, both square-notch and
saddle-notch specimens were tested. Details of the SHPB
specimens are presented in Fig. 1. Specimen arrangements for
the three types of experiments are presented in Fig. 2.
A range of strain rates associated with testing of concrete
may be obtained if one compares the time required to reach a
strain of 0.003 in the very low load rate of a standard concrete
cylinder test to the loading pulse of a close proximity conven-
tional explosion. The loading time for the low load rate
cylinder test is approximately 30 min or 1.8 × 10 3 sec,
resulting in a strain rate of 1.7 × 10–6/sec (3 × 10–3/1.8 × 103).
The loading pulse of a conventional explosion is on the order
of 1.0 × 10–4 sec with a strain rate of 30/sec (3 × 10–3/1 × 10–4).
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The primary objective of this research was to enhance the
understanding of the response of plain concrete to high-load
rate and high-strain rate impulsive loadings. The anticipated
results of the study are determination of dynamic material
properties, failure mechanisms, and crack patterns for
concrete failure in both tension and compression.
ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995.
Received Feb. 2, 1993, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright
© 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discus-
sion will be published in the November-December 1995 ACI Materials Journal if
received by Aug. 1, 1995.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
ACI member C. Allen Ross is Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering, Mechan-
ics and Engineering Sciences, the University of Florida, and a visiting professor at HQ
Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, Tyndall AFB, Florida. Dr. Ross holds a
PhD and has more than 30 years of teaching and research experience in the areas of
dynamic response of materials and structures.

ACI member Joseph W. Tedesco is Gottlieb Professor of Civil Engineering, Auburn

University. Dr. Tedesco holds a PhD and has more than 18 years of industrial and
academic experience in the areas of structural dynamics and finite element analysis.

Steven T. Kuennen, USAF, is Chief of Construction Management at Barksdale AFB,

Louisiana. Captain Kuennen holds an MS and has 4 years of experience investigating
high strain-rate effects on civil engineering materials.

Fig. 1—Details of SHPB concrete specimens, mm.

Fig. 2—Schematic of specimen arrangement in SHPB

Fig. 3—Operational schematic of SHPB

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995 39

 The scope/approach of this study was to 1)
experimentally determine quasistatic material properties
of concrete using a standard material test machine, 2)
compare the static results with dynamic tests obtained
using the SHPB, and 3) conduct FEM analysis for stress,
strain, and crack distribution for comparison with
experimental results.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Concrete specimens as shown in Fig. 1 were first tested in
a standard material test machine at strain rates of
approximately 10–7/sec to 10–3/sec. The lowest strain rate
of 10–7/sec was used as a basis for normalizing the higher
strain-rate data. This low strain-rate data will be referred
to in this study as static data.
Higher strain-rate tests from 1/sec to 103/sec were
conducted in the SHPB. The SHPB consists of four basic
parts: a striker bar, incident bar, transmitter bar, and spec-
imen. A schematic of the SHPB is shown in Fig. 3. In the
SHPB compressive test mode, the striker bar is impacted
against the incident bar, which induces a compressive
stress pulse in each bar. The striker and incident bar
remain in contact until the reflected wave from the free
end of the striker reaches the interface between the striker
and incident bars. Therefore, the length of the loading
pulse is twice the transit time of the striker bar. The finite-
length stress pulse of the incident bar impinges on the
specimen, sandwiched between the incident and
transmitter bars. Part of the pulse is reflected from the
specimen and part of the pulse is trans- mitted through
the specimen. The reflected and transmitted pulses are
recorded, respectively, at the strain gage positions on the
incident and transmitter bars. The strain gage signals are
recorded on a digital oscilloscope. It has been shown 2
from the general SHPB assumption of compressive
uniform stress along the specimen length that the integral
of the reflected pulse is proportional to strain in the
specimen, the transmitted pulse is proportional to stress
in the specimen, and strain rate is proportional to the
reflected pulse. Using this information, a dynamic stress-
strain curve may be generated for any given strain rate.
Operation of the SHPB in the direct tension mode
differs slightly from operation in the compressive mode
in that a tensile stress pulse impinges on the specimen, but
the funda- mental analysis is the same. For the splitting
tensile tests, the SHPB is operated in the compressive
mode. However, the specimen is rotated 90 deg so that the
load is applied diamet- rically along the length of the
specimen (Fig. 2). The split-

40 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995

Table 1—Concrete mix proportions and strengths
Water-cement ratio 0.533
Portland cement—Type 1 247 kg (544.6 lb)
Fly ash—Class F 27.2 kg (60 lb)
Fine aggegate—Natural silica, ASTM C30 639.2 kg (1409.4 lb)
Coarse aggregate—3/8 in. maximum diameter 810.4 kg (1786.9 lb)
Anti-air-entraining limestone mixture 0.55 kg (1.21 lb)
Water-reducing admixture 1.0 kg (2.2 lb)
Water 131.7 kg (290.4 lb)
Static compressive strength—152 x 305 mm cylinder 48.3 MPa (7003 psi)
Static compressive strength—51 x 51 mm cylinder 57.1 MPa (8279 psi)
Static splitting tensile strength—51 x 51-mm cylinder 3.86 MPa (560 psi)
Static direct tensile strength—Square notch* 4.53 MPa (657 psi)
Static direct tensile strength—Saddle notch* 3.67 MPa (532 psi)
*
51 mm diameter x 51 mm length.
Fig. 4—Normalized concrete strength as a function of log10
(strain rate). Subnotes on strain-rate regimes from
Table 2—Concrete drying times and strength Reference 18.
Wet time,
days Drying time Static compressive strength
60 N/A 42.17 MPa (6115 psi)
28 N/A 36.57 MPa (5302 psi)
28 1/2 oven-dry; 7 hr, 225 F 35.12 MPa (5093 psi)
28 Oven-dry, 72 hr, 225 F 42.88 MPa (6271 psi)
28 1/2 air-dry, 54 hr, 75 F 40.80 MPa (5916 psi)
28 Air-dry, 480 hr, 75 F 48.19 MPa (6988 psi)

ting tensile analysis is significantly different from the direct

compression and direct tension analyses. Analysis of split-
ting tensile tests are explained in detail in Reference 4. For the
splitting tensile analysis, the assumption that stress distribution
in the specimen at failure is similar for both the dynamic and
static tests was verified numerically by Tedesco.6
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Concrete strength as a function of strain rate was deter-
mined experimentally for both tension and compression. The
concrete mix proportions and static strengths for the material
used in these experiments are presented in Table 1. The static
strengths for the small laboratory specimens (51 mm diameter
x 51 mm long) were used to normalize the dynamic strengths
at a given strain rate. The ratio of dynamic strength to static
strength versus the log10 of the strain rate is presented in
Fig. 4. All data presented in Fig. 4 were obtained from spec-
imens with the concrete mix proportions given in Table 1.
To determine the effects of moisture on concrete strength,
a series of static and dynamic tests was conducted on wet,
partially dry, and completely dry concrete specimens.
Concrete blocks were cast and stored under water for 28
days. Test specimens were cored from those blocks. Drying
curves were obtained by air-drying a set of specimens in an
air-conditioned room at 24 C and furnace-drying another set
of specimens at 107 C. The 100 percent saturation was taken
as the time the specimens came out of the water bath. All
specimens were weighed at several time intervals, and the
weights were normalized with respect to the saturated
weight. These normalized weights or saturation levels are
plotted against time in Fig. 5.
The drying curves and mix proportions of Table 1 were
used to prepare another series of specimens to be tested at
Fig. 5—Concrete drying curves.
various saturation levels. Direct compression tests were
performed on five different sets of specimen wet/dry stages,
as shown in Table 2. For each series of wet/dry specimens,
three specimens were tested in a static material test machine
to obtain the compressive strength at a strain rate of approx-
imately 10–6/sec. The averages of these compressive
strengths are presented in Table 2. SHPB tests at three
different striker bar velocities were also conducted on each
set of wet/dry specimens. Results of these tests are shown in
Fig. 6 through 9. Generally, scatter in the strength data was
less than 5.0 percent.
In the initial splitting tensile tests, the specimen was
placed directly between the incident and transmitter bars,
thus distributing the load over a wide area, resulting in
circumferential cracking on the incident-bar side of the
specimen. To rectify this idiosyncrasy, subsequent tests were
conducted by placing a 6.35 mm square steel bar, the same
length as the specimen, between the specimen and pressure
bars (Fig. 2). This retrofit on the bar loading elimi- nated
circumferential cracking occurring in the specimen prior to
the standard diametrical cracking. Detailed results of the
splitting tensile experiments have been presented in
Reference 7. The observed final failure patterns in both static
and dynamic splitting tensile tests were the same. Both

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995 41

Fig. 6—Compressive strength ratios for wet/dry concrete as Fig. 9—Compressive strength ratios for wet/dry concrete as
function of log10 (strain rate), dry specimens. function of log10 (strain rate), all specimens.

42 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995


Fig. 7—Compressive strength ratios for wet/dry concrete as
function of log10 (strain rate), wet specimens.
Fig. 8—Compressive strength ratios for wet/dry concrete as
function of log10 (strain rate), wet and half-dry specimens.
exhibited two fractured pieces with a split along the diameter
connection of the opposing loads. Crack pattern formations
were experimentally observed using an image converter
camera operating at 100,000 frames/sec (10 microsec
between frames). Crack initiation was observed to be off
center, depending on strain rate, with crack growth in opposite
directions toward the loading points. Bifurcation occurred
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
with increasing strain rate, but in all cases the classical small
triangular-shaped pieces associated with the loading points
were formed last.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
Splitting tensile tests
Both linear and nonlinear numerical analyses were
performed on direct compression, direct tension, and split-
ting tensile experiments using the ADINA FEM computer
programs.5 Detailed results of these analyses are given by
Tedesco.6,8 The concrete material model employed in the
nonlinear analysis is a hypoelastic model based on a uniaxial
stress-strain relation generalized to take biaxial and triaxial
conditions into account.9 The model employs three basic
features to describe the material behavior: 1) a nonlinear
stress-strain relation, including strain softening to allow for
weakening of the material under increasing compressive
strain; 2) a failure envelope that defines cracking in tension
and crushing in compression; and 3) a strategy to model
post-cracking and crushing behavior of the material. Tensile
failure occurs if the tensile stress in a principal stress direc-
tion exceeds the tensile failure stress. In this case, it is
assumed that a plane of failure develops perpendicular to the
principal stress direction. The effect of this material failure
is that the normal and shear stiffness and stresses across the
plane of failure are reduced (tension-softening branch), and
plane stress conditions are assumed to exist at the plane of
tensile failure.
The accuracy of the SHPB experimental splitting tensile
tests was based on the assumption that the dynamic stress
distribution in the specimen at fracture/failure was the same
as that of the static stress distribution. The results of the
numerical analyses indicate that the stress distribution in the
cylinder behind the initial stress wave is identical to that
exhibited in the static analysis.10 It is assumed generally that,
for static testing, the crack is initiated at the center of the
specimen, but no crack movement data are available. For
high load-rate tests, numerical simulations indicate that
cracks are initiated at various positions along the diameter.
The numerical simulations also indicate that both crack initi-
ation position and crack bifurcations are influenced by
increasing strain rate. Detailed results of the numerical simu-
43
 Fig. 10—Square-notch SHPB test data trace for load case 2 (1 MPa = 145 psi).

lation of the splitting tensile experiments have been Table 3—Summary of SHPB square-notch results
presented in References 6, 7, and 10. Load Incident Transmitted Dynamic Loading
case stress σI, stress στ, tensile stress rate σ· , Strain rate
no. MPa MPa ftn, MPa MPa/sec ε· , sec–1
Direct tension tests
The direct tension test has seldom been used to evaluate 1 26.5 4.5 9.31 6.01 × 106 4.9
the tensile strength of concrete. This is because of the diffi- 2 67.0 4.0 7.59 1.48 × 10 6 5.3
culties of holding the specimens to achieve axial tension and 3 75.0 4.1 7.93 2.08 × 106 5.8
uncertainties of secondary stresses induced by the holding Note: 1 MPa =145 psi.
devices. Recently, however, direct tension tests using the
SHPB have been successfully conducted.4 Two types of
tensile specimens were tested: a square-notch specimen [Fig. and
1(b)] and saddle-notch specimen [Fig. 1(c)]. Speci- ·
σ
mens were 51 mm in diameter and length. All specimens ε· ----- (4)
were cemented to the ends of the SHPB with a nonepoxy = Es
concrete cement. The bar and specimen surfaces were cleaned

in a manner similar to that used for surface cleaning before the
placement of foil-electrical resistance strain gages.
Numerical analyses were performed on SHPB direct
tension tests conducted for three different loading condi-
tions. A stress-versus-time history for a typical test is illus-
trated in Fig. 10. In these tests, it is assumed that the dynamic
tensile strength at the notch ftn is proportional to the trans-
mitted stress σT through the expression
ftn = σTAr (1)
in which
2 model for the square-notch analyses is presented in Fig. 11(a).
D
b
Ar = ------2 -- (2)
D bn
where Ar is the area ratio, Db is the diameter of the Hopkinson
bar, and Dn is the diameter of the specimen at the notch.
Additionally, the loading rate σ· and strain rate ε· in the
specimen can be estimated from the expressions11
f tn
σ·
44
where τ is the time lag between the start of the transmitted
stress wave and maximum transmitted stress, and Es is the
static modulus of elasticity of the specimen material. The
static modulus of elasticity was used because only limited,
highly scattered dynamic data are available. Based on other
experimental data accumulated by the authors,4,7 the
modulus of elasticity of concrete appears to be relatively
strain-rate independent. A summary of the results obtained
from the SHPB square-notch tests are presented in Table 3.
To provide an accurate numerical simulation of the SHPB
direct tension tests, a detailed FEM model of the specimens
and portions of the incident and transmitter bars was
constructed. A partial illustration of the axisymmetric FEM
The incident and transmitter bars are each comprised of 1633
nine-node, axisymmetric finite elements, and the specimen
is comprised of 476 elements. The load was applied
uniformly at the free end of the incident bar. The particular
FEM topology employed in the analyses was based on wave
propagation considerations.6,8,12
The cracking sequence for a direct tension square-notch
specimen for a strain rate of 5.3/sec (load case 2) is presented
in Fig. 12. The nonlinear FEM analyses indicate cracking at
both the center notch and incident end of the specimen.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
 = ----- (3) However, the predicted mode of failure is dependent on the
τ

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995 45

 Fig. 11—FEM model: (a) square-notch specimen; and (b) direct compression specimen.
loading curve, which indicates that the specimen is not uniformly
stressed along the length. This implies that the specimen fails as
the stress wave front propagates along it. Uniformity of stress
occurs in the immediate vicinity of the notch area, but the extent
of the damage zone or gage length is unknown. The unknown
gage length or “specimen length” is the reason for not treating
the experimental tensile strain rate data in the usual SHPB
fashion. Results of previously conducted numerical
analyses6,8,12 indicate that uniformity

Fig. 12—Cracking sequence for square-notch specimen

predicted by FEM analysis, load case 2: (a) t = 258 μsec;
(b) t = 260 μsec; (c) t = 265 μsec; and (d) t = 295 μsec.

strain rate. For a low strain rate (load case 1), failure occurs
at the notch; for an intermediate strain rate (Fig. 12), failure
occurs simultaneously at the notch and incident ends of the
specimen; and for a high strain rate (load case 3), failure
occurs at the incident end of the specimen.12 Similar
behavior patterns were exhibited in the saddle-notch experi-
ments and numerical simulations.
In both the experimental and numerical analyses, the direct
tension failures appear to occur in the rise-time portion of the

46 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995

Table 4—Summary of SHPB direct compression
results
Load Incident Transmitted Dynamic
case stress σI, stress στ, compressive Loading rate Strain rate
no. MPa MPa strength, MPa σ· , MPa/sec ε· , sec–1
1 –77 –61.6733 68.62 –2.84 × 106 17
2 –80 –63.4877 66.07 –3.00 × 106 25
3 –240 –2.71958 106.21 –9.38 × 106 200
Note: 1 MPa =145 psi.

of stress is achieved at any transverse cross section

through the specimen, but not longitudinally across the
“specimen length.” As the failure occurs, an unloading
wave is trapped in the concrete specimen and reflected
many times from the concrete-steel interface. The
transmitted curve (Fig. 10) from the experiment (load
case 2) and the stress history in the specimen after failure
predicted by the numerical analysis (Fig. 13) both
indicate the presence of these oscillations at the trailing
end of the transmitted pulses.

Direct compression tests

Numerical simulations of several direct compression
experiments were also conducted. A summary of the
results for these SHPB experiments is presented in Table
4. A partial illustration of the axisymmetric direct
compression model is presented in Fig. 11(b). A 1321-
mm segment of both the incident and transmitter bars
were modeled with 1594 nine-node, axisymmetric
elements. The FEM model for the specimen was
comprised of 358 nine-node, axisym- metric elements.
The longitudinal axis of the model is the z- axis and the
transverse axis is the y-axis. All loads were applied
uniformly at the free end of the incident bar. The failure
sequence for the high strain-rate case (200/sec) predicted
by nonlinear FEM analysis is presented in Fig. 14. First
cracking occurs at the incident end of the specimen at
time t = 230 μsec [Fig. 14(a)]. At time t = 249 μsec [Fig.
14(b)], substantial crushing in the specimen is observed
at both the incident and transmitter ends. At time t = 255
μsec [Fig. 14(c)],

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995 47


Fig. 13—Time history predicted by FEM analysis for longi-
tudinal stress σz in square-notch specimen for load case 2
(see transmitted trace of Fig. 10) (1 MPa = 145 psi).
approximately 75 percent of the specimen has been crushed.
At time t = 275 μsec [Fig. 14(d)], most of the specimen has
been crushed (approximately 85 percent) and failure occurs.
This simulation suggests that the specimen is pulverized at
failure, consistent with the observed experimental results for
this high strain rate.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The sensitivity of concrete strength to strain rate is clearly
illustrated in Fig. 4. However, the threshold or critical strain
rate at which concrete exhibits significant strength increase
is different for tension and compression, approximately 5/sec
and 60/sec, respectively. Also, the tension curve exhibits
much higher strain-rate sensitivity than the compression
data. The slope of the tension curve beyond a strain rate of
2.5/sec may be described by the equation
ftd = K ε· l/n (5)
in which ftd is the dynamic tensile strength, K is a proportion-
ality constant, ε·is the strain rate, and l/n is the slope of
log10(ftd) versus log10( ε·). For the tensile data presented in
Fig. 4, the value of n is approximately 2.5. Using fracture
mechanics of brittle materials, Grady and Lipkin13 showed
theoretically the value of n to be 3.0.
Using the uniformly distributed array of penny-shaped
cracks, Weerheijm and Reinhardt14 calculated concrete
tensile strength for high-quality concrete (compressive
strength of 50 MPa). Analytical solutions were performed
using a constant fracture energy and a fracture energy vari-
48
Fig. 14—Cracking sequence for direct compression spec-
imen predicted by FEM analysis, load case 3: (a) t = 230
sec; (b) t = 249 sec; (c) t = 255 sec; and (d) t = 275 sec.
able with loading rates. These two solutions are also illus-
trated in Fig. 4 and compare very favorably with the
experimental data.
It has been suggested that the strain-rate sensitivity of
concrete may be attributed to the presence of water in the
cured concrete. The effect of water content on concrete
strength at high strain rate was experimentally determined by
first establishing concrete drying curves (Fig. 5) and then
testing concrete specimens with various water contents in the
SHPB. Results of the dry concrete tests are shown in Fig. 6.
Results for the completely wet concrete, with the same mix
as the dry concrete, are shown in Fig. 7, and results for the
half-dry concrete specimens are presented in Fig. 8. It
appears from Fig. 7 and 8 that the wet and partially wet
concretes show a higher strain-rate sensitivity than dry
concrete of the same mix. However, if one compares the
static strength of the wet concrete to the dry concrete (Table 2),
the wet concrete has less strength than the dry concrete. If the
findings of Reinhardt were applied here,15 i.e., as concrete
strength decreases, low strain-rate sensitivity increases, one
might expect a higher strain-rate sensitivity for the wet
concrete. However, it is assumed that the Reinhardt data15
are associated with concrete quality of different concrete
mixes and would not necessarily apply here for different
strengths between wet and dry specimens of the same mix.
With this in mind, increased rate-sensitivity and strength of
the wet specimens at the upper end of the low strain-rate
range are an effect due to the presence of excess moisture.
Effect of excess moisture is shown by the dashed curve of
Fig. 7. However, the slope of the strain-rate curve above a
strain rate of 50/sec is not expected to change. This is in good
agreement with experimental data. It has recently been
shown experimentally16 that dry concrete shows no rate-
sensitivity up to strain rates of approximately 1.0/sec for
direct tension, but wet concrete for the same test region
shows rather high rate-sensitivity. The same general conclu-
sion may be drawn here for direct compression of concrete.
Crack patterns generated by numerical analysis of the
splitting tensile test6,7,10 indicate that fracture does not
initiate on the mid-diameter of the specimen for dynamic
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995

Fig. 15—Crack-tip velocity in concrete as function of strain
rate (1 m/sec = 3.28 ft/sec) MPa (6988 psi).
loading. This prediction agrees precisely with experimental
results. Cracking begins between the specimen center and
incident side of the specimen. The growth of this initial
surface crack in the numerical analysis is much faster than in
the experiment. This is due to the fact that the crack-tip
velocity in the experiment is much less than the acoustic
velocity in concrete, as shown in Fig. 15. This implies that,
in the numerical analysis, the crack will travel at the same
speed as the stress wave because there is no provision in the
material model to account for a lower crack speed. The
results of the splitting tensile numerical analyses are in good
agreement with the experimental results, except that the frac-
ture occurs sooner in the numerical simulation.
In the numerical simulation of the direct tension tests,
cracking occurred at both the notch and the incident end of
the specimen. Depending on strain rate, failure could occur
at either or both locations. Identical behavior was observed
in the experiment. Failure occurred at either location for
similar low-rate loadings, and multiple failures (both notch
and incident end locations) occurred at high strain rates. This
multiple fracture phenomenon was the primary factor
prompting the splitting tensile test program in the SHPB to
assess the dynamic tensile strength of concrete.
In the SHPB direct tension tests of concrete, failure
occurred in the rising portion of the loading curve, as shown
in Fig. 10. Following the fracture, an unloading stress wave
is “trapped” in the broken specimen, which is still attached
to the transmitter bar. Due to the mismatch of characteristic
impedance of the steel bar and concrete, the reflected pulse
at the bar-concrete interface is approximately the same
magnitude and bears the same sign as the incident pulse. This
“trapped” pulse then produces an oscillating signal in the
transmitter bar. The numerical analysis results illustrate this
same oscillation in the specimen (Fig. 13).
The results of the FEM simulations of the direct compres-
sion experiments predicted failures consistent with those
observed in the experiments, i.e., an increasing number of
smaller fractured pieces for increasing strain rate. These
simulations also verified the SHPB assumption of uniform
stress in the specimen.8
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In general, large increases in the strength properties of
concrete exhibit themselves at lower strain rates for tension
than for compression. Also the strain-rate sensitivity (slope
of strength ratio versus log10 strain-rate curve) at higher
strain rates is greater for tension than for compression.
Higher strain-rate sensitivity, supposedly attributed to
excess water content after the normal curing time, appears to
be a function of the inherent lower wet concrete strength as
well as excess water content. Exceptions to this argument
have recently appeared in the literature and the question of
wet-versus-dry concrete strain-rate sensitivity requires
further experimental work. FEM analyses, although rather
expensive, proved to be very useful in interpreting experi-
mental results and observations obtained from the SHPB
experiments. The numerical analysis results underscore the
need for strain-rate-sensitive constitutive relations and mate-
rial models for concrete structural analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental work was conducted at Wright Laboratory Airbase
Systems Branch, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. The numerical analysis
was sponsored by a research contract from Wright Laboratory Airbase Sys-
tems Branch, Contract No. F08635-90-C-0120. Computational resources
were provided by the Alabama Supercomputer Network.
REFERENCES
1. Kolsky, H., “Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at
High Strain-Rates of Loading,” Proceedings of the Physical Society,
Section B, V. 62, 1949, pp. 676-700.
2. Nicholas, T., Impact Dynamics, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982,
pp. 277-332.
3. Jerome, E. L., “Analysis of a Proposed Six Inch Diameter Split Hopkinson
Pressure Bar,” PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
4. Ross, C. A., “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests,” ESL-TR-88-82 HQ
AF Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB, Florida, Mar. 1989.
5. ADINA, “Finite Element Computer Program for Automatic Dynamic
Incremental Nonlinear Analysis,” Report ARD 84-1, ADINA R&D Inc.,
Watertown, Massachusetts, Dec. 1984.
6. Tedesco, J. W., “Numerical Analysis of Dynamic Splitting-Tensile
and Direct Tension Tests,” ESL-TR-89-45 HQ AF Engineering and Services
Center, Tyndall AFB, FL, Sept. 1990.
7. Tedesco, J. W.; Ross, C. A.; and Kuennen, S. T., “Experimental and
Numerical Analysis of High Strain-Rate Splitting-Tensile Tests,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 162-169.
8. Tedesco, J. W.; Hughes, M. L.; and O'Neil, B. P. “Numerical Analysis
of Dynamic Direct Tension and Direct Compression Tests,” ESL-TR-91-41
HQ AF Civil Engineering Support Agency, AFCESA/RACS Tyndall AFB,
Florida, Feb. 1992.
9. Meyer, C., and Bathe, K. J., “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures in Practice,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
V. 108, 1987, pp. 1605-1622.
10. Tedesco, J. W.; Ross, C. A.; and Brunair, R. M., “Numerical Anal-
ysis of Dynamic Split Cylinder Tests,” Computers and Structures, V. 32, No.
3, 1989, pp. 609-624.
11. Malvern, L. E., and Ross, C. A., Dynamic Response of Concrete Struc-
tures, First Annual Technical Report, Air Force Office for Scientific Research,
Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C., Contract F49620-83-K007, 1984.
12. Tedesco, J. W.; Ross, C. A.; McGill, P. B.; and O'Neil, B. P.,
“Numerical Analysis of High Strain-Rate Concrete Direct Tension Tests,”
Computers and Structures, V. 40, No. 2, 1991, pp. 313-327.
13. Grady, D. E., and Lipkin, J., “Criteria for Impulsive Rock Fracture,”
Geophysical Research Letters, V. 7, No. 4, Apr. 1980, pp. 255-258.
14. Weerheijm, J., and Reinhardt, H. W. “Modeling of Concrete Fracture
under Dynamic Tensile Loading,” Fracture of Concrete and Rock: Recent
Developments, S. D. Shah et al., eds., Elsivier Applied Science, London,
1989, pp. 721-728.
15. Reinhardt, H. W., “Dynamic Loading,” Fracture Mechanics of
49
 Concrete Structures, L. Elfgren, ed., Chapman and Hall Ltd., London,
1989, pp. 188-190.
16. Reinhardt, H. W.; Rossi, P.; and Mier van, J. G. M., “Joint Investiga-
tion of Concrete at High Rates of Loading,” Materials and Structures,
Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris), V. 23, 1990, pp. 213-216.
17. Ross, C. A.; Thompson P. Y.; and Tedesco J. W., “Split-Hopkinson
Pressure-Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 475-481.
18. Kormeling, H. A.; Zielinski, A. J.; and Reinhardt, H. W., “Experi-
50
ments on Concrete under Single and Repeated Uniaxial Impact Tensile
Loading,” Report 5-80-3, Stevin Laboratory, Delft University of Tech-
nology, Delft, Netherlands, May 1980.
19. Ross, C. A., “Fracture of Concrete at High Strain-Rate,” Toughening
Mechanism in Quasi-Brittle Materials, S. F. Shah, ed., Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Netherlands, 1991, pp. 577-591.
20. John, R., and Shah, S. P., “Fracture of Concrete Subjected to Impact
Loading,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, V. 8, No. 1, 1986,
pp. 24-32.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995