Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5



Review of Strain Rate Effecfs for"C6hcrete in'Tension


~.. ,',
by lo Javier Malvar and C. Allen Ross

A lilallllln' rel'icl\' lI'aI col/llllcled lo delermille Ilre nlanl dar a e/laracleri:. The Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA), lInder
il/g Ihe '1J<'CIJ of -"Imill mle 011 IIIt: lemile Ilrellglh of collcrele, In parliC/i-
the.,Conventional Weapons Effects (CWE) programo has
fa~ adr/ilimllll /1('1\' dala by Rass el al, ,,'ere collsidered, Tlris dala sllpporls
I/¡" dnl<lll/ic illcrease factor (DIF¡ beil!g a bi/il!ear fimclial! of Ilre slrail! sponsoted the numerical study of the response of reinforced
rOl" ill a fog-fog plOI, I\'illr 110,illcreaIes for slrail! rales belml' 10.6 lI'illl,a
concrete s~':lIcturessubjected to intemal explosions. In these
1/01'" ..ll<Il!g" al a .Hmill mle af I s", A DIF af abOltl 7 II'(/.f obrail!ed alllre structures,.Jeinforced concrete walls often raíl in tension be-
llighnl "'port"d eXf't'ri//lelllal .flmil! rale of 157 S,I, The DIF formlllalioll
yond:the tens¡'¡e membrane range. The response of these
/'('('00/1/1""",,,1 hr Ilre Ellropel/ll CEO Iras described, IOgellrer lI'illr ils ario
glIlJ. II I\'lIJ /t'lmd 1/11/1Ilre data ,Iijft'red I(llI/e,.-Ilal froln Ilre CEB recom- struclurafelernents is dependent on the tensile behavior of
1/1t'IIr/aliOlI"" //Io.Illy /tlr Ilmill raleJ b",Hmd I s.l, Tlrereforc. al! allemale concrete. The relatively large strain rate enhancement of the
./"r//llllolioll 11'<1.1'
l'rol'°.H'd blHrd 011 Ihe l'Xperimel!wl data. tensile strength emphasizes Ihe importance of an accurate as-
sessment of the dynamic behavior of concrete in tension.
¡';e~"".rds: hlasl loads: concrete: dynamic loads: Icosioo,
A DIF-versus-strain-rate relationship for concrete in ten-
sion is of direct use in numerical models. As part of the

5.:\'.:ral n:vie,,"s of the properties of concrete in both ten-
sion and comprcssion under dynamic loading llave been
. D5WAstudy, an assessment of matfhal properties at high
stt::tinrates was completed23 and is enhanced in the current
p~t:>etforconcrete in tension. In the numerical analyses,
compkt.:d recent!y,I-~More emphasis is typically placed on
lhe compressivc behavior, for which more data is available, DIF~versus-strain-rate relationships for concrete in both ten-
ano kss on the tensile response. The effect ofstrain rate on sion 'and compression were used for input in explicit

the conÚete compressive and tensile strengths is typically .Lagrangian finite elemenl codes such as DYNA3D24-26and
reponed as a dynamic increase factor (DIF), i.e., the ratio of 'in a modified version "'of the nonlinear concrete material
dynamic-to-static strength versus strain rate on a semi-Iog 01' model in the finile element code ADINA.27
log-Iog scalc. This is a convenient formal for implementa-
tion inlo nllmerical models. In particular, the Comité Euro- CEB FQRMULATION
InternalionaI du Béton (CEB) Model Code5 reports DIFs for Perhapstherqost comprehensive model for strain rate en-
compressive and tensile strengths under highrates oEloading han~ment 'of concrete, both in tension and compre-ssion, is
based both on test results and analytical models. Recent data
'presented"by the CEB Model Code.5 In compression, the
by Ross el aI.6.1~provides addilional insightinto the ten$ile
range which was not previously available.AII the previous model appears to properly fit the available data. l In tension,
data are hereby analyzed and used in providing an updated tÍiedynatnie'increase factor (DIF) of the tensile strength, is
DIF-\'Crsus-strain rate relationship for concrete in tensión. givenby ,


for t. S; 30 S-1
In the analysis of reinforced concrete structures subjected .',' J,/J,5= (!t.5 )
lo blast loading. both concrete and steel aresubjected to ~ery
high strain rates in the order of 10 s.1 to 1000 s-l. At these
high strain rates the apparent strength of thesetnaterials can
ACI Materials Joumal. V. 95. No. 6. November.Decemberl998,
increase significantly, by more than 50 percent for the rein- Recei\'ed August 22. 1997. and revie",ed under tnstitute publication policies, Copy.
forcing steel,15.18by more than 100 percentfor concrete in righll!:>.I998. American Concrete Institule. AII rights reserved. including the making
of copies unless pennission is oblained from Ihe copyright proprietors, Pertinem dis-
compression.' and by more than 600 percent for concrete in cussion will be published in Ihe Seplember.OCtober 1999 AC/ Malerial5 Journal ir
tension.19-:!:! recei\'ed by June 1, 1999,

'-1 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 1998 735

AClI1I""ha L Javier Malvar iJ a senior researeh engineer I\'ilh Karago:ian and
Ca.'e. Slruclural Engineers. His researeh inle"sls ine/ude design, analysis, lesling,
a: ¡ o ROSS " 7

"lid IIwnericalmodeling 01 concrele and reinforced concrele slruclltres sabjecled lo

~ i n-- .. ROSS Scaled
slatic, dY/lamic, and blaslloads. u
it -CEe 30 MPa
UJ -'-L-<--
AClmemhu C. Al/en Ross iJ prolessor emuilus 01aerospace engineerillg. mechan- '" -CEB70MPa
ics. wld tngineering sciences al Ihe Vlli,'ersit." 01 Flarida. HiJ researeh inlerests :i
a: -~-
:, I
indude Ihe dynamic re-'ponse01malerials and slrUClures. (.)
o" ---,.'

1 .' ,
1.E+O 1.E+2
1.E-8 1.E-6 1.E-4 1.E-2 1.E+4
for E > 30s-1
= ~(! ) Es
Fig. l-Ross scaled versus CEB lor col1crete ill lellsiol1.
fr = dynamic tensile strength at E
Ir, = static tensile strength at Es 10
fr /fr.,= tensile strength dynamic increase factor
-g~~ ;~~::
E = slrain rale in lhe range of 3 x 10-6to 300 s-1 ... Cowell


E., = 3 X 10-6s-1 (static strain rafe) Ir . Cowell32 MPa I

log~= 7_110-2.33
o J<
x Hatano23 MPa
Takeda/Taehikawa I,
... . Mellinge,lBi",;me, 36 MPa I
8 = II(10 + 6f'cIf'co ') ...
UI e
Birkirne,47 MPa
MeVay35 MPa
hll' = 10 MPa = 1450psi ...
Ross spl,!tension
Ross di'eet lension
This tensile DlF-versus-strain-rale for two concrete com- ¡; o Ross mi.e. E.J
prcssive slrengths, 30 and 70 MPa (4350 and 10,150 psi) is
ploucd in Fig. l. In a lag-lag piel, lhe curves obtained are bi-
- ~- ~~::,~~al
John el al. 53 MPa
Antoun 57 MPa

linear. As in the compression case, these curves llave a dis-

conlinuity in their slope which, according to the CEB o "o
formularían, occurs at a strain rate of 30 sol, The CEB ex- + .. .0
1.E-6 l.E-5 1.E-4 1.E-3 1.E-2 1.Eo1 1,E+0 1,E+1 1.E.2 l.E.3
pression is reported lo be valid up to 300 s-I, where the factor
is 3.9 for 30 MPa (4350 psi) concrete. Although Ibis is sig- «
niflcanlly higher Iban the compression OIF at that same Fig. 2-Ross scaled and CEB versus test data.
strain rale, several researchers llave reponed even higher en-
hancemenl factors in tension.
Birkimer's thesis data
For bis thesis work, Birkimer conducted 46 impact tests on
DATAAT HIGH STRAIN RATES plainconcretecylindersat strainratesbetween2 and23 s-I.21
Several seis of data are available for strain mies in the The cylinders were 2 in. diameter and 35 in. long. Static
range of 1 sol to 200 s-1 in tcnsion, as follows. strength was 491 psi (as in Mellinger and Birkimer's tests).
The corresponding DIF varied from about 2.5 to 6. For Ibis
Mellinger and Birkimer's data range of strain rates the OIF was expected to be proportional
Mcllinger and Birkimer19completed two seIs ofthree tests to E 1/3(a straight line of slope 1/3 in a lag-lag piel). Out of
on plain concrete cylindcrs. The cylinders were 10.25 in. the 46 tests, 33 yielded results, and are shown in Fig. 2.
long and 2 in. diameter, and loaded under end impact. The
compression wave from the impact traveled along the speci- McVay's data
men and was reflected at the end ofthe specimen as a tension McVay rer,rts resultsfailure
from was
clase-in explosions
wave. If the total stress due to the reflected tension wave mi- crete walls.2 Concrete obtained in the on
back Cacespalling. Two rafe enhancement factors in tension
nos the incident compression wave exceeded the concrete
of 7.1 and 6.7 were reported at strain Talesof about 38 and
lensile strength, the specimen would rupture. For the first ser
157 sol, respectively.
of three tests, the dynamic tensile strength was somewhere
belween 2500 and 3210 psi (17.2 to 22.1 MPa), compared to Ross' data
a static tensile strength of 491 psi (3.4 MPa), obtained at a Ross et al. tested several cylindrical concrete specimens in
quasi-static strain rafe of about 0.57 x 10-6s.l. This repre- a Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) in direct tension,
sents a OIF between 5.1 and 6.5 (average 5.8) at a strain rafe splitting tension (Brazilian test), and direct compression.6-14
of about 20 s-l. For the second ser of three tests, the dynamic The specimens' diameters varied from 0.75 to 2 in. (19 to 51
tensile strength was somewhere between 2240 and 4000 psi rnm) in diameter, and were 1.75 to 2 in. (45 to 51 mm) long.
(15A and 27.6 MPa), Le., a DlF between 4.5 and 8.1 (aver- The SHPB diameter was either 2 or 3 in. (51 or 76 mm).
age 6.3) at a strain rafe of about 23 s-l. These two points are In tension, most of the tests were conducted in the strain
shown in Fig. 2. rate range from about 10-7to 20 s.l. Ross reponed dynamic

736 ACI Materials JournallNovember-December 1998

mcrease tactors of up to 6.47 at 17.8 S-l. These DIF values 10 .x
match well with the previous DIF data at high strain rates - Test data upper bound /
-x- Test data lower bound
(!:'.e.beyond Is-I). Ross' data points are shown in Fig. 2 as .Mihashi/Wil1mann
we!!. - . . - KipplGrady
"- -<>-Weerheijm
Q - -6-. Shah
1- -CEB 30 MPa
John, Antoun and Rajendran's data <:)
Z ...: o-Ross [6J
John et a).28.2~tested six sets of specimens in splitting ten- o:
-x-John & Shah 135]30 MPa
siGOin a SHPB. Specimens with thicknesses of 0.25 and 0.50 W
~ ...J
in. (6.4 and 12.7 mm) and diameters ofO.5, 1, and 2 in. (12.7, ¡¡;
Z i ('i'~,
25.4 and 50.8 mm) were tested. The strain rates ranged from 1-

abolIr 5 x 10-7to 70 s-I, and measured DIF values reached up

to 4.8 (Fig. 2).
Antoun29 also conducted plate impact tests to determine 1
the spall strength. or uniaxial strain tensile strength, which, 1E.6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E.2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4
for concrete, is assumed to be similar to the uniaxial uncon- STRAIN RATE (1/s)
tined tensile strength. Data from these tests fell within the
Fig. 3-Comparisoll of variollStheories and experimental
scatter of the previous tensile splitting tests, with DIF values data. adaptedfrom Reference 31.
in excess of 3.

Discussion ACI 318 formulas R11.2.1.l and 8.5.1 and assuming linear
One important point lO be made is that all the data above
the strain raJe of I s.l, obtained from the various test deviees
ano proeedures. show the same trend. The data from
E =!J. = 6.7Ji: = 0.000118
Birkimer et al. 19-21were obtained by measurement of strain
r E 57, 000Ji:
pulses on long concrete rods impaeted by metallie projee-
liles. ;-"lcVay22ano Anloun29 obtained their data by back eal- then the average strain rafe to peak is between 0.28 x 10-6
and 1.3x 10-6s-l. The CEB Model Code recommends an ac-
culating stress ano strain from spall tests. Data eollected by
Ross ct aI6-1~ were obtained using two different sized, split tual strain at peak of 0.000 150, yielding a range for Ihe a\'er-
Hopkinson pressure bars; three different specimen sizes; six a!.!estrain rafe from 0.36 x 10-6101.7 x 10.6s-l. Bolh ran!.!es
di Ilerent concrete mixes; and two different types of tensile a;e slightly lower Iban the 3 x 10-6sol used by CEB. A qu;si-
specimens (direct lensíon and splitting tensile, i.e., Brazilian static strain rafe of 1x 10-6s.1 seems more appropriale as the
test). Finally. data byJohnet al.28wereobtainedfrominde- ongln.
pcndcnt SHPB tests. In all cases, very high dynamic tensi1e
' ' slrcngths were observed. when eompared to the quasi-static Scaling 01 Rass' curve in tensid'n
slrenglh of concrete. for strain raJes above 1 s-l. Fig. 1 shows a comparison between an early DIF eune by
Ross and the CEB formulation for concrete in tensian. 10At
COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL MODELS first, these eurves arrear as two very different altematives.
Ouasi-static strain rate but Ibis is due to Ihe different choice for quasi-statie strain
To dcvelop DIF-versus-slrain-rate curves, a quasi-statie rateoThe CEB curves start at 3 x 10-6s-I, whereas the Ross
\'alllc of the strain rate has to be adopled where the DIF is eurve starts at 1 x 10-8s-l. These are simply two different
laken as 1. S ince concrete properties are usually obtained definitions of statie strength. The recommended strain raJe
following ASTM standards, these were deemed appropriate for a standard tensile splitting tensile test (ASTM C 496) is
for dctermining Ihe quasi-statie value ofthe strain rafe where c1oser,to the CEB quasi-static loading rateo Even slower
Ihe DIF cun'c starts. loadings will result in measured compressive strengths lower
For concrete cylinders in uniaxial unconfined compres- Iban focoHence the Ross curve whieh starts 1x 10-8sol will aI-
sion. ASTM C39-94 reeommends a quasi-statie loading rafe ready show a signifieant DIF at 3 x 10-6s-l. It was deeided
of 20 lo 50 psi/see (0.14 to 0.34 MPa/sec). For typical con- to seale the Ross curve so that its DIF would be 1 at 3.E-6 s.l
crcte. the modulus of elastieity is between 3 and 6 Msi (20 to match the CEB eurves. Fig. 1 shows that the first braneh
and 41 GPa). Henee. for the linear part of the stress-strain of the scaled Ross data now faIls between the 30 and the 70
Cllrve. Ibis Iranslates joto a test strain rafe between 3 x 10-6 MPa CEB curves. Hence, up to the ehange in slope, both
and 17 x 10-6 s-l. If a eonstant strain rafe to failure at 0.002 models are in agreement. More recent data by Ross uses a
slrain is used. Ibis corresponds to a test strain rafe between quasi-static strain rate of abolIr 10-6.6
4 x 10-6 and 33 x 10-6 sol for concrete strengths between
3000 and 10.000 psi (20 and 69 MPa). This is in agreement ORIGIN OF CEB FORMULATION
wilh Ihe CEB quasi-slalie strain rafe of 30 x 10-6sol for com- The CEB Model Code formulas are based on the 1988
. 5
presslOn.- CEB BuIletin 187.30The CEB Bulletin 187 itselfis based on
For concrete cylinders in a tensile splitting test, ASTM C 496 work by Reinhardt in 1985.31In the bilinear CEB formula-
recommends a tensile rate of loading of 100 to 200 psi/min tion, the ehange in slope DIF-versus-strain-rate curves is 10-
(0.7 to 1.4 MPa/min). For tensile strengths between 300 and eated at 30 s-l. This is eonsistent with some theoretical
700 psi (2 and 5 MPa), this translates inlo times to failure of models, such as Weerheijm's.31-34 This is shown in Fig. 3

l ~
abolIr 90 to 420 seconds. If the tensile strain at peak is (using

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 1998

(adapted from Fig. 931), where the CEB formulation can
closely follow ¡he theoretical models of Kipp and Grady, Mi- 10
-Modifled CEe 30 MPa
hashi and Whittmann, and Weerheijm. However, that same -Modified CEe 70 MPa
figure shows that the experimental data at high strain Tales .
. Cowell63
. Cowell36 MPa
falls to the leerof the theories and points to a change in slope '"
Cowell32 MPa
Hatano 23 MPa
in the bilinear relationship closer to 1 s-l. In fact, Fig. 9,31 ti
)( TakedafTachikawa

Fig. 4,32 Fig. 16,33 and Fig. 1,34 (assuming E = 33 GPa = 4.8
~ ~~~i~~r~i':i;;,:r36 MPa i
o( . McVay35 MPa
Msi as in CEB Bulletin 187), all show that ¡he available data w
'" + Ross splil tension
<.> .ti. Ross direct lension
indicated a change of slope closer to 1 s-l. ;!; o Ross E.J
In addition to the above data, 10hn and Shah's work also
el a'
John el al. 53 MPa
Antoun 57 MPa
seems te point to a change of slope around l s-t .35 Ross' da- >
ta, as shown in Fig. 2, also supports Ibis.


Data at low strain rates I.E-6 I.E-5 I.E.4 1.E.3 I.E-2 1.E-1 I.E+O I.E+1 I.E+2 I.E+3
For concrete in tension, the number of researchers that STRAINRATE (1/$)
llave provided data in the range up to 1sol is also limited. In
Fig. 4-Proposed modified CEB Cl/nes.
particular the work of CoweJl,36Takeda and Tachikawa,37
Hatano as reported by Kvirikadze,38and Kormeling at al.39
should be l11entioned. where
Cowcll reported strain rate enhancements for various con- Ir = dynamic tensile strength at t
crete strengths36(Fig. 2). Cowell indicated that concrete with Irs = statictensilestrengthat t,
Ihe lowest compressive strengths exhibited the highest DIF in Ir/frs = tensilestrengthdynamicincreasefactorDIF
tension. His static tests were conducted at stress Talesof 3 psil t = strain Tale in the range of 10+6te 160 s-1
sec «L02MPa/sec).similartoASTMC496.Assuminga peak t, = 10-6s-I (staticstrainTale)
strain of 0.00015 and gi,'en the tensile strengths between 515 lag ~ = 6 8 - 2
and 805 psi, the corresponding quasi-static strain Talesshould
8 = 1/(1 + 8r/reo)
llave bcen between 5.6 x 10-7and 8.7 x 10-7s.l, clase to the
reo = 10 MPa = 1450 psi
This new formulation is shown in Fig. 4 for 30 and 70 MPa
suggested origin at I x 10-6sol , but somewhat different from
(4350 and 10150 psi), together with the available data.
th~;eported 1~7x 10-6to 9 x 10-6s-l.
Takeda and Tachikawa37 reported sume DIF values of up CONCLUSIONS
lO 1.7~ fm strain Tales between 3 x 10-7 and 4 x 10-2. These A literature review was conducted to determine the avail-
values are in agreement with results fram the o¡her studies able data to characterize the effecf of strain Taleon the ten-
(Fig.2). sile strength of concrete. In particular, additional new data by
K\'irikadze3S rcported work by Hatano for futir strain Tales Ross et al. were considered. The data support the dynamic
01'concrete in tension. The quasi-static strain Tale was chasco increase factor being a bilinear function of the strain rate (in
as lO-h. The concrete static tensiJe strength was 384 psi (2.65 a lag-lag plot), with no increases for strain Talesbelow 10-6,
MPa). and with a slope change at a strain rafe of 1 s-l. A DIF of
Kormcling et al.39 reported 26 series of large Hopkinson abolir 7 was obtained at the highest measured strain Taleof
bar tests for strain Tales up to 1.5 s-l. This data also shows an 157s-l. The DIF formulation recommended by the European
effel:t 01'concrete strength on the DIF (Iarger DIF for lower CEB was described, together with its erigíos. It was found
l:oncretc strengths), but it is less Iban the effect shown by that [he data differed somewhat from the CEB recommenda-
Cowell's data. liaos, and a similar formulation was proposed based on the
experimental results.
Proposed formulation
The avaiJabledata at high strain Talesseems to support that REFERENCES
the change in slope occurs clase to I sol instead of at 30 sol 1. Bischoff, P. H., and Perry, S. H., "Compressive Behavior of Concrete
at High Strain Rates." Materials and Structures, V. 24,1991, pp. 425-450.
as assumcd by CEB (Fig. 2). In addition, it seems appropriate 2. Williams, M. S., "Modeling of Local Impact Effects on Plain and
tC1assumc the quasi-static strain Taleat I x 10-6s-l. Hence, a Reinforced Concrete," ACI Structllral Jollmal, V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.
formularían similar to that of the CEB was fitted against the 1994, pp. 178-187.
avaiJable data for strain Tales below I s-I, and for higher 3. Fu, H. c.: Erki, M. A.; and Seckin, M., "Review of Effects of Loading
Rate on Concrete in Compression," Jollmal 01 Strllctllral Engineering. V.
strain Talesa slope of 1/3 on a log (strain Tale) versus log 117, No. 12. Dec. 1991, pp. 3645-3659.
(DIF) piar was used~also following the CEB formularían. 4. Fu, H. C.; Erki, M. A.; and Seckin, M., "Review of Effects of Loading
The praposed formulation then becomes Rate on Reinforced Concrete," Jollmal 01 Structllral Engineering. V. 117,
No. 12, Dec. 1991, pp. 3660+3679. .
5. "Comité Euro-Intemational du Béton," CEB-FIP Model Cede 1990,
for t S;1 s-1 Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire. UK, 1993.
l/fr. = (~t. ) 6. Ross, C. A.; lerome, D. M.; Tedesco, l.; and Hughes, M. L., "Mois-
ture and Strain Rate Effects on Concrete Strength," ACI Materials Jollmal.
V. 93. No. 3, May-lune 1996, pp. 293-300.
1/3 7. Ross, C. A.; Tedesco, J. W.; and Kuennen, S. T., "Effects of Strain
for t> 1 S-1
= ~(~t, ) Rate on Concrete Strength," ACI Materials Jollmal,
1995, pp. 37-47.
V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.

73B ACI Materials Journal/November-December 1998

,w, ,. oo.. 'W». \...1'\.; ano I'..uennen. S. T.. "Experimental and 25. Malvar. L. J.; Crawford. J. E.; Wesevich. J. w.; and Simons, D., "A
i'umcrical Anal)'sis of High Strain Rate Spliuing Tensile Tests." ACl New Concrete Malerial Model for DYNA30-Release 11: Shear Oilation
Materials 10umal, V. 90. No. 2. Mar.-Apr. 1993. pp. 162-169, and Directional Rate Enhancemenls: TM-96-2.1. Report to Ihe Oefense
~ 9. Hughes. M. L; Tedesco. J. W.: and Ross. C. A.. "Numerical Analysis Nuclear Agency. Karagozian and Case Structural Engineers. Glcndale,
of High Strain Rate Splitting-Tensile Tests." Computers and Structures. V. Calif.. Jan. 1996.
47, ~o. 4/5.1993, pp. 653-671.
:!6. Malvar, L J., and Simons. O,. "Concrete Material Modeling in
10. Ross. C. A.: Kuennen. S. T; and Tedesco. J, W.. "Effects of Strain
Explicit Computalions." Proceedings. Workshop on Recent Advances in
Rale on Concrete Strength." ACI Spring Convention. Session on Concrete
Compulational Struclural Dynamics and High Performance Computing,
Research in the Federal Govemment. Washington. D.C.. Mar. 1992.
USAE Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.. Apr. 1996. pp.
11. Tedesco. J. w; Ross, C. A.; McGill. P. B.; and O'Neil. B. p,. 165-194.
"--- ":'\umerical Analysis of High Strain Rate Concrete Direct Tension Tests."
27. Tedesco. 1. w.; Powell J. c.; Ross. C. A.; and Hughes. M. L, "A
Colllputen <IIldStrucllIres, V. 40. No. 2. 1991. pp. 313-327.
Slrain Rate Dependent Concrete Material Model for ADINA." Computas
12. Ross. C. A., "FractUre of Concrete at High Strain Rate," Proceed-
and Structures. V. 64. No. 4/5. 1997.
il/Ss, NATO Ad\anced Research Workshop: Toughening Mechanism in
Quasi-Brittlc ~laterials. I"onhwestem University. Evanston. 111..July 1990. 28. John. R.; Antoun. T.; and Rajendran, A ,M.. "Effect of Slrain Rale
Klu"er Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 1991. pp. 577-591. and Size on Tensile Strength ofConcrete." Proceedings. 1991 APS Topiea!
I~. Ross, C. A,; Thompson. P. Y.;and Tedesco. J. W. "Split-Hopkinson Conference on Shock Compression of Condensed Mauer. Williamsburg.
Pressure-Bar Tests on Concrete and Monar in Tension and Compression," Va.. Elsevier Science Publishers. 1992. pp. 501-504.
,\CI Materiuls 10urtlal. V. 86. No. 5. Sept.-Oct. 1989. pp, 475.481. :!9. Antoun. T. B.. "Cons\Ílutive/Failure Model for Ihe Static and
14. Tcdeseo. J. w: Ross, C. A.; and Brunair. R. 1\1.. "Numerical Analy- Dynamic Behaviors of Concrete Incorporaling Effects of Oamage "nd
sis of O)'namic Split Cylindcr Tests." Computas and Structllres. V. 32. No, Anisotropy." PhD thesis. The University of Oayton. Daylon. Ohio, 1991.
~/4. 1989. pp. 609-624. 230 pp.
15. U.S. I"a\')' :'-1a\'alFacilities Engineering Command. "Structures lO 30. Comité Euro-Intemational du Béton. "Concrete Structures ondee
Res¡st the Effecls of Accidental Explosions." NAVFACP.397 Design Man. Impact and Impulsive Loading," CEB Bulletin 187. Lausanne. Switzerland,
ual, Alexandria. Va.. 1991 (also Army TM5-1300 and Air Force AFM 88- Aug. 1988,
31. Reinhardt. H. W.. "Strain Rate Effects on the Tcnsile Strength of
16. Oefensc Spccial Weapons Agency, DAHS CWE Manual: Manualfor Concrete as Predicted by Thermodynamics and Fracture Mechanics Mod-
,hc f)".\igl/ <11,,1 Al/al.niJ of Hardened Str/lctures "I/der Com'entional \\éap-
els." Cement Based Colllposites: Strain Rate Effects on Fracture. Dec.
"'" Effi'cl.l'. Draft. 1997.
1985, pp. [.13.
17. Drake. J. L el al.. Protectil'e Col/.ftr/lctiol/ Design Mal/ual: Resis-
32. Weerheijm, J.. and Reinhardt. H, W" "Modelling of Concrete Frac.
'<I/ln' of' Srructural Ell'lIll'l/ts (Section [X), Repon ESL-TR-87-57, Air
tole under Dynamic Tensile Loading." Fracture of Concrete and Roe/<-
Force Enginecring and Serviccs Cenler. Tyndall Air Force Base. Fla.. Nov.
)l)S'J. Recent Del'e/opments. [989. pp. 721-728.
IX. Depanment of Energ)'. A Manual for the Prediction of Blast and 33. Reinhardt. H. W" "Tensile Fracture of Concrete at High Rates of
Fragll/cl/I I.OIlllil/g (11/Str/lClures. AlbuquerqueOperationsOffice.Albu- Loading," Application of Fracture Mechanics to Celllentitious Composites,
4ucr4ue. N. ~1ex.. Jul)' 1992. NATO-ARW. 1984. pp. 559-590,
\l). ~1ellinger.F. ~1.. and Birkimer. D. L. "Mca.~urementof Stress and 34. Reinhardt. H, W.. "Concrete under Impact Loading- Tensile
Slra;n un Cylinorieal Test Spccimen.s of Roek anó Concrete under [mpact Strength and Bond." HERON. V. 27. No. 3.1982.
I.II"ding," T"cIlIIical R,'port 4-46, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ohio 35. John. R.. and Shah. S. P.. "Effect of High Strength and Rate of Load-
Ri\Cr Di,ision La¡"oralories, Cincinnati. Ohio. Apr. 1966.71 pp.

ing on Fracture Parameters of Concrete," S'iMIR[LEM Conference on
20. Hirkimcr. D. L, and Lindemann. R.. "O)'namic Tensile Strength of Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Houston. Tex.. 'une 1987, pp. 35-52.
Concrete ~Ialcrials." ACI JOüR"ÁL. Proceedings Jan. 1971. pp. 47-49. 36. Cowell. W. L. "Dynamic Propenies of Plain Ponland Cemenl Con-
21. nirkil11er,O. L.. "Critica) Normal Fracture Strajn of Ponland Cemenl
crete." Technical Report R447. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Pon
Cona.:I.:." PhD thesis. Vni\'ersil)' of Cincinnati. Cincinnati. Ohio. 1968. Hueneme. Calif.. June [966.46 pp.
122 pp.
37, Takeda. J.. and Tachikawa. H.. "Deformation and FractUre of Con-
22. ~k\'ay. ~1. K.. "Spall Damage of Concrete SlruetUres," Tecllllical
crete Subjected to Dynamic Load." Proceedings of the Inlemational Con-
R,'p"" SL-XX.22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Walerways Experimenl
retente. Mechanical Behavior of Materials. V. IV. Kyoto. Japan, 1971.
SI:lIinn. Vi.:b¡"urg, ~liss., June 1988.
23. Defen,c Spcl'ial Weapons Agency, "OSWA Material Propenies 38. K virikadze. O. P.. "Determination of the Ultimate Strength and Mod-
~Ie,.t¡ng:' I'roc('('ding.r Meeting held at Logicon ROA. Los Angeles. Calif. ulus of Deformation of Concrete at Different Rates of Loading," Interna.
\'. 1:1110!l. No. 5-6.Nov. 1996.(\imited distribution) lional Symposium. Testing In Sito of Concrete Structures. Budapest.
24. \\'hirley. R. G.. and Engclmann.B. E.. "OYNA30: A Nonlinear Hungary, 1977. pp. 109-[ 17,
hplieit Thrcc-Dimensional FinilC Element Code for Salid and Structural 39. Kormeling. H. A; Zielinski. A 1.; and Reinhardt. H. \V.. "Experi-
~kehanics:' UH'r ¡"fatwal. Repon UCRL-MA-107254 Rev.1. Lawrence ments on Concrete under Single and Repeated Uniaxial Impacl Tensile
Li\crmorc Nalional Laboratory. Livermore. Calif.. Nov. 1993. Loading," Stevin Report 5-80-3. De[ft Universily ofTechnology. May 1980.

ACI Materials Journal / November-Oecember 1998 739