Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Experimental studies on the dynamic compressive and tensile strength

of clay brick under high strain rates
Yanchao Shi a,b,⇑, Ning Wang b, Zhong-Xian Li a,b, Yang Ding a,b
a
Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structural Safety of the Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China

h i g h l i g h t s

The quasi-static and dynamic compression tests of clay brick are carried out.

The quasi-static and dynamic split tensile properties of clay bricks are investigated.

The effect of dynamic amplification on the properties of brick is discussed.

Empirical formulas for predicting the dynamic material properties are derived.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Clay bricks are widely used in masonry structures as well as claddings of the frame structures worldwide.
Received 9 August 2020 During the service life of the building structures, the clay brick masonry wall might be subjected to
Received in revised form 28 October 2020 dynamic loads such as accidental or terrorist blast loads and wind fragment impacts. In this case, the clay
Accepted 1 December 2020
brick masonry wall might perform differently as compared to the static loading case, and one of the key
reasons is the change of the mechanical properties of clay brick under high strain rates. However, current
studies in strain rate effect on compressive and tensile strength of clay brick materials are very limited,
Keywords:
especially on the tensile strength. Therefore, it is of great significance to study the dynamic mechanical
Clay brick
Strain rate
properties of clay brick materials under different strain rates. In this paper, experiments are carried out to
Dynamic increase factor (DIF) investigate the strain rate effect on the mechanical properties of clay bricks using different test devices:
Compressive strength electronic testing machine, INSTRON high-speed testing machine, and the split Hopkinson pressure bar.
Tensile strength Both the static and dynamic properties of clay bricks at the strain rates between 1.0E-6 s1 and 224 s1
are studied. Empirical relations between dynamic increase factors (DIF) for the compressive and tensile
strength of clay brick and strain rate were also proposed.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
As a commonly used masonry material, clay bricks have been
extensively used in building structures worldwide. For example,
many historic buildings, hotels, shopping centers, traffic station,
and residential buildings were built using clay bricks in China
and other countries. At the same time, clay bricks are also widely
used as the cladding system for reinforced concrete or steel frame
structures. During the service lives of the above building struc-
tures, clay brick masonry wall might be subjected to dynamic loads
such as accidental or terrorist blast loads and wind fragment
impacts. To investigate the performance of the clay brick masonry
⇑ Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structural Safety of the
Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China.
E-mail address: yanchaoshi@tju.edu.cn (Y. Shi).
wall under abnormal dynamic loads, many scholars have done
extensive research on the dynamic response and damage assess-
ment of clay brick masonry walls under blast or impact loads.
For example, Keys and Clubley [1] studied the effects of geometric
shapes of masonry panels on the debris distribution under differ-
ent blast loads through two sets of experiments. The authors pro-
posed a new method to predict the spatial debris distribution
produced by masonry walls. Shi et al. [2] carried out field tests to
study the local damage and fragment size distribution of two unre-
inforced masonry walls under close-in explosions.
Besides the experimental studies, numerical simulations are
also utilized to study the dynamic response and damage of clay
brick masonry wall under extreme dynamic loads, in which the
accuracy and reliability of the dynamic material model of masonry
materials become important. Detailed 3D solid element models
were utilized to study the nonlinear dynamic behavior of clay brick

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121908
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al.
masonry walls under explosion or impact loads [3–6]. Since both
the clay bricks and mortar should be modeled separately, the
detailed 3D numerical simulation is very time-consuming. Some
researchers [7–10] proposed homogenized models for clay brick
masonry materials, which is simple and of high efficiency. The
model has shown to be able to simulate the overall dynamic
response and damage of clay brick masonry walls under blast load-
ing. In order to further improve the efficiency and accuracy of
numerical simulations, interface models [11–13], mesoscale mod-
els, and other modeling strategies [14–16] have also been devel-
oped. Besides the element type, the other challenge in numerical
simulation of the dynamic response and damage of clay brick
masonry wall under dynamic loads is the dynamic material model
of clay bricks with consideration of the strain rate effect. Hao and
Tarasov [17] studied the strain rate effect on the material proper-
ties of the brick using a triaxial static-dynamic testing machine
developed by the University of Western Australia. The results
showed that the dynamic increase factor (DIF) of the ultimate
strength of the brick is about 2.3 when the strain rate reaches
150 s1, while the DIF of Young’s modulus is about 1.95 at the same
strain rate. Zhang et al [18] carried out the low-speed and high-
speed compressive tests of high-strength, mid-strength, and low-
strength clay bricks with Western Australian clay as raw materials.
The test results showed that the compressive strength, ultimate
strain, and Young’s modulus are very sensitive to the strain rate
at a high strain rate range. However, in the range of low strain rate,
the sensitivity of ultimate strain and the elastic modulus to the
strain rate is low. Pereira et al [19] studied the dynamic behavior
of handmade clay brick within the strain rate range from 4 s1 to
199 s1 using a drop-weight impact machine. The results indicated
that the ultimate strength, Young’s modulus and strain at ultimate
strength of handmade clay bricks all increase with the increase of
the strain rate, and the DIFs are in the range of 2 to 3 when the
strain rate reaches 200 s1. Burnet et al. [20] studied the dynamic
response of masonry joints to dynamic tensile loading using a spe-
cial Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar, and a significant dynamic
enhancement was observed in the tensile strength when speci-
mens were loaded with strain rate 1 s1.
Although the above-mentioned tests have been conducted to
study the strain rate effect on the dynamic properties of clay brick,
it is still a lack of effective data for the prediction of the DIFs of the
compressive and tensile strength of clay bricks under high strain
rates. Firstly, current studies on the strain rate effect on the tensile
strength of clay brick are very limited. However, the tensile prop-
erties of brick are vitally important. The compressive stress wave
generated by the blast load passes through the structural member
and will be reflected back as a tensile stress wave from the rear
face. The tensile stress wave could lead to spalling damage on
the rear surface of the structural member because the tensile
strength of brick is much smaller than its compressive strength.
Secondly, the available data of the DIF of compressive strength of
clay brick is mainly in the high strain rate range. However, as
pointed out by Wei and Hao [9], the strain rate effect on the brick
strength becomes much more significant as the strain rate is higher
than 30 s1. In this case, the data of the DIF of compressive strength
of clay brick in the medium stain rate range, which is not available
in the literature, is also very important for fully understanding the
dynamic properties of the clay brick material under different high
strain rates. The reason is that the engineering materials might suf-
fer a different strain rate under different dynamic loads. For exam-
ple, the strain rates of engineering materials could be at the range
of about 1 s1–100 s1 when the engineering structure is under
collision loads, while the strain rates of the materials could be as
high as 10 s1–1000 s1 when the engineering structure is sub-
jected to blast loads [21]. In the numerical study of Kai Xu and
Yong Lu [22], the maximum effective strain rates of the concrete
2
Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908
in the RC plate are about 25 and 140 s1 respectively under the
blast scenarios of 5 and 30 kg TNT charge at a standoff distance
of 1 m. Therefore more tests are needed to be conducted to study
the strain rate effect on both the compressive strength and tensile
strength of clay bricks. In this paper, the compressive and tensile
strength of clay bricks was tested at low, medium, and high strain
rates, which could be used for the design of masonry structures
under blast loads. The microcomputer controlled electronic univer-
sal testing machine system is used to carry out the quasi-static
compressive and tensile tests. The INSTRON-VHS 160/100-20 high
test system and the split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) are uti-
lized for testing the dynamic compressive and tensile strength of
clay brick under medium and high strain rates separately. Both
the tested material properties and failure patterns of the speci-
mens are compared and analyzed. The empirical relations between
DIF of the compressive and tensile strength of clay brick and strain
rate are also derived based on the test data. The above mentioned
achievement could be directly used in dynamic response analysis
and design of masonry structures as well as claddings of the frame
structures against blast or impact loads.
2. Test setup
2.1. Specimen preparation
The clay bricks used for preparing the specimens were bought
from a brick factory in Henan, China where the clay brick is still
commonly used. The quality of the clay bricks is guaranteed since
they are produced according to Chinese standard GB5101-2003.
The dimension of each brick is measured to be
240 mm  110 mm  53 mm, and the average weight of each brick
is about 2.6 kg. All the specimens were perpendicularly drilled
from the clay bricks using a hollow drill rod with an internal diam-
eter of 38 mm. Then, the drilled cylindrical specimens were care-
fully polished to make sure that the surfaces of the specimens
are smooth and the two ends are parallel enough. The compression
specimens are cylinders with a diameter and a height of 38 mm.
And The Brazilian test use U38mm  19 mm cylinders.
Cylindrical specimens were used both in the static and dynamic
compressive tests, as shown in Fig. 1. The diameter of the specimen
is 38 mm and its length diameter ratio (L/D) is chosen to be 1. It
should be noted here that the length diameter ratio of the com-
pressive test sample must be carefully chosen to reduce the friction
effect between the specimen and Hopkinson bar to make sure that
the dynamic stress equilibrium could be achieved. Gray [23]
reviewed the previous studies and recommended that the length
diameter ratio of cylindrical specimens in SHPB tests should be
in the range between 0.5 and 1. Therefore specimens with the L/
D of 1 are utilized in the static and dynamic compressive tests.
Flattened Brazilian tensile tests will be carried out to investigate
both the static and dynamic tensile strength of the clay brick, and
the specimen is shown in Fig. 2. The Flattened Brazilian tensile test
method was put forward by Wang et al [24] as an improvement of
the traditional Brazilian test. As shown in Fig. 2, two parallel flat
ends were designed (the angleh ¼ 10o ) for the specimen to make
sure that the crack starts from the center of the specimen. Based
on this testing method, the tensile stress of the tested material
could be derived by the following formula:
2Pc
rt ¼ K ð1Þ
pDB
where Pc is the critical loading in the test, D is the diameter and B is
the thickness of the specimen. K is a coefficient decided by the
angle, when 2h ¼ 20o , K  0.95 was confirmed [25].
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

Fig. 1. Specimens for the compressive test.

Fig. 2. Specimens for Flattened Brazilian tensile test.

2.2. Test apparatus
Both compressive and tensile strength of clay bricks were tested
at low, medium, and high strain rate range by using the microcom-
puter controlled electronic universal testing machine system, the
INSTRON-VHS 160/100-20 high test system, and the split Hopkin-
son pressure bar (SHPB) system.
2.2.1. Quasi-static test setup
The static compressive and Flattened Brazilian tensile tests
were conducted by a microcomputer controlled electronic univer-
sal testing machine (DWD-100E, as shown in Fig. 3) at Tianjin
University. In order to eliminate the end friction effect, Petroleum
Jelly White was used between the crosshead of the test machine
and the specimen in static compressive tests. The loading speed
is set to make sure that the compressive and split tensile speci-
mens were all tested at a strain rate of 105 s1 to 103 s1.
Digital Image Correlation (DIC) is an important and widely used
non-contact technique for measuring material strain [26,27]. In
this paper, an open-source subset based 2D-DIC software package
Ncorr [28] in MATLAB Software was adopted to process the high-
speed camera captured images and to calculate the strain of the
specimens. It should be noted here that special attention should
be paid to the application of the DIC method in terms of specimen
preparation and image acquisition. As shown in Fig. 3, the white
paint should be firstly sprayed on the surface of the specimen,
and then sprayed with blast matte to form a speckle pattern.
Although the measurement accuracy of the DIC technique has
been widely recognized, it is influenced by both setup conditions
and algorithm details. In order to validate the DIC method, the
strain gauges were also installed on the specimen in the static
compressive tests and tensile tests. The calculated strain by the
DIC technique was compared with the strain recorded by the strain
gauge. Fig. 4 presents the strain–time curves obtained by strain
gauge and DIC technique from both the compressive and tensile
tests. It can be seen that the strain time curves measured by the
DIC method and the strain gauge are almost coincident, which
shows that the DIC method is valid. It should be noted here, in
the SHPB tests, the strain rates could not be kept unchanged during
the loading process. In the data analysis of this study, the strain

a. Compressive test b. Split tensile test

Fig. 3. Quasi-static test setup.

3
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

0.012 0.012

DIC DIC
Stain gauge Stain gauge

0.008 0.008
Strain (-)

Strain (-)
0.004 0.004

0.000 0.000

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003

time (s) Time (s)
(a) Compressive test (b) Tensile test
Fig. 4. Strain-time curves obtained by strain gauge and DIC technique.

Fig. 5. Instron VHS 160-20.

rate corresponding to the peak stress in the stress–strain curve is
chosen as the representative strain rate.
2.2.2. Instron VHS 160-20 high speed test setup
Dynamic compressive and tensile tests at medium strain rates
were carried out at Tianjin University by INSTRON-VHS 160/100-
20 high speed testing machine, as shown in Fig. 5. The test machine
is a servo-hydraulic high-speed testing machine that is capable of
maintaining constant stroke speed in the range of 0.1 m/s to 20 m/
s.
The specimen was placed on the load transfer block above the
piezo load cell. Before the test, the surfaces of the specimen were
coated with grease to reduce the friction between the specimen
and the rigid loading platens. The strain of the specimen was tested
by the strain gauge. The DIC method was also used in the tests to
validate the test results from the strain gauges.
Two strain gauges are located on the incident bar and transmitter
bar to measure the strain signals in SHPB tests.
At the beginning of the tests, the gas was released from the gas
chamber to push the striker bar to impact the incident bar, thereby
forming a compressive pulse. The compressive pulse propagates
along the incident bar, the specimen, and then the transmitted
bar. Part of the incident pulse return from the contact surface
between the specimen and incident bar. The other part passes
through the test specimen and reaches the transmission bar. One
dimensional elastic stress wave theory is used to get stress (Eq.
(2)), strain (Eq. (3)), and strain rate (Eq. (4)) of the compressive
sample [29]. For split tensile tests, the stress is get from Eq. (5)
and Eq. (1). The strain is measured by the strain gauge with a size
of 3 mm  8 mm.
Ab
rðtÞ ¼ Eb eT ðtÞ ð2Þ
A

2.2.3. SHPB test setup Z

2cb t
The SHPB tests were carried out at the University of Science and eðtÞ ¼ eR ðtÞdt ð3Þ
L 0
Technology of China. The diameter of the SHPB is 75 mm. As can be
seen in Fig. 6, the specimen is installed between the incident bar
- 2cb
and the transmitter bar. Petroleum Jelly White is used between e_ ðtÞ ¼ eR ðtÞ ð4Þ
L
the SHPB bars and the specimen to minimize the friction effect.
4
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al.
Fig. 6. SHPB tests setup.
Pc ¼ Eb Ab eT ðtÞ
where r(t), e(t) represent the stress and strain of the specimen, eR,
eT are the reflected and transmitted strain, C is the longitudinal
wave speed in the bar. Ab, Eb are the traverse area and elastic mod-
ulus of the bar. L and A are the lengths and the traverse area of the
specimen.
Stress equilibrium must be satisfied in a dynamic test and it can
be verified by comparing the strain signals according to Eq. (6)
[30].
eI ðtÞ þ eR ðtÞ ¼ eT ðtÞ
where eI, eR, eT are the incident, reflected, and transmitted strain.
For quasi-static and low-speed tests, there is enough time for
stress waves to move back and forth multiple times within the
specimen. Therefore, the specimen is usually in equilibrium thus
further verification of stress equilibrium is not needed. However,
in the high-speed test, dynamic stress equilibrium must be verified
because the loading time can be very short. In order to make sure
the dynamic stress equilibrium can be achieved, a 10 mm diameter
rubber gasket with 1 mm thick was used between the strike bar
and the incident bar to increase the rise time of the incident wave
and reduce the possibility of premature failure of the specimens.
The strain recorded on the compressive specimen with a strain
rate of 73 s1 is shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen from the figure that
the value of eI + eR (incident strain + reflected strain) is almost
equal to the value of eT (transmission strain), indicating that the
dynamic stress equilibrium is achieved. It must be noted that all
Fig. 7. Illustration of stress equilibrium in SHPB tests (a. NO.C-S15 specimen at strain rate 72 s1, b. T-S9 specimen at strain rate 5.0 s1).
Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908
ð5Þ the data used in this study satisfy the stress equilibrium in the
sample.
3. Testing results
3.1. Compressive test results
3.1.1. Compressive testing data
As mentioned above, Quasi-static compressive tests, INSTRON
high speed compressive tests, and SHPB compressive tests were
ð6Þ carried out to derive the compressive properties of the clay bricks
under different strain rate ranges. The testing data are summarized
in this section.
Quasi-static compressive tests were performed by the micro-
computer controlled electronic universal testing machine in 4
groups including 14 specimens at the strain rate ranging from
1.2E-5 s1 to 1.0E-3 s1. The tested Young’s modulus, ultimate
strength, and the strain at the ultimate strength of the clay brick
are listed in Table 1. Herein the specimen number C-E means the
compressive tests carried out by the electronic universal testing
machine. As can be seen from the table, when the strain rate is
1.2E-5 s1, the average ultimate strength, strain at ultimate
strength, and Young’s modulus are 17.55 MPa, 0.465%, and
3834 MPa respectively. Obviously, the strain rate effect on the
compressive properties of clay brick at a low strain rate can be
neglected.
9 tests were carried out in the INSTRON high speed compressive
tests within the strain rate range from 0.5 s1 to 21.2 s1. The stain
5
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

Table 1
Quasi-static compressive test data.

Test No. Strain rate (s1) Ultimate Average Ultimate Strain at Average Strain at Young’s Average Young’s
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (COVs) ultimate strength ultimate strength (COVs) modulus (MPa) modulus (MPa) (COVs)
C-E1 1.20E-05 17 0.48% 3716
C-E2 1.20E-05 17.9 17.55 0.51% 0.46% 3299 3834
C-E3 1.20E-05 18.3 (3%) 0.41% (8%) 4416 (10%)
C-E4 1.20E-05 17 0.46% 3904
C-E5 1.00E-04 18.2 0.45% 4038
C-E6 1.00E-04 17 17.63 0.51% 0.47% 3275 3695
C-E7 1.00E-04 17.7 (3%) 0.46% (6%) 3772 (9%)

C-E8 5.00E-04 16.9 0.44% 3850

C-E9 5.00E-04 19.7 18.76 0.48% 0.47% 4200 4108
C-E10 5.00E-04 19.7 (7%) 0.49% (5%) 4276 (5%)

C-E11 1.00E-03 17.5 0.45% 4068

C-E12 1.00E-03 17.3 18.2 0.47% 0.48% 3855 3951
C-E13 1.00E-03 19.3 (5%) 0.53% (6%) 3813 (3%)
C-E14 1.00E-03 18.7 0.48% 4067

COVs: Coefficient of Variation

Table 2
INSTRON high speed compressive test data.

Test No. Strain rate (s1) Ultimate strength (MPa) DIF Strain at ultimate strength DIF Young’s modulus (MPa) DIF
C-I1 0.5 18.1 1.03 0.52% 1.12 3988 1.04
C-I2 0.8 19.3 1.10 0.44% 0.95 4033 1.05
C-I3 2.4 20.5 1.17 0.52% 1.12 4033 1.05
C-I4 6.0 18.9 1.08 0.49% 1.05 4328 1.13
C-I5 7.3 19.9 1.13 0.48% 1.03 4440 1.16
C-I6 7.5 17.6 1.00 0.54% 1.16 3665 0.96
C-I7 13.5 18.3 1.04 0.49% 1.06 4092 1.07
C-I8 15.0 23.5 1.34 0.48% 1.03 4585 1.20
C-I9 21.2 20.3 1.16 0.55% 1.18 3987 1.04

rate range is designed to supplement the strain rate between the
quasi-static tests and the SHPB tests. The test results are shown
in Table 2.
40 SHPB tests were carried out within the strain rate range from
26.2 s1 to 224.2 s1. The test data are shown in Table 3. As can be
seen, the compressive strength of the clay brick increases with the
increase of strain rate. When the strain rate arrives at 224.2 s1, the
compressive strength reaches 44.6 MPa, which is 2.54 times of the
quasi-static compressive strength.
Fig. 8 shows the compressive stress–strain curves of the clay
brick at different strain rates. As can be seen, the strain rate effect
is obvious. With the increase of the strain rate, the ultimate
strength, the strain at ultimate strength, and Young’s modulus
increase gradually. The stress–strain curve can be roughly divided
into three phases: elastic phase, plastic strain hardening phase, and
strain softening phase. Taking the stress–strain curve correspond-
ing to strain rate 125 s1 as an example, the elastic phase is marked
as the curve from A to B, in which the stress increases almost lin-
early to the yield stress; and the plastic strain hardening phase is
the curve from the yield stress (point B) to the peak stress (point
C); the strain-softening phase is the stage after the peak stress,
showing as the curve from C to D. It can be easily found that both
the peak stress and the strain corresponding to the peak stress
increase with the increment of the strain rate.
3.1.2. Failure pattern of the compressive test specimens
As mentioned above, a total of 70 specimens were tested in the
uniaxial compressive tests of clay bricks. The photos of the failure
pattern of the test specimens under static and dynamic compres-
sive tests are shown in Fig. 9. As can be seen from the figure, there
are only a few cracks in the specimen under quasi-static compres-
6
sive load, which is a typical shear failure. The cracks of the speci-
men normally initiate near the bottom or top ends of the
cylindrical specimen and then propagates to the middle, which
divides the specimen into several large fragments. When the strain
rate is 22 s1, more cracks and more fragments appeared in the
specimen. As the strain rate increased to 98 s1, much more frag-
ments are formed and there are only a few small pieces left on
the bar and some brick shards can be collected nearby. When the
strain rate reaches 165 s1 or higher, only fine fragments can be
collected after the test. To sum up, with the higher strain rates
the compressed specimens shatter. This behavior is well known
in the literature and has generated several studies on the so-
called fragmentation theory. This is consistent with the observa-
tions in previous impact tests available in the literature [31,32].
The reason is that the stress wave induced by the impact load in
the specimen is so fast that cracks develop with the propagation
of the stress wave, having no time to find the weak path.
3.2. Split tensile test results
3.2.1. Split tensile testing data
Quasi-static split tensile tests and SHPB split tensile tests were
carried out to derive the compressive properties of the clay bricks
under different strain rate range. The testing data are summarized
in this section.
A total of 15 specimens were tested in the quasi-static split ten-
sile tests by the microcomputer controlled electronic universal
testing machine at the strain rate range from 1.0E-6 s1 to 1.0E-
3 s1. Both the strain gauge and DIC technology were used to mea-
sure the strain of the specimen. The test results are listed in Table 4.
The average split tensile strength is 2.092 MPa when the strain rate
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

Table 3
SHPB Compressive test data.

Test No. Strain rate (s1) Ultimate strength (MPa) DIF Strain at ultimate strength DIF Young’s modulus (MPa) DIF
C-S1 26.2 19.1 1.09 0.51% 1.09 4800 1.25
C-S2 30.0 24.8 1.42 0.62% 1.33 4792 1.25
C-S3 30.4 19.3 1.10 0.57% 1.22 4169 1.09
C-S4 35.2 21.0 1.20 0.63% 1.35 4333 1.13
C-S5 41.0 25.8 1.47 0.77% 1.66 4055 1.06
C-S6 43.4 21.1 1.20 0.71% 1.53 4069 1.06
C-S7 46.5 26.9 1.53 0.67% 1.44 4635 1.21
C-S8 53.5 29.9 1.70 0.80% 1.72 5071 1.32
C-S9 58.0 24.4 1.39 0.76% 1.63 4023 1.05
C-S10 59.6 25.4 1.45 0.72% 1.55 4100 1.07
C-S11 63.9 28.7 1.63 0.73% 1.56 4999 1.30
C-S12 66.3 29.4 1.67 0.77% 1.65 5216 1.36
C-S13 69.2 32.1 1.83 0.81% 1.74 4971 1.30
C-S14 71.4 32.1 1.83 0.71% 1.54 6551 1.71
C-S15 72.2 32.0 1.82 0.72% 1.55 5844 1.52
C-S16 72.9 34.4 1.96 0.70% 1.51 6018 1.57
C-S17 75.8 34.3 1.96 0.81% 1.74 5949 1.55
C-S18 81.5 31.4 1.79 0.74% 1.59 5065 1.32
C-S19 81.7 27.0 1.54 0.74% 1.60 4842 1.26
C-S20 86.9 38.0 2.16 0.78% 1.67 6431 1.68
C-S21 91.0 26.5 1.51 0.82% 1.76 4477 1.17
C-S22 96.7 29.5 1.68 0.68% 1.46 5351 1.40
C-S23 98.4 34.2 1.95 0.77% 1.66 6120 1.60
C-S24 125.5 33.6 1.91 0.75% 1.62 5629 1.47
C-S25 135.7 28.8 1.64 0.76% 1.63 6037 1.57
C-S26 162.7 36.2 2.07 0.76% 1.64 7221 1.88
C-S27 165.2 34.3 1.95 0.77% 1.65 5480 1.43
C-S28 165.9 38.0 2.17 0.87% 1.86 6581 1.72
C-S29 166.8 35.1 2.00 0.73% 1.56 6266 1.63
C-S30 167.0 28.2 1.61 0.61% 1.31 5829 1.52
C-S31 170.6 29.8 1.70 0.83% 1.79 5358 1.40
C-S32 195.3 28.2 1.61 0.77% 1.66 4798 1.25
C-S33 196.7 36.3 2.07 0.77% 1.66 6166 1.61
C-S34 201.3 30.7 1.75 0.85% 1.83 5077 1.32
C-S35 203.9 39.8 2.27 0.80% 1.71 6471 1.69
C-S36 205.9 40.2 2.29 0.71% 1.53 7650 2.00
C-S37 218.9 34.7 1.98 0.75% 1.62 5830 1.52
C-S38 221.6 36.4 2.07 0.83% 1.79 6492 1.69
C-S39 221.8 43.6 2.48 0.82% 1.75 7038 1.84
C-S40 224.2 44.6 2.54 0.83% 1.77 7138 1.86

is 1.0E-6 s1. As can be seen from the table, the strain rate has no 6 tests were carried out in the INSTRON high speed split tensile
effect on the tensile properties of clay brick at quasi-static split tests within the strain rate range from 1.1 s1 to 5.7 s1. The strain
tensile tests. rate of 1.1 s1 was tested at the lowest speed of the machine and
the tensile strength was tested to be 2.23 MPa. As the strain rate
increases to 5.7 s1, the tensile strength increases to 5.14 MPa.
50
The test data are shown in Table 5.
23 SHPB split tensile tests were carried out within the strain
Strain rate(s-1)
rate range from 2 s1 to 16.4 s1. When the strain rates were
1.0E-4
16.4 s1, the tensile strength of the clay brick was tested to be
40 19
7.05 MPa. Experiments with higher strain rates are not possible
C 46
because the stress equilibrium cannot be achieved. The test data
81
stress (MPa)

are shown in Table 6.

30 125 It should be noted here that the splitting-tensile stress–strain
224 curve is difficult to be derived. The reason is as follows. In the SHPB
D split tensile test, there is a time difference between the stress-time
20 B curve and the strain–time curve since the stress and strain were
measured at the incident bar and specimen, respectively. However,
the time difference cannot be accurately defined because the
10 velocity of the stress wave propagates in the specimen cannot be
accurately determined. What’s more, the strain of the specimen
A before failure changes so fast that a small error in the time differ-
0 ence would lead to an enormous error in the stress–strain curve.
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 Therefore, it is almost impossible to derive the splitting-tensile
stress–strain curve of the clay brick at high strain rates. Thus nei-
Axial strain (-)
ther the strain nor the tensile stress–strain curve of the clay brick is
Fig. 8. Axial stress–strain curves of the compressive specimens at different strain not discussed in this paper. Instead, the typical time histories of
rates. dynamic tensile stress of clay brick under different strain rates
7
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

1.2E-5 s-1 26 s-1 43 s-1

73 s-1 98 s-1 165 s-1

Fig. 9. Crack pattern of compressive specimens at different strain rates.

Table 4
Quasi-static split tensile test data.

Test No. Strain rate (s1) Ultimate strength (MPa) Average Ultimate strength (MPa) (COVs) DIF Average DIF (COVs)
T-E1 1.00E-06 2.23 /
T-E2 1.00E-06 1.98 2.09 (5%) / /
T-E3 1.00E-06 2.06 /
T-E4 4.00E-06 2.35 1.12
T-E5 4.00E-06 1.82 2.06 (11%) 0.87 0.99 (10%)
T-E6 4.00E-06 2.02 0.97
T-E7 1.20E-05 2.05 0.98
T-E8 1.20E-05 2.23 2.08 (5%) 1.07 1.00 (5%)
T-E9 1.20E-05 1.96 0.94
T-E10 1.40E-04 2.09 1
T-E11 1.40E-04 1.89 2.16 (12%) 0.91 1.03 (11%)
T-E12 1.40E-04 2.49 1.19
T-E13 1.00E-03 2.02 0.97
T-E14 1.00E-03 2.19 2.15 (4%) 1.05 1.03 (4%)
T-E15 1.00E-03 2.23 1.07

are given in Fig. 10. With the increase of strain rate, the dynamic 3.2.2. Failure pattern of the split tensile test specimens
splitting tensile strength of clay brick increases gradually, and The tensile test is considered to be valid only if the initial split-
the time to reach the maximum strength becomes shorter. Gener- ting position is in the center of the specimen and the crack propa-
ally speaking, the tensile stress time curve of each specimen gates along the loaded diameter. Fig. 11 presents the crack patterns
increases linearly from 0 to the peak value and then decreases of the split tensile specimens under static and dynamic loads. As
sharply due to specimen failure. can be seen, there is only one major crack in the center of the load-
ing direction of the specimen from the static split test, and no
crush zone is formed at the loading end. In other words, no evident
Table 5 compressive stress concentration was observed on the specimen
INSTRON high speed Split tensile test data. thus the fracture of the specimen is the typical compressive dam-
Test No. Strain rate (s1) Ultimate strength (MPa) DIF age. The dynamic failure of the specimen was decisive and violent,
T-I1 1.1 2.23 1.07
leading to tensile cracking along the loading axis, substantial dam-
T-I2 1.3 2.71 1.30 age, and edge loss of the fractured part in the loading area. The
T-I3 1.4 3.39 1.62 fractured edge of the specimen is broken into small pieces at high
T-I4 1.8 3.44 1.65 strain rates. The triangular crush zones could be observed near the
T-I5 3.2 3.82 1.83
two flat ends of the specimen. The higher the strain rate, the larger
T-I6 5.7 5.14 2.46
the triangular crush zone is.
8
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

Table 6 4. Analysis and discussion

SHPB Split tensile test data.

Test No. Strain rate (s1) Ultimate strength (MPa) DIF 4.1. Strain rate effect on compressive properties
T-S1 2.0 3.72 1.78
T-S2 2.4 2.24 1.07 4.1.1. Strain rate effect on compressive ultimate strength
T-S3 3.6 5.69 2.72 The DIF is the ratio of dynamic to quasi-static material proper-
T-S4 3.9 3.30 1.58
ties, represents the increase of material properties at high strain
T-S5 4.0 7.24 3.46
T-S6 4.0 2.55 1.22 rates. The derived DIFs of the ultimate strength of clay brick at dif-
T-S7 4.3 4.02 1.93 ferent strain rates are plotted in Fig. 12. As shown in the Figure, the
T-S8 4.7 4.88 2.33 DIFs of the ultimate strength and the strain rate shows a bilinear
T-S9 5.0 5.04 2.41 relationship in logarithmic coordinates with a base of 10. At the
T-S10 5.2 5.38 2.57
first stage when the strain rate is less than 22 s1, the strain rate
T-S11 5.5 5.39 2.58
T-S12 6.6 6.43 3.08 effect is not significant. While at the second stage when the strain
T-S13 6.9 5.48 2.62 rate is over 22 s1, a significant increment of the DIFs can be
T-S14 7.3 4.75 2.27 observed as the strain rate increases. For example, the DIF of the
T-S15 8.3 5.31 2.54
ultimate strength reaches 2.54 at the strain rate of 224 s1. A sim-
T-S16 9.1 5.25 2.51
T-S17 9.5 5.46 2.61
ilar increasing trend was observed with the data from Hao and Tar-
T-S18 9.8 5.87 2.81 asov [17] and Pereira et al [18]. This knee has also been found in
T-S19 11.0 7.85 3.76 concrete dynamic properties by many scholars [32–34], but the
T-S20 15.2 5.97 2.85 back mechanism is still not very clear. In the opinion of the
T-S21 15.2 6.33 3.03
authors, this might be related to the velocity of the development
T-S22 15.9 6.49 3.11
T-S23 16.4 7.06 3.38 of the cracks and the stress increment rate in the material. When
the stress increment rate is much faster than the crack develop-
ment velocity, the strain rate effect will be evident. Through the
least square fitting method, the empirical formulas for predicting
8 the DIF of the ultimate strength can be expressed as:
Strain rate(s-1) DIFC;fc ¼ 0:025log10 ðe_ Þ þ 1:120 1  10 - 5
< e_ < 22 s1 ð7Þ
2.1
DIFC;fc ¼ 0:965log10 ðe_ Þ  0:143 22 < e_ < 224 s1
6 4.3 ð8Þ
7.3
9.8 where e_ is the strain rate.
Stress(MPa)

4 16.4
4.1.2. Strain rate effect on strain at compressive ultimate strength
Based on the test data, the strain at the ultimate compressive
2 strength also increases as the strain rate increases. Therefore, the
DIFs of the strain at the ultimate compressive strength of clay brick
are also derived and shown in Fig. 13. Similarly, there has a bilinear
0 relationship between the DIFs of the strain at the ultimate com-
pressive strength and the log function of the strain rate. The rela-
tionship between DIFs of strain at the ultimate compressive
-2 strength and the strain rate can be expressed by the following
0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 empirical formula:
Time (s) DIFC;us ¼ 0:014log10 ðe_ Þ þ 1:070 1  10 - 5
< e_ < 22 s1 ð9Þ
Fig. 10. Dynamic splitting-tensile stress under different strain rates.
DIFC;us ¼ 0:612log10 ðe_ Þ þ 0:267 22 < e_ < 224 s1 ð10Þ

1.0E-6 s-1 1.2 s-1 4.3 s-1

Fig. 11. Crack pattern of split tensile specimens at different strain rates.

9
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

2.6 2.0

2.4
1.8

DIF(Young’s modulus)
DIF(Ultimate strength)

2.2

2.0 1.6

1.8
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4

1.2 1.0

1.0
0.8
0.8
1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain rate (/s) Strain rate (/s)

Fig. 12. DIF for compressive ultimate strength. Fig. 14. DIF for compressive Young’s modulus.

2.0 4.5

4.0
DIF(Strain at ultimate strength)

1.8
3.5
DIF(ultimate strength)

1.6
3.0

1.4 2.5

2.0
1.2
1.5

1.0
1.0

0.8 0.5
1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
-1
Strain rate (/s) Strain rate (s )

Fig. 13. DIF for compressive strain at ultimate strength. Fig. 15. DIF for split tensile ultimate strength.

4.1.3. Strain rate effect on Young’s modulus
As can be seen from Fig. 14, the DIF of Young’s modulus
increases slowly as the low strain rate increases. When the strain
rate is greater than 30 s1, Young’s modulus increases rapidly like
stress and strain. The empirical formulas for predicting the DIF of
Young’s modulus can be expressed as:
ever, when the strain rate is greater than 1 s1, the splitting tensile
strength gradually increases as the strain rate increases. Therefore
the DIFs of the tensile strength of the clay brick are calculated and
presented in Fig. 15. The relationship between the DIFs of the ten-
sile strength and the strain rate can be expressed by the following
empirical formula.

DIFC;E ¼ 0:019log10 ðe_ Þ þ 1:085 1  10 - 5

< e_ < 30 s1 ð11Þ DIFT;us ¼ 0:015log10 ðe_ Þ þ 1:085 1  106 < e_ < 1 s1 ð13Þ

DIFC;E ¼ 0:636log10 ðe_ Þ þ 0:173 30 < e_ < 224 s1 ð12Þ DIFT;us ¼ 1:770log10 ðe_ Þ þ 1:085 1 < e_ < 17 s1 ð14Þ

4.2. Strain rate effect on tensile properties 4.3. Comparison and discussion

46 split specimens were tested using the above mentioned
three devices. Because the failure modes of some of the specimens
didn’t fulfill the requirement of Flattened Brazilian tensile tests,
only 44 specimens are analyzed and presented in this paper. As
shown in Tables 4–6, at the low strain rate range, the tensile
strength of clay brick is not very sensitive to the strain rate. How-
10
As mentioned in the introduction section, the strain rate effect
on the material properties of clay bricks was also investigated in
Refs. [17–19]. The above researches only focused on the strain rate
dependency of the ultimate compressive strength of clay bricks.
Therefore, in this section, testing data available in the literature
are collected and compared with the data of the present study.
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908

Table 7
Comparison of the test setup in references [17–19] and the present study.

Setup Brick material Density (g/cm3) Specimen size (mm) Amount

Hao and Tarasov [17] Triaxial Static-Dynamic Testing AS/NZS 4455 (Standards 2.34 U38  80 cylinder 26
Machine Australia, 1997)
Zhang-1 [18] Shimadzu 300 testing system High strength brick (Western 1.97 U50  50 cylinder 40
and SHPB Australia)
Zhang-2 [18] Shimadzu 300 testing system Mid strength brick (Western 1.90 U50  50 cylinder 41
and SHPB Australia)
Zhang-3 [18] Shimadzu 300 testing system Low strength (Western 1.96 U50  50 cylinder 39
and SHPB Australia)
Pereira et al [19] Drop Weight tower handmade bricks from Portugal unknown 70  30  30 cuboid 70
Current study Electronic universal testing GB5101-2003 Chinese standard 1.55 U38  38 cylinder (Compressibe) 63 + 44
machine, INSTRON-VHS and U38  19 cylinder (Split tensile)
SHPB.

Fig. 16 shows the comparison of the DIFs of the ultimate com-
pressive strength derived from Ref. [17–19] and the present study.
As can be seen, similar trends could be observed for the relation-
ship between the DIFs of ultimate compressive strength and the
strain rates. However, it is easy to see that Hao and Tarasov [17]
have less experimental data, Zhang et al. [18] has no data in the
middle strain rate range, and Pereira et al [19] has no data in the
low strain rate range. When the strain rate is larger than 1 s1,
the DIFs derived in references [17–19] are slightly higher than
those in the present study. This might be because the physical
properties of clay brick and the dimension of the specimen tested
were different. Table 7 compares the experimental setup used in
references [17–19] and the present study. As can be seen, Hao
and Tarasov [17] used solid clay bricks with a density of 2.1 g/
cm3 and conforming to Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS
4455 (Standards Australia, 1997). Zhang et al [18] used three dif-
ferent kinds of bricks with different strength made from Western
Australian clay (the static compressive strength are and named
as Zhang-1, Zhang-2 and Zhang-3, separately). Pereira et al. [19]
used three types of handmade bricks from a Portuguese village,
whose static compressive strengths were 41.5 MPa, 20.5 MPa (av-
erage), and 15.3 MPa respectively. In our study, the clay brick used
is made by a brick factory in China according to Chinese standard
GB5101-2003. The density is about 1.55 g/cm3 and the static com-
pressive strength was 17.7 MPa. The difference in the material
properties of the specimen is the first reason that causes the differ-
3.5
Current study
Hao and Tarasov
3.0 Pereira et al
Zhang-1
DIF (Ultimate strength)
ence in the DIFs of compressive ultimate strength derived from the
test data at the same stain rates. What’s more, the shape and size of
the specimen used are totally different because of the lack of the
standard for dynamic tests of clay bricks. Hao and Tarasov [17]
used the cylinder specimen with a height of 78 mm and a diameter
of 38 mm. Pereira et al [19] used the cubic specimen and the
dimension is 70 mm  30 mm  30 mm (height 
length  width). The specimens used in this paper are cylinders
with a height and a diameter of 38 mm. Li et al [35] and Kourkoulis
and Ganniari-Papageorgiou [36] have studied the shape and size
effect of the specimen on the static and dynamic compressive
strength of concrete and building stones through tests. They found
that both the shape and the size of the specimen could affect the
static and dynamic compressive strength of the concrete-like
materials. Thus, the difference in the shape and size of the speci-
mens is the second reason that causes the difference in the tested
DIFs of compressive ultimate strength at the same stain rates. Fur-
ther studies will be carried out to investigate the shape and size
effect of the specimen on the DIFs of compressive ultimate strength
of clay brick.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, the compressive and tensile properties of clay
brick specimens were investigated under the strain rate ranging
from 1.2E-5 s1 to 224 s1 and 1.0E-6 s1 to 17 s1, respectively.
The mechanical properties and the damage patterns of the clay
brick specimens under static and dynamic loading were compared
and analyzed. And the relationship between the DIFs of different
mechanical properties of clay bricks and the strain rates were stud-
ied. The ultimate strength of clay bricks and the strain at ultimate

Zhang-2 strength increase with the increase of the strain rate. At the strain
2.5 Zhang-3 rate of 180 s1, the DIF of the compressive strength is up to 3,
which is consistent with the findings from available references.
The tensile strength of clay bricks under both static and dynamic
2.0
loading was firstly studied through the Brazilian platform splitting
experiments. The results showed that in the range of low strain
1.5 rate, the tensile strength of clay brick is less sensitive to strain rate.
When the strain rate is greater than 7 s1, the splitting tensile
strength increases with the increase of strain rate. Empirical for-
1.0
mulas are proposed based on the testing data, which can be used
to predict the DIFs of compressive ultimate strength, compressive
0.5 strain at ultimate strength, compressive Young’s modulus and ten-
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 sile ultimate strength of clay bricks at any strain rate within the
range studied. It should be pointed out that the specimens tested
Strain rate (s-1)
in this study were made from the clay bricks that most commonly
Fig. 16. Comparison of the DIFs of the compressive strength for clay brick in Refs. used in China. Therefore, the empirical formulas derived might not
[17–19] and the present study. be suitable for other types of bricks, especially when the static
11
Y. Shi, N. Wang, Zhong-Xian Li et al.
properties of the clay brick are significantly different from the test
ones.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yanchao Shi: Project administration, Supervision, Funding
acquisition, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Ning
Wang: Methodology, Visualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft. Zhong-Xian Li: Project administration,
Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing. Yang Ding: Super-
vision, Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the
National Key Research and Development Program of China under
grant number 2016YFC0701105, the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under grant numbers 51878445, 51678405,
51938011, and the Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished
Young Scholars of Tianjin under grant number 17JCJQJC43900.
References:
[1] R.A. Keys, S.K. Clubley, Establishing a predictive method for blast induced
masonry debris distribution using experimental and numerical methods, Eng.
Fail. Anal. 82 (2017) 82–91.
[2] Y. Shi, W. Xiong, Z. Li, Q. Xu, Experimental studies on the local damage and
fragments of unreinforced masonry walls under close-in explosions, Int. J.
Impact Eng. 90 (2016) 122–131.
[3] L. Chen, Q. Fang, J. Fan, Y. Zhang, H. Hao, J. Liu, Responses of masonry infill
walls retrofitted with CFRP, steel wire mesh and laminated bars to blast
loadings, Adv. Struct. Eng. 17 (2014) 817–836.
[4] X. Wei, M.G. Stewart, Model validation and parametric study on the blast
response of unreinforced brick masonry walls, Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (2010)
1150–1159.
[5] N. Gebbeken, T. Linse, T. Araujo, Masonry under dynamic actions –
experimental investigations, Mater. Model. Num. Investig. (2012).
[6] C.S. Meyer, Development of brick and mortar material parameters for
numerical simulations, Dynam. Behav. Mater. 1 (2011) 251–359.
[7] G. Ma, H. Hao, Y. Lu, Homogenization of masonry using numerical simulations,
J. Eng. Mech. 127 (2001) 421–431.
[8] G. Milani, P.B. Lourenço, A. Tralli, Homogenized rigid-plastic model for
masonry walls subjected to impact, Int. J. Solids Struct. 46 (2009) 4133–4149.
[9] X. Wei, H. Hao, Numerical derivation of homogenized dynamic masonry
material properties with strain rate effects, Int. J. Impact Eng. 36 (2009) 522–
536.
[10] C.Q. Wu, H. Ha, Derivation of 3D masonry properties using numerical
homogenization technique, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 66 (2006) 1717–1737.
[11] S.H. Rafsanjani, P.B. Lourenço, N. Peixinho, Analysis of masonry walls subjected
to high strain rate out-of-plane loads with a rate dependent interface model,
Int. Masonry Conf. (2014).
12
Construction and Building Materials 272 (2021) 121908
[12] P.B. Loureno, S. Hashemi, J.M. Pereira, A Constitutive Three-Dimensional
Interface Model for Masonry Walls Subjected to High Strain Rates, Civil-Comp
Press, 2014.
[13] S.H. Rafsanjani, P.B. Lourenço, N. Peixinho, Dynamic interface model for
masonry walls subjected to high strain rate out-of-plane loads, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 76 (2015) 28–37.
[14] G. Formica, V. Sansalone, R. Casciaro, A mixed solution strategy for the
nonlinear analysis of brick masonry walls, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
191 (2002) 5847–5876.
[15] E. Hamed, O. Rabinovitch, Nonlinear dynamic behavior of unreinforced
masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane loads, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (2008)
1743–1753.
[16] L. Macorini, B.A. Izzuddin, Nonlinear analysis of unreinforced masonry walls
under blast loading using mesoscale partitioned modeling, J. Struct. Eng. 140
(2014) A4014002.
[17] H. Hao, B.G. Tarasov, Experimental study of dynamic material properties of
clay brick and mortar at different strain rates, Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 8 (2008)
117–132.
[18] X. Zhang, Y. Chiu, H. Hao, A. Hsieh, N. Salter, J. Cui, Dynamic compressive
material properties of clay bricks at different strain rates, Constr. Build. Mater.
192 (2018) 754–767.
[19] J.M. Pereira A. Dias P.B. Lourenço A. Dias, Dynamic properties of clay brick at
different strain rates, in: Canadian Masonry Symposium, 2013, pp. 1–9.
[20] S. Burnett, M. Gilbert, T. Molyneaux, A. Tyas, B. Hobbs, G. Beattie, The response
of masonry joints to dynamic tensile loading, Mater. Struct. 40 (2007) 517–
527.
[21] D. Yan, G. Lin, G. Chen, Dynamic properties of concrete under multi-axial
loading, Mater. Sci. Technol. (2011).
[22] K. Xu, Y. Lu, Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete
plates subjected to blast loading, Comput. Struct. 84 (2006) 431–438.
[23] G. Gray, Classic Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing, ASM International, pp.
463–476, 2000.
[24] Q.Z. Wang, W. Li, H.P. Xie, Dynamic split tensile test of Flattened Brazilian Disc
of rock with SHPB setup, Mech. Mater. 41 (2009) 252–260.
[25] Q.Z. Wang, The flattened Brazilian disc specimen used for determining elastic
modulus, tensile strength and fracture toughness of brittle rocks:
Experimental results, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (2004) 26–30.
[26] S.A. Stanier, J. Blaber, W.A. Take, D.J. White, Improved image-based
deformation measurement for geotechnical applications, Can. Geotech. J. 53
(2015).
[27] V. Rey-De-Pedraza, D.A. Cendón, V. Sánchez-Gálvez, F. Gálvez, Measurement of
fracture properties of concrete at high strain rates, Philos. Trans. 375 (2017)
20160174.
[28] J. Blaber, B. Adair, A. Antoniou, Ncorr: open-source 2D digital image correlation
matlab software, Exp. Mech. 55 (2015) 1105–1122.
[29] H. Kolsky, An investigation of the mechanical properties of metals at very high
rates of loading, Proc. Phys. Soc. 62 (1949) 676–700.
[30] W.N. Chen, B. Song, Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar: Springer US, 2011.
[31] J. Cui, H. Hao, Y. Shi, Discussion on the suitability of concrete constitutive
models for high-rate response predictions of RC structures, Int. J. Impact Eng.
106 (2017) 202–216.
[32] C. Wang, W. Chen, H. Hao, S. Zhang, R. Song, X. Wang, Experimental
investigations of dynamic compressive properties of roller compacted
concrete (RCC), Constr. Build. Mater. 168 (2018) 671–682.
[33] X. Chen, S. Wu, J. Zhou, Experimental and modeling study of dynamic
mechanical properties of cement paste, mortar and concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 47 (2013) 419–430.
[34] Y. Hao, H. Hao, G.P. Jiang, Y. Zhou, Experimental confirmation of some factors
influencing dynamic concrete compressive strengths in high-speed impact
tests, Cem. Concr. Res. 52 (2013) 63–70.
[35] M. Li, H. Hao, Y. Shi, Y. Hao, Specimen shape and size effects on the concrete
compressive strength under static and dynamic tests, Constr. Build. Mater. 161
(2018) 84–93.
[36] S.K. Kourkoulis, E. Ganniari-Papageorgiou, Experimental study of the size- and
shape-effects of natural building stones, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 803–
810.