Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Influence of moisture content on the concrete response under dynamic

loading
Shady Salem a,⇑, Elamir Eissa a, Eman Zarif a, Sarah Sherif a, Mostafa Shazly b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt

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

Article history: Several researches have highlighted the influence of external environmental conditions (e.g. moisture
Received 15 October 2021 and temperature) on the concrete response at different strain rates, however, limited data are available
Revised 6 July 2022 considering such factors. This paper experimentally assesses the compressive strain rate effects of con-
Accepted 1 September 2022
crete at different saturation levels. The experimental assessment is conducted on sixty-six specimens
Available online xxxx
tested using the Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar. The results of the experimental program were compared
against the Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB) equations and calibration factors to account for the
Keywords:
degree of saturation were introduced. Furthermore, the proposed calibrated equation was tested against
Strain rate
Saturation
a large database collected from the literature which showed more reliable predictions than the current
Dynamic increase factor CEB equation. The presented work aims to enrich the concrete database subjected to high strain rates
Split-Hopkinson and to facilitate reliable material predictions to be used in further numerical assessments.
Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction Several investigations reported higher compressive strength for

The vast applications of concrete worldwide in different infras-
tructure components have exposed such material to various
dynamic loading in different environmental conditions. The
dynamic loading may be generated by different sources such as
explosions (either accidental or intentional (i.e. terrorist attacks)),
impact, or earthquakes [1–4]. Concrete may experience deforma-
tions, fracture, fragmentation, and pulverization when subjected
to severe dynamic loading [5]. Such failure mode is mainly depen-
dent on the load capacity of the material and the loading rate [5].
Based on such, numerous numerical blast investigations for struc-
tural concrete components have highlighted the significance of
considering a reliable concrete model and its influence on the mod-
eling accuracy [5–8]. Furthermore, some researchers also
accounted for the material’s strain rate effect during seismic anal-
ysis [9].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shady.salem@bue.edu.eg (S. Salem).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
concrete subjected to high strain loading either experimentally or
numerically [10–15]. Although all the available data reported a
similar trend of increasing the ratio of the compressive strength
loaded at high strain rates compared to the static ones, namely
dynamic increase factor (DIF), a wide scatter of DIF was reported
[16,17]. This wide scatter was attributed to mainly two main rea-
sons, the first is the testing conditions such as variations in the
material tested, specimen dimensions, and test setup (drop ham-
mer test, dynamic hydraulic loading, explosives) [18]. Whereas
the second reason is attributed to the structural influence such
as the specimen lateral inertia, and radial confinement by friction
[13]. The lateral inertia and radial confinement have been proven
to be the reason for the rapid DIF increase [12,18]. However,
numerous studies have proposed different thresholds for this DIF
change rate [12]. For example, Tedesco and Ross proposed that
the change in DIF sensitivity to the strain rate occurs at 63.1 s
1
[19], while Grote et al. suggested 266 s
1 [11]. Similarly, Li and
Ming suggested 100 s
1 [18]. Moreover, the Comite Euro-
International du Beton (CEB) proposed a rate of 30 s
1 as the con-
crete transition point between the low and high sensitive rate
dependence [20]. It is worth nothing to mention that Li and Ming
reported a discontinuity for the equations proposed by both Grote
et al. [21]. Although the rapid increase in DIF (after a transition
point) was attributed to the radial confinement, the current blast

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101976
2090-4479/Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al., Influence of moisture content on the concrete response under dynamic loading, Ain Shams Engi-
neering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101976
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al.
design practice and research consider either constant DIF [22–24]
or using the available DIF equations (based on Split-Hopkinson
results) [7,8,25–27]. Several pieces of research have been pub-
lished aiming to quantify such absolute strain rate effects
[15,28–30].
Concrete structures may be exposed to various environmental
conditions as a wide range of temperature and moisture content
[31]. The effect of moisture content on the concrete response under
dynamic loads has been the interest of several researchers, how-
ever, limited data is available [31]. Multiple published articles have
reported higher DIF for concrete with a higher degree of saturation
(Sr) which was attributed to the water in the capillary cavities of
the concrete [32,33]. Moreover, Rossi and Toutlemonde concluded
experimentally and analytically that at small strain rates, the
Stéfan effect takes place for the propagation of microcracks
[34,35]. However, at higher strain rates, the inertia effect domi-
nates the behavior of concrete response leading to the higher
DIF. Moreover, Cadoni et al. concluded that the free water in the
concrete voids may limit the concrete internal cracking and subse-
quently reduce its damage [36]. Although the mentioned investiga-
tions address the influence of moisture content on the DIF, no
unified constitutive model accounts for such parameters. As such
this paper experimentally evaluates the influence of moisture con-
tent on the compressive DIF through testing sixty-six concrete
specimens subjected to high strain loading. The high strain loading
is conducted using a Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar apparatus that
is manufactured and installed in the Centre for Advanced Materials
lab in the British University in Egypt. The concrete specimens were
tested with the same concrete mix but with different degrees of
saturation (i.e. oven-dry, normal, and fully saturated). Further-
more, a statical analysis for the observed results was conducted
and calibration factors for the CEB equations are proposed to con-
sider the influence of moisture content on the DIF. The calibrated
model was compared against the current CEB model and backed
by a large experimental database. The proposed equation showed
better predictions for the DIF while considering the concrete mois-
ture content.
2. Experimental work
In this experimental program, the compressive behavior of con-
crete considering different saturation levels (saturated, normal,
and dry) were investigated at various strain rates. The loading var-
ied from quasi-static to high-speed impact loading with strain
rates up to 230 s
1. The quasi-static test was performed using a
hydraulic machine, while the high strain rate loading was applied
through a Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) machine. The
quasi-static test was performed as a reference datum for the con-
crete compressive strength. On the other side, smaller cylinders
were cast and tested using the SHPB machine considering the min-
imum dimensions to eliminate sizing errors as discussed later in
the paper. The following subsections demonstrate the details of
the experimental program including the specimen’s preparation
as well as the test setup and instrumentation. The following sub-
sections include the specimen and test setup design procedure
and precautions.
2.1. Test matrix
The concrete tested in this study was designed to achieve a
30 MPa with a slump range of 80–130 mm considering 2.5%
defects. The mixing proportions of the tested concrete are summa-
rized in Table 1. Two specimen configurations were cast in this
study, namely, the quasi-static and the dynamic specimens. Three
standard quasi-static concrete cylinders were cast with a 150 mm
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
diameter and a 300 mm length and were cured according to the
ASTM C39 [37]. Moreover, sixty-six specimens were cast to be
tested under high strain rates using the SHPB machine. The
dynamic specimens were cylinders of a 75 mm diameter and a
37.5 mm length (L/D = 0.5). The dynamic specimens were cast in
PVC molds. It is worth mentioning that the dynamic specimens
had an extra surface adjustment to ensure parallelism of the spec-
imens’ surface and to avoid any irregularities that may cause stress
concentration during the dynamic testing. The surface adjustment
was achieved through a grinding machine, clean-cut marble saw,
and finally a flat sander. Eighteen samples out of the sixty-six were
dried in the oven at 125 °C for 24 h, while twenty-four samples
were submerged in a water container till testing. It is worth men-
tioning that the water on the surface of the submerged specimens
was removed using wet cotton (just before testing). Finally, the last
twenty-four samples were left at room temperature. The moisture
content of the room temperature specimens was measured for
three samples and the average moisture content was found to be
30% [38].
2.2. Dynamic specimens sizing
The dimensions of the specimens considered for high strain
testing were selected based on strict criteria to minimize the influ-
ence of the axial and radial inertia on the test results. The axial
inertia may cause a non-uniform deformation of the specimen in
the axial direction [39]. The presence of high axial inertia may lead
to undesirable failure due to the dynamic in-equilibrium at low
loading rates. The in-equilibrium failure leads to the specimen’s
premature failure which leads to an underestimating result [40].
As such, the specimen thickness was minimized to eliminate the
effect of the axial inertia, however, a minimum thickness should
be considered based on the used nominal aggregate size to reliably
represent the tested material. Based on the literature, a minimum
of three particles of the largest aggregate used should be consid-
ered within the specimen thickness to allow reliable representa-
tion for the tested material [41]. Subsequently, the specimen
thickness was chosen to be 37.5 mm as the nominal aggregate size
was 10 mm.
Moreover, the radial inertia magnifies the friction between the
specimen and the end of the testing bar. This friction may lead to
stress concentration at the edge which in some cases may reach
270% of the stress at the specimen’s center [42]. This stress concen-
tration is not desirable in experimental testing especially for brittle
material as concrete does not yield and may fracture before record-
ing the actual stress capacity. Consequently, the diameter of the
specimens should be minimized to reduce such errors. The speci-
men’s dimensions are expressed in the form of length-to-
diameter ls/us. The ls/us ratio has upper and lower boundaries to
limit the specimen’s buckling and the effect of radial inertia,
respectively [43]. In the quasi-static tests, the specimen ls/us ratio
equals 2 to reduce the friction at the ends, while in the dynamic
testing, no well-defined ratio has been suggested [44]. Based on
the literature, the ls/us ratio has been proposed to vary from 0.5
to 1 to minimize the radial inertia, friction effect, and reduce the
probability of buckling of the specimen [43]. Moreover, a range
varied from 0.3 to 1 was proposed considering the material Pois-
son’s ratio [45]. As such, in this study, the ls/us was taken as 0.5
resulting in a specimen diameter of 75 mm (3 in.) and length of
37.5 mm (1.5 in.).
2.3. Test setup and instrumentation
This section briefly describes the design precautions of manu-
facturing the Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB). Generally, the
SHPB consists of a pressure chamber, launching tube, striker, inci-
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al.
Table 1
The mixing proportions of the tested concrete.
water
volumes (m3) 0.225
Weight (kg) 225.0
dent, and transmitter bars. The SHPB shown in Fig. 1 works
through pressurizing air in the pressure chamber, which is released
suddenly to accelerate the striker inside the launching tube. The
striker is responsible to hit the incident bar which transmits the
impact wave to the specimen then finally to the transmitted bar.
The launching tube is used to guide the striker till it hits the inci-
dent bar.
The main idea of the SHPB apparatus is to propagate a pressure
wave in the incident bar using a striker that can move with an
adjustable velocity to strike the incident bar. The created pulse in
the incident bar propagates till hits the specimen and is subse-
quently divided into two waves. The first wave is reflected into
the incident bar and carries the strain rate response of the speci-
men, while the second wave travels through the specimen to the
transmitted bar and carries the stress response of the specimen.
Subsequently, the stress–strain relation of the specimen under a
high strain rate can be obtained using one-dimensional wave anal-
ysis. The following section demonstrates the restrictions while
designing the SHPB apparatus.
The transmitted and incident bar diameters are considered as
influencing parameters in the design of the SHPB apparatus. First,
the diameter of transmitted and incident bars should be equal to
the tested specimen to avoid stress concentration in the specimen
[42]. Secondly, the designer should avoid any non-linearity for
either the transmitted or the incident bar to facilitate the repeata-
bility of the test. The non-linearity restriction may be controlled
through the materials used, using a material with relatively high
yield strength, or by the bars cross-section area, either solid or hol-
low section. Regarding the non-linearity restrictions, previous
studies have recommended not exceeding 30% of the bars yielding
stress while testing [44]. This limit is considered as the minimum
design limit for selecting the bar’s cross-section area. On the other
side, the maximum design limit of the transmitted and incident
bars cross-section area is to ensure a measurable strain in the
transmitted bar. As such Clark (2016), proposed a hollow transmit-
ted bar to increase its stress and strain, while testing, which conse-
quently facilitates the measurement of the strain [40].
Fig. 1. The manufactured Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar machine.
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
cement coarse aggregate fine aggregate
0.142 0.269 0.333
441.2 700.0 850.3
As for the launching system, Equation (1) can be used to deter-
mine the length of the launching tube with corresponding pressure
[46].
e0s 2 L2s mst
P¼ ð1Þ
2 A Lc
Where:
P is the applied pressure on the striker;
e0
s is the expected strain rate in the specimen;
Ls is the length of the testing specimen;
mst is the mass of the striker;
A is the striker cross-section area;
Lc is the striker travel distance inside the launching tube.
To determine the lengths of the incident and transmitted bars
the wave propagation mechanism should be investigated. At
(t = 0), when the striker bar hits the incident bar, two compression
waves are generated. One of them is in the incident bar while the
other wave is reflected in the striker bar. The wave in the striker
will later propagate towards the incident bar in the form of a ten-
sile wave that acts as an unloading wave. Both waves define the
incident pulse that is responsible for loading the testing specimen.
Furthermore, a portion of the wave propagates to the transmitted
bar, while the other portion reflects into the incident bar as shown
in the distance-time diagram in Fig. 2. Both waves, in the transmit-
ted and incident bars, are responsible for loading the specimen and
are used to infer the stress, strain, strain rate. Subsequently, the
incident and transmitted bars must be long enough to accommo-
date the pulses and avoid the interference of the waves.
To do so, the length of each bar must be greater than or double
the length of the striker bar. As such, the strain pulses in the mid-
dle of the incident and transmitted bars are measured, incident (ei),
reflected (er), and transmitted (et) strains. The strains are usually
measured using strain gauges, however, it is worth mentioning
that laser extensometer [47], digital image correlations [48], and
optical measurements [49] have been reported [28]. Subsequently,
the specimen’s stress (rs ), strain (es ), and strain rate (e_s ) can be cal-
3
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Time-Distance diagram for the wave propagation in the SHPB apparatus.

culated using Equations (2–4) [50]. Equation (2–4) considers the loaded with a rate of 0.25 ± 0.05 MPa/s following the ASTM C39
two fundamental assumptions of the SHPB apparatus which are [37] representing quasi-static testing [28]. The average concrete
the one-dimensional wave propagation and the instantaneous compressive strength (fc’) was 22.3 MPa with a 0.04 MPa coeffi-
equilibrium of forces on two surfaces of the loaded specimen cient of variation.
[51–53].
3.2. SHPB results

Ab Eb
rs ð t Þ ¼ e t ðt Þ ð2Þ
As
Although most of the samples subjected to high strain rate load-
Z ing had similar failure modes (i.e. concrete crushing). Fig. 3 depicts

2C o t
es ðtÞ ¼ er ðtÞdt ð3Þ the typical failure of the tested specimens using the SHPB. The inci-
L 0
dent, transmitted, and reflected signals were collected using a PC-

2C 0 Based oscilloscope ‘‘DSO-2150 USB” device. Fig. 4a, shows the typ-
e_s ðtÞ ¼ er ðtÞ ð4Þ ical signal processing (i.e. incident and transmitted). The recorded
L
signals were processed using an in-house developed MATLAB code
Where, Ab and Eb are the cross-section area and young’s modu- based on Equations (2–4) to compute the stress, strain, and strain
lus of the transmitted bar respectively, while As and L are the cross- rate [54]. Fig. 5shows the stress–strain curves for the tested spec-
section area and the thickness of the specimen respectively, and imens subjected to high strain rates under different saturation con-
finally Co is the wave velocity. ditions and strain rates ranging from 86 s
1 to 230 s
1. The analysis
As for the developed SHPB apparatus, a 73/61 mm hollow tube of the observed results will be discussed and analyzed in the fol-
is selected for the transmitted bar (to magnify the transmitted
wave as recommended by Clark (2016) [40]). Whereas an endplate
has been attached to the tube to fit the specimen dimension
(75 mm). The transmitted bar is 1500 mm long satisfying both con-
ditions, twice the striker length, and greater than or equals to 20
times the specimen diameter (75 mm). Similarly, the incident bar
(solid bar) had the same length as the transmitted bar to satisfy
the same conditions for the transmitted bar. Table 2 summarizes
the dimensions of the developed SHPB apparatus.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Quasi-Static results

A quasi-static standard compressive test was performed using a

servo-hydraulic material test system. The three specimens were

Table 2
The developed SHPB apparatus dimensions.

Length Outer diameter Inner diameter

(mm) (mm) (mm)
Striker (solid) 100 75 NA
Launching tube 500 82 76
Incident bar 1500 75 NA
(solid)
Transmitted bar 1500 73 61
Fig. 3. Typical failure mode for the tested specimens.

4
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

It shows the stress–strain curves for the tested specimens at a

strain rate of 105 s
1, 150 s
1,170 s
1, and 185 s
1 respectively.
From Fig. 6, it can be concluded that all the concrete specimens
had a similar trend of exhibiting higher strength with the increase
of Sr. More specifically, the DIF was on average of 1.31, 1.39, and
1.48 for the dry, normal (Sr = 30%), and saturated specimens
respectively. This observation aligns with the previous researches,
which backed the dependence of the DIF on moisture content to
the Stéfan effect [32,35,36]. Furthermore, the DIF of the tested
samples was calculated and summarized in Table 3. It is worth
mentioning that some of the specimens resulted in a DIF less than
1, which may be attributed to stress nonuniformity as observed by
different researchers [32,51,58,59]. Such stress nonuniformity can
be evident within brittle materials, with dynamic fracture strain in
the order of 1 ‰, as observed while testing concrete, mortar, and
rocks [57].

3.4. Evaluation of the CEB/FIP model

Fig. 4a. Typical recorded signal from the SHPB machine.

For a better understanding of the impact of moisture content on
the concrete DIF, the DIF values were plotted against the strain rate
lowing section. It worth nothing to mention that the sampling fre- and compared to the predictions of the CEB equations as shown in
quency was 32 kHZ, resulting on an average of 300 point per test, Fig. 7 [20]. The CEB model proposes a conditional equation with a
however for the sake of graphical representation, fewer datapoints transition strain of 30 s
1 as previously mentioned. As such, the
were used to present the figures. second equation (Equation (6)) was used as all the tested strain
In terms of validation, the previously mentioned assumptions of rates were larger than 80 s
1.
the Split-Hopkinson pressure bar test were considered, namely, the 1
e_ c 3
one-dimensional wave propagation, the uniformity applied stress DIF ¼ cs ð Þ ; for je_ c j > 30 ð6Þ
across the tested specimen, and neglection of the axial inertia of e_ co
the tested [51–53]. Such assumptions are numerically introduced Where:
as the dynamic stress equilibrium between the stress caused by
1
transmitted wave (rt) and the stress summation caused by the cs ¼ 106:156as
2 ; as ¼ ; f cm0 ¼ 10MPa; e_ co ¼ 30  10
6 s
1
incident (ri) and reflected (rr) waves [55]. Numerically, the valida- 5 þ 9 ff cu
cm0
tion was conducted through Equation (5), which permits 5% con-
vergence error as proposed by different researchers [55–57]. fcu is the concrete compressive strength.
Moreover, Fig. 4b graphically demonstrate the conducted valida- The CEB model showed an average deviation of 166, 159, and
tion testing through the typical transmitted, incident, and reflected 134% for the dry, normal (Sr = 30%), and saturated specimens as
waves and their negligible difference. summarized in Table 4. Where the deviation is calculated using
Equation (7). Moreover, Fig. 7 graphically demonstrate the overes-
jri þ rr j
rt  0:05 ð5Þ
timating trend of the CEB model against the conducted experimen-
tal results. As such, the following sections demonstrate a
3.3. Impact of saturation level on the DIF calibration for the CEB equation to account for the Sr through a sta-
tistical analysis. The calibration was conducted using the results of
Fig. 6 shows the stress–strain curves for the tested specimens at the tested specimens and validated through different data col-
different moisture contents at approximately the same strain rates. lected from the literature.
 
CalculatedDIF
Observ edDIF
Dev oationpercentage ¼ % ð7Þ
Observ edDIF

3.5. Proposed model

Statistical analysis is conducted for the tested results through a

multi-objective fitting algorithm to minimize the sum of square
errors of the observed data against the CEB/FIP model. The pro-
posed fitting was conducted through calibration coefficients for
the general CEB/FIP model as shown in Equation (8).

DIF ¼ Ae_ c
B
ð8Þ
Where A, and B are the introduced calibration coefficients. Fur-
thermore, the Sr was introduced into the calibration factors to con-
sider their effect on the calculated DIF. Based in the observed data,
‘‘A” was in a linear relationship with Sr, while ‘‘B” was following an
exponential format as shown in Equation (9). It worth nothing to
mention that the proposed equation is bounded by 1 to overcome
Fig. 4b. Graphical demonstration for typical wave validation. any boundary errors.
5
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 5. Stress–strain curves for the tested specimens (a) Sr = 100%; (b) Sr = 30%;(c) Sr = 0%.

6
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. Stress–strain curves at different moisture contents and strain rates.

Table 3
DIF of the tested specimens.

Strain Dynamic DIF Strain Dynamic DIF Strain Dynamic DIF

rate strength rate strength rate strength
Oven dry 100 24.25 1.10 Room temperature 95 19.87 0.90 Fully saturated 86 26.79 1.22
(Sr = 0%) 105 16.64 0.76 saturation (Sr = 30%) 99 21.5 0.98 (Sr = 100%) 113 33.59 1.53
116 26.5 1.2 104 17.94 0.82 113 37.37 1.7
130 15.48 0.70 105 26.51 1.2 116 18.28 0.83
139 32.09 1.46 107 34.71 1.58 129 27.49 1.25
141 36.54 1.66 107 36.72 1.67 148 33.31 1.51
147 15.78 0.72 107 16.14 0.73 151 29.34 1.33
148 26.43 1.2 114 34.06 1.55 152 34.4 1.56
155 32.58 1.48 118 21.01 0.95 155 18.19 0.83
157 22.67 1.03 119 19.12 0.87 156 21.47 0.98
159 32.05 1.46 125 14.52 0.66 156 27.72 1.26
161 34.03 1.55 127 26.1 1.19 157 23.12 1.05
166 36.69 1.67 128 24.99 1.14 164 32.04 1.46
170 23.39 1.06 134 19.34 0.89 173 37.95 1.72
171 28.33 1.29 136 33.21 1.51 174 22.19 1.01
179 23.28 1.06 147 21.49 0.98 175 34.63 1.57
187 23.68 1.08 149 26.28 1.2 175 25.74 1.17
197 28.73 1.31 150 35.67 1.62 180 34.45 1.57
150 32.58 1.48 190 27.44 1.25
156 34.36 1.56 190 50.89 2.31
170 26.99 1.23 204 45.09 2.05
176 29.01 1.32 209 30.08 1.37
185 29.58 1.34 217 27.9 1.27
207 26.83 1.22 230 43.14 1.96

0:275Sr
e_ 0:47e mental results are summarized in Table 4. It is worth nothing to
DIF ¼ ð0:1986 Sr þ 0:1945Þcs c
1 ð9Þ mention that the Sr of the oven-dry samples were introduced in
e_ 1=3
co the proposed equation as negligible value (0.01%) to avoid numer-
The proposed DIF equation showed an average deviation of 3.1, ical errors in the equation.
4.5, and 3.7% for the dry, normal (Sr = 30%), and saturated speci-
mens. Whereas Fig. 8 demonstrates the measured DIF as well as 3.6. Model validation
their corresponding predictions using the CEB/FIP and the pro-
posed equations (i.e., after introducing the Sr as an input variable). As a sort of validation, both DIF prediction equations discussed
Moreover, the mean and standard deviation of the prediction error in this paper (the CEB and the proposed equation) were compared
for both CEB/FIP and the proposed equations against the experi- against experimental database collected from literature. Both
7
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 7. Relation between the DIF and strain rate of the tested samples.

Table 4 standard deviation, respectively. Fig. 9 shows the deviation his-

Deviation of the test results against the CEB and proposed models. tograms (error distribution) for both equations (considering the
Saturation CEB Proposed whole database) as well as the mean deviation of each equation.
equation* equation* Throughout Fig. 9, it is evident that the deviation fits the well-
Oven dry (Sr = 0%) 166.5, 0.7 3.1, 0.3 known bell-shaped normal distribution which align with the error
Room temperature saturation 159.4, 0.7 4.5, 0.3 distribution theory [67]. Moreover, Fig. 10 summarized the mean,
(Sr = 30%) standard deviation, and the deviation outliers of both tested equa-
Fully saturated (Sr = 100%) 134.0, 0.6 3.7, 0.3
tions against the used database. Furthermore, Table I (in Appendix
*
Data presented as mean and standard deviation (l, r). I) summarizes all the data used for validation including the quasi-
static compressive strength, Sr (if available) observed DIF, their cor-
responding DIF computed by the CEB, and the proposed equations.
equations were compared against two hundred and forty seven Such validation highlights the reliability of the developed equation
experimental data sets (the tested sixty-six datapoint and addi- and its future potential application for concrete modeling.
tional one hundred and eighty -one experimental data points col-
lected from the literature) [11,32,66,33,56,60–65]. It is worth 4. Conclusions
mentioning that the collected database was limited to conven-
tional concrete specimens of aspect ratio (ls/us) ranging from 0.4 This study focused on the assessment of DIF of concrete at dif-
to 0.6. The dimension limitation was set to minimize the influence ferent saturation levels through an experimental program and con-
of specimen size on the SHPB results [51]. The CEB equation ducting statistical analysis to test the considered variables. This
showed an average deviation of 82% and 0.6 standard deviation, paper briefly elaborated the design procedure and assumptions
while the proposed equation showed 0.7% and 0.2 as mean and of constructing a SHPB. Firstly, this paper briefly demonstrated

Fig. 8. DIF of the tested specimens versus the predicted (using the CEB and the proposed equations).

8
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al.
Fig. 9. Error histogram for the proposed and CEB/FIP predictive equations.
Fig. 10. Accuracy of the proposed and CEB/FIP predictive equations.
the experimental testing of sixty-six concrete specimens using
SHPB. Eighteen specimens were oven-dried, twenty-four speci-
mens were submerged in a water container till testing, while the
last twenty-four specimens were cured in normal temperature
conditions. The specimens were tested under compression sub-
jected to high strain rates ranging from 86 s
1 to 230 s
1. Based
on the experimental observations, it was concluded that all the
concrete specimens had a similar trend of exhibiting higher
strength with the increase of Sr. Where, the DIF was on average
of 1.31, 1.39, and 1.48 for the dry, normal (Sr = 30%), and saturated
specimens respectively. Such higher DIF was backed to the depen-
dence of the DIF on moisture content to the Stéfan effect. It worth
nothing to mention that some of the observed DIF was less than
1.0, which is attributed to stress nonuniformity specially for brittle
materials (with fracture strain in the order of 1 ‰) as the tested
concrete specimens.
Furthermore, this study presented a comparison between the
observed DIF (resulting from the experimental testing) and the cal-
culated ones proposed by the well-known equation recommended
by the CEB. Such comparison showed a large overestimating trend
regarding all the tested observations. The CEB equation showed an
average deviation of 166, 159, and 134% for the dry, normal
(Sr = 30%), and saturated specimens. As such, this study introduced
9
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
a statistical calibration for the CEB model to account for the Sr as
one of the input variables. The calibrated equation showed much
reliable predictions where the proposed calibrated equation had
an average deviation of 3.1, 4.5, and 3.7% against the experimental
results of the dry, normal (Sr = 30%), and saturated specimens.
Likewise, a validation for the proposed equation has been pre-
sented against an experimental database collected from the litera-
ture. The collected database composed of additional one hundred
and eighty-one data-point for conventional concrete specimens
with an aspect ratio ranging from 0.4 to 0.6. Based on the complete
experimental database (two hundred and forty-seven experimen-
tal data sets), the CEB equation showed an average deviation of
82% and 0.6 standard deviation, while the proposed equation
showed 0.6% and 0.2 as mean and standard deviation, respectively.
Although the presented work discussed a brief experimental
and statistical analysis for the influence of Sr on the concrete DIF.
Further implementations can be suggested for both analyses.
Regarding the experimental investigation, additional experimental
tests are still required to build a wide range conclusion. The addi-
tional tests may include testing at different strain rates (below and
above the tested range), different concrete mixtures (different
compressive strength), different moisture contents. Furthermore,
an extensive surface treatment is recommended to avoid the
observed stress nonuniformity specially when testing brittle mate-
rial such as concrete. Moreover, as future recommendation, a pulse
shaper is suggested to elongate the recorded signals and hence
increase the measurement accuracy. As for the statistical analysis,
different statistical models aided by machine learning can be intro-
duced including multi regression and neural network modeling for
the concrete DIF.
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.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101976.
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

References degrees of freedom. Can J Civ Eng 2009;36:1305–20. doi: https://doi.org/

10.1139/L08-140.
[28] Bagher Shemirani A, Naghdabadi R, Ashrafi MJ. Experimental and numerical
[1] Zhang XX, Yu RC, Ruiz G, Tarifa M, Camara MA. Effect of loading rate on crack
study on choosing proper pulse shapers for testing concrete specimens by split
velocities in HSC. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37:359–70. doi: https://doi.org/
Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus. Constr Build Mater 2016;125:326–36. doi:
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.10.002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.045.
[2] Hamid R, Hasan ASMZ, Ariffin AK. Sensitivity of Model Parameter on Dynamic
[29] Ren L, Yu X, He Y, Wang K, Yao H. Numerical investigation of lateral inertia
Behavior Simulation of HPC. J Mater Civ Eng 2010;22:1244–51. doi: https://
effect in dynamic impact testing of UHPC using a Split-Hopkinson pressure
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000131.
bar. Constr Build Mater 2020;246:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
[3] Chen J, Shu W, Huang H. Rate-dependent progressive collapse resistance of
j.conbuildmat.2020.118483118483.
beam-to-column connections with different seismic details. J Perform Constr
[30] Gorham DA. Specimen inertia in high strain-rate compression. J Phys D Appl
Facil 2017;31:04016086. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
Phys 1989;22:1888–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/22/12/014.
5509.0000922.
[31] Yan D, Lin G. Dynamic properties of concrete in direct tension. Cem Concr Res
[4] Kong X, Fang Q, Zhang J, Zhang Y. Numerical prediction of dynamic tensile
2006;36:1371–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.03.003.
failure in concrete by a corrected strain-rate dependent nonlocal material
[32] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Moisture and strain rate effects
model. Int J Impact Eng 2020;137:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
on concrete strength. ACI Mater J 1996;93:293–300.
ijimpeng.2019.103445103445.
[33] Rossi P, Van Mier JGM, Toutlemonde F, Le Maou F, Boulay C. Effect of loading
[5] Park G-K, Kwak H-G, Filippou FC. Evaluation of nonlinear behavior and
rate on the strength of concrete subjected to uniaxial tension. Mater Struct
resisting capacity of reinforced concrete columns subjected to blast loads. Eng
1994;27:260–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02473042.
Fail Anal 2018;93:268–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[34] Rossi P, Toutlemonde F. Effect of loading rate on the tensile behaviour of
engfailanal.2018.07.024.
concrete: description of the physical mechanisms. Mater Struct 1996;29:116.
[6] Hao Y, Hao H. Influence of the concrete DIF model on the numerical predictions
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486201.
of RC wall responses to blast loadings. Eng Struct 2014;73:24–38. doi: https://
[35] Zheng D, Li Q. An explanation for rate effect of concrete strength based on
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.042.
fracture toughness including free water viscosity. Eng Fract Mech
[7] Salem S, Ezzeldin M, Tait M, El-Dakhakhni W. Resistance functions for blast
2004;71:2319–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.01.012.
fragility quantification of reinforced concrete block masonry shear walls. Eng
[36] Cadoni E, Labibes K, Albertini C, Berra M, Giangrasso M. Strain-rate effect on
Struct 2021;233:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the tensile behaviour of concrete at different relative humidity levels
engstruct.2020.111531111531.
2001;34:21–6.
[8] Campidelli M, Tait MJ, El-Dakhakhni WW, Mekky W. Numerical strategies for
[37] Astm. ASTM C39 / C39M–18, standard test method for compressive strength of
damage assessment of reinforced concrete block walls subjected to blast risk.
cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken, PA 2018. doi: https://doi.
Eng Struct 2016;127:559–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1520/C0039_C0039M-18.
engstruct.2016.08.032.
[38] Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Gholamreza M. Soil mechanics in engineering
[9] Ferraioli M. Dynamic increase factor for pushdown analysis of seismically
practice. John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
designed steel moment-resisting frames. Int J Steel Struct 2016;16:857–75.
[39] Lee S, Kim K-M, Cho J-Y. Investigation into pure rate effect on dynamic
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-015-0056-6.
increase factor for concrete compressive strength. Procedia Eng
[10] Cusatis G. Strain-rate effects on concrete behavior. Int J Impact Eng
2017;210:11–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.11.042.
2011;38:162–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.10.030.
[40] Design CN. Manufacturing, and testing of a miniature compression split
[11] Grote DL, Park SW, Zhou M. Dynamic behavior of concrete at high strain rates
hopkinson bar. Ohio State University; 2016.
and pressures: I. experimental characterization. Int J Impact Eng
[41] Neville AM, Brooks JJ. Concrete Technology. Pearson Education Limited; 2010.
2001;25:869–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00020-3.
[42] Chen W, Song B. Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2011.
[12] Zhang M, Wu HJ, Li QM, Huang FL. Further investigation on the dynamic
10.1007/978-1-4419-7982-7.
compressive strength enhancement of concrete-like materials based on split
[43] Othman R. The Kolsky-Hopkinson bar machine: Selected topics 2018. doi:
Hopkinson pressure bar tests. part I: experiments. Int J Impact Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71919-1.
2009;36:1327–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.04.009.
[44] Paja˛k M. The Influence of the Strain Rate on the Strength of Concrete. Archit
[13] Hao Y, Hao H, Jiang GP, Zhou Y. Experimental confirmation of some factors
Civ Eng Enviroment 2011;3:77–86.
influencing dynamic concrete compressive strengths in high-speed impact
[45] Shing PB, Schuller M, Hoskere VS, Carter E. Flexural and Shear Response of
tests. Cem Concr Res 2013;52:63–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Reinforced Masonry Walls. ACI Struct J 1990;87:646–56. 10.14359/2957.
cemconres.2013.05.008.
[46] Kirby SP. Designing a Data Acquisition System for a Split Hopkinson Pressure
[14] Schuler H, Mayrhofer C, Thoma K. Spall experiments for the measurement of
Bar. 122nd ASCE Conf. Expo., Seattle, WA: 2015.
the tensile strength and fracture energy of concrete at high strain rates. Int J
[47] Nie X, Song B, Loeffler CM. A novel splitting-beam laser extensometer
Impact Eng 2006;32:1635–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technique for kolsky tension bar experiment. J Dyn Behav Mater
ijimpeng.2005.01.010.
2015;1:70–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-015-0005-7.
[15] Li QM, Lu YB, Meng H. Further investigation on the dynamic compressive
[48] Chen JJ, Guo BQ, Liu HB, Liu H, Chen PW. Dynamic brazilian test of brittle
strength enhancement of concrete-like materials based on split Hopkinson
materials using the split hopkinson pressure bar and digital image correlation.
pressure bar tests. part II: numerical simulations. Int J Impact Eng
Strain 2014;50:563–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/str.12118.
2009;36:1335–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.04.010.
[49] Swantek SD, Wicks AL, Wilson LT. An Optical Method of Strain Measurement in
[16] Bischoff PH, Perry SH. Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates.
the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar. APS 2001;46:H1.045.
Mater Struct 1991;24:425–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472016.
[50] Meyers M. Dynamic behavior of materials. New York: Wiley; 1994.
[17] Cotsovos DM, Pavlović MN. Numerical investigation of concrete subjected to
[51] Khosravani MR, Weinberg K. A review on split Hopkinson bar experiments on
high rates of uniaxial tensile loading. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:319–35. doi:
the dynamic characterisation of concrete 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.03.006.
j.conbuildmat.2018.09.187.
[18] Li QM, Meng H. About the dynamic strength enhancement of concrete-like
[52] Wu XJ, Gorham DA. Stress Equilibrium in the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
materials in a split Hopkinson pressure bar test. Int J Solids Struct
Test. Le J Phys IV 1997;07:C3-91–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/jp4:1997318.
2003;40:343–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00526-7.
[53] Gray G. Classic Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing. Am Soc Met
[19] Tedesco J, Ross C. Strain-rate-dependent constitutive equations for concrete.
Handbook: Mech Test Eval; 2000. p. 8.
ASME J Press Vessel Technol 1998;120:398–405.
[54] The MathWorks I. The MathWorks 2014. MATLAB—Statistics Toolbox User’s
[20] Comité Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIP model code 1990.pdf 1990:1–
Guide. 2014.
463.
[55] Bai Y, Yan Z-W, Jia J-F, Ozbakkaloglu T, Liu Y. Dynamic compressive behavior of
[21] Malvern L, Ross C. Dynamic response of concrete and concrete structures.
concrete confined with unidirectional natural flax FRP based on SHPB tests.
Second Annu Tech Rep 1985.
Compos Struct 2021;259:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
[22] ASCE. Blast Protection of Buildings. Reston, VA, VA: American Society of Civil
j.compstruct.2020.113233113233.
Engineers; 2011. 10.1061/9780784411889.
[56] Lai D, Demartino C, Xiao Y. High-strain rate compressive behavior of Fiber-
[23] CSA. CSA S850-12 Design and assessment of buildings subjected to blast loads.
Reinforced Rubberized Concrete. Constr Build Mater 2022;319:. doi: https://
Mississauga, ON, Canada: Canadian Standards Association; 2012
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125739125739.
[24] Browning RS, Hoemann JM, Davidson JS. Large-Deflection Response of Fully
[57] Zhu J, Hu S, Wang L. An analysis of stress uniformity for concrete-like
Grouted Reinforced Masonry Walls to Static and Dynamic Out-of-Plane
specimens during SHPB tests. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36:61–72. doi: https://doi.
Pressure. ACI Spec Publ 2011;281:1–20. 10.14359/51683619.
org/10.1016/J.IJIMPENG.2008.04.007.
[25] S, Salem, M, Ezzeldin, M, Tait, W, El-Dakhakhni, Paradigm shift in probablistic
[58] Hassan M, Wille K. Comparative experimental investigations on the
blast assessment for critical infrastructure elements. Fifteenth Int. Conf. Struct.
compressive impact behavior of fiber-reinforced ultra high-performance
Geotech. Eng. Adv. Constr. Tech., Cairo, Egypt: Ain Shams University; 2018.
concretes using split Hopkinson pressure bar. Constr Build Mater
[26] Jacques E, Lloyd A, Saatcioglu M. Predicting reinforced concrete response to
2018;191:398–410. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.020.
blast loads. Can J Civ Eng 2013;40:427–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/
[59] Hasan A, Hamid R, Ariffin A, Gani R. Stress-strain behavior of normal strength
L2012-014.
concrete subjected to high strain rate. Asian J Appl Sci 2010;3:145–52.
[27] El-Dakhakhni WW, Changiz Rezaei SH, Mekky WF, Razaqpur AG. Response
[60] Tedesco J, Ross C, Hughes M. Load rate effects on concrete compressive
sensitivity of blast-loaded reinforced concrete structures to the number of
strength. XII: Struct. Congr; 1993.

10
S. Salem, E. Eissa, E. Zarif et al.
[61] Xiong B, Demartino C, Xu J, Simi A, Marano GC, Xiao Y. High-strain rate
compressive behavior of concrete made with substituted coarse aggregates:
Recycled crushed concrete and clay bricks. Constr Build Mater 2021;301:. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123875123875.
[62] Xiong B, Demartino C, Xiao Y. High-strain rate compressive behavior of CFRP
confined concrete: Large diameter SHPB tests. Constr Build Mater
2019;201:484–501. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.144.
[63] Sparks PR, Menzies JB. The effect of rate of loading upon the static and fatigue
strengths of plain concrete in compression. Mag Concr Res 1973;25:73–80.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1973.25.83.73.
[64] Chen X, Wu S, Zhou J. Experimental and modeling study of dynamic
mechanical properties of cement paste, mortar and concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2013;47:419–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.05.063.
[65] Guo YB, Gao GF, Jing L, Shim VPW. Response of high-strength concrete to
dynamic compressive loading. Int J Impact Eng 2017;108:114–35. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.04.015.
[66] Gary G, Bailly P. Behaviour of quasi-brittle material at high strain rate
experiment and modelling. Eur J Mech 1998;17:403–20.
11
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
[67] Ang A, Tang W. Probability concepts in engineering: emphasis on applications
to civil and environmental engineering. 2nd editio. John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
Shady Salem: is a member of the ASCE Risk and Resi-
lience Measurements committee, the Social Science,
Policy, Economics and Education Decision committee,
and the research committee for The Masonry Society
(TMS). He is also a member SEI blast protection of
buildings standards committee. Dr. Salem has received
Engineering Mechanics Institute Objective Resilience
Award as well as the Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation
Award. His research interests include community resi-
lience, blast design, design of reinforced concrete and
masonry structures.