Journal Pre-proof

Comparative analysis of dynamic constitutive response of hybrid

fibre-reinforced concrete with different matrix strengths

Qiang Fu , Mengxin Bu , Wenrui Xu , Lou Chen , Dan Li ,

Jiaqi He , Hailei Kou , He Li

PII: S0734-743X(20)30833-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103763
Reference: IE 103763

To appear in: International Journal of Impact Engineering

Received date: 5 March 2020

Revised date: 10 September 2020
Accepted date: 25 October 2020

Please cite this article as: Qiang Fu , Mengxin Bu , Wenrui Xu , Lou Chen , Dan Li , Jiaqi He ,
Hailei Kou , He Li , Comparative analysis of dynamic constitutive response of hybrid fibre-reinforced
concrete with different matrix strengths, International Journal of Impact Engineering (2020), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103763

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 1 Comparative analysis of dynamic constitutive response of hybrid fibre-reinforced concrete with different
2 matrix strengths

3 Qiang Fua,b,*, Mengxin Bub, Wenrui Xub, Lou Chenc,*, Dan Lib, Jiaqi Heb, Hailei Koud,*, He Lie

a
4 State Key Laboratory of Green Building in Western China, Xi′an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi′an, 710055, PR China

b
5 School of Civil Engineering, Xi′an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi′an, 710055, PR China

c
6 School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410075, PR China

d
7 College of Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, PR China

e
8 College of Mechanical and Electronic Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266590, PR China

9 *Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: fuqiangzn2011@163.com (Q. Fu), chen.lou.17@ucl.ac.uk (L. Chen),
10 hlkou@ouc.edu.cn (H. Kou).

11

12 ABSTRACT

13 In this study, the dynamic compressive behaviour of concrete reinforced with hybrid basalt-polypropylene fibres

14 (HBPRC) and different matrix strengths was investigated using a split Hopkinson pressure bar. The results

15 indicated that the differences between the highest dynamic strength and the dynamic strength of the reference

16 concrete for each matrix strength grade increased from 6.63 MPa, 3.77 MPa, and 4.80 MPa under the minimum

17 strain rates to 7.16 MPa, 9.04 MPa, and 12.08 MPa under the maximum strain rates. The strain rate effect of

18 dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC was increased by increasing the volume of hybrid basalt fibre (BF) and

19 polypropylene fibre (PF) from 0.1% to 0.2%, but was decreased with increasing matrix strength. The toughness

20 was increased with increasing strain rate, hybrid BF and PF volume, and matrix strength. A microscopic test

21 indicated that an increase in the matrix strength and strain rate exhibited a similar impact on the damage patterns of

22 BF and PF. The primary effect of BF on the dynamic mechanical properties of HBPRC was to increase the strength

23 and that of the PF was to improve the energy dissipation. A dynamic damage constitutive model for HBPRC was

24 established based on the continuum media and statistical damage theories, and its validity was verified.

25 Keywords

26 Basalt fibre; Polypropylene fibre; Strain rate; Dynamic damage constitutive model; Toughness; Split

27 Hopkinson pressure bar

1
 1 1. Introduction

2 The fibre-reinforced concrete makes up for the low tensile performance of ordinary concrete.

3 Currently, the common fibres used to increase the tensile properties of concrete mainly include rigid fibres

4 (steel fibre, carbon fibre, basalt fibre, glass fibre, etc.), flexible polymer fibres (polypropylene fibre and

5 polyvinyl alcohol fibre) and plant fibre (sisal fibre) [1-5]. The addition of the aforementioned fibres not only

6 increases the tensile properties of concrete, but also has an obvious impact on the conductivity,

7 temperature stability and durability of concrete [6-8]. The effect of fibres on the concrete properties is

8 closely related to the addition type of fibres, the mechanical properties of fibres and concrete matrix, and

9 the interface performance between fibres and concrete matrix [9]. Compared with single fibre, hybrid fibres

10 can improve the concrete properties more significantly.

11 Hybrid fibre-reinforced concrete was first studied in the 1970s [10]. Hybrid fibres with different fibre

12 categories or the same category with different types, can significantly improve the dynamic compressive

13 behaviour of concrete owing to the bridging effect. Hybrid fibre-reinforced concrete has broad application

14 prospects in engineering structures in seismic areas, airport runways, and marine and offshore structures

15 that are vulnerable to various impacts and explosions [11-14]. Hybrid steel-polypropylene fibre is the most

16 common type of fibre hybridisation. Polypropylene fibre (PF), with its small diameter, low cost, and high

17 resource content, can inhibit the initiation and propagation of micro-cracks in the concrete matrix while the

18 steel fibre, with a greater diameter and rigidity, can restrict the propagation of macro-cracks. The synergistic

19 inhibition effect of PF and steel fibre on the propagation of cracks can effectively improve the dynamic

20 compressive behaviour of concrete [15,16].

21 It is widely known that the properties of steel fibre are similar to those of rebar. The addition of steel

22 fibre to concrete increases the dead load of structures. In addition, given the propensity of steel fibre to

23 rust, the durability of concrete structures is significantly degraded when steel fibres are used in marine

24 concrete structures [17]. Basalt fibre (BF) is an environmental-friendly fibre with a small diameter of about

25 15 μm, outstanding mechanical properties and good compatibility with cement-based materials. BF can be

26 used as a replacement for steel fibre to enhance the strength and toughness of concrete [18]. PF, a flexible

27 fibre with a diameter of about 30 μm, can be used to improve the tensile and flexural properties of concrete

28 [19,20]. When the hybrid BF and PF are added to concrete, they can inhibit the cracks in different

29 mechanical scales because of the differences in physical and mechanical properties. Hybrid basalt‒

2
 1 polypropylene fibre-reinforced concrete (HBPRC) could have wide application prospects, in particular for the

2 marine and offshore engineering structures that are vulnerable to chemical corrosion and impact loading.

3 However, there is paucity of studies on the dynamic compressive behaviour of HBPRC. Only limited studies

4 have been conducted on the dynamic compressive behaviour of concrete reinforced with single BF or PF.

5 Branston et al. [17], Li et al. [21] and Zhang et al. [22] investigated the effect of BF on the impact-resistance

6 behaviour of concrete using the split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) test or the dropping weight impact

7 test, and reported that BF can significantly improve the toughness of concrete, and increase the dynamic

8 compressive strength of concrete to a certain extent. However, there was no consensus on the optimal BF

9 volume. Li and Xu [23,24] examined the dynamic compressive behaviour of BF-reinforced geopolymeric

10 concrete and reported that the addition of BF had no obvious effect on the dynamic compressive strength

11 of geopolymeric concrete, but significantly increased the deformation and energy absorption properties of

12 geopolymeric concrete. With respect to PF-reinforced concrete, Zhang et al. [25] reported that the dynamic

13 compressive strength and toughness of PF-reinforced concrete increased gradually with increasing PF

14 volume. A previous study [26] obtained results similar to those reported by Zhang et al. [25] and further

15 confirmed that the optimum volume of PF is 1.5 kg/m3. Given the difference in the physical and mechanical

16 properties of BF and PF and the synergistic effect of BF and PF in the concrete matrix, the dynamic

17 compressive behaviour of HBPRC is significantly different from that of concrete reinforced with single BF or

18 PF. Hence, some experimental and theoretical studies are required to systematically characterise the

19 d y n a m i c c o m p r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r o f H B P R C .

20 The dynamic constitutive model is the theoretical basis for the application of the results of dynamic

21 mechanical properties of concrete-like materials in actual engineering structures. However, studies on the

22 dynamic constitutive model of concrete-like materials are very limited. Chen et al. [27] proposed a dynamic

23 constitutive model for cementitious materials by establishing the relationship between the dynamic elastic

24 modulus, damage variable, and the strain rate, as well as using the strain equivalence principle. Salloum et

25 al. [28] studied experimentally the dynamic behaviour of the annular and solid concrete specimens, and

26 established an empirical constitutive model with a simple form but good calculation result. Lai and Sun [29]

27 simulated the ascending branch of dynamic stress–strain curves of the ultra-high-performance cementitious

28 composite by using the Zhu–Wang–Tang (ZWT) model involving damage. In the work by Zhang et al. [22],

29 through deriving the damage factor using the statistical damage theory, an establishment method of model

30 similar to that in Lai and Sun [29] was used to establish the dynamic constitutive model for the BF-

3
 1 reinforced concrete, and the proposed model exhibited good calculation results. In addition, many scholars

2 have established various numerical models for quasi-brittle materials, such as rock and concrete. These

3 models accurately calculated the dynamic response of the relevant materials or structures under blast and

4 impact loading, which provided effect support for the dynamic design of engineering structures [30-34]. The

5 aforementioned dynamic constitutive models are only applicable to specific materials or structures. A

6 dynamic constitutive model for HBPRC needs to be established based on the experimental results of

7 dynamic mechanical properties to promote the application of HBPRC in engineering structures.

8 To systematically characterise the dynamic compressive behaviour of HBPRC based on experiment and

9 theory, and further promote the application of HBPRC in the marine and offshore engineering structures

10 that are vulnerable to impact loading, in this study, the dynamic compressive behaviour of HBPRC with

11 different matrix strengths and hybrid BF and PF volumes was investigated by using a SHPB under different

12 strain rates. The variation in the dynamic compressive strength and toughness with hybrid fibre volume and

13 matrix strength was analysed. The strengthening and toughening mechanisms of BF and PF were also

14 discussed based on the microscopic test results. Finally, a dynamic constitutive model for HBPRC was

15 established.

16 Currently, there is no report on the comparative study of the impact resistance of HBPRC with different

17 matrix strength, so the action mechanism of BF and PF on the dynamic properties of concrete is not

18 understood. The research results of this study not only contribute to the design of HBPRC according to the

19 specific properties, but also promote the practical application of HBPRC. Moreover, the proposed dynamic

20 constitutive model for HBPRC not only provides a theoretical support for the dynamic design of HBPRC

21 structure, but also can be used in combination with other numerical models or applied to the relevant finite

22 element programs to calculate the dynamic response of other concrete structures [30-36].

23 2. Materials and experimental framework

24 2.1. Materials, mix proportions and specimen preparation

25 The raw materials for HBPRC in this study includes P.O 42.5R Portland cement (C), silica fume (SF), fly

26 ash (FA), S95-grade ground-granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), silica sand (S), coarse aggregate (CA),

27 potable tap water (W), polycarboxylate superplasticiser with a 30% water reduction rate (PBS), BF, and PF.

28 The chemical analysis of C, SF, FA, and GGBS was conducted using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy,

4
 1 and the composition of the binder is summarised in Table 1. The physical properties of the constituent

2 materials can be obtained in Niu et al. [37]. Furthermore, a ZEISS Gemine SEM 500 field emission scanning

3 electron microscope was used to observe the microstructure of BF and PF. The fascicular BF and PF were

4 pasted on a copper plate with double-sided conductive adhesive. After spraying gold, the monofilament

5 morphology of BF and PF was observed under vacuum condition. BF and PF presented the fascicular form of

6 monofilament, and their morphology was shown in Fig.1.

7 This study aims primarily at investigating the effect of BF and PF volumes and the matrix strength on

8 the dynamic compressive behaviour of HBPRC. Three matrix strengths (C30, C40 and C50) and fibre volumes

9 (0.1% for the single BF, PF and hybrid BF and PF, and 0.2% for the hybrid BF and PF, by volume of concrete)

10 were used. Specifically, BF and PF were added to concrete in equal volume percentages for hybridisation.

11 The mix proportions are presented in Table 2, where NC denotes the reference mixture without fibre

12 reinforcement, and BC, PC and BPC denote the HBPRC with the single BF, PF and the hybrid BF and PF,

13 respectively. The first and second numbers following the letter denote the matrix strength grade and the

14 fibre volume, respectively. For instance, BPC-30-0.1 denotes the HBPRC with a matrix strength grade of C30

15 and a hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.1%.

16 2.2. Sample preparation

17 The mixing and curing processes used in preparing the HBPRC specimens were the same as that in Niu

18 et al. [37]. In the SHPB test, the optimum aspect ratio of the samples is 0.5, which effectively reduces the

19 impact of the end-friction effect and lateral inertia effect on the test results [12,13,38]. In this study,

20 samples with diameter of 75 mm and height of 37.5 mm are used for the dynamic compressive test in the

21 study. After curing for 20 d, the samples are prepared by drilling, cutting, and grinding, and the parallelism

22 of two loading surfaces is guaranteed to ensure the reliability of the experimental results. Subsequently, the

23 samples continued to be cured to 28 d.

24 2.3. Quasi-static compressive test

25 To effectively characterise the strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC, the quasi-

26 static compressive strength of HBPRC under uniaxial load is required to calculate the dynamic increase

27 factor (section 3.1.3). The quasi-static compressive strength refers to the compressive strength of

28 materials tested at a low loading rate (usually the strain rate is less than 10-5 s-1) [39].

5
 1 The quasi-static compressive strength of HBPRC was determined using an Instron universal material

2 testing machine. According to the Chinese standard GB / T 50081-2002 [40], Each HBPRC specimen formed

3 by the prefabricated mould had dimensions of 100 × 100 × 300 mm, and the set loading rate was 0.1

4 mm/min (about 5.56 × 10-6 s-1). Five specimens were tested in each group, and the average value of three

5 specimens with similar results was taken as the final test result.

6 2.4. Dynamic compressive test

7 In this study, a SHPB, consisting of the driving system, an incident bar of diameter of 75 mm, a

8 transmitter bar of diameter of 75 mm, a damping system, and a data acquisition system, is used for the

9 dynamic compressive test of HBPRC. The length of the incident and transmitter bars is 2 m, as shown in Fig.

10 2. The HBPRC samples are sandwiched between the incident and transmitter bars. The loading surfaces of

11 samples are coated with a thin layer of grease to reduce the end-friction effect between the bars and

12 samples. The working principle of SHPB device can be referred to Fu et al. [41]. The set nitrogen pressures in

13 this study are 0.4 MPa, 0.6 MPa, 0.8 MPa, 1.0 MPa, and 1.2 MPa. Five samples were tested at each nitrogen

14 pressure, and the average over three similar test results was taken as the final result.

15 When the SHPB is used to investigate the dynamic mechanical properties of quasi-brittle materials, it is

16 easy to generate the high-frequency oscillation pulse by the striker impacting the incident bar, causing the

17 pulse dispersion effect. The pulse shaping technology is widely used to eliminate the pulse dispersion effect.

18 In this study, the cone-shaped striker is used to produce a semi-sinusoidal incident pulse, achieving the

19 purpose of pulse shaping [41], as shown in Fig. 2.

20

21 In SHPB test, two basic conditions are required to ensure the effective test results, namely, the one-

22 dimensional stress wave propagation in the pressure bar, and stress equilibrium in the samples. The one-

23 dimensional stress wave propagation in the pressure bar is achieved by the high slenderness of the pressure

24 bars and the significantly shorter length of the samples compared to that of the pressure bars. This is

25 satisfied by the SHPB device and the sample size adopted in this study. As for the stress equilibrium in

26 samples, it can be verified by the propagation patterns of the incident pulse, reflected pulse, and

27 transmitted pulse [42]. The representative relationship between the sum of the incident pulse stress (In)

28 and reflected pulse stress (Re) and the transmitted pulse stress (Tr) of HBPRC at the highest nitrogen

6
 1 pressure is shown in Fig. 3, where it can be seen that the sum of In and Re is approximately consistent with

2 Tr during the complete loading process, thereby guaranteeing the stress equilibrium in the HBPRC samples.

3 Based on the one-dimensional stress wave theory and the three-wave method, the stress, strain, and

4 strain rate of HPBRC in SHPB test are calculated as follows [43,44]:

 Ab Eb
   i   r   t 
 2 As
 Pb t
  0  i   r   t  dt
5  Ls (1)
 Pb
   i   r   t 
 Ls

6 where σ, ε, and  are the stress, strain, and strain rate of HBPRC, respectively; Ab and As are the cross-

7 sectional areas of the pressure bar and sample, respectively; Eb and Pb are the elastic modulus of the

8 pressure bar and the velocity of longitudinal wave in the pressure bar, respectively; and Ls is the length of

9 the sample; εi, εr, and εt represent the incident strain, reflected strain and transmitted strain, respectively.

10 During the SHPB test for the quasi-brittle materials such as concrete, the strain rate is not constant

11 throughout the testing process. To date, the representative dynamic strain rate is mainly determined by the

12 strain rate at the failure point, the one at the constant deformation rate before the peak stress, and the

13 average one during the whole deformation process [13]. The aforementioned determination methods of

14 dynamic strain rate overestimate or underestimate the deformation rate of concrete, and can not

15 accurately determine the deformation rate of concrete [27,45,46]. In this study, the deformation rate of

16 HBPRC is relatively constant during most of the loading process. So, the strain rate at the constant

17 deformation stage of HBPRC specimen during the whole deformation process is taken as the representative

18 dynamic strain rate. The method for determining dynamic strain rate adopted in this study takes into

19 account most of the deformation process of HBPRC, and is more comprehensive and reliable. A schematic

20 diagram for calculating the dynamic strain rate is given in Fig. 4.

21

22 3. Results and discussion

23 3.1. Dynamic compressive test results

7
 1 Through SHPB test, the stress–strain curves of HBPRC under impact loading can be obtained. Based on

2 the stress–strain curves, the variation in the dynamic compressive strength and toughness (energy

3 dissipation) of HBPRC with strain rate can be analysed. In addition, the impact resistance of HBPRC can be

4 evaluated based on the dynamic failure morphology. The aforementioned contents will be explained in the

5 following subsections.

6 3.1.1. Dynamic compressive stress–strain curves

7 The dynamic compressive stress–strain curves of HBPRC under different strain rates are shown in Fig.

8 5. It is observed that the dynamic compressive stress–strain curves of all the groups of HBPRC display similar

9 morphologies. The dynamic compressive strength (peak stress) and critical strain (the strain corresponding

10 to the peak stress) increase with the strain rate. The nonlinear deformation stage of the dynamic

11 compressive stress–strain curves before the peak stress gradually decreases, and the slope of the

12 descending branch after the peak stress gradually increases with increasing strain rate, thereby indicating a

13 more evident brittle failure characteristic of HBPRC. At an approximate strain rates, the addition of BF and

14 PF improves the critical strain and ultimate strain of HBPRC, and the improvement effect of PF on the

15 deformation is greater than that of BF. For instance, at the lowest strain rate, the critical and ultimate strain

16 of BC-30-0.1 increase by 0.000836 and 0.00298, respectively, compared to NC-30. However, the critical and

17 ultimate strain of PC-30-0.1 increase by 0.001537 and 0.00453 compared to NC-30. In addition, at the same

18 fibre volume, the effect of hybrid BF and PF on the critical and ultimate strain is greater than that of single

19 BF or PF. Compared to NC-30, the critical and ultimate strain of BPC-30-0.1 increase by 0.001623 and

20 0.00494 at the lowest strain rate. When the hybrid fibre volume increases to 0.2%, the deformation capacity

21 of HBPRC is further increased. On the one hand, the bridging effect of BF and PF effectively inhibits the

22 penetration rate of cracks in HBPRC and increases the critical strain of HBPRC. After the cracks interconnect,

23 the bridging effect and ductility of BF and PF decrease the spalling rate of the HBPRC fragment, thereby

24 increasing the ultimate strain of HBPRC. With the addition of hybrid BF and PF into concrete, the bridging

25 effect of BF and PF can be exerted at different mechanical scales, which is conducive to improving the

26 deformation capacity of HBPRC. On the other hand, when the hybrid BF and PF volume is 0.2%, the increase

27 in the defects in HBPRC can also cause a greater deformation. In addition, with increasing matrix strength,

28 the dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC under the approximate strain rates increases, but the

29 deformation capacity barely exhibits any discrepancy.

8
 1 3.1.2. Dynamic compressive failure pattern

2 The representative dynamic compressive failure patterns of HBPRC with the matrix strength grade of

3 C30 and C50 under various strain rates are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The failure degree of HBPRC samples is

4 increasingly significant with increasing strain rate, and this is consistent with the variation law of dynamic

5 compressive failure of other concrete-like materials [13,27,29]. Under the minimum strain rate in this study,

6 the samples are split longitudinally into several large pieces or several longitudinal cracks are generated,

7 and the samples continue to exhibit good integrity. In addition, there is no obvious difference in the failure

8 mode of HBPRC with different matrix strength under the minimum strain rate; however, it is found that the

9 failure degree of HBPRC reduces compared to NC. All the samples exhibit a failure mode of pulverisation

10 when they reach the highest strain rate. Furthermore, the fragments of all reference concretes and HBPRC

11 with single BF are isolated. However, the fragment surface of HBPRC with single BF is rougher than that of

12 the reference concretes. After the addition of single PF or hybrid BF and PF, the samples exhibit a ductile

13 failure characterised by the connection between the large and small fragments, indicating that PF is more

14 conducive to improving the ductility of concrete compared to BF. An increase in the hybrid fibre volume

15 makes the connection between the large and small fragments more evident. With respect to the HBPRC

16 with the same matrix strength, the fragments of reference concrete contain several strips. However,

17 following the addition of BF and PF, the number of strips significantly decreases because of the lateral

18 constraint effect of fibres. In addition, with increasing hybrid BF and PF volume, the fragments of the broken

19 samples are larger under the approximate strain rates, thereby indicating that the addition of BF and PF

20 increases the impact resistance of concrete. With respect to the HBPRC with different matrix strengths,

21 increasing matrix strength gradually increases the debris particles of the broken samples under the same BF

22 and PF volume and approximate strain rates, thereby indicating the increasingly evident characteristic of

23 brittle failure.

24 3.1.3. Dynamic compressive strength

25 In the SHPB test, the strain rate of HBPRC samples is yielded from the stress pulse produced by the

26 cone-shaped striker impacting the incident bar under the driving of nitrogen pressure. In the study, the

27 strain rates corresponding to the nitrogen pressure are classified into five groups: Group 1 with 0.4 MPa and

28 22–39 s−1, Group 2 with 0.6 MPa and 47–69 s−1, Group 3 with 0.8 MPa and 75–89 s−1, Group 4 with 1.0 MPa

29 and 97–117 s−1, and Group 5 with 1.2 MPa and 109–139 s−1. The variation law of dynamic compressive

9
 1 strength of HBPRC under each group of strain rates is shown in Fig. 8. The dynamic compressive strength of

2 HBPRC increases with increasing strain rate. Under the strain rate range adopted in this study, an increase in

3 the matrix strength increases the dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC with the same BF and PF volume.

4 With respect to each matrix strength grade, the dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC with BF volume of

5 0.1% is the highest at the lower strain rate. And with increasing strain rate, the HBPRC with BF and PF

6 volume of 0.1% exhibits the highest dynamic compressive strength. With increasing matrix strength grade,

7 the differences between the highest dynamic compressive strength and the dynamic compressive strength

8 of the reference concrete correspond to 6.63 MPa, 3.77 MPa, and 4.80 MPa, respectively, under the

9 minimum strain rates, and the differences are 7.16 MPa, 9.04 MPa, and 12.08 MPa, respectively, under the

10 maximum strain rates. The addition of fibre improves the strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength

11 of concrete. In addition, with respect to each matrix strength grade, the dynamic compressive strength of

12 HBPRC with hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.2% is less than that of the reference concrete under the minimum

13 strain rates. However, under the maximum strain rates, the dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC with

14 the hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.2% is greater than that of the reference concrete. The addition of hybrid

15 BF and PF increases the strain rate sensitivity of the dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC.

16

17 The dynamic increase factor (DIF) for the dynamic compressive strength is defined as the ratio of the

18 dynamic compressive strength and quasi-static compressive strength, and is typically used to quantify the

19 strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of concrete-like materials [47-49]. An accurate DIF can

20 ensure the dimensional rationality of components in dynamic structural design as well as reduce the

21 material waste [14]. The quasi-static compressive strength of HBPRC is shown in Table 3. The quasi-static

22 compressive strength of HBPRC with BF volume of 0.1% is the greatest, which can be attributed to the

23 inhibition and bridging effect of the stiffer BF on cracks. HBPRC with hybrid fibre volume reaches of 0.2%

24 exhibits the lowest quasi-static compressive strength. Because of the excessive fibre volume, the fibres are

25 unable to disperse evenly in the concrete matrix, resulting in significant deffects in the HBPRC. Fig. 9 shows

26 the DIF of HBPRC under different strain rates. It is observed that the DIF of HBPRC increases with increasing

27 strain rate. An increase in the matrix strength decreases the DIF at the same BF and PF volume. An increase

28 in the matrix strength increases the quasi-static compressive strength of HBPRC and decreases the defects

29 in concrete, thereby decreasing the strain rate sensitivity of the dynamic compressive strength [50]. With

30 respect to each matrix strength grade, under the strain rate range adopted in the study, the DIF are sized as
10
 1 follows: NC< HBPRC with single BF or PF <HBPRC with hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.1%, and < HBPRC with

2 hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.2%. When the matrix strength grade is C50, the DIF of HBPRC with single BF,

3 PF and hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.1% then exceeds that of HBPRC with hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.2%

4 under the first three groups of strain rates, whereas the DIF of HBPRC with hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.2%

5 becomes the highest under the other strain rates. In addition, with respect to each matrix strength grade,

6 the DIF of HBPRC with single BF and the one with single PF have no significant difference at the low strain

7 rates. However, the DIF of HBPRC with single PF is obviously greater than that of HBPRC with single BF at the

8 highest strain rate, indicating a higher strain rate effect for HBPRC with single PF.

9 As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the damage degree of HBPRC increases with increasing strain rate. Under low

10 strain rate, the cracks in concrete are considered to propagate in the weak region such as the interface

11 between the aggregate and cement paste and the existing pores in the reference concrete. The weak areas

12 in HBPRC increase because of the addition of fibres. The cracks in HBPRC can propagate along the interface

13 between the aggregate and cement paste and the existing pores, and can also propagate along the interface

14 between the fibres and concrete matrix, as shown in Fig. 10. However, due to the crack restraining effect of

15 fibres, the cracks in HBPRC are relatively fine and their connectivity is reduced. When the strain rate is high,

16 the cracks in the reference concrete can propagate not only along the interface between the aggregate and

17 cement paste and the existing pores but also through the coarse aggregate due to the high impact energy.

18 The dynamic compressive strength and damage degree of the reference concrete increase. For HBPRC, with

19 the increase of strain rate, the cracks propagate not only along the weak areas and through the coarse

20 aggregate, but also trough the fibres, causing the fibres to be broken gradually, as shown in Fig. 10.

21 Compared with the reference concrete, the increasing amplitude of the dynamic compressive strength of

22 HBPRC is greater, thereby leading to the greater DIF of HBPRC. Moreover, DIF of HBPRC increases with

23 increasing hybrid fibres volume. An increase in the matrix strength decreases the defects in concrete,

24 thereby decreasing the influence of strain rate on the defect propagation and, therefore, the DIF decreases.

25

26

27 The strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of concrete-like materials originates primarily

28 from the viscosity effect of free water, and the lateral inertia and crack propagation effects [13,29,47,50].

29 The viscosity effect of free water primarily affects the strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of
11
 1 concrete-like materials under a low strain rate range. To date, there is a lack of consensus on the influence

2 of the lateral inertia effect on the strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of concrete-like

3 materials. By numerical simulation, Refs. [40,51,52] found that the lateral inertia effect of concrete-like

4 materials is only evident when the strain rate exceeded 200 s−1. Refs. [11,53] confirmed the effect of the

5 lateral inertiat on the dynamic compressive strength of concrete by numerical simulation and experiment,

6 and asserted that the degree of influence depends on various factors, including strain rate, the aspect ratio

7 of samples, end-friction effect, and material composition. The crack propagation effect indicates that the

8 time for the cracks in concrete to propagate at the high strain rate is insufficient, and that the energy can

9 only be dissipated by generating more tiny cracks. The energy required for the crack formation is

10 significantly greater than that for crack propagation and the dynamic compressive strength of concrete

11 increases. Because of the inhibition effect of BF and PF on the cracks, the addition of hybrid BF and PF

12 further increases the energy required for the initiation and propagation of cracks and improves the strain

13 rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC. With increasing matrix strength, the energy required

14 for the initiation and propagation of cracks in concrete gradually increases. However, the inhibition effect of

15 BF and PF on the initiation and propagation of cracks is limited, and increasing cracks in concrete could

16 weaken the cracking inhibition effect of BF and PF, thereby decreasing the effect of hybrid BF and PF on the

17 strain rate effect of dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC. As shown in Fig. 9, the difference in the DIF of

18 all groups of HBPRC decreases with increasing matrix strength at the approximate strain rate.

19 The authoritative DIF formula proposed by the Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB) [28] is


(  d )1.026 for  d  30 s 1
 
 s
20 DIF =  (2)
  d 1/ 3
 s ( ) for  d  30 s
1

  s

21 where  d and  s are the dynamic strain rate and quasi-static strain rate of concrete, respectively, in which,

22  s = 30×10−6 s−1 ; α = 1/(5+9σs/10), σs is the quasi-static compressive strength of concrete; and γs = 10(6.156α−2).

12
 1 A comparison between the calculated DIF from Eq. (2) and the experimental results is shown in Fig. 11.

2 Irrespective of the concrete matrix strength and hybrid BF and PF volume, the strain rate effect of dynamic

3 compressive strength of HBPRC is significantly overestimated by Eq. (2), in particular under low strain rates.

4 Lu et al. [54] proposed a nonlinear uniaxial dynamic strength criterion for concrete-like materials, and

5 the DIF is expressed as follows:

6 Fmax (3)
DIF =1+
1  ( Fmax F0  1)e  (u u0 )

7 where Fmax is the increase in the amplitude of the maximum dynamic increase factor DIFmax and Fmax =

8 DIFmax−1; F0 is the increase in the amplitude of DIF at the lowest strain rate; u and u0 are the logarithm of the

9 dynamic strain rate and the lowest strain rate, respectively; and ζ is a material constant that indicates the

10 strain rate effect of the dynamic compressive strength of concrete-like materials.

11 A comparison between the fitting results of Eq. (3) and the experimental results is shown in Fig. 11. The

12 correlation coefficients R2 between the fitted results and the experimental results and the fitted results of

13 the relevant parameters are listed in Table 4. As shown in Fig. 11 and Table 4, the fitted results of Eq. (3) are

14 in good agreement with the experimental results. The fitted results of ζ indicate that ζ typically decreases

15 with increasing concrete matrix strength for all matrix strengths. The strain rate effect of the dynamic

16 compressive strength of HBPRC, as indicated by the variation in ζ, is approximately consistent with the

17 experimental results.

18 3.1.4. Toughness

19 The toughness or fracture energy of HBPRC is defined as the areas bounded by the dynamic stress–

20 strain curve [14]. The calculation indicates the variation law of the toughness of HBPRC with strain rate in

21 Fig.12. It is observed that the toughness of HBPRC increases with increasing strain rate. The toughness of

22 HBPRC with the same BF and PF volume increases with increasing matrix strength under the approximate

23 strain rate. With respect to the HBPRC with the matrix strength grade of C40 and C50, the toughness is sized

24 as follows: NC < HBPRC with single BF volume of 0.1% < HBPRC with single PF volume of 0.1% < HBPRC with

25 hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.1%, and < HBPRC with hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.2% under the

26 approximate strain rate. However, for the HBPRC with the matrix strength grade of C30, the toughness of

27 BC-30-0.1, PC-30-0.1, and BPC-30-0.1 has no significant difference with increasing strain rate.

13
 1 As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, increasing strain rate increases the number of cracks generated by concrete

2 failure and the severity of damage. With respect to the reference concrete, the energy dissipated by the

3 initiation and propagation of cracks increases. With respect to HBPRC, the bridging effect of BF and PF

4 further improves the energy required for the initiation and propagation of cracks. In addition, the fibres

5 could be pulled out or snapped during the propagation process of cracks, and this further increases the

6 energy required for HBPRC failure. Therefore, the toughness of HBPRC increases with increasing strain rate

7 and the volume of BF and PF at the approximate strain rate. With increases in the matrix strength, the

8 increasing bearing capacity of concrete matrix increases the energy absorbed by the matrix failure.

9 Furthermore, the increasing matrix strength further strengthens the bonding performance between the

10 fibres and matrix, and this is beneficial in enhancing the inhibition effect of fibres on cracks and increasing

11 the energy required for the propagation of cracks. Additionally, the energy dissipated by the pullout or

12 fracture of fibres increases with increasing bonding strength between the matrix and fibres.

13 In addition, as shown in Fig. 12, the increase amplitude of toughness of HBPRC increases with

14 increasing BF and PF volume under the same matrix strength. For example, when the matrix strength grade

15 is C30, the increase amplitudes of toughness of NC-30, BC-30-0.1, PC-30-0.1, BPC-30-0.1 and BPC-30-0.2 are

16 3.26×105 J/m3, 4.08×105 J/m3, 4.64×105 J/m3, 4.44×105 J/m3, and 5.60×105 J/m3, respectively. The increase in

17 the strain rate accelerates the propagation rate of cracks, thereby increasing the pull-out or fracture rate of

18 BF or PF. The increases in the pull-out or fracture rate of BF or PF improves the interfacial shear resistance

19 and fracture stress of fibres [55], which increases the inhibition effect of fibres on cracks and further

20 improves the energy required for the propagation of cracks and the fracture of fibres, so does the energy

21 consumption during the pull-out process of the fibres.

22 3.2. Strengthening and toughening mechanisms of BF and PF

23 PF, a type of flexible fibre with a better ductility, can inhibit the initiation of cracks in HBPRC and

24 restrict the propagation of cracks to a certain extent [15]. BF, a type of rigid fibre with a high stiffness, can

25 effectively inhibit the propagation of cracks by exerting the bridging effect during crack propagation.

26 Therefore, the addition of hybrid BF and PF can enhance the dynamic compressive strength and energy

27 absorbing capacity of concrete. However, the differences in the hydrophilic properties result in a difference

28 in bonding strengths between BF, PF, and the concrete matrix. In addition, given the different mechanical

29 properties, the failure patterns of BF and PF under dynamic loading are affected by the strain rate and

14
 1 matrix strength grade. Therefore, differences exist in the strengthening and toughening mechanisms of BF

2 and PF to concrete.

3 When the matrix strength is C30, the failure patterns of BF and PF at the strain rate of Group 1 are

4 shown in Fig. 13(a). PF exhibits a high pull-out length, which is attributed to the weak bonding strength

5 between PF and the concrete matrix because of the hydrophobicity of PF. Furthermore, BF has a high

6 stiffness, but the inconsistency of the end of BF indicates that a few BF is snapped at the low strain rate,

7 which is attributed to the high hydrophilicity of BF that increases the bonding strength between BF and the

8 concrete matrix [56]. The hydration products attached to the surface of BF also indicate an increase in the

9 bonding strength between BF and the concrete matrix. When the strain rate is up to Group 5, as shown in

10 Fig. 13(b), PF continues to exhibit a high pull-out length, but its surface damage is more serious and a small

11 amount of the hydration product is attached to the PF surface. In addition, the end morphology of PF

12 indicates a mark similar to being snapped. From the inconsistency of the end of BF, it is concluded that the

13 probability for BF to be snapped increases. Furthermore, the surface of BF remains adhered to a few

14 hydration products. The failure patterns of BF and PF indicate that increasing strain rate improves the

15 interfacial shear resistance, which results in the BF and PF exhibiting significant snapped failures.

16 When the concrete matrix strength is C50, as shown in Fig. 13(c), the pull-out length of PF remains

17 evident at the low strain rate. However, the PF surface adheres to more hydration products and exhibits a

18 few scratches. The end morphology of PF is similar to that at the high strain rate when the matrix strength is

19 C30, which indicates that PF exhibits a few snapped trends. The surface of BF adheres to a significant

20 amount of hydration products, and the end morphology also indicates that BF primarily exhibits a snapped

21 failure pattern. A comparison between Figs. 13(b) and 13(c) indicates that there seems to be an equivalent

22 effect of increasing strain rate and improving matrix strength on the dynamic failure patterns of BF and PF.

23 When the strain rate is up to Group 5, the pull-out length of PF is still evident; however, the end

24 morphology indicates that PF exhibits a clear snapped failure pattern. Specifically, BF is snapped more

25 seriously, and the surface of BF also appears damaged to a certain extent.

26 In summary, at the low strain rate, the pull-out probability of BF and PF exceeds that at the high strain

27 rate. The results of a previous study [57] indicated that the polyvinyl alcohol fibre is primarily pulled out at

28 the low strain rate and snapped at the high strain rate, which is similar to the relationship between the

29 failure patterns of BF and PF and the strain rate in this study. Typically, the energy dissipated by fibre pull-

15
 1 out significantly exceeds that of fibre breakage [58]. The results of this study indicate that PF exhibits a large

2 pull-out length in both the pull-out and fracture cases. However, the pull-out length of BF appears to be

3 significantly limited. The higher stiffness of BF and the stronger bonding performance between BF and

4 concrete matrix are advantageous in terms of improving the concrete strength. As a result, the hybrid BF

5 and PF will not only improve the strength of concrete, but also improve the toughness of concrete.

7 4. Dynamic damage constitutive model

8 4.1. Viscoelastic dynamic constitutive model

9 The strain rate effect is a characteristic of viscoelastic materials. Therefore, HBPRC is considered as a

10 type of viscoelastic material in which stress is closely related to the loading history. The functional form of

11 the current stress and strain of HBPRC is expressed as follows [59,60]:

12 σ (t )  ψ s=-
t
 (ε ( s )) (4)

13 where σ(t) is the stress tensor at time t; ε(s) is the strain history tensor; ψ is a tensor functional describing

14 the effect of strain history on stress.

15 It is assumed that s = t−τ, and the following equation is obtained by performing the Taylor series

16 expansion of Eq. (4):

σ (t )  ψ s=-  (ε ( s ))=ψ s=- (ε(t   ))  ψ (ε(t ))   ψ (ε(t )  (ε(t  s )  ε(t )))  o  (ε(t  s )  ε(t )) (5)
t t
17

18 where τ is the time history variable;  ψ(ε(t )  (ε(t  s)  ε(t))) is the function of stress tensor caused by

19 strain difference history; o  (ε(t  s)  ε(t )) represents the higher order infinitesimal of norm of strain

20 difference history.

21 When the strain difference history is sufficiently low, Eq. (5) is approximately simplified as follows:

22 σ (t )  ψ (ε(t ))   ψ (ε(t )  (ε(t  s)  ε(t )))=σ e  σ ev (6)

23 where σe and σev are the elastic and viscoelastic stress tensors of the viscoelastic materials, respectively.

16
 1 It is assumed that a particle of HBPRC is located in X before deformation and located in x after

2 deformation. The deformation gradient tensor G of the particle is defined as follows:

x
3 G (7)
X

4 where X, x is the coordinate of HBPRC particle in the reference and current configuration, respectively.

5 Under uniaxial loading, the elongation ratio of HBPRC samples in the three principal directions is

6 assumed as

1 =
7  (8)

 2 3
= = k

8 where k is a constant determined by the compressibility of HBPRC.

9 Based on Eqs. (7) and (8), the deformation gradient tensor, the left and right Cauchy–Green

10 deformation tensors L and R of the HBRC particle are expressed as follows:

 0 0   2 0 0 
   
11 G  0  k 0  , L  R  G  G T  0  2k 0  (9)
0 0  k  0 0  2k 
   

12 where λ is the stretch in the principal direction, and λ = 1−ε.

13 The three strain invariants of L are as follows:

14 I1  tr(L)   2  2 2k

1
15 I2  （ tr(L)）2 -tr(L2 )   2 2k+2   4k (10)
2

16 I 3  J 2  det(L)   4k+2

17 where J is the Jacobian determinant of G.

18 Based on the second law of thermodynamics, in an isothermal condition, the energy dissipation rate of

19 HBPRC per unit mass is as follows:

20 J  σ  Z  E  J (σ e  σ ev )  E  0 (11)
17
 1 where E is the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass: E = Ee(ε(t)) + Eev(ε(t); ε(t−τ)), in which, Ee is the elastic

2 Helmholtz free energy; Eev is the viscoelastic Helmholtz free energy; and Z is the deformation rate tensor,

1 1 1 T
T

3 Z  G  G  (G )  G .
2 

4 In Eq. (11), Ee (ε(t)) denotes the function of three strain invariants of L , i.e.,

Ee E E  E E E 
5 e ε( t ) ）
E（  E（
e I1 , I 2 , I 3）= I1  e I 2  e I 3  2  e L  e ( I1L  L2 )  e I 3  Z (12)
I1 I 2 I 3  I1 I 2 I 3 

6 The time differential of the viscoelastic Helmholtz free energy is as follows:

Eev  dε( t   ) 
Eev（ε( t ) , ε( t   )）= ε( t )  Eev ε( t ), ε( t   )
ε( t )  dt 
7 (13)
E  dε( t   ) 
 Z ev GG T   Eev ε( t ), ε( t   )
ε( t )  dt 

8 From Eqs. (11), (12), and (13), the following equation is obtained:

  Ee E E    E 
Jσ e  2  L  e ( I1L  L2 )  e I 3   Z + Jσ ev  ev GG T  Z
  I1 I 2 I 3    ε( t ) 
9 (14)
 dε( t   ) 
  Eev ε( t ), ε( t   ) 0
 dt 

10 Eq. (14) is applicable for an arbitrary Z, and this results in the following expression:

2  E E E 
11 σ e =  e L  e ( I1L  L2 )  e I 3  (15)
J  I1 I 2 I 3 

1 Eev
12 σ ev = GG T (16)
J ε( t )

13 Based on the study results of Mooney–Rivlin [61], the elastic Helmholtz free energy of HBPRC is

14 expressed as follows:

1
15 Ee =A1 ( I1 -3)+A2 ( I 2 -3)+ (J  1) 2 (17)
A3

18
 1 where A1, A2, and A3 are the relevant parameters.

2 The elastic stress of HBPRC is calculated by submitting Eq. (17) into Eq. (15), i.e.,

2 I 1 
3 σ e =  A1L  A2 ( I1L  L2 )  3 ( 1- )  (18)
J  A3 I 3 

4 Under uniaxial loading, Eq. (18) is transformed into

2( 2k 1  1)
5  e =2 A1 1-2k  4 A2   (19)
A3

6 With respect to the viscoelastic stress, the most ideal expression involves characterising the

7 mechanical behaviour of materials with fewer parameters. Based on the study results of Ref. [62], the

8 derivative of the viscoelastic strain energy adopted in this study is as follows:

Eev t 
  A4  A5 ( I 2  3)  A6 ( I 3  3)   exp(
t
9 ) ε(  ) d (20)
ε( t ) 0 

10 where A4, A5, and A6 are the relevant parameters; θ is the relaxation time.

11 Under the uniaxial loading with a constant strain rate, the following equation is obtained from Eqs. (16)

12 and (20):

  
 ev = 1-2k  A4  A5 (2 2k  2   4k  3)  A6 ( 4k+2  3)    1  exp( )
   
13 (21)
  
=  A4  1-2k +A5 (2 3   1+2k  3 1-2k )+A6 ( 3+2k  3 1-2k )    1  exp( )
   

14 The viscoelastic dynamic constitutive model for HBPRC is obtained from Eqs. (6), (19), and (21) as

15 follows:

2( 2k 1  1)
 =2 A1 1-2k  4 A2 
A3
16 (22)
  
+    A4  1-2k +A5 (2 3   1+2k  3 1-2k )+A6 ( 3+2k  3 1-2k )  1  exp( ) 
   

19
 1 4.2. Damage evolution equation

2 The damage development of concrete-like materials can be essentially attributed to the initiation,

3 propagation, and mutual penetration of cracks. The density of cracks in concrete macroscopically obeys the

4 form of probability distribution. In this study, the density of cracks in HBPRC is assumed to obey the Weibull

5 distribution [63-68] as follows:

cd =m    cr
n
6 (23)

7 where cd is the number of cracks that are activated under the principal strain ε; εcr is the threshold strain

8 where the cracks are activated; m and n are the material constants characterising the cracks activity; and
( x  x)
9 x is the Macaulay function, x = .
2

10 Under continuous loading, new cracks are continuously generated in HBPRC. The number of cracks

11 generated under a strain increment dε is as follows:

dcd =mn    cr d (24)

n-1
12

13 At time t, the volume of cracks in HBPRC is determined by the propagation velocity and the

14 propagation time of cracks [64] as follows:

4 4
15 V =  r 3   cg 3 (t  tcr )3 (25)
3 3

16 where V is the spherical zone occupied by the cracks with equivalent radius of r; cg is the propagation

17 velocity of cracks, which is assumed as constant in this study; and tcr is the initiation time of cracks.

18 At time t, the equivalent volume occupied by the cumulative cracks in HBPRC is expressed as follows:

4 t
C =  Vdcd dt   cg 3  mn    cr  (t  tcr )3 dtcr (26)
n-1
19
3 0

20 For the ease of calculation, the fine cracks are considered as being in existence before loading (the

21 pores in HBPRC can also be regarded as the original fine cracks). The threshold strain εcr is assumed as zero,

22 i.e. tcr = 0. In addition, the representative dynamic strain rate is regarded as be constant during the dynamic

23 compressive test, i.e. ε =  t. Accordingly, Eq. (26) is transformed into

20
 4 n
t 4 n
t n 3
C =  mncg 3   (t  tcr ) n  2 dtcr   mncg 3 
3 0 3 n3
1 (27)
4 n
 n 3
4 3 
n 3
a b
  mncg  n+3 
3
 mncg 3  3
3(n  3) 3(n  3)
  

4
2 where a   mncg 3 , b = n+3.
3(n  3)

3 With respect to rock and similar materials, the fracture probability is assumed as the damage variable

4 [67-69]. The damage variable of HBPRC under dynamic compressive loading is considered as the fracture

5 probability,

a b
 3

6 D =1-e  C  1  e 
(28)

7 From Eqs. (28) and (22), the dynamic damage constitutive model for HBPRC is obtained as follows:

a b
 3
2( 2k 1  1)
 =e 
[2 A1 1-2k
 4 A2   ]
A3
8 a b
(29)
 3     

   A4  +A5 (2    3 1-2k )+A6 ( 3+2k  3 1-2k )  1  exp( )
1-2k 3 1+2k
+e
     

9 4.3. Verification of model

10 We consider the HBPRC with a matrix strength of C30 and hybrid BF and PF as an example, and the

11 parameter values of the dynamic damage constitutive model obtained by the nonlinear curve fitting of least

12 square method are listed in Table 5. Fig. 14 shows a comparison of the calculated results of the dynamic

13 damage constitutive model and the experimental results. As shown in Fig. 14, the calculated results of the

14 dynamic damage constitutive model are in good agreement with the experimental results during the

15 complete dynamic compressive loading process, thereby indicating that the proposed dynamic damage

16 constitutive model effectively characterises the dynamic compressive behaviour of HBPRC. The proposed

17 dynamic damage constitutive model for HBPRC in this study corresponds to a good theoretical basis and

18 acts to promote the existing dynamic constitutive models that primarily correspond to empirical or semi-

19 empirical constitutive equations for concrete-like materials. The dynamic constitutive curves of HBPRC are

21
 1 similar to those of other concrete-like materials and, therefore, the proposed dynamic damage constitutive

2 model in this study can be used to simulate the dynamic compressive mechanical properties of other

3 concrete-like materials.

5 5. Conclusions

6 The primary aim of this study was to examine the effect of hybrid BF and PF on the dynamic

7 compressive behaviour of concrete. The effects of the volume of BF and PF and the concrete matrix strength

8 on the dynamic compressive strength and toughness of HBPRC were analysed. A dynamic damage

9 constitutive model for HBPRC was proposed. Based on the study results, the following conclusions are

10 drawn:

11 (1) The dynamic compressive strength and DIF of HBPRC increase with increasing strain rate. At
12 the approximate strain rate, the dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC with the same
13 volume of BF and PF increases with increasing matrix strength; however, the DIF decreases
14 with increasing matrix strength. With respect to the HBPRC with the same matrix strength, a
15 hybrid BF and PF volume of 0.1% increases the dynamic compressive strength, but a volume
16 of 0.2% decreases the dynamic compressive strength. The DIF of HBPRC increases with
17 increasing hybrid BF and PF volume.
18 (2) The toughness of HBPRC with the same volume of BF and PF increases with increasing strain
19 rate and matrix strength. The addition of hybrid BF and PF significantly improves the
20 toughness of HBPRC. The increase amplitude of toughness increases with inceasing hybrid
21 BF and PF volume.
22 (3) The results of the microscopic test indicated that increases in the strain rate and matrix
23 strength increased the fracture probability of BF and PF. With respect to the effect of fibres
24 on the dynamic mechanical properties of HBPRC, BF primarily improved the strength while
25 PF primarily increased energy dissipation.
26 (4) A dynamic damage constitutive model was proposed based on the viscoelastic mechanics,
27 continuum media theory and statistical damage theory. The high degree of agreement
28 between the fitted results of the dynamic damage constitutive model and the experimental
29 results indicated that the proposed dynamic damage constitutive model effectively
30 characterised the dynamic constitutive response of HBPRC.

31 The current work provides a systematic study on the dynamic constitutive response of HBPRC, whereas

32 some further work is needed. First, this study focuses on the uniaxial loading. However, in practical

33 application, HBPRC is often in the state of triaxial stress. The dynamic triaxial mechanical properties of

22
 1 HBPRC should be systematically investigated. Second, in this study, the proposed dynamic constitutive

2 model for HBPRC is a viscoelastic model, and does not capture the plastic deformation and shear behaviour

3 of HBPRC under high pressure. A comprehensive dynamic triaxial constitutive model involving the

4 complicated deformation mechanism of HBPRC should be proposed to improve the description of the

5 dynamic triaxial behaviour of HBPRC in the future work.

7 Acknowledgements

8 The authors would like to acknowledge the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant NO.

9 51590914, 51608432 and 51808438), Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (Grant NO. 2019JQ-

10 481), the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (Grant NO. 2016BSHEDZZ81) and Program

11 for Innovative Research Team in University of Ministry of Education of China (Grant NO. IRT17R84).

12 References

13 [1] Yoo DY, Banthia N. Impact resistance of fiber-reinforced concrete-A review. Cem Concr Compos

14 2019;104:103389.

15 [2] Ma H, Yue C, Yu H, Mei Q, Chen L, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Jiang X. Experimental study and numerical simulation

16 of impact compression mechanical properties of high strength coral aggregate seawater concrete. Int J

17 Impact Eng 2020;137:103466.

18 [3] Yoo DY, Banthia N. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete: A review.

19 Cem Concr Compos 2016;73:267-80.

20 [4] Yoo DY, Yoon YS, Banthia N. Flexural response of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete beams: Effects of

21 strength, fiber content, and strain-rate. Cem Concr Compos 2015;64:84-92.

22 [5] Chen Y, Ding D, Zhu C, Zhao J, Rabczuk T. Size- and edge-effect cohesive energy and shear strength

23 between grapheme, carbon nanotubes and nanofibers: Continuum modeling and molecular dynamics

24 simulations. Compos Struct 2019;208:150-67.

25 [6] Shishegaran A, Daneshpajoh F, Taghavizade H, Mirvalad S. Developing conductive concrete containing

26 wire rope and steel powder wastes for route deicing. Constr Build Mater 2020;232:117184.

23
 1 [7] Wu H, Lin X, Zhou A. A review of mechanical properties of fibre reinforced concrete at elevated

2 temperatures. Cem Concr Res 2020;135:106117.

3 [8] Meson VM, Michel A, Solgaard A, Fisher G, Edvardsen C, Skovhus TL. Corrosion resistance of steel fibre

4 reinforced concrete-A literature review. Cem Concr Res 2018;103:1-20.

5 [9] Zhang C, Zhao J, Rabczuk T. The interface strength and delamination of fiber-reinforced composites using

6 a continuum modeling approach. Compos Part B Eng 2018;137:225-34.

7 [10] Walton PL, Majumdar AJ. Cement-based composites with mixtures of different types of fibres. Compos

8 1975; 6(5):209-16.

9 [11] Hao Y, Hao H, Jiang GP, Zhou Y. Experimental confirmation of some factors influencing dynamic

10 concrete compressive strength in high-speed impact tests. Cem Concr Res 2013;52:63-70.

11 [12] Li WG, Luo ZY, Long C, Wu CQ, Duan WH, Shah SP. Effects of nanoparticle on the dynamic behaviors of

12 recycled aggregate concrete under impact loading. Mater Des 2016;112:58-66.

13 [13] Xiao JZ, Li L, Shen LM, Poon CS. Compressive behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete under impact

14 loading. Cem Concr Res 2015;71:46-55.

15 [14] Wu ZM, Shi CJ, He W, Wang DH. Static and dynamic compressive properties of ultra-high performance

16 concrete (UHPC) with hybrid steel fiber reinforcements. Cem Concr Compos 2017;79:148-57.

17 [15] Chi Y, Xu LH, Zhang YY. Experimental study on hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete subjected to uniaxial

18 compression. J Mater Civ Eng 2014;26(2):211-8.

19 [16] Soufeiani L, Raman SN, Jumaat MZB, Alengaram UJ, Ghadyani G, Mendis P. Influences of the volume

20 fraction and shape of steel fibers on fiber-reinforced concrete subjected to dynamic loading-A review.

21 Eng Struct 2016;124:405-17.

22 [17] Branston J, Das S, Kenno SY, Taylor C. Mechanical behaviour of basalt fibre reinforced concrete. Constr

23 Build Mater 2016;124:878-86.

24 [18] Lyer P, Kenno SY, Das S. Mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced concrete made with basalt filament

25 fibers. J Mater Civ Eng 2015;27(11):04015015.

24
 1 [19] Buendía AML, Sánchez MDR, Climent V, Guillem C. Surface treated polypropylene (PP) fibres for

2 reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res 2013;54:29-35.

3 [20] Qian CX, Stroeven P. Development of hybrid polypropylene-steel fibre-reinforced concrete. Cem Concr

4 Res 2000;30(1):63-9.

5 [21] Li WM, Xu JY, Shen LJ, Li Q. Dynamic mechanical properties of basalt fiber reinforced concrete using a

6 split Hopkinson pressure bar. Act Mater Compos Sin 2008;25(2):135-42.

7 [22] Zhang H, Wang B, Xie A, Qi Y. Experimental study on dynamic mechanical properties and constitutive

8 model of basalt fiber reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater 2017;152:154-67.

9 [23] Li WM, Xu JY. Impact characterization of basalt fiber reinforced geopolymeric concrete using a 100-mm-

10 diameter split Hopkinson pressure bar. Mater Sci Eng A 2009;513-514:145-53.

11 [24] Li WM, Xu JY. Mechanical properties of basalt fiber reinforced geopolymeric concrete under impact

12 loading. Mater Sci Eng A 2009;505:178-86.

13 [25] Zhang H, Gao YW, Li F, Lu F. Experimental study on dynamic properties and constitutive model of

14 polypropylene fiber concrete under high strain rate. J Cent Sout Univ (Sci Tech) 2013;44(8):3464-73.

15 [26] Hu JS, Yang XM, Zhou ZS, Tang DG. Experimental study on tenacity increase characteristics of steel fiber

16 reinforced concrete and polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete under impact load. J Build Struct

17 2005;26(2): 101-5.

18 [27] Chen XD, Wu SX, Zhou JK. Experimental and modeling study of dynamic mechanical properties of

19 cement paste, mortar and concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:419-30.

20 [28] Salloum YA, Almusallam T, Ibrahim SM, Abbas H, Alsayed S. Rate dependent behavior and modeling of

21 concrete based on SHPB experiments. Cem Concr Compos 2015;55:34-44.

22 [29] Lai JZ, Sun W. Dynamic behaviour and visco-elastic damage model of ultra-high performance

23 cementitious composite. Cem Concr Res 2009;39(11):1044-51.

24 [30] Shishegaran A, Khalili MR, Karami B, Rabczuk T, Shishegaran A. Computational predictions for

25 estimating the maximum deflection of reinforced concrete panels subjected to the blast load. Int J

26 Impact Eng 2020;139:103527.

25
 1 [31] Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Modelling dynamic failure of concrete with meshfree methods. Int J Impact Eng

2 2006;32(11):1878-97.

3 [32] Rabczuk T, Samaniego E, Belytschko T. Simplified model for predicting impulsive loads on submerged

4 structures to account for fluid-structure interaction. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(2):163-77.

5 [33] Gui YL, Bui HH, Kodikara J, Zhang QB, Zhao J, Rabczuk T. Modelling the dynamic failure of brittle rocks

6 using a hubrid continuum-discrete element method with a mixed-mode cohesive fracture model. Int J

7 Impact Eng 2016;87:146-55.

8 [34] Rabczuk T, Song JH. Preface to SI: Experimental testing and computational modeling of dynamic

9 fracture. Int J Impact Eng 2016;87:2.

10 [35] Shishegaran A, Ghasemi MR, Varaee H. Performance of a novel bent-up bars system not interacting

11 with concrete. Front Struct Civ Eng 2019;13(6):1301-15.

12 [36] Shishegaran A, Saeedi M, Kumar A, Ghiasinejad H. Prediction of air quality in Tehran by developing the

13 nonlinear ensemble model. J Clean Prod 2020;259:120825.

14 [37] Niu D, Li D, Fu Q. A 3D-IFU model for characterising the pore structures of hybrid fibre-reinforced

15 concrete. Mater Des 2020;188:108473.

16 [38] Li QM, Meng H. About the dynamic strength enhancement of concrete-like materials in a split

17 Hopkinson pressure bar test. Int J Solids Struct 2003;40(2):343-60.

18 [39] Zhou J, Wang S, Qian P, Shao X, Fang Y. Comparison and construction of the models of the dynamic

19 increase factor for concrete. Concr 2014;11:5-10.

20 [40] Chinese National Standard. Test method of mechanical properties on ordinary concrete, GB/T 50081-

21 2002. Beijing, China; 2002.

22 [41] Fu Q, Xie Y, Long G, Niu D, Song H, Liu X. Impact characterization and modelling of cement and asphalt

23 mortar based on SHPB experiments. Int J Impact Eng 2017;106:44-52.

24 [42] Hou X, Cao S, Zheng W, Rong Q, Li G. Experimental study on dynamic compressive properties of fiber-

25 reinforced reactive powder concrete at high strain rates. Eng Struct 2018;169:119-30.

26
 1 [43] Xiao J, Shu DW, Wang XJ. Effect of strain rate and temperature on the mechanical behavior of

2 magnesium nanocomposites. Int J Mech Sci 2014;89:381-90.

3 [44] Miao YG, Li YL, Liu HY, Deng Q, Shen L, et al. Determination of dynamic elastic modulus of polymeric

4 materials using vertical split Hopkinson pressure bar. Int J Mech Sci 2016;108-109:1881-96.

5 [45] Wang ZL, Liu YS, Shen RF. Stress-strain relationship of steel fiber-reinforced concrete under dynamic

6 compression. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(5):811-9.

7 [46] Wang ZL, Shi ZM, Wang JG. On the strength and toughness properties of SFRC under static-dynamic

8 compression. Compos Part B Eng 2011;42(5):1285-90.

9 [47] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Moisture and strain rate effects on concrete strength.

10 ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):293-300.

11 [48] Wu W, Zhang WD, Ma GW. Mechanical properties of copper slag reinforced concrete under dynamic

12 compression. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(6):910-7.

13 [49] Zhou XQ, Hao H. Modelling of compressive behaviour of concrete-like materials at high strain rate. Int J

14 Solids Struct 2008;45(17):4648-61.

15 [50] Bischoff PH, Perry SH. Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates. Mater Struct

16 1991;24(6):425-50.

17 [51] Zhang M, Hu HJ, Li QM, Huang FL. Experimental study of compressive strength of mortar using SHPB.

18 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on shock and impact loads on structures, Beijing,

19 China; 2007. p. 707-14.

20 [52] Hao Y, Hao H, Li ZX. Numerical analysis of lateral inertial confinement effects on impact test of concrete

21 compressive material properties. Int J Prot Struct 2010;1(1):145-67.

22 [53] Cotsovos D, Pavlović M. Numerical investigation of concrete subjected to compressive impact loading:

23 Part 1: a fundamental explanation for the apparent strength gain at high loading rates. Comput Struct

24 2008;86(1):145-63.

25 [54] Lu D, Wang G, Du X, Wang Y. A nonlinear dynamic uniaxial strength criterion that considers the ultimate

26 dynamic strength of concrete. Int J Impact Eng 2017;103:124-37.

27
 1 [55] Boshoff WP, Mechtcherine V, Zijl GPAG. Characterising the time-dependant behaviour on the single

2 fibre level of SHCC: Part 2: The rate effects on fibre pull-out tests. Cem Concr Res 2009;39(9):787-97.

3 [56] Sim JS, Park CW, Moon DY. Characteristics of basalt fiber as a strengthening material for concrete

4 structures. Compos Part B Eng 2005;36(6-7):504-12.

5 [57] Mechtcherine V, Silva FDA, Müller S, Jun P, Filho RDT. Coupled strain rate and temperature effects on

6 the tensile behavior of strain-hardening cement-based composites (SHCC) with PVA fibers. Cem Concr

7 Res 2012;42(11):1417-27.

8 [58] Chen Z, Yang Y, Yao Y. Quasi-static and dynamic compressive mechanical properties of engineered

9 cementitious composite incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag. Mater Des 2013;44:500-8.

10 [59] Noll W. A mathematical theory of the mechanical behavior of continuous media. Arch Ration Mech An

11 1958;2:197-226.

12 [60] Hu W, Guo H, Chen Y, Xie R, Jing H, He P. Experimental investigation and modeling of the rate-

13 dependent deformation behavior of PMMA at different temperatures. Eur Polym J 2016;85:313-23.

14 [61] Mooney MJ. A theory of large elastic deformation. J Appl Phys 1940;11(6):582-92.

15 [62] Yang LM, Shim VPM, Lim CT. A visco-hyperelastic approach to modelling the constitutive behaviour of

16 rubber. Int J Impact Eng 2000;24(6-7):545-60.

17 [63] Zhang Y, Lu Y, Ma G. Investigation of dynamic response of brittle materials under high-rate loading.

18 Mech Res Commun 2006;33(3):359-69.

19 [64] Zhang Y, Hao H, Lu Y. Anisotropic dynamic damage and fragmentation of rock materials under explosive

20 loading. Int J Eng Sci 2003;41(9):917-29.

21 [65] Lu Y, Xu K. Modelling of dynamic behaviour of concrete materials under blast loading. Int J solids Struct

22 2004;41(1):131-43.

23 [66] Yang Y, Bawden WF, Katsabanis PD. A new constitutive model for blast damage. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci

24 1996;33(3):245-254.

28
 1 [67] Zhang YQ, Lu Y, Hao H. Analysis of fragment size and ejection velocity at high strain rate. Int J Mech Sci

2 2004;46(1):27-34.

3 [68] Liu HY, Lv SR, Zhang LM, Yuan XP. A dynamic damage constitutive model for a rock mass with persistent

4 joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2015;75:132-9.

5 [69] Liu L, Katsabanis PD. Development of a continuum damage model for blasting analysis. Int J Rock Mech

6 Min Sci 1997;34(2):217-31.

8 Fig. 1. Morphologies of (a) basalt fibre and (b) polypropylene fibre.

9 Fig. 2. Schematic of SHPB system.

10 Fig. 3. Stress equilibrium checks of (a-c) NC-30 at 133 s-1, BPC-30-0.1 at 122 s-1 and BPC-30-0.2 at 118 s-1,

11 respectively, (d-f) NC-40 at 121 s-1, BPC-40-0.1 at 117 s-1 and BPC-40-0.2 at 115 s-1, respectively, and (g-i) NC-

12 50 at 139 s-1, BPC-50-0.1 at 127 s-1 and BPC-50-0.2 at 122 s-1, respectively.

13 Fig. 4. Sketch map of determining dynamic strain rate.

14 Fig. 5. Dynamic compressive stress-strain curves of HBPRC under different strain rates. (a-e) The stress-
15 strain curves of NC-30, BC-30-0.1, PC-30-0.1, BPC-30-0.1 and BPC-30-0.2, respectively, (f-j) the stress-strain
16 curves of NC-40, BC-40-0.1, PC-40-0.1, BPC-40-0.1 and BPC-40-0.2, respectively, and (k-o) the stress-strain
17 curves of NC-50, BC-50-0.1, PC-50-0.1, BPC-50-0.1 and BPC-50-0.2, respectively.

18 Fig. 6. Representative failure patterns of (a-c) NC-30 at 31 s-1, 89 s-1 and 133 s-1, respectively, (d-f) BC-30-0.1
19 at 39 s-1, 80 s-1 and 121 s-1, respectively, (g-i) PC-30-0.1 at 39 s-1, 80 s-1 and 123 s-1, respectively, (j-l) BPC-30-
20 0.1 at 37 s-1, 89 s-1 and 122 s-1, respectively, and (m-o) BPC-30-0.2 at 33 s-1, 84 s-1 and 118 s-1, respectively.

21 Fig. 7. Representative failure patterns of (a-c) NC-50 at 23 s-1, 81 s-1 and 139 s-1, respectively, (d-f) BC-50-0.1
22 at 26 s-1, 82 s-1 and 129 s-1, respectively, (g-i) PC-50-0.1 at 22 s-1, 79 s-1 and 125 s-1, respectively, (j-l) BPC-50-
23 0.1 at 31 s-1, 86 s-1 and 127 s-1, respectively, and (m-o) BPC-50-0.2 at 34 s-1, 79 s-1 and 122 s-1, respectively.

24 Fig. 8. Variation law of dynamic compressive strength of HBPRC with strain rates.

25 Fig. 9. Variation law of DIF of HBPRC with matrix strength of (a) C30, (b) C40 and (c) C50 with strain rates.

26 Fig. 10. Schematic of cracks propagation in weak region.

29
 1 Fig. 11. Comparison between the DIF recommendations and the experimental results. (a) HBPRC with a
2 matrix strength of C30, (b) HBPRC with a matrix strength of C40 and (c) HBPRC with a matrix strength of
3 C50.

4 Fig. 12. Variation law of toughness of HBPRC with matrix strength of (a) C30, (b) C40 and (c) C50 with strain
5 rates.

6 Fig. 13. Failure morphology of BF and PF in HBPRC with different matrix strength under different strain
7 rates. (a-b) PF and BF in HBPRC with a matrix strength grade of C30 under the strain rate of Group 1,
8 respectively, (c-d) PF in HBPRC with a matrix strength grade of C30 under the strain rate of Group 5, (e) BF in
9 HBPRC with a matrix strength grade of C30 under the strain rate of Group 5, (f-g) PF and BF in HBPRC with a
10 matrix strength grade of C50 under the strain rate of Group 1, respectively, (h) PF and BF in HBPRC with a
11 matrix strength grade of C50 under the strain rate of Group 5 and (i) a further magnifying observation of PF
12 in (h).

13 Fig. 14. Comparison between the calculated and experimental dynamic compressive stress‒strain curves of
14 HBPRC With a matrix strength grade of C30. (a) NC-30, (b) BPC-30-0.1 and (c) BPC-30-0.2.

15

16

17

18 Table 1. Chemical composition of binder.

Composition
C SF FA GABS
(wt. %)

SiO2 21.18 85.04 35.71 34.65

Al2O3 5.02 0.97 16.57 14.21

Fe2O3 3.14 1.04 8.92 0.49

CaO 63.42 1.63 21.14 34.11

MgO 3.12 0.32 1.41 11.15

SO3 2.3 ― 1.94 1

Other 1.82 10 12.49 3.74

19

20

21 Table 2. Mix proportions of concretes (kg/m3).

30
 Mixture BF PF C W SF FA GGBS S CA PBS

NC-30 0 0

BC-30-0.1 2.56 0

PC-30-0.1 0 0.91 234.2 161 22 73.2 36.6 683 1162.9 3.66

BPC-30-0.1 1.28 0.455

BPC-30-0.2 2.56 0.91

NC-40 0 0

BC-40-0.1 2.56 0

PC-40-0.1 0 0.91 241.6 150.5 15.8 79.2 59.4 683.4 1163.6 3.96

BPC-40-0.1 1.28 0.455

BPC-40-0.2 2.56 0.91

NC-50 0 0

BC-50-0.1 2.56 0

PC-50-0.1 0 0.91 333.1 140 29 48.3 72.4 774.1 1026.1 4.83

BPC-50-0.1 1.28 0.455

BPC-50-0.2 2.56 0.91

2 Table 3. The quasi-static compressive strength of HBPRC (MPa).

Type NC-30 BC-30-0.1 PC-30-0.1 BPC-30-0.1 BPC-30-0.2

Quasi-static
30.79 33.84 31.31 32.31 26.51
compressive strength

Type NC-40 BC-40-0.1 PC-40-0.1 BPC-40-0.1 BPC-40-0.2

Quasi-static
35.76 38.17 35.83 36.53 29.95
compressive strength

Type NC-50 BC-50-0.1 PC-50-0.1 BPC-50-0.1 BPC-50-0.2

Quasi-static
48.99 50.64 48.23 49.97 44.75
compressive strength

4 Table 4. The fitted values of parameters in Eq. (3).

Type NC-30 BC-30-0.1 PC-30-0.1 BPC-30-0.1 BPC-30-0.2

Fmax 3.0863 1.0767 1.1375 2.6586 2.7689

ζ 4.4793 5.7306 7.2808 4.5043 4.6661

31
 2
R 0.9804 0.9912 0.9952 0.9635 0.9967

Type NC-40 BC-40-0.1 PC-40-0.1 BPC-40-0.1 BPC-40-0.2

Fmax 3.3129 1.4252 1.3350 3.4856 3.5968

ζ 4.9870 5.5397 6.8453 4.2836 4.3510

2
R 0.9635 0.9742 0.9930 0.9891 0.9929

Type NC-50 BC-50-0.1 PC-50-0.1 BPC-50-0.1 BPC-50-0.2

Fmax 3.1852 0.8982 2.5416 3.3218 3.5083

ζ 3.8808 5.3578 3.0988 3.9064 4.9257

2
R 0.9910 0.9897 0.9634 0.9795 0.9626

2 Table 5. The fitted values of parameters of the proposed dynamic damage constitutive model.

Materials  (s-1) A1(MPa) A2(MPa) A3(MPa) A4(MPa) A5(MPa) A6(MPa) a b k θ (s)

31 -2.5073 1.2536 4.535E-2 1.4355E6 2.37635E5 7.11984E5 4.57756E8 1.8694 -9.6925 8.8813E-6

67 -2.2418 1.1209 2.8333 5.6727E6 2.57606E6 2.82121E6 3.21825E10 2.3833 -1.6986 3.7894E-6

NC-30 89 -2.2491 1.1246 1.1128 6.3472E5 4.50362E5 3.02856E5 1.71427E11 2.6262 -4.6219 5.1840E-6

105 -2.2474 1.1237 5.06E-3 4.4483E5 2.36080E5 2.04750E5 6.56223E11 2.7221 -4.4927 5.8323E-6

133 0.3279 -0.1640 9.51E-3 6.1151E5 2.75643E5 2.78851E5 3.14025E11 2.5519 -7.4793 2.2634E-6

37 -1.8974 0.9539 -8.4624E-4 5.7966E5 2.90580E4 2.91703E5 8.03249E12 4.2145 6.1654 7.2286E-5

64 -2.2535 1.1268 4.3735E-1 5.1745E5 4.85916E5 2.45313E5 7.49330E9 2.2293 -4.6006 6.3218E-6

BPC-30-0.1 89 -2.2190 1.1095 8.8921E6 6.0771E5 9.70743E4 2.87701E5 1.03161E11 2.6752 -2.5899 1.2723E-5

107 -2.2268 1.1134 6.7174E2 5.0834E5 3.00819E5 2.36676E5 6.44001E12 3.6294 -0.8995 1.3919E-5

122 -2.2160 1.1080 3.32E-2 6.3662E7 1.55878E6 3.17785E7 2.59381E10 2.1295 -0.8948 1.5451E-6

33 -2.2498 1.1249 2.6763E-4 6.1588E5 7.33467E6 3.01856E5 -6.23818E5 0.4717 -0.4863 2.9092E-5

69 -2.2429 1.1214 1.0758E8 5.0363E5 2.70606E5 2.43581E5 4.65061E8 1.5983 -3.1274 1.3602E-5

BPC-30-0.2 84 -1.8300 0.9150 -1.7551E-5 1.1824E6 5.67212E7 5.66780E5 6.41096E9 2.1895 -0.7506 6.4472E-6

109 -2.2493 1.1246 3.5787E-5 4.0435E5 7.07761E5 1.94534E5 1.44719E9 1.5698 -0.5831 1.0956E-5

118 -2.2385 1.1243 5.36E-3 9.5273E4 3.05612E5 1.70053E4 7.80938E9 1.9610 -5.4269 2.9525E-6

32