ISSN 0025-6544, Mechanics of Solids, 2023, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 1378–1394. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2023.

Dynamic Response of Concrete Subjected to High Rate

of Loading: a Parametric Study
Mohammad Mohsin Khana,* and Mohd Ashraf Iqbala,**
a
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, 247667 India
*e-mail: mkhan@ce.iitr.ac.in
**e-mail: iqbalfce@iitr.ac.in
Received June 1, 2023; revised June 10, 2023; accepted June 11, 2023

Abstract—The present study focused on the numerical validation of the experimental study performed
by Hao et al [1] on the concrete by using the SHPB apparatus with the help of ANSYS/Explicit
dynamics code based on the finite element method. The validation performed at 7.5 m/s striker impact
velocity, which further increased up to 27 m/s to varying the higher strain rate in specimen. Addition-
ally, the numerical parametric study was performed to study the dynamic response of the concrete
material properties by varying the compressive and tensile strain rate exponent in the RHT material
model. It has been observed that the strain rate increased 75 to 521 s–1 as the impact velocity increased
from 7.5 to 27 m/s. As a results, the compressive strength increased from 79 to 98 MPa, dynamic
increase factor increased from 2.25 to 2.80, and energy density increased from 0.66 to 4.10 J/m3. The
compressive and tensile strain rate exponent have significant effect on the dynamic material properties
such that the strength increased from 58 to 100 MPa and DIF increased from 1.62 to 2.80 as the com-
pressive and tensile strain rate exponents increased from 0 to 0.064 and 0 to 0.072 simultaneously,
respectively. Moreover, the dynamic compressive strength is highly sensitive to the compressive strain
rate exponent and strength increases from 58.5 to 101 MPa as the compressive strain rate exponents
increases from 0 to 0.64, respectively, but there was no significant effect of tensile strain rate exponent
was observed on material properties.

Keywords: split Hopkinson pressure bar, rht material model, high loading rate, strain rate exponent
effects, compressive strength, dynamic increase factor
DOI: 10.3103/S0025654423600915

1. INTRODUCTION
Concrete is one of the most widely used construction materials for many civil engineering applications
subjected to impact load, accidental load, blast load and explosion load. Vehicle impact, missile impact,
projectile and aircraft impact on the important infrastructures are responsible for high strain rate loading
on the concrete structures. Concrete subjected to high strain rate dynamic loading has drastically different
response characteristics and damage mechanisms from those static or low strain rate loading [2]. Due to
numerous applications of concrete, it has a wide interest to use in variety of military, civilian, protective
shell structures, loading from natural hazards for safety and security purposes. Hence, it has become very
important to understand the dynamic concrete material properties and failure mechanism under dynamic
loading for the analysis and design of concrete structures.
Numerous experimental techniques have been used to investigate the dynamic response of material
subjected to high strain rate. Drop weight method, SHPB, expanding ring technique, The cam plastom-
eter, Taylor impact test and plate impact test are important techniques used for dynamic loading on the
materials. When the strain rate is more than 1 s–1 is defined as dynamic loading condition although Lind-
holm, U. S., (1971) suggested a strain rate of 10 s–1 as a lower limit for the dynamic loading in compres-
sion. The Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar technique Cheng and Sang (2010) [3] is a popular method to
measure the dynamic loading response of materials deforming under high strain rates (102–104 s–1). It is
impossible to maintain the ideal experimental conditions during the high dynamic loading and perform-
ing the experiment is a typical job especially when the specimen has a larger dimension. To predict the
actual material properties and failure mechanism, numerical simulation is the best alternative option for

1378
 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1379

dynamic material characterization under high rate of loading. Various numerical finite element tools like
ABAQUS/Explicit code, LS-DYNA, ANSYS/Explicit Dynamic and AUTODYN are available for
numerical modelling under these circumstances. The Holmquist Johnson Cook HJC (HJC) [4], Riedel,
Hiermaier and Thoma (RHT) [5–6], Drucker Prager Model [7] and Concrete Damage Plasticity material
model are very famous materials models are available to predict the behavior of concrete-like material
subjecting to large strain and high strain rate under ballistic or impact loading conditions. Bischoff and
Perry [8] performed a wide-ranging assessment by using the experimental test data existing on concrete
and cement-based brittle materials to evaluate the high strain rate effect on the dynamic compressive
strength and concluded that the compressive strength increased with an increase in high strain rate. The
experimental and numerical study performed by Li and Mang [9] at a high strain rate on concrete-like
materials and concluded that the dynamic strength of concrete-like materials is enhanced due to the
pseudo-strain-rate effect (structural effect) that is sensitive to the hydrostatic stress generated due to the
lateral inertia confinement. The numerical studies conducted by Nard and Bailley [10], and Cotsovos and
Pavlovic [11] on concrete-like brittle materials, concluded that the dynamic compressive strength increase
is mainly attributed to structural effect than the strain rate effect. In other words, DIF is not a material
property, and it is not an illustration of effect of strain rate, but it mainly arises due to the inertial force
generated due to structural effect. While, Tang et al. [12] performed an experimental study on concrete
using SHPB and concluded that the lateral inertia confinement effect was too small and insignificant. The
dynamic compressive strength and critical strain at failure were significantly governed by the strain rate
rather than inertia confinement. Numerical investigation performed on concrete with material model
(Drucker-Prager model in ABAQUS and Concrete Damage model in LS-DYNA) by SHPB predicts that
DIF of concrete is not only enhanced by material strain rate effects but also by Structural effects (Interface
friction, material inertia, specimen geometry, etc. [13]. Most researchers described the DIFs as a function
of strain rate only [8, 14] but DIFs are also affected by structural effects [13]. The SHPB experimental tests
performed to investigate the influence of material and structural effects on dynamic compressive strength
of concrete material which clearly confirm the lateral inertia confinement, end friction confinement and
specimen geometry to the dynamic strength increment at high strain rate [15]. But it is very difficult to
control the sophisticated experimental conditions and factors governing the strength during high impact
test performed on the SHPB apparatus. Dynamic experimental condition cannot be control fully and may
differ the mechanical properties under high strain rate. Hence, numerical simulation based on finite ele-
ment method become an important tool to perform the high-risk experiment and their validation.
The present study focused on the validation of experimental study performed on concrete by Hao et. al
[1] under dynamic loading and response of concrete by using the numerical simulation with the help of
ANSYS/Explicit dynamics code based on the finite element. In this research we perform a numerical
investigation to validate the RHT concrete strength model for dynamic loading by using the Split Hopkin-
son pressure bar test. Further the strain-rate sensitive behavior of concrete discussed under different
strain-rate condition obtained at varying impact velocity. Additionally, the parametric study was per-
formed on the dynamic mechanical properties of concrete at different strain rate exponents. The compres-
sive and tensile strain rate exponent were varied in the range of 0–0.064 and 0–0.072, respectively,
defined for DIF equation under RHT concrete model at 7.5 m/s striker impact velocity.

2. SPECIMEN AND EXPERIMENTATION

The concrete mix was design for 35 MPa quasi-static compressive strength [1]. The ingredients of con-
crete mix are 205 kg/m3 water, 426 kg/m3 cement with 0.48 water cement ration. Three different sizes of
aggregates with different densities were used in the mixed design to increase the density of concrete. The
coarse aggregates of 444, 306, 103 kg/m3 densities have 10, 7, and 4 mm aggregates size respectively, were
used in mixed design. The dried sand was used as a coarse aggregate with 843 kg/m3 density. The concrete
core was cut into 75 mm diameter by core cutting machine and 37.5 mm length to maintain the 0.5 aspect
ratio (L/D). Concrete specimen smoothened at end faces, dried, and tested by Baldwin Hydraulic
Machine for quasi-static compression tests. The concrete has 35.5 MPa quasi-static compressive strength,
2201 kg/m3 dry density and 28.29 GPa Young’s modulus of elasticity.
High strain rate testing performed by the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar technique on the cylindrical
specimen. SHPB experimental technique work on the principle of one-dimensional elastic wave propor-
tion theory. The SHPB mainly consist of striker bar to generate the loading compressive wave, Incident
bar, transmission bar and absorption bar with same material properties. The special design striker and bars
are made from stainless steel with young’s modulus 200 GPa, density 7800 kg/m3, Poison’s ratio 0.3 and

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1380 KHAN, IQBAL

Table 1. Dimension of the different bar components

Components Material Length, mm Diameter, mm Length/Diameter
Incident bar Stainless Steel 2000 75 26.67
Transmission bar Stainless Steel 2000 75 26.67
Absorption bar Stainless Steel 1000 75 13.33
Striker Stainless Steel 540 75 7.2
Specimen Concrete 37.5 75 0.5

elastic wave velocity in the bar material is 5084 m/s [15–16]. The dimension of striker, pressure bars and
specimen are shown in Table 1.
The different components of SHPB arranged in an aligned horizontally position. The specimen sand-
wich between incident bar and transmission bar. The incident, transmission, and striker bars must remain
linear elastic, and centric during the test, and friction between the specimen and bars should be negligible.
The designed striker [17] hit at the end of incident bar to generate the compressive loading pulse.
The absorption bar placed at the end of transmission bar to absorb the momentum of transmission bar.
The arrangement of the SHPB components is shown in Fig. 1.
Two strain gauges attached at the center of incident and transmission bar to record the strain pulses
generated by the striker. Striker impact at one end of the incident bar to generate the incident loading wave
recorded by strain gauge mounted at the center of incident bar. The wave propagates in incident bar toward
the specimen and split in to reflected wave and transmission wave at the interface of incident bar and spec-
imen due to different mechanical properties. The reflected and transmitted wave recorded by strain gauges
mounted at the center of incident and transmission bar, respectively. The transmitted wave passes through
the specimen in to transmission bar causing the deformation in specimen. The incident, reflected and
transmitted waves strain time recorded by strain gauge at the center are εI(t), εR(t) and εT(t), respectively.
The stress σ s (t ) , strain rate ε S (t) and strain εS (t ) histories in the specimen were obtained by the by the
application of one-dimensional elastic wave propagation theory, Hook’s law, uniform deformation in
specimen and equilibrium condition and expressed by the following equations;

A 
σ s (t ) = Eb  b  εT , (1)
A s
t
2Co
εS (t ) = −
Lo 0 
εRdt, (2)

2Co
ε S (t ) = − εR , (3)
Lo
where Co is the elastic wave velocity of pressure bar, ρb is mass density of bar, Eb is young’s modulus of
elasticity of bar, Lo is the length of specimen, Ab and, As cross sectional area of bar and specimen, respec-
tively.

Striker Incident bar Transmission bar Absorption bar

Strain gauge Concrete Strain gauge

specimen

Fig. 1. SHPB set-up for 75 mm diameter bar.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1381

3. CONSTITUTIVE MATERIAL MODEL OF CONCRETE

The material response of concrete under the dynamic loading was numerically modelled with the help
of constitutive model suggested by various researchers. The Holmquist, Johnson and Cook Model (HJC)
[4], Riedel, Thoma and Hiermaier Model (RHT) [5, 6], Concrete Damage Plasticity Model (CDP) [18]
and Modified HJC [19] are some material models used for dynamic mechanical response of concrete
under high strain rate loading. In the present study, the RHT material model is used for numerical para-
metric investigation. The RHT concrete model based on advanced plasticity model and shear damage
model useful for modelling the concrete under dynamic loading. RHT model can also be helpful for other
brittle materials such as glass, ceramics, and rocks. The deviatoric stress in the brittle material is limited
by the generalized failure surface. This model considers the three limit surfaces in the stress space to char-
acterize the concrete strength. These surfaces are the failure surface Yfail, the elastic limit surface Yel*, and
* and later related to the damage model of concrete.
the residual strength surface Yres

3.1. Failure Surface

This limit surface considers the pressure, triaxiality and strain rate in stress space in which the devia-
toric stress in the material is limited by a generalized failure surface and expressed by using the Eq. (4) as
following
f (P, σeq , θ, ε ) = σeq − Yfail (P, θ, ε ), (4)
where σeq is the equivalent stress and Yfail is the equation of failure surface which express as a function of
hydrostatic pressure P, lode angel θ, and the strain rate ε [20]. The failure surface (Yfail) represented by
using Eq. (5) expressed as
Yfail (P, θ, ε ) = YTXC(P) * FCAP(P) * R3(θ) * FRATE (ε ), (5)
where YTXC(P) represent the fracture surface through the Eq. (6) and expressed as

YTXC(P) = fc[ Afinal (P * − Pspall

* FRATE )N final ], (6)
where fc is the axial compressive cylindrical strength, Afail, Nfail are the user defined parameters obtained
* =
from tri-axial compression experimental data, P* = P/fc is the pressure normalized with respect to fc, Pspall
Pspall/fc is the normalized hydrodynamic tensile limit or normalized spalling strength, FRATE is the strain
rate dependent enhancement factor.
The third invariant dependence term R3 (θ) is the function of lode angle as shown in Fig 2. The invari-
ant described the difference between tensile meridian and compressive meridian in terms of strength in
RHT model. The relationship among the lode angel θ, hydrostatic pressure P, the second J 2 and third
invariants J 3 and the failure strength of concrete represented by the R3(θ) by Eq. (7) with following expres-
sion;
2(1 − Q2 )cosθ + ( 2Q2 − 1) [4(1 − Q2 )cos θ + 5Q2 − 4Q2 ]
2 2 2 2 1/2
R3(θ) = . (7)
4(1 − Q2 )cos θ + (1 − 2Q2 )
2 2 2

where

0 ≤ θ ≤ π,
3 3J 3
cos(3θ) =
23/2 J 2 3
Q2 = Q2.0 + BQ.P* and 0.5 ≤ Q2 ≤ 1, BQ = 0.0105,
the Q2.0 is the input parameter define the ratio of the tensile strength to compressive strength at the zero
pressure in the π plane and BQ coefficient reflect the transition of fracture surface form brittle to tensile.
The concrete shows the enhancement in the strength for both compression and tension with increasing
in strain rate. The strain rate dependency of concrete help to formulate the failure surface as dynamic
increase factor DIF or FRATE(ε ) (ratio of dynamic to static strength). Most common empirical equation of
DIF for concrete-like brittle material given in Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB)–FIP (Inter-
national Federation for Prestressing) model code 1990 [14] and represented by Eqs. (8) and (9) for com-
pression and tension, respectively.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1382 KHAN, IQBAL

Tensile
V1 meridian
Q2 = 1.0
Compressive
meridian

Q2 = 0.5

V2 V3

Fig. 2. Third invariant dependence.

α

FRATE (ε ) = 1 +  ε 
fc
for P > , compression for ε 0 = 30 × 10−6 s −1 (8)
ε 0  3
δ

FRATE (ε ) = 1 +  ε 
ft −6 −1
for P< , tension for ε 0 = 3 × 10 s , (9)
ε 0  3
where fcd and ftd are the unconfined uniaxial compressive and tension strength of specimen material
under dynamic loading condition, respectively. fcs and fts are the unconfined uniaxial compressive and
tension strength of specimen material under static loading, respectively. ε is the strain rate in s–1 used for
dynamic loading, α = {1/[5 + ((3/4) fcs )]} and δ = {1/[10 + ((1/2) fcs )]} are the material constants.

3.2 . Elastic Limit Surface

The elastic limit surface in RHT material model explain with the combination of failure surface Yfail
function, the ratio of elastic compression and tensile stress with respect to the ultimate strength Fel, and
the parabolic cap function FCAP (P) which is related to the normalized hydrostatic pressure and material
elastic limit. The elastic limit surface expressed by using Eq. (10) are as follows;

Yel* = Yfai*l FCAP (P).Fel (10)

fc,el f
Where Fel = for P > c, compression;
fcs 3
f t,el ft
Fel = for P< , tension.
f ts 3
The compaction of the pores in material under high pressure is compatible with porous equation of
state for the elastic surface [21]. The upper cap pressure limited for the concrete material is equal to the
f
Hugoniot elastic limit Pel and the lower cap pressure Pu equal to c . The parabolic cap function expressed
3
by using the Eq. (11).
fc
FCAP (P) = 1 for P ≤ Pu = , (11)
3

FCAP (P) = 1 − [( P − Pu ) / ( Po − Pu )] Pu ≤ P ≤ Pel,

2
for

FCAP (P) = 0 for Pel ≤ P.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1383

Deviatoric stress Veq

Tens. meridian
Failure surface
Yfail

Initial elastic
Initial limit Yel
Pressure p
Hardening surface Ypre

Residual strength Yfric

Comp. meridian

Fig. 3. Elastic fracture and residual failure surfaces 22.

3.3. Residual Surface

When the plastic strain hardening completed, the strength reached to its ultimate strength of the mate-
rial on the failure surface Yfail. Beyond this limit the further increase in strain results in plastic strain soft-
ening and damage of the material. Material damage is accumulated is controlled by the plastic strain
increment during further inelastic loading condition. The damage variable in RHT concrete model is
modelled based on the HJC Model [14]. This damage variable lies between 0 (undamaged concrete mate-
rial) and 1 (completely fracture material). The damage expressed by using the Eq. (12) as follows
Δε pl
D=Σ Δε pl = D1(P * − Pspa
* ll )2 ≥ ε f ,min ,
failure
with (12)
Δε pl
failure

where ∆ε pl is the accumulated plastic strain increment, ∆εfailure

pl is the failure plastic strain computed over
time, D1 and D2 are the material constant used to describe the effective strain to the fracture as a function
of pressure and εf,min is the lower limit of the failure strain at low pressure to allow the finite amount of
plastic strain to fracture the material. Reduction in the surface strength during strain softening depend
upon the damage of material. The residual strength of concrete under fully damage condition is expressed
by Eq. (13)
* = B.(P *)M ,
Yres (13)
where B and M are the material constants of the residual strength surface. The fractured surface strength
for the other damage value is obtained by the liner interpolation between failure surface (undamaged
material D = 0) and fractured surface (completely damaged material D = 1) using D as an interpolation
factor expressed by using Eq. (14) as follows;

Yfrac * + (1 − D ) .Yfail
* = D. Yres *. (14)
The final combination of elastic limit surface, fractured surface and residual failure surface is shown
schematically in Fig. 3.

4. NUMERICAL MODELLING
The RHT concrete model developed in the commercial hydrocodes LS-DYNA and ANSYS AUTO-
DYNE are used for the numerical investigation. The numerical simulation of the experimental investiga-
tion performed by Hao et. al [1] were modelled by using the commercial hydorcode ANSYS/Autodyne

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1384 KHAN, IQBAL

(a)
Incident bar Speimen Transmission bar
75 mm u 2000 mm 75 mm u 37.5 75 mm u 2000 mm

Arrangement of incident bar, transmission bar and specimen

(b) (c)
Isometric view Plan view Isometric view Plan view

Specimen meshing Bars meshing

(d)
240 mm 100 mm 160 mm

10 mm 26 mm

540 mm
Dimension and meshing of striker bar

Fig. 4. 3D modelling and meshing of SHPB test setup.

finite element explicit solver. The workbench tool for modelling, meshing and numerical analysis. The
split Hopkinson pressure bar setup used in the experiment were modelled as per there dimension listed in
Table 1 according to the experimental setup mention in literature study [16]. A special design tapered
impact ram used as a striker bar to generate a half-sine loading wave, it can eliminate and minimize the
dispersion and oscillation of loading wave [17]. To economize the numerical problem only incident bar,
transmission bar, striker bar and concrete specimen were numerical model by using the explicit dynam-
ics/space claim. The 3D numerical modelling and meshing of SHPB setup shown in Fig. 4.
The concrete specimen sandwich between incident and transmission bars Fig. 4a as per the working
principal of SHPB. Geometry and dimensions of striker bar shown in Fig. 4d and meshing was carried out
by using automatic method having tetrahedron mesh element with 4 mm and total number of elements is
71.135. The incident and transmission bar have same dimension and geometrical configuration with
2000 mm length and 75 mm diameter as shown in Fig. 4a. The meshing of bars and specimen done by the
using the multizone method with eight node hexahedral elements have the 0.78 to 0.99 element quality.
The bars and specimen element sizes are 3 mm and 1 mm with total number of 354844 elements and
164616 elements, respectively. The striker and bars are assumed to be linear-elastic, centric to maintain
the one-dimensional elastic wave propagation theory and material properties of stainless steel in numeri-
cal simulation defined as the young’s modulus 200 GPa, density 7800 kg/m3, Poison’s ratio 0.3 and elastic
wave velocity = 5084 m/s. The interaction between the bars and specimen was modelled as surface-to-
surface contacts having negligible frictional properties with 0.02 as frictional coefficient. The concrete
material and the requirement input parameters are defined in the material library of AUTODYN. The
RHT material model consisting of strength model, equation of state and damage model employed for the
simulation of concrete. The input material parameters of concrete [23] used for simulation with 35 MPa
cube compressive strength are listed in Table 2.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1385

Table 2. RHT model input parameters for CONC-35MPA

RHT concrete Strength Model
meaning notations values
Shear modulus G 16.7 (GPa)
Compressive strength fc 35 (MPa)
Tensile strength ft/fc 0.1
Shear strength fs/fc 0.18
Intact failure surface constant A fail 1.6
Intact failure surface exponent n fail 0.61
Tens./Comp. meridian Q2.0 0.6805
Brittile to ductiele transition BQ 0.0105
G(elas)/(elas.-plas.) ratio 2
Elastic strength /ft tensrat 0.7
Elastic strength /fc comorat 0.53
Fracture strength constant B fric 1.6
Fracture strength exponent m fric 0.6
Compressive strain rate exp. α sr 0.032
Tensile strain rate exp. δ sr 0.036
Maximum fracture strength ratio SFMAX 1E+22
Use CAP on elastic surface? CAP Yes
RHT Concrete Failure Model
Meaning Notations Values
Damage constant D1 0.04
Damage constant D2 1
Minimum strain to failure ef, min 0.01
Tensile failure criteria Tensile Failure Hydro. Pmin
Residual/Elastic shear modulus Gres 0.13
Erosion strain % 200

5. VALIDATION OF SIGNAL AND MATERIAL MODEL

5.1. Validation of Experimental Signal by Simulation
The incident and transmission bars signal obtained in experimental investigation performed by Hao et.
al [1] were validated with the numerical simulation study. The high strain rate material test performed
numerically by SHPB setup. The strain, stress and strain rate in specimen was calculated by using the
measured strains in incident and transmission bar. The strain-time response in bars and equilibrium state
in the specimen are essential for the validity of test performed on SHPB experimentally. The numerical
simulation was performed at the striker velocity of 7.5 m/s with the same experimental conditions. The
Incident and transmission bar strain time history obtain with the help of strain probe at the middle of inci-
dent and transmission bar surfaces. The simulated strain signal has been seen to closely follow the exper-
imental curve and provide a true representation of the stress/strain wave propagation in the incident and
transmission bars (see Fig. 5). The incident strain pulses have attained there peaks experimentally and
numerically are 630 macrostrain and 620 macrostrains, respectively at an almost identical time while the
reflected strain pulse have 300 macrostrain and 260 macrostrains for experimental and numerical study,
respectively. The transmitted pulse peak magnitude obtained for experimental and simulation study are
360 macrostrain and 390 macrostrains, respectively at almost identical time. The amplitude and profile
of incident bar wave signal and transmission bar wave signal obtain from experiment and simulation are
almost coincided at 7.5 m/s striker impact velocity to an acceptable limit shown in Figs. 5a and 5b, respec-
tively.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1386 KHAN, IQBAL

Experimental Hao et. al(2013) Experimental Hao et. al(2013)

Numerical simulation Numerical simulation
0.1

Incident bar strain, mm/m

0.4

Incident bar strain, mm/m

(a) (b)
0.2 0

0 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.3
0.6 0.4
0.8 0.5
0 0.0004 0.0008 0 0.0004 0.0008
Time, sec Time, sec

Fig. 5. Numerical validation of experimental signals.

5.2. Experimental and Numerical Equilibrium Conditions

The test results data obtained from experimental and numerical study will be validate if the stresses at
both faces of the concrete cylindrical specimen also balanced. The stress-time curve obtained at the inter-
face of incident bar and specimen calculated by the incident signal plus reflected signal using the Eq. (15)
while the stress-time curve obtains at the interface of specimen and transmitted bar calculated by the
transmitted signal using the Eq. (16),
Ab
σ S1 = E b (εi + εr ), (15)
As
Ab
(εt ). σS 2 = E b (16)
As
Under high strain rate loading the specimen deform uniformly and axially. The stresses at the interfaces
of the specimen should be equal for uniform deformation and equilibrium condition. Figs. 6a and 6b
shows that the stress equilibrium conditions achieved experimentally as well as numerically with an aver-
age stress of 80 MPa across the interfaces of specimen, respectively. Figs. 6c and 6d show the comparison
of stresses at these two interfaces of specimen obtained experimental and numerically, respectively. It is
clearly observed that experimental and numerical stresses are almost coinciding at the specimen-incident
and specimen-transmitted bar interfaces at the 7.5 m/s striker impact velocity to an acceptable limit, see
Figs. 6c and 6d. Hence it has been concluded that the stress conditions achieved validating the SHPB test
and the simulation results shows good compatibility and agreement of numerical modelling.
However, the experimental conditions cannot be controlled totally as compared to the numerical
study. Homogeneity of concrete material, perpendicularity of impact faces, parallelism of bar or specimen
faces and bar straightness tolerance may cause the signal dispersion and distortions. The deviations of
stresses shown in Figs. 2c and 2d on incident bar- specimen and transmitted bar-specimen face might be
due to these following reasons. The heterogeneity in the specimen and misalignment in bars may also
cause of error in reading the signals.

6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

6.1. Concrete Dynamic Response under Varying Impact Loading Conditions
The numerical simulation performed for various dynamic loading conditions as the striker impact
velocity are 7.5 m/s, 11 m/s, 15 m/s, 19 m/s 23 m/s and 27 m/s for the same specimen geometry and mate-
rial have same analyzing conditions. The numerical results obtained are enlisted in Table 3. The dynamic
response of concrete under varying loading conditions in terms of stress-time, strain rate-time, strain-
time and stress-strain were illustrated in Figs. 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d, respectively. The amplitude of stress
waves in bars increasing with increase in the striker impact velocity hence the loading condition changing
in specimen also. The peaks value of stress, strain, and strain rate at the corresponding impact velocity
listed in Table 3.
It has been observed that the stress, strain, and strain rate increase in specimen with increase in the
impact velocity. It has been clear from the Fig. 7a that the compressive strength is mainly sensitive to the

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1387

Time, Ps Time, Ps
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 400

(a)
20 20 (b)

Stress, MPa

Stress, MPa
40 40

60 60

80 80
Inceident + Reflected Inceident + Reflected stress
stress
Transmitted stress
100 100 Transmitted stress

Time, Ps Time, Ps
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400

(c) (d)
20 20

Stress, MPa
40
Stress, MPa

40

60 60 Experimental

I + R experimental Simulation
80 I + R simulation 80

100 100

Fig. 6. Numerical validation of experimental stress equilibrium.

strain rate. The strain rate defined as the ratio of specimen deforming speed to the length of specimen,
hence increases with impact velocity simultaneously. The dynamic increase factor (DIF) for compressive
strength of concrete defined as the ratio of dynamic compressive strength to static compressive strength of
concrete listed in Table 3 used in the analysis and design of structures under dynamic loading conditions.
The numerical simulation and experimental study performed by various researcher observed that the DIF
of concrete increases with increase in strain rate [24–26]. The axial inertia, lateral inertia, friction between
specimen and bars, strain rate is the main factor to enhance the dynamic material properties. These factors
produce the additional constraints and multi axial stress states generated in specimen. It was observed that
the strain rate increasing at high rate in comparative to the DIF rate. The stress-strain curve derived from
numerical simulation data for same specimen under different loading condition shown in Fig. 7d at 75 s, 140,
239, 340, 459 and 521 s–1 strain rates respectively. The strain gaining rate in specimen is high as compared
to stress gaining rate in specimen at different strain rates. There is an almost liner and rapid increment in
the dynamic strength up to the peak stress was observed, beyond which the stress decreases describing the
strain softening behaviour. It also observed that the strain increases with increase in strain rate. The stress,

Table 3. Concrete dynamic properties at different impact velocity

Energy
Impact velocity Stress Strain Strain rate DIF absorption
density
m/s MPa m/m 1/s fcd /fcs J/m3
7.5 79 0.00151 75 2.25 0.66
11 87 0.00280 140 2.48 1.48
15 90 0.00477 239 2.57 2.58
19 92 0.00681 340 2.62 3.48
23 95 0.00901 450 2.71 4.03
27 98 0.0104 521 2.80 4.10

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1388 KHAN, IQBAL

120 7.5 m/s 600 7.5 m/s

(a) 11 m/s (b)
11 m/s
100 15 m/s 500 15 m/s
19 m/s

Strain rate, 1/s

19 m/s

Stress, MPa
80 23 m/s 400
23 m/s
27 m/s
300 27 m/s
60

40 200

20 100

0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003

Time, s Time, s
7.5 m/s 120 7.5 m/s
0.010 (c) 11 m/s (d) 11 m/s
15 m/s
100 15 m/s

Stress, MPa
0.008 19 m/s 19 m/s
80
Strain, m/m

23 m/s
23 m/s
0.006 27 m/s
27 m/s 60
0.004 40

0.002 20

0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Time, s Strain, m/m

Fig. 7. Response of concrete material under different loading conditions.

strain, and strain rate in the specimen having maximum values with 98 MPa, 0.0104 m/m and 521 s–1,
respectively at the 27 m/s striker impact velocity.

6.2. Strain Rate Effect on DIF and Energy Density

The strain rate sensitivity of concrete materials under high rate of loading are defined by the dynamic
increase factor (DIF) and correlated as the ratio of dynamic compressive strength to quasi-static compres-
sive strength. In the present study, the DIF is obtained by normalized the dynamic compressive strength
at varying strain rates to 39.5 MPa quasi-static compressive strength, see Table 3. The DIF has been plot-
ted against the logarithmic strain rate, as shown in Fig. 8a. It has been observed that the DIF vary in the
range 2.25–2.80 as the strain rate vary in the range of 75–521 s–1. The increasing trend of DIF with respect
to strain rate was observed. A good fitting of experimental data was observed for the linear equation with
0.97 coefficient of determination describing the high acceptability of results following the linear response.
The generation and propagations of micro-cracks through concrete specimen under high rate of loading
are mainly contributes to strength enhancement. Under high rate of loading, the response time of gener-
ated cracks reduced and trans-granular propagations of crack occurred. It should be noted that the end
friction confinement and lateral inertia confinement during the dynamic test also contribute to the
increase in the strength of the material by restricting the lateral deformation of concrete specimen.
The amount of energy absorbed by concrete per unit volume is defined as the energy density or tough-
ness of concrete. Is also defined as the capability of concrete material to resist the fracture and deforma-
tion subjected high rate of loading. The toughness is simply obtained as the area under the stress-strain
curve response of concrete at different strain rate and a simple integration trapezoidal rule was assumed
to determine the toughness by following Eq. (17)


w = σ(ε)d ε, (17)
where w, σ and ε are the toughness, stress, and strain, respectively. The energy absorption densities of con-
crete specimens under varying high strain rate are summarized in Table 3 and toughness to strain rate

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1389

3.00 5
(a) (b)

Absorption energy, J/m3

Dynamic increase factor
4.03 4.10
4
2.75 3.48

3 2.58
2.50 y = 0.5875x + 1.1713
R2 = 0.9689 2 1.48

2.25
1 0.66

2.00 0
1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 75 140 239 340 450 521
log(strain rate) Strain rate 1/s

Fig. 8. Strain rate effect.

response are shown in Fig. 8b, at their corresponding strain rates. An increasing trend of toughness was
observed with increased in strain rate. The toughness increased from 0.66 to 4.10 J/m3 as the strain rate
increased from 75 to 521 s–1. The higher energy was absorbed by the concrete for initiation and propaga-
tion micro-cracks. The higher energy was observed at higher strain rates due to higher damage and strain
softening behaviour of concrete. Furthermore, the density of micro-cracks increased with an increase in
strain rate as a resultant high magnitude of damage an indication of the more energy absorption.

6.3. Strain Rate Exponent Effect on Dynamic Material Properties of Concrete

The empirical equation predicting the response of specimen materials in term of DIF based on strain
rate and the material constants. The empirical equation used for the DIF implemented in the various
numerical material models based on finite element method. In RHT concrete strength model, the com-
mon empirical equation used for concrete like material given in Comite Euro-International du Beton
(CEB)–FIP (International Federation for Prestressing) model code 1990 [4]. The compressive strain rate
exponent (α) and tensile strain rate exponent (δ) in empirical equation have significant effect on dynamic
mechanical properties of the concrete material. The material properties investigated in terms of stress,
strain, strain rate and DIF with varying the values of strain rate exponents in the RHT material model and
performed the numerical simulation at a constant striker impact velocity of 7.5 m/s.

6.3.1. Effect of compressive and tensile strain rate exponent

A parametric study performed to know the dynamic response of material under various material con-
stants value. The numerical simulation performed with changing the value material constant in range of 0
to 200% in RHT model parameters at a 7.5 m/s constant striker impact velocity. The material response
presented in terms of stress, strain, and strain rate mention in the Table 4 at a given % change in the strain
rate exponent and their response with respect to time shown in Fig 9.
In Fig. 9a it has been clearly observed that the dynamic compressive strength of concrete is increasing
as the value of strain rate exponent increasing. The strength of concrete is 58 MPa at minimum values of
strain rate exponents have α = 0, δ = 0 while it has 100 MPa at maximum value of strain rate exponents
α = 0.064, δ = 0.072, respectively. The strength of concrete is mainly governed by the inertia effect, end
friction confinement and hydrostatic stresses corresponding to the lowest value of strain rate exponent.
An increment in the concrete dynamic strength with the linearly increment of the strain rate exponents,
but the strain and strain rate have reverse response with increase the values of exponents from zero to max-
imum.

6.3.2 Effect of compressive strain rate exponent

The parametric study performed to investigate the effect of compressive strain rate exponent while
keeping the tensile strain rate exponent constant. The tensile strain rate exponent value keep constant as
0.036 as mention in RHT material model for the M35 grade of concrete and value of compressive strain
rate exponent varies from 0 to 0.064 with an interval of 0.016. as listed in Table 5. The material properties

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1390 KHAN, IQBAL

Table 4. Concrete dynamic properties at different strain rate exponent

Strain rate exponents Dynamic material properties
% Change in
compressive tensile stress strain strain rate DIF
constant
α δ MPa m/m 1/s fcd /fcs
0 0 0 58 0.00195 98 1.62
25 0.008 0.009 61.5 0.00185 93 1.77
50 0.016 0.018 68 0.00165 88 1.94
75 0.024 0.027 73 0.0015 82 2.08
100 0.032 0.036 80 0.0014 75 2.22
125 0.04 0.045 84 0.00125 68 2.37
150 0.048 0.054 89 0.00115 65 2.51
175 0.056 0.063 94.5 0.00095 64 2.68
200 0.064 0.072 100 0.00075 64 2.8

investigated in terms of stress, strain, strain rate and DIF value at a 7.5 m/s constant striker impact veloc-
ity. The dynamic mechanical properties obtained with varying compressive strain rate exponent are listed
Table 5.
The stress, strain, and strain rate response of concrete at corresponding instant of time shown in Fig. 10.
It was observed that the dynamic compressive strength of concrete are highly sensitive to the compressive
strain rate exponents and strength increases with increase the compressive strain rate exponent value.
While, the strain rate and strain have opposite behaviour describing the decreasing trends as the compres-
sive strain rate exponent value increases. The dynamic compressive strength increases from 58.5 to
101 MPa as the compressive strain rate exponents increases from 0 to 0.64, respectively. There was 67%

120 0% 120 0%
(a) 25%
(b) 25%
100 75% 100 50%
75%
Strain rate, 1/s

100%
80 100%
80
Stress, MPa

125% 125%
150% 150%
60 175% 60 175%
200% 200%
40 40

20 20

0 0.0001 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.0002

Time, s Time, s

0.0020 0%
(c)
25%
50%
0.0015 75%
Stress, MPa

100%
125%
0 150%
175%
200%
0.0005

0 0.0001 0.0002
Time, s

Fig. 9. Effect of compressive and tensile strain rate exponents on concrete material properties.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1391

Table 5. Concrete dynamic properties at different compressive strain rate exponent

Strain Rate Exponents Dynamic Material Properties
Compressive Tensile Stress Strain Strain Rate DIF
α δ MPa m/m 1/s fcd /fcs
0 0.036 58.5 0.00195 97 1.67
0.016 0.036 68.5 0.00176 88 1.95
0.032 0.036 79.5 0.001451 75 2.27
0.048 0.036 89 0.00130 65 2.54
0.064 0.036 101 0.00130 65 2.88

and 188% increment in the compressive strength was observed as the exponent varies from 0 to 0.64. The
maximum DIF obtained for dynamic compressive strength was found to be 2.88 at the 0.064 strain rate
exponent value. A similar profile of stress-time response of concrete was observed at varying strain expo-
nent value but the amplitude was significantly affected by the compressive strain rate exponents, see
Fig. 10(a). The strain rate and strain response also showed a similar profile but the amplitude decreasing
with increase in the compressive strain rate exponent values, see Figs. 10b and 10c.

6.3.3. Effect of tensile strain rate exponent

A similar parametric study performed was also performed to investigate the effect of tensile strain rate
exponent while keeping the compressive strain rate strain rate exponent constant. The compressive strain
rate exponent value keep constant as 0.032 as mention in RHT material model for the M35 grade of con-
crete and value of tensile strain rate exponent varies from 0 to 0.072 with an interval of 0.018. The material
properties investigated in terms of stress, strain, strain rate and DIF value at a 7.5 m/s constant striker

D = 0, 120 D = 0,
120 G = 0.036 G = 0.036
(a) D = 0.016, (b)
D = 0.016,
100 G = 0.036 100 G = 0.036
D = 0.032,
G = 0.036 D = 0.032,
Strain rate 1/s

80 80 G = 0.036
Stress, MPa

D = 0.048,
G = 0.036 D = 0.048,
D = 0.064, G = 0.036
60 G = 0.036 60
D = 0.064,
G = 0.036
40 40

20 20

0 0.0001 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.0002

Time, s Time, s

0.0025 D = 0,
(c) G = 0.036
D = 0.016,
0.0020 G = 0.036
Strain rate 1/s

D = 0.032,
G = 0.036
0.0015 D = 0.048,
G = 0.036
D = 0.064,
0 G = 0.036

0.0005

0 0.0001 0.0002
Time, s

Fig. 10. Effect of compressive strain rate exponents on concrete material properties.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1392 KHAN, IQBAL

90 D = 0, 80 D = 0,
G = 0.032 (b) G = 0.032
80 (a) 70
D = 0.032, D = 0.032,
70 G = 0.018 G = 0.018
60

Strain rate 1/s

D = 0.032, D = 0.032,

Stress, MPa
60 50 G = 0.036
G = 0.036
50 D = 0.032,
D = 0.032, 40 G = 0.050
40 G = 0.050
D = 0.032,
D = 0.032, 30 G = 0.072
30 G = 0.072
20 20
10 10

0 0.0001 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.0002

Time, s Time, s

0.0016 D = 0,
G = 0.032
0.0014 (c) D = 0.032,
G = 0.018
0.0012 D = 0.032,
G = 0.036
Strain, m/m

0.0010 D = 0.032,
G = 0.050
0.0008 D = 0.032,
0.0006 G = 0.072

0.0004
0.0002

0 0.0001 0.0002
Time, s

Fig. 11. Effect of tensile strain rate exponents on concrete material properties.

impact velocity. The stress, strain and strain rate response of concrete at corresponding instant of time are
shown in Fig. 11. It has been observed that the dynamic compressive strength of concrete was insensitive
and remain almost constant as the tensile strain rate exponent values increases see Fig. 11a. Similarly,
there were no significant effect was observed on the strain-time and strain rate-time as the value of strain
rate exponent increases see Figs. 11b and 11c.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The finite element investigation has been carried out to investigate the material behaviour of concrete
subjected the high rate of compression loading. The experimental study performed by the Hao. et al [1]
was validated numerically and further the impact velocity changes to change the strain rate. Additionally,
the parametric study was performed and their effects on the dynamic properties of concrete were study.
On the basic of above study, the following conclusions have been drawn;
1. The amplitude and profile of incident bar wave signal and transmission bar wave signal obtain from
experiment and simulation are matching at 7.5 m/s striker impact velocity to an acceptable limit describ-
ing the validity of experimental results.
2. The stress equilibrium conditions obtained experimentally as well as numerically with an average
stress of 80 MPa across the interfaces of specimen and bars describing the accuracy of results.
3. The striker impact velocity varies in the range of 7.5 to 27 m/s to change the strain rate in concrete
specimen. As the strain rate increased from 75 to 521 s–1, the compressive strength, dynamic increase fac-
tor, and toughness of concrete showed the increasing trends.
4. The compressive strength increased from 79 to 98 MPa, dynamic increase factor increased from 2.25
to 2.80, and energy density increased from 0.66 to 4.10 J/m3 as the strain rate increased from 75 to 521 s–1.
5. The parametric study performed by change the strain rate exponents value from 0 to 200% and sig-
nificant effect was observed on the strength hand DIF. The strength increased from 58 to 100 MPa and
DIF increased from 1.62 to 2.80 as the compressive and tensile strain rate exponents increased from 0 to
0.064 and 0 to 0.072, respectively.

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CONCRETE SUBJECTED 1393

6. Additionally, the dynamic compressive strength is highly sensitive to the compressive strain rate
exponent and strength increases from 58.5 to 101 MPa as the compressive strain rate exponents increases
from 0 to 0.64, respectively, but there was no significant effect of tensile strain rate exponent was observed
on material properties.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors gratefully acknowledge the computation support provided by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
India and the financial assistantship provided by MHRD, Govt. of India.

DECLARATION
Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest and it is approved by all authors for publication.

REFERENCES
1. Y. Hao and H. Hao, “Dynamic compressive behaviour of spiral steel fibre reinforced concrete in split Hopkin-
son pressure bar tests,” Constr. Build. Mater. 48, 521–532 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.022
2. Kamran and M. A. Iqbal, “The ballistic evaluation of plain, reinforced and reinforced–prestressed
concrete,” Thin-Walled Struct. 179, 109707 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109707
3. W. W. Chen and B. Song, Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar: Design, Testing and Applications (Springer Science &
Business Media, 2010).
4. T. J. Holmquist and G. R. Johnson, “A computational constitutive model for glass subjected to large strains,
high strain rates and high pressures,” ASME J. Appl. Mech. 78 (5), 051003 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004326
5. W. Riedel, Beton unter Dynamischen Lasten: Meso- und Makromechanische Modelle und ihre Parameter (Fraun-
hofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, 2004).
6. W. Riedel, N. Kawai, and K. I. Kondo, “Numerical assessment for impact strength measurements in concrete
materials,” Int. J. Impact Eng. 36(2), 283–293 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.012
7. D. C. Drucker and W. Prager, “Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design,” Quart. Appl. Math. 10 (2),
157–165 (1952). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43633942
8. P. H. Bischoff and S. H. Perry, “Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates,” Mater. Struct. 24 (6),
425–450 (1991).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472016
9. Q. M. Li and H. Meng, “About the dynamic strength enhancement of concrete-like materials in a split Hopkin-
son pressure bar test,” Int. J. Solids Struct. 40 (2), 343–360 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00526-7
10. H. Le Nard and P. Bailly, “Dynamic behaviour of concrete: the structural effects on compressive strength
increase,” Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 5 (6), 491–510 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1484(200008)5:6<491::AID-CFM106>3.0.CO;2-R
11. D. M. Cotsovos and M. N. Pavlović, “Numerical investigation of concrete subjected to compressive impact
loading. Part 1: A fundamental explanation for the apparent strength gain at high loading rates,” Comput.
Struct. 86 (1–2), 145–163 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.05.014
12. T. Tang, L. E. Malvern, and D. A. Jenkins, “Rate effects in uniaxial dynamic compression of concrete,” J. Eng.
Mech. 118 (1), 108-124 (1992).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1992)118:1(108)
13. E. A. Flores-Johnson and Q. M. Li, “Structural effects on compressive strength enhancement of concrete-like
materials in a split Hopkinson pressure bar test,” Int. J. Impact Eng. 109, 408–418 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.08.003
14. Comitè Euro-International du Bèton, CEB-FIP Model Code, 1990 (T. Telford, 1993).
15. Y. Hao, H. Hao, G. P. Jiang, and Y. Zhou, “Experimental confirmation of some factors influencing dynamic
concrete compressive strengths in high-speed impact tests,” Cement Concrete Res. 52, 63–70 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.05.008
16. T. S. Lok, X. B. Li, D. S. Liu, and P. J. Zhao, “Testing and response of large diameter brittle materials subjected
to high strain rate,” J. Mater. Civil Eng. 14 (3), 262–269 (2002).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002)14:3(262)

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023

1394 KHAN, IQBAL

17. T. S. Lok and P. J. Zhao, “Impact response of steel fiber-reinforced concrete using a split Hopkinson pressure
bar,” J. Mater. Civil Eng. 16 (1), 54–59 (2004).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:1(54)
18. T. Jankowiak and T. Lodygowski, “Identification of parameters of concrete damage plasticity constitutive
model,” Foundat. Civil Environ. Eng. 6 (1), 53–69 (2005).
19. Kamran and M. A. Iqbal, “A new material model for concrete subjected to high rate of loading,” Int. J. Impact
Eng. 180, 104673 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104673
20. B. Esteban and N. Gebbeken, “A detailed comparison of two material models for concrete in the dynamic load-
ing regime, RHT and HPG,” Int. J. Protect. Struct. 8 (2), 260–286 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041419617707104
21. Y. Q. Ding, W. H. Tang, R. Q. Zhang, and X. W. Ran, “Determination and validation of parameters for Riedel-
Hiermaier-Thoma concrete model,” Defence Sci. J. 63 (5), 524–530 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.14429/dsj.63.3866
22. J. Wei, Z. Du, Y. Zheng, and O. Ounhueane, “Research on damage characteristics of brick masonry under ex-
plosion load,” Shock Vibr. 2021, 1–11 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5519231
23. C. Heckötter and J. Sievers, “Comparison of the RHT Concrete Material Model in LS-DYNA and ANSYS
AUTODYN,” in Proc. of 11th European LS-DYNA Conference (DYNAmore GmbH, Salzburg, 2017).
24. J. W. Tedesco and C. A. Ross. “Strain-rate-dependent constitutive equations for concrete,” J. Pressure Vessel
Technol. 120 (4), 398–405 (1998).
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2842350
25. D. L. Grote, S. W. Park, and M. Zhou, “Dynamic behavior of concrete at high strain rates and pressures: I. Ex-
perimental characterization,” Int. J. Impact Eng. 25 (9), 869–886 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00020-3
26. X. Q. Zhou and H. Hao, “Modelling of compressive behaviour of concrete-like materials at high strain
rate,” Int. J. Solids Struct. 45 (17), 4648–4661 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.04.002

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS Vol. 58 No. 4 2023