Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Compaction and Spall of UHPC Concrete Under Shock Conditions

  • Published:
Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several dozen impact experiments were conducted utilizing gun-driven, parallel-plate impacts in several complimentary configurations to produce weak shock waves in an ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) known as “cortuf.” This UPHC variant was developed and fabricated at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, MS with no fiber reinforcement or coarse aggregate. The Hugoniot of the material in the range of 0–21 GPa is reported, although at lower shock pressures the material is highly dispersive and does not transmit a shock, leading to some ambiguity when conveying the results in the construct of a shock. The results, when compared with similar studies on other concrete variants, suggest that Portland cement based concretes without fiber reinforcement display shock behavior below 3 GPa which is dependent on the formulation and curing, but above 3 GPa, most can be represented by the empirical shock relation US = 2.35 km/s + 1.66uP up to at least the maximum pressure investigated in this work (21 GPa). Furthermore, it is shown that of the three types of porosity present in most concrete, in the concrete examined, only the entrapped air acts as porosity that is compacted during the shock. This investigation shows that although different grades of concrete vary widely in quasi-static compressive and tensile strength, under dynamic shock loading (uniaxial strain), most have similar yield points that can be described as a Hugoniot elastic limit of ~ 0.5 GPa or a yield strength of 0.4 GPa. In cortuf, the dynamically determined compressive yield point agrees closely with the quasi-statically determined yield (in conditions of uniaxial strain), implying very little strain-rate strengthening in UHPC, but in low strength (conventional) concrete, the dynamically determined yield is much higher than the corresponding quasi-static yield point. Therefore, the yield point of concrete in high-rate uniaxial strain is found to be independent of unconfined yield strength, and limited to an upper bound of ~ 0.4 GPa (HEL = 0.5 GPa). Post-yield compaction is strain-rate dependent in cortuf as well as other formulations for which literature data is available. In uniaxial-strain tension, cortuf has a spall strength of ~ 50 MPa, in rough agreement with the limited spall data available elsewhere, and the work shows that the spall and tensile behavior of cortuf loosely follows trends recently proposed by others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Neville A (2011) Properties of concrete. 5th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weerheijm J (2013) Understanding the tensile properties of concrete. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scheydt J, Müller H (2012) Microstructure of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) and it’s impact on durability. In: Proceedings of Hipermat 2012 3rd international symposium on UHPC and nanotechnology for high performance construction materials, Kassel

  4. Bede A, Ardelean I (2017) Revealing the influence of water-cement ratio on the pore size distribution in hydrated cement paste by using cyclohexane. In: AIP conference proceedings

  5. Fredenburg D, Thadhani N (2013) On the applicability of the P-alpha and P-lambda models to describe the dynamic compaction response of highly heterogeneous powder mixtures. J Appl Phys 113:043507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanel G (2010) Spall fracture: methodological aspects, mechanisms and governing factors. Int J Fract 163:173–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Antoun T, Seaman L, Curran D, Kanel G, Razorenov S, Utkin A (2003) Spall fracture. Springer, New York, pp 163–165

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kipp ME, Chhabildas L, Reinhart W (1997) Elastic shock response and spall strength of concrete, SAND97-0464C. Sandia National Lab, Albuquerque, NM

  9. Reinhart W, Chhabildas L, Kipp ME, Wilson L (1999) Spall strength measurements of concrete for varying aggregate sizes. In: Proceedings of the 15th US army symposium on solid mechanics, Myrtle Beach, SC

  10. Akers SA (2017) Private communication, US Army ERDC

  11. Hall C, Chhabildas L, Reinhart W (1999) Shock Hugoniot and release in concrete with different aggregate sizes from 3 to 23 GPa. Int J Impact Eng 23:341–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grady D (1995) Shock and release data for SAC-5 concrete to 25 GPa. Sandia National Laboratory, Technical Memorandum TMDG0595, Albuquerque, NM

  13. Grady D (1996) Dynamic decompression properties of concrete from Hugoniot states—3 to 25 GPa. Sandia National Laboratories, Technical Memorandum TMDG0396, Albuquerque, NM

  14. Gebbeken N, Greulich S, Pietzsch A (2006) Hugoniot properties for concrete determined by full-scale detonation experiments and flyer-impact tests. Int J Impact Eng 32:2017–2031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gregson VG Jr (1972) A shock wave study of Fondu-Fyre WA-1 and a concrete. General Motors Manufacturing Development Report# MSL-70-30, Warren, Michigan

  16. Todd SN, Reinhart WD (2010) Dynamic material properties of various high strength concretes. In: 80th shock & vibration symposium, San Diego, CA

  17. Grady D, Furnish M (1990) Hugoniot and release properties of a water-saturated high-silica-content grout. In: APS—shock compression of condensed matter—1989, Albuquerque, NM

  18. Tsembelis K, Proud W, Willmott G, Cross D (2004) The shock Hugoniot properties of cement paste & mortar up to 18 GPa. In: APS—shock compression condensed matter—2003

  19. Tsembelis K, Proud W (2006) The dynamic behavior of micro-concrete. In: APS—shock compression of condensed matter—2005

  20. Riedel W, Wicklein M, Thoma K (2008) Shock properties of conventional and high strength concrete: experimental and mesomechanical anlaysis. Int J Impact Eng 35:155–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Buzaud E, Hereil P, Pontiroli C, Lambert P (2006) Modeling the shock compression of concrete under 20 GPa. In: APS—shock compression of condensed matter—2005, pp 303–306

  22. Erzar B, Buzaud E, Chanal P-Y (2013) Dynamic tensile fracture of mortar at ultra-high strain-rates. J Appl Phys 114:244901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erzar B, Pontiroli C, Buzaud E (2016) Shock characterization of an ultra-high strength concrete. Eur Phys J Spec Top 255:355–361

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pontiroli C, Erzar B, Buzaud E (2016) Ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete behavior under ballistic impacts. In: 8th international conference on concrete under severe conditions, CONSEC 2016, Lecco, Italy

  25. Grote D, Park S, Zhou M (2001) Experimental characterization of the dynamic failure behavior of mortar under impact loading. J Appl Phys 89(4):2115–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mespoulet J, Plassard F, Hereil P (2015) Strain rate sensitivity of autoclaved aerated concrete from quasi-static regime to shock loading. In: DYMAT 2015

  27. Le Vu O (1998) Etude et Modelisation du Comportement du Beton Sous Sollicitations de Grande Amplitude. Ecole Polytechnique, Ph.D. Thesis

  28. Ockert J (1997) Ein Stoffgesetz fur die Schockwellenausbreitung in Beton. Technische Hochschule Karlsruhe, Ph.D. Thesis

  29. Ishiguchi M, Yoshida M, Nakayama Y, Matsumura T, Takahashi I, Miyake A (2006) A study of the Hugoniot of Mortar. J Jpn Explos Soc 61(6):249–253

    Google Scholar 

  30. Williams EM, Graham SS, Reed PA, Rushing TS (2009) Laboratory characterization of Cor-tuf concrete with and without steel fibers. US Army Corps of Engineers, Report# ERDC/GSL TR-09-22

  31. Forbes J (2012) Shock wave compression of condensed matter—a primer. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Neel C, Martin B, Chhabildas L (2017) Shock and spall of the ultra-high performance concrete mortar “Cortuf” without steel fibers. Air Force Research Laboratory, Report# AFRL-RW-EG-TR-2017-082, Eglin AFB, FL

  33. Lacina D, Neel C, Dattelbaum D (2018) Shock response of poly[methyl methacrylate] (PMMA) measured with embedded electromagnetic gauges. J Appl Phys 123:185901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Meyers MA (1994) Dynamic behavior of materials. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Dolan DH (2006) Foundations of VISAR analysis. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Danielson J, Daykin E, Diaz A, et al. (2014) Measurement of an explosively driven hemispherical shell using 96 points of optical velocimetry. In: 18th APS-SCCM and 24th AIRAPT

  37. Asay J, Fowles G, Durall G, Miles M, Tinder R (1972) Effects of point defects on elastic precursor decay in LiF. J Appl Phys 43(5):2132–2145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Graham SS (2018) Private Communincation, US Army ERDC

  39. McQueen R, Marsh S, Tayor J, Fritz J, Carter W (1977) The equation of state of solids from shock wave studies. In: Kinslow R (ed) High velocity impact phenomena. Academic Press, New York, p 328

    Google Scholar 

  40. Piotrowska E, Forquin P, Malecot Y (2016) Experimental study of static and dynamic behavior of concrete under high confinement: Effect of coarse aggregate strength. Mech Mater 92:164–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Piotrowska E, Forquin P (2015) Experimental investigation of the confined behavior of dry and wet high-strength concrete: quasi static versus dynamic loading. J Dyn Behav Mater 1:191–200

    Google Scholar 

  42. Forquin P, Erzar B (2010) Dynamic fragmentation process in concrete under impact and spalling tests. Int J Fract 163:192–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Forquin P, Lukic B (2018) On the processing of spalling experiments. Part I: identification of the dynamic tensile strength of concrete. J Dyn Behav Mater 4:34–55

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to Adam White, Rick Davis, and Jason Hipp for skillful experimental assembly and shot execution, Cpt. Lawal Olawale for optical microscopy and SEM work, to Dr. Lalit Chhabildas for initial motivation and support, and to Dr. Joel House for proofreading. At ERDC, thanks also to Dr. Bill Heard for supplying material, funding, and for several useful discussions and historical datasets, and to Dr. Robert Moser for useful discussions and references regarding porosity. Special thanks to Dr. Brad Martin for many discussions on concrete in general.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Neel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neel, C. Compaction and Spall of UHPC Concrete Under Shock Conditions. J. dynamic behavior mater. 4, 505–528 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-018-0173-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-018-0173-3

Keywords

Navigation