Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 667–676 | Cite as

Dynamic Characterization of Orthogneiss Rock Subjected to Intermediate and High Strain Rates in Tension

  • Ezio CadoniEmail author
Original Paper


The dynamic characterization of rocks under intermediate and high strain rates is fundamental to understand the material behavior in case of heavy earthquakes and dynamic events. The implementation of material constitutive laws is of capital importance for the numerical simulation of the dynamic processes as those caused by earthquakes. These data are necessary and require experimental techniques able to induce on the rock materials state of loading reproducing the actual dynamic condition. The dynamic characterization has been carried out by means of two special apparatus: the split Hopkinson tension bar and the hydro-pneumatic machine. These equipments are briefly described with a discussion on the results of dynamic tension tests at three different strain rates (0.1, 10, 100 strain/s) on Onsernone Orthogneiss for loading directions 0°, 45° and 90° with respect to the schistosity. Results of the tests show a significant strain rate sensitive behavior, exhibiting dynamic tensile strength increasing with strain rate, up to about two times with respect to the quasi-static conditions in the case of 0° and 45° orientation and more than three times in the case of 90° at high strain rates. Dynamic increase factors versus strain rate curves for tensile strength were also evaluated and discussed.


Strain rate behavior Dynamic tensile strength Stress–strain curves Intermediate loading rate Dynamic increase factor 



The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to Matteo Dotta, Daniele Forni and Samuel Antonietti of the University of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland for their precious help in the analysis of the data and in the execution of the laboratory tests.


  1. Albertini C, Montagnani M (1974) Testing techniques based on the split Hopkinson bar. In: Proceedings of the international conference on “the mechanical properties at high strain-rates”, Oxford University, Institute of Physics Conference Series, no. 21, pp 22–32Google Scholar
  2. Albertini C, Cadoni E, Labibes K (1996) Dynamic mechanical behaviour of large concrete specimen by means of a bundle Hopkinson bars. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on impact engineering, Chinese Mechanics Journal, Beijing, pp 214–219Google Scholar
  3. Albertini C, Cadoni E, Labibes K (1997) Impact fracture process and mechanical properties of plain concrete by means of an Hopkinson bar bundle. J Phys III(7):915–920Google Scholar
  4. Albertini C, Cadoni E, Labibes K (1999) Study of the mechanical properties of plain concrete under dynamic loading. Exp Mech 39:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asprone D, Cadoni E, Prota A, Manfredi G (2009) Dynamic behavior of a Mediterranean natural stone under tensile loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:514–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barla G, Innaurato N (1973) Indirect tensile testing of anisotropic rocks. Rock Mech 5:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadoni E, Labibes K, Solomos G, Albertini C (1997) Mechanical response in tension of plain concrete in a large range of strain-rates, Technical Note No. I.97.194, European Commission, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadoni E, Labibes K, Berra M, Giangrasso M, Albertini C (2000) High strain-rate tensile concrete behaviour. Mag Concr Res 52:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadoni E, Labibes K, Berra M, Giangrasso M, Albertini C (2001a) Influence of the aggregate size on the strain-rate tensile behaviour of concrete. ACI Mater J 98:220–223Google Scholar
  10. Cadoni E, Albertini C, Labibes K, Solomos G (2001b) Behaviour of plain concrete subjected to tensile loading at high strain-rate. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on fracture mechanics of concrete and concrete structures, vol 1, June 2001, ENS-Cachan, pp 341–348Google Scholar
  11. Cadoni E, Labibes K, Albertini C, Berra M, Giangrasso M (2001c) Strain-rate effect on the tensile behaviour of concrete at different relative humidity levels. Mater Struct 34:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadoni E, Solomos G, Albertini C (2009) Mechanical characterization of concrete in tension and compression at high strain-rate using a modified Hopkinson bar. Mag Concr Res 61:221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comité Euro-International du Béton (1993) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies RM (1948) A critical study of the Hopkinson pressure bar. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 240:375–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutta PK, Kim K (1983) High-strain-rate tensile behavior of sedimentary and igneous rocks at low temperatures. US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory CRREL Report 93-16, p 17Google Scholar
  16. Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Peterson PE (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6:773–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klepaczko JR, Brara A (2001) Experimental method for dynamic tensile testing of concrete by spalling. Int J Impact Eng 25:387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc Sect B 62:676–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kubota S, Ogata Y, Wada Y, Simangunsong G, Shimada H, Matsui K (2008) Estimation of dynamic tensile strength of sandstone. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Malvar LJ, Crawford JE (1998) Dynamic increase factors for concrete. Twenty-eighth DDESB seminar, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  21. Reinhardt HW, Körmeling HA, Zielinski AJ (1986) The split Hopkinson bar, a versatile tool for the impact testing of concrete. Mater Struct 19:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schuler H, Mayrhofer C, Thoma K (2006) Spall experiments for the measurement of the tensile strength and fracture energy of concrete at high strain rates. Int J Impact Eng 32:1635–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tedesco JW, Ross CA, Kuennen ST (1993) Experimental and numerical analysis of high strain rate splitting tensile tests. ACI Mater J 90:162–169Google Scholar
  24. Wang QZ, Li W, Xie HP (2009) Dynamic split tensile test of Flattened Brazilian Disc of rock with SHPB setup. Mech Mater 41:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhou XQ, Hao H (2008) Mesoscale modelling of concrete tensile failure mechanism at high strain rates. Comput Struct 86:2013–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zielinski AJ (1982) Fracture of concrete and mortar under uniaxial impact tensile loading. Doctoral Thesis, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DynaMat LaboratoryUniversity of Applied Sciences of Southern SwitzerlandCanobbioSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations