The European Physical Journal Special Topics

, Volume 225, Issue 2, pp 355–361 | Cite as

Shock characterization of an ultra-high strength concrete

  • B. Erzar
  • C. Pontiroli
  • E. Buzaud
Regular Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Dynamic Behaviour of Materials at High Strain Rates: Experiment, Modelling and Simulation


Nowadays, the design of protective structures may imply ultra-high performance concretes. These materials present a compressive strength 5 times higher than standard concretes. However, few reliable data on the shock response of such materials are available in the literature. Thus, a characterization of an ultra-high strength concrete has been conducted by means of hydrostatic and triaxial tests in the quasi-static regime, and plate impact experiments for shock response. Data have been gathered up to 6 GPa and a simple modelling approach has been applied to get a reliable representation of the shock compression of this concrete.


European Physical Journal Special Topic Triaxial Test Compaction Curve Reactive Powder Concrete Hugoniot Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Magnusson, et al., Tech. Rep. FOI-R–0256–SE (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Riedel, et al., Nuclear Engrg. Des. 240, 2633 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Cavill, et al., 1st Specialty Conference on Disaster Mitigation (Calgary, Canada, 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Buzaud, et al., in Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, edited by M.D. Furnish, M. Elert, T.P. Russel and C.T. White (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Gebbeken, et al., Int. J. Impact Engrg. 32, 2017 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.L. Grote, et al., Int. J. Impact Engrg. 25, 869 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Tsembelis, et al., in Materials under Extreme Loadings: Application to Penetration and Impact, edited by G. Voyiadjis, E. Buzaud, I.R. Ionescu (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Williams, et al., ERDC Technical Report GSL TR-09-22 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Buzaud, et al., 21st International Symposium on Ballistics (Adelaide, Australia, 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Pontiroli, et al., Eur. J. Envir. Civil Engrg. 14, 703 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.D. Krieg, Report SC-DR-7260883, Sandia National Laboratories (1972)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.V. Swenson, L.M. Taylor, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 7, 469 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Erzar, P. Forquin, Mech. Mater. 43, 505 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Forquin, B. Erzar, Int. J. Fract. 163, 193 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Jourdren, et al., Revue Sci. Tech. de la Défense 4, 51 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Buzaud, et al., 27th International Symposium on Ballistics (Freiburg, Germany, 2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Petit, J.L. Dequiedt, Mech. Mater. 38, 173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences and Springer 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEA, DAM, GRAMATGramatFrance

Personalised recommendations