Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Determining the impact behavior of concrete beams through

experimental testing and meso-scale simulation: I. Drop-weight
tests
Mingxin Wu a, Zhenfu Chen b, Chuhan Zhang a,⇑
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
School of Urban Construction, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigates the impact behavior of concrete beams using drop-weight facility.
Received 28 June 2014 Different tups were used and varying drop weights and heights were applied. This study
Received in revised form 27 November 2014 measures impact loads, mid-span accelerations, and strains at the top and bottom edges
Accepted 6 December 2014
of the beam. To distinguish the inertial and bending components of impact forces, inertial
Available online 22 January 2015
force is formulated based on elastic beam theory. When the strain rate ranges between
0.1 s1 and 4 s1, rate effect is significant given corresponding dynamic increase factors
Keywords:
ranging from 1.6 to 3.4. Finally, the equilibrium of momentum–impulse and energy con-
Concrete
Drop-weight tests
version are examined.
Rate effects Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Momentum–impulse equilibrium
Energy conversion

1. Introduction

The behavior of concrete under dynamic loads is strongly rate-dependent and differs significantly from that under static
ones because its dynamic strengths are enhanced as strain rates increase [1,2]. This phenomenon is known as the rate effect
of concrete, and it is crucial in the evaluation of the dynamic safety of concrete structures.
To investigate the dynamic properties of concrete given a wide range of strain rates, experimental tests utilize various
facilities and techniques, such as hydraulic machines [3,4], drop-weight facilities [5–7], and split Hopkinson bars [8,9].
Drop-weight facilities are widely used in dynamic impact tests at strain rate ranges of 101 s1 to 102 s1 [10]. The principle
of the method that utilizes drop-weight facilities is clear, and it is easy to apply because loading rates and input energy can
be changed simply by adjusting the drop heights and hammer weights. Thus, such facilities have often been used to inves-
tigate the rate effects of normal-strength [7,11], high-strength [12], fiber-reinforced [13,14], and conventionally reinforced
concrete [15,16], as well as other special mixtures of cement composite [17]. Drop-weight tests using notched beams have
also been used to determine the mechanics of dynamic fractures in concrete, such as the fracture process zone [18] and crack
propagation velocities [19]. However, this test technique is mainly limited by the lack of universal facility and impact test
procedure. Various researchers extensively employ different measurement techniques, such as load cells, accelerometers,
strain gauges, and high-speed photography. In light of this disadvantage, current research aims to improve and modify these
facilities to fulfill the requirements of structural and reinforced concrete beam testing [20].

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62787216.

E-mail address: zch-dhh@tsinghua.edu.cn (C. Zhang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.12.019
0013-7944/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 95

Nomenclature

CIF capacity increase factor

DIF dynamic increase factor
Ep potential energy of the hammer
H drop height
I impulse
l span of the beam
m hammer weight
M momentum
Mi initial momentum
Mb momentum of the beam
P force
P_ force rate
Pd generalized deforming force
Pi generalized inertial force
Ps static bending capacity
Pt total impact force
Ptmax max impact force
uy displacement in the y-direction
V volume
Wf strain-fracture energy
Wt total energy of the beam
Wk kinetic energy
x x variable
y y variable
e_ strain rate
et ultimate tensile strain
d displacement at mid-span of the beam
D average standard deviation of P–t curves
q density of concrete material
r standard deviation of Ptmax

To determine the failure mechanism of concrete, the modeling of mesoscopic mechanics can be applied. This type of sim-
ulation is capable of considering the heterogeneity, damage localization, and crack propagation in dimensions that range
from 103 m to 101 m [21]. Nonetheless, meso-scale simulation approaches for drop-weight tests are rare; rather, several
numerical models have been established to investigate the dynamic properties of concrete.
In the present study, concrete beams are systemically loaded using drop-weight facilities. Herein, impact behavior is
assessed using aluminum and rubber tups under different drop heights and weights. As a result, force–deformation relation-
ships and the histories of strains are generated given a medium-to-high range of strain rates. These test results clarify the
impact behavior of concrete beams, including its force capacity increase and strain rate effects. In addition, this study ana-
lyzes momentum–impulse equilibrium and different components of energy conversion during impact. These test results are
compared with those obtained using particle element simulation in the companion paper of Part II.

2. Drop-weight facility and preparatory tests

2.1. Drop-weight facility and specimens

Fig. 1 shows the self-designed drop-weight facility used in the dynamic impact tests of concrete beams. The facility uses
steel frames and a series of drop hammers that range from 1 kg to 5 kg in weight and possesses a maximum drop height of
2 m.
The concrete beam specimens display cross-sectional dimensions of 100 mm  100 mm and are 400 mm long in total.
The components of the concrete mixture (cement:water:fine aggregate:coarse aggregate) are proportioned as follows:
1:0.43:1.25:2.91. The maximum aggregate measures 20 mm and the density of the mixture is 2400 kg/m3. The concrete
specimens are subject to static compression and bending tests using a hydraulic servo-machine, and the corresponding com-
pressive strength and bending capacity are 32.4 MPa and 9.6 kN, respectively.
Fig. 2 illustrates the impact test system in detail. The concrete beam is supported on an iron platform with a span of
300 mm. To record impact forces and vertical acceleration during impact, a force transducer and an accelerometer, respec-
tively, are attached to the top of the concrete specimen at mid-span. To avoid damage of the transducer surface during
96 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Fig. 1. Drop-weight facility.

Fig. 2. Impact test of concrete beam.

impact, an aluminum–alloy pad is glued to the top surface of the transducer and is replaced for each specimen after impact.
In addition, strain gauges are used to measure the time histories of both tensile and compressive strains during the test. The
strain gauges are glued at the top and bottom surfaces at mid-span of the beam. Two additional gauges are also attached at
the upper and lower edges of the front surface so as to ensure that the instant of cracking and the maximum strains can be
captured and checked. All the results of strains herein mean the average values of measurements by different strain gauges
in test. All instrument signals are acquired at intervals of 0.01 ms using a dynamic data collection system.

2.2. Preparatory tests

The impact test involves a complicated loading process. Thus, impact force histories must be stable and accurate to guar-
antee the precision and repeatability of the results. To this end, a preparatory test is conducted. This test is founded on an
approximately rigid steel cube measuring 150 mm  150 mm  100 mm (Fig. 3). In this test, hammers whose tups are
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 97

Fig. 3. Preparatory test with a rigid foundation.

Fig. 4. Impact force patterns given different hammer tups.

Fig. 5. Differences in impact force histories.

composed of different materials are dropped directly onto the pad surface. A series of such preparatory tests are conducted to
achieve the following objectives:

1. To determine appropriate hammer tup material and impact load pattern characteristics. Hence, different tup materials,
such as aluminum, rubber, and steel, are examined and compared. Fig. 4 depicts the force histories of the tests given these
three hammer tup materials. Both the aluminum and rubber tups generate smooth loading curves, but the load peak of
98 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

the former is higher and lasts shorter than that of the latter. However, the steel tup displays an oscillatory pattern of load
history, thus implying that the rigidity of this tup is inappropriate for high-speed impact tests. Based on these findings,
the aluminum and rubber tups are selected for testing.

Table 1
Preparatory test results.

Tup Hammer Drop Max impact Standard deviation of Average standard deviation of Initial momentumb, Impulse,
material weight, m/kg height, H/ force, Ptmax/kN Ptmax, r/kN P–t curvesa, D/kN Mi/(kg m/s) I/N s
m
Aluminum 4 0.5 47 1.08 0.80 12.5 16.5
4 1.0 64 0.22 1.78 17.7 22.5
4 1.5 72 1.42 1.71 21.7 26.4
4 2.0 79 1.70 1.76 25.0 30.3
1 2.0 47 1.45 1.08 6.3 7.4
2 2.0 65 0.63 1.66 12.5 15.3
3 2.0 69 1.24 1.74 18.8 21.6
Rubber 4 0.5 20 0.85 0.47 12.5 15.0
4 1.0 30 0.72 0.42 17.7 21.1
4 1.5 48 1.20 0.57 21.7 26.2
4 2.0 55 3.74 1.50 25.0 30.1
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rP
2 2 2
a ðX i1 X i Þ þðX i2 X i Þ þðX i3 X i Þ
D¼ 2n , where Xi is the value of sampling point i; X i is the average value corresponding to i; and n is the number of sampling
points.
b
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Mi ¼ m 2gH.

Fig. 6. Frequency-domain analysis and the low-pass digital filtering of acceleration signals. (a) Frequency-domain analysis. (b) Digitally filtered acceleration
data. (c) Velocity results. (d) Displacement results.
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 99

2. To verify the differences in the impact load histories of each test event repeated under identical loading conditions. Fig. 5
indicates that three identical impacts are generated for each loading case, of which the aluminum tups are set at two dif-
ferent drop heights. Table 1 lists the maximum impact loads and their corresponding standard deviations. The results
show that test repeatability is satisfactory and that measurement accuracy can be guaranteed.
3. To verify the potential rebounding and separation of the hammer during impact by analyzing the equilibrium conditions
of system momentum–impulse. Table 1 also compares the input momentum and impulse and suggests that all of the
momentum values are smaller than the corresponding impulse values. Thus, the hammers rebound significantly during
impact in the tests.

Furthermore, the impact load histories measured in the preparatory tests are used to calibrate the mechanical parameters
of the loading system for the numerical simulation in Part II.

3. Analysis of the test results

In the drop-weight tests of concrete beam, the time histories of impact force and acceleration at the mid-span of the beam
are measured directly using a transducer and an accelerometer, respectively. These results should be analyzed to examine
the inertial behavior of concrete beams subject to dynamic loading.

3.1. Analysis of acceleration data

In the impact test, the vertical velocity and deflection at the loading point can be obtained by integrating and double-inte-
grating the measured acceleration, respectively. To verify the stability and repeatability of the deformation results, we con-
ducted repetitive tests on three specimens with 4 kg hammer at a drop height of 1.5 m. Consequently, the original
acceleration data display an oscillatory and scattered pattern (the original signals are illustrated in Fig. 6b). To obtain smooth
and repeatable curves for inertial force analysis, we therefore adopt frequency-domain analysis. The original acceleration
signals are filtered in a low-pass digital filtering process with a cut-off frequency of 5 kHz. As observed in Fig. 6c and d,
the velocity and displacement results derived from filtered data are almost similar to those obtained with the original sig-
nals. This result confirms that the high-frequency component of the acceleration signal can be considered noise and does not
affect structural response. In the following analyses, the cut-off frequency is set at 5 kHz and higher frequencies are filtered
out.

3.2. Analysis of inertial force

According to Banthia and Mindess [6,22], the total force between the tup and the specimen (recorded by the force trans-
ducer) is not the actual force that induces bending deformation and cracking in beams. Moreover, this total force contains a
kinetic component as a result of the inertial effect in the dynamic tests. Based on this consideration, the equation of dynamic
equilibrium can be written as
Pt ðtÞ ¼ P d ðtÞ þ Pi ðtÞ ð1Þ
where Pt is the total force measured in the test; Pd is the generalized deforming force at the loading point; and Pi is the gen-
eralized inertial force.
To subtract the inertial component from total force, we assume the distribution of displacement (acceleration) along the
beam. Pi is then calculated by integration. The deflection of the beam during impact includes two stages, i.e. the elastic stage
and the cracking stage. For the former case, the plane cross-section is more appropriate and the deflection can be depicted as
a cubic polynomial curve. However, the straight-line assumption presented by Banthia et al. [22] seems more suitable for the
latter stage once the crack starts to propagate. For simplicity, the authors use the elastic theory to describe the entire deform-
ing process. The displacements in the y-direction are expressed by the variables x, y; whereas the displacement at mid-span
is represented by d(t) in Eqs. (2) and (3) if the origin point is defined at the midpoint of the beam and the length of the sup-
ported span is l with an overhanging portion measuring l/6, as shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Displacement distribution assumption.

100 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

   2  
4 6 2 1 12 2 12 l
uy ðx; yÞ ¼ 3
x3
 2
x þ 1 d  y 3
x  2
x d2 0<x< ð2Þ
l l 2 l l 2
   2  
3 3 1 3 l 2l
uy ðx; yÞ ¼ xþ d y  d2 <x< ð3Þ
l 2 2 l 2 3
The generalized inertial force Pi is a virtual force concentrated at the loading point, whereas the inertial force caused by
acceleration is a body force distributed throughout the beam. According to the principle of virtual work,
Z
Pi dd ¼ 2 qu€ y duy dV ð4Þ

where q is the density of the beam; dV ¼ 3l dxdy; and the other variables are expressed as follows:
   2    
4 3 6 2 €d  y 12 x2  12 x €dd þ d_ 2 l
€ y ðx; yÞ ¼
u 3
x  2
x þ 1 3 2
0 < x < ð5Þ
l l l l 2
   2   l 
3 3 € 3 €dd þ d_ 2 2l
€ y ðx; yÞ ¼
u xþ dy  <x< ð6Þ
l 2 l 2 3
   2  
4 6 12 2 12 l
duy ðx; yÞ ¼ 3
x3  2
x 2
þ 1 dd  yd 3
x  2
x dd 0 < x < ð7Þ
l l l l 2
   2  
3 3 3 l 2l
duy ðx; yÞ ¼ xþ dd  yd  dd <x< ð8Þ
l 2 l 2 3
Using Eqs. (4)–(8), we obtain the generalized inertial force Pi by
3    
2l 17 1 € 2l 16 1 € 
Pi ¼ q þ dþ q þ dd þ d_ 2 d ð9Þ
3 210 216 3 315 24
If the infinitesimals are neglected, Pi can be simplified further as
3  
2l 17 1 €
Pi ðtÞ ¼ q þ dðtÞ ð10Þ
3 210 216

4. Test results

In these drop-hammer tests, the concrete beams were struck by four hammers at weights ranging from 1 kg to 4 kg and
hanging at four drop heights that varied from 0.5 m to 2 m. The two tups selected during the preparatory tests were
employed to increase the range of loading rates. Table 2 summarizes the results for all of the impact test cases. In each load-
ing case, we tested two or three specimens repetitively. The time histories of impact force, acceleration and strains were
measured using the arranged force transducer, accelerometer, and strain gauges, respectively. Moreover, the histories of
all of the measured parameters are presented and discussed below, along with the dynamic load–deflection relationship
at different rates.

Table 2
Loading cases of drop-weight tests.

Tup Cases Hammer weight, Drop height, Max impact force, Ultimate tensile strain,
material m/kg H/m Ptmax/kN et/l
Aluminum Different drop heights with a constant 4 0.5 45.3 202
weight 4 1.0 56.8 194
4 1.5 67.4 196
4 2.0 71.5 225
Different weights with a constant drop 1 2.0 42.1 198
height 2 2.0 61.1 245
3 2.0 65.0 229
4 2.0 71.5 225
Rubber Different drop heights with a constant 4 0.5 17.7 202
weight 4 1.0 28.9 231
4 1.5 35.0 193
4 2.0 43.2 245
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 101

4.1. Different drop heights with a constant weight (aluminum tup)

We conduct tests with a 4 kg hammer that has an aluminum tup and is suspended at four drop heights (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and
2.0 m) for different loading velocities. Aluminum–alloy pads (replaced for each specimen) are placed in between the tup and
force transducer to improve result repeatability. Figs. 8–11 exhibit the dynamic impact behavior of concrete beams based on
these loading cases.

Fig. 8. Time histories of total impact force and generalized inertial force. (a) Pt histories. (b) Pi histories.

Fig. 9. Time histories of vertical deflection.

102 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Fig. 10. Force–deformation curves.

Fig. 11. Histories of tensile and compressive strains.

Fig. 8a shows the time histories of the impact forces measured by the force transducer (Pt). The curves are the mean val-
ues of the tested specimens in the corresponding group. The shadows denote the degree of dispersion in the upper and lower
bounds. As the drop height of the hammer increases, maximum force capacity increases; whereas the loading durations
remain constant at 0.45 ms. Fig. 8b illustrates inertial force Pi as calculated using Eq. (10) and indicates that the inertial force
of the beam body also increases as the loading velocity increases.
As mentioned previously, the vertical deflections of the beam at the loading point are computed by double-integrating the
acceleration histories (Fig. 9). The displacements increase with the increase in drop height. Figs. 8a and 9 show that the
force–deformation (P–d) curves can be obtained as presented in Fig. 10. The area of this curve represents the total work done
by the impact force. As drop height increases, the specimen absorbs increased amount of energy to rupture.
Fig. 11 suggests that the time histories of the tensile and compressive strains are measured by the strain gauges at the
bottom and top edges of the beam. In each case, such as in that with a drop height of 2 m, these strains are almost symmet-
rical at the beginning of impact load. When the load approaches the capacity of the concrete beam, cracks are generated and
are characterized by a rapid increase in tensile strain. In the cracking process, the neutral axis of the beam gradually rises as
compressive strain increases. Finally, the gauges on the top edge of the beam experience tension and cracking, thereby indi-
cating complete specimen failure. Table 2 depicts the ultimate values of tensile strain for all cases. In this series of tests,
strain rate increased as the drop height increased from 0.5 m to 2 m. However, the ultimate strains were insensitive to strain
rate and ranged from 200 l to 220 l.

4.2. Different weights with a constant drop height (aluminum tup)

In this case, four aluminum-tupped hammers of different weights were dropped from a constant height of 2 m to apply
load to the concrete specimens. Fig. 12 displays Pt and Pi. When heavy hammers are used, beam capacity and loading time
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 103

Fig. 12. Time histories of total impact force and generalized inertial force. (a) Pt histories. (b) Pi histories.

Fig. 13. Time histories of vertical deflection.

duration increase. Given that hammer velocity is constant when impact occurs, the initial velocities of impact forces Pt are
similar. These velocities then scatter before the loads reach their maximum.
Figs. 13 and 14 depict the curves of displacement histories and the force–deformation relationships. The curves in Fig. 13
indicate the maximum values of deflection after impact. These deflections also increase similarly at the beginning of loading
104 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Fig. 14. Force–deformation curves.

Fig. 15. Histories of tensile and compressive strains.

because the initial velocities of loads are similar. Using a 1 kg hammer, we obtain an extra smaller resultant value than if the
heavier hammers were used. This finding may be attributed to the fact that the concrete beam does not completely break
through the top edge in this case. Thus, the corresponding result in relation to force–deformation curve is also smaller
(Fig. 14).
The strain histories in Fig. 15 clearly show the cracking and failure process of concrete beams. The tensile strain rates are
similar on initial impact, but then they vary before the rapid rises of tensile strains. Given that varied rate-sensitive concrete
behavior is displayed in the four cases, the strain rate obtained just prior to crack initiation is crucial. Before cracking, the
ultimate tensile strains are all approximately 200–220 l, which is similar to those of the previous case.

4.3. Different drop heights with a constant weight (rubber tup)

The rubber tup was used in the tests involving a medium range of strain rates. The hammer weights remain constant at
4 kg, whereas the drop heights vary from 0.5 m to 2 m. Figs. 16–19 show the results of force, deflection, and strains and indi-
cate that the elastic modulus of rubber is much lower than that of aluminum. Thus, loading time durations increased and
strain rates decreased. When the specimens were loaded from a drop height of 0.5 m, they failed but were not completely
snapped in two. Hence, deflection appears unchanged after 1.0 ms. The compressive strain reverts to zero, but no tension is
experienced as in the other cases. Although the energy inputs are constant, force peaks decrease and deflections increase
relative to the cases involving an aluminum tup, thereby indicating that the beams in the current case are less brittle than
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 105

Fig. 16. Time histories of total impact force and generalized inertial force. (a) Pt histories. (b) Pi histories.

Fig. 17. Time histories of vertical deflection.

those in the aluminum-tupped cases. Loading beams with a rubber tup results in a very slow process with a slight inertial
reaction. As shown in Fig. 19, however, the ultimate tensile strains remain constant at approximately 200–220 l.
106 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Fig. 18. Force–deformation curves.

Fig. 19. Histories of tensile and compressive strains.

5. Discussion of test results

5.1. Momentum–impulse equilibrium

Considering momentum–impulse equilibrium in the test, the equation of momentum–impulse relation can be written as
follows:

M ¼ Mi  Mb ¼ I ð11Þ

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi R
in which, the initial momentum M i ¼ m 2gH and I is the impulse from I ¼ Pt dt; Mb is the momentum of the beam.
According to the displacement distribution assumption described in Section 3.2, Mb can be derived from mid-span veloc-
ity as

Z 3
l 13 _
Mb ¼ qu_ y dV ¼ dðtÞ ð12Þ
3 144
Fig. 20 exhibits the equilibrium condition of momentum–impulse if the inputted momentum values are calculated by Eq.
(11). When hammer weight is 4 kg, the momentum and impulse values are close to each other. When hammer weight
decreases and an aluminum tup is applied, however, the impulse values of impact loads exceed the momentum values, thus
indicating that the hammer rebounded.
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 107

Fig. 20. Momentum–impulse equilibrium.

5.2. Force and strain rate effects

5.2.1. Capacity increase factor (CIF)

According to the test results, a CIF may be defined as the enhancement of structural bearing capacity when the beam is
imposed to dynamic loads, i.e.

Pt
CIF ¼ ð13Þ
Ps
where Pt is the total dynamic force on the concrete beam and Ps is the static counterpart at 9.6 kN. This value is obtained
from corresponding static tests using a servo-hydraulic machine.
We infer that CIF represents the influence of dynamic loading velocity on the enhancement of the total load-carrying
capacity of the beam as a result of consumptive energy mechanisms. The impact behavior of concrete consumes significant
amounts of inertial and frictional energies and is occasionally dominated by these energies, thereby inducing CIF effects.
Although CIF parameters may be dependent on specimen size, the presented values adequately indicate the impact behavior
of concrete beams.
Table 3 summarizes the results of force rate P_ and the CIFs while Fig. 21 depicts these findings. Force rate is related to the
initial loading velocity in the impact test and ranges between 30 MN/s and 500 MN/s, with corresponding CIFs ranging from
1.5 to 8. In all of the loading cases in the tests, CIF increases as P_ increases.

Table 3
Rate effects during the tests.

Tup material Hammer weight, m/kg Drop height, H/m _

Force rate, P/(MN/s) CIF Strain rate, e_ /s1 DIF Wf/J

Aluminum 4 0.5 219 4.72 2.0 2.34 5.6

4 1.0 403 5.92 2.5 2.79 6.4
4 1.5 429 7.02 2.3 3.00 10.0
4 2.0 494 7.45 3.2 3.03 10.0
1 2.0 238 4.38 1.7 3.33 2.1
2 2.0 405 6.37 2.3 3.38 6.8
3 2.0 469 6.77 2.3 2.92 10.4
4 2.0 494 7.45 3.2 3.03 10.0
Rubber 4 0.5 36 1.84 0.3 1.68 4.7
4 1.0 68 3.01 0.7 2.25 8.4
4 1.5 90 3.64 1 2.05 10.6
4 2.0 126 4.50 1.8 2.33 12.3
108 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Fig. 21. Force rate effects.

5.2.2. Dynamic increase factor (DIF)

DIF is traditionally defined as the ratio of dynamic strength to its static counterpart. This ratio has been used worldwide to
describe the magnitude of strain rate effects. In this study, DIF is calculated using Eq. (14).
Pd
DIF ¼ ð14Þ
Ps
where Pd denotes the generalized deforming force that is computed by excluding the inertial component from the total force
and Ps is the static bending capacity of the specimen. The DIFs are significantly smaller than their corresponding CIFs.
As per the tensile strain characteristics discussed in Section 4.2, the strain rate just prior to crack initiation is the most
crucial one. Fig. 22 depicts the increasing tensile strain rate in three parts: The initial phase with a low and constant strain
rate, the second phase with higher and varied strain rates prior to cracking, and the final cracking phase. Using the tests con-
ducted in Section 3.1 as an example, we fit the tensile strain data (mean values of all of the specimens) to three linear curves
through the least squares method (Fig. 22). The critical points are computed by optimum analysis, in which the sum of the
fitting deviations is minimized. Thus, the critical strain rate of this test is defined as the slope of the straight line of the sec-
ond phase. Table 3 presents all of the strain rates and the corresponding DIFs for the current tests.
We examined the impact behavior of compression regions as illustrated in Fig. 23, and the findings show that the strain
gauges at the top edge of the beam convert initial compression to tension and eventually induces cracks. Similarly, this pro-
cess may be categorized into three phases, namely, the initial compression phase with a low and constant strain rate, the
second phase with higher and varied strain rates, and the final cracking phase as a result of tension. We approximate fracture
velocity as 400–500 m/s because the crack propagates from the bottom (tension) to the top edge of the beam.
Table 3 and Fig. 24 show the results of DIF versus strain rate. These findings are compared with the curve obtained using
the modified Comité Euro-International du Béton (M-CEB) equation recommended by Malvar and Ross [1] in Fig. 25. The
results suggest that we can generate results under a medium-to-high range of strain rates (0.1–4 s1) using the two types

Fig. 22. Phase division of tensile strain and linear fit.

 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 109

Fig. 23. Phase division of the compression–tension cracking process.

Fig. 24. Strain rate effects.

Fig. 25. Comparison of current results and curve derived from the modified CEB equation.

of tups. In all of the loading cases in the current tests, DIF increases as strain rate increases. The findings of this drop-weight
test agree with those of the M-CEB equation for concrete (30 MPa) although the current empirical formula is based on exten-
sive experiments with different facilities.
110 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

Fig. 26. Energy equilibrium.

5.3. Energy equilibrium and conversion

Theoretically, the initial kinetic energy of the hammer, which is converted from potential energy, denotes the total energy
imported to the specimen and to the test facilities. The potential energy Ep can be calculated by formulating mgH, in which m
and H represent the weight and drop height of the hammer, respectively. The energy absorbed by the concrete beam, that is,
the work done by the hammer to the specimen Wt, equals the area below the Pt–d curve. Fig. 26 compares Wt and Ep and
suggests that the energy absorbed by the concrete beam is less than half of the input energy in each loading case. This result
implies that the hammer-pad-transducer system consumed roughly half of the available energy as a result of plastic defor-
mation and inertia. In particular, the aluminum–alloy pad irreversibly consumes plastic energy. Meanwhile, the loading sys-
tem with rubber tup consumes more energy in the impact.
Once the hammer impacts the concrete beam, the energy of the hammer is transferred to the beam. Using the force–
deflection curves, we can analyze the conversion and dissipation of energy components in the beam. Fig. 27 displays the typ-
ical partition of energy components, which is expressed as the areas of Pt–d, Pd–d, and Pi–d curves, where Wt represents the
total energy transferred to the beam and Wf and Wk are the strain-fracture and the kinetic energy component, respectively.
Total impact force Pt is measured directly by the force transducer; Pi is the generalized inertial force that was calculated
using Eq. (10); deforming force Pd is the difference of the two aforementioned forces. The deflection at loading point d orig-
inates from the double integration of the measured acceleration. Therefore, Wt, Wf, and Wk are computed using Eqs. (15)–
(17).

Z
Wt ¼ Pt dd ¼ W f þ W k ð15Þ

Z
Wf ¼ Pd dd ð16Þ

Z
Wk ¼ Pi dd ð17Þ

Fig. 28 depicts the histories of energy conversion using the case series involving the aluminum-tupped hammer at differ-
ent drop heights as an example. Both the kinetic and strain-fracture energy components consume a certain amount of the
total energy provided by the hammer. However, the amount of kinetic energy increases significantly whereas that of its
strain-fracture counterpart increases gradually as the drop height increases. Table 3 compares the energy consumptions
in different cases and indicates that fracture energy Wf varies with the increase in strain rates.
 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112 111

Fig. 27. Partitions of energy components (4 kg–1.5 m using rubber tup).

Fig. 28. Histories of energy conversion. (a) 4 kg–0.5 m. (b) 4 kg–1.0 m. (c) 4 kg–1.5 m. (d) 4 kg–2.0 m.

6. Concluding remarks

In this study, a drop-weight test system is designed to study the impact behavior of concrete beams. Aluminum and rub-
ber hammer tups are used to vary ranges of loading rate. The histories of impact force, acceleration, and strain are compre-
hensively measured, and varying loading cases, i.e., different hammer weights and drop heights, are integrated to yield
systematic results. The following conclusions are obtained:
112 M. Wu et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 135 (2015) 94–112

1. We distinguish CIF and DIF as rate effects of concrete beams in this study. CIF is defined as the increase in total load
capacity Pt versus the load rate P_ imposed on the beam, which denotes the increase in total energy demand as a result
of strain–fracture energy consumption and kinetic energy derived from inertial effects. DIF, however, corresponds to
the increase in deforming force Pd versus local strain rate e_ . The study results showed that CIFs range from 1.5 to 8 when
the load velocity ranges between 30 MN/s and 500 MN/s, whereas DIFs range from 1.5 to 3.5 given strain rates of 0.2–
4 s1. These findings agree with those obtained using the modified CEB equation. Both CIFs and DIFs are significantly
and highly rate dependent, whereas the ultimate strains that induce cracking are insensitive to strain rates. Thus, they
are almost similar to the static case, i.e., 200–220 l in all cases.
2. Interestingly, the measured tensile strain undergoes three phases, namely, initial phase with low and constant strain
rates, second phase with higher and varying rates and final cracking phase. However, the upper portion of the beam con-
verts the initial compression into tensional cracking, and if the crack propagates from the bottom (by tension) to the top
edge in a simple and straight path, fracture velocities in the impact tests can be approximated at 400–500 m/s.
3. During impact, the momentum–impulse equilibrium is effectively maintained, thus indicating that the measured impact
force histories are sufficiently accurate. However, the equilibrium of energy and conversion in the tests suggest that only
approximately half of the total energy was transferred to the beam and that the remaining portion was absorbed by the
facilities, particularly as a result of the plastic damage in the aluminum–alloy pads. Hence, all components, including the
hammer-pad-concrete beam coupling system that is to be presented in the companion paper of Part II, which must be
considered for the energy conversion mechanism. When the inertial forces during impact are excluded, the deforming
forces (bending) can be extracted from the total forces to determine the distribution of energy components. These
deforming forces initiate the strain–fracture process to derive the fracture energy of a beam. When load velocity and
strain rates increase, both kinetic and strain–fracture energy components are significantly enhanced.

Acknowledgements

We express our appreciation to Professor Changqing Guo for his valuable suggestions for this study. We also sincerely
thank Professors Feng Jin, Jinting Wang and Yanjie Xu for their discussions with us. We acknowledge the assistance of
Mr. Tao Li, Mr. Kui Zhang, and Ms. Shanshan Guo as well. Moreover, this work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51479098, 51239006 and 91215301).

References

[1] Malvar LJ, Ross CA. Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Mater J 1998;95(6):735–9.
[2] Bischoff PH, Perry SH. Compressive behavior of concrete at high-strain rates. Mater Struct 1991;24(144):425–50.
[3] Raphael JM. Tensile-strength of concrete. ACI J 1984;81(2):158–65.
[4] Bazant ZP, Gu WH, Faber KT. Softening reversal and other effects of a change in loading rate on fracture of concrete. ACI Mater J 1995;92(1):3–9.
[5] Hughes BP, Gregory R. Concrete subjected to high rates of loading in compression. Mag Concr Res 1972;24(78):25.
[6] Banthia N, Mindess S, Bentur A, Pigeon M. Impact testing of concrete using a drop-weight impact machine. Exp Mech 1989;29(1):63–9.
[7] Elfahal MM, Krauthammer T, Ohno T, Beppu M, Mindess S. Size effect for normal strength concrete cylinders subjected to axial impact. Int J Impact
Engng 2005;31(4):461–81.
[8] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Moisture and strain rate effects on concrete strength. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):293–300.
[9] Wu MX, Qin C, Zhang CH. High strain rate splitting tensile tests of concrete and numerical simulation by mesoscale particle elements. J Mater Civil
Engng – ASCE 2014;26(1):71–82.
[10] Ramesh KT. High rates and impact experiments. In: Sharpe WN, editor. Springer handbook of experimental solid mechanics. US: Springer; 2008. p.
929–60.
[11] Sukontasukkul P, Nimityongskul P, Mindess S. Effect of loading rate on damage of concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(11):2127–34.
[12] Zhang XX, Ruiz G, Yu RC, Tarifa M. Fracture behaviour of high-strength concrete at a wide range of loading rates. Int J Impact Engng 2009;36(10–
11):1204–9.
[13] Suaris W, Shah SP. Properties of concrete subjected to impact. J Struct Engng – ASCE 1983;109(7):1727–41.
[14] Wang NZ, Mindess S, Ko K. Fibre reinforced concrete beams under impact loading. Cem Concr Res 1996;26(3):363–76.
[15] Saatci S, Vecchio FJ. Effects of shear mechanisms on impact behavior of reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2009;106(1):78–86.
[16] Abbas AA, Pullen AD, Cotsovos DM. Structural response of RC wide beams under low-rate and impact loading. Mag Concr Res 2010;62(10):723–40.
[17] Bindiganavile V, Banthia N, Aarup B. Impact response of ultra-high-strength fiber-reinforced cement composite. ACI Mater J 2002;99(6):543–8.
[18] Du J, Yon JH, Hawkins NM, Arakawa K, Kobayashi AS. Fracture process zone for concrete for dynamic loading. ACI Mater J 1992;89(3):252–8.
[19] Zhang XX, Yu RC, Ruiz G, Tarifa M, Camara MA. Effect of loading rate on crack velocities in HSC. Int J Impact Engng 2010;37(4):359–70.
[20] Soleimani SM, Banthia N. A novel drop weight impact setup for testing reinforced concrete beams. Exp Tech 2014;38(3):72–9.
[21] Wittmann FH, Roelfstra PE, Sadouki H. Simulation and analysis of composite structures. Mater Sci Engng 1985;68(2):239–48.
[22] Banthia NP, Mindess S, Bentur A. Energy balance in instrumented impact tests on plain concrete beams. In: Shah SP, Swartz SE, editors. Fracture of
concrete and rock SEM-RILEM international conference. New York: Springer; 1989. p. 26–36.