Test of Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Ambient-Cured

Geopolymer Concrete Using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar

Zhijie Huang 1; Wensu Chen, M.ASCE 2; Hong Hao, F.ASCE 3; Roland Aurelio 4;
Zhixing Li 5; Thong M. Pham 6

Abstract: The application of geopolymer concrete (GPC) in construction could reduce a large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission,
which is greatly beneficial to environmental sustainability. Structures made of GPC might be subjected to extreme loading such as impact
and blast loads. Therefore, a good understanding of the dynamic properties of GPC is essential to provide reliable predictions of performance
of GPC structures subjected to dynamic loading. This study presents an experimental investigation on the dynamic compressive and splitting
tensile properties of ambient-cured GPC using split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB), with the strain rate up to 161.0 s−1 for dynamic com-
pression and 10.3 s−1 for dynamic splitting tension. The failure mode and damage progress of GPC specimens, energy absorption, and
dynamic increase factor (DIF) were studied. Test results showed that ambient-cured GPC exhibited strain rate sensitivity. The compressive
and splitting tensile DIFs increased with the strain rate and the ambient-cured GPC with lower quasi-static compressive strength exhibited
higher DIFs under both dynamic compression and splitting tension. Empirical formulas were proposed to predict the DIF of ambient-cured
GPC. Furthermore, the specific energy absorption of ambient-cured GPC under dynamic compression increased approximately linearly with
the strain rate. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004074. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geopolymer concrete; Split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB); Compression; Splitting tension; Energy absorption;
Dynamic increase factor (DIF).

Introduction these industrial by-products can also save a lot of land areas for
disposal and lead to great benefits to the environment. In the last
Climate change due to greenhouse gas emission has attracted in- years, many studies have investigated the mechanical properties of
creasing attention in recent decades. The production of ordinary GPC (Diaz-Loya et al. 2011; Ganesan et al. 2014; Noushini et al.
portland cement concrete (OPC), one of the most widely used con- 2016; Thomas and Peethamparan 2015; Xie et al. 2019). It is re-
struction materials around the world, contributes to a large amount ported that GPC could behave similarly as OPC, or even better with
of greenhouse gas emission such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ). The respect to chemical resistance, fire resistance, chloride penetration,
demand of OPC is still rising due to the booming of construction and freeze-thaw cycles (Li et al. 2019; Singh et al. 2015).
industry. Therefore, an alternative material with less CO2 emission Concrete structures may be subjected to impact and blast loads
to replace OPC is deemed necessary. Geopolymer concrete (GPC), during their service life. The failure modes and damage level of
a potential alternative to OPC, uses industrial by-products such as concrete structures are greatly affected by dynamic mechanical
fly ash and slag to replace cement as binder materials. The reuse of properties of concrete materials. Previous studies demonstrated that
1
the dynamic mechanical properties of OPC is strain rate dependent
Visiting Research Associate, Center for Infrastructural Monitoring and
(Al-Salloum et al. 2015; Grote et al. 2001; Li and Meng 2003;
Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin Univ.,
Perth 6102, Australia; Ph.D. Student, Institute of Geotechnical Engineer- Lv et al. 2017; Trindade et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2009). Under high
ing, Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou 310058, China. Email: zhijie.huang@ loading rate, concrete materials exhibited a strength enhancement,
curtin.edu.au including compressive and tensile strength, which could be quan-
2
Senior Lecturer, Centre for Infrastructural Monitoring and Protection, tified by the dynamic increase factor (DIF). The strength enhance-
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin Univ., Perth 6102, ment of concrete at high strain rate can be explained by the
Australia (corresponding author). Email: [email protected] following reasons: (1) the Stefan effect that free water within con-
3
John Curtin Distinguished Professor, Centre for Infrastructural crete forms thin viscous films that can induce opposing viscous
Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering,
force to maintain the integrity of concrete (Rossi 1991a, b); (2) the
Curtin Univ., Perth 6102, Australia. Email: [email protected]
4
Graduate Civil Engineer, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, inertia force that counters crack initiation and propagation, leading
Curtin Univ., Perth 6102, Australia. Email: [email protected] to lateral inertial confinement that restrains the deformation of con-
5
Ph.D. Student, Centre for Infrastructural Monitoring and Protection, crete (Hao et al. 2010; Li and Meng 2003; Rossi and Toutlemonde
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin Univ., Perth 6102, 1996); and (3) the aggregates cleavage that cracks tend to cut
Australia. Email: [email protected] through strong aggregates with short and straight paths (Brara
6
Senior Lecturer, Centre for Infrastructural Monitoring and Protection, and Klepaczko 2006; Wang et al. 2018). Over the last decades,
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin Univ., Perth 6102, intensive studies have been conducted to investigate dynamic
Australia. Email: [email protected]
mechanical properties of OPC (Al-Salloum et al. 2015; Brara and
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 4, 2021; approved
on June 14, 2021; published online on November 25, 2021. Discussion Klepaczko 2006; Chen et al. 2011; Grote et al. 2001; Kim et al.
period open until April 25, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted 2019; Li et al. 2009; Malvar and Crawford 1998; Zhang et al.
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in 2009). Due to the different microstructures associated with the
Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561. reaction processes between OPC and GPC (i.e., polymerization

© ASCE 04021440-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

process for GPC and hydration process for OPC), dynamic fine aggregates, gravels with the maximum size of 10 mm (50%)
mechanical properties of GPC might be different from those of and 7 mm (50%) as coarse aggregates, and 12-M sodium hydroxide
OPC. Very limited studies, however, have been carried out to in- (NaOH) and D-grade sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 ) solutions as alka-
vestigate the dynamic mechanical properties of GPC. Luo et al. line activators. Table 1 gives two mix designs with different weight
(2013) and Luo and Xu (2013) conducted split Hopkinson pressure ratios of alkaline solution to binder (Deb et al. 2014; Huang et al.
bar (SHPB) tests on highly fluidized GPC with basalt fibers (with 2021a; Tran et al. 2019). The labels of mix designs (i.e., C47 and
the slump of 188 mm). It is worth noting that the highly fluidized C55) are named according to the tested compressive strength of
GPC had a relatively higher liquid (alkaline solution and water) GPC specimens. GPC C47 has been used for GPC beams subjected
content, which could lead to distinguished dynamic properties to impact load in previous studies (Huang et al. 2021a, b) while
as compared to normal GPC with smaller slump. Moreover, sodium its dynamic mechanical properties are unknown. For comparison,
carbonate (Na2 CO3 ) was used as one of alkaline solutions [the GPC C55 with lower alkaline solution-binder ratio (i.e., lower
other one is sodium hydroxide (NaOH)], causing different dynamic workability) but higher compressive strength is also studied.
properties of GPC as compared to those of GPC activated by mixed
alkaline solutions of sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 ) and NaOH (Luo
Specimens and Test Preparation
et al. 2014). Feng et al. (2014, 2015) also found that the type of
activators had a significant effect on the properties of GPC. Luo The mixing procedure of GPC follows the standard AS 1012.2
et al. (2014) suggested it was better to use Na2 SiO3 and NaOH (Standards Australia 2014a). Cylinder molds with two types of
solutions as alkaline activators. Combining these two alkaline so- dimensions [i.e., 100 × 200 mm (diameter × height, for testing
lutions as activators for geopolymer composites can also be found compressive strength and modulus of elasticity under quasi-static
in many studies (Ganesan et al. 2014; Khan et al. 2018; Nath and load) and 150 × 300 mm (for testing splitting tensile strength under
Sarker 2014; Pham et al. 2020b; Tang et al. 2020). Tang et al. quasi-static load)] were used for casting the specimens. GPC cylin-
(2020) investigated the effect of recycled aggregates on the dy- drical specimens were demoulded 24 h after casting and then
namic compressive properties of GPC and found that GPC with wrapped with cling wrap to preserve their moisture. Subsequently,
recycled aggregates exhibited higher compressive DIF (CDIF) than these specimens were placed in a room with ambient temperature
GPC with normal aggregates. It is worth noting that the GPC spec- until the testing date. Quasi-static tests to determine the compres-
imens in the aforementioned studies (Feng et al. 2014, 2015; Tang sive strength (the loading rate of 0.33 MPa=s, corresponding to the
et al. 2020) were heat cured at an elevated temperature (i.e., 60°C strain rate of 1 × 10−4 s−1 ), modulus of elasticity, and splitting tensile
or 75°C) for 24 h. Recently, the studies on the beams made of strength were conducted as per AS 1012.9 (Standards Australia
ambient-cured GPC under impact loads have been reported (Huang 2014b), ASTM C469-14 (ASTM 2014), and AS 1012.10 (Standards
et al. 2021a, b), but studies to quantify the dynamic mechanical Australia 2014c), respectively. Cylindrical specimens with the diam-
properties of ambient-cured GPC, which are not necessarily the eter D of 100 mm and the length (or height) L of 50 mm were
same as heat-cured GPC, are very limited. Understanding the dy- prepared and polished to ensure the parallel and smooth surfaces
namic mechanical properties of ambient-cured GPC is essential for at both sides for SHPB test.
accurate prediction of the dynamic response of such structures in
numerical simulations. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct tests
Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests
for quantifying the dynamic mechanical properties of ambient-
cured GPC. Fig. 1 shows the SHPB test apparatus with the bar diameter of
In the present study, ambient-cured GPC specimens were pre- 100 mm. It consists of an incident bar and a transmitted bar with
pared and tested under quasi-static and impact loads. Dynamic the lengths of 5.5 m and 3.3 m, respectively. A high speed camera
compressive and splitting tensile tests on GPC specimens were was used to capture the failure progress of the specimens. Grease
conducted using SHPB. The failure mode, failure progress, energy was used between the interfaces of specimen and bars to minimize
absorption under dynamic compression, and both the dynamic com- friction effect. To achieve the stress equilibrium and eliminate high-
pressive and splitting tensile strength were investigated. The test frequency wave oscillation, a rubber pulse shaper was attached onto
results of GPC from two mix designs with varying alkaline solution- the surface of the incident bar. Pressure with different levels was set
binder ratios were compared and discussed. In addition, the empiri- to launch different impact velocities of striker bar, leading to differ-
cal formulas were proposed to predict the CDIF and splitting tensile ent strain rates of specimen. Once the striker bar impacted the in-
DIF (TDIF) of ambient-cured GPC at different strain rates. cident bar, the incident wave and reflected wave were recorded on
the incident bar and the transmitted wave was captured on the trans-
mitted bar.
Experimental Program
Dynamic Compressive Test
Raw Materials and Mix Proportions
For a specimen under dynamic compressive test, according to the
The raw materials used in this study consisted of fly ash and ground theory of one-dimensional stress wave propagation, the stress σ,
granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) as binder materials, sand as strain rate ε̇, and strain ε of the specimen can be obtained based

Table 1. Mix proportion of ambient-cured GPC (kg=m3 )

Coarse aggregates Binder Solution
Mix Alkaline solution/binder
design Maximum size: 7 mm Maximum size: 10 mm Sand Fly ash Slag Na2 SiO3 NaOH ratio
C47 598 598 644 360 40 173.7 59.4 0.6
C55 598 598 644 360 40 114.3 45.7 0.4
Source: Data from Deb et al. (2014), Huang et al. (2021a), and Tran et al. (2019).

© ASCE 04021440-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 300 5500 3300 1000

High speed camera

Air gas tank Air gun Striker bar Incident bar Transmitted bar Momentum bar

Strain gauge Strain gauge

Specimen Buffer
Pulse shaper 100

50 100
Compression Splitting tension
Unit: mm
Digital record system Oscilloscope & Amplifier

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of SHPB setup.

on the reflected wave (εr ) and transmitted wave (εt ) as follows value of transmitted wave εt ðtÞmax and can be calculated by using
(Lindholm 1964): Eq. (4). Therefore, the stress rate σ̇ and strain rate ε̇ of the specimen

 can be estimated according to Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively
A (Tedesco and Ross 1993)
σðtÞ ¼ Eb b εt ðtÞ ð1Þ
As
R2b Eb
2C ftd ¼ ε ðtÞ ð4Þ
ε̇ðtÞ ¼ − b εr ðtÞ ð2Þ Rs Ls t max
Ls
Z t f td
εðtÞ ¼ ε̇ðtÞdt ð3Þ σ̇ ¼ ð5Þ
τ
0

where Eb and Ab = modulus of elasticity and cross-sectional area of σ̇

ε̇ ¼ ð6Þ
the bars (made of high strength steel material), respectively; Cb = Es
stress wave propagation velocity in the bars; and As and Ls = cross-
sectional area and length of the specimen, respectively. where Rb and Eb = radius and modulus of elasticity of the bars,
Fig. 2 shows a typical stress equilibrium check of a dynamic respectively; Rs , Ls , and Es = radius, length, and modulus of
compressive test with the transmitted wave coinciding well with elasticity of the specimen, respectively; and τ = time interval of
the incident + reflected wave. It is noted that the stress equilibrium transmitted wave from the start to the peak value.
has been checked for all the tests to validate the data. In this study, The data is only valid when the stress equilibrium is achieved.
the strain rate was determined when the stress reached the peak A typical stress equilibrium check of dynamic splitting tensile test
value, as reported in previous studies (Hao and Hao 2013; Li et al. is shown in Fig. 3, which illustrates a good agreement between the
2021; Pham et al. 2020a; Yin et al. 2020). transmitted wave and incident + reflected wave. In addition, it can
be found that the magnitude of transmitted wave is much lower than
those of incident and reflected waves, which is mainly due to the
Dynamic Splitting Tensile Test
low tensile strength of the GPC specimen, leading to a significant
For a specimen under dynamic splitting tensile test, dynamic split- portion of incident wave being reflected and turned into tensile
ting tensile strength ftd of the specimen is proportional to the peak wave after the failure of specimen (Khan et al. 2019). Similarly,

0.3 Incident 0.15 Incident

Reflected Reflected
0.2 Transmitted 0.10 Transmitted
Incident+Reflected Incident+Reflected
0.1 0.05
Voltage (V)

Voltage (V)

0.0 0.00

-0.1 -0.05

-0.2 -0.10

-0.3 -0.15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time ( s) Time ( s)

Fig. 2. Stress equilibrium check of the dynamic compressive test. Fig. 3. Stress equilibrium check of the dynamic splitting tensile test.

© ASCE 04021440-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

stress equilibrium of dynamic splitting tensile tests for all the spec- the specimens experienced more severe damage and fractured
imens were checked to ensure the valid results. into higher numbers of small fragments. Fig. 5 shows the failure
progress of the specimens at different strain rates. Obviously,
cracks appeared earlier as the strain rate increased. For example,
Quasi-Static Test Results a clear crack was observed along the axial direction of C55 speci-
men at 125 μs when the strain rate was 98.0 s−1 , whereas there was
Table 2 lists the quasi-static test results of two mix designs of no crack observed at the strain rate of 70.3 s−1 . For the specimens
GPC after 90-day curing, including compressive strength, mod- at a relatively low strain rate (e.g., C47 at the strain rate of 48.4 s−1
ulus of elasticity, and splitting tensile strength. The mix design and C55 at the strain rate of 70.3 s−1 ), some main cracks developed
C55 with lower ratio of alkaline solution to binder showed higher and propagated along the axial direction through the whole spec-
compressive strength, which agrees with the test results reported imens, which caused the rupture of the specimen into several
in the previous studies (Heah et al. 2012; Nath and Sarker 2014). relatively large pieces. At relatively high strain rate (e.g., 63.7 s−1
It is understood that with higher alkaline solution-binder ratio, for C47 and 98.0 s−1 for C55), many numbers of microcracks were
the strength of GPC decreases due to the higher content of water observed on the surface of the specimens before 250 μs, and these
in the geopolymer composites, causing more blocked contact microcracks then extended and widened. Eventually, the specimens
areas of polymerization reaction by water molecules and in were shattered into many small fragments.
turn leading to a lower compressive strength (Ng et al. 2018).
However, it is noted that a lower alkaline solution-binder ratio
would decrease the workability of GPC (Heah et al. 2012; Nath Dynamic Compressive Stress–Strain Curves and
and Sarker 2014), which may lead to difficulties in mixing and Energy Absorption
compaction. Fig. 6 shows the typical dynamic compressive stress–strain curves
of the GPC specimens at different strain rates, which were derived
from the test data according to Eqs. (1)–(3). All the stress–strain
Dynamic Compressive Test Results curves display a steep, almost linear increase at beginning, indicat-
ing the specimens were elastically compressed at this stage. The
Failure Characteristics and Progress increase trend then slows down with a reduced slope of the
stress–strain curves, which means the specimens entered into plas-
Fig. 4 shows the failure modes of the GPC specimens at different tic deformation stage and minor damage occurred in the specimens
strain rates. It was observed that the specimens fractured into as a result of the development of microcracks. Subsequently, the
several large pieces when the strain rate was around 59.2 s−1
peak stress is reached and the stress–strain curves exhibit a plateau
for C47 and 66.3 s−1 for C55. With the increase of strain rate,
with relatively constant stress and sharply increased strain, which
indicates microvoids in the specimens were greatly compressed,
leading to rapid damage accumulation of the specimens (Lv et al.
Table 2. Quasi-static test results after 90-day curing 2017). Afterwards, the stress decreases faster with the increase of
Mix Modulus of Compressive Splitting tensile
strain. It can be found that there is a slight decrease of strain in
design elasticity (GPa) strength, fc (MPa) strength, f t (MPa) the tail of the stress–strain curves (e.g., C55 at the strain rate of
84.7 s−1 ), suggesting the specimens experienced a slight recovery
C47 34.3 47.0 4.2
after separation from the incident bar. This observation can also be
C55 36.0 55.0 4.8
found in Gao et al. (2015), Li and Xu (2009a, b), Luo et al. (2013),

C47

59.2 s-1 64.2 s-1 82.3 s-1

C55

66.3 s-1 98.0 s-1 161.0 s-1

Fig. 4. Failure modes of GPC specimens under dynamic compression at different strain rates.

© ASCE 04021440-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 48.4 s-1 84.7 s-1

0 µs 125 µs 250 µs 525 µs 1575 µs 0 µs 125 µs 250 µs 525 µs 1575 µs

98.0 s-1
63.7 s-1

0 µs 125 µs 250 µs 525 µs 1575 µs 0 µs 125 µs 250 µs 525 µs 1575 µs

C47 C55

Fig. 5. Failure progress of GPC specimens under dynamic compression at different strain rates.

140
C47: strain rate 48.4 s-1 plotted for comparison. It is found that the trend of the energy ab-
C47: strain rate 63.7 s-1 sorption of the GPC specimens in the present study agrees with the
120
C47: strain rate 79.3 s-1 test data of highly fluidized GPC by Luo et al. (2013). However,
100 C55: strain rate 84.7 s-1 less energy was absorbed by the heat-cured GPC specimens from
C55: strain rate 98.0 s-1
Stress (MPa)

Tang et al. (2020) at similar strain rate, owing to the smaller speci-
80 men size (i.e., diameter 75 mm × length 37.5 mm) as compared to
60 the GPC specimens (diameter 100 mm × length 50 mm) in the
present study. The relation of energy absorption E versus strain rate
40 in the present study is fitted and given as follows:
20 C47∶ E ¼ 25.21ε̇ − 421.73; 48.4 s−1 ≤ ε̇ ≤ 98.3 s−1 ð7Þ
0
C55∶ E ¼ 19.61ε̇ − 236.59; 66.3 s−1 ≤ ε̇ ≤ 161.0 s−1 ð8Þ
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Strain
Dynamic Increase Factor of the Compressive Strength
Fig. 6. Dynamic compressive stress–strain curves of GPC specimens at
different strain rates. The DIF, defined as the ratio of the dynamic strength to the static
strength, is used to quantify the strength increment of concrete-
like materials under dynamic loads. Concrete is a heterogeneous
material, which includes mortar, aggregates, voids, and micro-
and Lv et al. (2017) and it was named as compression wave phe- cracks. As mentioned in the “Introduction” section, three factors
nomenon in Lv et al. (2017). It is more evident when strain rate is contribute to the increment of strength of concrete, one of which
relatively low since specimens experience relatively low level of is the lateral inertial confinement induced by inertia force under
damage. With the increased strain rate, this phenomenon lessens dynamic loading (Hao et al. 2010; Li and Meng 2003). The lateral
due to severe damage of specimens. Table 3 gives the dynamic inertial confinement is considered as a structural effect. Therefore,
compressive strength of all the specimens under impact loading. the contribution of lateral inertia confinement to CDIF should be
The dynamic compressive strength of GPC increases with the removed from the test data. Previous studies (Hao et al. 2010; Wang
increase of strain rate, demonstrating GPC is a highly strain rate et al. 2018) showed that the lateral inertial confinement effect is
dependent material. specimen size and density dependent. For instance, the cylindrical
The energy absorption (Li and Xu 2009a; Luo et al. 2013; Su specimens with dimensions of 75 (diameter) × 37.5 mm (length),
et al. 2014, 2016) or impact toughness (Khan et al. 2018; Ren et al. 100 × 50 mm, 100 × 100 mm, and 200 × 100 mm have the con-
2015), which is defined as the area enclosed by the stress–strain tribution of 0%–5%; 4%–13%, 13.68 %, and 16.64% to dynamic
curve, is also calculated and listed in Table 3. The relation between strength increment, respectively. With the increase of strain rate,
the energy absorption and strain rate is shown in Fig. 7. It is found it increases slowly in low strain rate range but increases sharply
that the energy absorption of C47 specimens is slightly higher than after strain rate is higher than 200 s−1 (Hao et al. 2010). Since
that of C55 specimens and both of them increased approximately the strain rate in the present study was less than 200 s−1 and the
linearly with the rising strain rate. The higher energy absorption at specimen size was 100 × 50 mm, the contribution of lateral inertial
higher strain rate was due to more microcracks and fracture surfa- confinement effect to dynamic compressive strength increment was
ces (Ma et al. 2019; Tang et al. 2020), as illustrated in Fig. 5. The adopted as 10%, which was also used in Pham et al. (2020a). The
test data from Luo et al. (2013) and Tang et al. (2020) are also CDIFs after removing the lateral inertial contribution are listed in

© ASCE 04021440-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Table 3. Results of dynamic compressive tests
Strain Dynamic compressive CDIF (lateral inertial Energy absorption,
Samples rate (s−1 ) strength (MPa) confinement removed) E ðkJ=m3 Þ
C-C47-1 48.4 87.9 1.7 937.8
C-C47-2 55.7 92.1 1.8 1,125.0
C-C47-3 59.2 99.6 1.9 1,057.1
C-C47-4 61.4 103.2 2.0 1,389.4
C-C47-5 63.7 97.0 1.9 1,237.3
C-C47-6 64.2 96.3 1.8 9,34.4
C-C47-7 68.6 97.2 1.9 1,050.2
C-C47-8 74.8 102.9 2.0 1,272.4
C-C47-9 78.1 109.3 2.1 1,351.0
C-C47-10 79.3 107.1 2.1 1,205.3
C-C47-11 82.3 108.2 2.1 2,098.6
C-C47-12 93.9 123.2 2.4 2,153.4
C-C47-13 98.3 117.9 2.3 2,096.4
C-C55-1 66.3 109.8 1.8 966.8
C-C55-2 68.3 107.3 1.8 1,580.3
C-C55-3 70.3 103.2 1.7 887.9
C-C55-4 78.1 117.8 1.9 1,330.6
C-C55-5 84.7 116.4 1.9 1,189.1
C-C55-6 95.7 125.2 2.0 1,716.4
C-C55-7 98.0 127.9 2.1 1,629.9
C-C55-8 110.9 136.7 2.2 2,207.9
C-C55-9 117.5 138.2 2.3 1,789.2
C-C55-10 161.0 151.8 2.5 2,980.6

5000 Highly fludized GPC (43 MPa, Luo et al. 2013) 3.0 C47
heat cured GPC (37 MPa, Tang et al. 2020) Fitted curve: C47
heat cured GPC (41 MPa, Tang et al. 2020) C55
C47 (present study)
Energy absorption E (kJ/m3)

4000 Fitted curve: C55

Fitted curve: C47 2.5
C55 (present study) CDIF=1.98log( )-1.67, 48.4 s-1 98.3 s-1
Fitted curve: C55 E =19.61 -236.59, 66.3 s-1 161.0 s-1 R2 =0.87
3000 R2 =0.85
CDIF

2.0
E =25.21 -421.73, 48.4 s-1 98.3 s-1
2000 R2 =0.70

1.5 CDIF=2.03log( )-1.96, 66.3 s-1 161.0 s-1

1000 R2 =0.96

0 1.0
0 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 250 300
Strain rate Strain rate (s-1)

Fig. 7. Relation between energy absorption and strain rate of GPC Fig. 8. Relation between CDIF and strain rate of GPC specimens.
specimens.

5.0 OPC (47 MPa, Committee CEB recommendation 1993)

C47
4.5 C55
Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 8. As seen, the CDIFs of C47 are a bit Highly fluidized GPC (43 MPa, Luo et al. 2013)
4.0 heat cured Na-GPC (64.3 MPa, Feng et al. 2015)
higher than those of C55, which is consistent with the recommen- heat cured Na/K-GPC (47.6 MPa, Feng et al. 2015)
dation by CEB (1993) that OPC with lower compressive strength 3.5 heat cured K-GPC (25.6 MPa, Feng et al. 2015)
heat cured GPC (41 MPa, Tang et al. 2020)
exhibits higher CDIF. The CDIF of C47 and C55 increased approx- 3.0 heat cured GPC (37 MPa, Tang et al. 2020)
CDIF

imately linearly with the logarithm of strain rate as expressed as

2.5
follows
2.0
C47∶ CDIF ¼ 1.98 logðε̇Þ − 1.67; 48.4 s−1 ≤ ε̇ ≤ 98.3 s−1 1.5
ð9Þ 1.0
0.5
C55∶ CDIF ¼ 2.03 logðε̇Þ − 1.96; 66.3 s−1 ≤ ε̇ ≤ 161.0 s−1 0.0
10 100 1000
ð10Þ
Strain rate (s-1)
Fig. 9 compares the CDIFs of GPC obtained in this study and
Fig. 9. Comparison of CDIF of GPC.
previous studies (Feng et al. 2015; Luo et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2020)

© ASCE 04021440-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

with the Committee CEB (1993) recommendation for OPC Dynamic Splitting Tensile Test Results
with the compressive strength of 47 MPa. It can be seen that the
CDIFs of GPC from different studies (Feng et al. 2015; Luo et al. Failure Characteristics and Progress
2013; Tang et al. 2020) generally agree with the present data,
and they also match well with the recommendation by Committee Fig. 10 shows the failure modes of the specimens under dynamic
CEB (1993) for OPC within the strain rate of 500 s−1 , although splitting tension at different strain rates. As shown, all the speci-
the test data from Feng et al. (2015) are a little bit dispersive. These mens were split into two halves along the radial direction. With
results indicate that both the heat- and ambient-cured GPC have the increasing strain rate, more concrete was inevitably broken
similar strain rate sensitivities, and they are also similar to those of at both ends of the specimens. The failure progress of the speci-
OPC. mens is shown in Fig. 11. Both C47 and C55 specimens show

2.08 s-1 5.56 s-1 3.19 s-1 7.42 s-1

C47 C55

Fig. 10. Failure modes of GPC specimens under dynamic splitting tension at different strain rates.

C47

2.27 s-1

0 µs 550 µs 800 µs 1575 µs

C47

5.50 s-1

0 µs 550 µs 800 µs 1275 µs

C55

4.75 s-1

0 µs 550 µs 800 µs 2025 µs

C55

9.74 s-1

0 µs 550 µs 800 µs 1275 µs

Fig. 11. Failure progress of GPC specimens under dynamic splitting tension at different strain rates.

© ASCE 04021440-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 30 30
strain rate 2.08 s-1 strain rate 3.19 s-1
strain rate 5.56 s-1 strain rate 4.75 s-1
25 25
strain rate 6.69 s-1 strain rate 7.14 s-1
strain rate 8.49 s-1 strain rate 8.29 s-1
20 20
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
strain rate 9.80 s-1 strain rate 9.61 s-1
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-5 -5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) Time ( s) (b) Time ( s)

Fig. 12. Time histories of dynamic splitting tensile stress of (a) C47; and (b) C55 specimens.

similar failure characteristics. At low strain rate (e.g., 2.27 s−1 for ends caused more energy absorption by the specimens at high
C47 and 4.75 s−1 for C55), the cracks initiated in the middle of the strain rate.
specimens and could hardly be seen at 550 μs. When the time
reached 800 μs, the disintegration of the specimens could be easily
Dynamic Increase Factor of the Splitting Tensile
observed, which was characterized by a main crack in the middle of
Strength
the specimens. Finally, the specimens failed into two halves with
minor concrete crushing at both ends. As the strain rate increased, Fig. 12 shows the time histories of dynamic splitting tensile stress
the disintegration occurred earlier, which could be found at 550 μs of C47 and C55. It is obvious that the peak splitting tensile stress of
for C47 specimens at the stain rate of 5.50 s−1 and C55 specimens GPC increased with the strain rate, which confirms that the GPC is
at the strain rate of 9.74 s−1 . It should be noted that some minor strain rate dependent. Moreover, the time to achieve the peak stress
cracks initiated from the edge near both ends besides a main crack. decreased in general as the strain rate increased. The test results of
These additional minor cracks and more concrete failure at both dynamic splitting tension are given in Table 4.
The relation between TDIF and strain rate of GPC specimens is
plotted in Fig. 13. C47 has slightly higher TDIF than C55, which
supports the recommendations by Committee CEB (1993) and
Table 4. Results of dynamic splitting tensile tests
Malvar and Crawford (1998) that OPC with lower strength exhibits
Dynamic splitting tensile higher TDIF. The TDIF is nearly linearly proportional to strain rate
Samples Strain rate (s−1 ) strength (MPa) TDIF in a logarithmical manner and the fitted curve can be expressed as
T-C47-1 2.08 11.96 2.9
T-C47-2 2.25 12.57 3.0 C47∶ TDIF ¼ 4.21 logðε̇Þ þ 1.42; 2.08 s−1 ≤ ε̇ ≤ 9.80 s−1
T-C47-3 2.27 12.25 2.9 ð11Þ
T-C47-4 4.98 17.08 4.1
T-C47-5 5.08 18.74 4.5 C55∶ TDIF ¼ 4.38 logðε̇Þ þ 0.89; 3.19 s−1 ≤ ε̇ ≤ 10.33 s−1
T-C47-6 5.43 20.01 4.8
T-C47-7 5.48 19.27 4.6 ð12Þ
T-C47-8 5.50 19.32 4.6
T-C47-9 5.56 16.69 4.0
T-C47-10 5.62 19.27 4.6 9.0 C47
T-C47-11 5.89 20.70 4.9 Fitted curve: C47
T-C47-12 6.69 19.52 4.6 8.0 C55
T-C47-13 6.83 19.34 4.6 7.0 Fitted curve: C55
T-C47-14 8.49 22.57 5.4
T-C47-15 9.80 25.22 6.0 6.0 TDIF=4.21log( )+1.42, 2.08 s-1 9.80 s-1
T-C55-1 3.19 14.17 3.0 R2 =0.92
TDIF

5.0
T-C55-2 4.61 18.36 3.8
T-C55-3 4.75 18.92 3.9 4.0
T-C55-4 7.14 21.33 4.4 3.0
T-C55-5 7.20 24.12 5.0
T-C55-6 7.42 23.51 4.9 2.0 TDIF=4.38log( )+0.89, 3.19 s-1 10.33 s-1
T-C55-7 8.29 24.02 5.0 1.0 R2 =0.92
T-C55-8 8.52 23.13 4.8
T-C55-9 8.71 22.87 4.8 0.0
1 10
T-C55-10 9.32 25.31 5.3
-1
T-C55-11 9.60 23.46 4.9 Strain rate (s )
T-C55-12 9.61 25.22 5.3
T-C55-13 9.74 24.67 5.1 Fig. 13. Relation between splitting TDIF and strain rate of GPC
T-C55-14 10.33 26.18 5.5 specimens.

© ASCE 04021440-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 OPC (47 MPa, modified CEB recommendation by Malvar and Crawford 1998 )
10.0 OPC (47 MPa, CEB recommendation 1993) 1. The ambient-cured GPC has similar strain rate sensitivity as
GPC (47 MPa, proposed by Feng et al. 2014)
GPC (47 MPa, proposed in the present study)
heat-cured GPC and OPC under dynamic compression, but is
9.0 C47 more sensitive to strain rate than heat-cured GPC and OPC
C55
8.0 Highly fluidised GPC (43 MPa, Luo and Xu 2013) under dynamic splitting tension. The GPC with lower strength
7.0
Heat cured Na-GPC (64.3 MPa, Feng et al. 2014)
Heat cured Na/K-GPC (47.7 MPa, Feng et al. 2014)
(or higher alkaline solution-binder ratio) is more sensitive to
Heat cured K-GPC (25.6 MPa, Feng et al. 2014) strain rate with higher DIF as compared to that with higher
TDIF

6.0 strength (or lower alkaline solution-binder ratio).

5.0 2. The CDIF of GPC in the present study at the strain rate up
to 161.0 s−1 and splitting TDIF at the strain rate up to 9.80 s−1
4.0
can reach up to 2.5 and 6.0, respectively. The energy absorp-
3.0 tion under dynamic compression increases approximately lin-
2.0 early with strain rate, within the range of the considered strain
rates. Empirical formulas for CDIF and TDIF, as well as energy
1.0
1 10 absorption as a function of strain rate, are derived from the
Strain rate (s-1)
test data.
3. The recommendation by Committee CEB (1993) for OPC can
Fig. 14. Comparison of splitting TDIF of GPC. reasonably predict the CDIF of ambient-cured GPC. However,
the recommendation by Committee CEB (1993) and the
widely used modified CEB recommendation by Malvar and
Crawford (1998) for OPC significantly underestimate the split-
ting TDIF of ambient-cured GPC obtained in the present study
Fig. 14 compares the splitting TDIFs of GPC obtained in the by up to 40% and 45% in the strain rate range of 2.0–10.0 s−1 ,
present study and the previous studies (Feng et al. 2014; Luo respectively.
and Xu 2013) with the Committee CEB (1993) recommendation
and the modified CEB recommendation by Malvar and Crawford
(1998) for OPC with the compressive strength of 47 MPa. Besides, Data Availability Statement
a predicted TDIF relation of GPC proposed by Feng et al. (2014) is
also presented for comparison, which originates from the modified Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
CEB recommendation by Malvar and Crawford (1998) based on study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
the test data of GPC. It shows that the predictions by Malvar request.
and Crawford (1998), Committee CEB (1993), and Feng et al.
(2014) significantly underestimate the TDIF of ambient-cured GPC
with the compressive strength of 47 MPa in the present study by up Acknowledgments
to 45%, 40%, and 30% in the strain rate range of 2.0–10.0 s−1 ,
respectively. Moreover, the splitting TDIFs in the present study The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Australian
are higher than those from the studies by Luo and Xu (2013) Research Council (ARC) via Australian Laureate Fellowship
and Feng et al. (2014). This considerable dispersion was also found (FL180100196).
for OPC as reported in the previous study (Malvar and Crawford
1998) that the TDIF of OPC in open literature ranged from about
1.2–6 at the strain rate of around 10 s−1 . One of the reasons could References
be due to the larger specimen size in the present investigation as
Al-Salloum, Y., T. Almusallam, S. M. Ibrahim, H. Abbas, and S. Alsayed.
compared to that in the previous studies (Feng et al. 2014; Luo 2015. “Rate dependent behavior and modeling of concrete based on
and Xu 2013) [i.e., 95 × 50 mm (diameter × length) in Luo and SHPB experiments.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 55 (Jan): 34–44. https://doi
Xu (2013) and 90 × 45 mm in Feng et al. (2014)], since it was re- .org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.07.011.
ported that larger specimens exhibited higher TDIF under dynamic ASTM. 2014. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
loading (Zhong et al. 2020). On the other hand, the addition of Poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression. ASTM C469/C469M-14.
fibers in highly fluidized GPC (Luo and Xu 2013) might be the West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
other reason since the test results (Khan et al. 2019; Li et al. Brara, A., and J. R. Klepaczko. 2006. “Experimental characterization of
2020) showed that the concrete specimens without fiber exhibited concrete in dynamic tension.” Mech. Mater. 38 (3): 253–267. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2005.06.004.
higher TDIF than the specimens with fibers. Moreover, the distinc-
CEB (Comité Euro-International du Béton). 1993. “CEB-FIP model code
tion of the test data from different studies might also result from the 1990: Design code.” In Comite Euro International du Beton, 51–59.
variations such as properties of coarse aggregates, moisture content London: Thomas Telford.
within specimens (induced by curing conditions and mix propor- Chen, J. Y., Z. X. Zhang, H. W. Dong, and J. Zhu. 2011. “Experimental
tions), and different types of alkaline activators that affect the study on dynamic damage evolution of concrete under multi-axial
microstructure of GPC. stresses.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 18 (7): 1784–1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engfailanal.2011.04.006.
Deb, P. S., P. Nath, and P. K. Sarker. 2014. “The effects of ground granu-
lated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash and activator content on
Conclusion the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete cured at
ambient temperature.” Mater. Des. 62 (1): 32–39. https://doi.org/10
In this study, dynamic properties including compression and split- .1016/j.matdes.2014.05.001.
ting tension of ambient-cured GPC were examined by conducting Diaz-Loya, E. I., E. N. Allouche, and S. Vaidya. 2011. “Mechanical proper-
SHPB tests, with the strain rate up to 161 s−1 under dynamic com- ties of fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete.” ACI Mater. J. 108 (3): 300.
pression and 10.3 s−1 under dynamic splitting tension. Based on Feng, K. N., D. Ruan, Z. Pan, F. Collins, Y. Bai, C. M. Wang, and W. H.
the test results, the main conclusions are drawn as follows. Duan. 2014. “Effect of strain rate on splitting tensile strength of

© ASCE 04021440-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 geopolymer concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 66 (16): 825–835. https://doi Li, W. M., and J. Y. Xu. 2009b. “Mechanical properties of basalt fiber
.org/10.1680/macr.13.00322. reinforced geopolymeric concrete under impact loading.” Mater. Sci. Eng.
Feng, K. N., D. Ruan, Z. Pan, F. Collins, Y. Bai, C. M. Wang, and W. H. 505 (1–2): 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2008.11.063.
Duan. 2015. “Mechanical behavior of geopolymer concrete subjected to Li, X., Y. Zhang, C. Shi, and X. Chen. 2020. “Experimental and numerical
high strain rate compressive loadings.” Mater. Struct. 48 (3): 671–681. study on tensile strength and failure pattern of high performance
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0322-7. steel fiber reinforced concrete under dynamic splitting tension.” Constr.
Ganesan, N., R. Abraham, S. D. Raj, and D. Sasi. 2014. “Stress–strain Build. Mater. 259 (Oct): 119796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
behaviour of confined Geopolymer concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. .2020.119796.
73 (Apr): 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.092. Li, Z., W. Chen, H. Hao, M. Z. N. Khan, and T. M. Pham. 2021. “Dynamic
Gao, Y., J. Xu, E. Bai, X. Luo, J. Zhu, and L. Nie. 2015. “Static and compressive properties of novel lightweight ambient-cured EPS
dynamic mechanical properties of high early strength alkali activated geopolymer composite.” Constr. Build. Mater. 273 (Mar): 122044.
slag concrete.” Ceram. Int. 41 (10): 12901–12909. https://doi.org/10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122044.
.1016/j.ceramint.2015.06.131. Lindholm, U. 1964. “Some experiments with the split hopkinson pressure
Grote, D. L., S. W. Park, and M. Zhou. 2001. “Dynamic behavior of con- bar∗.” J. Mech. Phys. Solids 12 (5): 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1016
crete at high strain rates and pressures: I. Experimental characteriza- /0022-5096(64)90028-6.
tion.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 25 (9): 869–886. https://doi.org/10.1016 Luo, X., and J.-Y. Xu. 2013. “Dynamic splitting-tensile testing of highly
/S0734-743X(01)00020-3.
fluidised geopolymer concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 65 (14): 837–843.
Hao, Y., and H. Hao. 2013. “Dynamic compressive behaviour of spiral steel
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.12.00172.
fibre reinforced concrete in split Hopkinson pressure bar tests.” Constr.
Luo, X., J.-Y. Xu, E.-L. Bai, and W. Li. 2013. “Research on the dynamic
Build. Mater. 48 (12): 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
compressive test of highly fluidized geopolymer concrete.” Constr. Build.
.2013.07.022.
Mater. 48 (Nov): 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013
Hao, Y., H. Hao, and Z.-X. Li. 2010. “Numerical analysis of lateral inertial
.06.035.
confinement effects on impact test of concrete compressive material
properties.” Int. J. Protective Struct. 1 (1): 145–167. https://doi.org/10 Luo, X., J.-Y. Xu, W. Li, and E. Bai. 2014. “Effect of alkali-activator types
.1260/2041-4196.1.1.145. on the dynamic compressive deformation behavior of geopolymer con-
Heah, C. Y., H. Kamarudin, A. M. Mustafa Al Bakri, M. Bnhussain, M. crete.” Mater. Lett. 124 (2): 310–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet
Luqman, I. Khairul Nizar, C. M. Ruzaidi, and Y. M. Liew. 2012. “Study .2014.03.102.
on solids-to-liquid and alkaline activator ratios on kaolin-based geopol- Lv, T. H., X. W. Chen, and G. Chen. 2017. “Analysis on the waveform
ymers.” Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (Jan): 912–922. https://doi.org/10 features of the split Hopkinson pressure bar tests of plain concrete speci-
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.102. men.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 103 (May): 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Huang, Z., W. Chen, H. Hao, Z. Chen, T. M. Pham, T. T. Tran, and M. .ijimpeng.2017.01.004.
Elchalakani. 2021a. “Flexural behaviour of ambient cured geopolymer Ma, L., Z. Li, J. Liu, L. Duan, and J. Wu. 2019. “Mechanical properties of
concrete beams reinforced with BFRP bars under static and impact coral concrete subjected to uniaxial dynamic compression.” Constr.
loads.” Compos. Struct. 261 (Apr): 113282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Build. Mater. 199 (Feb): 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.compstruct.2020.113282. .2018.12.032.
Huang, Z., W. Chen, H. Hao, Z. Chen, T. M. Pham, T. T. Tran, and Malvar, L. J., and J. E. Crawford. 1998. Dynamic increase factors for
M. Elchalakani. 2021b. “Shear behaviour of ambient cured geopolymer concrete. Port Hueneme, CA: Naval Facilities Engineering Service
concrete beams reinforced with BFRP bars under static and impact Center.
loads.” Eng. Struct. 231 (1): 111730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct Nath, P., and P. K. Sarker. 2014. “Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability
.2020.111730. and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in
Khan, M. Z. N., Y. Hao, and H. Hao. 2019. “Mechanical properties ambient condition.” Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (Sep): 163–171. https://
and behaviour of high-strength plain and hybrid-fiber reinforced doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080.
geopolymer composites under dynamic splitting tension.” Cem. Concr. Ng, C., U. J. Alengaram, L. S. Wong, K. H. Mo, M. Z. Jumaat, and
Compos. 104 (Nov): 103343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp S. Ramesh. 2018. “A review on microstructural study and compressive
.2019.103343. strength of geopolymer mortar, paste and concrete.” Constr. Build.
Khan, M. Z. N., Y. Hao, H. Hao, and F. U. A. Shaikh. 2018. “Experimental Mater. 186 (Oct): 550–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018
evaluation of quasi-static and dynamic compressive properties of .07.075.
ambient-cured high-strength plain and fiber reinforced geopolymer Noushini, A., F. Aslani, A. Castel, R. I. Gilbert, B. Uy, and S. Foster. 2016.
composites.” Constr. Build. Mater. 166 (Sep): 482–499. https://doi “Compressive stress-strain model for low-calcium fly ash-based
.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.166.
geopolymer and heat-cured Portland cement concrete.” Cem. Concr.
Kim, K.-M., S. Lee, and J.-Y. Cho. 2019. “Effect of maximum coarse
Compos. 73 (Oct): 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp
aggregate size on dynamic compressive strength of high-strength
.2016.07.004.
concrete.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 125 (Mar): 107–116. https://doi.org/10
Pham, T. M., W. Chen, A. M. Khan, H. Hao, M. Elchalakani, and T. M.
.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.11.003.
Tran. 2020a. “Dynamic compressive properties of lightweight rubber-
Li, N., C. Shi, Z. Zhang, H. Wang, and Y. Liu. 2019. “A review on mixture
ized concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 238 (Mar): 117705. https://doi.org
design methods for geopolymer concrete.” Composites Part B 178 (Dec):
107490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107490. /10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117705.
Li, Q. M., Y. B. Lu, and H. Meng. 2009. “Further investigation on the dy- Pham, T. M., J. Liu, P. Tran, V.-L. Pang, F. Shi, W. Chen, H. Hao, and T. M.
namic compressive strength enhancement of concrete-like materials based Tran. 2020b. “Dynamic compressive properties of lightweight rubber-
on split Hopkinson pressure bar tests. Part II: Numerical simulations.” Int. ized geopolymer concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 265 (Dec): 120753.
J. Impact Eng. 36 (12): 1335–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120753.
.2009.04.010. Ren, W., J. Xu, J. Liu, and H. Su. 2015. “Dynamic mechanical properties of
Li, Q. M., and H. Meng. 2003. “About the dynamic strength enhancement geopolymer concrete after water immersion.” Ceram. Int. 41 (9):
of concrete-like materials in a split Hopkinson pressure bar test.” Int. J. 11852–11860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.05.154.
Solids Struct. 40 (2): 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(02) Rossi, P. 1991a. “Influence of cracking in the presence of free water on the
00526-7. mechanical behaviour of concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 43 (154): 53–57.
Li, W. M., and J. Y. Xu. 2009a. “Impact characterization of basalt https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1991.43.154.53.
fiber reinforced geopolymeric concrete using a 100-mm-diameter split Rossi, P. 1991b. “A physical phenomenon which can explain the mechani-
Hopkinson pressure bar.” Mater. Sci. Eng. Struct. Mater. 513 (14): cal behaviour of concrete under high strain rates.” Mater. Struct. 24 (6):
145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2009.02.033. 422–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472015.

© ASCE 04021440-10 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Rossi, P., and F. Toutlemonde. 1996. “Effect of loading rate on the tensile Mater. 93 (Sep): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015
behaviour of concrete: Description of the physical mechanisms.” Mater. .04.039.
Struct. 29 (2): 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486201. Tran, T. T., T. M. Pham, and H. Hao. 2019. “Experimental and analytical
Singh, B., G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, and S. K. Bhattacharyya. 2015. investigation on flexural behaviour of ambient cured geopolymer con-
“Geopolymer concrete: A review of some recent developments.” Constr. crete beams reinforced with steel fibers.” Eng. Struct. 200 (Dec):
Build. Mater. 85 (6): 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015 109707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109707.
.03.036. Trindade, A. C. C., A. A. Heravi, I. Curosu, M. Liebscher, F. de Andrade
Standards Australia. 2014a. Methods of testing concrete: Method 2: Silva, and V. Mechtcherine. 2020. “Tensile behavior of strain-hardening
Preparing concrete mixes in the laboratory. AS 1012.2. Australia, geopolymer composites (SHGC) under impact loading.” Cem. Concr.
Sydney: Standards Australia. Compos. 113 (Oct): 103703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp
Standards Australia. 2014b. Methods of testing concrete.” Method 9: .2020.103703.
Compressive strength tests-Concrete, Mortar and grout specimens. Wang, C., W. Chen, H. Hao, S. Zhang, R. Song, and X. Wang. 2018.
AS 1012.9. Australia, Sydney: Standards Australia. “Experimental investigations of dynamic compressive properties of
Standards Australia. 2014c. Methods of testing concrete.” Method 10: roller compacted concrete (RCC).” Constr. Build. Mater. 168 (Mar):
Determination of indirect tensile strength of concrete cylinders (‘Brazil’ 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.112.
or splitting test). AS 1012.10. Australia, Sydney: Standards Australia. Xie, J., J. Wang, R. Rao, C. Wang, and C. Fang. 2019. “Effects of combined
Su, H., J. Xu, and W. Ren. 2014. “Mechanical properties of ceramic usage of GGBS and fly ash on workability and mechanical properties of
fiber-reinforced concrete under quasi-static and dynamic compression.” alkali activated geopolymer concrete with recycled aggregate.” Compo-
Materials & Design 57 (Sep): 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes sites Part B 164 (11): 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb
.2013.12.061. .2018.11.067.
Su, H. Y., J. Y. Xu, and W. B. Ren. 2016. “Mechanical properties of Yin, Z., W. Chen, H. Hao, J. Chang, G. Zhao, Z. Chen, and K. Peng. 2020.
geopolymer concrete exposed to dynamic compression under elevated “Dynamic compressive test of gas-containing coal using a modified
temperatures.” Ceram. Int. 42 (3): 3888–3898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j split hopkinson pressure bar system.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 53 (2):
.ceramint.2015.11.055. 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01955-w.
Tang, Z., W. Li, V. W. Y. Tam, and Z. Luo. 2020. “Investigation on dynamic Zhang, M., H. J. Wu, Q. M. Li, and F. L. Huang. 2009. “Further investi-
mechanical properties of fly ash/slag-based geopolymeric recycled gation on the dynamic compressive strength enhancement of concrete-
aggregate concrete.” Compos. Part B 185 (Mar): 107776. https://doi like materials based on split Hopkinson pressure bar tests. Part I:
.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107776. Experiments.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 36 (12): 1327–1334. https://doi
Tedesco, J. W., and C. A. Ross. 1993. “Experimental and numerical .org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.04.009.
analysis of high strain rate splitting-tensile tests.” ACI Mater. J. 90 (2): Zhong, W., J. Pan, J. Wang, and C. Zhang. 2020. “Size effect in dynamic
162–169. https://doi.org/10.14359/4013. splitting tensile strength of concrete: Experimental investigation.”
Thomas, R. J., and S. Peethamparan. 2015. “Alkali-activated concrete: Constr. Build. Mater. 270 (Feb): 121449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Engineering properties and stress–strain behavior.” Constr. Build. .conbuildmat.2020.121449.

© ASCE 04021440-11 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.