4.7 Article

Evaluation of typical dynamic damage models used for UHPC based on SHPB technology

Journal

ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS
Volume 269, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108562

Keywords

UHPC; SHPB; Evaluation; HJC model

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52068024]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province [20192BAB206042]
  3. key Research and Development Foundation of Jiangxi Province [20202BBG73035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper evaluates the feasibility of typical dynamic damage models used for UHPC based on SHPB technology and verifies the accuracy of the models through a comparison with measured waveforms.
This paper focuses on evaluating the feasibility of typical dynamic damage models used for ultrahigh performance concrete (UHPC) based on split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) technology. The material characteristics of the UHPC are assigned by modifying the critical parameters of the Holmquist Johnson Cook (HJC) and the Karagozian and Case concrete (K&C) models in LS-DYNA software. The dynamic analysis methods of the UHPC using SHPB technique under the two typical dynamic damage models are established. The validations of the calibrated K&C and HJC models used in UHPC are evaluated by a comparison with the measured waveform. The results indicate that (1) the recommended strength parameter A in the HJC model is 1.54 for obtaining realistic dynamic damage behavior of UHPC at a compressive strength of 200 MPa; (2) based on the appropriate calibrated parameter values, the numerical simulation using the K&C or HJC models can predict the measured waveform of UHPC on the SHPB test with an acceptable accuracy; and (3) compared to the K&C model, the fluctuation of the calculated waveform based on the HJC model is more apparent, and the calculated residual transmitted waveform in the descending stage demonstrates a larger deviation from the measured waveform.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available