applied

sciences
Article
Research on Mechanical Properties of Steel-Polypropylene
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete after High-Temperature Treatments
Xinggang Shen 1 , Xia Li 1 , Lei Liu 2 , Xinzuo Chen 3 and Jun Du 1, *

1 College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kunming University, Kunming 650214, China;
kmu_shenxg@126.com (X.S.); kmu_lx@126.com (X.L.)
2 Faculty of Land Resource Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology,
Kunming 650093, China; kgliulei@kust.edu.cn
3 Faculty of Public Safety and Emergency Management, Kunming University of Science and Technology,
Kunming 650093, China; 13350341263@163.com
* Correspondence: dujun0605@126.com

Abstract: A mechanical property experiment was carried out on steel-polypropylene fiber-reinforced

concrete after elevated temperatures by using a 50 mm diameter SHPB apparatus. The regulations of
compressive strength, elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and other mechanical properties under six
heating temperature levels (normal temperature, 100 ◦ C, 200 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C, and 800 ◦ C) and three
impact pressures (0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa, 0.5 MPa) were studied. Using ANSYS/LS-DYNA 19.0 numerical
simulation software and LS-PrePost post-processing software, numerical simulation analysis was
conducted on the dynamic Hopkinson uniaxial impact compression and uniaxial dynamic impact
splitting mechanical experiments of C40 plain concrete and steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber concrete.
The results show that the dynamic compressive strength of hybrid fiber concrete with the optimal
dosage reaches its maximum at a temperature group of 200 ◦ C, and the dynamic compressive strength
of hybrid fiber concrete with the optimal dosage increases by 97.1% compared to C40 plain concrete at
a temperature group of 800 ◦ C. The impact waveform and stress-strain curve results of the numerical
simulation are very similar to the experimental results. The errors in calculating the peak stress and
peak strain are within 6%, which can truly and accurately simulate the static mechanical properties
Citation: Shen, X.; Li, X.; Liu, L.;
and failure process of hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete.
Chen, X.; Du, J. Research on
Mechanical Properties of Keywords: steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber; elevated temperature; mechanical property; SHPB;
Steel-Polypropylene Fiber-Reinforced numerical simulation
Concrete after High-Temperature
Treatments. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
app14093861 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Kang Su Kim
As a very economical and practical construction material, hybrid fiber-reinforced
concrete (HyFRC) is widely used in bridge engineering, civil engineering, fortification,
Received: 27 March 2024 nuclear reactor containment, and other civil and military buildings. Due to the shortcom-
Revised: 24 April 2024 ings of regular concrete, such as vulnerability to bursting from high temperatures, poor
Accepted: 29 April 2024 durability, and poor crack resistance and toughness, it cannot satisfy the high mechanical
Published: 30 April 2024
property requirements of engineering buildings [1]. Concrete modification research mainly
involves the incorporation of fibers dispersed within the concrete during the preparation
process to improve the shortcomings of regular concrete, such as large early shrinkage, low
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
tensile strength, poor durability, and vulnerability to cracking [2,3]. HyFRC is a composite
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
concrete material formed by mixing two or more different types of fibers into concrete,
This article is an open access article
allowing for a combination of different fiber characteristics or complementary effects. It is
distributed under the terms and the future research and development trend of fiber concrete modification, and the corre-
conditions of the Creative Commons sponding findings are of great value for the promotion and application of HyFRC materials
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in engineering applications [4].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ In recent years, scholars and experts have been constantly searching for new build-
4.0/). ing materials with better mechanical properties. After continuous exploration, it was

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093861 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 2 of 23

found that the fiber mixed in the concrete matrix could improve the high-temperature
and burst resistance, enhancing various mechanical properties of regular concrete [5–10].
Liu et al. [11] systematically studied the variation of mechanical properties of fiber concrete
with temperature. The results showed that temperature caused the mechanical properties of
fiber concrete to deteriorate. After high-temperature treatments, the compressive strength
of three steel-fiber concretes with different water-to-cement ratios decreased by varying
degrees. Yang [12] conducted an experimental study on the bursting phenomenon of
reactive powder concrete mixed with steel and polypropylene fibers at high temperatures.
The comparison revealed that the incorporation of steel and polypropylene fibers could
enhance the burst resistance of concrete. Huang [13] investigated the durability and high-
temperature resistance of polyvinyl alcohol fiber concrete. The damage of fiber concrete in
compression after high temperatures was characterized by an acoustic emission detection
system device. With the increase in temperature, the axial compressive strength of fiber
concrete first increased and then decreased, indicating that polyvinyl alcohol fiber signifi-
cantly improved the high-temperature resistance of concrete. Varona et al. [14] conducted
mechanical tests on steel-polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete at high temperatures. The
results showed that the compressive strength and tensile strength of steel-polypropylene
fiber-reinforced concrete increased and then decreased at different heating temperatures
of 20 ◦ C, 450 ◦ C, 650 ◦ C, and 825 ◦ C. Kodur et al. [15] investigated the thermo-mechanical
properties of polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete, steel fiber-reinforced concrete, and
HyFRC. The results showed that 600 ◦ C was the threshold temperature for changes in the
thermodynamic properties of the three types of concrete. Before 600 ◦ C, the thermal con-
ductivity of HyFRC was gradually enhanced with temperature. After 600 ◦ C, the thermal
conductivity was significantly weakened with the temperature. In addition, polypropylene
fibers showed the least effect on the thermal conductivity of the HyFRC, while the addition
of steel fibers greatly increased the heat transfer capacity of the concrete. Sanchayan and
Foster. Ref. [16] investigated the variation pattern of residual strength and elastic modulus
of HyFRC under high-temperature conditions after mixing steel and polyvinyl alcohol
fibers with concrete in different volumetric admixtures. The results showed that as the
temperature increased, HyFRC exhibited more significant effects in suppressing explosive
spalling compared to regular reactive powder concrete, indicating that concrete reinforced
with steel and polyvinyl alcohol fibers is more suitable for high-temperature environments
compared to regular concrete.
In this study, a Ø 50 mm Split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) system was used to
perform impact loading tests on plain concrete and steel-polypropylene fiber-reinforced
concrete with different fiber admixtures under different impact air pressures (0.3 MPa,
0.4 MPa, 0.5 MPa) and different temperatures (ambient, 100 ◦ C, 200 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C,
800 ◦ C). The influence of heating temperature and impact velocity on the mechanical
properties of steel-polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete was investigated. In addition,
a high-speed camera was used to observe the damage process of the specimen, and the
damage process of the specimen in the uniaxial impact compression test was simulated by
ANSYS/LS-DYNA finite element software. The simulation results were compared with the
test results to further explore the damage mechanism of the specimens under room and
high temperatures.

2. Test Overview
2.1. Mixing Proportion of Raw Materials
In this study, the test was performed with normal Portland cement produced by
Yunnan Yiliang Southwest Cement Co., Ltd., Kunming, China, with a density of 2930 kg/m3
and a variety grade of P-O42.5. The cement with this factory number conforms to the
requirements of the technical indexes in GB175-2007 “Common Portland Cement” [17].
The coarse aggregate was granite gravel with a continuous grading of 5~16 mm. The
fine aggregate was quartz sand with mud content of 1.8% by mass, fineness modulus
of 2.4, and excellent particle grading. The water-reducing admixture was a composite
 excellent particle grading. The water-reducing admixture was a composite polycarboxylic
acid high-efficiency water-reducing admixture. It has a water reduction rate of about 28%,
excellent compatibility with cement, and meets the requirements for workable concrete.
The fly ash was a high-quality grade I fly ash produced by BoRun Materials Ltd., Zhejiang,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 China, conforming to the provisions of GB/T1596-2017 “Fly Ash Used for Cement3and of 23
Concrete” [18]. The selected steel fiber was shear-wave-type steel fiber produced by
Hengshui Junye Material Co., Ltd., Hengshui, China, and the polypropylene fibers were
high-strength
polycarboxylicbundled filament fibers
acid high-efficiency produced byadmixture.
water-reducing Huixiang ItFiber
has Material Factory (see
a water reduction rate
Tables
of about1 and
28%,2,excellent
Figures compatibility
1 and 2). In thiswithexperiment,
cement, and PC and the
meets S1PP0.2 (steel fiber
requirements for1%, poly-
workable
propylene fiberfly
concrete. The 0.2%)
ashwith
was strength grades grade
a high-quality of C40Iwere used.
fly ash The water–cement
produced ratio was
by BoRun Materials
0.4 and
Ltd., the sandChina,
Zhejiang, ratio was 0.3. The concrete
conforming mixes wereofcalculated
to the provisions according
GB/T1596-2017 to Ash
“Fly the “Con-
Used
crete Mixingand
for Cement Ratio Design Regulations”
Concrete” (JGJ55-2011)
[18]. The selected [19] was
steel fiber (see shear-wave-type
Table 3). steel fiber
produced by Hengshui Junye Material Co., Ltd., Hengshui, China, and the polypropylene
Table
fibers1.were
Technical parametersbundled
high-strength of steel fiber.
filament fibers produced by Huixiang Fiber Material
Factory (see Tables 1 and 2, Figures 1 and 2). In this experiment, PC and S1PP0.2 (steel fiber
Filament Di- Cut Length Density Elastic Modu- Tensile Ultimate Elon-
1%, polypropylene fiber 0.2%) with strength grades of C40 were used. The water-cement
ameter (mm) (mm) (kg/m ) 3 lus (GPa) Strength (MPa) gation (%)
ratio was 0.4 and the sand ratio was 0.3. The concrete mixes were calculated according to
1 35 7850
the “Concrete Mixing Ratio Design Regulations” 202(JGJ55-2011) [19]
1000(see Table 3). 2.6

Table
Table 2.
1. Technical
Technical parameters
parameters of
of polypropylene
steel fiber. fibers.

Filament Di-
Filament Length Relative Den- Elastic Elastic
Mod- Tensile
Tensile Elongation at
Cut Length Density Ultimate
ameter (µm)
Diameter (mm)
(mm) sity(kg/m
(-) 3 ) ulus (GPa) Strength (MPa)
Modulus Strength Break (%)(%)
Elongation
(mm) (GPa) (MPa)
48 12 0.91 4.8 500 15
1 35 7850 202 1000 2.6

Table 3. Concrete mixing ratios.

Table 2. Technical parameters of polypropylene fibers.
Water-Reduc-
Cement Water Sand Gravel
Elastic Fly Ash
Tensile
Filament3 Length 3 Relative 3 ing Admix-
Elongation at
(kg/m(µm)
Diameter ) (kg/m )
(mm) (kg/m
Density (-) ) (kg/m3)
Modulus (kg/m3)
Strength
Break (%) 3)
(GPa) (MPa) ture (kg/m
463
48 185
12 541
0.91 1261
4.8 93
500 2.25
15

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 4 of 24

Figure 1.
Figure Steelfiber.
1. Steel fiber.

Figure 2. Polypropylene fiber.

2.2. Specimen Preparation

According to (CECS13:2009) [20] “FRC experimental method standard”, the fiber
concrete was stirred. In order to avoid the agglomeration of hybrid fibers, the coarse and
fine aggregates were mixed for 30 s, and then the cement and mineral admixtures were
 Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 4 of 23

Table 3. Concrete mixing ratios.

Water-
Cement Water Sand Gravel Fly Ash Reducing
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) Admixture
(kg/m3 )
463 185 541 1261 93 2.25

2.2. Specimen Preparation

According to (CECS13:2009) [20] “FRC experimental method standard”, the fiber
concrete was stirred. In order to avoid the agglomeration of hybrid fibers, the coarse and
fine aggregates were mixed for 30 s, and then the cement and mineral admixtures were
added for dry mixing for 30 s. Then the fibers were added in batches and stirred for 60 s.
Finally, the mixture of water-reducing agent and water was added and stirred for 60 s.
After mixing, the concrete was loaded into 30 mm × 30 mm × 30 mm cubic concrete molds.
The pouring height was half that of the concrete mold, and the concrete was vibrated with
a plug-in vibrator. The mold was then removed after 24 h of curing, and the concrete was
moisturized and cured until the specified age of 28 days. After curing, the cylindrical
concrete specimens with a diameter of Ø 50 mm and a height of 40 mm were prepared by
coring, cutting, and polishing. The non-parallelism of the two end faces of the specimen
was ensured to be less than 0.02 mm after polishing (see Figure 3). The heating of specimens
in different temperature groups was performed using the KRX-17B box-type resistance
furnace (see Figure 4). To ensure that the specimens were heated uniformly to achieve a
predetermined temperature, the cylindrical concrete specimens were placed in one layer
in parallel and upside down. A gap was left between the specimens to increase the heat
area. Based on our previous findings and other previous studies [21,22], the temperature
gradient of all the prepared specimens was classified into six temperature groups (25 ◦ C,
100 ◦ C, 200 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C, and 800 ◦ C). Each group contained three specimens, and
the average values of the test results were taken. The average heating rate of the resistance
l. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 furnace is set to 5 ◦ C/min, and the heating curve is shown in Figure 5. After heating to
the target temperature, the temperature is kept constant for 2 h and then cooled to room
temperature in the furnace.

Figure
Figure 3. Prepared concrete specimens.
3. Prepared concrete specimens.
 Figure 3. Prepared concrete specimens.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 5 of 23

Figure 3. Prepared concrete specimens.

Figure 4. Electric resistance furnace chamber.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Electric
Electric resistance
resistance furnace
furnace chamber.
chamber.

900
T = 100℃
800 T = 200℃ 800℃
T = 400℃
700 900T = 600℃
T = 800℃
T = 100℃
Temperature T / ℃

600 800 600℃

T = 200℃ 800℃
500
T = 400℃
700 T = 600℃
T = 800℃
400 400℃
Temperature T / ℃

600 600℃
300 500
200 400 200℃
400℃
100 300 100℃
25℃

0 200
40 80 120 160 200 200℃
240 280 320
100 Time t / min 100℃
25℃
Figure 5. Time-history curve of heating at the same heating temperature.
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
Figure 5. Time–history curve of heating at the same heating temperature.
The static compression Timeof
test t / PC
min and
S1PP0.2 specimens after heating treatment was
carried out by HUT-106, a double space electro-hydraulic servo testing machine. The
2.3. Test Device and Principle
automatic loading scheme was set up, the loading speed was 0.6 MPa/s, and the test was
Figure
The 5. Time–history
diameter of theThe curve of
incident, heating at theand
transmission, same heating temperature.
run until failure. test data were recorded,absorption bars isvalue
and the average 50 mm, the three
of the density
data was
of the compression rod is 7.85 g/cm 3, the elastic modulus is 210 GPa, the length of the
taken as the final test result. The test results are shown in Table 4.
incident2.3.
and Test Device and Principle
transmission bars is 2000 mm, and the length of the spindle-shaped bullet is
400 mm (seeThe
Table diameter
4.Figure
Static of the
6). SHPB
compressive incident,
dynamic
test transmission,
impact
results of PCtests andand absorption
dynamic
and S1PP0.2 at barstests
splitting
different is 50were
temperatures.mm, per-
the density
formedof the compression
using Ø 50 × 40 mmrod is 7.85 g/cm
cylindrical 3, the elastic modulus is 210 GPa, the length of the
specimens, with an optimal L/D ratio between 0.5
Specimen
incident and transmission bars is 2000 Staticmm,Compressive Strength/MPa
and the length of the spindle-shaped bullet is
Types
400 mm (see Figure ◦
25 6). SHPB 100 ◦
dynamic impact ◦
200 tests and400 ◦
dynamic 600◦ tests were
splitting 800◦ per-
formed PC using Ø 50 41.6× 40 mm cylindrical
42.7 specimens,
43.7 with36.2
an optimal L/D 26.5 ratio between
14.8 0.5
S1PP0.2 53.2 56.0 61.2 51.9 40.0 27.0

2.3. Test Device and Principle

The diameter of the incident, transmission, and absorption bars is 50 mm, the density
of the compression rod is 7.85 g/cm3 , the elastic modulus is 210 GPa, the length of the
incident and transmission bars is 2000 mm, and the length of the spindle-shaped bullet
is 400 mm (see Figure 6). SHPB dynamic impact tests and dynamic splitting tests were
performed using Ø 50 × 40 mm cylindrical specimens, with an optimal L/D ratio between
0.5 and 1.0. In this study, the length-diameter ratio of the cylinder is 0.8. The principle
of SHPB tests was based on two fundamental assumptions (i.e., the one-dimensional
assumption and the stress uniformity assumption), which were also applicable in combined
dynamic and static loading tests [23]. During the loading process, two strain gauges are
 dynamic and static loading tests [23]. During the loading process, two strain gauges are
pasted and welded at the middle position of the incident bar and the transmission bar to
measure the strain signal. The data acquisition system uses an 8-channel dynamic strain
gauge to output the strain signal measured by the strain gauge as an electrical signal, and
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 the sensitivity is 1 V/1000. The data were processed using the three-wave method to obtain6 of 23
the average stress (σs), average strain (εs), and average strain rate ( εs ) of the concrete spec-
imens, as expressed by Equations (1)–(3).

σ +σ
pasted and welded at the middle position of the incident bar and the transmission bar to
A
σ s =The1data 2acquisition
measure the strain signal. = 0 E εsystem i
+ ε r +uses (
ε t an 8-channel dynamic(1)strain )
gauge to output the strain signal 2 As by the strain gauge as an electrical signal,
2 measured
and the sensitivity is 1 V/1000. The data were processed using the three-wave method to
.
obtain the average stress (σs ), average
t C0 t (εs ), and average strain rate (εs ) of the concrete
strain
specimens, as expressedεby s Equations 
= εs dt = (1)–(3).ε i − ε r − ε t dt
0
Ls (0
(2) )
σ1 + σ2 A
σs = = 0 E(ε i + ε r + ε t ) (1)
v −v C s
2 2A
εs = ε − ε − εt
C0 i t r
1 2
= 0
( ) (3)
L L.
Z Z t
εs = sεs dt = s (ε i − ε r − ε t )dt (2)
0 Ls 0
where , ε i ε r , and ε t are the incident strain, reflection strain, and transmission strain, re-
. v1 − v2 C0
spectively; E , c0 , and Ao are theεelastic s = modulus= of (ε i − compression
εr − εt) bar, wave velocity, (3)
Ls Ls the
and cross-sectional area, respectively; As and Ls are the cross-sectional area and length
where ε i , ε r , and ε t are the incident strain, reflection strain, and transmission strain, re-
of the specimen,E,respectively;
spectively; c0 , and A0 aret is the
the elastic
propagation
modulustimeofofthe thecompression
impulse signalbar,inwave
the con-
velocity,
creteand
specimen (s); σ1 and
cross-sectional area,σrespectively;
2 are the stresses of L
As and the
s
specimen
are the at the incident
cross-sectional areaand
and trans-
length of
mission ends, respectively;
the specimen, andt is
respectively; v1 the
and v2 are thetime
propagation massofvelocities
the impulse at the incident
signal and
in the concrete
specimen
transmitted ends(s);of and
σ1the σ2 are therespectively.
specimen, stresses of the specimen at the incident and transmission
ends, respectively; and v1 and v2 are the mass velocities at the incident and transmitted
ends of the specimen, respectively.

Figure 6. Schematic
Figure diagram
6. Schematic of theofSHPB
diagram test system.
the SHPB test system.

3. Test
3. Test Scheme
Scheme and and Result
Result Analysis
Analysis
3.1. Stress Uniformity Verification
3.1. Stress Uniformity Verification
In order to ensure the validity of the test data, the specimen needs to meet the uni-
In order to ensure the validity of the test data, the specimen needs to meet the uni-
formity assumption during the impact process. Typically, the strain data obtained by
formity assumption during the impact process. Typically, the strain data obtained by the
the impact of a normal-temperature concrete specimen under the impact rate of 0.3 MPa
impact of a normal-temperature concrete specimen under the impact rate of 0.3 MPa are
are used to verify the stress balance. From Figure 7, it can be seen that the two are in
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 usedgood
to verify the stress 7 of 24
agreement andbalance.
meet theFrom
stressFigure 7, it can
uniformity be seen that
conditions, the twothat
indicating are the
in good
test data
agreement and meet the stress uniformity conditions, indicating that the test data are ef-
are effective.
fective.
Incident wave(εi)
0.0008
Reflected wave(εr)
0.0006 Transmitted wave(εt)
Incident wave(εi)+Reflected wave(εr)
0.0004

0.0002
Strain ε

0.0000

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006

-0.0008
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Time(μs)

Figure7.
Figure Stressuniformity
7.Stress uniformityverification.
verification.

3.2. Uniaxial Dynamic Impact Compression Test

3.2.1. Test Results
C40 plain concrete and polypropylene-steel HyFRC specimens in six temperature
groups (25 °C, 100 °C, 200 °C, 400 °C, 600 °C, and 800 °C) were subjected to conventional
uniaxial dynamic impact compression tests. The impact air pressure was 0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 7 of 23

3.2. Uniaxial Dynamic Impact Compression Test

3.2.1. Test Results
C40 plain concrete and polypropylene-steel HyFRC specimens in six temperature
groups (25 ◦ C, 100 ◦ C, 200 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C, and 800 ◦ C) were subjected to conventional
uniaxial dynamic impact compression tests. The impact air pressure was 0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa,
and 0.5 MPa. Three sets of effective parallel tests were carried out for each group of
working conditions. If the relative error between the test results is less than 5%, the data
are considered to be valid. If the relative error is greater than 5%, the test is repeated. The
average of the three effective experiments is taken as the final result. The experimental
results of dynamic impact compression peak stress and peak strain are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Dynamic compression test results of specimens.

Impact Air Peak

Temperature/◦ C Specimen Code Peak Strain
Pressure/MPa Stress/MPa
PC-25-1 0.3 48.7 0.0034
PC-25-2 0.4 49.9 0.0039
PC-25-3 0.5 52.4 0.0044
25
S1PP0.2-25-1 0.3 71.1 0.0062
S1PP0.2-25-2 0.4 69.7 0.0072
S1PP0.2-25-3 0.5 71.8 0.0081
PC-100-1 0.3 50.4 0.0041
PC-100-2 0.4 51.7 0.0052
PC-100-3 0.5 52.9 0.0058
100
S1PP0.2-100-1 0.3 71.1 0.0087
S1PP0.2-100-2 0.4 72.8 0.0112
S1PP0.2-100-3 0.5 75.6 0.0122
PC-200-1 0.3 51.6 0.0065
PC-200-2 0.4 53.3 0.0074
PC-200-3 0.5 54.2 0.0083
200
S1PP0.2-200-1 0.3 79.6 0.0089
S1PP0.2-200-2 0.4 78.3 0.0119
S1PP0.2-200-3 0.5 81.4 0.0128
PC-400-1 0.3 40.9 0.0075
PC-400-2 0.4 43.1 0.0099
PC-400-3 0.5 44.9 0.0113
400
S1PP0.2-400-1 0.3 63.8 0.0098
S1PP0.2-400-2 0.4 67.0 0.0128
S1PP0.2-400-3 0.5 69.0 0.0132
PC-600-1 0.3 30.2 0.0094
PC-600-2 0.4 31.8 0.0109
PC-600-3 0.5 33.4 0.0133
600
S1PP0.2-600-1 0.3 49.2 0.0117
S1PP0.2-600-2 0.4 51.6 0.0147
S1PP0.2-600-3 0.5 54.0 0.0157
PC-800-1 0.3 17.0 0.0125
PC-800-2 0.4 18.6 0.0134
PC-800-3 0.5 19.2 0.0152
800
S1PP0.2-800-1 0.3 33.5 0.0133
S1PP0.2-800-2 0.4 35.6 0.0157
S1PP0.2-800-3 0.5 36.5 0.0176
Note: “PC” indicates plain concrete, “S” represents steel fiber, and “PP” denotes polypropylene fiber; the number
“0.2” of “S1PP0.2” indicates the percentage of volume mixing.

3.2.2. Dynamic Peak Intensity

The relationship between peak stress and temperature was plotted based on the results
of uniaxial dynamic compression tests at different impact air pressures (see Figure 8).
 concrete will produce secondary hydration [24], and the me
proved. At the same time, the impact load has a compaction e
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861
concrete material, which significantly reduces the number
8 of 23
crocracks in the internal structure of the concrete, and the mac
hancement of mechanical
Under the same impact air pressure, C40properties.
plain concrete and AtHyFRC
the show
temperature
a temperature gradi
◦ ◦
mens exhibit
enhancement a significant
effect within 25 C~200 C. With temperature damage
the increase in temperature, effect, and t
the compressive
strength increases slightly. The reason is that in this temperature range, the internal
creases significantly
microstructure with increasing
of concrete will produce temperature.
secondary hydration The variatio
[24], and the mechanical
properties will be improved. At the same time, the impact load has a compaction effect on
sistent with
the microcracks static
of the concretecompression. However,
material, which significantly reducesanother reason
the number of primary for th
sive
bubblesstrength is the
and microcracks in thecompaction
internal structureof microfractures
of the in the concr
concrete, and the macroscopic
performance is the enhancement of mechanical properties. At the temperature gradient of
significantly reducing
200 ◦ C~800 ◦ C, the specimens the
exhibit number
a significant of indigenous
temperature damage effect,air
andbubbles
their a
compressive strength decreases significantly with increasing temperature. The variation
structure of theconsistent
mechanism is basically concrete. Thecompression.
with static HyFRCHowever, exhibits both
another positive
reason for the and
enhanced dynamic compressive strength is the compaction of microfractures in the concrete
compressive strength of S1PP0.2 HyFRC at 200 °C was the gre
material by impact loading, significantly reducing the number of indigenous air bubbles
49.3%, andin50.2%
and microcracks instructure
the internal dynamic compressive
of the concrete. The HyFRCstrength compared
exhibits both positive
and negative effects. The dynamic compressive strength of S1PP0.2 HyFRC at 200 ◦ C
air pressures
was the greatest, withofan0.3 MPa,
increase 0.4 MPa,
of 51.7%, and
49.3%, and 50.2%0.5 MPa, respectively.
in dynamic compressive A
strength compared to C40 plain concrete at impact air pressures of 0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa, and
MPa and a temperature of 800 °C, the dynamic compressive
0.5 MPa, respectively. At an impact air pressure of 0.3 MPa and a temperature of 800 ◦ C,
creased
the dynamic by 97.1%strength
compressive comparedof S1PP0.2to C40increased
HyFRC plainbyconcrete.
97.1% compared to C40
plain concrete.

90
PC-0.3 S1PP0.2-0.3
80 PC-0.4 S1PP0.2-0.4
PC-0.5 S1PP0.2-0.5
70
Peak stress(MPa)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Temperature(℃)
Figure 8. Peak stress of specimens of different temperature groups at different impact air pressures.
Figure 8. Peak stress of specimens of different temperature groups
3.2.3. Dynamic Peak Strain
Different impact air pressures in the air chamber attribute different initial velocities to
the bullets, indirectly leading to differences in the damage strain rate of concrete specimens
during dynamic impact [25]. According to the peak strain results, the peak strain variation
patterns of specimens in different temperature groups at different impact air pressures were
explored (see Figure 9). It can be seen that the peak strain of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2
HyFRC increases with the increasing impact air pressure under the same temperature
conditions. At the same impact air pressure, the peak strain of C40 plain concrete and
S1PP0.2 HyFRC increases with the increasing temperature gradient. This result indicates
that the dynamic peak strain of both C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC is enhanced
with increasing temperature and impact air pressure.
 sult indicates that the dynamic peak strain of both C40 plain co
is enhanced with increasing temperature and impact air pressu
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 9 of 23

0.020 C40 0.3MPa S1PP0.2 0.3MPa

C40 0.4MPa S1PP0.2 0.4MPa
0.018
C40 0.5MPa S1PP0.2 0.5MPa
0.016
0.014

Peak strain 0.012

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature /°C
Figure 9. Dynamic impact peak strain of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 hybrid fiber reinforced
concrete under impact pressure and temperature.
Figure 9. Dynamic impact peak strain of C40 plain concrete and S1
3.2.4. Stress-Strain Curves
concrete under impact pressure and temperature.
In order to more intuitively show the dynamic strength and mechanical properties of
C40 plain concrete and optimally mixed S1PP0.2 HyFRC, the SHPB processing software
was used to plot the stress-strain curve according to the test results (see Figures 10 and 11).
3.2.4. Stress–Strain Curves
By comparing the stress-strain curves of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in the
six temperature groups (25 ◦ C, 100 ◦ C, 200 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C, and 800 ◦ C), it can be
In order to more intuitively show the dynamic strength an
observed that with the increase in the impact air pressure, the peak stress and peak strain
of the concrete in the same temperature group gradually increase, demonstrating the
C40 plain concrete and optimally mixed S1PP0.2 HyFRC, the
reinforcing effect of the impact air pressure. At the same impact rate, the dynamic stress-
was used to plot the stress–strain curve according to the test
strain curves of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in the same temperature group
are relatively similar. The change rule of the stress-strain curve of the specimen after
11). By comparing the stress–strain curves of C40 plain concr
temperature treatment is obviously different from that of the normal temperature specimen,
and the higher the temperature is, the more significant the difference is. With the increase
the six temperature groups (25 °C, 100 °C, 200 °C, 400 °C, 600
in the temperature gradient, the plastic stage of the curve continues to extend, showing
observed that with the increase in the impact air pressure, the
plastic damage characteristics, and the peak stress continues to decline. The macroscopic
performance shows that the mechanical properties of concrete specimens continue to
of the concrete in the same temperature group gradually incre
decrease, and the degree of damage continues to increase. On the other hand, the effect of
high temperature enhances the plastic deformation capacity of concrete upon damage, and
inforcing effect of the impact air pressure. At the same impac
the HyFRC exhibits a more significant enhancement in its ductility. It can also be observed
strain curves of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in th
from the figure that the stress-strain curve shows the phenomenon of maximum ultimate
strain rebound, i.e., the maximum ultimate strain gradually converges with the peak strain.
are relatively similar. The change rule of the stress–strain curve
The reason for this phenomenon is that after the dynamic load compacts, the microcracks
in the concrete material during the dynamic impact test, recovery rebound occurs under
perature treatment is obviously different from that of the norm
the action of inertia as the dynamic impact load decreases [26].
and the higher the temperature is, the more significant the diffe
in the temperature gradient, the plastic stage of the curve con
plastic damage characteristics, and the peak stress continues to
performance shows that the mechanical properties of concrete
crease, and the degree of damage continues to increase. On th
high temperature enhances the plastic deformation capacity
and the HyFRC exhibits a more significant enhancement in its
served from the figure that the stress–strain curve shows the
ultimate strain rebound, i.e., the maximum ultimate strain gra
pl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 10 o

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 10 of 23

60 0.3MPa
60 0.3MPa 0.4MPa
0.4MPa 0.5MPa
0.5MPa 50
50

40
40

Stress(MPa)
Stress(MPa)

30
30

20
20

10
10

0
0 0.0000 0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 0.0125 0.0150
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Strain
Strain

(a) 25 °C (b) 100 °C

60 0.3MPa 60 0.3MPa
0.4MPa 0.4MPa
50 0.5MPa 50 0.5MPa

40 40

Stress(MPa)
Stress(MPa)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.0000 0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 0.0125 0.0150 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020
Strain Stress

(c) 200 °C (d) 400 °C

60 0.3MPa 50 0.3MPa
0.4MPa 0.4MPa
0.5MPa 0.5MPa
50
40

40
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)

30
30
20
20

10
10

0 0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020
Strain Strain

(e) 600 °C (f) 800 °C

Figure 10. Dynamic
Figure impact
10. Dynamic impact stress–-strain curves
stress-strain curves for
for the the
C40 C40 concrete
concrete intemperature
in different different temperature
groups.
groups.

80 0.3MPa 80 0.3MPa
0.4MPa 0.4MPa
70 0.5MPa 70 0.5MPa

60 60

50 50
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Strain Strain
 (e) 600 °C (f) 800 °C
Figure 10. Dynamic impact stress–-strain curves for the C40 concrete in different temperature
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 groups. 11 of 23

80 0.3MPa 80 0.3MPa
0.4MPa 0.4MPa
70 0.5MPa 70 0.5MPa

60 60

50 50
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 2024, 14, 3861

Appl. Sci. 0 11 of 24
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Strain Strain

(a) 25 °C (b) 100 °C

90 0.3MPa 80 0.3MPa
0.4MPa 0.4MPa
80 70
0.5MPa 0.5MPa
70 60
60
50
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)
50
40
40
30
30
20 20

10 10

0 0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020
Strain Strain

(c) 200 °C (d) 400 °C

80 0.3MPa 80 0.3MPa
0.4MPa 0.4MPa
70 0.5MPa 70 0.5MPa

60 60

50 50
Stress(MPa)
Stress(MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020
Strain Strain

(e) 600 °C (f) 800 °C

Figure
Figure 11.
11. Dynamic
Dynamic impact
impactstress–strain
stress-strain curves
curves for
for S1PP0.2
S1PP0.2 HyFRC
HyFRC in
in different
different temperature
temperature groups.
groups.

Analysis of
3.2.5. Analysis of Failure
Failure Modes
Modes
In order
In ordertotostudy
studythethe effect
effect of temperature
of temperature on macroscopic
on the the macroscopicdamagedamage of concrete
of concrete mate-
materials
rials in dynamic
in dynamic impact impact compression
compression tests,dynamic
tests, uniaxial uniaxialimpact
dynamic impact compression
compression tests of reg-
testsC40
ular of regular C40 plain
plain concrete and concrete and S1PP0.2
S1PP0.2 HyFRC HyFRC
in different in different
temperature temperature
groups groups
were conducted,
werethe
and conducted,
macroscopicandfailure
the macroscopic
modes werefailure modes were
comparatively comparatively
investigated. investigated.
The failure The
modes of C40
failure modes of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in six temperature groups (25 ◦ C,
plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in six temperature groups (25 °C, 100 °C, 200 °C, 400 °C,
◦
100 °C,C, and ◦
200 800
C, °C) ◦
400 atC,an600 ◦ C, and ◦
800 C) at
600 impact air pressure ofan
0.3impact
MPa isair pressure
shown of 0.3 12
in Figures MPa is 13.
and shown in
Figures 12 and 13.
In general, both C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in all six temperature groups
become severely damaged with increasing temperature. At 25 ◦ C and 100 ◦ C, the failure
mode of C40 plain concrete is surface spalling; at 200 ◦ C and 400 ◦ C, the failure mode is
mainly core failure; at 600 ◦ C and 800 ◦ C, the failure mode develops into mass fragmentation
and crushing. S1PP0.2 HyFRC exhibits no significant failure at 25 ◦ C and 100 ◦ C, with only
small cracks observed; the failure mode at temperatures of 200 ◦ C and 400 ◦ C is surface
spalling, exhibiting unpropagated cracks under the action of hybrid fibers; at 600 ◦ C and

(a) 25 °C (b) 100 °C (c) 200 °C

 (e) 600 °C (f) 800 °C
Figure 11. Dynamic impact stress–strain curves for S1PP0.2 HyFRC in different temperature groups.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 3.2.5. Analysis of Failure Modes 12 of 23

In order to study the effect of temperature on the macroscopic damage of concrete mate-
rials 800
in dynamic impactmode
◦ C, the failure compression tests, uniaxial
is dominated dynamic
by the core failure,impact compression
and the steel fibers tests of reg-
passing
ular C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in different temperature groups were conducted,
through the body of the concrete as well as those pulled out during the core failure process
and the
canmacroscopic failure modes
be clearly observed. Underwere comparatively
the same investigated.
impact air pressure Thesame
and the failure modes of C40
temperature
plaincondition,
concrete S1PP0.2
and S1PP0.2
HyFRC HyFRC
is less in six temperature
damaged groups (25
and more resistant °C, 100compression
to impact °C, 200 °C,than
400 °C,
C40 plain concrete [27].
600 °C, and 800 °C) at an impact air pressure of 0.3 MPa is shown in Figures 12 and 13.

ci. 2024, 14, 3861 12 of 24

In general, both C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in all six temperature groups
become severely damaged with increasing temperature. At 25 °C and 100 °C, the failure
(a) 25 °C (b) 100 °C (c) 200 °C
mode of C40 plain concrete is surface spalling; at 200 °C and 400 °C, the failure mode is
mainly core failure; at 600 °C and 800 °C, the failure mode develops into mass fragmenta-
tion and crushing. S1PP0.2 HyFRC exhibits no significant failure at 25 °C and 100 °C, with
only small cracks observed; the failure mode at temperatures of 200 °C and 400 °C is sur-
face spalling, exhibiting unpropagated cracks under the action of hybrid fibers; at 600 °C
and 800 °C, the failure mode is dominated by the core failure, and the steel fibers passing
through the body of the concrete as well as those pulled out during the core failure process
can be clearly observed. Under the same impact air pressure and the same temperature
condition, S1PP0.2
(d) 400HyFRC
°C is less damaged (e) and
600 °Cmore resistant to impact compression
(f) 800 °C than
C40Figure
plain concrete
Figure
12. Failure
[27].
12. Failure modes
modes of C40
of C40 plainconcrete
plain concreteat
at different
different temperatures.
temperatures.

(a) 25 °C (b) 100 °C (c) 200 °C

(d) 400 °C (e) 600 °C (f) 800 °C

Figure
Figure 13. 13. Failure
Failure modesmodes of S1PP0.2
of S1PP0.2 HyFRCatatdifferent
HyFRC different temperatures.
temperatures.

3.3. Analysis of High-Speed Camera Results

The entire process of uniaxial dynamic impact compression and uniaxial dynamic
impact splitting tests of the specimens was filmed using an Y7S2MotionPro high-speed
camera (see Figure 14). It can more intuitively and dynamically reproduce the defor-
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 13 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 13 of 23

3.3. Analysis of High-Speed Camera Results

The entire process of uniaxial dynamic impact compression and uniaxial dynamic impact
splitting tests of the specimens was filmed using an Y7S2MotionPro high-speed camera (see
Figure 14). It can more intuitively and dynamically reproduce the deformation and damage
characteristics of concrete specimens under dynamic impact compression and splitting and
compensate for the inability to visualize the development of specimen cracks in the case of rapid
impact and a high-strain rate [28–31]. In order to highlight the advantages of the high-speed
camera, a maximum impact rate of 0.5 MPa was adopted to record the damage process of C40
plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC under uniaxial dynamic impact compression and uniaxial
dynamic impact splitting at 25 ◦ C (see Figures 15 and 16). In order to compare the damage
process at the same moment, one photo was selected at an interval of six photos, and a total
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 of six photos were selected to reproduce the whole destruction process. The direction13ofofthe 24
arrows in the Figures 15 and 16 indicates the sequence of the damage process.

Figure 14. Physical diagram of the high-speed camera.

The comparison of photos in Figures 15 and 16 reveals a significant difference in the

damage patterns of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC under uniaxial dynamic im-
pact compression. Since the dynamic tensile capacity of concrete is much smaller than the
dynamic compressive capacity, C40 plain concrete is first damaged by spalling along the
axial surfaces, followed by core failure. Under the action of the impact compression stress
wave, the specimen presents fragmentation failure and crushing failure. S1PP0.2 HyFRC
improved the toughness of concrete, leading to significantly different failure modes from
C40 plain concrete. The S1PP0.2 HyFRC exhibits splitting and tensile damage along the
axial direction, dominated by progressive surface spalling and core failure.
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Physical
Physical diagram
diagram of
of the
the high-speed
high-speed camera.
camera.

The comparison of photos in Figures 15 and 16 reveals a significant difference in the

damage patterns of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC under uniaxial dynamic im-
pact compression. Since the dynamic tensile capacity of concrete is much smaller than the
dynamic compressive capacity, C40 plain concrete is first damaged by spalling along the
axial surfaces, followed by core failure. Under the action of the impact compression stress
wave, the specimen presents fragmentation failure and crushing failure. S1PP0.2 HyFRC
improved the toughness of concrete, leading to significantly different failure modes from
C40 plain concrete. The S1PP0.2 HyFRC exhibits splitting and tensile damage along the
axial direction, dominated by progressive surface spalling and core failure.

Figure
Figure 15. 15. Impact
Impact compression damage
compression damageprocess of C40
process ofplain
C40concrete (impact loading
plain concrete from
(impact the rightfrom
loading side). the righ
side).

Figure 15. Impact compression damage process of C40 plain concrete (impact loading from the right
side).
Appl. Sci. Appl.
2024,Sci.
14,2024,
386114, 3861 14 of 24
14 of 23

Figure 16. 16.

Figure Impact
Impactcompression damage
compression damage process
process of S1PP0.2
of S1PP0.2 HyFRC HyFRC (impact
(impact loading loading
from the rightfrom
side).the right
side).
The comparison of photos in Figures 15 and 16 reveals a significant difference in the
damage patterns of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC under uniaxial dynamic impact
4. Numerical Simulation
compression. Since the dynamic tensile capacity of concrete is much smaller than the
4.1. dynamic
Establishment of the SHPB
compressive Finite
capacity, C40 Element Modelis first damaged by spalling along the
plain concrete
axial
Considering the limitations of the test, itthe
surfaces, followed by core failure. Under canaction
onlyofobtain
the impact compression stress
the macroscopic mechanical
wave, the specimen presents fragmentation failure and crushing failure. S1PP0.2 HyFRC
properties of the test and cannot further study the stress propagation law of the specimen
improved the toughness of concrete, leading to significantly different failure modes from
underC40impact load. That
plain concrete. Theis, the finite
S1PP0.2 HyFRC element software
exhibits splittingANSYS/LS-DYNA
and tensile damage alongis usedtheto carry
out axial
SHPB numerical simulation, and the simulation results and
direction, dominated by progressive surface spalling and core failure. experimental results are
compared and analyzed, so as to achieve the purpose of mutual verification. The model is
4. Numerical Simulation
mainly composed of four parts: the concrete specimen, incident bar, transmission bar, and
4.1. Establishment of the SHPB Finite Element Model
bullet. The eight-node hexahedron Solid164 volume element is selected. The bullet, inci-
dent bar,Considering the limitations of the test, it can only obtain the macroscopic mechanical
and transmission bar were made of linear elastic steel material with a length of
properties of the test and cannot further study the stress propagation law of the specimen
2 m,under
a radius
impactof load.
0.025Thatm, ais,modulus of elasticity
the finite element of ANSYS/LS-DYNA
software 211 GPa, and a density of carry
is used to 7850 kg/m3
The out
incident bar, transmission
SHPB numerical simulation,bar,
andand
thespecimen
simulationwere
resultsall meshed
and hexahedrally
experimental using the
results are
mapping
comparedmethod, the contact
and analyzed, so as of the specimen
to achieve withofthe
the purpose compression
mutual verification.bar
Thewas
modelencrypted
withis an
mainly composed
8-quantile of four
mesh, andparts:
the the concrete was
specimen specimen,
meshedincident
withbar, transmission bar,
a 30-quantile mesh. The
and bullet. The eight-node hexahedron Solid164 volume element is
spindle-shaped bullet was divided into hexahedral meshes using the sweeping method selected. The bullet,
incident bar, and transmission bar were made of linear elastic steel material with a length
with eight equal encryptions on the two end faces and the middle circular portion. The
of 2 m, a radius of 0.025 m, a modulus of elasticity of 211 GPa, and a density of 7850 kg/m3 .
contact betweenbar,
The incident thetransmission
spindle-shaped
bar, andbullet andwere
specimen the incident
all meshed bar was defined
hexahedrally as the
using automatic
end-face contact,
mapping method,andthethecontact
contactof between
the specimen the with
specimen and the incident
the compression bar was and transmission
encrypted
barswith
wasandefined as erosional
8-quantile mesh, andend-face contact.
the specimen wasA penalty
meshed function
with algorithm
a 30-quantile mesh.was
Theadopted
spindle-shaped bullet was divided into hexahedral meshes using the sweeping
as the contact algorithm to effectively control and reduce the hourglass effect. Numerical method,
with eight
simulation of equal encryptions
the uniaxial on theimpact
dynamic two endcompression
faces and the and
middle circulartests
splitting portion. Theconcrete
of C40
contact between the spindle-shaped bullet and the incident bar was defined as automatic
and S1PP0.2 HyFRC were performed (see Figure 17).
end-face contact, and the contact between the specimen and the incident and transmission
bars was defined as erosional end-face contact. A penalty function algorithm was adopted
as the contact algorithm to effectively control and reduce the hourglass effect. Numerical
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 15 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 15 of 24

simulation of the uniaxial dynamic impact compression and splitting tests of C40 concrete
and S1PP0.2 HyFRC were performed (see Figure 17).

(a) Bullet meshing

(b) Concrete specimen meshing

(c) Three-dimensional model

Figure 17.
Figure 17. Uniaxial
Uniaxial dynamic
dynamic impact
impact compression
compressionmodel.
model.

4.2.
4.2. Determination
Determination of
of Concrete
Concrete Material
Material Parameters
Parameters
The
The HJC constitutive model is suitablefor
HJC constitutive model is suitable studying
for studyingthethe
dynamic
dynamicmechanical
mechanicalproperties
proper-
of concrete, allowing for accurate characterization of changes in the mechanical properties
ties of concrete, allowing for accurate characterization of changes in the mechanical prop-
of concrete
erties under the
of concrete dynamic
under impact [32–35].
the dynamic It mainlyItconsists
impact [32–35]. mainly of a yieldof
consists surface equation,
a yield surface
aequation,
damage evolution equation, and a state equation.
a damage evolution equation, and a state equation.
(1)
(1) Yield
Yield surface
surface equation
equation
The
The yield surface equationforfor
surface equation thethe
HJCHJC constitutive
constitutive model
model can
can be be expressed
expressed by
by Equa-
Equation
tion (4): (4):
.∗
h i 
σ∗ =∗ A(1 − D ) + BP∗ N∗ N 1 + C ln ε ∗
( )
(4)
( )
σ =  A 1 − D + BP  1 + C ln ε (4)

where A is the normalized viscous strength; B is the normalized pressure hardening coef-
ficient; C is the influence coefficient of strain rate; N is the pressure hardening coefficient.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 16 of 24

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 16 of 23

D is the damage factor; σ ∗ and P∗ are the normalized equivalent stress and hydrostatic
pressure
where Aobtained by dividingviscous
is the normalized the actual equivalent
strength; B is stress and the true
the normalized hydrostatic
pressure pres-
hardening
sure of the unit
coefficient; C is by
thethe static compressive
influence coefficient ofstrength, respectively;
strain rate; and εhardening
N is the pressure  ∗
is the normalized
coefficient.
true
D isstrain rate obtained
the damage factor;byσ∗dividing
and P∗ arethethetruenormalized ε by the reference
strain rate equivalent stress and strain rate ε 0
hydrostatic
. pressure obtained by dividing the actual equivalent stress and the true hydrostatic pressure
.∗
of the unit by the static compressive strength, respectively; and ε is the normalized true
(2) Damage evolution equation . .
strain rate obtained by dividing the true strain rate ε by the reference strain rate ε0 .
The damage evolution equation in the HJC model characterizes the damage based on
(2) equivalent
the Damage plastic
evolution equation
strain and the plastic volume strain accumulation, which can be ex-
pressed The bydamage
Equation (5):
evolution equation in the HJC model characterizes the damage based
on the equivalent plastic strain and the plastic volume strain accumulation, which can be
Δε p + Δu p
expressed by Equation (5): D= 
( )
∆ε p ∗+ ∆u∗p D2 (5)
D = ∑ D1 P + T D (5)
D1 ( P∗ + T ∗ ) 2
where
whereDDisisthethedamage
damage factor;
factor; DD11 and
andDD are the damage coefficients; ε p ∆u
2 2are the damage coefficients; ∆ε pΔand
and Δ uthe
p are p

equivalent
are plastic plastic
the equivalent strains strains
and theandcorresponding volumetric
the corresponding strains, respectively;
volumetric and T ∗ is
strains, respectively;
and T ∗ is the normalized
the normalized maximum tensilemaximumstress tensile
obtained by dividing
stress obtainedthebymaximum
dividing the tensile strength
maximum
by the static compressive strength.
tensile strength by the static compressive strength.
(3) State
(3) Stateequation
equation
The
Thestate
stateequation describes
equation thethe
describes relationship between
relationship hydrostatic
between pressure
hydrostatic P andPvol-
pressure and
umetric strain
volumetric µ (see
strain Figure
µ (see 18). 18).
Figure The The
variation can be
variation candivided intointo
be divided three stages.
three stages.

Figure18.
Figure Relationshipbetween
18.Relationship betweenhydrostatic
hydrostaticpressure
pressureand
andvolumetric
volumetricstrain.
strain.

Thefirst
The firststage
stage(O A)isisthe
(OtotoA) thelinear
linearelastic stage( P
elasticstage (P<<PPc). Whenthe
c ). When thepressure
pressureisisless
less
than or equal to Pc , it satisfies the Equation (6), where K is the bulk modulus.
than or equal to Pc, it satisfies the Equation (6), where K is the bulk modulus.

P
P= Kμ
= Kµ (6)
(6)
The
Thesecond
secondstage
stage(A(AtotoB)B)isisthe
thecompaction
compactiontransition stage( P
transitionstage c P
(Pc ⩽PPl ⩽
). When the
Pl ). When
pressure is greater
the pressure than or
is greater equal
than to Pc toorPcless
or equal or than or equal
less than to Plto, the
or equal concrete
Pl , the material
concrete mate-
isrial is compacted
compacted and produces
and produces a plastica plastic volumetric
volumetric strain, strain,
which which
can be can be expressed
expressed by Equa- by
Equation
tion (7): (7):
( P − Pc )(µ − µc )
P = Pl − P μ − μ + Pc
(
P = l lc c
µ − )(µ c ) + P (7)
c (7)
The third stage (B to C) is the failure stageμl − μ(Pc > Pl ). When the pressure is greater than
Pl , the concrete is completely crushed and damaged, satisfying Equations (8) and (9):

P = K1 µ + K2 µ 2 + K3 µ 3 (8)
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 17 of 23

µ − µl
µ= (9)
1 + µl
where Pc and µc are the crushing pressure and volumetric strain; Pl and µl are the lock-
ing pressure and locking volumetric strain, respectively; K1 , K2 and K3 are the pressure
parameters; and µ is the corrected volumetric strain.
The HJC constitutive model consists of 21 parameters, and all of them can be de-
termined by tests or computational equations, except for normalized viscous strength A,
normalized pressure hardening coefficient B, strain rate influence coefficient C, and pres-
sure hardening coefficient N. Parameters such as density ρ and static uniaxial compressive
strength f c can be accurately obtained from the tests, and some of the parameters can be
calculated from Equations (10)–(12):

E
G= (10)
2(1 + ν )

fc
Pc = (11)
3
1
T = 0.62( f c ) 2 (12)
where G and E are shear modulus and elastic modulus, respectively; v is Poisson’s ratio;
and T is static tensile strength.
The remaining parameters are less sensitive to the strength of the concrete material,
and their values are determined according to the relevant literature [36–38]. Based on the
test data of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC at 800 ◦ C and an impact air pressure of
0.3 MPa, the values of the A, B, C, and N parameters were corrected by repeated calculations
after substituting them into the constitutive model. It is worth mentioning that because
there is no change in heat during the impact compression test of heated concrete, the
damage caused by temperature to concrete specimens is macroscopically manifested in the
deterioration of the physical and mechanical properties of concrete materials, which can
be characterized by the change in material model parameters [39]. The basic mechanical
parameters of the specimens at room temperature and after heating were obtained by static
experiments. In this way, the numerical simulation results derived from the modified
parameters of the HJC constitutive model can more accurately reflect the test results (see
Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6. Main parameters of the modified HJC constitutive model for C40 plain concrete.

Density ρ (kg/m3 ) 2181 Pressure at the crushing point Pc (MPa) 4.9

Shear modulus G (GPa) 2.75 Volumetric strain at the collapsing point µc 0.000675
Normalized viscous strength A 0.45 Pressure at the compaction point Pl (MPa) 810
Normalized pressure hardening coefficient B 1.28 Volumetric strain at the compaction point µl 0.1
Strain rate influence coefficient C 0.006 Damage factor D1 0.04
Normalized pressure hardening coefficient N 0.61 Damage factor D2 1.0
Static uniaxial compressive strength f c (MPa) 14.8 Pressure parameter K1 (GPa) 85
Static tensile strength T (MPa) 2.38 Pressure parameter K2 (GPa) −171
.
Reference strain rate ε0 (ms−1 ) 0.001 Pressure parameter K3 (GPa) 208
Total plastic strain before damage EFmin 0.01 Failure mode FS 0.004
Normalized maximum strength SFmax 7
 Total plastic strain before damage EFmin 0.01 Failure mode FS 0.004
Normalized maximum strength SFmax 7

Table 7. Main parameters of the modified HJC constitutive model for S1PP0.2 HyFRC.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861
Density ρ (kg/m3) 2317 Pressure at the crushing point Pc (MPa) 9.0 18 of 23
Shear modulus G (GPa) 4.28 Volumetric strain at the collapsing point μ c
0.000675
Normalized viscous strength A 0.51 Pressure at the compaction point Pc (MPa)
Table 7. Main parameters of the modified HJC constitutive model for S1PP0.2 HyFRC.
810

Volumetric strain at the compaction point μl

Normalized pressure hardening coefficient
1.42 0.1
3
Density ρ (kg/mB ) 2317 Pressure at the crushing point Pc (MPa) 9.0
Shear modulus
Strain rate influence coefficient C
G (GPa) 4.28
0.007 Volumetric strain
Damageat thefactor D1 point µc
collapsing 0.000675
0.04
Normalized viscous strength A 0.51 Damage factor D2 Pc (MPa)
Pressure at the compaction point 810
Normalized pressure hardening coefficient N 0.63 1.0
Normalized pressure hardening coefficient B 1.42 Volumetric strain at the compaction point µl 0.1
Static
Strain uniaxial compressive
rate influence strength
coefficient C fc 0.007 Damage factor DK 0.04
27.0 Pressure parameter 1
1 (GPa) 85
(MPa) coefficient N
Normalized pressure hardening 0.63 Damage factor D2 1.0
Static uniaxial
Staticcompressive strength
tensile strength T f c (MPa)
(MPa) 27.03.22 parameterK1K(GPa)
Pressure parameter
Pressure 2 (GPa)
85
−171
Static tensile strength T (MPa) 3.22 Pressure parameter K2 (GPa) −171
Reference strain rate ε0 (msε−01 )
Reference strain rate
.  (ms−1) 0.001
0.001 Pressure parameter K3K(GPa)
Pressure parameter 3 (GPa) 208
208
TotalTotal plastic
plastic strainstrain
beforebefore
damage damage
EFmin EFmin 0.001
0.001 Failuremode
Failure mode FSFS 0.004
Normalized
Normalizedmaximum strength
maximum SFmax SFmax
strength 7 7

4.3.Numerical
4.3. NumericalSimulation
SimulationResults
Results
The d3plot result file derived from the LS-DYNA Solver was imported into the LS-
The d3plot result file derived from the LS-DYNA Solver was imported into the LS-
PrePost software 19.0 to examine the numerical simulation results (see Figures 19 and 20).
PrePost software 19.0 to examine the numerical simulation results (see Figures 19 and 20).
Firstly, the spindle-shaped bullet impacts the incident bar to produce an incident stress
Firstly, the spindle-shaped bullet impacts the incident bar to produce an incident stress
wave. After the incident stress wave arrives at the specimen position, reflection and trans-
wave. After the incident stress wave arrives at the specimen position, reflection and
mission occur at the specimen interface, resulting in the reflected stress wave and the
transmission occur at the specimen interface, resulting in the reflected stress wave and the
transmitted stress wave.
transmitted stress wave.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 19 of 24

Figure
Figure 19.Propagation
19. Propagationof
ofthe
the360
360 stress
stress µs wave.

Figure
Figure 20.Propagation
20. Propagationof
ofthe
the740
740 µs
µs stress
stress wave.
wave.

The velocities measured by the velocimetry system under 0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa, and 0.5
MPa air pressure are 9.6 m/s, 11.8 m/s, and 14.1 m/s, respectively. The measured bullet
velocities in the test were consistent with the bullet velocity settings in the numerical sim-
ulation. The modified waveforms and the comparisons of stress–strain curves can be seen
to be in very good agreement (see Figures 21 and 22).
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 Figure 20. Propagation of the 740 µs stress wave. 19 of 23
Figure 20. Propagation of the 740 µs stress wave.

The velocities measured by the velocimetry system under 0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa, and 0.5
The velocities measured by the velocimetry system under 0.3 MPa, 0.4 MPa, and 0.5
MPa air pressure are 9.6measured
m/s, 11.8 m/s,
theand 14.1 m/s, respectively.
underThe 0.3measured bullet and
MPa airThe velocities
pressure are 9.6 m/s, 11.8bym/s, velocimetry
and 14.1 m/s,system
respectively. The MPa, 0.4 MPa,
measured bullet
velocities
0.5 MPain the test were consistent with the bullet velocity settings in the numerical sim-
velocities in air
thepressure
test wereare 9.6 m/s,
consistent 11.8the
with m/s, and
bullet 14.1 m/s,
velocity respectively.
settings The measured
in the numerical sim-
ulation. The
bullet modified
velocities in waveforms
the test wereand the comparisons
consistent with the of stress–strain
bullet velocity curves
settings can
in be
the seen
numerical
ulation. The modified waveforms and the comparisons of stress–strain curves can be seen
to besimulation.
in very good Theagreement
modified(see Figures 21 and
waveforms the22).
to be in very good agreement (see Figuresand
21 and comparisons
22). of stress-strain curves can be
seen to be in very good agreement (see Figures 21 and 22).
2.0 Test (incident and reflected waves)
Test (incident and reflected waves)
2.0 Test
Test (incident and
(transmitted reflected waves)
wave) 2.0 Test (incident and reflected waves)
Test (transmitted
Numerical wave)
simulation (incident and reflected waves) 2.0 Test (transmitted wave)
1.5 Test (transmitted
Numerical wave)
simulation (incident and reflected waves)
1.5
Numerical
Numerical simulation
simulation (incident and
(transmitted reflected waves)
wave) 1.5
Numerical simulation (transmitted wave) 1.5 Numerical simulation (incident and
Numerical simulation ( (transmitted reflected waves)
wave)
1.0 Numerical simulation ( (transmitted wave)
1.0 1.0
1.0
0.5
Voltage(V)

0.5

Voltage(V)
0.5
Voltage(V)

0.5

Voltage(V)
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.5 -0.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0 -1.0
-1.0
-1.5
-1.5 -1.5
-1.5
-2.0
0
-2.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 -2.0
0 100 200 300Time(μs)
400 500 600 700 800 0
-2.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time(μs)
Time(μs) Time(μs)

(a) C40 plain concrete (b) S1PP0.2 HyFRC

(a) C40 plain concrete (b) S1PP0.2 HyFRC
Figure 21. Comparison of typical waveforms obtained from tests and numerical simulations.
Figure 21. 21.
Figure Comparison of typical
Comparison waveforms
of typical obtained
waveforms from
obtained tests
from andand
tests numerical simulations.
numerical simulations.

9.6m/s Test result 9.6m/s Test result

30 9.6m/s
9.6m/s Test result
Numerical simulation result 60
30 9.6m/s
9.6m/s Test result
Numerical simulation result
9.6m/sTest
11.8m/s Numerical
result simulation result 5560 9.6m/sTest
11.8m/s Numerical
result simulation result
5055
25 11.8m/s Test result
11.8m/s Numerical simulation result 11.8m/s
11.8m/s Test result
Numerical simulation result
25 11.8m/s
14.1m/s Numerical
Test result simulation result 11.8m/s Numerical
result simulation result
14.1m/s
14.1m/s Test result
Numerical simulation result
4550 14.1m/s Test
14.1m/s Test result
14.1m/s Numerical simulation result
20 14.1m/s Numerical simulation result 4045 14.1m/s Numerical simulation result
Stress(MPa)

20
Stress(MPa)

3540
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)

15 3035
15 2530
10 2025
10 1520
5 1015
5 510
0 05
0.000
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000
0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
0.000 0.004 0.008
Strain 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010
Strain 0.015 0.020 0.025
Strain Strain

(a) C40 concrete (b) S1PP0.2 HyFRC

(a) C40 concrete (b) S1PP0.2 HyFRC
Figure 22. Comparison
Figure of stress–strain
22. Comparison curves
of stress-strain obtained
curves fromfrom
obtained teststests
and and
numerical simulations.
numerical simulations.
Figure 22. Comparison of stress–strain curves obtained from tests and numerical simulations.
The modified HJC model accurately reflects the mechanical properties of C40 plain
concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC. Numerical simulations considering the homogeneity of the
specimens and the reference values taken for the parameters of the modified HJC model
introduce errors. However, the errors of numerical simulation and test results are small,
and the error range of peak stress and peak strain at different impact velocities is within 6%
(see Table 8).
The failure modes of C40 plain concrete and S1PP0.2 HyFRC in the 800 ◦ C temperature
group at impact velocities of 9.6 m/s, 11.8 m/s, and 14.1 m/s were analyzed by numerical
simulation (see Figures 23 and 24). The comparison reveals that the numerical simulation
results are consistent with the failure modes obtained from practical tests. The failure
processes of C40 plain concrete and HyFRC under the same impact air pressure are firstly
from the outer surface and then gradually extend to the middle of the specimen. At a certain
level of failure, large crack damage occurs, and the failure mode of the concrete specimen
changes from gradual damage to rapid damage. The damage mechanism of concrete under
dynamic impact compression loading can be explained based on the stress wave. Since
the end faces of the concrete specimen are in contact with the incident and transmissive
bars, the tensile stress wave—formed after the impact compression wave arrives at the
end faces of the specimen—results in tensile damage to the concrete specimen [40]. The
damage degree of the same concrete specimen at the same moment increases significantly
with increasing impact rate. Moreover, compared to C40 plain concrete, S1PP0.2 HyFRC
 Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 20 of 23

exhibits a significant improvement in the damage degree and a significant reduction in the
number of fragments at the same impact rate. The failure mode changes from the crushing
failure of C40 plain concrete to core failure. Numerical simulation also reflects that HyFRC
significantly improves the mechanical properties of concrete and enhances its resistance to
dynamic impact compression.

Table 8. Comparison of numerical simulation results and test results.

Peak Stress Peak Stress Peak Strain

Type of Concrete Impact Velocity Test Method Peak Strain
Error σ Error σ Error ε
Test 17.0 0.0125
9.6 m/s 2.94% 3.20%
Numerical simulation 17.5 0.0121
Test 18.6 0.0134
C40 concrete 11.8 m/s 4.84% 2.99%
Numerical simulation 19.5 0.0138
Test 19.2 0.0152
14.1 m/s 5.21% 2.63%
Numerical simulation 20.2 0.0148
Test 33.5 0.0133
9.6 m/s 4.78% 0.75%
Numerical simulation 35.1 0.0134
S1PP0.2 Test 35.6 0.0157
HyFRC 11.8 m/s 4.49% 3.82%
Numerical simulation 37.2 0.0163
Test 36.5 0.0176
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 14.1 m/s 4.11% 21 of 24
3.41%
Numerical simulation 38.0 0.0182

(a) Impact velocity of 9.6 m/s

(b) Impact velocity of 11.8 m/s

(c) Impact velocity of 14.1 m/s

Figure
Figure23.
23.Impact
Impactcompression
compressiondamage
damageprocess
processofofC40
C40plain
plainconcrete
concreteatatdifferent
differentimpact
impactvelocities
velocities
(impact
(impactloading
loadingfrom
fromthe
theright
rightside).
side).
 (c) Impact velocity of 14.1 m/s
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 Figure 23. Impact compression damage process of C40 plain concrete at different impact velocities
21 of 23
(impact loading from the right side).

(a) Impact velocity of 9.6 m/s

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 22 of 24

(b) Impact velocity of 11.8 m/s

(c) Impact velocity of 14.1 m/s

Figure
Figure24.24.Impact compression
Impact compression damage process
damage ofof
process S1PP0.2 HyFRC
S1PP0.2 atatdifferent
HyFRC differentimpact
impactvelocities
velocities
(impact loading from the right side).
(impact loading from the right side).

5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
(1)(1) Both
Both C40C40andand S1PP0.2
S1PP0.2 HyFRC
HyFRC havehave temperature
temperature enhancement
enhancement effects
effects at temper-
at tempera-
atures ranging from ◦ C to 200 ◦ C. The peak strength of the sample is the highest at
25 to
tures ranging from 25 °C 200 °C. The peak strength of the sample is the highest at 200
200 ◦
°C, andC,theandpeak
the peak strength
strength of theof sample
the samplealsoalso increases
increases significantly
significantly with
with thethe increase
increase inin
impact pressure. When the temperature gradient exceeds 200 ◦ C, both types of concrete
impact pressure. When the temperature gradient exceeds 200 °C, both types of concrete
experiencetemperature
experience temperaturedamagedamageeffects.
effects.InIn addition,
addition, both
both C40C40 plain
plain concrete
concrete and
and S1PP0.2
S1PP0.2
HyFRC exhibit enhanced dynamic peak strain effects with
HyFRC exhibit enhanced dynamic peak strain effects with increasing temperature and increasing temperature and
impactairairpressure.
impact pressure.
(2) With
(2) With the theincrease
increaseinintemperature,
temperature,the thedamage
damageformsformsofofC40C40plain
plainconcrete
concreteandand
S1PP0.2 HyFRC are different in the uniaxial dynamic impact test,
S1PP0.2 HyFRC are different in the uniaxial dynamic impact test, and the damage degree and the damage degree
becomesmore moreand andmore
moreprominent.
prominent.AtAt ◦ and 100 ◦ C, the failure mode of C40 plain
becomes 2525°C C and 100 °C, the failure mode of C40 plain
concreteisissurface
surfacespalling;
spalling; at ◦
200°C C and 400 ◦ C, the failure mode is mainly core failure;
concrete ◦ ◦
at 200 and 400 °C, the failure mode is mainly core failure;
andatat600
and 600°CCand and800
800°C,C,the
thefailure
failuremode
mode develops
develops into into mass
mass◦ fragmentation
fragmentation and
andcrushing.
crush-
In contrast, S1PP0.2 HyFRC shows no obvious damage at 25 C and 100 ◦ C; at 200 ◦ C and
ing. In◦ contrast, S1PP0.2 HyFRC shows no obvious damage at 25 °C and 100 °C; at 200 °C
◦ and 800 ◦ C, its failure mode is
400400C,°C,
and itsits
failure
failuremode
mode is is
surface
surface spalling;
spalling; andandatat600
600 C°C and 800 °C, its failure mode
dominated by core failure. Hybrid fiber concrete has an obvious reinforcement effect.
is dominated by core failure. Hybrid fiber concrete has an obvious reinforcement effect.
(3) Uniaxial dynamic impact compression tests are simulated using modified consti-
(3) Uniaxial dynamic impact compression tests are simulated using modified consti-
tutive model parameters for C40 concrete and HyFRC. The obtained impact waveforms
tutive model parameters for C40 concrete and HyFRC. The obtained impact waveforms
and stress-strain curves are consistent with the test results, with the comparison error
and stress–strain curves are consistent with the test results, with the comparison error
between peak stress and peak strain effectively controlled within 6%. The HJC constitutive
between peak stress and peak strain effectively controlled within 6%. The HJC constitutive
model is suitable for studying the dynamic mechanical properties of concrete, allowing for
model is suitable for studying the dynamic mechanical properties of concrete, allowing
accurate characterization of changes in the mechanical properties of concrete under the
for accurate characterization of changes in the mechanical properties of concrete under
dynamic impact.
the dynamic impact.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.D. and X.S.; methodology, X.L., X.S., and L.L.; valida-
tion, X.L., L.L., and X.C.; resources, J.D.; data curation, L.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S.,
X.L., and L.L.; writing—review and editing, X.C., X.L., and L.L.; supervision, J.D.; project admin-
istration, J.D.; funding acquisition, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 22 of 23

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.D. and X.S.; methodology, X.L., X.S. and L.L.; validation,
X.L., L.L. and X.C.; resources, J.D.; data curation, L.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S., X.L.
and L.L.; writing—review and editing, X.C., X.L. and L.L.; supervision, J.D.; project administra-
tion, J.D.; funding acquisition, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by the Special Basic Cooperative Research Programs of the Yunnan
Provincial Undergraduate University’s Association (202301BA070001-012, 202101BA070001-137).
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in this
article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that this research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflicts of interest.

References
1. Tan, X.; Shen, A.Q.; Guo, Y.C. Experimental study on road performance of basalt fiber reinforced bitumen mastics. J. Build. Mater.
2016, 19, 659–664.
2. Xin, M.; Wang, X.Z.; Dong, H. Summary of research on durability of fiber concrete. J. Liaoning Univ. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2020,
40, 35–39.
3. Kumari, G.J.; Ojarestaghi, S.S.M.; Bhojaraju, C. Influence of thermal cycles and high-temperature exposures on the residual
strength of hybrid steel/glass fiber-reinforced self-consolidating concrete. Structures 2023, 55, 1532–1541. [CrossRef]
4. Jiang, X.G. Research on the durability of basalt fiber reinforced concrete. Anhui Archit. 2021, 28, 117–118.
5. Peng, S.; Li, L.; Wu, J.; Jiang, X.Q.; Du, X.L. lmpact tests on dynamic compressive behaviors of steel fiber reinforced concrete at
elevated temperature. Vib. Shock 2019, 38, 149–154.
6. Wang, L. Experimental Study on the Mechanical Properties and Damage Evolution of Basalt Fiber Reinforced Concrete after High
Temperature. Master’s Thesis, Inner Mongolia University of Technology, Huhehaote, China, 2017.
7. Hou, L.N.; He, M.D.; Huang, W.; Zhou, X.F. Research status and prospect of mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced recycled
concrete. J. Xi’an Univ. Technol. 2021, 37, 403–413.
8. Zhao, L.P. Mechanical Behavior and Calculation Methods of Fiber & Nanosized Materials Reinforced Concrete at High Tempera-
ture. Ph.D. Thesis, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, 2017.
9. Zhao, Y.R.; Liu, D.K.; Wang, L.; Liu, F.F. Experimental study on mechanical properties of basalt fiber concrete after high
temperature. Concrete 2019, 20, 72–75.
10. Jiang, W.; Jiang, J.S.; Teng, C.L. Research status of hybrid fiber reinforced concrete. Build. Mater. Dev. Orientat. 2019, 17, 13–16.
[CrossRef]
11. Liu, X.; Liang, D.Y.; Luo, J.J.; Tang, Y.Q.; Wang, T.Q. Experimental study on compressive strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete
at high temperature. Concrete 2018, 1, 31–34.
12. Yang, J. Experimental Research on Mechanical Properties, Explosive Spalling Behavior and Its Improvements of Ultra-High-
Performance Concrete with Coarse Aggregate Exposed to High Temperature. Ph.D. Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing,
China, 2017.
13. Huang, J.S. Research of the Properties of Polyvinyl Alcohol Fiber Concrete. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou,
China, 2018.
14. Varona, B.; Baeza, J.; Bru, D. Influence of high temperature on the mechanical properties of hybrid fibre reinforced normal and
high strength concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 159, 73–82. [CrossRef]
15. Kodur, V.; Khaliq, W. Effect of temperature on thermal properties of different types of high-strength concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
2011, 23, 793–801. [CrossRef]
16. Sanchayan, S.; Foster, S.J. High temperature behaviour of hybrid steel-PVA fibre reinforced reactive powder concrete. Mater.
Struct. 2016, 49, 769–782. [CrossRef]
17. GB175-2007; Common Portland Cement. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2007.
18. GB/T1596-2017; Fly Ash Used for Cement and Concrete. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2017.
19. JGJ5 5-2011; Concrete Mixing Ratio Design Regulations. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
20. CECS13:2009; FRC Experimental Method Standard. China Plan Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2009.
21. Li, T.; Zhang, X.G.; Liu, H.X.; Fang, J.Z.; Chen, C. Experimental research on mechanical properties of hybrid fiber concrete after
high temperature. J. Railw. Sci. Eng. 2020, 17, 1171–1177.
22. Liu, Y.W.; Liu, L.; Meng, X. Study on the mechanical properties of basalt fiber concrete under different temperature and with
different dosage. Chem. Miner. Process. 2022, 51, 26–31.
23. Gong, F.Q. Experimental Study of Rock Mechanical Properties under Coupled Static-Dynamic Loads and Dynamic Strength
Criterion. Ph.D. Thesis, Central South University, Changsha, China, 2010.
24. Mao, Z.H.; Zhang, J.C.; Li, Y.Q.; Du, G.F.; Yang, X. Performance Degradation and Microscopic Structure of Reactive Powder
Concrete after Exposure to High Temperature. J. Build. Mater. 2020, 25, 1225–1232.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3861 23 of 23

25. Ni, X. Effect of Polypropylene Fiber on Mechanical Properties of Concrete under Cyclic Loading. Master’s Thesis, Anhui
University of Science and Technology, Huainan, China, 2021.
26. Xu, J.Y.; Zhao, D.H.; Fan, F.L. Dynamic Characteristics of Fiber Reinforced Concrete; Northwest University of Technology Press: Xi’an,
China, 2013.
27. Luo, H.L.; Yang, D.Y.; Zhou, X.Y.; Shan, C.C.; Liu, X.; Zhao, F.L. Mechanical properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete
with different aspect ratios. Acta Mater. Compos. Sin. 2019, 36, 1935–1948.
28. Ren, S.Y. An experimental study of high strain-rate properties of clay under high consolidation stress. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017,
92, 46–51.
29. Liu, P. SHPB Tests for Cement Mortar Materials and Their Parameter Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Hunan
University, Changsha, China, 2018.
30. Liu, P.; Zhou, X.; Qian, Q. Dynamic splitting tensile properties of concrete and cement mortar. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct.
2020, 43, 757–770. [CrossRef]
31. Sun, H. Study on Impact Splitting Tensile Properties of High Strength Concretewith Steel Polypropylene Hybrid Fiber. Ph.D. The-
sis, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang, China, 2018.
32. Chen, B.F.; Qiu, X.; Chen, J.Y. Numerical simulation of concrete impact test using split Hopkinson pressure bundled bars device.
J. Appl. Mech. 2017, 34, 125–130.
33. Wang, C.; Song, R.; Wang, G. Modifications of the HJC (Holmquist-Johnson-Cook) Model for an Improved Numerical Simulation
of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Structures Subjected to Impact Loadings. Materials 2020, 13, 1361. [CrossRef]
34. Sun, Y.X.; Wang, J.; Wu, H.J.; Zhou, J.Q.; Li, J.Z.; Pi, A.G.; Huang, F.L. Experiment and simulation on high-pressure equation of
state for concrete. Explos. Shock 2020, 40, 4–13.
35. Yuan, L.Z.; Miao, C.H.; Shan, J.F.; Wang, P.F.; Xu, S.L. On strain-rate and inertia effects of concrete samples under impact. Explos.
Shock 2022, 42, 18–30.
36. Xie, L. Comparative study the mechanical properties of HJC and K&C concrete models under explosion. J. Yanbian Univ. (Nat. Sci.
Ed.) 2020, 46, 164–168.
37. Wu, S.; Zhao, J.H.; Wang, J.; Li, N.; Li, Y. Study on parameters of HJC constitutive model based on numerical simulation of
concrete SHPB test. J. Comput. Mech. 2015, 32, 789–795.
38. Zhang, S.R.; Song, R.; Wang, C.; Shang, C.; Wei, P.Y. Modification of a dynamic constitutive model-HC model for roller-compacted
concrete and numerical verification. Vib. Shock 2019, 38, 25–31.
39. Li, R.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Z.H.; Wang, Y. Numerical simulation of marble damaged by high temperature in SHPB experiment based
on HC model. Eng. Blasting 2022, 28, 37–44.
40. Wang, Y.Y. Numerical Simulation of Dynamic Mechanical Behavior of Desert Sand Concrete. Master’s Thesis, Ningxia University,
Yingchuang, China, 2016.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.