ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 99-M55
Impact Response of Ultra-High-Strength Fiber-Reinforced
Cement Composite
by Vivek Bindiganavile, Nemkumar Banthia, and Brendt Aarup
Recent terrorist attacks have clearly highlighted the need for
structures of military and strategic importance to withstand severe
impact and explosive loads. Very high stress rates occur during
such dynamic loads, and a large amount of energy is suddenly
imparted to the structure. To resist such vigorous loads, the material
of the structure must possess enough strength at a high stress rate
and be tough enough to maintain integrity without shattering and
collapse. In this study, compact reinforced composite (CRC), an
ultra-high-performance steel fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) with
a compressive strength around 200 MPa, was investigated for its
response to impact loading using an instrumented drop weight
impact machine. Direct comparisons were made with conventional
normal-strength FRC.
Results indicated that under quasistatic loading, CRC was two
to three times stronger in flexure than conventional steel or
polypropylene FRC and absorbed approximately three times
greater energy. Impact tests revealed that CRC was approximately
twice as strong as conventional FRC and dissipated three to four
times as much energy. As expected for all high-strength materials,
CRC was found to be less stress-rate sensitive than conventional
FRC. CRC, therefore, appears to be an ideal material for use in
structures of strategic importance where a high resistance to
impact loading is desired.
Keywords: dynamic load; fiber-reinforced concrete; steel.
INTRODUCTION
Compact reinforced composite (CRC) is a special type of
ultra-high-strength concrete reinforced with up to 6% by
volume of steel fiber. It is characterized by a low water-binder
ratio (w/b), high silica fume content, and absence of any
coarse aggregate.1 CRC, as a result, has a very high com-
pressive strength (150 to 400 MPa) and a high toughness. At
the microstructural level, CRC has large amounts (~50%) of
unhydrated cement grains, which, in turn, reinforce and
stiffen the granular skeleton of the hydrating material.2 With
an exceptionally dense microstructure and virtually nonexistent
bleed channels, CRC is also expected to be highly durable,3
resist an ingress of deleterious fluids, and possess a far
greater resistance to attack by physical and chemical agents
than any conventional high-strength concrete. With large
amounts of silica fume and a complete absence of coarse
aggregates, CRC, which is, strictly speaking, a fiber-reinforced
mortar, undergoes large autogenous shrinkage at early ages;
this, however, is known to subside within the first 10 days.1
While CRC has been promoted primarily for precast appli-
cations in slender structures, its ultra-high strength and very
high toughness make it potentially very suitable for struc-
tures that need to resist impact, shock, and explosive loading.
These include gas tanks, nuclear reactor containment
shields, defense shelters and bunkers, heavy-duty runways,
crash barriers, and structures of military and strategic
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2002
TECHNICAL PAPER
importance designed to withstand explosive blasts and
attacks with missiles and projectiles.
Current understanding of the impact resistance of concrete,
and especially of high-strength concrete, is very limited.
There are also contradictory results in the literature. For
example, while Banthia;4 Banthia et al.;5 Bentur, Mindess,
and Banthia;6 and Ross7 reported a reduced sensitivity to the
stress rate with an increase in the static strength of concrete,
Bischoff and Perry8 reported otherwise. At the heart of the
problem is the absence of a standardized test technique for
testing concrete under impact. Various investigators have
used different impact machines, specimen configurations,
specimen sizes, and instrumentation, and they have also
adopted differing analysis schemes. Much still remains to be
done both towards the development of a standardized tech-
nique and towards generating fundamental understanding of
concrete performance under impact loading.
In the case of ultra-high-strength concrete such as CRC,
the data are even scarcer. Of the very few studies, Lee, Shi,
and Yao9 demonstrated the superior resistance of reactive
powder concrete (RPC) ( fc in the range of 180 to 400 MPa)
over normal and conventional high-strength concrete under
projectile impact. Some tests performed in Sweden on
CRC10 have demonstrated a superior resistance of CRC to
impact over traditional types of fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC). However, a detailed and systematic study of the
impact behavior of CRC has never been performed. In the
study reported herein, impact tests were carried out using an
instrumented impact machine, and the response of CRC was
compared with conventional FRC.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Current world events have clearly indicated that the need
to protect civilian and military structures from terrorist or
enemy attacks has never been greater. To minimize damage
and prevent collapse, these structures must possess a much
greater resistance to impact loading. Traditional FRC with
normal-strength matrices is known to be tough and highly
impact-resistant, but of late, newer types of ultra-high-
performance FRCs such as CRCs have been developed and
shown to possess a much greater capability to absorb energy
under static loading. Unfortunately, there are no data to corrob-
orate their equally resistant response to impact loading, and
such data were generated in the study reported herein.
ACI Materials Journal, V. 99, No. 6, November-December 2002.
MS No. 01-433 received December 6, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publica-
tion policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright pro-
prietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the September-October 2003 ACI
Materials Journal if received by June 1, 2003.
543

Vivek Bindiganavile is a doctoral candidate and graduate research assistant in the
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
His research interests include enhancing the impact resistance of concrete.
ACI member Nemkumar Banthia is a professor of civil engineering at the University
of British Columbia. He is chair of ACI Committee 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete,
and is a member of ACI Committees 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement;
446, Fracture Mechanics; 506, Shotcreting; 549, Thin Reinforced Cementitious Prod-
ucts and Ferrocement; and E 801, Student Activities. He was awarded ACIs Wason
Medal for Materials Research in 1997.
Brendt Aarup is President of CRC Technology in Denmark. His research interests
include high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites.
Fig. 1Slump test on CRC mixture without fiber.
Fig. 2Slump test on CRC mixture with 6% fiber.
Table 1Mixture proportions for CRC, SFRC, and PFRC mixtures
Quartz sand
Silica High-range water- Size range,
Composite Cement Water fume reducing admixture mm
CRC 750 150 179 21
SFRC* 440 200
440 200
PFRC
*
Flat-end steel fiber, 0.70 mm diameter and 30 mm long.
Crimped polypropylene fiber 0.90 mm diameter and 30 mm long.
544
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Mixture proportions and specimens
The mixture proportions for CRC, normal-strength steel
FRC (SFRC), and normal-strength polymer macro-FRC
(PFRC) investigated in this study are given in Table 1. For
CRC, a white portland cement containing 66.9% C3S, 19.2%
C2S, 4.35% C3A, and 1% C4AF was used along with silica
fume (SF, 24% by weight of cement). A dry high-range
water-reducing admixture (HRWR) of condensed naphtha-
lene sulfonate type was used to achieve workability. The
mixture contained 4 mm maximum particle size quartz sand
as aggregate and 12 mm-long, 0.4 mm-diameter steel fiber at
a volume fraction of 6%.
A specialized mixing technique was adopted for CRC.
Cement, silica fume, sand, and a high-range water-reducing
admixture were first mixed in a pan mixer for 2 min followed
by addition of the entire mixture water (w/[c + sf] = 0.16). The
material was then allowed to mix for another 6 min, a somewhat
longer time, but required to allow the dry high-range water-
reducing admixture to fully plasticize the mixture. The fibers
were then introduced gradually to ensure maximum dispersion.
A slump test was carried out both before and after fiber addition.
Figure 1 and 2 show the slump of fresh CRC before and after the
addition of 6% steel fibers. A slump of 200 mm before fiber
addition dropped to approximately 120 mm after fiber addition
that was quite adequate for proper workability. Six percent by
volume of fiber, however, also appears to be the limit; mixtures
with higher volume fractions of 9 and 12% have been found to
be highly unworkable.11
As seen in Table 1, along with CRC, two conventional
FRC mixtures were also investigated with SFRC and PFRC.
Flat-end steel fibers (0.70 mm in diameter, 30 mm long) and
crimped* polypropylene fibers (0.90 mm in diameter, 30 mm
long) were used for the SFRC and PFRC mixtures, respec-
tively. The fiber volume fraction was 0.75% in each case.
For each mixture, beams (100 x 100 x 350 mm) were cast for
flexural toughness testing and cylinders (50 mm x 100 mm
for CRC and 100 mm x 200 mm for SFRC and PFRC,
respectively) were cast for compression testing. Smaller
compression cylinders for CRC were chosen primarily out of
necessity, as the ultra-high strength of CRC required a testing
machine of excessive capacity unavailable in the lab. This was,
however, not seen as a serious issue given that CRC has no large
aggregate and contains fiber of a shorter 12 mm length.
*Deformation, in mm, given by y = Asin(2x/L), where A = 0.5 mm; L = 3.9 mm;
and x is measured along fiber length.
Ingredient, kg/m3
9.5 mm
Concrete coarse
Quantity sand aggregate Fiber Vf
0.00 to 0.25 189
0.25 to 1 383 457
1 to 4 613
880 880 60
880 880 6.75
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2002
Fig. 3ASTM C 1018 flexural toughness test.

TEST PROGRAM
Quasistatic tests
Four cylinders each of CRC, SFRC, and PFRC (refer to
Table 1 for details) were subjected to a uniaxial compression
test as per ASTM C 39-1998. For CRC mixtures, splitting
tension tests as per ASTM C 496-1998 were also performed
on three cylinders.
Flexural tests were carried out as per ASTM C 1018-1998
on at least three beams each of CRC, SFRC, and PFRC. As (a)
is well known,12 during such a test, the specimen supports
settle in the direction of load application, and concrete crush-
ing occurs at the load points. To eliminate these spurious
specimen deflections, a Japanese yoke was installed around
the specimens as shown in Fig. 3. With such an arrangement,
only the net deflection of the neutral axis is measured that
relates well with the theoretical deflection arising from bend-
ing and shear in the specimen. During a test, both the applied
load and the specimen deflection in the direction of the
applied load were measured. The deflections were measured
by two linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)
placed on either side of the specimen, results from which
were averaged as the feedback signal. Although the tests
were conducted as per ASTM C 1018-98, the analysis of the
load-deflection curves followed the recommendations of the
JSCE SF4 procedure. This is due to the difficulty in identifying
the point of first crack on the curve as required by ASTM C (b)
1018 and the consequent lack of confidence in the resulting
toughness indexes.12 As per the JSCE method, the flexural Fig. 4(a) Impact test machine with specimen; and (b)
toughness factor b is given by instrumented striker (tup).

2
b = ( b tb ) ( l bh ) (1) of three beams were tested for each mixture at the various drop
where
l = span of the beam under test;
tb = deflection at the midspan of beam equal to l/150
b = flexural toughness up to a deflection of tb; and
b, h = width and depth of the beam under test.
Impact tests
For the impact tests, an instrumented drop-weight impact-
testing machine was used (Fig. 4(a)). Designed and built at the
University of British Columbia, this machine is fully described
elsewhere.13 Briefly, the 1.5 kJ capacity machine is capable of
dropping a 60 kg mass from heights of up to 2.5 m on to a beam
specimen supported on variable span. Four drop-heights of 200,
500, 750, and 1000 mm were investigated to help describe the
impact behavior under a wide range of stress rates. A minimum
heights on an unsupported span of 300 mm.
The striking knife-edge end of the hammer is shown in
Fig. 4(b). Often called the tup, it has eight bonded strain
gages mounted within itself. Upon contact with the specimen,
these gages record the contact pulse between the hammer and
the specimen. In a typical test, the beam specimen is placed on
a span of 300 mm, then the hammer is raised to the required
height above the top surface of the specimen and allowed to
drop freely on the specimen with its knife-edge striking the
specimen at midspan. For a drop height of 200 mm, for exam-
ple, the hammer struck at a velocity of 2.00 m/s and provided
an impact incident energy of 120 J. The beams were fitted with
an accelerometer on the underside at midspan. The data acqui-
sition was at the rate of 1.25 105 Hz.
The raw data from the impact tests were further analyzed
to account for specimen inertia by performing a complete
dynamic analysis of the event including the inertial load cor-

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2002 545

 Table 2Quasistatic test data
Flexural toughness
Splitting ten- Flexural
Compressive sile strength, strength, Total Toughness
strength, MPa MPa MPa toughness, J factor, MPa
CRC 192 (16)* 20 15.9 69.2 10.38
SFRC 43 (8) 6.0 29.4 4.41
PFRC 40 (3) 5.4 16.8 2.52
*
Numbers in parenthesis are standard deviation.

The generalized bending load Pb(t) can then be obtained

Fig. 5ASTM C 1018 flexural toughness plots for CRC, by subtracting the generalized inertial load Pi(t) from that
conventional SFRC, and conventional PFRC. registered by the load cell Pt(t) according to the equation of
dynamic equilibrium
(a)
Pb(t) = Pt(t) Pi(t) (3)

The velocity and displacement histories at the load-point

can be obtained by integrating the acceleration history with
respect to time. If u o(t) is the velocity at the load point, and
uo(t) is the displacement at the load point, then

(b)
u o ( t ) = u o ( t ) dt (4)

uo ( t ) = uo t dt (5)

Using Pb(t) and uo(t), the applied (stressing) load versus

load-point displacement plots under impact can be obtained,
which can then be compared directly with the static load-dis-
placement plots obtained from the companion quasistatic
beam tests as described previously.

(c) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 6Comparison of impact plots-load deflection plots
for: (a) CRC; (b) conventional SFRC; and (c) conventional
PFRC.
rection as described in detail by Banthia et al.5 Briefly, if one
can assume that the acceleration distribution along the length
of the specimen is linear, then using the principle of virtual
work, one can show that the generalized inertial load on the
specimen during the impact Pi(t) is
3 2
P i ( t ) = Au o ( t ) [ ( 1 3 ) + 8 ( ov ) 3l ]
where
o(t) = midspan acceleration of the beam at time t;
, A = mass density and cross-sectional area of the beam
under test;
l = clear span of the beam; and
ov = length of overhanging portion of the beam.
Quasistatic tests
Results from the quasistatic tests are given in Table 2. Notice
that a very high splitting tensile strength of 20 MPa was mea-
sured for CRC. Compressive strength values indicate that CRC
is approximately five times stronger than conventional FRC
(SFRC and PFRC). In the same context, CRC also possesses
nearly three times higher flexural strength.
Flexural load displacement plots (ASTM C 1018) under
quasistatic loading for CRC and FRC beams are shown in
Fig. 5. Notice that for CRC, a synergy between the high-
performance matrix and a high volume fraction of steel
fibers translates into both a higher first crack strength and a
remarkably higher ultimate strength. The postcrack tough-
ness is also much greater than conventional FRCs. Between
the two conventional FRCs investigated, as expected, SFRC
is seen to be tougher than PFRC, due primarily to the greater
stiffness of steel fiber over polypropylene fiber.
Impact tests
Results of the impact tests are given in Table 3, where
(2)
some of the results of quasistatic testing are reproduced for
comparison purposes. The load-displacement responses of
CRC, SFRC, and PFRC to impact loading are plotted, respec-
tively, in Fig. 6(a), (b), and (c) for the four drop heights. In
these plots, results from quasistatic tests are also included.
Notice that for all three composites (CRC, SFRC, and PFRC),
the peak loads (and hence the flexural strengths) increased as
the height of hammer drop was increased. Furthermore, with

546 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2002

Table 3Impact response of CRC, SFRC, and PFRC in flexure
Quasistatic tests Impact tests

Peak load, Total Toughness Drop height, Peak load, Total Toughness Impact factor
Composite kN toughness, J factor, MPa mm kN toughness, J factor, MPa Peak load Toughness factor
200 205 97.7 21.98 3.87 2.12
500 515 122.8 27.63 4.06 2.66
CRC 53 69.2 10.38
750 308 181.9 40.93 5.81 3.95
1000 317 137.0 30.82 5.98 2.97
200 103 82.2 18.50 5.15 4.19
500 194 76.2 17.15 9.49 3.88
SFRC 20 29.4 4.41
750 222 46.6 10.49 11.10 2.37
1000 278 47.2 10.62 13.90 2.40
200 88 30.1 6.77 4.88 2.69
500 169 35.3 7.94 9.37 2.97
PFRC 18 16.8 2.52
750 212 38.7 8.71 11.66 3.46
1000 262 56.2 12.65 14.55 5.01

an increase in the height of hammer drop, the peak loads, in

general, also occurred at smaller displacements. All three
composites thus depicted a stiffer response at higher drop
heights, indicating an increase in the elastic modulus of the
material with an increase in the applied stress rate.
The load-displacement plots were analyzed as per the
JSCE SF-4 technique and the total toughness values (to a
midspan deflection of span/150) and the flexural toughness
factors (calculated by converting total toughness values to
equivalent postcrack strength) are given in Table 3. The total
toughness values are compared for all mixtures under differ- Fig. 7Toughness (as per JSCE SF-4; total energy
ent loading rates in Fig. 7. Notice the very high impact resis- absorbed to span/150) of CRC, conventional SFRC, and
tance of CRC over conventional FRC as well as the gradual conventional PFRC under quasistatic and impact loading.
decrease in the energy absorption capacity of SFRC with an
increase in the dynamic stress rate, and the corresponding
increase in the energy absorption capacity of PFRC in the
same impact range. This is attributable to improvements in
the elastic modulus of polypropylene fiber at high stress
rate;14 it behaves more like a high-modulus fiber under
impact loading. Steel fiber, on the other hand, does not depict
improvement to the same degree in its constitutive behavior
under impact loading and, in fact, fiber fractures were seen
to occur more commonly as the stress rate was increased. As
is well known, fiber fractures produce a significantly more
brittle response in FRC as opposed to the fiber pullout mode Fig. 8Stress rate sensitivity plots for CRC and conven-
that is highly energy absorbing. tional FRC.
A general notion of the stress rate sensitivity may be
obtained from the formulation proposed by Nadeau, Bennet,
at all strain rates, overall, the apparent stress-rate sensitivity
and Fuller, Jr.15 This is shown in Fig. 8 where the flexural
for lower-strength materials is higher than that for their high-
strength of CRC is compared with that of plain and fiber-
strength counterpart.
reinforced normal-strength concrete as a function of stress
rate. Note that CRC is less sensitive to stress rate than tradi- The impact behavior of CRC highlights several interesting
tional normal-strength FRC, and that a steep rise in the features (Fig. 7 and 8). As expected from high strength con-
stress-rate sensitivity (knee in the curve, point D) in the case crete, CRC exhibits a less sensitive behavior to stress rate.
of CRC occurs at a higher value of applied stress rate than Because of its high strength and high fiber content, however,
normal-strength FRC. This observation is in accordance with the material is also capable of dissipating greater amounts of
findings of Bentur, Mindess, and Banthia6 and Ross,7 but it energy up to very large stress rates, as seen in Fig. 8. One notes
is contrary to the findings of Bischoff and Perry8 who that while SFRC is increasingly brittle under impact loading,
reported higher stress-rate sensitivity for higher-strength CRC initially improves with impact loading and becomes brittle
concrete in compression. Ross7 explains that lower-strength only at a very large drop height. Figure 9(a) to (d) show
or lower-modulus materials have a lower limiting crack representative CRC specimens after impact. All of the beams
velocity resulting in smaller facture process zones (fpz) experienced fiber pullout mode of failure. Notice that the
ahead of a propagating crack. This results in an apparently beams did not fracture completely at lower drop heights and
higher strength at a given strain rate. Since this effect is seen broke apart in two halves only at a drop height of 1000 mm

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2002 547


Fig. 9Photographs of CRC failure in impact under various
drop heights: (a) 200 mm; (b) 500 mm; (c) 750 mm; and (d)
1000 mm.
when there also occurred a corresponding decrease in the flex-
ural toughness (Fig. 7). This implies that the onset of brittle
behavior in CRC is delayed to a greater stress rate than in
normal-strength SFRC. This is a desirable attribute of CRC,
and it widens the range of its application in structures experi-
encing blast and impact loading. Dancygier and
Yankelevsky16 and Luo, Sun, and Chan17 reported similar
observations for high-strength concrete.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, the following can be concluded:
1. CRC is an ultra-high-performance concrete with a com-
pressive strength around 200 MPa and splitting tensile
strength around 20 MPa. It is also a highly energy-absorbing
material with its toughness almost three times that of con-
ventional FRC with steel or polymeric fibers;
2. The flexural strength of CRC and normal-strength FRC,
regardless of fiber type, is higher under impact loading than
under quasistatic loading. CRC is, however, less stress rate
sensitive than conventional normal-strength FRC;
3. Among the two normal-strength FRCs investigated, it
appears that the energy absorption capacity under impact
loading increases only for concrete reinforced with polymeric
fiber. For concrete reinforced with steel fibers, on the other
hand, a reduction in the energy absorption capacity was noted
as the severity of impact loading was increased. This increase
in efficiency of polymeric fiber under impact loading is
attributed to the apparent increase in its elastic modulus at
high stress rates; and
4. Under impact, CRC is capable of dissipating much
higher energy compared with conventional FRC with poly-
meric or steel fiber. This is attributable to the synergistic
combination of a high-strength matrix and a high volume
548
The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.
fraction of steel fiber. CRC is therefore a highly recommended
material for structures subjected to blast or impact loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Natural Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada for its continued financial assistance.
REFERENCES
1. Bache, H. H., Densified Cement Ultra-Fine Particle Based Materials,
Second International Conference on Superplasticizers in Concrete, Ottawa,
Canada, 1981. Also presented as CBL Report No. 40, Aalborg Portland
Cement and Concrete Laboratory, 1981, pp. 1-35.
2. Loukili, A.; Khelidj, A.; and Richard, P., Hydration Kinetics, Change
of Relative Humidity and Autogenous Shrinkage of Ultra-High-Strength
Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 29, 1999, pp. 577-584.
3. Andrade, M. C.; Frias, M.; and Aarup, B., Durability of Ultra-High
Strength Concrete: Compact Reinforced Composite, 4th International
Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength/High-Performance Concrete,
ENPC Press, Paris, France, 1996, pp. 529-534.
4. Banthia, N., Impact Resistance of Concrete, PhD thesis, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 1987, 313 pp.
5. Banthia, N. P.; Mindess, S.; Bentur, A.; and Pigeon, M., Impact Testing
of Concrete Using a Drop-Weight Impact Machine, Experimental
Mechanics, Mar. 1989, pp. 63-69.
6. Bentur, A.; Mindess S.; and Banthia, N., Behavior of Reinforced Con-
crete under Impact: The Effect of Concrete Strength, Society for Experi-
mental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, Conn., 1987, pp. 449-458.
7. Ross, C. A., Review of Strain Rate Effects in Materials, Structures
under Extreme Loading Conditions, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, July 27-31, 1997, pp. 255-262.
8. Bischoff, P. H., and Perry, S. H., Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete
Loaded in Uniaxial Compression, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
V. 121, No. 6, June 1995, pp. 685-693.
9. Lee, T.-F. F.; Shi, L.-P.; and Yao, H.-L., The Comparison of Structural
Concrete, Self-Compacting High-Performance Concrete and Self-Compact-
ing Reactive Powder Concrete under Severe Impact Loading Conditions,
Concrete under Severe Conditions: Environment and Loading, N. Banthia,
K. Sakai, and E. Gjrv, eds., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June
17-20, 2001, pp. 676-682.
10. Aalborg Portland, In-House Report for the Swedish Military,
V. 44, Rrdalsvej, Dk-9100, 2000.
11. Tjiptobroto, P., and Hansen, W., Flexural Behavior of Ultra-
High Strength Concrete with High Volume Fraction of Discontinuous
Steel Fibers, Ceramic Translations, Advances in Cementitious Materials,
S. Mindess, ed., V. 16, 1991, pp. 581-601.
12. Banthia, N., and Trottier, J.-F., Test Methods for Flexural Toughness
Characterization of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Some Concerns and a Propo-
sition, ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 48-57.
13. Wang, N., Resistance of Concrete Railroad Ties to Impact Loading,
PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, May 1996, 248 pp.
14. Kawahara, W. A.; Totten, J. T.; and Korellis, J. S., Effects of Tempera-
ture and Strain Rate on the Nonlinear Compressive Mechanical Behavior of
Polypropylene, SANDIA Report: SAND89-8233; UC-13; 1989, pp. 3-39.
15. Nadeau, J. S.; Bennet, R.; and Fuller, E. R. Jr., An Explanation for
the Rate-of-Loading and the Duration-of-Load Effects in Wood in Terms
of Fracture Mechanics, Journal of Materials Science, V. 17, 1982,
pp. 2831-2840.
16. Dancygier, A. N., and Yankelevsky, D. Z., High-Strength Concrete
Response to Hard Projectile Impact, International Journal of Impact Engi-
neering, V. 18, No. 6, 1996, pp. 583-599.
17. Luo, X.; Sun, W.; and Chan, S. Y. N., Characteristics of High-
Performance Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Subject to High Velocity
Impact, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 30, 2000, pp. 907-914.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2002