Proc Indian natn Sci Acad 79 No. 3 September 2013 Spl. Issue, pp.

Printed in India.

Research Paper
Impact Simulation of Rocks under SHPB Test
TANUSREE CHAKRABORTY1
1Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi

(Received 16 January 2013; Accepted 26 March 2913)

In the present study, an attempt has been made to understand the impact induced stress-strain response of rocks up to 100/
sec strain rate through numerical simulation of uniaxial and triaxial split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests. The finite
element (FE) software Abaqus has been used with explicit time integration scheme to simulate the SHPB tests on rocks.
The modelled FE geometry of the SHPB test consists of a steel incident bar, the rock sample and a steel transmission bar.
High strain rate material constitutive models have been used to characterise the rock sample. The impact of striker bar on
the incident bar is simulated by applying an impact induced incident stress pulse on the incident bar. The analysis results
have been compared with the laboratory test data collected from the literature. The numerical simulation of SHPB test on
rocks resulted in good correlation with the experimental results. It is observed from the simulation results that the peak
axial stress of rocks increases with increasing stiffness of rocks and increasing confining pressure.

Key Words: Finite Element; Impact; Numerical Simulation; Rock; Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Test

Introduction In rock mechanics, the SHPB test has been used

to determine the dynamic compressive and tensile
Blast and impact resistant design of underground civil
strength of rocks [13-27]. Lu et al. [16] showed that
infrastructure in rock, e.g. railway stations, power
the dynamic increase factor (DIF) for rocks, which
house caverns, ammunition storage structures and
is defined as the ratio of the dynamic strength to the
energy storage caverns require characterisation of the
quasi-static strength in uniaxial compression,
surrounding rock under impact loading. The split
increases gradually with strain rate in the low strain
Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) has been widely used
rate regime (104-101/sec), however turns to rapid
to experimentally study the response of materials
increase in the intermediate (101-102/sec) and high
under impact loading. After Hopkinson, Kolsky and
(102-104/sec) strain rate regimes. Lindholm et al. [22]
Lindholms early work [1-5], the split Hopkinson
showed that energy required in fracturing basalt rock
pressure bar has gradually become a widely accepted
increased with increasing rate of strain. Li et al. [26]
facility to test the mechanical properties of materials
observed that the use of bigger samples is required
under dynamic loading at high strain rate, e.g. 102-
to reach stress uniformity in heterogeneous rocks.
104/sec [6-12]. The SHPB setup usually consists of a
Moreover, reduction in loss of incident wave was
striker bar, an incident bar and a transmission bar
observed in the presence of pre-stress. Cho et al. [27]
with all bars having the same diameter and cylindrical
performed dynamic tensile SHPB test on rock and
shape. The sample is sandwiched between the
showed that the dynamic tensile strength increases
incident and the transmission bars; the striker bar hits
with strain rates.
end of the incident bar in the axial direction with an
initial velocity of V0. The SHPB tests performed on rocks reported

*Author for Correspondence: E-mail: tanusree@civil.iitd.ac.in

2 Tanusree Chakraborty
in the literature are uniaxial in nature. However,
beneath the earth surface, rocks are subjected to high
confining pressure. The compressive strength of rock
increases and crack density decreases with increasing
confining stress. Hence, it is necessary to understand
the dynamic behaviour of rocks under multi-axial
loading. Blanton [28] performed dynamic triaxial
compression test on three rocks to study the effect of
strain rates on rocks up to 10/sec strain rate. However,
the conventional dynamic triaxial compression tests
cannot reach strain rate higher than 10/sec [28].
Nemat-Nasser et al. [29] discussed the setup of
triaxial SHPB test. Li and Meng [30] investigated
the influence of radial confinement in the SHPB test
on concrete like brittle materials and showed that
compressive strength increases significantly with
increasing confinement pressure as compared to the
uniaxial compressive strength. However, triaxial
SHPB test has not been performed on rocks in the
previous investigations.
Characterisation of rock behaviour under impact
loading for wide range of strain rates requires both
experimental and numerical simulation of SHPB tests
on rock under uniaxial and triaxial conditions.
Numerical simulation of SHPB tests on rocks
considering the elasto-plastic behaviour of rocks is
rather unavailable in the previous studies. Hence, the
objectives of the present study are to understand the
SHPB simulation technique for rocks and to identify
a suitable constitutive model for the impact load
Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of SHPB test setup and a typical finite element mesh used in SHPB simulation
simulation on soft rocks. By using the numerical
simulation a large number of studies can be performed
which otherwise would be impossible to study
through experiments involving considerable amount
of resource, time and tediousness. In the present
investigation, uniaxial and triaxial SHPB tests are
simulated using finite element (FE) software Abaqus
[31] to study (a) the stress-strain behaviour of rocks
and (b) the effect of radial confinement on the peak
axial stress of the rocks.
Numerical Simulation
In the present investigation, finite element code
Abaqus is used for modelling rock samples under
dynamic compression in SHPB test. Fig. 1 shows a
schematic diagram of the SHPB test setup. In SHPB
test, when the striker hits the incident bar in the axial
direction, a rectangular stress pulse generates, which
propagates along the incident bar. When the length
of striker is short as compared to the total length of
the incident bar and the transmission bar, the peak
rectangular incident stress is given by
1
i = bar cbarV0 (1)
2
and the duration of the stress pulse is given by
2Ls
t = (2)
cbar
where bar is the mass density of the bar; cbar = Ebar
Impact Simulation of Rocks under SHPB Test
/bar is the elastic longitudinal stress wave velocity
in the bar; Ebar is the Youngs modulus of the bar; V0
is the velocity of the striker bar; and Ls is the length
of the striker bar [32]. Transmitted and reflected stress
pulses are generated and propagated in the
transmission bar and the incident bar, respectively.
When there is force equilibrium between the samples
incident and transmitted sides, the sample is
uniformly deformed, and the stress-strain curves of
the sample can be determined with one dimensional
wave equation assumption given by
t = i + r (3)
and
Abar Ebar t
= (4)
Asp
where t, i and r are the values of transmitted,
incident and reflected signals in the bars, respectively.
The parameters Abar and Asp are the cross-sectional
areas of bars and specimen respectively.
In the current study, the incident bar,
transmission bar and the sample have been modelled
to simulate the SHPB test, as shown in Fig. 1. The
length and diameter of the incident and the
transmission bars are 2.13 m and 0.915 m,
respectively [33]. The sample has both length and
diameter of 12.7 mm. The bars were made from high
strength maraging VM350 steel (Vasco Pacific,
Montebello, CA) and have density, = 8100 kg/m3;
Youngs modulus, E = 200 GPa; and bar wave
velocity, c = 4970 m/sec. The striking velocity of
striker bar is considered to be 13.9 m/sec. The bar
dimensions, bar material properties and the velocity
of the striker bars are taken from [33]. The bars and
the sample are placed in the same line. The end of
the transmission bar is kept fixed. The impact of the
striker bar on the incident bar is simulated by applying
an incident stress pulse on the incident bar calculated
using equation (1) for time t calculated using
equation (2).
Three dimensional (3D) solid eight node brick
elements with reduced integration and hourglass
control (C3D8R) are used for modelling the assembly
of incident bar, transmission bar and the rock sample.
3
The C3D8R elements take into account the large mesh
distortion without affecting the results due to
volumetric locking which is a common problem in
large deformation analysis. Fig. 1 shows the 3D
meshes of the bars and the rock sample used in the
present investigation. The bar and sample meshes are
selected through mesh convergence study. There are
77958 elements in the incident bar, 16425 elements
in the rock sample and 33489 elements in the
transmission bar. The rock sample is meshed using a
global seed of 0.003 and bars are meshed using a
global seed of 0.05 considered accurate enough for
obtaining the strain profile. A general contact
algorithm is used to define contact between bars and
sample in the SHPB test. A central difference scheme
is used to integrate the equation of motion explicitly
through time. The method is conditionally stable for
time increments (t) that are smaller than Courant
time limit, t < l/c, where l is the smallest element
dimension and c is the speed of sound wave in
medium in which it travels. Also, the artificial bulk
viscosity is activated to properly represent
propagation of the induced compressive stress wave
by employing quadratic and linear functions of
volumetric strain rates with default values of 1.2 and
0.06, respectively. Gauges in the form of reference
points are placed at several locations along the sample
length and bars in order to collect the data of incident,
reflected and transmitted waves. The contact surface
between the incident bar, sample and transmission
bar are defined as frictionless and hard. The boundary
conditions are applied to bars and sample such that
movement in one direction is allowed to simulate the
one-dimensional wave propagation which is the basis
of SHPB test. The uniaxial simulations are performed
for three different rock types, e.g., limestone, weak
sandstone and granite. The simulation results for
limestone are compared with the experimental data
given by Frew et al. [33].
In the present investigation, the crushable foam
plasticity model in Abaqus has been used to model
soft rocks, e.g. limestone and weak sandstone [34].
The performance of the model has also been tested
for hard rock, e.g. granite. The crushable foam
plasticity constitutive model can simulate
compressive stress induced compaction behaviour.
4 Tanusree Chakraborty

The yield surface of the model takes an elliptical Table 2: Properties of bars
shape in the mean stress (p) vs. deviatoric stress (q)
Rock Length Mass Modulus Poissons Material Refe-
plane. Inside the yield surface, the behaviour of the type L (m) den- of ratio, rences
rocks remains linear elastic. The elliptical yield sity, elasticity, v
surface equation of the model is given by (kg/m3) E (GPa)

F = q 2 + 2 ( p p0 ) B = 0
2 Incident 2.13 8100 200 0.3 High strength
(5) maraging
VM350 [33]
where p0 is given by (pc-pt)/2; pc and pt are the yield steel
strength values of the rocks under hydrostatic
Trans- 0.915 8100 200 0.3
compression and tension, respectively. The parameter mission
B is the magnitude of the intercept of the yield surface
with the vertical axis for deviatoric stress q; and the
Table 3: Dynamic increase factor (DIF) for different
parameter defines the shape of the yield surface in
materials [37]
the meridional plane. The volumetric hardening of
the model is defined by providing the experimental S.No. Material description Strain rate Dynamic
data for uniaxial compressive strength with axial ( ) increase
strain. The strain rate dependence of rocks is included (/sec) factor (DIF)

in the model by defining the increase of dynamic yield 1. Limestone 0 1

strength with respect to the static yield strength, i.e., 0.01 1.36
the dynamic increase factor (DIF) with the increase 0.1 1.47
1 1.59
in strain rate. The constitutive model uses a non- 10 1.71
associated flow rule with the plastic potential surface 100 1.83
(GP), given by 1000 1.95

2. Weak sandstone 0 1
(6) 0.01 1.4
0.1 1.85
1 2.5
The physical properties of the rocks and yield 10 3.2
strength of rocks in compression are given in Table 100 4.27
1000 5.63
1. The stress-strain curves for the limestone, weak
sandstone and granite are obtained from [33], [35] 3. Granite 0 1
and [36], and used as input in Abaqus. The DIF 1 1.36
5 1.4
parameters under high loading rates used in the 45 1.45
present study are given in Table 3. The DIF 145 1.59
parameters are obtained in the present study from Li 676 1.9
et al. [37]. 731 2.15
1023 2.27
2344 2.47
Table 1: Properties of rocks

Rock Mass Modulus Poissons Yield References

type density, of elasticity, ratio, v strength, Results and Discussions
(kg/m3) E (GPa) y (MPa)
Uniaxial SHPB Simulation
Limestone 2300 24 0.35 68 [33]
Fig. 2(a) presents the axial stress (a) - strain (a)
Weak 2291 13.6 0.35 23 [35]
sandstone
response of limestone under uniaxial SHPB test
simulation. The simulation results are compared with
Granite 2620 50 0.17 200 [36] the experimental data given in [33]. It is observed
Impact Simulation of Rocks under SHPB Test 5

Fig. 2: Comparison of simulation results with experimental data for limestone

Fig. 3: Comparison of axial stress, incident and transmitted strain in different rocks
6 Tanusree Chakraborty

from the figure that the simulation results compare
reasonably well with the experimental data in the
initial part of the stress-strain curve at low strains
and in predicting the peak stress. Insignificant
mismatch in the results is seen in the strain softening
region. The peak axial stress magnitude for limestone
is 119.881 MPa. Fig. 2(b) compares the incident (I)
and transmitted (T) strain time histories in the SHPB
test. The peak strain magnitudes from the simulation
results compare well with the experimental data. The
time duration of the peak strain is shorter in the case
of experiment. The difference between the simulation
results and experimental data may be attributed to
the application of stress pulse in simulation as
opposed to the impact of striker bar in the experiment
without pulse shaping.
Fig. 3(a) shows the stress-strain plots of
limestone, weak sandstone and granite under uniaxial
SHPB test. Maximum peak axial stress is observed
in granite, e.g., 145.678 MPa. Limestone and
sandstone show 119.881 and 95.19 MPa peak axial

Fig. 4: Effect of confining pressure on SHPB stress-strain response for different rocks
Impact Simulation of Rocks under SHPB Test
Fig. 5: Effect of confining pressure on SHPB peak stress response
stresses, respectively. Higher peak stress is observed
for rocks with higher stiffness. The initial slope of
the stress-strain curves also clearly shows the effect
of stiffness of the rocks, i.e. the initial slope decreases
with decreasing stiffness of rock. For granite, the
loading and unloading paths remain same because
granite does not exhibit elasto-plastic response.
However, plastic strain is observed in the cases of
limestone and weak sandstone which is expected.
Figs. 3(b) and (c) compare the incident and
transmitted strains for three different rocks. The
incident strains are observed to be same in all the
three rocks. However, the transmitted strains are
different for the three different rocks. The highest
amount of transmitted strain is observed in granite
whereas the lowest amount of transmitted strain is
observed in sandstone. Higher amount of strain in
the transmission bar in the case of granite is due to
elastic behaviour of granite in SHPB test and thus
the absence of plastic dissipation. Plastic dissipation
is present in the cases of limestone and sandstone
which results in lower amount of strain transmission
in these rocks.
Triaxial SHPB Simulation
The triaxial SHPB test is simulated in two steps - (i)
application of confining pressure around the rock
7
sample in a static analysis and (ii) simulation of SHPB
test in a dynamic explicit analysis. The stress state at
the end of static analysis is imported in the dynamic
analysis. Figs. 4(a) to (c) show the triaxial SHPB
simulation results for limestone, weak sandstone and
granite respectively at 0, 5 and 20 MPa confining
pressures. The peak axial stress values for all the three
rocks at three different confining pressures are noted
in Fig. 4. It is observed that the peak axial stress of
all the three rocks increased with increasing confining
pressure. Also, the initial stiffness of the rocks
increases with increasing confining pressure. Figure
5 summarises the peak axial stress of the rock samples
with increasing confinement. The rate of increase of
the peak axial stress is higher for soft rocks, e.g. weak
sandstone and lime stone and lower in hard rock, e.g.
granite.
Conclusions
In the present study, an attempt has been made to
understand the impact induced stress-strain response
of rocks up to 100/sec strain rate through numerical
simulation of uniaxial and triaxial split Hopkinson
pressure bar (SHPB) tests using the finite element
(FE) software Abaqus/Explicit. From these
simulations, the following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The simulation results compare reasonably
well with the experimental data for the initial part of
the stress-strain curve at low strain level and for the
peak stress prediction. Insignificant mismatch in the
results is obtained in the strain softening region. It
may be concluded that the strain rate dependent
crushable foam plasticity constitutive model
simulates the high strain rate behaviour of rocks with
reasonable accuracy.
(2) The initial slope of the stress-strain curve
decreases with decreasing stiffness of rock. For
granite, the loading and unloading paths remain same
because granite does not exhibit elasto-plastic
response. However, plastic strain generates in the
cases of limestone and weak sandstone which is
expected.
(3) The amount of transmitted strain decreases
with decreasing stiffness of rocks. Higher amount of
8 Tanusree Chakraborty
strain in the transmission bar in the case of granite is
due to elastic behaviour of granite in SHPB test and
thus the absence of plastic dissipation. Plastic
dissipation is present in the cases of limestone and
sandstone which results in lower amount of strain
transmission in these rocks.
(4) The peak axial stress increases with
increasing confining pressure on the rock sample.
References
1. Hopkinson B A method of measuring the pressure in the
deformation of high explosives or by the impact of bullets
Phil Trans Roy Soc A213 (1914) 437-452
2. Kolsky H An investigation of the mechanical properties
of materials at very high rates of loading Proc Phys Soc
62 (1949) 676-700
3. Kolsky H Stress waves in solids Clarendon Press Oxford
(1953) pp 215
4. Lindholm U S Some experiments with the split Hopkinson
pressure bar J Mech Phys Solids 12 (1964) 317-335
5. Duffy J, Campbell J D and Hawley R H On the use of a
torsional split Hopkinson bar to study rate effects in 1100-
0 aluminium ASME J Appl Mech 38 (1971) 83-91
6. Nicholas T Material behaviour at high strain rates Imp
Dyn (New York: Wiley) chapter 8 1982
7. Ellwood S, Griffiths L J and Parry D J Materials testing
at high constant strain rates J Phys E Sci Instrum 15 (1982)
280-282
8. Franz C E, Follansbee P S and Wright W J New
experimental techniques with the split Hopkinson pressure
bar 8th Int. Conf. on High Energy Rate Fabrication Pres
Ves Pip Div ASME (San Antonio, TX, 17-21 June) ed I
Berman and J W Schroeder, (1984)
9. Follansbee P S The Hopkinson bar Mechanical Testing,
Metals Handbook vol 8, 9th edn (Metals Park, OH:
American Society for Metals), (1985) 198-217
10. Nemat-Nasser S, Isaacs J B and Starrett J E Hopkinson
techniques for dynamic recovery experiments Proc R Soc
Lond A 435 (1991) 371-391
11. Gray G T Classic split-Hopkinson pressure bar technique,
ASME Handbook Mech Test Eval Materials Park, OH:
ASM International) 8 (2000)
12. Gray G T, Blumenthal W R Split-Hopkinson pressure bar
testing of soft materials ASME Handbook Mech Test Eval
Also, the initial stiffness of the rocks increases with
increasing confining pressure.
Acknowledgements
The technical discussions with Dr. Manjit Singh,
Director, Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory
(TBRL), Chandigarh had been greatly useful in the
numerical simulations and results reported in this
manuscript.
(Materials Park, OH: ASM International) 8 (2000)
13. Cai M, Kaiser P K, Suorineni F and Su K A study on the
dynamic behaviour of the Meuse/Haute-Marne argillite
Phys Chem Earth 32 (2007) 907-916
14. Li X B, Lok T S, Zhao J and Zhao P J Oscillation
elimination in the Hopkinson bar apparatus and resultant
complete dynamic stress strain curves for rocks Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 37(7) (2000) 1055-1060
15. Olsson W A The compressive strength of tuff as a function
of strain rate from 10-6 to 103/sec. Int J Rock Mech Min Sc
Abs 28(1) (1991) 115-118
16. Lu Y B, Li Q M and Ma G W Numerical investigation of
the dynamic compressive strength of rocks based on split
Hopkinson pressure bar tests Int J Rock Mech Min Sc 47
(2010) 829-838
17. Goldsmith W, Sackman J L and Ewert C Static and
dynamic fracture strength of Barre granite Int J Rock Mech
Min Sc 13 (1976) 303-309
18. Perkins R D, Green S J and Friedman M Uniaxial stress
behaviour of porphyritic tonalite at strain rate to 103/s Int
J Rock Mech Min Sc Abs 7 (1970) 527-535
19. Logan J M, Handin J Triaxial compression testing at
intermediate strain rates In: (Ed. Clark GB) Proc 12th US
Rock Mech Symp, New York, American Inst. Min. Met.
Petr. Engg, (1971) 167-194
20. Green S J, Perkins R D Uniaxial compression tests at
strain rates from 10-4/s-04/s on three geologic materials
In: (Ed. Gray KE) Proc 10th US Rock Mech Symp New
York: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Petroleum Engineering, (1972) 35-54
21. Stowe R L, Ainsworth D L Effect of rate of loading on
strength and Youngs modulus of elasticity of rock In: (Ed:
Gray KE) Proc 10th US Rock Mech Symp New York,
American Inst. of Min. Met. Petr. Engg, (1972) 3-34
22. Lindholm U S, Yeakley L M and Nagy A The dynamic
strength and fracture properties of dresser basalt Intl J Rock
Impact Simulation of Rocks under SHPB Test
Mech Min Sc Geomech Abs 11 (1974) 181-191
23. Zhao J, Li H B, Wu M B and Li T J Dynamic uniaxial
compression tests on a granite Intl J Rock Mech Min Sc
(1999) 36 273-277
24. Zhai Y, Ma G W, Zhao J H and Hu C M Dynamic failure
analysis on granite under uniaxial impact compressive load
Chinese J Geotech Engg (2007) 385-390
25. Xia K, Nasseri M H B, Mohanty B, Lu F, Chen R and Luo
S N Effects of microstructures on dynamic compression
of barre granite Intl J Rock Mech Min 45 (2008) 879-887
26. Li X B, Hong L, Yin T B, Zhou Z L and Ye Z Y
Relationship between diameter of split Hopkinson pressure
bar and minimum loading rate under rock failure J Centr
S Univ Tech 15 (2008) 218-223
27. Cho S H, Ogata Y J and Kaneko K Strain-rate dependency
of the dynamic tensile strength of rock Intl J Rock Mech
Min Sc 40 (2003) 763-777
28. Blanton T L Effects of strain rates from 10-2 to 10 s-1 in
triaxial compression tests on three rocks Intl J Rock Mech
Min Sc Geomech Abs 18 (1981) 47-62
29. Nemat-Nasser S, Isaacs J and Rome J Triaxial Hopkinson
techniques ASME Mech Test Eval Handbook 8 (2000) 516-
518
30. Li Q M, Meng H About the dynamic strength enhancement
9
of concrete-like materials in a split Hopkinson pressure
bar test Intl J Solids and Str 40 (2003) 343-360
31. Abaqus v6.11 users manual (2011), Abaqus Inc., DS
Simulia, Providence, RI, USA.
32. Wang Z G, Meyer L W On the plastic wave propagation
along the specimen length in SHPB test Exp Mech 50
(2010) 1061-1074
33. Frew D J, Forrestal M J and Chen W A Split Hopkinson
pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress-
strain data for rock materials Exp Mech 41 (2001) 40-46
34. Deshpande V S, Fleck N A Isotropic constitutive model
for metallic foams J Mech Phys Solids 48 (2000) 1253-
1276
35. Hoge L R, Shugar T A Three-dimensional finite element
modelling of confinement stress for projectiles embedded
in rock - a preliminary study NCEL Tech note AD-A258
755 (1992)
36. Brady B G H and Brown E T Rock mechanics for
underground mining (Second ed.). Chapman & Hall
(1985)
37. Li Q, Crawford J and Hao H Impact and blast effects:
Theory, analysis and design Course literature for three
day short course, The University of Manchester, UK, 27-
29th September 2010.