Development of Geomaterial Parameters for Numerical 

Simulations Using the Holmquist-Johnson-Cook 

Constitutive Model for Concrete

by Christopher S. Meyer

ARL-TR-5556 June 2011

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

ARL-TR-5556 June 2011

Development of Geomaterial Parameters for Numerical 

Simulations Using the Holmquist-Johnson-Cook 

Constitutive Model for Concrete

Christopher S. Meyer

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

June 2011

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

06-09-2009–03-14-2011

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Development of Geomaterial Parameters for Numerical Simulations Using the 

Holmquist-Johnson-Cook Constitutive Model for Concrete

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Christopher S. Meyer

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-WML-H

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-5556

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Numerical simulation of brick and mortar masonry in the literature has been performed using homogenized material 

properties; however, heterogeneous material properties for brick and mortar for a constitutive model built into hydrocodes 

have been unavailable. The Holmquist-Johnson-Cook (HJC) constitutive model for concrete captures pressure and strain-ratedependent strength behavior and void crushing damage behavior of porous materials reasonably well, is readily available in 

many hydrocodes, and is commonly used to simulate high-velocity penetration of concrete. This report describes the 

development of the brick and mortar material parameters for the HJC material model—including exploration of the materials’ 

strength, damage, and pressure behavior—from available static and dynamic test data for brick, two types of mortar, and 

adobe. The report also presents sample numerical simulations, using the material parameters developed, and compares the 

resulting material behavior to mechanical test data.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Geomaterials, brick, computer simulation, dynamic behavior

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

 OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF 

 PAGES

24

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Christopher S. Meyer

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(410) 278-3803

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Development of Material Parameters 2

2.1 Strength ...........................................................................................................................2

2.2 Damage............................................................................................................................4

2.3 Pressure ...........................................................................................................................5

3. Numerical Simulations with Material Parameters 8

4. Summary and Conclusions 12

5. References 14

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 15

Distribution List 16
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. HJC material model strength fit for grade SW brick.......................................................3

Figure 2. HJC material model strength fit for type S mortar. .........................................................3

Figure 3. HJC material model damage fit for brick and mortar......................................................5

Figure 4. HJC material model pressure-volume fit for grade SW brick.........................................6

Figure 5. HJC material model pressure-volume fit for type S mortar. ...........................................6

Figure 6. Uniaxial strain test data compared with simulation results for grade SW brick. ...........9

Figure 7. Uniaxial strain test data compared with simulation results for type S mortar. ..............9

Figure 8. Hydrostatic compression test data compared with simulation results for grade SW 

brick. ........................................................................................................................................10

Figure 9. Hydrostatic compression test data compared with simulation results for type S 

mortar.......................................................................................................................................10

Figure 10. Triaxial compression test data compared with simulation results for grade SW 

brick. ........................................................................................................................................11

Figure 11. Triaxial compression test data compared with simulation results for type S 

mortar.......................................................................................................................................11

Figure 12. High-pressure uniaxial strain test data compared with simulation results for grade 

SW brick. .................................................................................................................................12

List of Tables

Table 1. HJC constitutive model material parameters for brick and mortar.................................13
1

1. Introduction

The U.S. Army’s interest in urban operations has led to efforts at the U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory to develop an initial set of material model parameters to enable physics-based 

penetration simulations of high-fidelity brick and mortar masonry wall models. These material 

model parameters take advantage of the Holmquist-Johnson-Cook (HJC) model for concrete (1). 

A search of publically released literature turned up little involving modeling and simulation of 

weapon effects against brick and mortar targets. While dynamic material properties for concrete 

are well characterized, the dynamic material properties of brick and mortar are in the early stages 

of investigation. Research involving material properties for masonry for use in numerical 

simulations has concentrated on homogenized material properties and material models, which 

smear the mortar and brick together into a single material rather than discrete, heterogeneous 

brick and mortar materials (2, 3). Research involving numerical simulation of masonry walls has 

concentrated on the structural response of the walls to blast loading (4, 5). According to ShiehBeygi and Pietruszczak, ―...analysis of large masonry structures should best be conducted at a 

macro-level... described as a continuum whose average properties are identified at the level of 

constituents taking into account their geometric arrangement (6).‖ The homogenized material 

property methods described in these sources are effective for macroscopic behavior of masonry 

walls in response to shear loads as from earthquakes or in response to blast loading as from 

weapon effects. But the behavior of brick and mortar masonry in response to high-velocity 

penetration requires heterogeneous brick and mortar models and material parameters to better 

explore the shock interaction across multiple layers of materials with dissimilar sound speeds, 

densities, and pressure-dependent strength behavior.

Shieh-Beygi and Pietruszczak provide a brief review of homogenized constitutive models for 

brick and mortar masonry and then develop their own mesoscale constitutive model (6). 

Development of a constitutive material model for brick and mortar is beyond the scope of this 

work, which instead developed material parameters for the existing HJC constitutive model for 

concrete. Considering the void-collapse strain behavior of geomaterials, it is assumed that the 

HJC concrete model—widely available in Lagrangian and Eulerian simulation codes and shown 

to produce reasonable residual velocity results in high-velocity concrete penetration simulations 

when compared with experiment (7)—captures the void-crushing damage, strain-rate, and 

pressure-dependent strength properties of brick and mortar sufficiently well to simulate physicsbased penetration of these materials. This work developed complete sets of HJC constitutive 

model material parameters for grade SW brick and type S mortar from mechanical 

characterization data provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and 

Development Center (ERDC) (8, 9).
2

2. Development of Material Parameters

2.1 Strength

As described in Holmquist et al. (1), the constitutive equation 1 expresses the pressure- and 

strain-rate-dependent strength of the subject material; equation 1 states that the material’s yield 

strength, when the material is confined, will increase with increasing pressure and with 

increasing strain rate. The constants A, B, C, and N are material parameters determined by fitting 

the model to test data, D is scalar damage, P* is normalized pressure, and * is the normalized 

compressive yield strength of the material. Strength and pressure are normalized by dividing by 

the unconfined compressive strength, f’c, of the material, which was determined from 

unconfined, axial compression mechanical test data provided by ERDC (8, 9). Strain rate is 

made dimensionless by dividing the actual strain rate, 





, by a reference strain rate, 

o





, typically 

1.0 s–1. Damage is a value from 0 to 1 that describes the accumulation of damage as a 

percentage of the full cohesive strength that the material possesses such that at D = 0 the material 

is undamaged and exhibits its full strength, but at D = 1 the material is fully damaged and retains 

the least confined shear strength. The first term of the constitutive equation 1 describes the 

pressure-dependent strength behavior of the subject materials, the second term describes the 

strain rate effects, and a third term, which is not shown here, describes the temperaturedependent strength of the material; temperature effects are not explored in the present work.

  































     

o











A (1- D) B P 1 C ln * *N

(1)

The pressure-dependent strength behaviors of brick and mortar, as expressed by equation 1, were

fit to mechanical test data from Williams et al. (8, 9). These data included uniaxial strain (UX) 

stress-strain and pressure-strength data, found by loading confined cylindrical samples of 

material in the axial direction, and triaxial compression (TXC) pressure-strength data, found by 

loading cylindrical samples in hydrostatic compression up to predefined confining pressures and 

then loading samples axially while holding radial confining pressure constant. The strength fits 

are shown in figures 1 and 2 for grade SW brick and type S mortar, respectively. 

To determine the material strength constants, the cohesive strength constant, A, and the strain 

rate coefficient, C, were found, and then the remaining strength constants, B and N, were 

obtained by fitting equation 1 to UX test data. The cohesive strength constant, A, relates 

undamaged material strength to completely fractured material strength, at constant pressure, and 

was calculated from TXC failure data and UX pressure-stress data, both tested at a strain rate of 

approximately 10–5s

–1

, and then A was normalized to the reference strain rate, 1.0 s–1, by scaling 

up by means of the dynamic increase factors (DIF) presented for brick and for mortar by Hao 

and Tarasov (10). The grade SW brick cohesive strength constant was determined at a pressure 
3

of approximately 75 MPa, which corresponds to a normalized pressure of about P

*

= 1; the 

type S mortar cohesive strength constant was determined at a pressure of approximately 20 MPa, 

which corresponds to a normalized pressure of about P

*

= 1.6.

Figure 1. HJC material model strength fit for grade SW brick.

Figure 2. HJC material model strength fit for type S mortar.
4

The strain rate coefficient, C, was found for brick from strain-rate-dependent strength data from

Hao and Tarasov (10); strain rate coefficient was found for mortar from strain-rate-dependent 

strength data from Grote et al. (11). Material strength—normalized to the average quasi-static 

unconfined compressive strength of the tested materials, 44.83 MPa for brick and 46 MPa for 

mortar—versus strain rate was plotted for brick and for mortar; the slopes of linear fits through 

the two data sets were used for the strain rate coefficient of the respective materials. 

Once A and C were determined, the pressure hardening constant, B, and the pressure hardening 

exponent, N, were fit to UX data using equation 1.

2.2 Damage

Damage is defined as the accumulation of equivalent plastic strain, p—strain due to 

deformation and fracture—and plastic volumetric strain, p—strain due to crushing and void 

collapse—over each time step; damage is expressed as equation 2 (1, 12). The model calculates 

damage by summing the equivalent plastic strain and plastic volumetric strain and dividing the 

sum by the plastic strain to fracture under a constant pressure. The plastic strain to fracture 

under constant pressure may be found from whichever is greater, EFMIN or plastic strain to 

fracture found from equation 3. Thus, EFMIN provides for a minimum plastic strain value that 

will cause the material to fracture; since cyclic unconfined compressive failure data is not 

available for these materials, the default value of 0.01 is used in this work for all materials. 

Plastic strain to fracture is determined by the model from two damage constants, D1 and D2, and 

from the normalized pressure, P

*

, and normalized tensile strength, T

*

. The tensile strength 

constant for each material is found from direct pull test data. D1 was found from unconfined 

compression test data, and D2 was chosen to be 1.0, which assumes that plastic fracture strain

increases linearly with increasing pressure. Damage relationships are shown in figure 3. Further 

study of the fracture behavior of these materials is necessary to fully understand the effect 

damage has on strength, particularly the linear assumption, but fracture data are presently 

unavailable for brick and for mortar.



D 

 p  p

 f



(2)



 f  D1(P

*

T

*

)

D2

(3)

Damage accumulates in geomaterials under load as the material fractures (the accumulation of 

equivalent plastic strain) and as the voids in the porous material compress and collapse (the 

accumulation of plastic volumetric strain). The majority of damage is accumulated through 

fracturing of the material with crushing of the material accounting for a small amount of the total 

damage. As damage accumulates, the scalar damage parameter from equations 1 and 2, D, will 

approach a value of 1 (or 100%); as damage approaches 100%, the normalized cohesive strength 

term, A, from equation 1 approaches zero, which is a loss of shear strength of the material.
5

Figure 3. HJC material model damage fit for brick and mortar.

2.3 Pressure

Holmquist et al. (1) describes the materials’ hydrostatic pressure response to volumetric strain in 

three distinct regions. The material behaves differently as pressure increases. At low pressure, 

less than crush pressure, Pcrush, the material undergoes reversible, elastic deformation. The 

model predicts this elastic behavior with a simple linear relationship controlled by the user’s 

input of the parameters Pcrush and crush. Elastic bulk modulus, Ke, is calculated by the model as 

the crush pressure divided by the crush volumetric strain: Ke = Pcrush /crush. This region of 

elastic material behavior is known as Region I. In Region I, the model, according to a simple 

linear relationship, predicts pressure as the applied volumetric strain multiplied by the elastic 

bulk modulus. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the pressure-volume behavior of grade SW brick and 

type S mortar, respectively; Region I is shown as insets in these figures. For brittle geomaterials, 

the elastic region of behavior is very small. Pcrush and crush were determined by fitting to 

hydrostatic compression (HC) and UX mechanical test data as shown in figures 4 and 5.
6

Figure 4. HJC material model pressure-volume fit for grade SW brick.

Figure 5. HJC material model pressure-volume fit for type S mortar.
7

Region II begins and the linear elastic behavior governing Region I ends with parameters Pcrush

and crush, which are the pressure and volumetric strain at which the material begins to undergo 

plastic deformation. Permanent, plastic deformation in brittle geomaterials, which are riddled 

with tiny pores and air voids, may be described as micro-cracking and air void crushing as 

pressure and volumetric strain increase beyond Pcrush and crush. Fracture and void collapse occur 

in Region II, shown in figures 4 and 5. Holmquist et al. (1) define Region II as a transition 

region; the model interpolates the material behavior in this region between Regions I and III. 

The user of the model cannot directly control the predicted material behavior in this region other 

than by controlling the model parameters that govern behavior for Regions I and III.

The onset of Region III, shown in figures 4 and 5, is controlled by the parameters Plock and lock, 

which are the pressure and volumetric strain at which all air voids have been crushed out of the 

material. Plock and lock were determined by fitting to HC and UX data. Holmquist et al. (1)

describe Region III as the behavior for fully dense material, where all air voids have been 

crushed out of the material. In this region the material is locked and cannot compress any farther 

in either plastic deformation or void collapse. However, since the material is under hydrostatic 

compression and the volume of material has nowhere to go, the pressure begins to increase 

dramatically for very small changes in volumetric strain. The material behavior in this region is 

governed by equation 4, which is a fit between high-pressure hydrostatic compression data and 

shock Hugoniot data (13). In equation 4, pressure is a function of volumetric strain, , and three 

constants, K1, K2, and K3 are used to fit a cubic equation to the data as seen in figures 4 and 5. 

The use of modified volumetric strain described by Holmquist et al. (1) shifts the high-pressure 

region back to the origin so that there is no apparent softening due to void collapse under very 

high pressure stimuli.



P K1K2

2

K3

3

(4)

Shock Hugoniot data from Los Alamos National Laboratory (13) used for the type S mortar 

high-pressure fit was from gas shale with an average initial density of 2.54761 g/cm3, which 

most closely matched the type S mortar grain (or fully consolidated) density of 2.510 g/cm3. 

Shock Hugoniot data used for the grade SW brick high-pressure fit was from fused quartz with 

an average initial density of 2.204 g/cm3, which most closely matched the grade SW brick grain 

density of 2.250 g/cm3. At the extremely high pressures of the shock Hugoniot data, inertial 

effects, rather than strength effects, dominate the material behavior; thus, at these pressures, it is 

assumed that matching the density is more important than matching the composition or strength 

of the material. Since shock Hugoniot data was not available for brick or mortar, using materials 

that somewhat resemble the geomaterials is assumed to be acceptable if the density is closely 

matched; this assumption only affects the constants for equation 4 and the high-pressure 

behavior of the material.
8

3. Numerical Simulations with Material Parameters

Numerical simulations using the material parameters for brick and mortar were compared with 

true stress and engineering strain data provided by ERDC (8, 9). The shock physics code CTH 

(12) was used to stress a 1-cm3cube with 10 uniformly distributed cells per side. Use of a flow 

code such as CTH is not ideal for simple deformation induced stress and strain, but time 

constraints necessitated the use of CTH as a near-term solution as it has the HJC model readily 

available and the model had been in use for geomaterial simulations. Future work is expected to 

use the EPIC code to test material parameters. However, CTH provided an acceptable first look 

at the efficacy of the material parameters.

The material parameters for grade SW brick and type S mortar were applied to the cube and 

strain was applied to the cube using the prescribed deformation (PRDEF) utility in CTH (12). 

Three different mechanical tests were simulated by applying strain to the cube to produce 

compression against set boundary conditions. Strain was applied in different configurations of 

the three directions to produce the following loading scenarios: (1) uniaxial compression—strain 

was applied axially while the radial directions were confined, (2) hydrostatic compression—

strain was applied equally in all three directions, and (3) triaxial compression—strain was 

applied in hydrostatic compression to a set level, in this case, 200 MPa, and then held constant 

while the axial strain was increased to failure. Failure strains were determined from mechanical 

test data. 

Figures 6 and 7 show the results of low-pressure uniaxial simulations compared with ERDC test 

data by Williams et al. for grade SW brick (8) and type S mortar (9), respectively. Figures 8 and 

9 show the results of hydrostatic simulations compared with ERDC test data by Williams et al. 

for grade SW brick (8) and type S mortar (9), respectively. Figures 10 and 11 show the results of 

triaxial compression simulations compared with ERDC test data by Williams et al. for grade SW 

brick (8) and type S mortar (9), respectively. Additionally, uniaxial simulations were strained to 

extremely high pressures indicative of penetration events; however, high-pressure test data were

only available for grade SW brick (14). Figure 12 shows the result of the high-pressure uniaxial 

simulation for grade SW brick.
9

Figure 6. Uniaxial strain test data compared with simulation results 

for grade SW brick.

Figure 7. Uniaxial strain test data compared with simulation results 

for type S mortar.
10

Figure 8. Hydrostatic compression test data compared with simulation 

results for grade SW brick.

Figure 9. Hydrostatic compression test data compared with simulation 

results for type S mortar.
11

Figure 10. Triaxial compression test data compared with simulation 

results for grade SW brick.

Figure 11. Triaxial compression test data compared with simulation 

results for type S mortar.
12

Figure 12. High-pressure uniaxial strain test data compared with 

simulation results for grade SW brick.

4. Summary and Conclusions

Table 1 contains the HJC constitutive model (1) material parameters for grade SW brick and 

type S mortar. Sample numerical simulations were performed to compare the model parameters 

to mechanical test data (8, 9). Simulations included uniaxial compression, hydrostatic 

compression, and triaxial compression loading scenarios. Although the HJC model has been 

reported to overpredict the penetration rate for high velocity impacts into concrete and miss the 

wide variation in entry and exit hole size, it was also reported to predict residual velocity fairly 

well (7). The HJC model remains one of a limited number of tools available for use in 

hydrocode simulations of geomaterials (12). Since the use of an Eulerian code such as CTH is 

not ideal for simulations of simple strain induced deformations, additional simulations in EPIC 

will be used in the future for further examination of these parameters. However, the CTH code 

does provide the PRDEF subroutine (12) for use in examining the behavior of material models in 

CTH simulations, and the results of the sample numerical simulations conducted here predict 

stress-strain behavior reasonably well when compared with mechanical characterization test data. 

Sample numerical simulations were limited in scope due to time constraints and did not explore 

damage; further study of the damage behavior of these materials is desirable to understand the 

effect of fracture on material strength. Penetration experiments would provide the high-pressure 
13

and fracture data needed for comparing simulations of penetrations using these material 

parameters to penetration events; these parameters will be further explored if such data becomes 

available. Development of constitutive material models for brick and for mortar for use in highvelocity penetration simulations is ideal but impractical; these material parameters provide a 

near-term solution for modeling brick and mortar masonry in penetration simulations.

Table 1. HJC constitutive model material parameters for brick and mortar.

Property Unit

Grade SW 

Brick

Type S 

Mortar

Type N 

Mortar

Adobe

Initial densitya

o kg/m3

1986 1604 1554 1599

Grain densitya

grain kg/m3

2250 2510 2510 2510

Sound speeda Cs cm/s 2.56E+05 2.52E+05 2.04E+05 1.4425E+05

Cohesive strength 

coefficient A 0.63646 0.66 0.652778 0.435255

Pressure hardening 

coefficient B 1.568 1.335 1.079 1.27

Pressure hardening 

exponent N 0.8264 0.845 0.835 0.857

Strain rate coefficient C 0.0054 0.0018 0.0023 0.0023

Compressive strength f’c GPa 0.075 0.0123 0.00485 0.003118

Tensile strength T GPa 0.006 0.0018 0.0008375 0.000112

Maximum strength SMAX 17.33 80.24 213 137.9

Shear modulusa G GPa 5.18 1.15 0.51 0.209

Bulk modulusa K GPa 5.3 1.7 0.71 0.318

Damage constant 1 D1 0.01413 0.006629 0.0102632 0.017758

Damage constant 2 D2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Minimum fracture strain EFMIN 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Crush pressure Pcrush GPa 0.03519 0.0138 0.05833 0.00096

Crush volumetric strain μcrush 0.00664 0.0075 0.2 0.003

Pressure constant 1 K1 GPa 63 0.3 12.436 0.45

Pressure constant 2 K2 GPa -79 -2 -49.003 -3.9879

Pressure constant 3 K3 GPa 56 19 69.424 19.766

Lock pressure Plock GPa 0.773 0.1096 0.23167 0.022607

Lock volumetric strain μlock 0.132931 0.15 0.33 0.09

aReported in Williams et al. (8, 9).
14

5. References

1. Holmquist, T. J.; Johnson, G. R.; Cook, W. H. A Computational Constitutive Model For 

Concrete Subjected To Large Strains, High Strain Rates, and High Pressures. Intl Symp on 

Ballistics 1993, 14, 591–600.

2. Wei, X.; Hao, H. Numerical Derivation of Homogenized Dynamic Masonry Material 

Properties with Strain Rate Effects. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2009, 36, 

522–536.

3. Zucchini, A.; Lourenço, P. B. Mechanics of Masonry in Compression: Results from a 

Homogenization Approach. Computers and Structures 2007, 85, 193–204.

4. Wei, X.; Stewart, M. G. Model Validation and Parametric Study on the Blast Response of 

Unreinforced Brick Masonry Walls. Intl J Impact Engineering 2010, 37, 1150–1159.

5. Wang, M.; Hao, H.; Ding, Y.; Li, Z. Prediction of Fragment Size and Ejection Distance of 

Masonry Wall Under Blast Load Using Homogenized Masonry Material Properties. Intl J 

Impact Engineering 2009, 36, 808–820.

6. Shieh-Beygi, B.; Pietruszczak, S. Numerical analysis of structural masonry: mesoscale 

approach. Computers and Structures 2008, 86, 1958–1973.

7. Dawson, A.; Bless, S.; Levinson, S.; Pedersen, B.; Satapathy, S. Hypervelocity Penetration 

of Concrete. Intl J Impact Engineering 2008, 35, 1484–1489.

8. Williams, E. M.; Akers, S. A.; Reed, P. A. Laboratory Characterization of Solid Grade SW 

Brick; Geotechnical and Structures Lab Tech. Rep., ERDC/GSL TR-07-24, 2007.

9. Williams, E. M.; Akers, S. A.; Reed, P. A. Laboratory Characterization of Type S Mortar;

Geotechnical and Structures Lab Tech. Rep., ERDC/GSL TR-08-10, 2008.

10. Hao, H.; Tarasov, B. G. Experimental Study of Dynamic Material Properties of Clay Brick 

and Mortar at Different Strain Rates. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 2008, 8

(2), 117–131.

11. Grote D. L.; Park, S. W.; Zhou, M. Dynamic Behavior of Concrete at High Strain Rates and 

Pressures: I. Experimental Characterization. Intl. J. Impact Engineering 2001, 25, 869–886.

12. Crawford, D. A., ed. CTH User’s Manual and Input Instructions, Version 8.1; Sandia 

National Laboratories, pp 115–118, 2007.

13. Marsh, S. P., ed. LASL Shock Hugoniot Data, University of California Press, 1980.

14. Akers, S.; Adley, M. Private communication. 31 March 2009.
15

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

DIF dynamic increase factors

ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center

HC hydrostatic compression

HJC Holmquist-Johnson-Cook

PRDEF prescribed deformation

TXC triaxial compression

UX uniaxial strain
16

No. of

Copies Organization

1 ADMNSTR

ELEC DEFNS TECHL INFO CTR

ATTN DTIC OCP

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

3 US ARMY RSRCH LAB

ATTN IMNE ALC HRR 

MAIL & RECORDS MGMT

ATTN RDRL CIM L TECHL LIB

ATTN RDRL CIM P TECHL PUB 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL D

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 NSWC CHINA LAKE

CODE 4J3300D

T HATCH-AGUILAR

1900 N KNOX RD

CHINA LAKE CA 93555-6106

3 US ARMY ARDEC

RDAR AAR MEE W

E BAKER

A DANIELS

W NG

PICATINNY NJ 07806-5000

2 US ARMY ERDC

CEERD GM R

J CARGILE

R MOXLEY

3090 HALLS FERRY RD

VICKSBURG MS 39180-6199

3 US ARMY ERDC

CEERD GM I

S AKERS

K DANIELSON

A FRANK

3090 HALLS FERRY RD

VICKSBURG MS 39180-6199

No. of

Copies Organization

3 NAVSEA DAHLGREN

M HOPSON

W CHEPREN

C DYKA

6138 NORC AVE STE 313

DAHLGREN VA 22448-5157

7 SANDIA NATL LAB

S ATTAWAY MS 0847

A BRUNDAGE MS 0836

A GULLERUD MS 1185

G HERTEL MS 1185

J KORBIN MS 0836

S SCHUMACHER MS 0836

B SPENCER MS 0830

1515 EUBANK SE

ALBUQUERQUE NM 87123

2 LLNL

D FAUX MS L140

R MCCALLEN MS L98

PO BOX 808

LIVERMORE CA 94551-0808 

4 SOUTHWEST RSRCH INST

C ANDERSON

G JOHNSON

T HOLMQUIST

J WALKER

PO DRAWER 28510

SAN ANTONIO TX 78228-0510

1 UNIV OF ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM

HOEN 101

D LITTLEFIELD

1530 3RD AVE

BIRMINGHAM AL 35294-4440
17

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

44 DIR USARL

RDRL CIH C

J CAZAMIAS

RDRL SLB W

W BRUCHEY

RDRL WML

D LYON

J NEWILL

RDRL WML H

C CANDLAND

T EHLERS

T FARRAND

M FERMEN-COKER

E KENNEDY

L MAGNESS

C MEYER

R PHILLABAUM

D SCHEFFLER

S SCHRAML

B SCHUSTER

B SORENSEN

R SUMMERS

RDRL WMP B

R BECKER

S BILYK

D CASEM

J CLAYTON

J HOUSKAMP

R KRAFT

B LEAVY

B LOVE

M RAFTENBERG

T WEERISOORIYA

C WILLIAMS

RDRL WMP C

T BJERKE

N BRUCHEY 

S SEGLETES

W WALTERS

RDRL WMP D

R DONEY

D KLEPONIS

H MEYER

F MURPHY

B VONK

G VUNNI

M ZELLNER

RDRL WMP E

B CHAMISH

M LOVE

C NICELY

RDRL WMP G

R BANTON

S KUKUCK

TOTAL: 75 (1 ELEC, 74 HCS)
18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.