R. Malvar, L. Malvar, and C. Ross, Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension, Materials Journal, vol.95, issue.6, pp.735-739, 1998.

J. Mazars, Application de la mécanique de l'endommagement au comportement non linéaire et à la rupture du béton de structure, 1984.

. Mellinger, . Birkimer, F. Mellinger, and D. Birkimer, Measurements of stress and strain on cylindrical test specimens of rock and concrete under impact loading, 1966.

O. Montenegro and I. Carol, Fracture toughness test for soil-cement samples in mode ii, ICEM13 conference, 2007.

A. Nowakowski, Abstract, Archives of Mining Sciences, vol.57, issue.4, pp.1027-1044, 2012.
DOI : 10.2478/v10267-012-0068-4

. Ozbolt, Tensile behavior of concrete under high loading rates, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol.69, pp.55-68, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.02.005

. Ozbolt, Dynamic tensile resistance of concrete ? split hopkinson bar test, VIII International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures, 2013.

F. Piotrowska, E. Piotrowska, and P. Forquin, Dynamic behavior of high strength concrete in quasi oedmoetric compression test: experimental investigation, 2014.

. Poinard, Compression triaxial behavior of concrete: the role of the mesostructure by analysis of X-ray tomographic images, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, vol.35, issue.sup1, pp.16115-136, 2012.
DOI : 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.08.016

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01998299

S. Poirier, Etude expérimentale du comportement de la pression interstitielle et de son influence sur le comportement physico-mécanique d'un 1.2 Mechanical behavior of the limestone rocks, SAM21 concrete and mortar subjected to: (left) simple compression test (right) triaxial test at 300 MPa of confinement, 1996.

, Simple compression tests with different(W/C) ratios: (left) R30A7 concrete] (right) mortar samples, 2005.

. Zingg, Simple compression tests on R30A7, LP and HP concretes with different initial matrix porosities (? 0 ): (left) axial stress vs. strains (right) mean stress vs. volumetric strain, 2016.

, Simple compression test compression with different saturation ratios (S r ): (left) R30A7, [Vu, 2007] (right) HP concrete, 2013.

.. , Triaxial test concept: (a) loading path (b) sample device used for strain measurement, p.11

, Volumetric behavior of ordinary concrete with different W/C ratio under triaxial loading. Mean stress vs. volumetric strain at: (left) 100

]. , MPa (right) 600 MPa of confinement, p.12, 2007.

]. , Deviatoric behavior of ordinary concrete with different W/C ratio under triaxial loading Deviatoric stress vs. strains at: (left) 100 MPa (right) 600 MPa of confinement, p.12, 2007.

R. Volumetric-behavior-of, H. Lp, and . Concreteszingg, Mean stress vs volumetric strain at: (left) 50 MPa (right) 600 MPa of confinement, p.13, 2016.

R. Deviatoric-behavior-of-concretes-of, H. Lp, and . Concreteszingg, Deviatoric stress vs. axial strain under: 50 MPa (left) (right) 600 MPa of confinement, p.13, 2016.

, Results of triaxial tests on O, LP and HP concretes at the (left) saturated and (right) dried states. Mean stress vs. volumetric strain under: (a) 100 MPa (b) 600 MPa of confinement, p.14, 2013.

, Deviatoric stress vs. mean stress: (a) Ordinary (b) Low performance (c) High performance concretes, Stress limits states, p.16, 2016.

, Concrete specimen jacketed by the steel confinement cell during quasioedometric confined test, p.16, 1998.

. Forquin, Quasi-oedometric tests on ordinary concrete with different saturation ratio: (left) mean stress vs. volumetric strain (right) deviatoric stress vs. mean stress, p.17, 2013.

, Quasi-oedometric tests on high performance concrete with different saturation ratio: (left) mean stress vs. volumetric strain (right) deviatoric stress vs. mean stress, [Piotrowska and Forquin, p.18, 2014.

. Forquina, Set up of a quasi-oedometric test using the SHPB technique, 2008.

]. , Dynamic quasi-oedometric test on ordinary and high performance concretes Mean stress vs volumetric strain: (left) dry (right) saturated states, [Piotrowska and Forquin, 2014.

]. , Dynamic quasi-oedometric test on ordinary and high performance concrete Deviatoric stress vs. mean stress: (left) dry (right) saturated states, [Piotrowska and Forquin, 2014.

. Safa, Dynamic quasi-oedometric test on the MB50 concrete at the dry and saturated states: (left) mean stress vs. volumetric strain (right) deviatoric stress vs. mean stress, p.20, 2010.

]. , Quasi-static and dynamic PTS tests on dry and saturated ordinary concrete: shear strength vs. strain rate, [Forquin, 2011.

]. , Spalling test device and instrumentation: projectile, input bar, specimen and strain gages, p.22, 2010.

]. , Quasi-static and dynamic tensile tests: tensile strength vs. strain rate for both dry and saturated ordinary and MB50 concretes, [Erzar and Forquin, p.22, 2011.

. Pontiroli, Experimental and numerical (FEM) comparison: (left) hydrostatic results on saturated concrete (right) triaxial results on dried concrete, p.26, 2015.

]. , Experimental and numerical (FEM) comparison of 800 mm thick target with impact velocity 347 m/s: axial deceleration vs. time, [Pontiroli et al, p.26, 2015.

. Benniou, Experimental and numerical (DEM) comparison: (left) hydrostatic results (right) triaxial results on dried and saturated concretes, p.27, 2016.

. Benniou, Experimental and numerical (DEM) comparison of 800 mm thick target with impact velocity 347 m/s: axial deceleration vs. time, p.28, 2016.

]. , , p.29, 1996.

]. , Concrete pore pressure evolution vs. deviatoric stress for different confinement pressure, p.30, 1996.

]. , Drained tests on rock: (a) deviatoric stress vs. strains (b) volumetric strain vs. axial strain, [Sulem and Ouffroukh, p.31, 2005.

]. , Undrained tests on rock: (a) deviatoric stress vs. strains (b) volumetric strain vs. axial strain, [Sulem and Ouffroukh, p.31, 2005.

]. , Undrained tests on rock: pore pressure vs. axial strain, [Sulem and Ouffroukh, p.32, 2005.

, Triaxial tests on sandstone rock: (a) Biot's coefficient (b) pore pressure evolutions versus the differential stress, p.33, 2012.

.. , Preparation stages: (left) coring of concrete block and samples extraction (middle) concrete surface treatment (right) samples conservation into a saturated environment, p.37

.. , Porosity measurement: (left) dry, saturated and submerged sample masses (right) experimental set up used to measure concrete submerged mass, p.38

.. , (left) general view (right) instrumentation of a concrete specimen by using the circular steel collar, p.39

.. , Results of the simple compression test on the ordinary concrete: axial stress vs. strains, p.40

G. Overview-of-the-triaxial-press, , p.41

, Schematic illustration of the triaxial press GIGA: (left) general scheme of the press (right): cross-sectional view of the confining cell, p.42

G. , Available loading path of the triaxial press, p.42

, LVDT calibration test: (left) 14 cm (right) 8 cm specimen length, p.45

.. , Calibration test result on a steel specimen of 8 cm in length: confinement pressure vs. gage and LVDT displacements, p.45

.. , Principal caps dimensions and shapes adapted for both sample lengths and diameters: (a) 10.5 by 5 cm (b) 14 by 7 cm, p.46

, Provisional concept: (left) set up before modification (right) modified set up with principal cap and water collect cavity combination, p.47

, Recent concept with the water collect cap integration, p.48

.. , Drainage cap with micro-holes, plug and sealing joint (left) design (right) real concept, p.48

, Device protection with multiple-layer of Latex & noprne membranes 49

, concrete surface porosity and Sikatop application: (a) before (b) after 49

.. , Sample and water collect cap arrangement and concept: (left) calibration test on perforated aluminum sample (right) pore pressure test on concrete, p.50

, Previous results: (left) drainage cap equipped with sensor (right) calibration test result: confining pressure vs. plate strain, p.51, 2013.

.. , Aluminum sensor type hydrostatic: (left) sectional plan of the cap with the hydrostatic load sensor (right) size and loading type of the cylindrical sensor, p.54

.. , Picture of the aluminum sensor type hydrostatic: (left) water collect cap, plug, sealing joint and the hydrostatic sensor (right) sensor placed inside the water collecting cap, p.55

.. , Hydrostatic type sensor: reversed calibration test (left) design (right) real picture, p.56

, Hydrostatic type sensor: normal calibration test design, p.57

.. , Experimental procedure: (left) sponge attached on concrete lower surface (middle) applying of protective membranes (right) saturation of the water collecting cap before the test, p.57

.. , Device weak points: (left) membrane penetration (right) wires cut at cap/specimen interface, p.58

.. , Device protection: (c,d) wires passage protection (e) protective membrane at the interface (f) gage protection, p.59

.. , Calibration test results on the aluminum sensor type hydrostatic: hydrostatic loading pressure p c vs. sensor volumetric deformation v (positive in compression), p.60

.. , First interstitial pore pressure measurement results on R30A7 concrete: pore pressure vs. confining pressure, p.62

.. , Hydrostatic test on saturated R30A7 samples: pore pressure vs. confining pressure, p.63

, Steel sensor type membrane (a) sectional plan of the cap with the membrane sensor (b) picture of the cap with the membrane sensor, p.64

.. , General design of the membrane sensor with the gage and sealing joint positions, p.65

.. , The design and geometry of different suggested sensors (left) s1 (middle ) s2 (right) s3, p.65

, Applied pore pressure p i on the sensor upper surface (left) all nodes blocked vertically (right) half nodes blocked vertically, p.66

, Mechanical effect on the water collect cap lateral surface with the boundary condition: displacement u pc due to the confining pressure, p.67

.. , Mechanical effect on the sensor lateral surface: transmitted displacement from the cap to the sensor (left) all nodes fixed (right) half nodes fixed, p.67

, Sensor Von Misses stress distribution for 400 MPa of water pressure and both kind of boundary conditions. Left column nodes are all fixed, right column half of nodes are fixed: (a) s1 (b) s2 (c) s3, p.69

, Sensor sensitivity: strains comparison for the three types of sensor for both boundary conditions: applied pressure vs. radial (or tangential) strain at the sensor center back face, p.70

, Sensor radial (or tangential) strain field at the sensor central part calculated for 400 MPa of pressure for both boundary conditions. Left column all nodes fixed, right column half nodes fixed: (a), pp.1-2

.. , Water collect cap displacement for 400 MPa of pressure: simulation result of the lateral displacement field, p.72

, Water collect cap displacement for 400 MPa of pressure: applied pressure vs. cap inner displacement with and without counting the tolerance 73

.. , Sensor s2 radial (tangential) strain field at the central part for an applied displacement (u pc + u tol. ) equal to -0.0268 mm: (left) all nodes (right) half nodes fixed, p.73

.. , Mechanical effect on the sensor sensitivity after applying the tolerance: p c vs. < 0 in compression, p.74

S. , Calibration and mechanical effect on the sensor sensitivity after applying the tolerance: p vs, p.74

, Sensor protection (a) joints made of two sub-items (b) joint insertion (c) application of the metal clamp (d) aluminum grooved shield, p.75

, Test preparation: (left) cap saturation (right) sensor insertion, p.76

.. , Test preparation: (left) application of the wires protective metal clamp shield (right) sensor lifting device, p.77

, Diaphragm pattern (a) strains distribution for a clamped membrane (b) radial and tangential gages overview (c) full bridge configuration, p.78

.. , Membrane type sensor: normal calibration test (left): design (right): real picture, p.80

, Calibration test results using the membrane sensor equipped with a diaphragm pattern: confining pressure vs. strain sensor, p.80

, Lost of diaphragm pattern: (left) wires cut (right) gage detached, p.81

.. , Single radial gage: (left) support and cosse gluing with wires welding (right) gage protection, p.81

.. , Membrane type sensor: principal of the mechanical effect (left): design (right): real picture, p.83

.. , Experimental results of calibration test compared with the numerical calculations during a hydrostatic test, p.83

.. , Pore pressure result on R30A7 concrete: pore pressure vs. confining pressure, p.84

S. , Comparison between the hydrostatic type and membrane sensor deformations: applied pressure vs, p.85

.. , Design of pore pressure water collecting cap working on the membrane effect: (left) sectional view with a micro-holed cap equipped with a threaded hole, cap lower part, strain gage position (right) top view of the cap upper part, p.86

.. , Water collecting cap with membrane effect: (left) real photo (right) gage application

, Results of interstitial pore pressure measurement on the R30A7 concrete using the hydrostatic and the membrane type sensors: p i vs, p.91

M. , Results of interstitial pore pressure measurement on the reference concrete . Zoom on the first part of the plot: p i vs, p.92

.. , Mean value of the interstitial pore pressure measurement and maximum pore pressure reached for each test with respect to the applied confining pressure, p.92

M. , Results of interstitial pore pressure measurement with different loading rates on the reference concrete using the hydrostatic type and the membrane type sensor: p i vs, p.93

M. , Volumetric behavior of concrete under hydrostatic loading during pore pressure measurements Comparison with the two references concrete: pc vs, p.95

M. , Mean volumetric behavior curve under hydrostatic loading during pore pressure measurements Comparison with the two references concrete: pc vs, p.95

, Pore pressure evolution with respect to concrete volumetric deformation 96

.. , Mean value of the interstitial pore pressure measurement and maximum pore pressure reached for each test with respect to the volumetric strain, p.97

.. , PRM coupled model with saturation ratio effect on the concrete: (a) volumetric behavior (b) deviatoric stress, p.100

, Schematic representation of: (left) serial (right) parallel model, 2013.

]. , Concrete behavior for different saturation ratios under hydrostatic loading: mean stress vs. volumetric strain. Results comparison with PRM (a) serial (b) parallel model, p.102, 2009.

, The porous medium matrix as the superposition of two continuous media: a skeletion particle and a fluid particle, [Coussy, 1995.

. Poinard, Cyclic hydrostatic test up to 600 MPa on the R30A7 concrete: (left) volumetric behavior (right) evolution of concrete bulk modulus, p.105, 2012.

.. , Evolution of the concrete bulk modulus: (left) comparison between the model and the experimental curve (right) opened pores with respect to the plastic strain for both initial porosities, p.107

.. , Concrete pore pressure modeling in concrete under hydrostatic loading: pore pressure vs. mean stress for different saturation ratios and initial porosities, p.110

, Concrete volumetric behavior modeling under hydrostatic pressure: mean stress vs. volumetric strain for different saturation ratios and initial porosity compared with the dry and saturated R30A7, p.111

, Interstitial pore pressure vs. mean pressure: (a) experimental measurement with variation range and poro-mechanical modeling (b) zoom on the first part, Concrete behavior under hydrostatic loading, p.112

.. , Interstitial pore pressure vs volumetric strain: experimental measurement with variation range and poro-mechanical modeling, Concrete behavior under hydrostatic loading, p.113

, Concrete volumetric behavior of dried and saturated concrete] along with the mean pore pressure measurement test under hydrostatic loading: pressure vs, volumetric strain, vol.114, 2007.

.. , Mean value of the Biot's coefficient and maximum Biot's coefficient for each test with respect to the volumetric strain, p.115

, the literature showing the influence of saturation ratio (S r ), water over cement initial porosity (? 0 ) and strain rate ( ? ) where (SC) simple compression, (TXT) triaxial, (S-QOC and D-QOC) static or dynamic quasi oedometric compression, (D-S and D-T) dynamic shear or tensile tests. O, LP and HP: ordinary, low and high performance concretes. ? c , ? m , ? s , ? t and q are the: compressive, mean, shear, tensile and deviatoric strengths. NI, SI and HI means: no, slight and high influence, List of Tables 1.1 Summary of different tests available in, p.23

, Ordinary concrete sample mass for the three states: dry, saturated and submerged with porosity accessible to water estimation, p.39

.. , Mechanical properties of the ordinary concrete, p.40

.. , Description of calibration test: sample/cap configuration, condition and identified slope value, p.60

.. , Description of the preliminary hydrostatic test on concrete using the hydrostatic sensor type: test name, concrete type, loading time, test condition, maximum interstitial pore pressure, p.61

.. , Description of the preliminary hydrostatic test on concrete using the hydrostatic sensor type: test name, concrete type, loading time, test condition, maximum interstitial pore pressure, p.63

. .. , The dimensions of the different proposed sensors (in mm), p.65

.. , The maximum Von Misses stress for the three types of sensor for both boundary conditions, p.69

, Calculation details: cap displacement and sensor deformation

.. , Analytical and simulation results with the resultant gage strain in (µ m / m ), p.79

, Details of calibration test using the diaphragm pattern, p.79

, Tests description performed on the membrane sensor using a single gage 82

.. , Pore pressure test description using the single gage, p.84

, Summary of the pore pressure measurement tests for both sensors type 90

. Parameters-for-porosity-closure-estimation.........., , p.106

.. Parameters-for-pore-pressure-estimation, , p.109

, Values of saturation ratios and initial porosities used in the modeling 109