Dynamic Properties of Geologic Specimens Subjected to Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Compression Testing at the University of Kentucky
Advances in materials science have shown that material behavior varies according to the rate of load application (strain-rate sensitivity). With regards to compressive strength, materials have been observed to exhibit a strengthening, weakening, or negligible response to increasing strain-rates (Zhang and Zhao in Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(4):1411–1478, 2014). Practical experimentation to ascertain these responses has been carried out for over a century, based on the fundamental equipment design pioneered by John Hopkinson in 1872 and modified by Kolsky in 1949. A contemporary Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) has been constructed at the University of Kentucky (UKY) to research the dynamic properties of various geologic materials for mining and civil engineering applications. Geologic samples are of an inconsistent nature due to inherent discontinuities and large grain size. To ensure test specimens are of adequate size to reflect this inconsistent nature, the SHPB at the UKY has been constructed with component bars of 2 in. (5.08 cm) diameter. Prior publications have discussed various considerations associated with the testing procedure and data processing of this SHPB (dispersion correction, pulse shaping, etc.) (Silva and Lamont 2017). This publication presents the results of materials testing with this SHPB. Three materials were selected: Bedford (Indiana) Limestone, Berea (Ohio) Sandstone, and Aluminum 6061-T6. Two of these are common aggregates found in the mining and construction industries, while the third is an aluminum variant often encountered in industrial applications. Dynamic compression testing of these materials at various strain rates was carried out, and the results are included. Static test results have been included for comparison, and the testing and data analysis procedure are discussed in detail.
KeywordsHopkinson bar Compression testing Dynamic properties Geologic samples Strain response
This research was internally funded by the University of Kentucky’s Explosives Research Team.
- ASM International (1990) Metals handbook, volume 2: properties and selection: nonferrous alloys and special-purpose materials, 10 edn. ASM InternationalGoogle Scholar
- Gray GT III (2000) Classic split Hopkinson pressure bar testing. ASM Handb Mech Test Eval 8:462–476Google Scholar
- Hill JR (2017) Indiana geological and water survey, “Indiana limestone”. https://igs.indiana.edu/MineralResources/limestone.cfm. Accessed 11 Mar 2018
- Holt JM (1996) Structural alloys handbook, Technical Ed; Ho CY (ed) CINDAS/Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
- Kaiser MA (1998) Advancements in the split Hopkinson bar test. Diss. Virginia TechGoogle Scholar
- Liu S et al (2011) SHPB experimental study of sericite-quartz schist and sandstone. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 30(9):1864–1871Google Scholar
- Petrov Y, Selyutina N (2015) Scale and size effects in dynamic fracture of concretes and rocks. In: EPJ web of conferences, vol 94. EDP SciencesGoogle Scholar
- Silva J, Lamont R (2017) Dispersion signal analysis in a Split-Hopkinson pressure bar at the University of Kentucky. Fragblast Int J Blast Fragm 11(1):7–22Google Scholar
- Subhash G, Ravichandran G (2000) Split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing of ceramics. ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp 497–504Google Scholar
- Wu XJ, Gorham DA (1997) Stress equilibrium in the split Hopkinson pressure bar test. J Phys IV 7(C3):C3–91Google Scholar