Advertisement

Numerical Investigation on the Necessity of a Constant Strain Rate Condition According to Material’s Dynamic Response Behavior in the SHPB Test

  • H.R. Zou
  • W.L. YinEmail author
  • C.C. Cai
  • Z. Yang
  • Y.B. Li
  • X.D. He
Article
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

The split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus is frequently used to investigate the dynamic compression properties of various materials at strain rates from 102 to 104 s−1. Keeping the strain rate constant during loading is an important condition for obtaining accurate experimental results. However, we do not always need to take additional measures to control the constant strain rate loading conditions for materials with different dynamic response behaviors. To investigate the necessity of a constant strain rate condition in the SHPB test according to the different dynamic mechanical response behaviors of materials, a comprehensive numerical analysis scheme combined with the Cowper-Symonds plastic kinematic model was designed to perform the simulation tests. There are two factors primarily resulting in the errors in the calculated stress-strain response for the representative material model. One of them is the dynamic scale factor, which represents the strain rate sensitivity and controls the variation amplitude of flow stress with the change in strain rate. The other factor is the work-hardening rate, which affects the results by expanding the decrease in strain rate. This paper quantitatively describes the effects of strain rate sensitivity and the strain-hardening modulus on the accuracy of the reconstructed stress-strain behavior of a sample under a constant incident pulse. The conclusion presents several reference guides for the necessity of a constant strain rate condition for different dynamic response behaviors of materials based on the representative constitutive model.

Keywords

Constant strain rate condition SHPB Dynamic mechanical responses Strain rate sensitivity Work-hardening rate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 11272109) and the Ph. D. Programs Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (20122302110065). The authors also acknowledge Prof. Wei Zhang of the Harbin Institute of Technology for providing experimental equipment.

Supplementary material

11340_2018_468_Fig11_ESM.png (53 kb)
ESM 1

(PNG 52 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM1_ESM.tif (106 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 105 kb)
11340_2018_468_Fig12_ESM.png (112 kb)
ESM 2

(PNG 111 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM2_ESM.tif (119 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 119 kb)
11340_2018_468_Fig13_ESM.png (94 kb)
ESM 3

(PNG 93 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM3_ESM.tif (159 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 159 kb)
11340_2018_468_Fig14_ESM.png (80 kb)
ESM 4

(PNG 80 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM4_ESM.tif (134 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 134 kb)
11340_2018_468_Fig15_ESM.png (103 kb)
ESM 5

(PNG 102 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM5_ESM.tif (158 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 158 kb)
11340_2018_468_Fig16_ESM.png (93 kb)
ESM 6

(PNG 93 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM6_ESM.tif (156 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 155 kb)
11340_2018_468_Fig17_ESM.png (144 kb)
ESM 7

(PNG 143 kb)

11340_2018_468_MOESM7_ESM.tif (202 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 201 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Morrow B, Lebensohn R, Trujillo C, Martinez D, Addessio F, Bronkhorst C, Lookman T, Cerreta E (2016) Characterization and modeling of mechanical behavior of single crystal titanium deformed by split-Hopkinson pressure bar. Int J Plast 82:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc Lond Sect B 62(11):676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dharan C, Hauser F (1970) Determination of stress-strain characteristics at very high strain rates. Exp Mech 10(9):370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song B, Chen W (2004) Dynamic compressive behavior of EPDM rubber under nearly uniaxial strain conditions. J Eng Mater Technol 126(2):213.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1651097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Field J, Walley S, Proud W, Goldrein H, Siviour C (2004) Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies. Int J Impact Eng 30(7):725–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopkinson B (1914) A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high explosives or by the impact of bullets. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 213:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brizard D, Ronel S, Jacquelin E (2017) Estimating measurement uncertainty on stress-strain curves from SHPB. Exp Mech 57(5):735–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li P, Siviour C, Petrinic N (2009) The effect of strain rate, specimen geometry and lubrication on responses of aluminium AA2024 in uniaxial compression experiments. Exp Mech 49(4):587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertholf L, Karnes C (1975) Two-dimensional analysis of the split Hopkinson pressure bar system. J Mech Phys Solids 23(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang T-T, Shang B (2014) Three-wave mutual-checking method for data processing of SHPB experiments of concrete. J Mech 30(5):N5–N10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellwood S, Griffiths L, Parry D (1982) Materials testing at high constant strain rates. J Phys E Sci Instrum 15(3):280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vecchio KS, Jiang F (2007) Improved pulse shaping to achieve constant strain rate and stress equilibrium in Split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing. Metall Mater Trans A 38(11):2655–2665.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-007-9204-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee OS, You SS, Chong JH, Kang HS (1998) Dynamic deformation under a modified split Hopkinson pressure bar experiment. KSME International Journal 12(6):1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen W, Zhang B, Forrestal M (1999) A split Hopkinson bar technique for low-impedance materials. Exp Mech 39(2):81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang TZ, Xue P, Butt HSU (2015) Pulse shaper design for dynamic testing of viscoelastic materials using polymeric SHPB. Int J Impact Eng 79:45–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen X, Li Y, Zhi Z, Guo Y, Ouyang N (2013) The compressive and tensile behavior of a 0/90 C fiber woven composite at high strain rates. Carbon 61:97–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2013.04.073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suo T, Fan X, Hu G, Li Y, Tang Z, Xue P (2013) Compressive behavior of C/SiC composites over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures. Carbon 62:481–492.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2013.06.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frew D, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2002) Pulse shaping techniques for testing brittle materials with a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 42(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li XB, Lok TS, Zhao J (2004) Dynamic characteristics of granite subjected to intermediate loading rate. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(1):21–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-004-0030-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heard WF, Martin BE, Nie X, Slawson T, Basu PK (2014) Annular pulse shaping technique for large-diameter Kolsky Bar experiments on concrete. Exp Mech 54(8):1343–1354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-014-9899-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frantz C, Follansbee P, Wright W (1984) New experimental techniques with the split Hopkinson pressure bar. In: 8th International Conference on High Energy Rate Fabrication. San Antonio, TX, June, pp 17–21Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meng H, Li Q (2003) Correlation between the accuracy of a SHPB test and the stress uniformity based on numerical experiments. Int J Impact Eng 28(5):537–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frew DJ (2005) Pulse shaping techniques for testing elastic-plastic materials with a Split Hopkinson pressure Bar. Exp Mech 45(2):186–195.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02428192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang LM, Shim VPW (2005) An analysis of stress uniformity in split Hopkinson bar test specimens. Int J Impact Eng 31(2):129–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2003.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parry D, Walker A, Dixon P (1995) Hopkinson bar pulse smoothing. Meas Sci Technol 6(5):443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zou G, Shen X, Chang Z, Wang Y, Wang P (2015) A method of restraining the geometric dispersion effect on Split-Hopkinson pressure bar by the modified striker bar. Exp Tech 40(4):1249-1261.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-016-0125-6
  27. 27.
    Song B (2004) Dynamic stress equilibration in Split Hopkinson pressure bar tests on soft materials. Exp Mech 44(3):300–312.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02427897 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li X, Lok T, Zhao J, Zhao P (2000) Oscillation elimination in the Hopkinson bar apparatus and resultant complete dynamic stress–strain curves for rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37(7):1055–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen WW, Wu Q, Kang JH, Winfree NA (2001) Compressive superelastic behavior of a NiTi shape memory alloy at strain rates of 0.001–750 s− 1. Int J Solids Struct 38(50):8989–8998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ninan L, Tsai J, Sun C (2001) Use of split Hopkinson pressure bar for testing off-axis composites. Int J Impact Eng 25(3):291–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feng B, Fang X, Wang H-X, Dong W, Li Y-C (2016) The effect of crystallinity on compressive properties of Al-PTFE. Polymers 8(10):356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang B, Lin Y, Li S, Zhai D, Wu G (2016) Quasi-static and high strain rates compressive behavior of aluminum matrix syntactic foams. Compos Part B 98:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang Q, Lin Y, Chi H, Chang J, Wu G (2018) Quasi-static and dynamic compression behavior of glass cenospheres/5A03 syntactic foam and its sandwich structure. Compos Struct 183:499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hu Q, Zhao F, Fu H, Li K, Liu F (2017) Dislocation density and mechanical threshold stress in OFHC copper subjected to SHPB loading and plate impact. Mater Sci Eng A 695:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee W-S, Lin C-R (2016) Deformation behavior and microstructural evolution of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy at cryogenic temperatures. Cryogenics 79:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kapoor R, Pangeni L, Bandaru AK, Ahmad S, Bhatnagar N (2016) High strain rate compression response of woven Kevlar reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Part B 89:374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Resnyansky A, Gray G III (2002) Numerical simulations of the influence of loading pulse shape on SHPB measurements. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1. AIP, pp 315–318Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chalivendra VB, Abotula S (2010) An experimental and numerical investigation of the static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys. J Strain Anal Eng Des 45(8):555–565.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030932471004500808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hallquist JO (2006) LS-DYNA theory manual, vol 19. Livermore software Technology corporation, Livermore, pp 19.15–19.18Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Francis DK, Whittington WR, Lawrimore WB, Allison PG, Turnage SA, Bhattacharyya JJ (2016) Split Hopkinson pressure bar graphical analysis tool. Exp Mech:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-016-0191-9

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.R. Zou
    • 1
  • W.L. Yin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • C.C. Cai
    • 1
  • Z. Yang
    • 1
  • Y.B. Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • X.D. He
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Composite Materials and StructuresHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Science and Technology on Advanced Composites in Special Environment LaboratoryHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations