Advertisement

Relationship between diameter of split Hopkinson pressure bar and minimum loading rate under rock failure

  • Xi-bing Li (李夕兵)Email author
  • Liang Hong (洪亮)
  • Tu-bing Yin (尹土兵)
  • Zi-long Zhou (周子龙)
  • Zhou-yuan Ye (叶洲元)
Article

Abstract

In order to investigate the relationship between bar diameter and loading rate of the split Hopkinson pressure bar(SHPB) setup under the failure of rock specimen and realize the medium strain rate loading of specimen, new SHPB setups with different elastic bar’s diameters of 22, 36, 50 and 75 mm were constructed. The tests were carried out on these setups at different loading rates, and the specimens had the same diameter of elastic bars and same ratio of length to diameter. The test results show that the larger the elastic bar’s diameter is, the less the loading rate is needed to cause specimen failure, they show good power relationship, and that under the same strain rate loading, specimens are broken more seriously with larger diameter SHPB setup than with smaller one.

Key words

rock failure Hopkinson pressure bar diameter minimum loading rate medium strain rate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    LI Xi-bing, GU De-sheng. Rock impact dynamics[M]. Changsha: Central South University of Technology Press, 1994. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    FIELD J E, WALLEY S M, PROUD W G, GOLDREIN H T, SIVIOUR C R. Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2004, 30(7): 725–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    LI X B, LOK T S, ZHAO J. Dynamic characteristics of granite subjected to intermediate loading rate[J]. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2005, 38(1): 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    PERKIN R D, GREEN S J, FRIEDMAN M. Uniaxial stress behavior of porphritic tonalite at strain rates to 103/sec[J]. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 1970, 7(5): 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    GREEN J S, PERKINS R D. Uniaxial compression tests at varying strain rates on three geologic materials[J]. Basic and Applied Rock Mechanics, 1970, 3(5): 35–37.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    BLABTON T L. Effect of strain rates from 10−2–10−1 in triaxial compression tests on three rocks[J]. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 1981, 18(1): 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    ZHANG Xue-feng, XIA Yuan-ming. Development of material testing apparatus for intermediate strain rate test[J]. Journal of Experimental Mechanics, 2001, 16(1): 13–18. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    DAVIES E D H, HUNTER S C. The dynamic compression testing of solids by the method of the split Hopkinson pressure bar[J]. J Mech Phys Solids, 1963, 11(3): 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    LOK T S, LI X B, ZHAO P J. Uniaxial compression tests on granite and its stress-strain relationship at high strain rate [C]// Proceedings of the 2001 ISRM International Symposium. WANG S J. Lisse: AA Balkema, 2001: 85–87.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    ROSS C A, TEDESCO J W, KUENNEN S T. Effect of strain rate on concrete strength[J]. ACI Materials Journal, 1995, 92(1): 37–47.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    ZHENG S, HAUSSLER-COMBE U, EIBL J. New approach to strain rate sensitivity of concrete in compression[J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1999, 125(12): 1403–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    EIBL J, SCHMIDT-HURTIENNE B. Strain-rate-sensitive constitutive law for concrete[J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1999, 125(12): 1411–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    LI Xi-bing, ZHOU Zi-long, WANG Wei-hua. Construction of ideal striker for SHPB device based on FEM and neural network[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2005, 24(23): 4215–4218. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    LOK T S, LI X B, LIU D, ZHAO P J. Testing and response of large diameter brittle materials subjected to high strain rate[J]. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2002, 14(3): 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    LI X B, LOK T S, ZHAO J, ZHAO P J. Oscillation elimination in the Hopkinson bar apparatus and resultant complete dynamic stress-strain curves for rocks[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2000, 37(7): 1055–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    GONG J C, MALVERN L E, JENKINS D A. Dispersion investigation in the split Hopkinson pressure bar[J]. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 1990, 112(3): 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    ZHAO Han, GERARD G. On the use of SHPB techniques to determine the dynamic behavior of materials in the range of small strains[J]. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1996, 33(23): 3363–3375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    LIFSHITZ J M, LEBER H. Data processing in the split Hopkinson pressure bar tests[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1994, 15(6): 723–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    LI Xi-bing, LIU De-shun, GU De-sheng. Effective method of eliminating the oscillation of rock dynamic stress-strain-strain rate curves[J]. J Cent South Univ Technol: Natural Science, 1995, 26(4): 457–460. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    LI Xi-bing, GU De-sheng, LAI Hai-hui. On the reasonable loading stress waveforms determined by dynamic stress-strain curves of rocks by SHPB[J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 1993, 13(2): 125–130. (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Central South University 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xi-bing Li (李夕兵)
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liang Hong (洪亮)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tu-bing Yin (尹土兵)
    • 1
  • Zi-long Zhou (周子龙)
    • 1
  • Zhou-yuan Ye (叶洲元)
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Resources and Safety EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringHunan City UniversityYiyangChina

Personalised recommendations