Advertisement

Experimental Techniques

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 57–64 | Cite as

Experimental Study on Dynamic Fracture Toughness of Compact Tension Specimens

  • G. Zou
  • C. Zhao
  • Z. ChangEmail author
  • W. Zhao
  • Y. Fan
  • S. Liu
  • B. Zhang
Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, the dynamic fracture toughness test of 2A12T4 aluminum alloy compact tension (CT) specimens is carried out by tensile stress waves, based on a Hopkinson experimental device. The crack propagation of the CT specimen is recorded by a high-speed camera. The dynamic fracture toughness of CT specimens with two different crack forms was studied by using the digital image correlation method and the strain gauge method. The study analyzed the CT specimen dynamic fracture toughness of different crack types, different thicknesses and prefabricated lengths were discussed. Research results indicate that, under the same loading conditions, the dynamic fracture toughness of prefabricated fatigue crack specimens is less than of the wire cutting gap specimens. With an increase in the length of fabricated fatigue crack, the dynamic fracture toughness decreases. The dynamic fracture toughness of 15 mm thick CT specimens is greater than that of 20 mm thick specimens.

Keywords

Hopkinson tensile bar Dynamic fracture toughness Compact tension specimen 2A12T4 aluminum alloy Digital image correlation 

Notes

Funding

Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.11372081,No.11602068) & Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.HEUCFM170203,HEUCFP201744,HEUCFP201762).

References

  1. 1.
    Chen WW, Song B (2011) Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar: design, testing and applications. In: Mechanical Engineering Series, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jiang F, Vecchio KS (2009) Hopkinson bar loaded fracture experimental technique: a critical review of dynamic fracture toughness tests [J]. Appl Mech Rev 62(6):060802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu F Y, Chen R, Lin Y L, et al. (2013) Hopkinson Bar Techniques. Sci Press, ISBN:9787030384348Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang QJ, Guo WG, Zuo HX et al (2013) Fracture toughness of ultra-strength steel 18NiC250 at different loading rates. Explo Shock Waves 33(3):238–242Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang XX, Liu RT (2003) Effect of loading rate on fracture toughness of a ship-building steel. Explo Shock Waves 23(1):47–50Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loya JA, Fernández-Sáez J (2008) Three-dimensional effects on the dynamic fracture determination of Al 7075-T651 using TPB specimens. Int J Solids Struct 45(7):2203–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zou GP, Chang ZL, Qu J et al (2011) Experimental study of dynamic fracture toughness of specimen subjected to compact tension under plane strain. J Exp Mech 26(3):240–246Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costin LS, Duffy J, Freund LB (1977) Fracture initiation in metals under stress wave loading conditions. ASTM Spec Tech Publ 627:301–318Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bassim MN, Bayoumi MR, Shum D (1987) Study of the variation of fracture toughness with loading rate using compact tension specimens. Eng Fract Mech 26(4):619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Owen DM, Zhuang S, Rosakis AJ et al (1998) Experimental determination of dynamic crack initiation and propagation fracture toughness in thin aluminum sheets. Int J Fract 90(1–2):153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zejian X, Yulong L (2012) A novel method in determination of dynamic fracture toughness under mixed mode I-II impact loading. Int J Solids Struct 49:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ASTM Standard E399–06.Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness KIC of Metallic Materials. ASTM International (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dally JW, Sanford RJ (1987) Strain-gage methods for measuring the opening-mode stress-intensity factor, KI. Exp Mech 27(4):381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dally JW, Barker DB (1988) Dynamic measurements of initiation toughness at high loading rates. Exp Mech 28(3):298–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASTM-E1823-07a.Standard Terminology: Relating to Fatigue and Fracture Testing[S]. ASTM International (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gao G, Yao W, Xia K et al (2015) Investigation of the rate dependence of fracture propagation in rocks using digital image correlation (DIC) method [J]. Eng Fract Mech 138:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Zou
    • 1
  • C. Zhao
    • 1
  • Z. Chang
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. Zhao
    • 2
  • Y. Fan
    • 1
  • S. Liu
    • 1
  • B. Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Aerospace and Civil EngineeringHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinChina
  2. 2.College of ScienceHeilongjiang University of Science and TechnologyHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations