Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Strain-Rate Sensitivity of Nanocrystalline Cu–10Ta to 700,000/s

  • 53 Accesses

Abstract

Several miniature Kolsky bars are used to obtain stress–strain curves for nanocrystalline Cu–10Ta over a range of high strain-rates. The smallest bar (steel) has a 305 μm diameter, and achieved rates up to 700 × 103/s. Different sample sizes are needed to obtain different strain-rates, and it is shown that there is no appreciable sample size effect when different sizes are tested at similar strain-rates, even though the sample sizes vary by over an order of magnitude. No significant increase in strain-rate sensitivity is noted over the strain-rate range studied, i.e., the strength increases linearly with the logarithm of strain-rate from 0.001/s to 700 × 103/s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Notes

  1. 1.

    One can also use a bar with a smaller Poisson’s ratio, e.g., Bateman et al. [23].

  2. 2.

    The exact theory assumes an infinitely long bar, but is assumed to apply to the free-end measurements made here. However there does not seem to be much error at least up to 7.5 MHz.

  3. 3.

    This is not due to any equilibrium problems in the sample, which may also be the case, i.e., a stress–strain curve may not be valid for low strains due to the need for the sample to “ring-up” to an adequate state of equilibrium.

  4. 4.

    Note the use of a low-impedance striker results in it rebounding back into the barrel—this may pose a hazard in some gun systems.

References

  1. 1.

    Darling KA et al (2014) Microstructure and mechanical properties of bulk nanostructured Cu–Ta alloys consolidated by equal channel angular extrusion. Acta Mater 76:168–185

  2. 2.

    Darling KA, Rajagopalan M, Komarasamy M, Bhatia MA, Hornbuckle BC, Mishra RS, Solanki KN (2016) Extreme creep resistance in a microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloy. Nature 537:378–381

  3. 3.

    Turnage SA, Rajagopalan M, Darling KA, Garg P, Kale C, Bazehhour BG, Adlakha I, Hornbuckle BC, Williams CL, Peralta P, Solanki KN (2018) Anomalous mechanical behavior of nanocrystalline binary alloys under extreme conditions. Nat Commun 9:2699

  4. 4.

    Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc R Soc Lond B62:679–700

  5. 5.

    Chen W, Song B (2011) Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar. Mechanical engineering series. Springer, New York

  6. 6.

    Follansbee PS (1985) “The Hopkinson bar”, metals handbook, vol 8(9). American Society for Metals, Metals Park, pp 198–217

  7. 7.

    Taylor GI (1948) The use of flat-ended projectiles for determining dynamic yield stress I. Theoretical considerations. Proc R Soc Lond 194:289

  8. 8.

    House JW, Lewis JC, Gillis PP, Wilson LL (1995) Estimation of flow stress under high rate plastic deformation. Int J Impact Eng 16:189–200

  9. 9.

    Follansbee PS (2001) In: Murr LE, Staudhammer KP, Meyeres MA (eds) Metallurgical applications of shock-wave and high strain-rate phenomena. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, p 451

  10. 10.

    Jordan JL, Siviour CR, Sunny G et al (2013) Strain rate-dependent mechanical properties of OFHC copper. J Mater Sci 48:7134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-013-7529-9

  11. 11.

    Couque H (2014) The use of the direct impact Hopkinson pressure bar technique to describe thermally activated and viscous regimes of metallic materials. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 372:20130218–20130218. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0218

  12. 12.

    Lea LJ, Jardine AP (2018) Characterisation of high rate plasticity in the uniaxial deformation of high purity copper at elevated temperatures. Int J Plast 102:41–52

  13. 13.

    Mao ZN, An XH, Liao XZ, Wang JT (2018) Opposite grain size dependence of strain rate sensitivity of copper at low vs high strain rates. Mater Sci Eng, A 738:430–438

  14. 14.

    Kamler F, Niessen P, Pick RJ (1995) Measurement of the behavior of high purity copper at very high rates of strain. Can J Phys 73:295–303

  15. 15.

    Rittel D, Bhattacharyya A, Poon B, Zhao J, Ravichandran G (2007) Thermomechanical characterization of pure polycrystalline tantalum. Mater Sci Eng, A 447:65–70

  16. 16.

    Casem DT, Grunschel SE, Schuster BE (2012) Normal and transverse displacement interferometers applied to small diameter Kolsky bars. Exp Mech 52(2):173–184

  17. 17.

    Huskins EL, Casem DT (2015) Compensation of bending waves in an optically instrumented miniature Kolsky bar. J Dyn Behav Mater 1:65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-015-0006-6

  18. 18.

    Gorham DA (1979) Measurements of stress-strain properties of strong metals at very high rates of strain. In: Proceedings of the conference on mechanical properties at high rates of strain, conference no. 47, Oxford, 16 March 1979

  19. 19.

    Gorham DA, Pope PH, Field JE (1992) An improved method for compressive stress-strain measurements at very high strain-rates. Proc R Soc Lond A 438:153–170

  20. 20.

    Safford NA (1992) Materials testing up to 105/s using a miniaturized Hopkinson bar with dispersion corrections. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on intense dynamic loading and its effects, Sichuan University Press, Chengdu, China, p 378

  21. 21.

    Jia D, Ramesh KT (2004) A rigorous assessment of the benefits of miniaturization in the Kolsky bar system. Exp Mech 44:445–454

  22. 22.

    Malinowski JZ, Klepaczko JR, Kowalewski ZL (2007) Miniaturized compression test at very high strain rates by direct impact. Exp Mech 47:451–463

  23. 23.

    Bateman V, Brown F, Davie N (1996) Use of a beryllium Hopkinson bar to characterize a piezoresistive accelerometer in shock environments. J IES 39(6):33–39

  24. 24.

    Kim KS, Clifton RJ, Kumar P (1977) Combined normal displacement and transverse-displacement interferometer with an application to impact of y-cut quartz. J App Phys 48(10):4132–4139

  25. 25.

    Clifton RJ, Klopp RW (1985) “Pressure-shear plate impact testing”, metals handbook, vol 8, 9th edn. American Society for Metals, Metals Park, pp 230–239

  26. 26.

    Liu C (2005) On the minimum size of representative volume element: an experimental investigation. Exp Mech 45:238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02427947

  27. 27.

    Casem DT, Weerasooriya T, Walter TR (2018) Mechanical behavior of a low-cost Ti–6Al–4 V alloy. J Dyn Behav Mater 4(1):138

  28. 28.

    Casem DT, Ligda JP, Schuster BE, Mims S (2018) High-rate mechanical response of aluminum using miniature Kolsky bar techniques. In: Kimberley J, Lamberson L, Mates S (eds) Dynamic behavior of materials, vol 1. Conference proceedings of the society for experimental mechanics series. Springer, Cham

  29. 29.

    Grunschel SE, Clifton RJ, Jiao T (2011) Shearing resistance of aluminum at high strain rates and at temperatures approaching melt. In: Elert ML, Buttler WT, Borg JP et al (eds) Shock compression of condensed matter, 2011, AIP conference proceedings, vol 1426, 2012

  30. 30.

    Echlin MP, Titus MS, Straw M, Gumbsch P, Pollock TM (2017) Materials response to glancing incidence femtosecond laser ablation. Acta Mater 124:37–46

  31. 31.

    Gamaly EG, Rode AV, Luther-Davies B, Tikhonchuk VT (2002) Ablation of solids by femtosecond lasers: ablation mechanism and ablation thresholds for metals and dielectrics. Phys Plasmas 9:949–957

  32. 32.

    Kumar A, Pollock TM (2011) Mapping of femtosecond laser-induced collateral damage by electron backscatter diffraction. J Appl Phys 110:083114

  33. 33.

    Gorham DA (1983) A numerical method for the correction of dispersion in pressure bar signals. J Phys E: Sci Instrum 16:477–479

  34. 34.

    Follansbee PS, Franz C (1983) Wave propagation in the split-Hopkinson pressure bar. J Eng Mater Technol 105:61

  35. 35.

    Gong JC, Malvern LE, Jenkins DA (1990) Dispersion investigation in the split-Hopkinson pressure bar. J Eng Mater Technol 112:309–314

  36. 36.

    Bacon C (1998) An experimental method for considering dispersion and attenuation in a viscoelastic Hopkinson bar. Exp Mech 38(4):242–249

  37. 37.

    Ames RG (2006) Limitations of the Hopkinson pressure bar for high-frequency measurements. AIP Conf Proc 845:1233. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2263547

  38. 38.

    Davies EDH, Hunter SC (1963) The dynamic compression testing of solids by the method of the split Hopkinson pressure bar. J Mech Phys Solids 11:155–179

  39. 39.

    Lloyd J (2019) High-rate dislocation motion in stable nanocrystalline metals. J Mater Res. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2019.59

  40. 40.

    Rosenberg Z, Kositski R, Ashuach Y, Leus V, Malka-Markovitz A (2019) On the upturn phenomenon in the strength vs. strain-rate relations of metals. Int J Solids Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2019.06.015

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to D. Casem.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Casem, D., Ligda, J., Walter, T. et al. Strain-Rate Sensitivity of Nanocrystalline Cu–10Ta to 700,000/s. J. dynamic behavior mater. 6, 24–33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-019-00223-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • High Rate Testing
  • Kolsky Bar
  • Metal Plasticity