A Study on the Effects of Specimen Geometry on Measurement Accuracy of Dynamic Constitutive Properties of Metals Using SHTB

Abstract

Determination of dynamic tensile response of materials has been a challenge because of experimental difficulty. The split Hopkinson tensile bar (SHTB) is one of the most widely used devices for characterization of various materials under dynamic-tensile loading conditions. Since one-dimensional wave propagation in bars is disturbed by specimens and grips, however, SHTB measurement accuracy may not be guaranteed. This means that the stress–strain curve of the specimen that is calculated using strains at bars may not indicate the real stress–strain relation of the specimen. In this study, simulations for the SHTB test were carried out to investigate the effects of thread pitch, specimen length, specimen diameter, and thread inner diameter of the specimen on the measurement accuracy for two types of metals with medium and high yield strengths. Finally, specimen shapes are recommended for accurate measurement of the stress–strain relation of tantalum and tungsten carbide.

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
Fig. 13

References

  1. 1.

    Kolsky, H. (1949). An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proceedings of the Physical Society B,62(11), 676–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Duffy, J., Campbell, J. D., & Hawley, R. H. (1971). On the use of a torsional split Hopkinson bar to study rate effects in 1100–0 Aluminum. Journal of Applied Mechanics,38(1), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gilat, A., & Cheng, C. S. (2000). Torsional split Hopkinson bar tests at strain rates above 104s–1. Experimental Mechanics,40(1), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Harding, J., Wood, E. O., & Campbell, J. D. (1960). Tensile testing of materials at impact rates of strain. Journal Mechanical Engineering Science,2(2), 88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hauser, F. (1966). Techniques for measuring stress-strain relations at high strain rates. Experimental Mechanics,6(8), 395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ogawa, K. (1984). Impact-tension compression test by using a split-Hopkinson bar. Experimental Mechanics,24(2), 81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lei, N., & Xu, D. (2017). Deformation temperature and material constitutive model of cupronickel B10. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,31(8), 3761–3767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Johnson, G. R., Cook, W. H. (1983). A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures. In Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on ballistics, The Hague, Netherlands, 19–21 April, pp. 541–547.

  9. 9.

    Shin, H., & Kim, J.-B. (2016). Understanding the anomalously long duration time of the transmitted pulse from a soft specimen in a kolsky bar experiment. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,17(2), 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chunzheng, D., Fangyuan, Z., Siwei, Q., Wei, S., & Minjie, W. (2018). Modeling of dynamic recrystallization in white layer in dry hard cutting by finite element-cellular automaton method. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,32(9), 4299–4312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kim, J. T., Sakong, J., Woo, S.-C., Kim, J.-Y., & Kim, T.-W. (2018). Determination of the damage mechanisms in armor structural materials via self-organizing map analysis. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,32(1), 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lindholm, U. S., & Yeakley, L. M. (1968). High strain-rate testing: Tension and compression. Experimental Mechanics,8(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Staab, G. H., & Gillet, A. (1991). A direct-tension split Hopkinson bar for high strain-rate testing. Experimental Mechanics,31(3), 232–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bang, H., & Cho, C. (2017). Failure behavior/characteristics of fabric reinforced polymer matrix composite and aluminum6061 on dynamic tensile loading. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,31(8), 3661–3664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Huh, H., Kang, W. J., & Han, S. S. (2002). A tension split Hopkinson bar for investigating the dynamic behavior of sheet metal. Experimental Mechanics,42(1), 8–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Nicholas, T. (1981). Tensile testing of materials at high rates of strain. Experimental Mechanics,21(5), 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pham, T. N., Choi, H. S., & Kim, J.-B. (2013). A numerical investigation into the tensile split Hopkinson pressure bars test for sheet metals. Applied Mechanics and Materials,421, 464–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nguyen, K. H., Kim, H. C., Shin, H., Yoo, Y.-H., & Kim, J.-B. (2017). Numerical investigation into the stress wave transmitting characteristics of threads in the split Hopkinson tensile bar test. International Journal of Impact Engineering,109, 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Prabowo, D. A., Kariem, M. A., & Gunawan, L. (2017). The effect of specimen dimension on the results of the Split-Hopkinson tension bar testing. Procedia Engineering,173, 608–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Nguyen, K. H. (2018). Numerical investigation into the stress wave transmitting characteristics of threads and specimen design in the split Hopkinson tensile bar test, Ph. D. thesis, Seoul National University of Science and Technology.

  21. 21.

    Owolabi, G., Odoh, D., Odeshi, A., & Whitworth, H. (2013). Occurrence of dynamic shear bands in AISI 4340 steel under impact loads. World Journal of Mechanics,3, 139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Yoo, Y.-H., Paik, S. H., Kim, J.-B., & Shin, H. (2013). Performance of a flying cross bar to incapacitate a long-rod penetrator based on a finite element model. Engineering with Computers,29(4), 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kim, J.-B., & Shin, H. (2009). Comparison of plasticity models for tantalum and a modification of the PTW model for wide ranges of strain, strain rate, and temperature. International Journal of Impact Engineering,36(5), 746–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cha, S.-H., Shin, H., & Kim, J.-B. (2010). Numerical Investigation of Frictional Effects and Compensation of Frictional Effects in Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) Test. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers, A,34(5), 511–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Maudlin, P. J., Bingert, J. F., House, J. W., & Chen, S. R. (1999). On the modeling of the Taylor cylinder impact test for orthotropic textured materials: experiments and simulations. International Journal Plasticity,15(2), 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Nemat-Nasser, S., & Isaacs, J. (1997). Direct measurement of isothermal flow stress of metals at elevated temperatures and high strain rates with application to Ta and Ta–W alloys. Acta Materialia,45(3), 907–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (Ministry of Education) (No. NRF-2016R1D1A1B01014711) and by the research fund of the Survivability Technology Defense Research Center of the Agency for Defense Development of Korea (No. UE161102GD).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hyunho Shin or Jong-Bong Kim.

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

Nguyen, K., Lee, C., Shin, H. et al. A Study on the Effects of Specimen Geometry on Measurement Accuracy of Dynamic Constitutive Properties of Metals Using SHTB. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-020-00368-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Split hopkinson tensile bar
  • High strain rate
  • Tantalum
  • Tungsten carbide