Piezoresistance Response of Different Batches of Ytterbium Foils

  • N. S. Brar
  • Y. M. Gupta


The piezoresistance response of ytterbium and manganin has been the subject of several recent papers by Gupta and coworkers.1–7 Although these materials have also been studied by others,8–10 the work in Ref. 1–7 has several novel features: (i) an electro-mechanical model to include gauge plasticity, (ii) gauge-matrix interaction analysis treating the gauge as an elastic-plastic inclusion, (iii) development of a quasi-static method to measure the electro-mechanical constants for the gauge material, (iv) dynamic experiments, designed to conform to the requirements of the theoretical analysis, (v) correlation between quasi-static and dynamic experiments, and (vi) modeling the results, including gauge hysteresis, observed in dynamic experiments.


Fuse Silica Resistance Change Dynamic Experiment PMMA Matrix Target Assembly 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Y.M. Gupta, D.D. Keough, D. Henley and D.F. Walter, Appl. Phys. Lett. 37: 395 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y.M Gupta, J. Appl. Phys. 54: 6094 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y.M. Gupta, J. Appl. Phys. 54: 6256 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.Y. Chen, Y.M. Gupta, and MH. Miles, J. Appl. Phys. 55: 3984 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.C. Gupta and Y.M. Gupta, J. Appl. Phys. 57: 2464 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.C. Gupta and Y.M. Gupta, submitted to J. Appl. Phys.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.C. Gupta and Y.M. Gupta, Proceedings of the Fourth Topical Conference on Shock Waves in Condensed Matter, Spokane, Washington, (July 22-25, 1985); see this volume.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Barsis, E. Williams, and C. Skoog, J. Appl. Phys. 41: 5155 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. E. Grady and M.J. Ginsberg, J. Appl. Phys. 48: 2179 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Rosenberg, D. Yaziv, and Y. Partom, J. Appl. Phys. 51: 3702 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L.M. Barker and R.E. Hollenbach, J. Appl. Phys. 41: 4208 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.S. DeCarli, Private communication (1984). Resistance measurements by Aidun and DeCarli on different batches, comparable to ours, yield nearly identical values. These results lead us to infer that the hydrostatic measurements are not sensitive to small variations between batches.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. S. Brar
    • 1
  • Y. M. Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.Shock Dynamics Laboratory, Department of PhysicsWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations