Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modification of the Shear-Compression Specimen for Large Strain Testing

  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A modified shear-compression specimen (SCS), for large strain testing over a wide range of strain rates is presented. The original SCS design includes two rectangular slots that are machined at 45° with respect to the longitudinal axis. The modification consists of creating two diametrically opposed semi-circular slots. The new “circular” specimen is first thoroughly investigated numerically under quasi-static and dynamic loading using an elasto-plastic material model. The results of the comparison between the two-slot designs confirm the feasibility of the new specimen for larger strain testing and indicates its advantages over the rectangular slot design: larger strain range characterization, failure and fracture within the gauge, and constant Lode parameter during plastic deformation. Both types of SCS as well as cylindrical specimens are used to characterize the flow behavior of steel 1020, in the quasi-static and dynamic regimes using a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Dog-bone specimens are also tested quasi-statically in tension. A very good agreement is achieved for the results of all specimens in both the quasi-static and dynamic regimes. The numerical validation procedure shows that the flow stress of 1020 steel obtained with the new SCS is ~3 % lower in the quasi-static regime, and 8 % lower in the dynamic regime with respect to the flow stress of the rectangular SCS. This difference is attributed to effect of the third invariant of the stress deviator (i.e., Lode parameter), which is considerably lower in the new SCS design.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rittel D, Lee S, Ravichandran G (2002) A shear compression specimen for large strain testing. Exp Mech 42:58–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2005) Numerical validation of the Shear Compression Specimen (SCS). Part I: Quasi-static large strain testing. Exp Mech 45:167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2005) Numerical validation of the Shear Compression Specimen (SCS). Part II: Dynamic large strain testing. Exp Mech 45:178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2006) A numerical study of the applicability of the Shear Compression Specimen to parabolic hardening materials. Exp Mech 46:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rittel D, Lee S, Ravichandran (2002) Large strain constitutive behavior of OFHC copper over a wide range of strain-rates using the shear compression specimen. Mech Mater 34:627–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vural M, Rittel D, Ravichandran G (2003) Large strain mechanical behavior of 1018 cold-rolled steel over a wide range of strain rates. Metall Mater Trans A 34:2873–2885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rittel D, Levin R, Dorogoy A (2004) On the isotropy of the dynamic mechanical and failure properties of swaged tungsten heavy alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 35:3787–3795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhattacharyya A, Rittel D, Ravichandran G (2005) Effect of strain rate on deformation texture of OFHC copper. Scr Mater 52:657–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rittel D, Wang ZG, Merzer M (2006) Adiabatic shear failure and dynamic stored energy of cold work. Phys Rev Lett 96(075502–1):075502–075504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rittel D, Wang ZG, Dorogoy A (2008) Geometrical imperfection and adiabatic shear banding. Int J Impact Eng 35:1280–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rittel D, Wang Z (2008) Thermo-mechanical aspects of adiabatic shear failure of AM60 and Ti6Al4V alloys. Mech Mater 40:629–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ames M, Grewer M, Braun C, Birringer R (2012) Nanocrystalline metals go ductile under shear deformation Mater. Sci Eng A 546:248–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao J, Knauss WG, Ravichandran G (2009) A new shear-compression-specimen for determining quasistatic and dynamic polymer properties. Exp Mech 49:427–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alkhader M, Knauss WG, Ravichandran G (2011) The influence of pressure on the large deformation shear response of a Polyurea. Conf Proc Soc Exp Mech Ser 3:287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vural M, Molinari A, Bhattacharyya N (2011) Analysis of slot orientation in shear-compression specimen (SCS). Exp Mech 51:263–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Osovski S, Rittel D, Landau P, Venkert A (2012) Microstructural effects on adiabatic shear band formation. Scr Mater 66:9–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dolinski M, Rittel D, Dorogoy A (2010) Modeling adiabatic shear failure from energy considerations. J Mech Phys Solids 58:1759–1775

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Abaqus, 2012. Finite element package, v6.12–2, Dassault Systemes, Simulia Corp., Providence, RI

  19. Barsoum I, Faleskog J (2007) Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear -Experiments. Int J Solids Struct 44:1768–1786

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Bai Y, Wierzbicki T (2008) A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure and Lode dependence. Int J Plast 24:1071–1096

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Barsoum I, Faleskog J (2007) Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear - Micromechanics. Int J Solids Struct 44:5481–5498

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gao X, Zhang T, Hayden M, Roe C (2009) Effects of the stress state on plasticity and ductile failure of an aluminum 5083 alloy. Int J Plast 25:2366–2382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keshavarz A, Ghajar R, Mirone G (2014) A new experimental failure model based on triaxiality factor and Lode angle for X-100 pipe line steel. Int J Mech Sci 80:175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pivonka P, Willam K (2003) The effect of the third invariant in computational plasticity. Eng Comput 20:741–753

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. MATLAB R (2013b) The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA 01760–2098, USA

  26. Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc London 62-B:676–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Abaqus/CAE version 6.12-2 (2009). Abaqus documentation Abaqus analysis user’s manual. Dassault systemes. Springer, New York, Chapter 24: Progressive Damage and Failure

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, 32000, Haifa, Israel

    A. Dorogoy, D. Rittel & A. Godinger

Authors
  1. A. Dorogoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Rittel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Godinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Dorogoy.

Appendix

Appendix

Detailed dynamic experimental results.

Fig. 24

Fig. 24
figure 24

Stress–strain results of five cylindrical specimens impacted in a SHPB. The average strain–stress curve which was used in the text is emphasized

Full size image

Fig. 25

Fig. 25
figure 25

Stress–strain results of four rectangular gauge SCS’s impacted in a SHPB. The average strain–stress curve which was used in the text is emphasized

Full size image

Fig. 26

Fig. 26
figure 26

Stress–strain results of five circular gauge SCS’s impacted in a SHPB. The average strain–stress curve which was used in the text is emphasized

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dorogoy, A., Rittel, D. & Godinger, A. Modification of the Shear-Compression Specimen for Large Strain Testing. Exp Mech 55, 1627–1639 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-015-0057-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-015-0057-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation