Advertisement

International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 169, Issue 1, pp 77–84 | Cite as

Size effect on the contact state between fracture specimen and supports in Hopkinson bar loaded fracture test

  • Chunhuan Guo
  • Fengchun Jiang
  • Ruitang Liu
  • Yang Yang
Original Paper

Abstract

To thoroughly understand the dynamic behavior of a fracture specimen under stress wave loading, dynamic fracture test with various three-point bend (3PB) specimens are performed on the Hopkinson bar loaded experimental apparatus. The contact state between the fracture specimen and supports during the loading process is examined via stress wave propagation analysis. The experimental results show that the fracture specimen with usual dimensions does not keep contact with supports in the initial loading stage, i.e. a loss of contact phenomenon occurred. The specimen dimensions and the span of the loading apparatus are important factors affecting specimen’s contact state. The loss of contact is more obvious with increasing span under the same specimen dimensions. Conversely, the loss of contact gradually disappears with increasing specimen length or increasing width under a fixed span. Based on experimental investigations, a criterion is established to ensure the fracture specimen keep in contact with supports during dynamic fracture test.

Keywords

Hopkinson bar Dynamic fracture test Three-point bend specimen Loss of contact 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bacon C, Farm J, Lataillade JL (1994) Dynamic fracture toughness determined from load-point displacement. Exp Mech 34: 217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böhme W, Kalthoff JF (1982) The behavior of notched bend specimens in impact testing. Int J Fract 20: R139–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhme W (1990) Dynamic key-curves for brittle fracture impact tests and establishment of a transition time. In: Gudas JP et al (eds) Fracture mechanics: twenty-first symposium. ASTM STP1074, pp 144–155Google Scholar
  4. Crouch BA (1993) Finite element modeling of the three-point bend impact test. Comput Struct 48: 167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Irfan MA, Prakash V (2000) Dynamic deformation and fracture behavior of novel damage tolerant discontinuously reinforced aluminum composites. Int J Solids Struct 37: 4477–4507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jiang FCh, Rohatgi AA, Vecchio KS, Cheney JL (2004) Analysis of the dynamic response for a pre-cracked three-point bend specimen. Int J Fract 127: 147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jiang FCh, Vecchio SK (2007) Experimental investigation of dynamic effects in a two-bar/three-point bend fracture test. Rev Scienti Instrum 78: 063903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jiang FCh, Vecchio SK (2007) Dynamic effects in Hopkinson bar four-point bend fracture. Metallurgical Mater Trans 38: 2896–2905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang FCh, Vecchio SK (2009) Hopkinson bar loaded fracture experimental technique: a critical review of dynamic fracture toughness test. Appl Mech Rev 7: 1–39Google Scholar
  10. Johnstone C, Ruiz C (1995) Dynamic testing of ceramics under tensile stress. Int J Solids Struct 32: 2647–2656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalthoff JF (1985) On the measurement of dynamic fracture toughness—a review of recent work. Int J Fract 27: 277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marur PR (1996) On the effects of higher vibration modes in the analysis of three point bend testing. Int J Fract 77: 367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marur PR (1998) Charpy specimen-a simply supported beam or a constrained free-free beam. Eng Fract Mech 61: 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyers AM (1994) Dynamic behavior of materials. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, pp 488–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nishioka T, Perl M, Atluri SN (1983) An analysis of dynamic fracture in an impact test specimen. J Press Vessel Technol 105: 124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Orynyak IV, Krasowsky AJA (1998) The modeling of elastic response of a three-point bend specimen under impact loading. Eng Fract Mech 60: 563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peuser T (1983) Dynamic analysis of impact test specimens. International conference on application of fracture mechanics to materials and structure, pp 455–464Google Scholar
  18. Popelar CH, Walker JD, Anderson CE, Johnson GR Jr, Beissel SR (1999) Penetrator case fracture predictive technology: volume I-dynamic fracture mechanics methodology. AFRL-MN-EG-TR-1999-7054, Air Force Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  19. Popelar CH, Anderson CE Jr, Nagy A (2000) An experimental method for determining dynamic fracture toughness. Exp Mech 40: 401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rader D, Mao M (1972) Amplification of longitudinal stress pulse in elastic bars with an intermediate tapered region. Exp Mech 2: 90–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raman PS, Venkitanarayanan P (2003) An experimental investigation of dynamic crack propagation in a brittle material reinforced with a ductile layer. Opt Lasers Eng 40: 289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rittel D, Pineal A, Clisson J, Rota L (2002) On testing of charpy specimens using the one-point bend impact technique. Exp Mech 42: 247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rizal S, Homma H, Nazer M, Kishida E (2002) Experimental approach to dimple fracture mechanisms under short pulse loading. Eng Fract Mech 69: 1377–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruiz C, Mines RAW (1985) The Hopkinson pressure bar: an alternative to the instrumented pendulum for Charpy tests. Int J Fract 29: 101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubio L, Fernández-Sáez J, Navarro C (2003) Determination of dynamic fracture-initiation toughness using three-point bending tests in a modified Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 43: 379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yokoyama T (1993) Determination of dynamic fracture-initiation toughness using a novel impact bend test procedure. J Press Vessel Technol 115: 389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunhuan Guo
    • 1
  • Fengchun Jiang
    • 1
  • Ruitang Liu
    • 1
  • Yang Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Materials Science & Chemical EngineeringHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations