Experimental Mechanics

, 51:1545 | Cite as

A Shear Compression Disk Specimen with Controlled Stress Triaxiality under Quasi-Static Loading

  • A. DorogoyEmail author
  • B. Karp
  • D. Rittel


This paper introduces a double shear axisymmetric specimen (Shear Compression Disk) and the methodology to extract flow and fracture properties of ductile materials, under various stress triaxiality levels. A thorough numerical investigation of the experimental set-up is performed, which reveals that the stresses are quite uniformly distributed in the gauge section during all the stages of the test. The attainable level of stress triaxiality (with pressures of up to 1.9 GPa) ranges from −0.1 to 1, which can be adjusted by a proper choice of geometrical parameters of the specimen. The methodology is implemented to quasi-static experiments on 4340 Steel and Aluminum 7075-T651 specimens. The flow properties are compared to those obtained by upsetting cylinders and show a very good agreement. For these materials it is observed that, contrary to the fracture strain, the flow properties are quite insensitive to the level of stress triaxiality. The fracture strain of the aluminum alloy increases with triaxiality and may be fitted with an exponential polynomial of the type suggested by [27]. These examples demonstrate the potential of the new specimen to obtain flow and fracture properties of ductile materials under controlled triaxiality.


Triaxiality Ductile fracture Flow properties Finite elements Quasi-static loading 



Financial support from Vatat (2013152) is greatly acknowledged. The authors wish to thank A. Amon and A. Reuven (Materials Mechanics Center) for their dedicated technical assistance.

Supplementary material

11340_2011_9482_MOESM1_ESM.doc (4 mb)
Experimental mechanics (DOC 4.03MB)



(MPEG 804KB)


(MPEG 1.19MB)


  1. 1.
    Che HY, Zhu L, Sun DZ, Chen JH, Zhu H (2007) Characterization and modeling of aluminum extrusion damage under crash loading. Thin Wall Struct 45:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu MH (2004) Unified Strength Theory and its Applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rittel D, Lee S, Ravichandran G (2002) A shear compression specimen for large strain testing. Exp Mechs 42:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2005) Numerical validation of the shear compression specimen. Part I: quasi-static large strain testing. Exp Mech 45(2):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer LW, Manwaring S (1986) Critical adiabatic shear strength of low alloyed steel under compressive loading. Metallurgical applications of shock-wave and high-strain-rate phenomena. Dekker, New York, pp 657–673Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Couque H (2003) A hydrodynamic hat specimen to investigate pressure and strain rate dependence on adiabatic shear band formation. Journal de Physique IV 110:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Couque H (2005) Dynamic compression failure of two metals at 0.5 and 1.5 GPa. Computational Ballistics II 2005. WIT Press pp 239–248Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gu Y, Nesterenko VF (2007) Dynamic behavior of HIPed Ti–6Al–4 V. Int J Impact Eng 34:771–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mishra A, Martin M, Thadhani NN, Kad BK, Kenik EA, Meyers MA (2008) High-strain-rate response of ultra-fine-grained copper. Acta Mater 56:2770–2783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rusinek A, Klepaczko JR (2001) Shear testing of a sheet steel at wide range of strain rates and a constitutive relation with strain-rate and temperature dependence of the flow stress. Int J Plasticity 17:87–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li QM, Jones N (2002) Response and failure of a double-shear beam subjected to mass impact. Int J Solids Struct 39:1919–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guduru RK, Darling KA, Scattergood RO, Koch CC, Murty KL (2007) Mechanical properties of electrodeposited nanocrystalline copper using tensile and shear punch tests. J Mater Sci 42:5581–5588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mae H (2009) Characterization of material ductility of PP/EPR/talc blend under wide range of stress triaxiality at intermediate and high strain rates. J Appl Polim Sci 111:854–868Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bridgman PW (1952) Studies in large plastic flow and fracture with special emphasis on the effects of hydrostatic pressure. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hancock JW, Mackenzie AC (1976) On the mechanisms of ductile failure in hig-strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress-states. J Mech Phys Solids 24:147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hopperstad OS, Børvik T, Langseth M, Labibes K, Albertini C (2003) On the influence of stress triaxiality and strain rate on the behaviour of a structural steel Part I: experiments. Eur J Mech A-Solid 22:1–13zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mirone G (2007) Role of stress triaxiality in elastoplastic characterization and ductile failure prediction. Eng Fract Mech 74:1203–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mirone G (2008) Elastoplastic characterization and damage predictions under evolving local triaxiality: axysimmetric and thick plate specimens. Mech Mater 40:685–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brünig M, Chyra O, Albrecht D, Driemeier L, Alves M (2008) A ductile damage criterion at various stress triaxialities. Int J Plasticity 24:1731–1755zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larose J, Lewandowski JJ (2002) Pressure effects on flow and fracture of Be-Al alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 33A:3555–3564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alves M, Jones N (1999) Infuence of hydrostatic stress on failure of axisymmetric notched specimens. J MechH Phys Solids 47:643–667zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewandowski JJ, Lowhaphandu P (1998) Effects of hydrostatic pressure on mechanical behaviour and deformation processing of materials. Int Mater Rev 43(4):145–187Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferguson WG, Hauser FE, Dorn JE (1967) Dislocation damping in zinc single crystals. Brit J Appl Phys 18:411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klepaczko JR (2001) Remarks on impact shearing. J Mech Phys Solids 46(10):1028–1042Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abaqus/CAE 6.9-EF1 (2009) Finite element package Dassault Systemes Simulia corp.Providence, RI, USA.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bao Y, Wierzbicki T (2004) A comparative study on various ductile crack formation criteria. J Eng Mater-T ASME 126:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson G, Cook W (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates and temperatures. Eng Fract Mech 21:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations