Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 437–449 | Cite as

A Shear-Tension Specimen for Large Strain Testing

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A new shear-tension specimen (STS) is designed, evaluated and tested quasi-statically and dynamically. The specimen consists of a long cylinder having an inclined gauge section created by two diametrically opposed semi-circular slots which are machined at 45° with respect to the longitudinal axis. The geometry imposes stress condition within the gauge section which correspond to a Lode parameter of ~ −0.5, between pure shear (0) and uniaxial tension (−1). It thus provides a wider span of loading conditions for a material. A thorough numerical study reveals that the stresses and strains within the gauge are rather uniform, and the average Mises stress and plastic strain on the mid-section of the gauge represent the material true stress–strain characteristics. The data reduction technique to determine the stresses and strains is presented. Quasi-static and dynamic tests at strain rate of 104 1/s were carried out on specimens made of 1020 cold-rolled steel. No necking or softening was observed with this specimen, and the fracture location was always well within the gauge. The obtained stress–strain curves and ductility were validated numerically. The STS is a new specimen to study the combined influence of tension and shear on the mechanical characteristics of a material.

Keywords

Shear-tension specimen Large strain Dynamic load Steel 1020 Lode parameter Triaxiality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Mr. A. Reuven and Mr. Y. Rozitski’s assistance with the production of the specimens and conducting the experiments is greatly appreciated. We thank Professor Ishay Weissman for the discussions on statistical issues.

References

  1. 1.
    Bai Y, Wierzbicki T (2008) A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure and Lode dependence. Int J Plast 24:1071–1096CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mirone G, Corallo D (2010) A local viewpoint for evaluating the influence of stress triaxiality and Lode angle on ductile failure and hardening. Int J Plast 26:348–371CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 25:2366–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao X, Zhang T, Zhou J, Graham SM, Hayden M, Roe C (2011) On stress-state dependent plasticity modeling: significance of the hydrostatic stress, the third invariant of stress deviator and the non-associated flow rule. Int J Plast 27:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mirone G (2004) A new model for the elastoplastic characterization and the stress–strain determination on the necking section of a tensile specimen. Int J Plast 41:3545–3564MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joun M, Choi I, Eom J, Lee M (2007) Finite element analysis of tensile testing with emphasis on necking. Comput Mater Sci 41:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bridgman PW (1952) Studies in large plastic flow and fracture, vol 177. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabezas EE, Celentano DJ (2004) Experimental and numerical analysis of the tensile test using sheet specimens. Finite Elem Anal Des 40:555–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabezas EE, Celentano DJ (2002) Experimental and numerical analysis of the tensile test using sheet specimens. Meccanica Computacional XXI: 854–873. Idelson SR, Sonzogni VE, Cardona A (Eds.), Santa Fe-Parana, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koc P, Stok B (2004) Computer-aided identification of the yield curve of a sheet metal after onset of necking. Comput Mater Sci 31:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komori K (2002) Simulation of tensile test by node separation method. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:608–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang KS (1995) Fracture prediction and necking analysis. Eng Fract Mech 52:575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang ZL, Hauge M, Ødegard J, Thaulow C (1999) Determining material true stress–strain curve from tensile specimens with rectangular cross-section. Int J Solids Struct 36:3497–3516CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joun M, Eom J, Lee M (2008) A new method for acquiring true stress–strain curves over a large range of strains using a tensile test and finite element method. Mech Mater 40:586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rotbaum Y, Osovski S, Rittel D (2015) Why does necking ignore notches in dynamic tension? J Mech Phys Solids, accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rittel D, Lee S, Ravichandran G (2002) A shear compression specimen for large strain testing. Exp Mech 42:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2005) Numerical validation of the Shear Compression Specimen (SCS). Part I: quasi-static large strain testing. Exp Mech 45:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2005) Numerical validation of the Shear Compression Specimen (SCS). Part II: dynamic large strain testing. Exp Mech 45:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dorogoy A, Rittel D (2006) A numerical study of the applicability of the shear compression specimen to parabolic hardening materials. Exp Mech 46:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rittel D, Lee S, Ravichandran G (2002) Large strain constitutive behavior of OFHC copper over a wide range of strain-rates using the shear compression specimen. Mech Mater 34:627–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 34:2873–2885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 35:3787–3795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhattacharyya A, Rittel D, Ravichandran G (2005) Effect of strain rate on deformation texture of OFHC copper. Scr Mater 52:657–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rittel D, Wang ZG, Merzer M (2006) Adiabatic shear failure and dynamic stored energy of cold work. Phys Rev Lett 96: 075502–1: 075502–4Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rittel D, Wang ZG, Dorogoy A (2008) Geometrical imperfection and adiabatic shear banding. Int J Impact Eng 35:1280–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rittel D, Wang Z (2008) Thermo-mechanical aspects of adiabatic shear failure of AM60 and Ti6Al4V alloys. Mech Mater 40:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ames M, Grewer M, Braun C, Birringer R (2012) Nanocrystalline metals go ductile under shear deformation. Mater Sci Eng A 546:248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dorogoy A, Rittel D, Godinger A (2015) Modification of the shear-compression specimen for large strain testing. Exp Mech 55(9):1627–1639Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abaqus/CAE version 6.14-2 (2014). Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dolinski M, Rittel D, Dorogoy A (2010) Modeling adiabatic shear failure from energy considerations. J Mech Phys Solids 58:1759–1775CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barsoum I, Faleskog J (2007) Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear—Experiments. Int J Solids Struct 44:1768–1786CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abaqus/CAE version 6.14-2 (2014) Abaqus documentation. Abaqus analysis user’s manual. Chapter 24: Progressive Damage and Failure. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yang X, Hector LG, Wang J (2014) A combined theoretical/experimental approach for reducing ringing artifacts in low dynamic testing with servo-hydraulic load frames. Exp Mech 54:775–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations