Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determination of Early Flow Stress for Ductile Specimens at High Strain Rates by Using a SHPB

  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a dynamic experiment to obtain the high-rate stress–strain response of a ductile specimen, it takes a finite amount of time for the strain rate in the specimen to increase from zero to a desired level. The strain in the specimen accumulates during this strain-rate ramping time. If the desired strain rate is high, the specimen may yield before the desired rate is attained. In this case, the strain rates at yielding and early plastic flow are lower than the desired value, leading to inaccurate determination of the yield strength. Through experimentation and analysis, we examined the validity and accuracy of the flow stresses for ductile materials in a split Hopkinson pressure (SHPB) bar experiment. The upper strain-rate limit for determining the dynamic yield strength of ductile materials with a SHPB is identified.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zukas JA, Nicholas T, Swift HF, Greszczuk LB, Curran DR (1992) Impact dynamics. Krieger, Malabar, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rajendran AM, Bless SJ, Dawicke DS (1986) Evaluation of Bodner-Partom model parameters at high-strain rate. Exp Mech 26:319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liang R, Khan AS (1999) A critical review of experimental results and constitutive models for BCC and FCC metals over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures. Int J Plast 15:963–980.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Khan AS, Zhang H (2000) Mechanically alloyed nanocrystalline iron and copper mixture: behavior and constitutive modeling over a wide range of strain rates. Int J Plast 16:1477–1492.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindholm US (1964) Some experiments with the split Hopkinson pressure bar. J Mech Phys Solids 12:317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rajendran AM, Garrett RK, Clark JB Jr, Jungling TL (1991) Effects of strain rate on plastic flow and fracture in pure tantalum. J Mater Shap Technol 9:7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Warren TL, Forrestal MJ (1998) Effects of strain hardening and strain-rate sensitivity on the penetration of aluminum targets with spherical-nosed rods. Int J Impact Eng 35:3737–3753.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Rittel D, Ravichandran G, Lee S (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 

  9. Krempl E, Khan F (2003) Rate (time)-dependent deformation behavior: an overview of some properties of metals and solid polymers. Int J Plast 19:1069–1095.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan AS, Suh YS, Kazmi R (2004) Quasi-static and dynamic loading responses and constitutive modeling of titanium alloys. Int J Plast 20:2233–2248.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2002) Pulse shaping techniques for testing brittle materials with a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 42:93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2005) Pulse shaping techniques for testing elastic-plastic materials with a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 45:186–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Duffy J, Campbell JD, Hawley RH (1971) On the use of a torsional split Hopkinson bar to study rate effects in 1100-0 aluminum (ASME Transactions). J Appl Mech 37:83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen W, Song B, Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ (2003) Dynamic small strain measurements of a metal specimen with a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 43:20–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meyers MA (1994) Dynamic behavior of materials. Wiley, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Gray G (2000) Classic split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing. In: Mechanical testing and evaluation, ASM handbook. ASM, Materials Park, OH, pp 462–476.

  17. Ellwood S, Griffiths LJ, Parry DJ (1982) Materials testing at high constant strain rates. J Phys E Sci Instrum 15:280–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leroy M, Raad MK, Nkule L, Cheron R (1984) Influence of instantaneous dynamic decremental/incremental strain rate tests on the mechanical behavior of metals—application to high-purity polycrystalline aluminum. In: 3rd conference of mechanical properties at high rates of strain 70, pp 31–38.

  19. Kobayashi H, Daimaruya M, Nojima T, Kajino T (2000) Effect of strain rate change during uniaxial dynamic tensile tests on instability strain. J Phys IV (France) 10:Pr9-433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nojima T, Ogawa K (1985) New applications of split Hopkinson bar to materials testing. J Phys Colloq C5:623–631.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Song B, Chen W, Weerasooriya T (2003) Quasi-static and dynamic compressive behaviors of a S-2 glass/SC15 composite. J Compos Mater 37:1723–1743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Song B, Chen W (2004) Loading and unloading SHPB pulse shaping techniques for dynamic hysteretic loops. Exp Mech 44:622–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pan Y, Chen W, Song B (2005) The upper limit of constant strain rate in a split Hopkinson pressure bar experiment. Exp Mech 45:440–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Song B, Chen WW, Dou S, Winfree NA, Kang JH (2005) Strain-rate effects on elastic and early cell-collapse responses of a polystyrene foam. Int J Impact Eng 31:509–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramesh KT, Narasimhan S (1996) Finite deformations and the dynamic measurement of radial strains in compression Kolsky bar experiments. Int J Solids Struct 33:3723–3738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jia D, Ramesh KT (2004) A rigorous assessment of the benefits of miniaturization in the Kolsky bar system. Exp Mech 44:445–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilat A, Cheng CS (2002) Modeling torsional split Hopkinson bar tests at strain rates above 10,000 s−1. Int J Plast 18:787–799.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA. Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-94AL8500.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schools of AAE and MSE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2023, USA

    B. Song (SEM member) & W. Chen (SEM member)

  2. Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, 94551-0969, USA

    B. R. Antoun

  3. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 87184-1174, USA

    D. J. Frew (SEM member)

Authors
  1. B. Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. R. Antoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. J. Frew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Song, B., Chen, W., Antoun, B.R. et al. Determination of Early Flow Stress for Ductile Specimens at High Strain Rates by Using a SHPB. Exp Mech 47, 671–679 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-007-9048-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-007-9048-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation