Optimal Pulse Shapes for SHPB Tests on Soft Materials
For split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests on soft materials, the goals of homogeneous deformation and uniform uniaxial stress in the specimen present experimental challenges, particularly at higher strain rates. It has been known for some time that attainment of these conditions is facilitated by reducing the thickness of the specimen or by appropriately shaping the loading pulse. Typically, both methods must be employed. Pulse shapes are often tailored to deliver a smooth and sufficiently slow rise to a constant axial strain rate, as this promotes equality of the mean axial stress on the two faces of the specimen, a condition referred to as dynamic equilibrium. However, a constant axial strain rate does not eliminate radial acceleration, which may result in large radial and hoop stresses and large radial variations in the radial, hoop and axial stresses. An approximate analysis (assuming homogeneous deformation and incompressibility) indicates that these radial inertia effects would be eliminated if the radial strain rate were constant. Motivated by this result, we consider loading pulses that deliver a constant radial strain rate after an initial ramp-up. The corresponding axial strain rate is no longer constant on any time interval, but for sufficiently thin specimens the resulting departure from dynamic equilibrium may be small enough to be tolerable. This is explored here by comparing the analytical predictions for the conventional and “optimal” loading pulse shapes with corresponding numerical simulations of SHPB tests on a soft, nearly incompressible material.
KeywordsDeviatoric Stress Radial Stress Hoop Stress Axisymmetric Deformation Uniaxial Stress State
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Gray III, G. T., Classic Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing. In H. Kuhn and D. Medlin, editors, ASM Handbook Vol. 8, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, pages 462–476. American Society for Metals, Materials Park, Ohio, 2000.Google Scholar
- 3.Ramesh, K. T., High strain rate and impact experiments. In W. N. Sharpe, editor, Springer handbook of Experimental Solid mechanics, chapter 33, pages 1–30. Springer, New York, 2009.Google Scholar
- 4.Chen, W. and Song, B., Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar. Springer, New York, 2011.Google Scholar
- 5.Gray III, G. T. and Blumenthal, W. R., Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing of Soft Materials. In ASM Handbook Vol. 8, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, pages 488–496. American Society for Metals, Materials Park, Ohio, 2000.Google Scholar
- 7.Song, B. and Chen, W., Split Hopkinson pressure bar techniques for characterizing soft materials. Latin Am. J. Solids Struct., 2:113–152, 2005.Google Scholar
- 8.Moy, P., Weerasooriya, T., Juliano, T. F., VanLandingham, M. R. and Chen, W., Dynamic Response of an Alternative Tissue Simulant, Physically Associating Gels (PAG). In Proc. of the 2006 SEM Annual Conference, 2006.Google Scholar
- 10.Sanborn, B., An Experimental Investigation of Radial Deformation of Soft Materials in Kolsky Bar Experiments. Master’s thesis, Purdue Univ., Weast Lafayette, IN, 2010.Google Scholar
- 13.Scheidler, M. and Kraft, R., Inertial effects in compression Hopkinson bar tests on soft materials. In Proceedings of the 1st ARL Ballistic Protection Technologies Workshop, 2010.Google Scholar
- 14.Casem, D. T., Hopkinson bar pulse-shaping with variable impedance projectiles—an inverse approach to projectile design. Technical Report ARL-TR-5246, US Army Research Laboratory, 2010.Google Scholar