Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Low Impedance Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Techniques in the Characterization of Polyurea

  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) technique has been widely employed for over fifty years in characterizing the high strain-rate properties of many common engineering materials. Historically, however, this technique has had limited success in characterizing soft materials, since their low mechanical impedances can increase delays in attaining dynamic equilibrium and result in transmission pulses with extremely low signal-to-noise ratios. Due to interest in improving characterization of soft materials at high strain rates, numerous modifications to the traditional SHPB technique have been proposed. These include: using more sensitive piezoelectric gauges, employing hollow transmission bars, utilizing lower impedance polymeric pressure bars, and the use of pulse shaping techniques. To date, there has been no comparative studies or consensus within the SHPB community as to which approach is most advantageous. The goal of this investigation is to compare a number of these techniques, specifically the use of PMMA pressure bars and a hollow aluminum transmission bar (both with and without pulse shaping), alongside more traditional solid aluminum pressure bars in the characterization of polyurea, a common low impedance polymer. The advantages and disadvantages of each technique in generating high strain-rate stress-strain curves are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bacon C (1998) An experimental method for considering dispersion and attenuation in a viscoelastic Hopkinson bar. Exp Mech 38(4):242–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen W, Zhang B, Forrestal MJ (1999) A split Hopkinson bar technique for low-impedance materials. Exp Mech 39(2):81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen W, Lu F, Zhou B (2000) A quartz-crystal-embedded split Hopkinson pressure bar for soft materials. Exp Mech 40(1):1–6

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Gama BA, Lopatnikov SL, Gillespie JW Jr (2004) Hopkinson bar experimental technique: a critical review. Appl Mech Rev 57(4):223–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Doman DA, Cronin DS, Salisbury CP (2006) Characterization of polyurethane rubber at high deformation rates. Exp Mech 46(3):367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Duffy J, Campbell JD, Hawley RH (1971) On the use of torsional Hopkinson bar to study rate effects in 1100-0 aluminum. J Appl Mech 38:83–91

    Google Scholar 

  7. Amirkhizi AV, Isaacs J, McGee J, Nemat-Nasser S (2006) An experimentally based viscoelastic constitutive model for polyurea, including pressure and temperature effects. Phil Mag 86(36):5847–5866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yi J, Boyce MC, Lee GF, Balizer E (2006) Large deformation rate-dependent stress-strain behavior of polyurea and polyrurethanes. Polymer 47(1):319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sarva SS, Deschanel S, Boyce MC, Chen W (2007) Stress-strain behavior of a polyurea and polyurethane from low to high strain rates. Polymer 48(8):2208–2213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhao J, Knauss WG, Ravichandran G (2007) Applicability of the time-temperature superposition principle in modeling dynamic response of polyurea. Mech Time-Depend Mater 11(3–4):289–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Follansbee PS (1985) The Hopkinson bar. Metals handbook, volume 8, mechanical testing, 9th edn. American Society for Metals, Metals Park, pp 198–203

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hopkinson B (1914) A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high explosives or by the impact of bullets. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 213:437–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao H, Gary G (1995) A three dimensional analytical solution of the longitudinal wave propagation in an infinite linear viscoelastic cylindrical bar: application to experimental techniques. J Mech Phys Solids 43(8):1335–1348

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Gorham DA, Wu XJ (1997) An empirical method of dispersion correction in the compressive Hopkinson bar test. J Phys IV 7(C3):223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sawas O, Brar NS, Brockman RA (1998) Dynamic characterization of compliant materials using an all-polymeric split Hopkinson bar. Exp Mech 38(3):204–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu Q, Subhash G (2006) Characterization of viscoelastic properties of polymer bar using iterative deconvolution in the time domain. Mech Mater 38(12):1105–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Togami TC, Baker WE, Forrestal MJ (1996) A split Hopkinson bar technique to evaluate the performance of accelerometers. J Appl Mech 63:353–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davies EDH, Hunter SC (1963) The dynamic compression testing of solids by the method of split Hopkinson pressure bar. J Mech Phys Solids 11(3):155–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Salisbury CP, Cronin DS (2009) Mechanical properties of ballistic gelatin at high deformation rates. Exp Mech. doi:10.1007/s11340-008-9207-4

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2001) A split Hopkinson pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress-strain data for rock materials. Exp Mech 41(1):40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) by the Army Research Office (ARO), grant DAAD19-02-D-0002, and also through the Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), contract number W911NF-07-1-0035.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    T. P. M. Johnson (SEM Member), S. S. Sarva & S. Socrate

Authors
  1. T. P. M. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. S. Sarva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Socrate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. P. M. Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, T.P.M., Sarva, S.S. & Socrate, S. Comparison of Low Impedance Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Techniques in the Characterization of Polyurea. Exp Mech 50, 931–940 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-009-9305-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-009-9305-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation