Stress wave effects and influencing mechanisms on stress-strain curves in the elastic compression stage of SHPB tests based on generalized wave impedance theory

Gao Guangfa

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2024-0030

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Explosion And Shock Waves > 2024 >

Gao Guangfa. Stress wave effects and influencing mechanisms on stress-strain curves in the elastic compression stage of SHPB tests based on generalized wave impedance theory[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2024-0030

Citation:

Gao Guangfa. Stress wave effects and influencing mechanisms on stress-strain curves in the elastic compression stage of SHPB tests based on generalized wave impedance theory[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2024-0030

Citation:

Gao Guangfa. Stress wave effects and influencing mechanisms on stress-strain curves in the elastic compression stage of SHPB tests based on generalized wave impedance theory[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2024-0030

PDF( 2000 KB)

Stress wave effects and influencing mechanisms on stress-strain curves in the elastic compression stage of SHPB tests based on generalized wave impedance theory

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2024-0030

Gao Guangfa

School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, Jiangsu, China

Received Date: 2024-01-22
Rev Recd Date: 2024-06-20

Available Online: 2024-06-25

Abstract

Abstract

Quantitative investigation of stress wave effects during the elastic compression stage of split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests is fundamental for decoupling accurate elastic curve of material. Based on the assumption of plane waves and utilizing the generalized wave impedance theory, a quantitative theoretical analysis of the structural effects caused by the evolution of stress waves during the elastic compression stage of specimens with mismatched bar/specimen cross-sectional areas is conducted. The characteristics and main influencing factors of the deviation between engineering stress-strain curves of specimens during the elastic stage and the actual material stress-strain curves under different conditions are explored. It further reveals the governing rules and mechanisms influencing these deviations. The analysis indicates that for linearly incident loading waves, when the dimensionless time is a multiple of 0.5, even if other parameters change, the engineering stress-strain values of the specimen correspond approximately to the actual material stress-strain values. Even when there is a significant stress difference at both ends of the specimen, if the variation of stress difference tends to stabilize, the difference between the engineering stress-strain curve of the specimen and the actual material stress-strain curve is relatively small. The study calculates the maximum stress deviation value of the specimen and its corresponding dimensionless time, as well as the trend of the maximum stress deviation value of the specimen within different fluctuation intervals. Moreover, the study investigates the scenario where the incident wave is a bilinear combination wave. The results show that when a bilinear incident wave is present, the two linear intervals can be independently analyzed. Regardless of the combination or the variation of stress difference, only when the stress difference at both ends of the specimen reaches an approximately constant curve, the corresponding engineering stress-strain curve of the specimen is relatively accurate. This study provides theoretical references for the refined design of SHPB tests and the accurate data processing.
- split Hopkinson pressure bar,
- stress wave effects,
- uniform stress assumption,
- dynamic stress-strain curves

FullText(HTML)

References(17)

References

[1]	LIU F, LI Q M. Strain-rate effect of polymers and correction methodology in a SHPB test [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2022, 161: 104109. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.104109.
[2]	LIU P, HU D A, WU Q K, et al. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of interfacial effect in SHPB tests for concrete-like materials [J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 163: 414–427. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.118.
[3]	KARIEM M A, BEYNON J H, RUAN D. Misalignment effect in the split Hopkinson pressure bar technique [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2012, 47: 60–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.03.006.
[4]	NIE H L, MA W F, HE X L, et al. Misalignment tolerance in one-side and symmetric loading Hopkinson pressure bar experiments [J]. Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 2022, 35(2): 273–281. DOI: 10.1007/s10338-021-00267-3.
[5]	GUO Y B, GAO G F, JING L, et al. Dynamic properties of mortar in high-strength concrete [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2022, 165: 104216. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104216.
[6]	PANOWICZ R, JANISZEWSKI J, KOCHANOWSKI K. Effects of sample geometry imperfections on the results of split Hopkinson pressure bar experiments [J]. Experimental Techniques, 2019, 43(4): 397–403. DOI: 10.1007/s40799-018-0293-7.
[7]	BRIZARD D, JACQUELIN E. Uncertainty quantification and global sensitivity analysis of longitudinal wave propagation in circular bars: application to SHPB device [J]. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2018, 134: 264–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.11.005.
[8]	YANG H S, LI Y L, ZHOU F H. Propagation of stress pulses in a Rayleigh-Love elastic rod [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2021, 153: 103854. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103854.
[9]	BRAGOV A M, LOMUNOV A K, LAMZIN D A, et al. Dispersion correction in split-Hopkinson pressure bar: theoretical and experimental analysis [J]. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 2022, 34(4): 895–907. DOI: 10.1007/s00161-019-00776-0.
[10]	RIGBY S E, BARR A D, CLAYTON M. A review of Pochhammer-Chree dispersion in the Hopkinson bar [J]. Engineering and Computational Mechanics, 2018, 171(1): 3–13. DOI: 10.1680/jencm.16.00027.
[11]	REN L, YU X M, HE Y, et al. Numerical investigation of lateral inertia effect in dynamic impact testing of UHPC using a split-Hopkinson pressure bar [J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 246: 118483. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118483.
[12]	ROTARIU A N, TRANĂ E, MATACHE L. Young’s modulus calculus using split Hopkinson bar tests on long and thin material samples [J]. Materials, 2022, 15(9): 3058. DOI: 10.3390/ma15093058.
[13]	AGHAYAN S, BIELER S, WEINBERG K. Determination of the high-strain rate elastic modulus of printing resins using two different split Hopkinson pressure bars [J]. Mechanics of Time-Dependent Materials, 2022, 26(4): 761–773. DOI: 10.1007/s11043-021-09511-2.
[14]	ZHANG Q M, HUANG X M, GUO R, et al. Study on dynamic impact response and optimal constitutive model of Al-Mg-Si aluminum alloy [J]. Materials, 2022, 15(21): 7618. DOI: 10.3390/ma15217618.
[15]	CHEN J P, TAO W J, HUAN S, et al. Data processing of wave propagation in viscoelastic split Hopkinson pressure bar [J]. AIP Advances, 2022, 12(4): 045210. DOI: 10.1063/5.0083888.
[16]	ZHOU Z P, GAO D D, LIN G J, et al. Static and dynamic mechanical properties of epoxy nanocomposites reinforced by hybridization with carbon nanofibers and block ionomers [J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2022, 271: 108638. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108638.
[17]	PRAKASH G, SINGH N K, GUPTA N K. Flow behaviour of Ti-6Al-4V alloy in a wide range of strain rates and temperatures under tensile, compressive and flexural loads [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2023, 176: 104549. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104549.