Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Specimen Geometry on Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar Tests on Sheet Materials

  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years numerous studies on the high strain rate behaviour of sheet materials using split Hopkinson tensile bar set-ups have been reported in literature. For these experiments mostly dogbone-shaped specimens are used. However, widely divergent specimen dimensions can be found. In the present study the influence of this specimen geometry on the test results is investigated experimentally. An extensive series of Hopkinson tests on a steel sheet material using different specimen geometries is performed. An advanced optical technique is used to obtain the true distribution of the deformation along the length of the specimen. Important issues such as the contribution of the deformation of the transition zones to the total deformation and the (non-)homogeneity of the strain in the specimen are thus determined. From the experiments it is clear that the influence of the specimen geometry on the observed behaviour cannot be neglected. It is shown that inconsistencies between the assumed and real specimen behaviour account for these differences. For the TRIP steel considered in the study, accurate deformation values are only guaranteed if the length to width ratio of the central zone is larger than 1.25 and if the radius of the transition zone is sufficiently small.

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
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Itabashi M, Kawata K (2000) Carbon content effect on high-strain-rate tensile properties for carbon steels. Int J Impact Eng 24:117–131. DOI 10.1016/S0734-743X(99)00050-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kawata K, Hashimoto S, Takeda N, Sekino S (1985) On high-velocity brittleness and ductility of dual-phase steel and some hybrid fiber reinforced plastics. In: Vinson JR, Taya M (eds) Recent advances in composites in the United States and Japan (ASTM STP 864). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, p 700.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Field J, Walley S, Proud W, Goldrein H, Siviour C (2004) Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies. Int J Impact Eng 30:725–775. DOI 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Verleysen P, Degrieck J (2000) Improved signal processing for split Hopkinson bar tests on (quasi-)brittle materials. Exp Tech 246:31–33. DOI 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2000.tb01346.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Staab GH, Gilat A (1991) A direct-tension split Hopkinson bar for high strain-rate testing. Exp Mech 31:232–235. DOI 10.1007/BF02326065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Uenishi A, Teodosiu C (2004) Constitutive modelling of the high strain rate behaviour of interstitial-free steel. Int J Plast 20:915–936. DOI 10.1016/j.ijplas.2003.06.004.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc B 62:676–700. DOI 10.1088/0370-1301/62/11/302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davies E, Hunter S (1963) The dynamic compression testing of solids by the method of the split Hopkinson pressure bar. J Mech Phys Solids 11:155–179. DOI 10.1016/0022-5096(63)90050-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark DS, Wood DS (1957) The influence of specimen dimension and shape on the results in tension impact testing. Am Soc Mech Eng Counc Rep Membersh 38:577–585.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rusinek A, Cheriguene R, Baumer A, Klepaczko IR, Larour P (2008) Dynamic behaviour of high-strength sheet steel in dynamic tension: experimental and numerical analyses. J Strain Anal Eng Des 43:37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Huh H, Kang WJ, Han SS (2002) A tension split Hopkinson bar for investigating the dynamic behavior of sheet metals. Exp Mech 42:8–17. DOI 10.1007/BF02411046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Verleysen P, Degrieck J (2004) Optical measurement of the specimen deformation at high strain rate. Exp Mech 44:247–252. DOI 10.1007/BF02427890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Verleysen P, Degrieck J (2004) A modified digital phase-shift moiré technique for impact deformation measurements. Opt Lasers Eng 426:653–671. DOI 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2004.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Verleysen P, Degrieck J (2003) Measurement of the evolution of the axial strain distribution in Hopkinson specimens. J Phys IV 110:501–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Slycken J, Verleysen P, Degrieck J, Samek L, De Cooman BC (2006) High-strain-rate behavior of low-alloy multiphase aluminum- and silicon-based transformation-induced plasticity steels. Metall Mater Trans A Phys Metall Mater Sci 37A5:1527–1539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilat A, Goldberg RK, Roberts GD (2003) High strain rate response of epoxy in tensile and shear loading. J Phys IV 110:123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoshida F, Uemori T, Fujiwara K (2002) Elastic–plastic behavior of steel sheets under in-plane cyclic tension–compression at large strain. Int J Plast 185–6:633–659.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Chong H, Haeng K (2001) Evaluation of mechanical properties under a temperature gradient field. Meas Sci Technol 12:1881–1885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eskandari H, Nemes J (2000) Dynamic testing of composite laminates with a tensile split Hopkinson bar. J Compos Mater 344:260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang C, Xia Y (2000) Validity of one-dimensional experimental principle for flat specimen in bar–bar tensile impact apparatus. Int J Solids Struct 37:3305–3322.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Nicholas T (1981) Tensile testing of materials at high rates of strain. Exp Mech 21:177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yuanxin Z, Yuanming X (2000) Experimental study of the rate-sensitivity of SiCp/Al composites and the establishment of a dynamic constitutive equation. Compos Sci Technol 60:403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dey S, Hopperstad O, Borvik T, Clausen A (2002) Constitutive relation and failure criterion for three structural steels at high strain rates. In: Jones N, Brebbia C, Rajendran A (eds) Structures under shock and impact VII. WIT, Southampton, pp 427–436.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hu XY, Daehn GS (1996) Effect of velocity on flow localization in tension. Acta Mater 44:1021–1033. DOI 10.1016/1359-6454(95)00228-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rusinek A, Zaera R, Klepaczko JR, Cheriguene R (2005) Analysis of inertia and scale effects on dynamic neck formation during tension of sheet steel. Acta Mater 53:5387–5400.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Construction and Production, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    P. Verleysen, J. Degrieck, T. Verstraete & J. Van Slycken

Authors
  1. P. Verleysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Degrieck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Verstraete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Van Slycken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Verleysen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verleysen, P., Degrieck, J., Verstraete, T. et al. Influence of Specimen Geometry on Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar Tests on Sheet Materials. Exp Mech 48, 587–598 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-008-9149-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-008-9149-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation