Influence of the Projectileas Length on Interrupted Dynamic Tension Experiment Results

Roberto Alonso Gonzalez Lezcano; Jose Manuel del Rio

Influence of the Projectileas Length on Interrupted Dynamic Tension Experiment Results

Roberto Alonso Gonzalez Lezcano * §

Contact

Jose Manuel del Rio §

Contact

§ Universidad CEU San Pablo

Influence of the Projectileas Length on Interrupted Dynamic Tension Experiment Results

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

8751M

Influence of the Projectileas Length on Interrupted Dynamic Tension Experiment Results Banner

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant

This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

Abstract

The main focus of this work is to discuss the influence of the projectile’s length on the results of a Split Hopkinson Tension Bar (SHTB) experiment. By using the commercial software ABAQUS, finite element simulations of high-strain-rate tension experiments are accomplished on Aluminium 7017-T73 alloy specimens when varying the length of the projectile employed. The finite element analyses described herein are applied to simulate the effects of the variation of the projectile’s length on the measurements obtained in the incident, reflected, and transmission bars. Different strain rates are obtained when varying the projectile’s length always provided that its speed remains constant. The simulation results show that the projectile’s length has a significant effect on the strain obtained in the specimen and also on the subsequent stress-strain curve of the specimen. In view of this research, it can be concluded that the projectile’s length is a factor that can resolutely influence the interrupted dynamic tension experiment results since it has a significant effect on the strain obtained within the specimen. The simulations also provide complementary information to the experiments and an in-depth understanding of the specimen’s behaviour.

References

32 Cites in Article

Reference Format

1. R. González-Lezcano,J. del Río (2015). Numerical analysis of the influence of the damping rings’ dimensions on interrupted dynamic tension experiment results.
2. J. Harding,L. Welsh (1983). A tensile testing technique for fibre-reinforced composites at impact rates of strain. Journal of Materials Science, 18(6), 1810-1826.
CrossRef DOI
3. U. Lindholm,L. Yeakley (1968). High strain-rate testing: Tension and compression. ExpMech, 8(1), 1-9.
4. C. Albertini,M. Montagnani (1976). Wave propagation effects in dynamic loading. NuclEng Des, 37(1), 115-124.
5. Theodore Nicholas (1981). Tensile testing of materials at high-rates of strain.ExpMech 1981. Experimental Mechanics, 21(5), 177-185.
CrossRef DOI
6. G. Staab,A. Gilat (1991). A direct-tension split Hopkinson bar for high strain-rate testing. ExpMech, 31, 232-235.
7. A. Thakur,S. Nemat-Nasser,K. Vecchio (1996). Dynamic Bauschinger effect. Acta Materialia, 44(7), 2797-2807.
CrossRef DOI
8. Patricia Verleysen,Joris Degrieck (2004). Experimental investigation of the deformation of Hopkinson bar specimens. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 30(3), 239-253.
CrossRef DOI
9. G. Gray (2000). Classic Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 2000, 462-476.
10. Bazle Gama,Sergey Lopatnikov,John Gillespie (2004). Hopkinson bar experimental technique: A critical review. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 57(4), 223-250.
CrossRef DOI
11. Robert Gerlach,Christian Kettenbeil,Nik Petrinic (2012). A new split Hopkinson tensile bar design. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 50, 63-67.
CrossRef DOI
12. H. Kolsky (1949). An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at very High Rates of Loading. An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading.Proc PhysSoc B, 62(11), 676.
13. T. Rio,E. Barbero,R. Zaera (2005). Dynamic tensile behaviour at low temperature of CFRP using a split Hopkinson pressure bar. ComposSciTechnol, 65(1), 61-71.
14. Van J (2008). Advanced use of a split Hopkinson bar setup application to TRIP steels. Advanced use of a split Hopkinson bar setup application to TRIP steels. Doctoral Thesis
15. A. Hamouda,M. Hashmi (1998). Testing of composite materials at high rates of strain: advances and challenges. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 77(1-3), 327-336.
CrossRef DOI
16. Khlif M,Masmoudi N,Bradai C (2012). Polypropylene tensile test under quasi-static and dynamic loading. Materials science and technology conference and exhibition (MS&T
17. Verleysen P,Benedict V,Verstraete T (2009). Numerical study of the influence of the specimen geometry on Split Hopkinson bar tensile test results. Lat Am J Solids Struct, 6(3), 285-298.
18. M. Kaiser (1998). Advancements in the split Hopkinson bar test. Advancements in the split Hopkinson bar test. Master’s Thesis
19. S. Swantek,A. Wicks,Wilson (2001). An optical methodof strain measurement in the split Hopkinson pressurebar In: Wicks AL (ed.) Proceedings of IMAC-XIX: a conferenceon structural dynamics (vol 2; Volume 4359 ofProceedings of SPIE). Proceedings of IMAC-XIX: a conferenceon structural dynamics, 2, 1471-1477.
20. Pe´rez-Martı´n MJ,Erice B,Galvez F (2014). On the loadingratedependence of the Al 7017-T73 fractureinitiationtoughness. Procedia Mater Sci, 3, 1026-1031.
21. J. RodriguezPerez (2002). Analisis y desarrollo de metodologías para la obtención de propiedades mecanicas de materialesa altas velocidades de deformación y a alta temperatura. Analisis y desarrollo de metodologías para la obtención de propiedades mecanicas de materialesa altas velocidades de deformación y a alta temperatura,Universidad Complutense de Madrid
22. A. Resnyansky (2000). Study of influence of loading method on results of the Split Hopkinson Bar test. Structural Failure and Plasticity, 2000, 597-602.
CrossRef DOI
23. Yang X,Xiong X,Yin Z (2014). Interrupted Test of Advanced High Strength Steel with Tensile Split Hopkinson Bar Method. ExpMech, 54(4), 641-652.
24. Sia Nemat-Nasser,Jon Isaacs,John Starrett (1991). Hopkinson techniques for dynamic recovery experiments. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 435(1894), 371-391.
CrossRef DOI
25. Dongfang M,Danian C,Shanxing W (2010). An interruptedtensile testing at high strain rates for pure copperbars. J Appl Phys, 108(11), 114902.
26. Essa YES,Lopez-Puente J,Perez-Castellanos simulation (2007). Numerical simulation and experimental study of amechanism for Hopkinson bar test interruption. J Strain Anal Eng Des, 42(3), 163-172.
27. R. Lezcano,Essa YES,J. Perez-Castellanos (2003). Numericalanalysis of interruption process of dynamic tensiletests using a Hopkinson bar. J Phys IV, 110, 565-570.
28. (2013). ASTM E8/E8M-13a: standard test methods for tensiontesting of metallic materials.
29. X. Wu,D. Gorham (1997). Stress Equilibrium in the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Test. Le Journal de Physique IV, 07(C3), 3-91.
CrossRef DOI
30. Fengchun Jiang,Kenneth Vecchio (2009). Jiang F and Vecchio KS. Hopkinson Bar loaded fractureexperimental technique: a critical review of dynamic fracturetoughness tests. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 62(6), 60802.
CrossRef DOI
31. (1999). ABAQUS (version 5.8). ABAQUS (version 5.8
32. Godunov SK,Romenskii EI (2003). Elements of continuummechanics and conservation laws. Elements of continuummechanics and conservation laws

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Roberto Alonso Gonzalez Lezcano, Jose Manuel del Rio. 2016. "Influence of the Projectileas Length on Interrupted Dynamic Tension Experiment Results". Global Journal of Research in Engineering - E: Civil & Structural GJRE-E Volume 15 (GJRE Volume 15 Issue 28 (E4)).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJRE Volume 15 Issue 28 (E4)

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjre

Print ISSN 0975-5861

e-ISSN 2249-4596

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJRE-E Classification FOR Code: 090599

Submission ReceivedJune 14, 2015
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted July 3, 2015
Published November 2, 2015

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

November 2, 2015

Language

English

Order Article Reprint

Experience in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 102

Country: Spain

Subject: Global Journal of Research in Engineering - E: Civil & Structural

Authors: Roberto Alonso Gonzalez Lezcabo, Jose Manuel del Rio (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 455

Total Views (Real + Logic): 1263

Total Downloads (simulated): 97

Publish Date: 2015 10, Mon

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 56 views
Month 2: 34 views
Month 3: 30 views
Month 4: 42 views
Month 5: 26 views
Month 6: 30 views
Month 7: 41 views
Month 8: 42 views
Month 9: 43 views
Month 10: 33 views
Month 11: 46 views
Month 12: 33 views
Month 13: 35 views
Month 14: 31 views
Month 15: 26 views
Month 16: 28 views
Month 17: 14 views
Month 18: 19 views
Month 19: 26 views
Month 20: 31 views
Month 21: 23 views
Month 22: 38 views
Month 23: 38 views
Month 24: 41 views
Month 25: 29 views
Month 26: 46 views
Month 27: 34 views
Month 28: 24 views
Month 29: 48 views
Month 30: 40 views
Month 31: 30 views
Month 32: 17 views
Month 33: 19 views
Month 34: 29 views
Month 35: 22 views
Month 36: 32 views
Month 37: 40 views
Month 38: 32 views
Month 39: 41 views
Month 40: 21 views
Month 41: 22 views
Month 42: 33 views
Month 43: 41 views
Month 44: 47 views
Month 45: 28 views
Month 46: 35 views
Month 47: 44 views
Month 48: 25 views
Month 49: 28 views
Month 50: 42 views
Month 51: 25 views
Month 52: 29 views
Month 53: 48 views
Month 54: 19 views
Month 55: 42 views
Month 56: 46 views
Month 57: 29 views
Month 58: 16 views
Month 59: 30 views
Month 60: 25 views
Month 61: 24 views
Month 62: 26 views
Month 63: 31 views
Month 64: 16 views
Month 65: 29 views
Month 66: 21 views
Month 67: 14 views
Month 68: 22 views
Month 69: 49 views
Month 70: 23 views
Month 71: 21 views
Month 72: 25 views
Month 73: 22 views
Month 74: 39 views
Month 75: 32 views
Month 76: 41 views
Month 77: 26 views
Month 78: 31 views
Month 79: 31 views
Month 80: 31 views
Month 81: 25 views
Month 82: 34 views
Month 83: 21 views
Month 84: 20 views
Month 85: 20 views
Month 86: 39 views
Month 87: 21 views
Month 88: 46 views
Month 89: 36 views
Month 90: 13 views
Month 91: 26 views
Month 92: 33 views
Month 93: 27 views
Month 94: 31 views
Month 95: 39 views
Month 96: 46 views
Month 97: 25 views
Month 98: 20 views
Month 99: 44 views
Month 100: 40 views
Month 101: 35 views
Month 102: 16 views
Month 103: 32 views
Month 104: 26 views
Month 105: 14 views
Month 106: 43 views
Month 107: 30 views
Month 108: 40 views
Month 109: 43 views
Month 110: 15 views
Month 111: 48 views
Month 112: 34 views
Month 113: 22 views
Month 114: 44 views
Month 115: 29 views
Month 116: 38 views
Month 117: 17 views
Month 118: 28 views
Month 119: 28 views
Month 120: 31 views
Month 121: 26 views
Month 122: 57 views
Month 123: 37 views
Month 124: 46 views
Month 125: 46 views
Month 126: 59 views
Month 127: 36 views
Month 128: 19 views
Month 129: 24 views
Month 130: 33 views
Month 131: 48 views
Month 132: 50 views
Month 133: 50 views

Total Views: 1.3K

Total Downloads: 97

All Trends