0
Research Papers

Evaluation of High Strain Rate Characteristics of Metallic Sandwich Specimens

[+] Author and Article Information
Danish Iqbal

Department of Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: amz128262@iitd.ac.in

Vikrant Tiwari

Department of Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: tiwariv@am.iitd.ac.in

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology. Manuscript received July 18, 2018; final manuscript received February 6, 2019; published online March 11, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Hareesh Tippur.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 141(3), 031003 (Mar 11, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: MATS-18-1211; doi: 10.1115/1.4042864 History: Received July 18, 2018; Accepted February 06, 2019

An attempt is made to investigate the dynamic compressive response of multilayered specimens in bilayered and trilayered configurations, using a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) and finite element analysis. Two constituent metals comprising the multilayered configurations were Al 6063-T6 and IS 1570. Multiple stack sequences of trilayered and bilayered configurations were evaluated at three different sets of strain rates, namely, 500, 800, and 1000 s−1. The experiments revealed that even with the same constituent volume fraction, a change in the stacking sequence alters the overall dynamic constitutive response. This change becomes more evident, especially in the plastic zone. The finite element analysis was performed using abaqus/explicit. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the SHPB apparatus used in the experiments was generated and meshed using the hexahedral brick elements. Dissimilar material interfaces were assigned different dynamic coefficients of friction. The fundamental elastic one-dimensional (1D) wave theory was then utilized to evaluate the stress–strain response from the nodal strain histories of the bars. Predictions from the finite element simulations along with the experimental results are also presented in this study. For most cases, finite element predictions match well with the experiments.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lundberg, P., Renström, R., and Lundberg, B., 2000, “Impact of Metallic Projectiles on Ceramic Targets: Transition Between Interface Defeat and Penetration,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 24(3), pp. 259–275. [CrossRef]
Holmquist, T. J., and Johnson, G. R., 2002, “Response of Silicon Carbide to High Velocity Impact,” J. Appl. Phy., 91(9), pp. 5858–5866. [CrossRef]
Mohr, D., and Straza, G., 2005, “Development of Formable All-Metal Sandwich Sheets for Automotive Applications,” Adv. Eng. Mater., 7(4), pp. 243–246. [CrossRef]
Bailey, N. W., Battley, M. A., and Zhou, M., 2012, “Experimental Method for Dynamic Residual Strength Characterisation of Aircraft Sandwich Structures,” Int. J. Crashworthiness, 18(1), pp. 64–81. [CrossRef]
Parameswaran, V., and Shukla, A., 2000, “Processing and Characterization of a Model Functionally Gradient Material,” J. Mater. Sci., 35(1), pp. 21–29. [CrossRef]
Karagiozova, D., and Alves, M., 2015, “Propagation of Compaction Waves in Cellular Materials With Continuously Varying Density,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 71(1), pp. 323–337. [CrossRef]
Shukla, A., Rajapakse, Y. D. S., and LeBlanc, J., 2016, “Composite Materials Subjected to Extreme Conditions,” Exp. Mech., 56(4), pp. 521–522. [CrossRef]
Wang, E., Gardner, N., and Shukla, A., 2009, “The Blast Resistance of Sandwich Composites With Stepwise Graded Cores,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 46(18–19), pp. 3492–3502. [CrossRef]
Chen, W. W., and Song, B., 2010, Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar: Design, Testing and Applications, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin.
Iqbal, D., and Tiwari, V., 2018, “Structural Response of Multilayered Aluminum and Steel Specimens Subjected to High Strain Rate Loading Conditions,” J. Theor. Appl. Mech., 56(4), pp. 1139–1151. [CrossRef]
Engineers and Builders, 2017, “Standard Tools and Techniques for Dynamic Characterization of Materials. Design Book of Engineers and Builders,” http://www.engineersandbuilders.com.
Vecchio, K. S., and Jiang, F., 2007, “Improved Pulse Shaping to Achieve Constant Strain Rate and Stress Equilibrium in Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 38A, pp. 2655–2665. [CrossRef]
Chen, W., Song, B., Frew, D. J., and Forrestal, M. J., 2003, “Dynamic Small Strain Measurements of a Metal Specimen With a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar,” Exp. Mech., 43(1), pp. 20–23. [CrossRef]
Johnson, G. R., and Cook, W. H., 1983, “A Constitutive Model and Data for Metal Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates and High Temperatures,” Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, Netherlands.
Ye, T., Li, L., Guo, P., Xiao, G., and Chen, Z., 2016, “Effect of Aging Treatment on the Microstructure and Flow Behavior of 6063 Aluminum Alloy Compressed Over a Wide Range of Strain Rate,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 90, pp. 72–80. [CrossRef]
Hartley, R. S., Cloete, T. J., and Nurick, G. N., 2007, “An Experimental Assessment of Friction Effects in the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Using the Ring Compression Test,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 34, pp. 1705–1728. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the split Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus used in the present study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A typical voltage signal obtained in the SHPB experiment with pulse shaper

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Voltage signals obtained without pulse shaper, (b) corresponding forces at specimen ends and force ratio, (c) voltage signals obtained using a composite pulse shaper, and (d) corresponding forces at specimen ends and force ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of forces at the specimen interfaces, incident bar end (IB end), and transmission bar end (TB end) for four stacking sequences

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Surface roughness profile measured from disc centre of a typical (a) undeformed and (bd) deformed aluminum specimen at strain rates of 500 s−1, 800 s−1, and 1000 s−1, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic representation of an increase in surface roughness with an increase in the applied strain rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Meshed model of the heterostacked specimen, (b) meshed model of the sandwiched specimen between the bars, and (c) comparison of incident, reflected, and transmitted strain pulses obtained from the experiment and FE simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

True stress versus true strain behavior of family A (ac) and family S (df) specimens under different strain rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a, b) True stress versus strain curves of double layered St–Al and Al–St configurations at three different strain rates of 500, 800, and 1000 s−1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a)–(f) Comparison of the experimental and FE simulation curves obtained for different stacking configurations at an approximate strain rate of 500 s−1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Evolution of axial strain and von Mises stress in the (a, c) Al–St–Al and (b, d) St–Al–St configurations, respectively, at the 500 s−1 strain rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Stress–time history for Al–St–Al and St–Al–St configurations (500 s−1)

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In