4.7 Article

Fracture of brittle solids under impact: The decisive role of stress waves

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.104104

Keywords

Strength; Brittle material; Impact loading; Bidirectional; Hopkinson bar

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [11922211, 11527803, 11832015, 11672354]
  2. 111 Project [BP0719007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impact strength of brittle solids is traditionally measured using the SHPB technique, which generates a single stress wave loading on the specimen. However, experiments using the newly developed ESHPB technique, which launches multiple stress pulses simultaneously, revealed significant discrepancies in the measured compressive strength. The loading stress waves were found to largely determine the compressive strength, suggesting that the method of loading stress waves plays a crucial role in measuring the impact strength of brittle solids.
Measurement of the impact strength of brittle solids is traditionally conducted by split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB), where one stress wave is generated and loads on the specimen (uniaxial-unidirectional, UD). What if this single stress wave is split into two (or more) smaller pulses that load on the same specimen? Based on the classical one dimensional elastic stress wave theory, nothing different would happen. However, our experiments revealed the opposite results. Electromagnetic split Hopkinson pressure bar (ESHPB), a newly developed technique that can launch two stress pulses simultaneously in opposite directions along the coaxial bars (uniaxialbidirectional, BD), was adopted to test the compressive strength of a glass. Results indicated that the loading stress waves largely determined the measured compressive strength, with all other conditions identical. Significant discrepancy (as large as 69.1%) was observed between UD and BD strength. Possible reason for this discrepancy was proposed by high-speed photography.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available