Specimen Dimensions for

SHPB Testing of UHPC

Andy Groeneveld, Michigan Tech
ACI Spring 2016 Convention
UHPC – Testing of Material Properties
April 19, 2016
Outline

• Introduction
• Range of specimens in use
• Effects of geometry
• Ideal equations
• Ways to approach standardization
• Current work at Michigan Tech
• Final thoughts
• Questions

2 of 19
Introduction to SHPB

• SHPB is widely used for high strain rate testing

• Indirect measurement of specimen 𝜎, 𝜀, 𝜀
• Uses 1-D elastic wave propagation theory

3 of 19
Range of Specimens in Use

• Typically cylinders: L/D from ~0.3 to 2

• ASM Handbook
• In general, recommends L/D between 0.5 and 1
(Gray III, 2000)
• For hard ceramics, recommends L/D = 2
(Subhash and Ravichandran, 2000)
• No recommendation for concrete
• No conversion factors for different specimens

4 of 19
Effects of Geometry
Dimension Mechanism Effect
Length Stress wave Stress equilibrium
propagation
Length 1D wave propagation Max strain rate
equation
Diameter Stress wave Stress equilibrium
propagation
Diameter Radial inertia Confinement
Aspect ratio Friction Confinement

5 of 19
 Stress Equilibrium
• Ravichandran and Subhash (1994) suggest approximate condition for
equilibrium

Δ𝜎 𝑡 𝜎1 − 𝜎2
=2 ≤ 0.05
𝜎𝑚 𝑡 𝜎1 + 𝜎2

𝜎1 𝜎2

6 of 19
Stress Equilibrium

• Yang and Shim (2005) derived equations for degree of equilibrium as

functions of
• Shape of loading pulse
• Relative acoustic impedance of specimen and bar

𝐴𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑐0,𝑠
𝛽=
𝐴𝑏 𝜌𝑏 𝑐0,𝑏

𝐴 is area, 𝜌 is density, 𝑐0 is the elastic wave speed

Subscripts: s—specimen, b—bar

7 of 19
Stress Equilibrium

Pulse with a rise time 2𝜏 𝜎

10%

2𝜏 𝑡
Δ𝜎 2𝛽 2 1 − 𝛽 𝑘−2
= (Yang and Shim 2005)
𝜎𝑚 1 + 𝛽 𝑘 − 1 − 𝛽 𝑘−2
Δ𝜎 5%

𝜎𝑚 β = 0.5
β = 0.25
β = 0.125

0%
0 3 6 9 12 15

Number of wave transits, 𝑘

8 of 19
Maximum Strain Rate

• Holding everything else constant, the strain rate decreases for longer
specimens
𝑐0,𝑏
𝜀𝑠 𝑡 = 𝜀𝐼 𝑡 − 𝜀𝑅 𝑡 − 𝜀𝑇 𝑡
𝐿

𝜀(𝑡) is the strain in the bar for a pulse:

I – incident, R – reflected, T – transmitted

9 of 19
Confinement

Radial Inertia
• Additional radial stress for an uncompressible specimen
(Forrestal et al. 2007)
𝜎𝑟
𝜌𝑎2 d2 𝜀𝑧
4 d𝑡 2

𝑟 𝑟
𝑎 𝑎
• Uncompressible (𝜈 = 0.5) is an upper bound
• Radial stress confines specimen → not uniaxial stress

10 of 19
Confinement

Friction
• Typically dealt with by lubrication
• Simulations suggest friction is negligible when 𝜇 < 0.1
(Li and Meng 2003)
𝜇
• Additional stress from friction varies with (Rand 1967;
𝐿/𝐷
Bertholf and Karnes 1975)

11 of 19
 Effects of Geometry

There is a tradeoff:

Small L/D Large L/D

Reaches equilibrium faster Reaches equilibrium slower
Higher strain rates Lower strain rates
Higher confinement Lower confinement

12 of 19
Ideal Equations

Davies and Hunter (1963)

• Axial and radial inertia, but not friction

𝐿 3
= 𝜈
𝐷 𝑜𝑝𝑡 2

• If 𝜈 = 0.2 then 𝐿/𝐷 𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 0.17

• Practical note: minimum size might depend on fiber length

13 of 19
Ideal Equations

Malinowski and Klepaczko (1986)

• Axial inertia, radial inertia, and friction
• Dependent on specifics of the test
• Requires iterative testing
1/3
𝐿 2𝜇𝜎
=
𝐷 𝑜𝑝𝑡 𝜌𝐷2 𝜀 2 + 𝜀

14 of 19
Ways to Approach Standardization

“Ideal” specimen approach

• Eliminate undesirable effects as much as possible
• Likely different “ideal” for different UHPCs

“Good enough” specimen approaches

1. Back-calculate material properties (FEA, etc.)
2. Simplified correction, accepting some structural effects
3. Explicit consideration of confinement → TXC test

15 of 19
Current Work at Michigan Tech

• UHPC with 30-mm long, 0.55-mm diameter steel fibers

• Michigan Tech SHPB has 3-in. diameter bars
• Concerns
• Adequate representation of fiber effects
• Friction
• Stress and strain at failure
• Choice: 3-in. by 3-in. cylinder (L/D = 1)
• Stress equilibrium
• Majority of specimens reached equilibrium before peak stress
Δ𝜎
• Worst case was = 18% at failure
𝜎𝑚

16 of 19
 Final Thoughts
• There is no perfect specimen

“… strength is not a fundamental or intrinsic

property of concrete made from given materials.
Values obtained will depend on the size and
shape of the specimen …”
(ASTM C39/C39M–15a, emphasis added)

• Value of a standard

17 of 19
Questions?

18 of 19
References
• ASTM. 2015. ASTM C39/C39M, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
• Bertholf LD, Karnes CH. 1975. Two-dimensional analysis of the split Hopkinson pressure bar system. Journal of
the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 23(1):1-19.
• Davies EDH, Hunter SC. 1963. The dynamic compression testing of solids by the method of the split Hopkinson
pressure bar. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 11(3):155-179.
• Forrestal MJ, Wright TW, Chen W. 2007. The effect of radial inertia on brittle samples during the split Hopkinson
pressure bar test. International Journal of Impact Engineering 34(3):405-411.
• Gray III GT. 2000. Classic Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing. ASM Handbook Volume 8, Mechanical Testing
and Evaluation. Materials Park, OH: ASM International. p. 462-476.
• Li QM, Meng H. 2003. About the dynamic strength enhancement of concrete-like materials in a split Hopkinson
pressure bar test. International Journal of Solids and Structures 40(2):343-360.
• Malinowski J, Klepaczko J. 1986. A unified analytic and numerical approach to specimen behaviour in the split-
Hopkinson pressure bar. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 28(6):381-391.
• Rand JL. 1967. Report NOLTR 67-156. An Analysis of the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar. White Oak, MD: U.S.
Naval Ordnance Laboratory.
• Ravichandran G, Subhash G. 1994. Critical appraisal of limiting strain rates for compression testing of ceramics
in a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 77(1):263-267.
• Subhash G, Ravichandran G. 2000. Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing of Ceramics. ASM Handbook Volume 8,
Mechanical Testing and Evaluation. Materials Park, OH: ASM International. p. 497-504.
• Yang L, Shim V. 2005. An analysis of stress uniformity in split Hopkinson bar test specimens. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 31(2):129-150.

19 of 19