Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 Introduction
A detailed knowledge of the mechanical properties of low-carbon mild steels at dif-
ferent strain rates is crucial, because these steels are the most commonly used in
several fields, such as, automotive, aerospace, building construction as well as off-shore
structures.
During the last decades, the influence of loading rates now was the subject of
several experimental studies on the mechanical behaviour of different grades of mild
steels [1–4]. In particular, in the aerospace and automotive fields, the high strain-rate
mechanical properties are of fundamental importance in order to improve the crash-
worthiness and safety against impacts. On the other hand, in building constructions
and off-shore structures, a detailed knowledge of the material properties at high strain
rates is essential, for example, for the assessment of robustness where a collapse may
be triggered by the failure of structural elements subjected to dynamic events (e.g.
earthquakes, blasts, or terrorist attacks). Among the different mild steel grades, the
S355 low-alloy structural steel is widely used in the construction field due to its good
strength characteristics and welding properties. The purpose of the present paper is
a e-mail: leopold.kruszka@wat.edu.pl
30 The European Physical Journal Special Topics
to compare the mechanical compressive and tensile properties of the S355 structural
(mild) steel in a wide range of strain rates. Hopkinson bar apparatus is employed to
obtain the stress versus strain curves under dynamic loads. The material parameters
of the existing Cowper–Symonds and Johnson–Cook models are determined on the
basis of the mechanical properties obtained from compression tests. A comparison
between these parameters and those obtained from tensile tests in a wide range of
strain rates are reported as well [5].
Fig. 1. General views of the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar apparatus with data acquisition
and control systems.
In the set-up, the signals are recorded digitally with a 0.5 µs sampling step. During
experimental investigations, different strain rates were obtained using three striker
velocities v : 9, 18 and 27 m/s. A pulse shaping technique was used to shape the profile
of the incident pulse and, as a result, to facilitate constant strain rate deformation.
Disks made of copper with Dc = 6 mm and Lc = 1 mm were used as pulse shapers.
A SHTB was used for the mechanical characterisation in tension at high strain
rates (Fig. 2) [7,8]. Three different testing conditions were used, leading to the fol-
lowing three averaged strain rates: 300 s−1 (v1 = 2.30 m/s), 500 s−1 (v2 = 2.90 m/s)
and 850 s−1 (v3 = 4.00 m/s). The corresponding particle velocities in the input
bar are reported within brackets. Tests at medium strain rates (5 and 25 s−1 )
were performed by means of a hydro-pneumatic machine (HPM) described in
[8,10]. Quasi-static tensile tests were performed by means of a universal electrome-
chanical testing machine Zwick/Roell-Z50. All the tests were performed at room
temperature.
Fig. 3. Example of denoising strain gauge signals using wavelet filters (left), and example
of smoothing experimental compression data (stress–strain diagram) using wavelet filter
(right).
C0 t
Z
N (t) = −2 r (t) dt, (1)
L 0
EA
σN (t) = t (t) , (2)
AS
C0
˙N (t) = −2 r (t) , (3)
L
where C0 is the speed of the stress wave in the pressure bar, L is the length of the
specimen, E is the modulus of elasticity for the bar material, A is the cross-sectional
area of the bar, AS is the cross-sectional area of the specimen, εR (t) is the axial
strain of the reflected wave and εT (t) is the axial strain of the transmitted wave.
The recorded strain gauge signals from the incident and the transmitted bars are
shifted in time to the specimen/bar interface. In Figure 4, typical signals from a split
Hopkinson pressure bar test are shown.
In the present work, the nominal (subscript N ) values of the stresses, strains and
strain rates were used to determine the true (subscript T ) values by the following
DYMAT 2018 33
Fig. 4. Signals from strain gauges prepared for the calculation of nominal strains, stresses
and strain rates (SHPB).
equations [18] (note that strains and stresses are defined as positive in compression):
The true strain rates in the compressive tests were calculated as average values
from the true strain rate-time data (plots). Firstly, the yield strength for each plot
was determined at 0.2% offset strain. This value, was adopted as the beginning of
plastic deformation and using true stress versus time data, the start point at the
34 The European Physical Journal Special Topics
strain rate-time plot was determined. The moment of unloading of the specimen was
adopted as the end point of calculations (Fig. 5). A detailed description of the data
processing and functioning of the SHTB used in this work has been reported in [5,6],
while the functioning of the HPM has been described in [8].
4 Experimental results
The results of the experimental investigations for the S355 structural steel in com-
pression are presented in Figures 6–9 in the form of true stress-true strain diagrams.
In Figures 10–15, the true curves of quasi-static and dynamic mechanical tests at
the considered strain rates are depicted for tensile tests. In order to take into con-
sideration the correction for the triaxial stress state in the tensile tests beyond the
DYMAT 2018 35
point of ultimate tensile strength, the one-dimensional true stress–strain curve has
been reconstructed by calculating the true stress and true strain using the Bridgman
formulae [19].
The strain rate sensitivity of the initial yield point for the tests both in
compression and in tension is shown in Figure 16.
The Johnson–Cook and Cowper–Symonds parameters for the S355 structural steel
have already been determined [5] on the basis of the mechanical behaviour in tension
at room temperature (see Tab. 1). The following parameters were evaluated on the
basis of the mechanical behaviour in compression.
The Cowper–Symonds model describes the flow stress by the following equation
[20]:
1/q
fy,dyn ˙
=1+ , (7)
fy,sta D
and requires only the yield strengths obtained from the quasi-static and high strain
rates tests. D and q are constant parameters of the Cowper–Symonds model and
DYMAT 2018 37
Fig. 13. True stress–strain curves for tensile tests at 300 s−1 .
were obtained by means of a nonlinear square function. The result of fitting the
experimental compression data to equation (7) is presented in Figure 17.
On the other hand, the flow stress of the Johnson–Cook constitutive model for
our tests without taking into account the influence of the ambient temperature (i.e.
at room temperature) is expressed by the following equation [21]:
˙
np
σ = A+B· · 1 + c · ln , (8)
˙0
Fig. 14. True stress–strain curves for tensile tests at 500 s−1 .
Fig. 15. True stress–strain curves for tensile tests at 850 s−1 .
as the average yield strength obtained in the quasi-static tests. The parameters B, n
and c were obtained by means of nonlinear square functions, and the results of fitting
the experimental data are presented in Figures 18 and 19, respectively.
The comparison between the Johnson–Cook model and the experimental data in
the dynamic compression of the S355 steel (Fig. 20) represents acceptable reliability
only in the initial range of plastic strains up to 6% due to the thermal softening effect
of adiabatic heating of the dynamically deformed samples. This temperature increase
in the area of plastic dynamic deformation of samples’ material is caused by the
phenomenon of energy dissipation during passive thermomechanical couplings [22]. It
is worth noting that at high strain rates no heat is dissipated from the specimen to the
surrounding and the test conditions are adiabatic. As a consequence, mainly during
the necking process, the temperature of the specimen rises further. This temperature
DYMAT 2018 39
Fig. 16. Comparison between yield strength increases in tension and in compression.
increase, limited to few dozens of degrees [23,24], has been considered negligible for
the purposes of the testing and hence also in the fitting method for the Johnson–
Cook equation the temperature increase due to adiabatic heating has been considered
negligible.
The S355 steel material parameters of the existing Cowper–Symonds and
Johnson–Cook models at room temperature are determined based on the experi-
mental results as follows: Cowper–Symonds model in tension:
– Cowper–Symonds model in tension:
" 1/2.696 #
0 ˙
fy,dyn ()
˙ = 448.0 · 1 + [MPa];
4945
40 The European Physical Journal Special Topics
Fig. 18. Fitting experimental compression data for obtaining isotropic hardening parame-
ters B and n (Johnson–Cook model).
Fig. 19. Fitting experimental compression data for obtaining the strain rate sensitivity
parameter c (Johnson–Cook model).
Fig. 20. Johnson–Cook model in comparison with the compressive quasi-static and SHPB
results.
The above formulas derived from the empirical modelling results of physical exper-
iments for the same diameter samples indicate that the nature of uniaxial plastic
deformation during compression and tension is not symmetrical. A significant effect
on a visible difference in the described behaviours of samples made of the same
material and deformed in tension and compression is due to the different boundary
conditions during the tests. Thus, the asymmetry of these static and dynamic curves
is a synergistic result, above all, of various boundary conditions of the samples tested
during compression and tension, in particular the effect of frictional forces on the
two flat surfaces of the samples, as well as various forms of real plastic deformation
of tested cylindrical samples during compression (progressing barreling effect) and
tension (progressing necking effect), in particular after reaching the yield stress of
the material tested.
For the sake of clearness, the parameters obtained from the tensile and compressive
tests are collected in Table 1.
42 The European Physical Journal Special Topics
The authors wish to thank M. Dotta and N. Tesio of the DynaMat Laboratory, University
of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland, for their assistance in the experiments.
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Com-
mons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
1. N.K. Singh, E. Cadoni, M.K. Singha, N.K. Gupta, J. Eng. Mech. 139, 1197 (2013)
2. M. Singh, D. Sood, R.K. Gupta, P C. Gautam, B. Sewak, A.C. Sharma, M. Thomson,
Def. Sci. J. 58, 275 (2008)
DYMAT 2018 43