Crack initiation at high loading rates applying the four-point bending split Hopkinson pressure bar technique
Source abstract
Abstract
Dynamic crack initiation with crack-tip loading rates of K̇ ≈ 2.106MPa√ms-1 in a high strength G42CrMoS4 steel was investigated. To this end, a previously developed split Hopkinson pressure bar with four-point bending was utilised. V-notched and pre-cracked Charpy specimens were tested. The detection of dynamic crack initiation was performed by analysing the dynamic force equilibrium between the incident and the transmission bar. Additionally, the signal of a near-field strain gauge and high-speed photography were used to determine the instant of crack initiation. To account for vibrations of the sample, a dynamic analysis of the stress intensity factor was performed. The dynamic and static analyses of the tests produced nearly the same results when a force equilibrium was achieved. Fracture-surface analysis revealed that elongated MnS inclusions strongly affected both the dynamic crack initiation and growth. Blunting of the precrack did not take place when a group of MnS inclusions was located directly at the precrack tip. Due to the direction of the elongated MnS inclusions perpendicular to the direction of crack growth, the crack could be deflected. The comparison with a 42CrMo4 steel without elongated MnS inclusions revealed the detrimental effect in terms of resistance to crack initiation. Taking the loading-rate dependency into consideration, it was shown that there was no pronounced embrittlement due to the high loading rates.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Electromagnetic Launch and Propulsion Technology
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. ASTM C 1421 (2010) Standard test methods for determination of fracture toughness of advanced ceramics at ambient temperature. doi: 10.1520/C142110.1520/C1421 ↗
2. ASTM E 1820 (2013) Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness. doi: 10.1520/E182010.1520/E1820 ↗
3. Bancroft D (1941) The velocity of longitudinal waves in cylindrical bars. Phys Rev 59(7):588–593. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.59.58810.1103/PhysRev.59.588 ↗
4. Beremin FM (1981) Cavity formation from inclusions in ductile fracture of A508 steel. Metall Trans A 12(5):723–731. doi: 10.1007/BF0264833610.1007/BF02648336 ↗
5. Biswas D, Venkatraman M, Narendranath CS, Chatterjee UK (1992) Influence of sulfide inclusion on ductility and fracture behavior of resulfurized HY-80 steel. Metall Trans A 23(5):1479–1492. doi: 10.1007/BF0264733110.1007/BF02647331 ↗
6. Cox TB, Low JR Jr (1974) An investigation of the plastic fracture of AISI 4340 and 18 Nickel-200 grade maraging steels. Metall Trans 5(6):1457–1470. doi: 10.1007/BF0264663310.1007/BF02646633 ↗
7. Chen WW, Song B (eds) (2011) Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar: design, testing and applications. Springer, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7982-710.1007/978-1-4419-7982-7 ↗
8. Foster JT, Chen WW, Luk VK (2011) Dynamic crack initiation toughness of 4340 steel at constant loading rates. Eng Fract Mech 78(6):1264–1276. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.02.01910.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.02.019 ↗
9. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen WW (2001) A split Hopkinson pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress-strain data for rock materials. Exp Mech 41(1):40–46. doi: 10.1007/BF0232310210.1007/BF02323102 ↗
10. Garrison WM Jr, Moody NR (1987) Ductile fracture. J Phys Chem Solids 48(11):1035–1074. doi: 10.1016/0022-3697(87)90118-110.1016/0022-3697(87)90118-1 ↗
11. Gorham DA (1983) A numerical method for the correction of dispersion in pressure bar signals. J Phys E: Sci Instrum 16(6):477–479. doi: 10.1088/0022-3735/16/6/00810.1088/0022-3735/16/6/008 ↗
12. Gray GT (2000) Classic split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing. In: Kuhn H, Medlin D (eds) ASM-Handbook, vol 8. ASM International, Ohio, pp 462–476
13. Henschel S, Krewerth D, Ballani F, Weidner A, Krüger L, Biermann H, Emmel M, Aneziris CG (2013) Effect of filter coating on the quasi-static and cyclic mechanical properties of a G42CrMo4 casting. Adv Eng Mater 15(12):1216–1223. doi: 10.1002/adem.20130012510.1002/adem.201300125 ↗
14. Henschel S, Krüger L (2015) Dynamic crack initiation measurements in a four-point split Hopkinson bending device. Eng Fract Mech 133:62–75. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.02010.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.020 ↗
15. Hosseini SB, Temmel C, Karlsson B, Ingesten NG (2007) An in-situ scanning electron microscopy study of the bonding between MnS inclusions and the matrix during tensile deformation of hot-rolled steels. Metall Mater Trans A 38(5):982–989. doi: 10.1007/s11661-007-9122-910.1007/s11661-007-9122-9 ↗
16. Hsieh DY, Kolsky H (1958) An experimental study of pulse propagation in elastic cylinders. Proc Phys Soc 71(4):608–61210.1088/0370-1328/71/4/308 ↗
17. ISO 12135 (2002) Metallic materials - Unified method of test for the determination of quasistatic fracture toughness
18. Jiang F, Vecchio KS (2007) Experimental investigation of dynamic effects in a two-bar/three-point bend fracture test. Rev Sci Instrum 78(6):063903. doi: 10.1063/1.274663010.1063/1.2746630 ↗
19. Jiang F, Vecchio KS (2007) Dynamic effects in Hopkinson bar four-point bend fracture. Metall Mater Trans A 38(12):2896–2906. doi: 10.1007/s11661-007-9301-810.1007/s11661-007-9301-8 ↗
20. Kalthoff JF, Winkler S, Böhme W (1985) A novel procedure for measuring the impact fracture toughness KId with precracked Charpy specimens. J Phys Colloq 46(C5):179–186. doi: 10.1051/jphyscol:198552310.1051/jphyscol:1985523 ↗
21. Khanna SK, Shukla A (1995) On the use of strain gages in dynamic fracture mechanics. Eng Fract Mech 51(6):933–948. doi: 10.1016/0013-7944(94)00325-C10.1016/0013-7944(94)00325-C ↗
22. Kishimoto K, Aoki S, Sakata M (1980) Simple formula for dynamic stress intensity factor of pre-cracked Charpy specimen. Eng Fract Mech 13(3):501–508. doi: 10.1016/0013-7944(80)90081-810.1016/0013-7944(80)90081-8 ↗
23. Krüger L, Trubitz P, Henschel S (2015) Bruchmechanisches Verhalten unter quasistatischer und schlagartiger Beanspruchung. In: Biermann H, Krüger L (eds) Moderne Methoden der Werkstoffprüfung. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp 1–52. doi: 10.1002/9783527670673.ch110.1002/9783527670673.ch1 ↗
24. Kußmaul K, Klenk A, Link T, Schüle M (1997) Dynamic material properties and their application to components. Nucl Eng Des 174(3):219–235. doi: 10.1016/S0029-5493(97)00134-910.1016/S0029-5493(97)00134-9 ↗
25. Kußmaul K, Demler T (1992) The effect of loading rate on the strength and toughness of fine-grained structural steels. Steel Res 63(12):545–55310.1002/srin.199201758 ↗
26. Mirsky I, Herrmann G (1958) Axially motions of thick cylindrical shells. J Appl Mech (Trans ASME) 25:97–10210.1115/1.4011695 ↗
27. Rokach IV (1998) Modal approach for processing one- and three-point bend test data for DSIF-time diagram determination. Part I - Theory. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 21(8):1007–1014. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-2695.1998.00087.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.1998.00087.x ↗
28. Rokach IV (1998) Modal approach for processing one- and three-point bend test data for DSIF-time diagram determination. Part II - Calculations and results. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 21(8):1015–1026. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-2695.1998.00088.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.1998.00088.x ↗
29. Rokach IV, Łabędzki P (2009) Determination of the dynamic stress intensity factor for the four-point bend impact test. Int J Fract 160(1):93–100. doi: 10.1007/s10704-009-9404-x10.1007/s10704-009-9404-x ↗
30. Rubio L, Fernández-Sáez J, Navarro C (2003) Determination of dynamic fracture-initiation toughness using three-point bending tests in a modified Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 43(4):379–386. doi: 10.1007/BF0241134210.1007/BF02411342 ↗
31. Thornton PA (1971) The influence of nonmetallic inclusions on the mechanical properties of steel: a review. J Mater Sci 6(4):347–356. doi: 10.1007/PL0002037810.1007/PL00020378 ↗
32. Vecchio KS, Jiang F (2007) Improved pulse shaping to achieve constant strain rate and stress equilibrium in split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing. Metall Mater Trans A 38(11):2655–2665. doi: 10.1007/s11661-007-9204-810.1007/s11661-007-9204-8 ↗
33. Weerasooriya T, Moy P, Casem D, Cheng M, Chen WW (2006) A four-point bend technique to determine dynamic fracture toughness of ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 89(3):990–995. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2005.00896.x10.1111/j.1551-2916.2005.00896.x ↗
34. Weidner A, Mottitschka T, Biermann H, Henkel S (2013) Determination of stretch zone width and height by powerful 3D SEM imaging technology. Eng Fract Mech 108:294–304. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.03.02110.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.03.021 ↗
35. Zhu SF, Yang C, Guo CH, Jiang F (2014) An experimental-numerical hybrid method to determine dynamic elastic-plastic fracture toughness. Key Eng Mater 577–578:517–520. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.577-578.51710.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.577-578.517 ↗