Literature Review Report on

Specimen Design and its Effects for Kolsky bar

Experiment
By
Yuvaraj Reddy Chitela

Abstract: In this report, a detailed review was done on the effects of specimen sizes, length by
diameter ratios, interfacial friction, radial inertia, and non-cylindrical specimens on the
characterization of material response at high strain rate loading using Kolsky bar experiment.

Introduction: In the modern world to design different kinematic applications using different
materials, it is very important to know the material behavior at the applied force rate. There were
many methods developed to know the behavior of material at static loading, but the applications
designed considering static behavior of the material have failed to work properly because
materials have a different behavior at dynamic loading conditions. This has led many researchers
to work on analyzing of dynamic behavior of material. In 1918 Hopkinson introduced an
experimental concept to determine the dynamic behavior of materials. In 1949 H Kolsky
developed a device to determine the dynamic behavior of the material. Later this device had been
modified by different researchers to achieve desired results.

To determine the dynamic behavior of the material, first the material specimen is sandwiched in
between the two elastic bars and there are two strain gauges attached to the elastic bars. At first
the striker bar loaded in the gas gun hits the elastic bar and a compressive wave is generated, this
wave passes from the first elastic bar to the specimen at the interface of the specimen a wave is
reflected back to the elastic bar and then from the specimen it passes to the to the second elastic

bar and it hits the end and travel back in opposite direction. From the elasto dynamics following
equations are derived to calculate stress and strain.
s ( t )=

s=

A 0 E0 t ( t)
As

2 c 0 r (t )
Ls
t

s (t)= s ( ) d
0

In the recent times Kolsky bar experiment is been widely used in determining the dynamic
stress-strain relationship of various materials because it can produce the results with a reasonably
acceptable accuracy and the cost is very cheap.

In SHPB test there havent been any standardized specimen length or diameter have been
proposed, this is due to the complexity analyzing the material behavior, different materials with
different properties require different testing conditions. Due to this while testing various
materials require various specimen sizes. Previously many researchers have investigated the
effects of specimen size in the test results and they have provided suitable geometries, for
different materials for testing. Further in this report different types effects occurred due to
specimen sizes is discussed.

Effects of Specimen Size:

Initially when the SHPB test was employed the transmission of stress waves was done by the
explosively loaded elastic anvil bar towards the specimen. At that time some investigators used
short specimen, when short specimens were used to transmit the stress waves through the
specimen they had to ignore all the inherent stresses, due to this some investigators abandoned
the use of short specimen and they employed long specimen. In these experiments the
transformation of experimental observations into basic mechanical properties of a material
involved the specimen response for the wave propagation analysis and this analysis required
additional hypothesis about the material behavior. When small specimens were used stress-strain
and time were simultaneously measured. So using of small specimen have been more convenient
to do the tests by making appropriate allowances for the inherent stresses.

Role of L/D ratio on the SHPB tests: The L/D ratio of SHPB test specimen is also known as
slenderness ratio plays a crucial role in the test. The validity of the test results is dependent on
the L/D ratios. In order to avoid size effects like inertia and interfacial friction we must choose
an appropriate L/D ratios. Usually the selection of appropriate L/D is done be considering the
following restrictions.

The Interfacial friction effect should be negligible.

The Axial inertia effect also should be negligible, this means the force should be constant
throughout its length and there shall not be effect of wave propagation.
Radial inertial effect shall also be small.

In Kolsky work the L/D ratio of the specimen was 0.05, with this ratio kolsky considered the
effect of stress in axial direction is uniform. He allowed to develop inertial stress in radial and
tangential direction. The dynamic stresses of annealed copper obtained by kolsky did not present
a reasonable value when extrapolated with the data obtained by Baron (1956). The difference
between these two had been matched if a factor of 1.3-1.5 have been multiplied. Later analysis
was done on the kolskys experiment and it was determined that this difference was due to the
interfacial friction.

Later in 1962 Davies & Hunter have done a mathematical treatment to the kolsky model by
considering a mathematical model shown by Siebel (1923). This analysis showed the relation
between friction coefficient and the L/D ratio of the specimen. That analysis show the criterion
D
1
3L
From Hawkyard and Freeman (1954) have estimated that the interfacial friction coefficient is
being in between 0.02 to 0.06 and by substituting this value in the above equation leads to a
value
D
12.5
L
There were experiments performed to observe the behavior of different L/D specimen ratios of
the same material. Pankow, Attard and Waas (2009) had performed an experiment comparing the
material behavior of 3 Specimens of same material,
Circular Specimen
1
2
3

Dia(mm)
9.4
9.4
9.4

Length(mm)
1.78
2.54
4.57

L/D
0.189
0.270
0.486

They found out that the all specimens have exhibited similar stress-strain histories and also
made some observations from the following graph

With decrease in the thickness the duration of the stress-strain history duration is
increased.
Thin specimen with the L/D ratio=0.189 have displayed the complete history.
Thick specimen with L/D ratio=0.486 had the shortest duration but it had displayed the
most data in the initial regime.

Another graph between strain rate and strain shows the equilibrium and holds the validity of the
data.

In this graph even though the thicker specimen experiences a lower strain compared with the thin
specimen at initial strains a steady straining is achieved. This point holds the validity of the
experiment. From this experiment we know that to determine failure and yield strength thinner
specimen can be used and to extract strain rate dependence on youngs modulus thick specimen
must be used.

Effects of Friction on the Kolsky bar experiment:

In a Kolsky bar experiment friction is produced mainly due to the use of short specimens. The
friction at the interface of specimen and the elastic rods leads to a 3D stress state. Due to the
friction the measured stress of the specimen greatly increases, this happens because the lateral
expansion of the bar is limited by the interfacial friction, due to the limitation of length of the rod
the stress is heavily increased.

The interfacial friction will act completely different with the brittle materials, as friction limits
the unilateral expansion of the bar this will result in the development of multi axial stresses. Due
to the multi axial stresses premature failure will occur in the specimen. So the measured stress is
less than the actual stress. Use of the lubricants at the interface of specimen and the elastic rods
will reduce the friction. A study was conducted by Song et al (2009), in this experiment he
compared the stress-strain curves of aluminum, without lubrication and with vegetable oil and
petroleum jelly as lubricants.

From the observations of above graph we can note that without proper lubrication the stresses in
the specimen are highly increased.
Another observation had been done by L.D. Bertholf and C.H. Karnes analyze the effect of
friction in the following

Effect on Material stress strain path.

Uniformity of Stress-strain in specimen.
Accuracy in specimen behavior predicted by Elastics bars.

The observed stress-strain profile is shown below for =0.05, 0.15,0.25 with a L/d Ratio of 0.3

From the above three graphs the realistic friction effect on the Stress-Strain profile is observed.

Effects of Inertia on the SHPB test:

In a Kolsky bar experiment Inertia occurs due to the dynamic event. Initially along with
acceleration inertia in radial and axial direction change strain rate from 0 to the desired amount.
But the stresses associated with the radial and axial strain should be every small when compared
with the stress flow in Specimen. We need to find the true dynamic behavior of the material, so
the inertial effect correction were proposed by Kolsky in his experiment using energy method.
Kolskys analysis is done on a thin sample, so in this equation inertia in radial direction was
neglected.
2

1
d
s= b 2s d 2 s 2
8
dt
Davies and Hunter (1963) gave an analysis about the frictional effects and the considered the
radial inertia they had resulted the following equation.
2
l2
d2
2 d
s= b+ s ( s ) 2
6
8 dt

Samanta(1971) gave an analysis which is similar to hunter and Davies but he added the
s=0.5 and his equation

 s= b+ s

l2 d 2 d 2
d 2 l 2 d 2

( )
6 32 d t 2 s 64 3 dt

In an experiment done by Bertholf and Karnes for zero friction and different L/d ratios the
dynamic behavior is shown below

Effect of Radial Inertia for Kolsky bar test for an Incompressible Material:
T.L Warren and M.J Forrestal derived a mathematical equation for the effect of radial inertia in a
kolsky bar experiment for an incompressible material, this explain that the inertia in radial
direction have a parabolic distribution.

Conclusion:
Kolsky bar experiment was proposed by H. Kolsky (1949) to analyze the dynamic behavior of
the materials, this is a unique experiment to determine the dynamic behavior of the material cost
effectively and with reasonably accurate results. While performing the experiment a judicious
care must be taken for the specimen designing, because this test dont have a standardized
specimen geometry. We need to design the specimen geometry according to our application and
material properties. Desired results will only be generated with the proper design of specimen.

As we discuss the geometric effects of the specimen, the size of the specimen must be always
short because, when longer specimens were used considering the stress the propagation of wave
must be analyzed and this makes our test process complex. So short specimens were used to
directly measure stress-strain and time. L/D ratio of the specimen in the test plays a crucial role
in the test due to different L/d ratios different geometric effects are produced in the results, to
avoid this in most of the cases the L/D ratio should be in between 0.5 to 2 depending on the
material properties. There wont be a difference in the dynamics behavior of a material for
different L/d ratios.

The effect of friction must be negligible to get the proper dynamic behavior of the material. Due
to the friction the stresses in the material is increased and in the brittle materials due the friction
the measured stress is less that the actual material dynamic stress. So proper care must be take
while designing the L/d ratio and also proper lubrication must be provided at the interface of
specimen and the elastic bars to minimize the error in result caused by the friction.

Inertia effect occurs at the dynamic events and due to the inertial stress in radial and axial
direction increase in stress rate is observed, as we need the intrinsic behavior of the material the
correction factor has been applied to the stresses. The radial inertial effect in a incompressible
material is different and according to a mathematical equation inertia in radial direction is in
parabolic distribution. This is used when designing specimen with incompressible material.

References:

Two dimensional analysis of SHPB system Berthlof and Karnes

Dynamic compression testing of solids by the method of split Hopkinson pressure
bar-Davies and Hunter
Effects of Specimen size in Kolsky Bar-Srinivas Arjun Tenkalur and Oshika sen
Specimen Geometry Effects in high Strain rate Testing-Eyassu Woldsenbet and Jack
Winson
Specimen Size and Shape Effect in Split Hopkinson pressure bar testing- Pankow,
Attard, A M Waas.
Split Hopkinson Bar Technique for Low Impedance material W.Chen, B.Zhang and
MJ Forrestal
Comments on the Effect of Radial Inertia in the Kolsky bar Test for an
Incompressible material TL Warren , MJ Forrestal