Geotech Geol Eng

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0659-8 (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Dynamic Properties of Geologic Specimens Subjected

to Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Compression Testing
at the University of Kentucky
Russell Lamont . Jhon Silva

Received: 23 February 2018 / Accepted: 1 August 2018

Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Abstract Advances in materials science have shown
that material behavior varies according to the rate of
load application (strain-rate sensitivity). With regards
to compressive strength, materials have been observed
to exhibit a strengthening, weakening, or negligible
response to increasing strain-rates (Zhang and Zhao in
Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(4):1411–1478, 2014). Prac-
tical experimentation to ascertain these responses has
been carried out for over a century, based on the
fundamental equipment design pioneered by John
Hopkinson in 1872 and modified by Kolsky in 1949. A
contemporary Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)
has been constructed at the University of Kentucky
(UKY) to research the dynamic properties of various
geologic materials for mining and civil engineering
applications. Geologic samples are of an inconsistent
nature due to inherent discontinuities and large grain
size. To ensure test specimens are of adequate size to
reflect this inconsistent nature, the SHPB at the UKY
has been constructed with component bars of 2 in.
(5.08 cm) diameter. Prior publications have discussed
various considerations associated with the testing
procedure and data processing of this SHPB (disper-
sion correction, pulse shaping, etc.) (Silva and Lamont
2017). This publication presents the results of mate-
rials testing with this SHPB. Three materials were
selected: Bedford (Indiana) Limestone, Berea (Ohio)
R. Lamont (&)  J. Silva
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
e-mail: Russell.Lamont@uky.edu
Sandstone, and Aluminum 6061-T6. Two of these are
common aggregates found in the mining and con-
struction industries, while the third is an aluminum
variant often encountered in industrial applications.
Dynamic compression testing of these materials at
various strain rates was carried out, and the results are
included. Static test results have been included for
comparison, and the testing and data analysis proce-
dure are discussed in detail.
Keywords Hopkinson bar  Compression testing 
Dynamic properties  Geologic samples  Strain
response
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The application of compressive loading is often
divided into two classifications: ‘‘static’’, and ‘‘dy-
namic’’. As the names suggest, static loading repre-
sents situations in which materials are subjected to
stationary loads which change negligibly over time. A
great amount of historical effort has gone into refining
the static testing methodology, largely due to the
relative ease of data monitoring and processing that
accompanies a slow moving process. However, in
practical circumstances, real-world loads often change

123

significantly over time. These are known as dynamic
loads. The static properties of most materials are still
useful in indicating probable responses, even under
dynamic loading, and thus are included in many
engineering models. Attempts to more accurately
model and predict dynamic loading scenarios have led
to efforts to define dynamic properties, despite the
degree of difficulty involved.
The design and procedure of dynamic compression
testing is a complex task, as no single established
standard for this testing has yet attained general
acceptance. Instead, the science describing the phys-
ical processes which occur during dynamic testing has
been explored and explained, which may then be used
by researchers to establish independent but often
similar test protocols. The construction and operation
principles of the SHPB at the UKY followed basic
guidelines which are summarized by the following
characteristics:
1. Two equal-length, thin bars (known as the inci-
dent and transmitted bars) constructed of a high-
strength material such as steel, titanium, or nickel
alloy.
2. A striker bar constructed of the same material,
typically designed to be the same diameter but of
much shorter length than the other two bars. Using
a barrel, this striker bar is directed to strike in
alignment with the incident bar.
3. A compressed gas system with quick-release
valve used to impart momentum to the striker
bar, and a laser interruption type device used to
capture striker velocity.
4. Minimum of two strain gauges bonded to the
surface of the incident and transmitted bars and
connected to a data acquisition system. These
strain gauges are usually installed equidistant
from the specimen-bar interfaces to simplify the
data processing.
As shown in Fig. 1, the SHPB constructed at the
UKY is composed of perfectly machined SAE 4340
Fig. 1 Configuration and
dimensions of the SHPB at
the UKY (U.S. customary
units)
123
Geotech Geol Eng
grade steel bars of 2 in. (5.08 cm) diameter. The
incident and transmitted bars are 96 in. (2.45 m) long,
while the striker bar (bullet) used for this testing is
24 in. (0.61 m) in length with a mass of 20.28 lbf
(9.2 kg). The Poisson’s Ratio of this steel is 0.29, and
it possesses a density of 490.06 pcf (7.85 g/cc). A
compressed gas system capable of sustaining charge
pressures up to 700 psi (4.83 MPa) allows for control
of impact velocity. Strain gauges are installed at the
locations shown in Fig. 1 above, with multiple gauges
at each location to allow for signal combination, thus
reducing any signal variation possible from gauge
installations. An MREL DataTrapII data recorder is
used to capture the signals, with sampling rates of up
to 10 MSa/s. More detailed discussion of the SHPB
characteristics and experimental setup has been cov-
ered by Silva and Lamont (2017) (Fig. 2).
The pulse generated by the impact of the striker on
the incident bar will propagate at the wave speed of the
bar material cb until reaching the interface of the
incident bar and test specimen. At this point, a portion
of the strain pulse will be reflected back and a portion
will be transmitted through the specimen. This concept
is depicted in Fig. 3.
Despite equipment design differences and varying
applications, the basic science of the SHPB apparatus
at the UKY remains similar to that explored by other
researchers. Thus, derivation of the dynamic formulas
which dictate determination of sample compressive
strength is essential to understanding the experimental
process. Frew et al. (2002) provide an excellent
discussion of this derivation, an adaptation of which is
given in this section. Note that the component steel
bars of the SHPB possess properties of density q,
Young’s Modulus Eb , bar wave speed cb , and cross-
sectional area Ab . When referring to the directions
shown in Fig. 3, the derived equations follow sign
conventions of positive stress in compression, positive
strain in contraction, and positive particle velocity to
the left. Subscripts 1 and 2 represent the incident-
specimen and specimen-transmitted interfaces,
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 Photographs of the SHPB at the UKY and the placement of the material specimen within the apparatus

Fig. 3 Diagram showing a

general schematic of the
SHPB device along with
direction and nomenclature
of the induced strain waves
adapted from Gray III
(2000)

respectively. Subscripts i, r, and t, denote the incident,
reflected, and transmitted strain waves as shown in
Fig. 3. If the material specimen being tested has an
initial cross-sectional area As and length Ls , then the
stress at interfaces 1 and 2 may be calculated as
Eb Ab
r1 ¼ ð ei þ er Þ ð1Þ
As
Eb Ab
r2 ¼ ð et Þ ð2Þ
As
As the incident strain pulse reaches the specimen, a
portion of the pulse will undergo reflections within the
specimen, due to the impedance mismatch which
exists at interfaces 1 and 2. As these reflections take
place, the specimen gradually reaches dynamic stress
equilibrium. Thus, as time elapses in the experiment,
the difference between the values of r1 and r2 should
decrease and ultimately reach equivalency. In reality,
due to various loading and wave phenomena it is
unlikely that the two values will ever reach precisely
the same value for any appreciable length of time, but
in general, a level of variation may be defined as
acceptable to the experimental setup. For the exper-
iments described in this paper, that level is defined as
5%. Once this level has been achieved, the stress (rs ),


strain rate dedts , and strain ðes Þ of the specimen may be
calculated using either the 1-wave or 3-wave
approaches (Lu and Li 2010). Equations 3 to 5
representing the 3-wave approach are commonly used
when the attainment of stress equilibrium is unknown
or difficult to assess.
Ab
rs ðtÞ ¼ E b ½ ei ð t Þ þ er ð t Þ þ e t ð t Þ  ð3Þ
2As
des ðtÞ cb
¼ E b ½ ei ð t Þ  er ð t Þ  et ð t Þ  ð4Þ
dt Ls

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Listing of various static properties for the materials tested in this research. (Hill 2017; Churcher et al. 1991; ASM
International 1990; Holt 1996)
Limestone Sandstone Aluminum 6061-T6

Compressive strength
Specific gravity
Modulus of elasticity
Shear strength
Ultimate tensile
strength
Poisson’s ratio
4000? psi (27.58? MPa) 6150–8670 psi (42.40–59.78 MPa) 35,000? psi
(241.32? MPa)
2.10–2.75 2.06 2.70
3300–5400 kpsi 2010–2270 kpsi 10,000 kpsi (68,948 Mpa)
(22,753–37,232 MPa) (13,858–15,651 MPa)
900–1800 psi (5.52–12.41 MPa) 1160–5802 psi (8–40 MPa) 30,000 psi (207.84 MPa)
300–715 psi (2.07–4.93 MPa) 580–3626 psi (4–25 Mpa) 45,000 psi (310.26 MPa)
0.18–0.33 0.21–0.38 0.33

cb t this material. The descriptions of the materials and

es ðt Þ ¼ r ½ei ðtÞ  er ðtÞ  et ðtÞ
Ls 0
Once stress equilibrium is reached, the relationship
given by ei ðtÞ þ er ðtÞ ¼ et ðtÞ is true, and the equations
will reduce to the 1-wave solution given in Eqs. 6 to 8.
This emphasizes the importance of specimen stress
equilibrium (Wu and Gorham 1997). In this research
both the 1-wave and 3-wave equations were used in
order to allow comparison between the two solutions.
Eb A b
rs ðtÞ ¼ et ðt Þ
As
des ðtÞ 2cb
¼ er ðt Þ
dt Ls
2cb t
es ðt Þ ¼ r er ðsÞds
Ls 0
2 Testing Procedure
2.1 Sample Materials and Data
Three common materials were selected for dynamic
compression testing using the SHPB at the UKY.
For the first two materials, past published research
was found which allowed for comparison of results.
These results will be presented as verification that the
SHPB construction and data analysis procedure reflect
past research findings. Literature containing dynamic
properties for the third material (Berea Sandstone)
could not be found, and thus the results are included as
a viable characterization for the strain-rate response of
ð5Þ their static properties can be found in several publi-
cations and are listed in Table 1.
Bedford (Indiana) Limestone Mississippian-age
free-stone (homogenous texture and grade). This stone
is considered chemically pure, with 97% calcium
carbonate and 1.2% calcium–magnesium carbonate.
Indiana Limestone has been used extensively in
building construction, including the Empire State
Building.
Aluminum 6061-T6 Commonly used industrial
ð6Þ
aluminum alloy. Typical applications include aircraft
fittings, couplings, marine fittings and hardware,
pistons, bike frames, and many others. Generally
ð7Þ
recognized to exhibit excellent joining characteristics,
good acceptance of applied coatings, relatively high
ð8Þ strength, good workability, and high resistance to
corrosion.
Berea (Ohio) Sandstone Mississippian-age rock
composed primarily of quartz (87–97%) with trace
amounts of feldspar. Commonly referred to as ‘‘Berea
Grit’’ by the oil and gas industry. Ohio Sandstone is a
moderate to well sorted, medium-grained, quartz-rich
sandstone. Matrix content (silt and clay) is minimal,
making up 2% or less of the rock.
2.2 Specimen Preparation and Geometry
Selection
The sample preparation and geometry selection for
static compression testing was performed according to
ASTM standards D4543 and D7012. A length to
diameter ratio of 2:1 was selected for the specimens
subjected to static tests and the results obtained from
these 2 in. (5.08 cm) diameter samples are presented.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

The values obtained here provide a baseline reference that a length should be selected such that it yields a
to which other experimental results may be compared, length to diameter ratio within the range of 0.5 to 2.0
as the dynamic testing requires a different sample (Gray III 2000; Gama et al. 2004). According to the
geometry. These size and shape effects have been authors, one of the most fundamental requirements of
explored in depth elsewhere (Broch 1983; Forster the specimen length is that the specimen should be
1983; Petrov and Selyutina 2015). short enough to ensure the sample reaches stress
Selection of the dynamic specimen geometry equilibrium in a timely manner, and yet still long
involves several considerations not specified by enough to limit axial inertial effects.
ASTM standards, each of which has the potential to Figure 4 shows actual experimental results
affect the results obtained during testing. First, an obtained using the SHPB at the UKY for the face
appropriate sample diameter must be selected. As the stress values of r1 and r2 over time. The initial
bars of this SHPB are constructed of 2 in. (5.08 cm) ‘‘ringing-up’’ period at the beginning of the experi-
diameter steel, it is important that the diameter of the ment is easily identified, and consists of the minimum
specimens be less than this dimension. Some 3–4 pulse reflections required to reach equilibrium in
researchers cite 80–90% of the bar diameter as an the sample (Davies and Hunter 1963; Ravichandran
appropriate specimen diameter (Gama et al. 2004). and Subhash 1994). Once the specimen reaches
Following this recommendation, a specimen diameter equilibrium, the two values nearly approximate one
of approximately 1.75 in. (4.45 cm) was chosen for another until the failure process begins to occur. A
dynamic testing. Next, the length of the samples had to variance between the values of less than 5% may be
be selected. When dynamic compression testing using considered acceptable (Subhash and Ravichandran
the SHPB, no definite standard exists for the selection 2000). Wu and Gorham (1997), and Gong et al. (1990)
of specimen length. Instead, some researchers state have published similar results.
The data obtained during the ‘‘ring-up’’ period of
wave reflections should not be regarded as valid, and if
Geologic Specimen Face Stress Values failure occurs during this stage the test results should
11000

σ1 be discarded. Although in this particular figure r1

10000 σ2 shows as initially negative, this is not always the case,
σ1, Average of 10 points
σ2, Average of 10 points as shown in Fig. 11. The data obtained during this
9000
stage is erroneous due in large part to impedance
8000 mismatch, inertial effects, and the physical impossi-
bility of ensuring a seamless connection between the
7000
bars and specimen. The time required to achieve
6000 equilibrium (sm Þ may be easily calculated using the
length of the specimen Ls , the elastic wave speed in the
Stress (psi)

5000
specimen cs , and the minimum number of wave
4000
reflections required. According to literature, the rec-
ommended wave reflections are between 3 and 4
3000
(Davies and Hunter 1963), and possibly as much as 6–
2000
8 (Ravichandran and Subhash 1994). The travel time
ðto Þ from one bar-specimen interface to the other is
1000
given by Chen et al. (1999):
0 Ls
to ¼ ð9Þ
cs
-1000

Once this travel time has been determined, the

-2000
439.24 439.26 439.28 439.3 439.32 439.34 439.36 439.38 439.4 439.42 439.44
number of stress wave reflections ðnÞ necessary to
Time (milliseconds)
ensure dynamic equilibrium can be calculated using
Fig. 4 Values of r1 and r2 over time in an actual SHPB the expression given by:
experiment performed on a limestone sample at the UKY

123

 
sm
n¼
2t0
where ðsm Þ is the minimum required loading time.
This yields that the required rise time of an incident
pulse must be greater than sm . For the dynamic SHPB
experiments presented in this paper, a length to
diameter ratio of 1:1 was selected. This meant the
limestone and sandstone specimens were ground to a
length of approximately 1.75 in. (4.45 cm). Using the
knowledge that the Berea Sandstone is the most
porous of the materials tested and hence has the lowest
wave velocity of 7808 ft/s (2380 m/s) (Shankland
et al. 1993), it is possible to find the maximum required
loading time for the experiments carried out with this
specimen length. To guarantee dynamic equilibrium,
it was assumed that 8 reflections are required. Thus,
the wave must travel a distance of 1.75 in. 9 8 = 14
in. (35.56 cm). The time required to do so is 149
microseconds. Comparing this time to the pulse-
shaped waveform shown in Fig. 7, it appears that
theoretically even the ‘‘worst case’’ requirements
(defined as requiring the greatest span of time to
achieve equilibrium) should still be met by the
constant-rate loading portion of the shaped pulse.
In contrast to the rock specimens, the aluminum
samples were obtained from a round bar already pre-
machined to the required diameter. The bar was then
cut at intervals to produce a 1:1 length to diameter
ratio. Figure 5 below provides a visual representation
of the rock and aluminum samples, along with a side-
by-side comparison of the size difference between the
samples prepared for traditional static testing and
those prepared for dynamic SHPB testing.
Fig. 5 Photographs showing the rock and aluminum test specimens, at the geometries selected for both static and dynamic testing
123
Geotech Geol Eng
2.3 Static Testing Procedure
ð10Þ
Static testing of the various materials was carried out
using a SATEC C600B Compressive Testing System
with Instron controller. Testing was performed on
samples with the typical 2:1 length to diameter ratio,
as well as samples having a 1:1 ratio, to isolate the
effect of the length to diameter ratio variance. This
effect is shown and discussed in the results portion of
this paper. The photographs in Fig. 6 depict the static
testing of 2:1 ratio rock samples, 1:1 ratio rock
samples, and the before and after condition of the 1:1
aluminum samples (notice the barreling-type failure as
opposed to the brittle failures of the rocks).
2.4 Dynamic Testing Procedure
The dynamic testing procedure involving the UKY-
SHPB was carried out on the sandstone, limestone,
and aluminum samples with 1:1 length to diameter
ratios. A Ranger high-speed camera was used to
capture the events visually at frame rates of up to
16,000 fps, as the event duration for each test may be
measured in microseconds. A planned test matrix was
designed in which compression tests for each of the
three materials would be carried out at system charge
pressures of 20, 40, 60, 120, 240, and 400 psi (138,
275, 413, 827, 1654, 2758 kPa). It was anticipated that
this change in charge pressure would provide some
variation in the experimental strain rate, which could
be used to determine the material’s strain rate
response. Strain gauges manufactured by Micro-
Measurements with resistances of 120 ohms in the
CEA series were selected with grid dimension
constraints allowing for data recording at rates
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Photographs showing the static testing carried out on both geologic and aluminum samples of 1:1 and 2:1 geometric ratios

exceeding the maximum recording rate of the capture 1750

device (5 MS/s). To limit the effects of radial inertia, a Shaped

silicone-based lubricant was applied to the specimen-
bar interfaces. The data was recorded at sample rates
1250
of 5 Ms/s, and a 0.75 in. (1.91 cm) diameter by 16 GA
thick copper pulse shaper was used for each test. A
pulse shaper is a small disc, often composed of a soft
Microstrains

metal, which through deformation lengthens the pulse 750

load time. It is placed on the end of the incident bar
impacted by the striker, and upon impact will deform,
slowing the transfer of energy. This is often necessary
250
to ensure the constant-rate loading phase of the pulse is
adequate to achieve stress equilibrium. Prior testing of
a wide range of disc materials and geometries yielded
the conclusion that this particular pulse shaper gener- -250
280 380 480 580 680 780
ates the most desirable pulse results. The pulse
Microseconds
generated by using this particular shaper with no test
specimen between the incident and transmitted bars is Fig. 7 Graph showing the triangular pulse obtained by using a
shown in Fig. 7 (the thick dashed line). The unshaped 0.75 in. (1.91 cm) by 16 GA copper pulse shaper, compared to
the unshaped waveform at the UKY–SHPB
pulse (thin solid line) is also shown for comparison.
Note the much longer rise time with a relatively
Still frames captured by the hi-speed camera are
constant slope, the length of which exceeds the
shown in the photographs of Fig. 8, both pre- and post-
‘‘worst-case’’ requirement of 149 microseconds. Thus,
failure. Note the ‘‘shattering’’ type failure experienced
the shaped pulses used for this testing are adequate to
by the brittle rock specimens, as opposed to the
allow achievement of stress equilibrium of the spec-
relatively indiscernible shape variation of the alu-
imens in even the most extreme situations. Other
minum specimens (some barreling effect was observ-
benefits of using the pulse shaper include the reduction
able under close inspection).
of oscillations in the loading phase and dampening of
dispersion effects.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Photographs showing the pulse wave effects on the rock and aluminum samples

3 Results may be attributed to the fact that rock types exhibiting

extremely homogenous and uniform structure were
3.1 Static Testing Results and Discussion of Data selected for testing, and thus any effect of geologic
Processing discontinuities may be insignificant. Uniformity of the
aluminum is believed to be the main explanatory
Static testing was performed for each of the three test factor behind the negligible change in failure strength
materials at both the 2:1 and 1:1 geometry ratios. Up to as well.
8 individual tests were run for each of 6 possible Valuable information obtained from this testing
experimental scenarios, and the average results are included the average failure strengths of the 1:1
depicted in the three graphs below (Fig. 9). Note that samples, which provide the starting point (origin) for
in all scenarios, the stress–strain curve shifts to the strain response curves which were later completed
right when reducing the ratio from 2:1 to 1:1. This may using the data obtained during dynamic testing. These
be translated as a reduction in the Young’s Modulus of average failure points are represented in Table 2.
the material (represented by the slope of the linear
portions of the curves). However, only negligible
differences were observed in the yield strength. This

a b c
Static Uniaxial Compressive Stress-Strain Static Uniaxial Compressive Stress- Static Uniaxial Compressive Stress-Strain
Average Curve Bedford Limestone Strain Average Curve Aluminum 6061-T6 Average Curve Ohio Sandstone
7000 48.26 60000 413.69 8500 58.61
L:D = 2:1 L:D = 2:1 L:D = 2:1
6500 L:D = 1:1 44.82 8000 L:D = 1:1 55.16
55000 L:D = 1:1 379.21
7500 51.71
6000 41.37
50000 344.74 7000 48.26
5500 37.92 6500 44.82
45000 310.26
5000 34.47 6000 41.37
40000 275.79
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

5500 37.92
Stress (psi)

4500 31.03
Stress (psi)

Stress (psi)

35000 241.32 5000 34.47

4000 27.58
4500 31.03
3500 24.13 30000 206.84
4000 27.58
3000 20.68 25000 172.37 3500 24.13
2500 17.24 3000 20.68
20000 137.90
2000 13.79 2500 17.24
15000 103.42 2000 13.79
1500 10.34
10000 68.95 1500 10.34
1000 6.89
1000 6.89
500 3.45 5000 34.47
500 3.45
0 0.00 0 0 .0 0 0 0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 15000 30000 45000 60000 0 4000 8000 12000

Strain (microstrains) Strain (microstrains) Strain (microstrains)

Fig. 9 Graphs showing the quasi-static stress–strain average curves for the three test materials, at geometric ratios of 2:1 and 1:1

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 Average quasi-static failure strengths of the test Specimen Face Stresses
materials, at 2:1 and 1:1 geometric ratios Ohio Sandstone - 20psi
16000 110.32
Static failure strengths σ1
σ2
Material L:D ratio r (psi) 14000 96.53

Indiana limestone 2:1 6562

12000 82.74
Indiana limestone 1:1 6246
Ohio sandstone 2:1 7774
Ohio sandstone 1:1 8038 10000 68.95

Aluminum 6061-T6 2:1 45,821

Stress (MPa)
Stress (psi)
Aluminum 6061-T6 1:1 46,105 8000 55.16

6000 41.37

3.2 Discussion of Data Processing

4000 27.58

The dynamic testing procedure is much more complex

than the static, largely due to the lack of standardized 2000 13.79

equipment and data processing tools. To demonstrate

the data processing procedure followed in this 0 0.00
research, Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 were derived
-2000 -13.79
450.25 450.4 450.55 450.7
Dynamic Strain-Time Curves Time (milliseconds)
Ohio Sandstone - 20psi
1000
Fig. 11 Calculated stress levels on the faces of an Ohio
Sandstone test specimen, subjected to a 20 psi (138 kPa) charge
800
impact

and included from a test of Ohio Sandstone at a charge

600 pressure of 20 psi (138 kPa). Although not shown in
Fig. 10, the first step in the data reduction process is
400
the averaging of signals from strain gauges installed
Strain (microstrains)

equidistant on the bars (i.e. 2 gauges were installed at

the midpoint of both the incident and transmitted bars,
200 and thus the signals shown in Fig. 10 are the average
of these two signals at each midpoint).
0
Once these average signals have been obtained, it is
necessary to time-shift the incident wave in such a way
that it is superimposed over the transmitted and
-200 reflected waveforms, with a relevant common time
Incident/Reflected
Transmitted origin. To perform this action, an initial starting point
Incident (shifted) of the incident wave must be defined. For the analyses
-400
performed in this paper, the starting points of the
incident waves were defined by finding the slope of
-600
449.6 449.8 450 450.2 450.4 450.6 450.8 data in ‘‘windows’’, containing 200 individual data
Time (milliseconds) points. These slopes were then analyzed to find the
coefficient of variation for these windows, using
Fig. 10 Graph showing the incident (positive), transmitted and Eq. 11:
reflected (negative) waves, the time-shifted incident wave is
included

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 12 a Graph showing a Specimen Stress-Strain Curve b Specimen Stress-Strain Curve

the stress–strain curve for a Ohio Sandstone - 20psi Ohio Sandstone - 20psi
1 600 0 110.32 14300 98.60
test of Ohio Sandstone Average of 10 points Average of 10 points
14200 97.91
subjected to a 20 psi
14000 96.53 14100 97.22
(138 kPa) charge, and
b enlargement of a portion 14000 96.53
12000 82.74
of the same curve important 13900 95.84
to failure determination 13800 95.15
10000 68.95
13700 94.46

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

Stress (psi)
Stress (psi)
8000 55.16 13600 93.77
13500 93.08
6000 41.37 13400 92.39
13300 91.70
4000 27.58
13200 91.01
13100 90.32
2000 13.79
13000 89.63

0 0.00 12900 88.94

12800 88.25
-2000 -13.79 12700 87.56
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 13800 14700 15600 16500
Strain (microstrains) Strain (microstrains)

Slope of Specimen Stress-Strain Curve Slope Rate of Change of Stress-Strain Curve

Ohio Sandstone - 20psi Ohio Sandstone - 20psi
2 0.005
1.8 δ/δx(δ/δx(Average of 10 points))

1.6 0.004
Slope Rate of Change of Stress-Strain Curve

1.4
1.2 0.003
1
Slope of Stress-Strain Curve

0.8 0.002
0.6
0.4 0.001
0.2
0 0
-0.2
-0.4 -0.001
-0.6
-0.8 -0.002
-1
δ/δx (Average of 10 points)
-1.2 -0.003
-1.4
-1.6 -0.004
-1.8
-2 -0.005
13800 14400 15000 15600 16200 16800 13800 14400 15000 15600 16200 16800
Strain (microstrains) Strain (microstrains)

Fig. 13 a Graph showing the first derivative (slope) of the stress–strain curve from the Ohio Sandstone 20 psi (138 kPa) test, and
b graph showing second derivative (rate of change of the slope) of the same stress–strain curve

r be attributed to random ‘‘static’’, the limit of

CoV ¼  100% ð11Þ
l CoV = 50 provides a standardized means of designat-
ing the start of the waveform. This method and limit
A CoV limit of 50 was deemed to be most
was applied to each test run.
representative of the graphically verifiable starting
Some authors have recommended using the point at
point. Thus, once the recorded signal enters an area
which the incident wave crosses the x-axis as the start
where the slope is consistently trending positively as
of the reflected wave (Kaiser 1998). However, in the
opposed to the positive–negative variation which may
course of testing at the UKY it was found that trials

123
Geotech Geol Eng

1 & 3-Wave Solutions and Strain Rate incident wave signal crosses the x-axis (this effect will
Ohio Sandstone - 20psi
17500 210 be discussed in more detail later in this section). Due to
1-Wave this stress bleed-off condition, the reflected wave
3-Wave
Strain Rate starting point was defined using the speed of pulse
15000 180
travel in the steel bars (found in previously published
experiments to be 5148.6 m/s or 16,891.7 in./s), to
12500 150 avoid dependence of the reflected wave starting point
on the incident wave ending point. Coupling this
10000 120 velocity with the knowledge that the strain gauges are

Strain Rate (s-1)

placed at the midpoints of the bars 48 in. (1.22 m), the
Stress (psi)

7500 90
elapsed time required for the signal to travel the 96 in.
(2.44 m) from the strain gauge to the specimen and
back was found. Thus the incident wave may be
5000 60
superimposed over the reflected and transmitted waves
by adding this time (found to be 473.60 ls). In this
2500 30 way, the time-shifted incident wave in Fig. 10 was
generated and placed on the x-axis.
0 0 In Fig. 11, a representation of the stress on each of
the specimen faces over the elapsed time of the
experimental event is shown. The values graphed here
-2500 -30
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 are obtained by application of Eqs. 1 and 2 to the
Strain (microstrains) recorded signals. Note that for the portion of the
Fig. 14 Graph showing the stress values for the 1 and 3-wave
experiment which is pertinent (before specimen fail-
solutions, as well as the strain rate of the experiment ure), the stresses on the two faces are roughly
equivalent. Thus, we may conclude that the specimen
using high impact energy levels (high strain rates), was in dynamic stress equilibrium when failure
presented a ‘‘stress bleed-off’’, causing the trailing occurred. During the data analysis process, it was
edge of the incident signal to be affected. This found that for high energy impacts (those with charge
condition significantly altered the point at which the pressures of 120 psi (827 kPa) and over), it was

Fig. 15 a Graph showing a Dynamic Strain-Time Curves b Specimen Face Stresses

the incident (positive Indiana Limestone - 400psi Indiana Limestone - 400psi
5000 9.5E+10 6.55E+8
phase), reflected (negative
9E+10 6.21E+8
phase), transmitted, and 8.5E+10 5.86E+8
4000
time-shifted incident waves 8E+10 5.52E+8
7.5E+10 5.17E+8
for a test conducted on 7E+10 4.83E+8
3000
Indiana Limestone at 6.5E+10 4.48E+8
400 psi (2758 kPa), and 6E+10 4.14E+8
Strain (microstrains)

2000 5.5E+10 3.79E+8

b graph showing that the 5E+10 3.45E+8
Stress (MPa)

specimen face stresses of

Stress (psi)

4.5E+10 3.10E+8
1000 4E+10 2.76E+8
this test conducted on
3.5E+10 2.41E+8
Indiana Limestone at 3E+10 2.07E+8
0
400 psi (2758 kPa) never 2.5E+10 1.72E+8
2E+10 1.38E+8
approach one another 1.5E+10 1.03E+8
-1000
(dynamic equilibrium never 1E+10 6.89E+7
achieved) 5E+9 3.45E+7
-2000 Incident/Reflected 0 0.00
Transmitted -5E+9 -3.45E+7
Incident (shifted) -1E+10 σ1 -6.89E+7
-3000 -1.5E+10 σ2 -1.03E+8
-2E+10 -1.38E+8
-2.5E+10 -1.72E+8
-4000 -3E+10 -2.07E+8
127 127.2 127.4 127.6 127.8 128 128.2 127.55 127.7 127.85 128
Time (milliseconds) Time (milliseconds)

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

difficult if not impossible to achieve this stress
equilibrium. This is likely due to the specimen length
being too great to allow achievement of stress
equilibrium before failure occurs. Future testing with
shorter specimens will explore this hypothesis.
Using the superimposed incident, transmitted, and
reflected waves, the 1-wave and/or 3-wave solution
equations (Eqs. 3 to 8) may be used to determine the
average stress, strain, and strain rate at any point in
time. Once this data is obtained, the familiar stress–
strain curve may be generated, as shown in Fig. 12.
Note that there is some level of ‘‘static’’, or abrupt
variation between each data point. To reduce this
unwanted variation while still maintaining data accu-
racy, a 10 point averaging function was carried out, as
shown in Fig. 12a. This is a necessary first step in
finding the precise failure point in the data. Visual
inspection of the graph allows easy determination of
which part of the signal is pertinent to failure analysis,
and an enlarged portion of the averaged waveform in
Fig. 12a is shown in Fig. 12b.
meaningful, up to the 60 psi (414 kPa) charge pres-
sure. For the trials using pressures of 120, 240, and
400 psi (827, 1654, 2758 kPa), a stress ‘‘bleed-off’’
tail appeared on the trailing edge of the incident wave.
This significantly impacts the values of the reflected
wave, and hence the results were rendered invalid and
discarded. This stress bleed-off is visible in Fig. 15a.
Note how the trailing edge of the incident signal bleeds
over the transmitted wave, and appears to affect the
leading edge of the reflected wave. This figure comes
from an experiment run on Indiana Limestone at a
400 psi (2758 kPa) charge pressure. Additionally,
Fig. 15b shows how for the same test, the specimen
face stresses never approach equivalency. Similar
effects have been reported by another researcher when
high-velocity tests were carried out (Wu and Gorham
Bedford (Indiana) Limestone Stress-Strain Curves
14000 96.53
13000 89.63

One technique for finding the precise failure point is Strain Rate 158s -1
12000 82.74
finding the point of inflection. This means finding the Strain Rate 150s-1
point at which the slope of the stress–strain curve 11000 Strain Rate 155s-1 75.84
changes most rapidly (in the negative direction). Strain Rate 149s -1
10000 -1
Strain Rate 105s68.95
Figure 13a is the graphical representation of the first
derivation of the enlarged portion of the stress–strain Strain Rate 95s-1
9000 62.05
curve in Fig. 12b. As expected, this line trends
downward over time, as the slope of the stress–strain 8000 55.16
curve in this area changes from positive to negative.
7000 48.26
Figure 13b is the graphical representation of the

Stress (MPa)
Stress (psi)

second derivation, which is the rate of change of the 6000 41.37

Static
slope of the stress–strain curve. Failure point deter-
mination corresponds with that part of the curve which 5000 34.47

changes most rapidly in the negative direction. The

4000 27.58
most negative point of the second derivative is visible
in this figure. The strain value at which this occurs may 3000 20.68
be transferred to the time domain, allowing for simple
2000 13.79
correlation to the stress value at which failure occurs.
Another verification of the specimen stress equi- 1000 6.89
librium is a comparison of the solutions given by the
1-wave and 3-wave methodologies. Figure 14 depicts 0 0.00
the stress value solutions of these two methods. Note
-1000 -6.89
the nearly equivalent values. Also shown on this graph
is the curve of the strain rate solution. The plateau -2000 -13.79
-2000 4000 10000 16000
portion of this curve is used to determine the strain rate
Microstrains
of the experiment.
Carrying out this analysis procedure for each of the Fig. 16 Graph of the stress–strain curves for each of the tests
experimental trials yielded results that appeared to be conducted on Bedford (Indiana) Limestone

123
Geotech Geol Eng

1997). Future testing will address this issue by finding

ways to control the stress bleed-off, such as using
shorter length striker bars, etc.

4 Dynamic Testing Results and Comparisons

4.1 Bedford (Indiana) Limestone

Results from dynamic testing of the Bedford Lime-

stone are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. The average result
from the static testing is included in each figure for
comparison. A substantial degree of scatter is evident
in the results, but in general a strong trend is
manifested of higher strain rate leading to higher
failure strength. The individual stress–strain curves of
each limestone test are shown in Fig. 16. Figure 17 is
a plot of the relationship between the failure strength Fig. 18 Graph showing the stress strain curves from testing
and strain rate of each test. Note that the overall carried out on Aluminum 6061 T-6
positive trend is highly significant for the range of
strain rates tested. and the results are shown in Fig. 17b. The results of
Dynamic testing of the Bedford (Indiana) Lime- this testing largely confirm the results obtained by the
stone was previously carried out by Frew et al. (2001) SHPB at UK. Interestingly, those authors also tested

Bedford (Indiana) Limestone

a 14000 96.53
R2 = 0.941
13600 93.77 b
13200 91.01

12800 88.25

12400 85.50

12000 82.74

11600 79.98

11200 77.22
Failure Strength (MPa)
Failure Strength (psi)

10800 74.46

10400 71.71

10000 68.95

9600 66.19

9200 63.43

8800 60.67

8400 57.92

8000 55.16

7600 52.40

7200 49.64

6800 46.88

6400 44.13

6000 41.37
1 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 30 50 100 200
Strain Rate (s^-1)

Fig. 17 a Plot of the Bedford (Indiana) Limestone failure strength versus the strain rate of each test., and b graph showing the results of
dynamic testing on Bedford (Indiana) Limestone performed by and figure taken from Frew et al. (2001)

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

specimens exhibiting length to diameter ratios from 1 until reaching a strain rate of 103 s-1, this aluminum
to 2, and reported no significant effect. This serves as alloy does not exhibit strain rate sensitivity. Because
confirmation in the dynamic range of the static range the range of values tested at UK was at a maximum of
geometric ratio testing carried out at the UKY. approximately 150 s-1, this explains why no signif-
icant change in yield strength was observed. If future
4.2 Aluminum 6061 T6 testing were carried out a higher strain rates, confir-
mation of the higher range results obtained by Manes
Results from testing carried out on Aluminum 6061 et al. (2011) could be obtained.
T-6 are shown in Figs. 18 and 19a. Note that although
it is clear that the Young’s Modulus shifted to the left 4.3 Berea (Ohio) Sandstone
for each test, no discernible effect on failure strength
was observed. Also, it appears that the test conducted Figures 20 and 21a show the results of testing
with a 20 psi (138 kPa) impact charge (51 s-1 strain performed on the Berea (Ohio) Sandstone. Although
rate) may not have possessed enough energy to induce it was clear from testing that all dynamic testing
failure in the aluminum sample. results yielded failure strengths above the static testing
Dynamic testing of Aluminum 6061 T-6 was average, it is not apparent that within the range of
previously carried out by Manes et al. (2011) over a dynamic strain rates tested that increasing the strain
wide range of strain rates, from quasi-static up to rate had any effect on the strength. This is evidenced
104 s-1. The results of this testing are shown in by the random scatter of the stress–strain curves
Fig. 19b. Conclusions from this research were that

a Aluminum 6061 T-6

60000 413.69
2
R = 0.003
58000 399.90

56000 386.11 b
54000 372.32

52000 358.53

50000 344.74

48000 330.95

46000 317.16
Failure Strength (MPa)
Failure Strength (psi)

44000 303.37

42000 289.58

40000 275.79

38000 262.00

36000 248.21

34000 234.42

32000 220.63

30000 206.84

28000 193.05

26000 179.26

24000 165.47

22000 151.68

20000 137.90
1 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 30 50 100 200
Strain Rate (s^-1)

Fig. 19 a Graph showing the plot of strain rate versus failure strength for tests carried out on Aluminum 6061 T-6, and b graph showing
the results of dynamic testing on Aluminum 6061-T6 performed by and figure obtained from Manes et al. (2011)

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Berea (Ohio) Sandstone Stress-Strain Curves 5 Discussion and Conclusions

16000 110.32

Strain Rate 182s-1

15000 103.42 In this work testing of three materials was carried out
-1
using an SHPB of 2 in. (5.08 cm) diameter con-
14000 Strain Rate 185s96.53
structed at the University of Kentucky. The materials
13000 Strain Rate 85s-1 89.63 tested were Bedford (Indiana) Limestone, Berea
Strain Rate 94s-1 82.74
(Ohio) Sandstone, and Aluminum 6061-T6. The tests
12000
were carried out using samples with 1:1 length to
-1
75.84
11000 Strain Rate 210s diameter ratios, at strain rates ranging from quasi-
10000 68.95 static to 210 s-1.
Conclusions of this work are as follows.
9000 62.05

Static 1. The limestone samples exhibit a strong positive

8000 55.16
correlation between strain rate and failure

Stress (MPa)
Stress (psi)

7000 48.26 strength. This is confirmed by work previously

carried out by Frew et al. (2001).
6000 41.37
2. The aluminum samples exhibit no significant
5000 34.47 strain rate sensitivity for the range tested. This is
27.58
confirmed by work previously carried out by
4000
Manes et al. (2011). Future testing at higher strain
3000 20.68 rates may allow for confirmation of the positive
2000 13.79 correlation at high rates shown in that research.
3. The sandstone samples exhibit a weak positive
1000 6.89
correlation between strain rate and failure
0 0.00 strength. Without other published research for
this specific rock, this is difficult to confirm.
-1000 -6.89
However, work performed by Liu et al. (2011) on
-2000 -13.79 another sandstone did show a strong positive
-2000 6000 14000 22000 30000
Microstrains
correlation. Additional testing is recommended to
confirm the results from this publication.
Fig. 20 Graph showing the stress–strain curves for dynamic 4. Future testing should be performed with attempts
testing carried out on sandstone specimens to control the ‘‘stress bleed-off’’ phenomena
which caused the higher velocity (and higher
shown in Fig. 20, and by the weak positive correlation strain-rate) experimental data to be discarded.
plotted in Fig. 21a. This may include the use of shorter striker bars,
Although no published results from dynamic test- and changing the pulse shaper. Thinner samples
ing of Berea (Ohio) Sandstone could be found, results with a lower L:D ratio may also be required to
from another sandstone were found and included here assist in achieving dynamic equilibrium.
for the sake of providing a reference to what may be
expected from a sandstone type of rock. The results of Ultimately, the results from the testing are con-
this testing, performed by Liu et al. (2011), are shown firmed by past published research. Additional testing
in Fig. 21b. This testing was carried out using a should be carried out to solidify these findings. These
3.94 in. (100 mm) SHPB, on samples possessing materials tested in this work commonly used in
diameter 3.82 in. (97 mm) and length 1.69 in. construction and manufacturing and definition of
(43 mm). Note that this is a length to diameter ratio dynamic properties is highly important to the engi-
of approximately 0.44, compared to 1.0 used in this neering design process. Future testing with this SHPB
research. will explore the properties of geologic materials which
are often subject to dynamic processes in the mining
and civil engineering fields, such as blasting, milling,
etc.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

a Berea (Ohio) Sandstone

18000 124.11
R2 = 0.5054
17000 117.21

16000 110.32

b
15000 103.42

14000 96.53
Failure Strength (psi)

Failure Strength (MPa)

13000 89.63

12000 82.74

11000 75.84

10000 68.95

9000 62.05

8000 55.16

7000 48.26

6000 41.37
1 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 50 100 200 400
Strain Rate (s^-1)

Fig. 21 a Graph showing the plot of strain rate versus failure taken from China Qinling, Taibai Mountain, Shaanxi Province
strength for each sandstone sample, and the overall weak performed by and figure taken from Liu et al. (2011)
positive trend, and b results from dynamic testing of sandstone

Acknowledgements This research was internally funded by Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2001) A split Hopkinson
the University of Kentucky’s Explosives Research Team. pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress–
strain data for rock materials. Exp Mech 41(1):40–46
Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2002) Pulse shaping techniques
for testing brittle materials with a split Hopkinson pressure
References bar. Exp Mech 42(1):93–106
Gama BA, Lopatnikov SL, Gillespie JW Jr (2004) Hopkinson
ASM International (1990) Metals handbook, volume 2: prop- bar experimental technique: a critical review. Appl Mech
erties and selection: nonferrous alloys and special-purpose Rev 57(4):223–250
materials, 10 edn. ASM International Gong JC, Malvern LE, Jenkins DA (1990) Dispersion investi-
Broch E (1983) Estimation of strength anisotropy using the gation in the split Hopkinson pressure bar. J Eng Mater
point-load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr Technol 112(3):309–314
20(4):181–187 Gray GT III (2000) Classic split Hopkinson pressure bar testing.
Chen W, Zhang B, Forrestal MJ (1999) A split Hopkinson bar ASM Handb Mech Test Eval 8:462–476
technique for low-impedance materials. Exp Mech Hill JR (2017) Indiana geological and water survey, ‘‘Indiana
39(2):81–85 limestone’’. https://igs.indiana.edu/MineralResources/
Churcher PL, French PR, Shaw JC, Schramm LL (1991) Rock limestone.cfm. Accessed 11 Mar 2018
properties of Berea sandstone, Baker dolomite, and Indiana Holt JM (1996) Structural alloys handbook, Technical Ed; Ho
limestone. Soc Pet Eng. https://doi.org/10.2118/21044-ms CY (ed) CINDAS/Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Davies EDH, Hunter SC (1963) The dynamic compression Kaiser MA (1998) Advancements in the split Hopkinson bar
testing of solids by the method of the split Hopkinson test. Diss. Virginia Tech
pressure bar. J Mech Phys Solids 11(3):155–179 Liu S et al (2011) SHPB experimental study of sericite-quartz
Forster IR (1983) The influence of core sample geometry on the schist and sandstone. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
axial point-load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech 30(9):1864–1871
Abstr 20(6):291–295

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Lu YB, Li QM (2010) Appraisal of pulse-shaping technique in
split Hopkinson pressure bar tests for brittle materials. Int J
Prot Struct 1(3):363–390
Manes A et al (2011) Analysis of strain rate behavior of an Al
6061 T6 alloy. Proc Eng 10:3477–3482
Petrov Y, Selyutina N (2015) Scale and size effects in dynamic
fracture of concretes and rocks. In: EPJ web of confer-
ences, vol 94. EDP Sciences
Ravichandran G, Subhash G (1994) Critical appraisal of limiting
strain rates for compression testing of ceramics in a split
Hopkinson pressure bar. J Am Ceram Soc 77(1):263–267
Shankland TJ, Johnson PA, Hopson TM (1993) Elastic wave
attenuation and velocity of Berea sandstone measured in
the frequency domain. Geophys Res Lett 20(5):391–394
Silva J, Lamont R (2017) Dispersion signal analysis in a Split-
Hopkinson pressure bar at the University of Kentucky.
Fragblast Int J Blast Fragm 11(1):7–22
Subhash G, Ravichandran G (2000) Split-Hopkinson pressure
bar testing of ceramics. ASM International, Materials Park,
OH, pp 497–504
Wu XJ, Gorham DA (1997) Stress equilibrium in the split
Hopkinson pressure bar test. J Phys IV 7(C3):C3–91
Zhang QB, Zhao J (2014) A review of dynamic experimental
techniques and mechanical behaviour of rock materials.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(4):1411–1478
123