Fig 1.
Flat specimens (a) geometry (b) specimens (unit: mm).
Table 1.
The chemical compositions of aluminum alloy 6082-T6.
Fig 2.
Test photo of MTS electronic universal testing machine.
Fig 3.
(a) Split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHTB) testing apparatus; (b) The geometry of the SHTB-specimen; (c) A notched specimen sandwiched between the incident bar and the transmission bar.
Fig 4.
Typical experimental strain waves of SHTB testing at strain rate of 800 s-1.
Fig 5.
Geometry and dimensions of pre-notched specimens (unit: mm).
Fig 6.
Engineering stress-strain curve under quasi-static tension.
Fig 7.
True stress-strain curves for quasi-static and dynamic tension tests at strain rates from 800s-1 to 3400s-1.
Fig 8.
True stress-strain curves at strain rate (a) 0.001 s-1 (b) 0.01 s-1 (c) 0.1 s-1 and (d) 1 s-1.
Table 2.
Summary of mechanical properties under different strain rate tests.
Table 3.
The Johnson-Cook model parameters for the investigated material.
Fig 9.
Flow stress comparison between the Johnson-Cook model and experimental results at low strain rates (0.0001~1 s-1).
Table 4.
Comparison between yield stresses from experiments and the J-C model.
Table 5.
Values of material parameters and temperature coefficient.
Fig 10.
True stress-plastic strain comparison between experimental data and J-C model results at strain rates from 0.0001 s-1 to 1 s-1.
Fig 11.
Comparison between stress-strain curves from experiments and the J-C model at strain rates 800~3400 s-1.
Fig 12.
Finite element model meshes of (a) smooth and notched specimens with notch radius of (b) 90 mm, (c) 40 mm and (d) 10 mm for ABAQUS/Standard.
Fig 13.
Typical finite element mesh notched specimen model with a notch radius of 10 mm.
Fig 14.
Engineering stress-strain curves from experiments and ABAQUS/Standard numerical simulations for (a) smooth specimen, (b) 90 mm, (c) 40 mm and (d) 10 mm notch radius specimens.
Fig 15.
(a) Stress triaxialities and (b) equivalent plastic strain profiles of smooth and notched specimens at the minimum cross section at the time of fracture.
Fig 16.
The two sets of points and histories of the stress triaxiality in quasi-static tensile tests.
Table 6.
Fracture reduction ratio (A0/Af) and comparison of equivalent plastic strains to fracture between calculated results from (Eq 16) and numerical simulations.
Table 7.
J-C fracture model parameters for the common method and calibration.
Fig 17.
Comparison between the common J-C fracture model and the proposed calibration.
Fig 18.
The simulated fracture process of a smooth specimen.
Fig 19.
Engineering stress-strain curves from experiments and ABAQUS/Explicit numerical simulations for (a) smooth specimen, (b) 90 mm, (c) 40 mm and (d) 10 mm notch radius specimens.
Fig 20.
The dimensions of (a) 2 mm and (b) 5mm notch depth specimen in Charpy impact test.
Fig 21.
The FE models for (a) 2 mm and (b) 5mm notch depth specimen in Charpy impact test. The final deformation morphologies are compared with (c) simulation and (d) experiment results of 2 mm notch depth specimen as well as (e) simulation and (f) experiment results of 5 mm notch depth specimen.
Table 8.
Comparison of Charpy test results between experiment and simulation.
Fig 22.
Notched specimens (notch radius 10 mm, 40 mm, and 90 mm from left to right) and smooth specimen after fracture tested at a quasi-static strain rate.
Fig 23.
(a) Dimple fracture and (b) shear fracture on the fracture surface of the smooth specimen.
Fig 24.
Fracture surfaces of four kind of specimens (a) smooth, (b) notched R = 90 mm, (c) notched R = 40 mm, and (d) notched R = 10 mm.