555

An experimental and numerical investigation of the

static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium
alloys
S Abotula and V B Chalivendra*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA

The manuscript was received on 7 April 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 11 June 2010.

DOI: 10.1243/03093247JSA655

Abstract: A split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) set-up was used to investigate the dynamic
constitutive behaviour of commercial aluminium alloys both experimentally and numerically.
The study was conducted in a 500–10 000 s21 strain rate regime. Both regular solid and
modified hollow transmission bars were employed in realizing this strain rate regime. Four
different aluminium alloys, namely 7075-T4, 2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 5182-O, were considered
for investigation. A copper-110 alloy pulse shaper was used to obtain better force equilibrium
conditions at the bar–specimen interfaces. A plastic kinematic model was used to model the
rate-dependent behaviour of aluminium alloys using commercially available ANSYS LS-DYNA
software. Compared with the quasi-static condition, all four alloys showed a slight rate
dependency with an increased flow stress ranging from 50 to 100 MPa at much higher strain
rates. It was established from the final results that the experimentally determined dynamic
constitutive behaviour matches very well with the numerical value in a 2000–5000 s21 strain
rate regime.

Keywords: aluminium alloys, split hopkinson pressure, bar, strain rate, validation

1 INTRODUCTION constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys 6061-

The growing requirement for fuel-efficient vehicles
has sparked renewed interest in aluminium alloys as a
replacement for other metals in aerospace and
automobile bodies owing to their high strength–
weight ratio. When studying the crashworthiness of
these vehicles, the dynamic behaviour of aluminium
alloys must be well understood in developing numer-
ical models. Campbell [1] was the first to report on the
dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys
by subjecting long rods to compression impact,
demonstrating the significant difference in flow stress
by comparison with that under quasi-static condi-
tions. Following these experiments, Maiden and
Green [2] conducted experiments using a Hopkinson
pressure bar set-up to determine the dynamic
*Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Group-II, 116, 285 Old
Westport Road, North Dartmouth, MA 02747, USA.
email: vchalivendra@umassd.edu
T651 and 7075-T6 in the 0.03–960 s21 strain rate
range, and found that the two aluminium alloys
showed no strain rate sensitivity in that range. Holt et
al. [3] used a Hopkinson pressure bar compression
set-up to study the strain rate dependence of the flow
stress of aluminium alloys 1060-O, 1100-O, 6061-O,
2024-O, 7075-O, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6 at strain rates
of 1023 s21 to 103 s21. In their experiments, the
authors reported that all aluminium alloys except
6061-T6 and 7075-T6 showed a significant rate
dependency of flow stress. Nicholas [4] used a tensile
Hopkinson pressure set-up to investigate the dy-
namic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys
6061-T651 and 7075-T6, and it was reported that there
was measurable strain rate sensitivity in tension at
high strain rates. Jenq and Sheu [5] reported on both
experimental and numerical analysis of the high-
strain-rate compressive behaviour of aluminium alloy
6061-O at strain rates of 361024 s21 to 36103 s21.
They established that the dynamic yield strength of
aluminium alloy 6061-O increases under high-strain-

JSA655 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45

556 S Abotula and V B Chalivendra

rate loading conditions. Yadav et al. [6] also reported first three alloys (supplied by Speedy Metals, New
the increased flow stress of aluminium alloy 6061-T6 Berlin, Wisconsin) were in rod form with a diameter
under medium-strain-rate loading at 3500 s21. Re- of 12.5 mm, and AA 5182-O alloy (supplied by
cently, Smerd et al. [7] investigated the high-strain- Novelis Corporation, Mayfield Heights Ohio) was in
rate constitutive response and damage of two auto- sheet form with a thickness of 1.71 mm.
motive aluminium alloys AA5754 and AA5182 at both
room and elevated temperatures. They established
that the rate dependency of flow stress was low; 2.2 Quasi-static characterization
however, a marked increase in elongation was
The quasi-static compression tests were performed
measured with increase in strain rate. Also, Bragov
using the Instron materials testing system 5585. The
et al. [8] recently conducted both experimental and
specimens had a diameter of 12.7 mm and a length of
numerical studies to determine the rate dependency
25.4 mm as per the ASTM standard E9. Experiments
of two aluminium alloys AMg-6 and D-16 in a 0.003–
were performed at a strain rate of 0.006 s21, and the
7500 s21 strain rate regime. Their study indicated that
tests were continued until the crosshead extension
these two alloys show rate dependency, and their
reached a value of 2.5 mm. As crosshead displace-
numerical dynamic constitutive behaviour results,
ments are used to measure the compressive strains,
obtained using the Johnson–Cook model, matched
the machine compliance curve under compression,
well with corresponding experimental results.
as shown in Fig. 1, was plotted in order to calculate
Based on the reported literature, it was established
the actual specimen deformations. A higher-order
that there is no consistency in results concerning the
polynomial was fitted to develop the relationship
high-strain-rate constitutive behaviour of aluminium
between load and crosshead deformation. For a given
alloys. Moreover, no studies were reported to discuss
load, the crosshead deformation was subtracted from
the constitutive behaviour of commercially available
the total crosshead extension to determine the actual
aluminium alloys for a wide range of strain rates
axial deformation and the true strain of the specimen.
(0.006–10 000 s21). Hence, in this paper, a compre-
Load values provided by the testing machine were
hensive experimental and numerical investigation
used to determine the true stress of the specimen.
was performed on four different commercial alumi-
As AA 5182-O was received as a sheet material, a
nium alloys, 7075-T4, 2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 5182-O,
dog-bone specimen configuration as per ASTM
for the given range of strain rates. A copper-110 alloy
standard E8M was tested using the Instron materials
pulse shaper was used to obtain better force equili-
testing system 5582. Tests were performed using the
brium conditions at the bar–specimen interfaces. The
similar extension rate of 10 mm/min. In the case of
dynamic constitutive behaviour obtained from exper-
the tensile experiments, tests were conducted until
iments for a wide range of strain rates was compared
the specimen failed. It was assumed that crosshead
with that of numerical simulations performed using
commercial ANSYS LS-DYNA software.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In section 2,
the materials and experimental details, such as quasi-
static characterization and dynamic characterization,
are discussed. In section 3, numerical design con-
siderations are addressed. In section 4, the results of
experiments and numerical simulations are given, and
a comparison of numerical results with experimental
results is presented. Section 5 sets out the conclusions
of this study.

2 EXPERIMENTAL

2.1 Materials
Four different aluminium alloys, namely 6061-T6,
2024-T3, 7075-T4, and AA 5182-O, were considered
in this study. All four alloys have been used either in
the aerospace or in the automobile industry. The
Fig. 1 Machine compliance curve obtained for the
Instron materials testing system under quasi-
static compression

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45 JSA655

 Static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys
compliance under tension is very small, and hence
the true strain of the specimen was determined from
the crosshead displacements.
2.3 Dynamic characterization
The traditional split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)
was used to study the dynamic constitutive behaviour
of aluminium alloys 6061-T6, 2024-T3, and 7075-T4.
SHPB consists of a striker bar, a solid incident bar, and a
solid transmission bar, as shown in Fig. 2, and they are
all made of maraging steel [9]. A striker bar with a
diameter of 12.7 mm and two different lengths (100 mm
for generating low strain rates, 50 mm for generating
high strain rates) was used. Both the incident bar and
the transmission bar had a diameter of 12.5 mm and a
length of 1220 mm. The specimen, with a diameter of
6.35 mm and a thickness of 3 mm, was sandwiched
between the incident bar and the transmission bar.
Molybdenum disulfide lubricant was applied between
the specimen and the contacting end bar surfaces to
minimize the friction.
When the striker impacts against the incident bar,
an elastic compressive stress pulse, referred to as the
incident pulse, is generated, and the generated pulse
deforms the pulse shaper at the impact end and
creates a ramp in the incident pulse which further
propagates along the incident bar. When the incident
pulse reaches the specimen, part of it reflects back
into the incident bar (reflected pulse) in the form of a
tensile pulse owing to the impedance mismatch at the
bar–specimen interface, and the remaining part is
transmitted (transmission pulse) to the transmission
bar. Axial strain gauges mounted on the surfaces of
the incident bar and the transmission bar provide
time-resolved measurements of the elastic strain
pulses in the bars. Different strain rates are obtained
by varying the velocity at which the striker impacts.
Fig. 2 Schematic of the split Hopkinson pressure bar
set-up
JSA655
557
Using one-dimensional (1D) wave theory [9], the true
strain, es , and true stress, ss , in the specimen can be
determined from the reflected and transmitted strain
pulses respectively, as given by the equations
ðt
{2cb
es ~ er ðt Þ dt ð1Þ
Ls 0
Ab
ss ~Eb et ðt Þ ð2Þ
As
where er ðt Þ is the reflected strain pulse, et ðt Þ is the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
transmitted strain pulse, cb ~ Eb =rb is the long-
itudinal wave speed, Eb is Young’s modulus of the bar
material, rb is the density of the bar material, Ls is the
thickness of the specimen, Ab is the cross-sectional
area of the bar, and As is the cross-sectional area of
the specimen.
As alloy AA 5182-O had a thickness of 1.70 mm, a
diameter of 3.22 mm was used in order to eliminate
errors due to longitudinal and radial inertia [10]. It
was established in the present study that the
transmission pulse generated in an experiment using
a specimen of such small dimensions is not large
enough for data on the true strain and true stress
values to be analysed. Hence, a modified Hopkinson
pressure bar set-up using an aluminium 7075-T651
solid incident bar and a hollow transmission bar was
used. An aluminium end-cap was press fitted into
the hollow tube to support the specimen at the
specimen transmission bar interface [11]. For this
alloy, an aluminium striker bar with a diameter of
12.7 mm and, again, two different lengths (305 mm
for generating low strain rates, 100 mm for generat-
ing high strain rates) was used. The expression for
the true stress, ss , is the same as equation (2). How-
ever, the equation for the true strain, es , in the speci-
men for the modified Hopkinson pressure set-up will
also involve the incident strain pulse, ei ðt Þ, in addi-
tion to the reflected strain pulse, er ðt Þ, as given by the
equation [11]
ðt
{4cb
es ~ ½0:32ei ðt Þz0:82er ðt Þ
dt ð3Þ
Ls 0
3 NUMERICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
To study the dynamic behaviour of these aluminium
alloys, a three-dimensional (3D) split Hopkinson
pressure bar set-up was modelled using the com-
mercially available ANSYS LS-DYNA finite element
software package. The model consisted of three
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45
558 S Abotula and V B Chalivendra

parts: the incident bar, the specimen, and the
transmission bar, and the dimensions of all three
parts were similar to those in the experiments. All
three components were modelled using 3D Solid 164
elements. Mapped meshing was used for the entire
model to obtain accurate results, with ten elements
across the radius of the bars and a total of 280
elements along the length of the bars, as shown
in Fig. 3. The mesh was refined at the middle of
the bars to record strain pulses with a smaller
averaging error. Symmetric boundary conditions
Uy ~0 were assigned to the bottom flat surface,
and Ux ~0 to the vertical flat surface of each quarter-
bar, as shown in Fig. 3. For bar–specimen interfaces,
surface to surface with tied contact was used with a
typical coefficient of friction value of 0.14. Loading
pulses as received from the strain gauges located
on the incident bar of each experiment for the given
strain rate were used in the numerical simulations
as input and applied on the left end of the incident
bar. All four aluminium alloys were modelled in
ANSYS LS-DYNA for strain rates ranging from 1700
to 7000 s21.
The Cowper–Symonds model based on a plastic
kinematic material model [12] available in ANSYS
LS-DYNA was used to model the strain rate con-
stitutive material behaviour of all four aluminium
alloys. This model scales the yield stress by the
strain-rate-dependent factor, as given by the equa-
tion
" 1=P #
e_  4.1
sy ~ 1z s0 zbEp eeff
p ð4Þ
C 4.1.1
where sy is the dynamic yield stress, which varies
with strain rate, s0 is the quasi-static yield stress, e_ is
the strain rate, C and P are the Cowper–Symonds
strain rate parameters, eeff p is the effective plastic
strain, and Ep is the plastic hardening modulus,
which is given by the equation
E
Ep ~Etan ð5Þ
E{Etan
Except for C and P, all other parameters were
obtained from experimental data. Quasi-static true
stress–strain experimental data obtained for each
aluminium alloy were used to calculate the yield
stress, s0 , the tangent modulus, and the effective
plastic strain. The 0.2 per cent offset method was
used to determine the yield stress for both static and
dynamic experiments. The tangent modulus was
determined by taking the slope of the plastic
deformation part of the stress–strain curve. Isotropic
hardening was considered in the model, and hence b
took a value of 1 [11]. Parameters C and P were
determined by fitting experimental data to the
Cowper–Symonds model as a function of the strain
rate for all four aluminium alloys. The material
properties and the constants of the model for
different aluminium alloys are listed in Table 1.
4 RESULTS
Experimental results
Quasi-static response
The true stress–strain curves for all four aluminium
alloys under quasi-static conditions are shown in
Fig. 4. All these curves have two regions: an initial
linear portion and a non-linear portion. The slope of
the initial linear portion for all aluminium alloys

Table 1 Parameters of the plastic kinematic model for

the different aluminium alloys
Alloy type
Parameters 6061-T6 2024-T3 7075-T4 AA 5182-O
3
Density (kg/m ) 2850 2850 2850 2850
E (GPa) 72 72 72 72
Poisson’s ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Yield stress (MPa) 252 400 576 130
Tangent modulus 600 600 650 400
(MPa)
B 1 1 1 1
C 25 000 30 000 65 000 10 000
Fig. 3 Modelling of the SHPB set-up using ANSYS LS- P 0.95 1.2 0.95 0.75
Failure strain 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.7
DYNA

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45 JSA655

 Static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys 559

provides enough time for the specimen to experience

maximum load and generates good equilibrium condi-
tions. It should be noted here that good equilibrium
conditions were realized for all aluminium alloys up to a
maximum strain rate value of 4000 s21, and reasonably
decent force equilibrium conditions were achieved
beyond a strain rate of 5500 s21.
Typical force equilibrium conditions of alloy 6061-
T6 for strain rates between 719 and 3215 s21 are
shown in Fig. 6. The solid line represents the ideal
force ratio of 1.0. The dynamic true stress–strain
curves for different strain rates are plotted along
with quasi-static true stress–strain curves for each
aluminium alloy in Figs 7 to 10. As shown in Fig. 7,
alloy 7075-T4 shows no significant rate sensitivity,
Fig. 4 True compressive stress–strain curve under
quasi-static loading conditions

remains the same. Alloy 7075-T4 has the highest

yield strength, and AA 5082-O has the lowest yield
strength compared with the other alloys. The flow
stress of all aluminium alloys increases at a slower
rate as the true strain increases.

4.1.2 Dynamic constitutive response

Experiments were carried out at different strain rates
ranging from 500 to 10 000 s21. The typical real-time
strain pulses obtained for alloy 6061-T6 at an average
strain rate of 3025 s21 are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen
from the figure that the pulse shaper generated a Fig. 6 Typical force equilibrium condition of all four
aluminium alloys at a strain rate of 2500 s21
significant ramp in the incident pulse. This initial ramp

Fig. 5 Typical strain pulses recorded from strain Fig. 7 True compressive stress–strain curve for alloy
gauges mounted on bars 7075-T4

JSA655 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45

560 S Abotula and V B Chalivendra
Fig. 8 True compressive stress–strain curve for alloy
2024-T3
and there is no change in the yield strength as the
strain rate increases. However, the difference in flow
stress at higher strain rates compared with quasi-
static conditions (0.006 s21) for strain values of 6–8
per cent is around 100 MPa. Also, alloy 2024-T3
shows rate insensitivity for all dynamic strain rates,
as shown in Fig. 8. There is a considerable difference
in their yield stress under quasi-static and dynamic
conditions, ranging between 80 and 140 MPa. The
flow stress at dynamic strain rates is around 50–
70 MPa higher than that under quasi-static condi-
tions.
For alloy 6061-T6, as shown in Fig. 9, there is a
significant difference in yield stress and flow stress at
dynamic strain rates compared with quasi-static
Fig. 9 True compressive stress–strain curve for alloy
6061-T6
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45
Fig. 10 True compressive stress–strain curve for alloy
AA 5182-O
conditions. The difference in yield strength (deter-
mined using the 0.2 per cent offset method) between
quasi-static and dynamic conditions ranges between
35 and 70 MPa. The flow stress at higher strain rates
is around 100 MPa greater than that under quasi-
static conditions. Similarly to other alloys, AA 5182-
O, as shown in Fig. 10, also provides a slight increase
in flow stress at higher strain rates compared with
quasi-static conditions. However, there is no sig-
nificant change in flow stress between lower and
medium strain rates. The difference in yield stress
between quasi-static and dynamic constitutive be-
haviour at higher strain rates is approximately 70–
100 MPa.
Fig. 11 Comparison of incident, reflected and trans-
mitted pulses for experimental and numerical
analysis
JSA655
 Static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys 561

4.2 Numerical simulations
Before dynamic characterization of the aluminium
alloy simulations, the SHPB numerical model is first
validated by comparing typical strain pulses ob-
tained from simulation with those in experiments. A
comparison of incident, reflected pulses and trans-
mitted strain pulses for alloy 6061-T6 at an average
strain rate of 3500 s21 is shown in Fig. 11. There is a
very good match between experimental and numer-
ical strain pulses. This matching ensures that the
quarter-bar with symmetric boundary conditions
does not disperse and attenuate the strain pulses as
they travel along the bar. Similar matching was
identified for all other aluminium alloys considered
in this study. Similarly to experiments, time-resolved
strain pulses were recorded at the middle of the bars
in numerical simulations. These pulses were later
analysed to obtain the true stress–strain behaviour
for strain rates ranging from 1700 to 7500 s21. It was
established that the true stress–strain behaviour
predicted by the Cowper–Symonds model for strain
rates beyond 7500 s21 was significantly different
from that in experiments. Hence, comparison of
numerical results with experimental results for strain
rates beyond 7500 s21 is not discussed in this paper.
A comparison of the numerical dynamic constitutive
behaviour of the four different aluminium alloys
with that in experiments for four different strain
rates is shown in Figs 12 to 15.
As shown in Fig. 12, the Cowper–Symonds model
predicted the dynamic constitutive behaviour of
alloy 7075-T4 very well for a medium strain rate
(3225 s21) and showed slight deviation from experi-
ments at both lower strain rates and higher strain
rates. The yield stress values of numerical simula-
tions matched well with those of experiments for all

Fig. 12 Comparison of numerical dynamic true stress–strain behaviour with that of experiments
for alloy 7075-T4: (a) strain rate 1777 s21; (b) strain rate 2412 s21; (c) strain rate 4019 s21;
(d) strain rate 7057 s21

JSA655 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45

562 S Abotula and V B Chalivendra

Fig. 13 Comparison of the numerical dynamic true stress–strain behaviour with that of
experiments for alloy 2024-T3: (a) strain rate 2169 s21; (b) strain rate 3235 s21; (c) strain
rate 5076 s21; (d) strain rate 7202 s21

strain rates. However, the flow stress values differ at
both low and high strain rates. For alloy 2024-T3, as
shown in Fig. 13, the model showed a slight
variation in both yield stress and flow stress for all
strain rates. Moreover, for all strain rates, a flow
stress difference of 50–100 MPa can be seen.
For alloy 6061-T6, as shown in Fig. 14, the model
predicted very well for all strain rates except
7505 s21. For a strain rate of 7505 s21, the flow stress
deviates significantly, and the difference ranges from
50 to 200 MPa for a true strain range of 2–16 per
cent. From Fig. 15 it can be seen that the model
predicted the dynamic constitutive behaviour of AA
5182-O very well except at high strain rates. For a
strain rate of 5114 s21, the yield stress value matches
well, and the flow stress also matches well until
a true strain value of 10 per cent. For a strain rate
value of 7266 s21, the yield stress matches very
well, but the flow stress deviates from experiments
at around 4 per cent true strain, and the difference
reaches a maximum of 200 MPa. In general, the
deviations found in yield strength and flow stress
for all four aluminium alloys at different strain
rates, as illustrated in Figs 12 to 15, might be
attributed to errors in measuring the dynamic yield
strength (determined using the 0.2 per cent of-
fset method) and improper fitting of experimental
data in generating the Cowper–Symonds model
parameters.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive experiments and numerical simula-
tions were conducted to understand the dynamic
constitutive behaviour of four commercial alumi-

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45 JSA655

 Static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys 563

Fig. 14 Comparison of numerical dynamic true stress–strain behaviour with that of experiments
for alloy 6061-T6: (a) strain rate 2206 s21; (b) strain rate 3025 s21; (c) strain rate 5237 s21;
(d) strain rate 7505 s21

nium alloys for a wide range of strain rates between
0.006 and 10 000 s21 using a split Hopkinson pres-
sure bar set-up. The following are the major out-
comes of this study:
1. Alloy 7075-T4 showed no significant rate sensi-
tivity at higher strain rates, and the yield strength
values under dynamic conditions are similar to
those under quasi-static conditions. However, the
difference in flow stress at high strain rates
compared with quasi-static conditions (0.006 s21)
for true strain values of 6–8 per cent is around
100 MPa.
2. Alloy 2024-T3 also shows rate insensitivity for all
dynamic strain rates. However, there is a con-
siderable difference in dynamic yield strength at
high strain rates compared with quasi-static
conditions, and the difference ranges from 80 to
140 MPa. In addition to yield strength difference,
the flow stress at dynamic strain rates is also
around 50–70 MPa higher than under quasi-static
conditions.
3. For alloy 6061-T6 there is a significant difference in
both yield strength and flow stress at dynamic
strain rates compared with quasi-static conditions.
The difference in yield strength between quasi-
static and dynamic conditions ranges from 35 to
70 MPa. The flow stress at higher strain rates is
around 100 MPa greater than under quasi-static
conditions.
4. AA 5182-O shows a slight increase in flow stress at
higher strain rates compared with quasi-static
conditions. However, there is no significant
change in flow stress between lower and medium
strain rates. The difference in yield stress between
quasi-static and dynamic constitutive behaviour
at higher strain rates is approximately 70–
100 MPa.

JSA655 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45

564 S Abotula and V B Chalivendra

Fig. 15 Comparison of numerical dynamic true stress–strain behaviour with that of experiments
for alloy AA 5182-O: (a) strain rate 1018 s21; (b) strain rate 3533 s21; (c) strain rate
5114 s21; (d) strain rate 7266 s21

5. For all the aluminium alloys, the predicted
dynamic true stress–strain response using the
Cowper–Symonds material model matched well
with that in experiments at medium strain rates
(2000–5000 s21). However, the model provided a
significant difference in flow stress at high strain
rates and predicted poorly at very high strain rates
(beyond 7500 s21).
F Authors 2010
REFERENCES
1 Campbell, J. D. An investigation of the plastic
behavior of metal rods subjected to longitudinal
impact. J. Mechanics Phys. Solids, 1953, 1, 113–123.
2 Maiden, C. J. and Green, S. J. Compressive strain-
rate tests on six selected materials at strain rates
from 1023 to 104 in/in/s. J. Appl. Mechanics, 1966,
33, 496–504.
3 Holt, D. L., Babcock, S. G., Green, S. J., and Maiden,
C. J. The strain-rate dependence of the flow stress in
some aluminum alloys. J. Appl. Mechanics, 1967, 60,
152–159.
4 Nicholas, T. Tensile testing of materials at high
rates of strain. Expl Mechanics, 1981, 21, 177–185.
5 Jeng, S. T. and Sheu, S. L. An experimental and
numerical analysis of high strain-rate compression
behavior of 6061-O aluminum alloys. Comput.
Struct., 1994, 52, 27–34.
6 Yadav, S., Chichili, D., and Ramesh, K. T. The
mechanical response of A 6061-T6 Al/Al2O3 metal
matrix composite at high rates of deformation. Acta
Metall. Mater., 1995, 43, 4453–4464.
7 Smerd, R., Winkler, S., Salisbury, C., Worswick,
M., Lloyd, D., and Finn, M. High strain rate tensile
testing of automotive aluminum alloy sheet. Int. J.
Impact Engng, 2005, 32, 541–560.

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45 JSA655

 Static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of aluminium alloys
8 Bragov, A. M., Lomunov, A. K., Abramov, A. V.,
Konstantinov, A. Y., Sergeichev, I. V., Braithwaite,
C., Proud, W. G., Church, P. D., Cullis, I. G., and
Gould, P. The dynamic response of copper 101 under
high-rate loading. J. Phys. IV, 2006, 134, 311–315.
9 Kolsky, H. An investigation of the mechanical
properties of materials at very high rates of loading.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 1949, B62, 676–700.
10 Davies, S. C. and Hunter, J. The dynamic com-
pression testing of solids by the method of the split
JSA655
565
Hopkinson pressure bar. J. Mechanics Phys. Solids
Struct., 1963, 11(3), 155–179.
11 Chen, W., Zhang, B., and Forrestal, M. A split
Hopkinson bar technique for low-impedance ma-
terials. Expl Mechanics, 1999, 39(2), 81–85.
12 Hallquist, J. O. LS-DYNA theoretical manual, 1998
(Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Li-
vermore, California).
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 45