2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2012.01.095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental and numerical investigation of pulse-shaped split Hopkinson pressure bar test

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

5
33
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
5
33
1
Order By: Relevance
“…By Equation (16), it showed that reducing the velocity of striker bar and adding thickness of pulse shaper d would increase , which agrees with the experimental results and references (Naghdabadi et al 2012). Meanwhile, increasing cross-sectional area of pulse shaper would also increase , which agrees with experimental results and is opposite to the results in references (Naghdabadi et al 2012).…”
Section: Experimental and Theoretical Analysis Of Incident Wavesupporting
confidence: 83%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…By Equation (16), it showed that reducing the velocity of striker bar and adding thickness of pulse shaper d would increase , which agrees with the experimental results and references (Naghdabadi et al 2012). Meanwhile, increasing cross-sectional area of pulse shaper would also increase , which agrees with experimental results and is opposite to the results in references (Naghdabadi et al 2012).…”
Section: Experimental and Theoretical Analysis Of Incident Wavesupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Meanwhile, increasing cross-sectional area of pulse shaper would also increase , which agrees with experimental results and is opposite to the results in references (Naghdabadi et al 2012). Furthermore, the cross-sectional area and wave impedance of bars also contribute to the rising time.…”
Section: Experimental and Theoretical Analysis Of Incident Wavesupporting
confidence: 81%
See 3 more Smart Citations