Piezoresistive effects in ytterbium stress transducers

Abstract

Ytterbium has been successfully used as the piezoresistive element in stress transducers for in situ measurements of stress amplitudes associated with wave propagation in rocks and soils and for laboratory studies of high-rate loading effects in solids and liquids. Ytterbium has been calibrated over its useful range and it can be seen that consideration of the tensor aspects of the piezoresistance become important below 10 kbar. We have used static tensile and hydrostatic data to determine the piezoresistivity tensor coefficients and estimate the shock-wave piezoresistance coefficient, which compares well with experiment. In addition, we offer an explanation of the difference observed between hydrostatic and shock-wave data in the region where plastic deformation becomes important during dynamic compression.

Elastic and plastic strain effects on eddy current response of aluminium alloys

“…With regard to the principal stress axes (zero shear stresses), p mn has two distinct components: p 11 that expresses the change in resistivity parallel to an applied stress Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 301 and p 12 the change transverse to it [17]. For uniaxial tension along the z direction, t z -0,t x ¼ t y ¼ 0, and Equation (1) becomes:…”

Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies

“…Manganin fits all of these requirements but ytterbium [166,167] and carbon [168,169] are used in low stress regimes and in some explosive work [170] even though they do not meet several of the requirements listed above. Piezoelectric gauges have been used for many years and a wealth of literature exists on their polarisation under shock.…”

Dynamic Piezoresistivity Calibration for Eddy Current Nondestructive Residual Stress Measurements

“…Actually, the range of the parallel piezoresistive coefficient κ 11 reported for pure copper in the literature covers a rather wide range from −0.7 to −1.1. (21,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) We are going to show that one of the main reasons for this variation is probably that in the case of pure copper the difference between the adiabatic and isothermal coefficients, i.e., the thermoelastic correction, is very substantial. Since some of the experimenters did not recognize the importance of the difference between slow dynamic (adiabatic) and truly static (isotropic) conditions, the measured numbers tend to fall in a wide range which cannot be sufficiently explained by random experimental uncertainties only.…”