中文摘要：

对Asay-Chhabildas（AC）方法、横向应力计方法、压-剪方法和X射线衍射方法等4种高压动态屈服强度测量方法进行了比较,根据应变率的异同,将强度数据分为两类进行比较：X射线衍射方法和压-剪方法获得的强度与AC方法获得的强度Y=2τc进行比较,而横向应力计方法测得的屈服强度与AC方法中的Y=2τH进行比较。通过铝及其合金屈服强度数据的比较分析表明,AC方法、X射线衍射法和压-剪方法测得的强度数据基本一致,但横向应力计法测得的强度远高于AC方法测得的结果（Y=2τH）,甚至高于其它3种方法测得的结果 （Y=2τc）。造成横向应力计方法测量结果异常的原因有待进一步研究。与实验数据的比较表明,Steinberg-Cochran-Guinan（SCG）模型过于依赖初始屈服强度,从而导致无法完全反映高压下材料的强度特性,模型有待进一步改进。

英文摘要：

The four widely used methods to measure the high-pressure dynamic yield strength of solids, including Asay-Chhabildas （AC） method, lateral stress gauge （LSG） method, pressure-shear （PS） meathod,and X-ray diffraction （XRD） method,were analyzed in the present work. According to the difference of instant strain rate, the yield strengths defined by different methods hereinbefore are divided into two types：one is with high strain-rate,including the data from PS,XRD, as well as Y=2rc from AC method;the another is with zero strain-rate,including the data from LSG, and Y= 2rH from AC method. The yield strengths of various aluminium and its alloys from publications were compared. Results show that the data from PS,XRD,and Y=2rc from AC method are approximately consistent, the data from LSG method, however, are obviously higher than the Y= 2rH from AC method, and even higher than the data with high instant strain-rate. Further work is needed to determine the cause of the abnormal data from LSG method. Results also show that the Steinberg-Cochran-Guinan （SCG） model is strongly affected by the initial yield strength of materials, and a modified model is needed to describe the behavior of yield strength under high pressure or stress.