Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. INTRODUCTION
THE INSTRUMENTED impact test is generally used to measure the toughness of materials. It is
general practice to measure and record the force which is acting on the specimen during the
impact. The simplicity of the 3-point bending impact test is sometimes taken as a justication
for its use, where a more fundamental form of test would be dicult or expensive to carry out.
Nevertheless, the dynamic eects resulting from the transverse impact are the principal inconvenience of these tests. Many investigations have been focused on the analysis of inertia eects for
evaluating the dynamic response of materials [14]. In order to overcome these diculties, some
authors have proposed various solutions such as: the inverted pendulum [5], a soft material
between the specimen and the hammer [6], the impact response curve and time-to-fracture
measurements [7], and numerical modelling [8, 9]. To understand the dynamic eects of the 3point bending impact, some authors have proposed simple numerical models where the specimen
is represented by a spring-mass system [1012].
The approach adopted for instrumented impact testing [13] assumes that a quasi-static equilibrium prevails in the specimen. One of the ASTM requirements is based on the Server empirical relation [14] giving the period of the apparent specimen oscillations. Initially developed for
metallic materials, this standard is sometimes applied to polymers [15], ceramics [16] and
concrete [17].
The numerical and experimental work described below was initiated with two aims. Firstly,
to study the vibration response of the full mechanical system (specimen and loading device) to
the impact by means of an adapted model. Secondly, to examine the Server relation in various
experimental conditions.
{Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.
437
438
Aluminium
Dimensions
LBW
(mm)
Notch
length (mm)
40 10 10
E(GPa)
r (Kgdm3)
40 10 10
2
5
200
7.8
80
2.7
PMMA
40 4 10
40 7.8 10
40 5 10
40 10 10
1.5
2
5
5
1.2
Alumina
Concrete
32 4 4
229 25 76
0.5
1
2
270
3.8
1.1
2. EXPERIMENTATION
2.1. Specimen details
Four materials were investigated in this study as indicated by Table 1. The concrete data
are derived from the literature[17].
A particular problem with polymeric materials is that the value of Young's modulus E is
often dependent upon the loading rate. The values presented above are obtained at 300 1 strain
rate by means of a split Hopkinson tensile bar apparatus [18].
In all experiments described here, the geometry was that of the Charpy test employing 3point bending, as shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Experimental set-up
The tests were conducted using two dierent devices.
1. A commercial Charpy pendulum (Wolpert, Germany). The tup of the hammer (7.5 J) has
been instrumented with strain gauges to sense the compression loading of the tup while it is
in contact with the test specimen. The velocity with which the striker impacted against the
specimen could be varied by changing the angle from which the striker was released. The
impact velocity can reach 4 m/s. This Charpy pendulum is able to test brittle ceramic specimens which need a low fracture energy and it has been used for the rebound tests described
below.
2. A horizontal line nose aluminium projectile guided by means of two V-supports. The friction
is minimized using teon bearings at the contact surfaces. This projectile is launched at a
desired velocity (0.52 m/s) by a gas gun. Strain gauges are xed on the projectile at a chosen
position in order to avoid the superposition between incident and reected waves at the
beginning of the impact. The striker length is increased so as to reduce its fundamental frequency (around 4.5 kHz) and then to minimize the load signal perturbation. Two gaugebridges were xed at two diametrically opposite points on the striker surface. The geometric
details are indicated in Fig. 2.
The load signals derived from each apparatus are digitally stored in a transient recorder and
then analyzed in a computer station (Fig. 3).
439
Fig. 3. Instrumentation.
440
and then Cm is considered as the contact compliance C (C = 1/kc) between the striker and the
specimen.
Table 2 gives the contact stiness values for dierent experimental conditions.
3. NUMERICAL APPROACH
3.1. Beam vibration theory
The linear vibrations of beams are governed by the well-known partial dierential
equation:
EI
@4
@2
yx; t rA 2 yx; t 0;
4
@x
@t
where E, I, r and A represent, respectively, Young's modulus, the second moment of area, the
volumic mass and the cross-sectional area. The deection y(x,t) is illustrated in Fig. 5.
Each vibration mode has an angular frequency on given by:
s
EI
2
;
2
o n ln
rAL4
where ln is determined by the boundary conditions. In the case of a simply supported specimen,
we have:
sin ln 0
then:
ln np;
n 1; 2; . . .
PMMA
Steel
Aluminium
Alumina
16
34
22
13
441
cos ln cosh ln 1;
hence:
p
l1 3:011 ;
2
p
ln2 2n 1 :
2
If we introduce the specimen compliance (in 3-point bending conguration):
C
L3
;
48EI
442
W
EBCs 1=2 ;
c0
where c0 is the sound velocity in the material and an is a coecient listed in Table 3.
The apparent period t of the specimen oscillations is given by the empirical relation
(known as SERVER relation):
t 3:36
W
EBCs 1=2 :
c0
This relation, obtained for metallic specimens at a specic shape (L/W = 4), is the basis of the
ASTM standard for Charpy impact testing [14]. The empirical value 3.36 in eq. (6) can be compared to the an values in freefree conguration (Table 3). As suggested by Server [14], the oscillations during the impact appear to be a combination of rst and second symetric specimen
modes with mode 1 dominating. In fact, this combination is qualitatively comparable with the
numerical shape given in Fig. 8 and corresponding to this rst and second symetric modes of
the specimen-tup system (Fig. 6).
443
According to the above described numerical model, the experimental values O2/o1 (normalized apparent oscillations frequency) are determined and compared with numerical results
(Fig. 10). The contact stiness kc has been obtained from each material using the rebound test
described above. This stiness is assumed independent of the specimen dimensions and the
impact velocity. The value 2.6 (dashed line in Fig. 10), computed from the relations in eqs (5)
and (6), gives the normalized apparent frequency by the fundamental frequency of the simplysupported specimen (L/W = 4).
The 2 dof model curve (Fig. 7) is obtained by simple calculations [17]:
O2
kc 1=2
1
:
7
o1
ks
We observe a good agreement between the present numerical model, the 2 dof model and the
experimental values for low kc/ks ratio.
It was interesting to examine the concrete data derived from the literature [17] and indicated
in Fig. 10. The authors have pointed out the analogous values between the apparent half period
computed by using their 2 dof model and the Server relation (eq. (6). They have confused the
Table 3. an values (eq. (5)
Simply supported
L/W = 4
L/W = 8
Freefree
First mode
Third mode
First mode
Third mode
8.83
12.48
0.98
1.39
3.89
5.50
0.72
1.02
444
apparent period relation with the half period one. Obviously, their results correspond to a lower
value of the frequency and are corroborated by our model as mentioned in Fig. 10.
For high kc/ks ratio the 3 dof model is too far from experimental results which are enclosed
by Server relation values and the 10 dof model.
The measured contact stiness kc through the rebound test is lower than its real value. This
fact is following the innite rigidity hypothesis at the two specimen supports and can explain
the gap between experimental values and numerical curve at low kc/ks.
Globally, the Server relation is an interesting tool for dynamic fracture toughness testing of
metallic materials, as well as some non metallic ones. It should be useful to investigate more sys-
445
Fig. 9. Fracture test load-time record: (a) steel, (b) aluminium, (c) PMMA and (d) alumina.
temically the dynamic response of such materials with the objective to check the apparent frequency relation for other specimen shapes (L/W = 6, 8, . . .).
5. CONCLUSION
The present study has pointed out the importance of the second mode of vibrations of the
full mechanical system (specimen and tup or striker) which is dependent on the contact stiness.
The contact stiness hypothesis, for characterizing the interaction between the tup and the specimen, seems to be an appropriate method to evaluate the load oscillations frequency.
The model presented in this work gives a more realistic result than the 2 dof model which
is less accurate for high relative contact stiness.
446
Fig. 10. Experimental apparent frequencies vs contact stiness (see Fig. 7).
REFERENCES
1. Venzi, S., Priest, A. H. and May, M. J., Inuence of inertial load in instrumented impact tests. ASTM STP, 1970,
466, 16580.
2. Ireland, D. R., Procedures and problems associated with reliable control of the instrumented impact test. ASTM
STP, 1974, 563, 329.
3. Corran, R. S. J., Mines, R. A. W. and Ruiz, C., Elastic impact loading of notched beams and bars. Int J Fracture,
1983, 23, 12944.
4. Kaltho, J. F., On the measurement of dynamic fracture toughnessa review of recent works. Int J Fracture, 1985,
27, 27798.
5. Rintamaa, R., A new test method for dynamic fracture toughness determination. Impact Loading Dynamic Behaviour
Mater, 1987, 3, 13744.
6. Mills, N. J. and Zhang, P. S., The eects of contact conditions on impact tests on plastics. J Mater Sci, 1989, 24,
2099109.
7. Bohme, W. and Kaltho, J. F., On the quantication of dynamic eects in impact loading and the practical application of K1 d-determination. J Physique, 1985, 46, 21318.
8. Kishimoto, K., Aoki, S. and Sakata, M., Simple formula for dynamic stress intensity factor of pre-cracked Charpy
specimen. Engng Fracture Mech, 1980, 13, 50108.
9. Ayres, D. J., Dynamic plastic analysis of ductile fracturethe Charpy specimen. Int J Fracture, 1976, 12, 56778.
10. Williams, J. G. and Birch, M. W., The impact testing of polymers. A reassessment. In In: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Fracture. Waterloo, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 50108.
11. Suaris, W. and Shah, S. P., Inertial eects in the instrumented impact testing of cementitious composites. ASTM J
Cement Concrete Aggregates, 1981, 3(2), 7783.
12. Williams, J. G., The analysis of dynamic fracture using lumped mass-spring models. Int J Fracture, 1987, 33(1), 47
59.
13. Server, W. L., Impact three point bend testing for notched and precracked specimens. J Testing Evaluation, 1978,
6(1), 2934.
14. Server, W. L., Wullaert, R. A. and Sheckherd, J. W., Evaluation of current procedures for dynamic fracture-toughness
testing. ASTM STP 631, 1977, pp. 44661.
15. Casiraghi, T. and Savadori, A., Inuence of temperature and molecular weight on the high-speed fracture mechanics
of polypropylene. Plastics Rubber: Mater Appl, 1980, , 16.
16. Robert-Arnouil, J. P. and Sahraoui, S., Essais de rupture dynamique des ceramiques. J Physique, 1985, 46, 67379.
17. Gopalaratnam, V. S., Shah, S. P. and John, R., A modied instrumented Charpy test for cement-based composites.
Exp Mech, 1984, 6, 10211.
18. Sahraoui, S., Lataillade, J. L., Pouyet, J. and Skhiri, N., Fracture of modied epoxy resin at high loading rates.
Polym. Testing, 1987, 7, 26978.
19. Williams, J. G., Fracture mechanics of polymers. Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1984, p. 238.
20. Sahraoui, S. and Gillaizeau, F., Numerical simulation of the Charpy impact testing. Engng Fracture Mech, 1989,
33(6), 87176.
21. Sahraoui, S. and Lataillade, J. L., Dynamic eects during instrumented impact testing. Engng Fracture Mech, 1990,
36(6), 101319.
(Received 10 June 1997)