Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT--A detailed description of the instrumented dropweight impact machine is presented. The instrumentation, the
calibration, the inertial loading correction, and the dynamic
analysis of a concrete beam specimen undergoing three-point
impact flexural loading are described. Some results, using
such an impact testing machine, obtained from tests done on
plain concrete, fiber-reinforced concrete, and conventionally
reinforced concrete are presented. It is concluded that the use
of such a testing machine may be successfully made in order
to test cementitious materials under )mpact.
Introduction
The low strains associated with concrete failure place it
in the category of brittle materials. Like other ceramics,
concrete also exhibits stress-rate sensitivity in all the three
loading configurations, viz. compression, '-3 tension',' and
flexure.': This implies that the statically determined
properties of concrete in the laboratory may not be used
to predict the behavior of concrete Subjected to high
stress rates, those associated with impact, blast, or earthquake, Since the conventional testing machines may not
be used to generate such high rates of loading, special
apparatus are required. Unfortunately, a standard technique for testing concrete under impact does not exist.
Although various investigators '-7 have used various testing
techniques, results often cannot be compared. The main
reasons behind the incomparable nature of these testing
techniques are the different methods of loading, the
different energy-loss mechanisms and the different ways
of analyzing the results. Consequently, little general agreement exists over the magnitude of the observed effects.
Nevertheless, a general agreement exists over the necessity
of a standard testing technique for testing concrete under
high stress rates associated with impact. In this paper, a
drop-weight impact machine, its construction, instrumentation and calibration, analysis of the results, and the
problems associated with its use in generating impact
flexural loading are outlined. Some results obtained with
normal-strength plain, high-strength plain, fiber-reinforced,
and conventionally reinforced concrete are also presented.
Experiment
The Drop-weight Impact-testing Machine
The drop-weight impact machine is shown in Fig. I. It
has a frame 3.5-m tall mounted on a reinforced-concrete
pedestal 1.5 m 1.5 m in area and 0.9-m high. The
frame is rigidly secured on top of the pedestal using 37ram bolts. A hammer weighing 3.38 kN slides up and
down the vertical posts upon being attached to a hoist.
The hammer has pneumatic brakes in its body by which
it can 'grab on' to the vertical posts. Once the brakes are
applied, the hoist may be detached from the hammer.
Upon releasing the brakes, the hammer falls freely on a
beam specimen supported on two support anvils as shown
in Fig. 1. The striking end of the hammer (called the 'tup')
is shown in Fig. 2. The hammer may be raised to heights
of up to 2.4 m above the specimen. By dropping the
hammer through different heights, the applied stress rate
may be varied.
Instrumentation
THE TUP
As the hammer strikes the beam, the contact load
between the hammer and the beam develops. Load
measurements are made by the eight bonded strain gages
placed in two 25-mm diameter holes (Fig. 2). This
procedure resulted in an amplification (by a factor of
three in this case) in the signals by making use o f the
stress concentration at the boundaries of the holes. 8'9 The
circuit of the tup is shown in Fig. 2(b).
THE SUPPORT ANVIL
The support anvil [Fig. 3(a)] is capable of reading the
vertical as well as the horizontal support reaction. These
two reactions are read separately by the imbalance generated
in two separate Wheatstone bridges. The vertical reaction
is read from the strain gages mounted in the circular holes
[Fig. 3(b)], while the horizontal reaction is read from the
strain gages mounted in between the two holes [Fig. 3(c)].
The independent nature of the horizontal and the vertical
reaction channels in the support anvil should be noted.
ACCELEROMETERS
E x p e r i m e n t a l M e c h a n i c s ~ 63
PHOTOCELL ASSEMBLY
The photocell assembly consists of a strip of metal
with holes punched in it, that runs parallel to the
columns of the machine (Fig. I) and a photocell
mounted on the hammer that slides along the strip.
As soon as the photocell reaches a hole in the strip
(Fig. 4), the beam of light falls on the photocell
through the hole registering an output. The use of
the photocell assembly is made for two purposes:
first, for the triggering of the data-acquisition system and second, for the determination of the hammer
acceleration as it fails under gravity. The hammer, once
released, passes a hole in the strip before hitting the
specimen. This interception of the hole triggers the dataacquisition system (Fig. I). The use of the photocell for
the determination of the hammer acceleration is described
below.
Calibration
CALIBRATION OF THE TUP AND THE SUPPORT ANVIL
The tup and the vertical-load channel of the support
anvil were calibrated b y subjecting them to static compres-
S, = V, Atl + lAahAt~
$2 = V2At2 + 89
Also
;:ooo= o
~ ~ ~
o.ao
oo
'
Pedestol
L
(a)
_J
@
(a)
T2
+JISTRAIN GAUGIrS
TYPE: SON DEO
RESISTANCE : Sw
_e 0 . 3 %
SAGE FACTOR: 2.OF ~" 0.5%
TEMPERATURE COEFFIClENT:~ O.t%
64 9 March 1989
EXCITATION
(b)
[.m
Excilotion
[xcitotion
(b)
Ic)
(3)
2($2Atl - S, Atz)
A t x A t 2 ( A t l + At2)
(4)
2S(At~ - AG)
At, At2(At~ + At2)
(5)
Metol strip
fqJ
,,o,o
Z>--7 Q~
cell
Light
source
Holes
:R
Output
i~ Output in volts
Hammer
velocity = VI
-- .~
Hammer
veloctty=V 2
(~
i
-'-~ . . . .
N
Hammer
velocity--V3
(~
Experimental Mechanics 9 65
+ 2 J~ o A i t ' ( y , t ) $ u ( y ) d y
(6)
~ Hammer
t'
'
D1
P,(t) = -~ oA [ ~
Aceelerometers
D2
(ii~(t)+ii~(t)+ii,(t)iiz(t))
Da
+ ~
h
[~](t) ]
no(t)
U~(t)
(7)
(8)
(a)
(for the linear case) and
r~
P~(t) = oA~io(t) t~- + 2 7r2h3 ]
(10)
Pt (t)
R,(t) = 2 P , ( t ) - o A ~ i o ( t ) [ e _
_0~]
(11)
and
(c)
Fig. 6--Computation of the generalized
inertial load
8h3 j]
Pb(t) = P t ( t ) - A o i i o ( t ) re
t--~- + 3t
-j
2
(a)
Fig. 7(a)--The dynamic loading and (b) the
equivalent static loading
66 9 March 1989
(12)
Pb(t)
(b)
+,+j
(13)
e2
]
(14)
Mo(t) and Me o(t) are the same. Or, in other words, the
placement of Pb(t) on the beam [Fig. 7(b)] results in the
true equivalent static system. The peak bending load,
therefore, is the peak value of the generalized load.
A CHECK
The instrumentation in the support may be used to
check the validity of the above analysis. Figure 8 presents
a comparison between the experimental support load and
the evaluated support reaction as computed using eq (11).
It can be noted that they reasonably agree with each
other. The other significant feature of Fig. 8 is the lag of
about 0.4 millisecond between the evaluated and the
measured reaction. The finite time taken by the stress
waves to travel the distance from the point of impact to
the support may, to some extent, explain this lag.
Figure 9 presents the measured horizontal reaction. It
can be seen that the horizontal reaction is close to zero at
all times indicating the simply supported nature of the
beam.
THE FRACTURE ENERGY
As soon as the hammer hits the beam, a sudden transfer
of energy from the hammer to the beam occurs. The
hammer velocity decreases due to the obstacle in its path.
At any time t during the impact, if I P , ( t ) d t represents
the impulse acting against the hammer, the kinetic energy
lost by the hammer AE(t) may be obtained from the
impulse-momentum relationships,7
A E ( t ) = "~-mh
1
[2ahh - ( 2x/~d~hh-
mh
Eb(t) = IO Pb(t)duo
The deflection at the load point, uo(t), may be obtained by double integration of the extrapolated acceleration at the load point [Uo(t)].
t t
Uo(t) = Io Io tio(t) dtdt
(17)
At the point of failure (Fig. 10), the beam stops receiving
energy from the hammer (tup load falls to zero) and the
area under the Pb(t) versus the LPD [Uo(t)] curve [eq
(16)] represents the fracture energy or the energy required
to create two new fracture surfaces. At this point, a plain-
2,0
1,5
I P ' ( t ) d t ) 2]
(15)
(16)
1,0
_l
0,5
J
0
Time, ms
af
.J
t
z
'/i
I
I
(.9
Fodure
6
8
Time, ms
Fig. 8 - - A check on the analysis
I0
12
Experimental Mechanics ~ 67
concrete beam breaks into two halves and the two broken
halves swing about their support points away from the
tup. It may be assumed that the beam halves, although
having considerable kinetic energy, have no bending or
strain energy and all the energy given by the area under
the generalized-bending-load versus load-point-deflection
plot has been used up in creating new fracture surfaces.
It is shown in Ref. 13 that at the point of failure, the
fracture energy and the kinetic energy of the broken
halves together account for most of the energy lost by the
hammer as given by eq (15).
5.5 (1,5)
16932 (428)
90,1 (6.5)
2.8 (0,6)
14.0 (4.4)
17300 (821)
Plane Concrete s
High-Strength
9720 (1809)
Plain Concrete 6
119.4 (8.1)
Concrete 7
44.8 (19)
Reinforced
Concrete 8
Conventionally
Reinforced
Normal-Strength
Concrete g
68 9 March 1989
Conclusions
The use of an instrumented, drop-weight impact
machine may be successfully made in order to investigate
the impact behavior of concrete. The instrumentation
described here is sufficient to apply the inertial loading
correction and to derive useful information from the
impact testing. Concrete is a significantly stress-ratesensitive material. In general it is stronger and more energy
absorbing under impact than under static loading.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the staff of the University
of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada where this work was carried out. In
particular, the help from Mr. G.D. Jolly, Mr. R.B. Nussbaumer and Mr. M. Nazar is thankfully acknowledged.
References
1. Abrams, D.A., "'Effect of Rate of Application of Load on the
Compressive Strength of Concrete, "" Proc. ASTM 17, Part 2, 364-367
(1917).
2. Watstein, D., "Effect of Straining Rate on the Compressive
Strength and Elastic Properties of Concrete, '" J. ACI, 49 (8), 729-756
(April 1953).
3. Atchly, B.L. and Furr, H.L., "'Strength and Energy Absorption
Capacity of Plain Concrete Under Dynamic and Static Loading, "' J. ACI,
745-756 (Nov. 1967).
4. Macneely, D.J. and Lash, S.D., "'Tensile Strength of Concrete
Under Dynamic and Static Loading, ""J. ACI, 60 (6), 751-760 (1963).
5. Zielinsky, A.J., "'Fracture of Concrete and Mortar Under Uniaxial
Impact Tensile Loading, '" PhD Thesis, De(ft Univ. of Tech. (1982).
6. Suaris, W. and Shah, S.P., "'Properties of Concrete Subjected to
Impact, "' ASCE, Struct. Div., 109 (7), 1727-1741 (July 1983).
Z Banthia, N.P., "'Impact Resistance of Concrete," PhD Thesis,
Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (1987).
8. Bentur, A., Mindess, S. and Banthia, N., "'The Behavior of
Concrete Under Impact Loading: Experimental Procedures and Method
of Analysis, ""Materials and Structures, 19 (113), 371-378 (1986).
9. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, N., "'Theory of Elasticity,'"
McGraw-HilI Kogakusha, Ltd., 3rd Ed. (1970).
10. Vanzi, S., Priest, A. and May, M.J., "'Influence of Inertial Loads
in Instrumented Impact Tests, ""Impact Testing of Metals, ASTM STP466,
165-180 (1970).
11. Server, W.L., "'Impact Three Point Bend Testing for Notched and
Pre-Cracked Specimens, ""J. Test. and Eval., 6 (1), 29-34 (Jan. 1978).
12. Gopalaratnam, V.S., Shah, S.P. and John, R., "'A Modbqed
Instrumented Charpy Test for Cement-Based Composites," EXPERIMENTAL
MECHANICS, 24 (2), 102-111 (June 1984).
18
16
16
14
14
~ t2
zl2
.lO
,,m
< 8
o,._1 6
2
0
2
"~'-- J
~ i
Stotic
I0 II 12 13
DEFLECTION , mm
6
f-----Dynamic
I0
2 .'.'.'5 4
(a)
24l
ynomic
18
. ~..-~-
Dynomic
~,.~-t
St otic
t''"s
I 2
"',t
3 4
t
5
t
6
r
7
1 t
8 9
I
I0
t
II
12 13
DEFLECTION , m m
(c)
0
0
246
8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DEFLECTION , mm
(d)
CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED
CONCRETE
32
<12
o
J
9
4
0
,-,15
,--.,
<
/ ~
21
14
z12
"~10
o
..j
(b)
POLYPROPYLENE FIBRE
REINFORCED CONCRETE
16
5 6 7 8 9 t0 II 12
DEFLECTION, rnm
l, o,~
28
24
20
<z 16
o 12
_d
4 r
I/
"-.....
V
"-..
4
8 12 16 20 24 28 .32 36 40 4 4 4 8
DEFLECTION , m m
(e)
Loading, "" Int. J. Cement Composites and Light Weight Concrete (UK),
8 (3), 165-170 (1986).
17. Bentur, A., Mindess, S. and Banthia, N., "'The Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Under Impact: The Effect of Concrete Strength, ""
The SEM-RIL.EM Int. Conf. on Fracture of Concrete and Rock (June 1987).
18. Banthia, N., Mindess, S. and Bentur, A., "'Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete Under Impact, "" Int. Symp. on Fibre Reinforced Concrete,
Madras, India (Dec. 1987).
19. Hibbert, A.P., "'Impact Resistance of Fibre Concrete, "" PhD
Thesis, Univ. of Surrey, UK (1979).
ExperimentaIMechanics 9 69