See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286671581

Energy Balance in Instrumented Impact Tests

on Plain Concrete Beams

Chapter · January 1989

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3578-1_3

CITATIONS READS

6 33

3 authors, including:

Nemkumar Banthia S. Mindess

University of British Columbia - Vancouver University of British Columbia - Vancouver
275 PUBLICATIONS 3,457 CITATIONS 80 PUBLICATIONS 1,252 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sensor Development for SHM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nemkumar Banthia on 26 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 SEMjRILEM International Conference DYNAMIC FRACTURE AND LOAD-RATE EFFECTS
on Fracture of Concrete and Rock
Houston, Texas, June 1987
Editors: S.P. Shah, S.E. Swartz

ENERGY BALANCE IN INSTRUMENTED IMPACT TESTS ON PLAIN CONCRETE BEAMS

N.P. Banthia, Sidney Mindess and Arnon Bentur

ABSTRACT
Impact tests were carried out on plain concrete beams, 100 mm x 125 mm in cross-section and 1400 mm long,
using an instrumented drop weight impact machine. The machine, capable of dropping a 345 kg mass through
heights of up to 2.3 m, had strain gauges attached to the striking end of the hammer, and also to one of the
support anvils. In addition, in order to record the beam response during the impact, three accelerometers were
mounted along the length of the beam. Normal strength and high strength concretes were tested. For three
different drop heights, the energy lost by the hammer was compared to the energy gained by the beam in various
forms. It was found that up to the peak load, the energy gained by the beam was only a small percentage of the
energy lost by the hammer. However, by the end of the impact event, most of the energy lost by the hammer
could be accounted for.

INTRODUCTION

There are numerous situations in which a concrete structure, or some of its structural elements, may be
subjected to dynamiC loading. In most of these situations, a great deal of energy is suddenly imparted to the
structure. If the structural material is capable of absorbing this energy, failure may be avoided. But, if
the material is brittle, like plain concrete, collapse may occur. Therefore, concrete is generally used in
conjunction with other reinforcing materials, such as steel. However, an understanding of the composite
behaviour of reinforced concrete at high stress rates requires a knowledge of the behaviour of its individual
components at high stress rates. Although the static behaviour of concrete is fairly well understood,
relatively little is known about its dynamic behaviour.

Many studies (1-5) have demonstrated the strain rate sensitivity of concrete. However, our knowledge of
concrete behaviour at high stress rates still remains largely empirical. Part of the reason for this has been
the inability to compare the results from different investigations, in the absence of any standard testing
technique. The results of a particular investigation depend largely on the test method used in that particular
investigation, because of the different energy losses associated with various testing machines, and different
methods of analysis. The concept of energy balance to analyze impact data has been developed by Lueth (6) and
Abe et al. (7). In the present work, the energy balance, or the various forms in which the hammer energy in a
drop-Weight type impact machine is dissipated, has been applied to tests on concrete beams.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

1. The Drop Weight Impact Machine

The drop weight impact machine (Fig. 1), and a phenomenological description of the behaviour of concrete
under this type of loading, have been described previously (8,9). Briefly, the machine is capable of dropping
a 345 kg mass hammer through heights of up to 2.3 m on simply supported beams, on a test span of 960 mm. In
this study the beam dimensions were (length x width x depth) 1400 mm x 100 mm x 125 mm. Two types of concretes
were tested: normal strength (NS) concrete with a compressive strength of 42 MPa, and high strength (HS)
concrete, with a compressive strength of 82 MPa. Details of the mix design and specimen preparation are given
in (10).

N.P. Banthia and S. Mindess are Graduate Student and Professor, respectively, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T lW5. Arnon Bentur is an Associate Professor,
Building Research Station, Department of Civil Engineering, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
32000, Israel.
 27

The instrumentation consists of strain gauges in the striking end of the hammer (called the 'tup') to
measure the impact load, and in one of· the support anvils to record the reaction at the supports. In addition,
three accelerometer are mounted along the length of the beam (Fig. 2(a» in order to record the beam response
during an impact event. The data were acquired using a 5-channel data acquisition system based upon an IBM PC.
All five channels were read simultaneously at 0.2 ms intervals. The duration of the entire impact event was
about 10-15 ms.

2. Analysis of the Results

Typical tup load vs. time traces are shown in Fig. 3, for three different drop heights of the hammer. The
three drop heights of 0.5 m, 0.25 m, and 0.15 m corresponded to hammer impact velocities of 3.13 m/sec, 2.21
mlsec, and 1.71 mlsec, respectively. [Due to the friction between the columns of the machine and the hammer,
the downward acceleration of the hammer was found to be less than g (9.81 m/sec). In the present study,
downward accelerstions of 0.95 g were obtained.) The three different starting times for the load vs. time
pulses in Fig. 3 result from the fact that the data acquisition system was triggered by the hammer at a fixed
height above the beam. Thus a faster hammer (0.50 m drop) took less time to strike the beam after triggering
the system.

It has been pointed out by many investigators (e.g., 11,12) that the load, Pt(t), as recorded by the tup
is not the actual bending load on the beam because of the inertial loading effects. Part of the observed tup
load consists of the inertial reaction of the beam. Moreover, in the case of brittle materials like concrete,
since the time to failure is very small, the entire mechanical response of the beam up to failure may occur
while the inertial reaction of the beam is still present. Accelerations in a beam undergoing dynamic testing
are an inherent characteristic of such a test, and hence cannot be eliminated. However, knowing the
accelerations along the length of the bean, a proper inertial correction can be applied.

On the basis of many tests carried out by the authors (8), it was assumed that for plain concrete, st any
instant of time, the accelerations (Fig. 2(b», and the displacements (Fig. 2(c» are linear along the length
of the beam. Let
p - mass density of the beam material
Pt(t) - observed tup load
Pb(t) - equivalent bending load
Pi(t) - generalized inertial load
u(x,t) - displacements in the span of the beam between the supports
u(y,t) - displacements in the portion of the beam overhanging the supports
uo(t) - displacement at midspan
~uO - virtual displacement at the centre compatible with the constraints (Fig. 2(c»
uo(t) - extrapolated value of the acceleration at midspan (Fig. 2(b»
uo(t) - velocity at midspan
1 = span of the test beam
h - length of the overhang

On the basis of the linear displacement assumption (Fig. 2(c»,

_ 2u p (t)x
u(x,t) in the supported span (1)
1
·-2u g(t)y
u(y,t) in the overhanging portion (2 )
1
If the distributed inertisl load along the length of the beam is to be replaced by a generalized inertial
load, Pi(t), then the virtusl work done by sll of the distributed inertial loads (Fig. 2(c» should be equal to
the virtual work done by Pi(t) alone:

2~ (t)x
Pi (t) duo = 2
1/2
J 2du x
pA(_P_ _ )(_o_)dx + 2 Jh pA( -2~o(t)y )(_
-2du py
_ )dy (3)
01.1 011
For a prismatic, homogeneous beam, Equation 3 can be further simplified to

(4)

The beam can now be modelled as a single degree of freedom system, and the equivalent bending load, Pb(t),
can be obtained from the equation of dynamic equilibrium:
 28

(5 )

Once Pb(t) has been found, the dynamically loaded beam with Pt(t) applied at the centre and the inertial
reaction distributed along the whole body of the beam (Fig. 3(a» can be replaced by a beam loaded only by
Pb(t) at the centre (Fig. 3(b». Pb(t), therefore, can also be called the "equivalent static load". The
values of bending moment, etc., obtained by using the static formula on such a beam will be the same as the
ones obtained by doing a dynamic analysis of the beam shown in Fig. 3(a).

The velocity and the displacement at the centre can be obtained by integration,
t
ba(t) -f ua(t)dt (6)
0
t
ua(t) = f fla(t)dt (7)
0

Once the equivalent bending load, Pb(t), at the centre (Equation 5) and the displacements at the centre
(Equation 7) are known, the bending energy in the beam, Eb(t), can be obtained from the area under the load vs.
displacement plot,
t
Eb(t) = f Pb(t)du a (8 )
o
As will be seen later, the energy given by Equation 8 is made up of the strain energy in the beam and the
energy due to the work of fracture.

THE ENERGY BALANCE

The concept of ··energy balance·', which has its basis in the principle of the conservation of energy,
compares the energy lost by the hammer, at any time during the impact, and the energy gained by the specimen.
Theoretically, if any losses can be ignored, the law of conservation of energy would predict the two energies
to be equal. In practice, however, the losses in the system cannot be ignored, and the energy gained by the
specimen is, in general, less than the energy lost by the hammer.

The falling hammer, on striking the beam, suffers a loss of momentum. This loss of momentum, according to
the impulse-momentum relationship, is equal to the impulse acting on the hammer. Using this principle, the
loss in kinetic energy of the hammer (~E(t» can be evaluated:
t
~E(t) ~ 1/2 mh [2a hh - (l2a hh - ~ f P t (t)dt)2j (9 )
o

where

- mass of the hammer

= acceleration of the hammer

h - height of hammer drop

t
f P (t)dt - the impulse
o t
The energy lost by the hammer (Equation 9) may be transferred to the beam in various forms. This transfer
of energy can best be studied at the following two points (Figure 4):
(1) Energy balance at the peak load (t ~ t p )
(2) Energy balance at the end of impact event (t - tt)

1. Energy Balance at the Peak Load (t - t p )

At the peak load, the energy balance equation can be written as

(10)
 29

where

Em(t p ) - energy lost to the various machine parts in the form of vibrations or elastic strain energy

Eker(t p ) - rotational kinetic energy of the specimen

Eb(t p ) - bending energy in the specimen

In Equation 10, the translational kinetic energy, and the vibrational energy in the specimen, have been
ignored (6). The bending energy, given by the area under the load vs. load point displacement plot (Equation
8), comprises the elastic strain energy, Ese(t p )' and the work of fracture, Ewof(t p )' as indicated in Fig. 5.
(11)

From a load vs. centre point displacement plot, the elastic strain energy, Ese(t p)' can reasonably be
approximated by taking the secant modulus at 60% of the peak load (Figure 5):

Ese(t p) = 0.5 Pb(tp)u oe (12)

where u e is the elastic part of the midspan displacement. The secant modulus at 60% of the peak load was
chosen gecause this is about the point at which significant matrix cracking is expected to begin. Prior to
this point, most of the nonlinearity is due only to the development of bond cracks. The work of fracture,
Ewof(t ), can then be obtained by subtracting the strain energy, Ese(t p )' from the bending energy, Eb(t p )'
(Eq uat~on 11).
Knowing the velocity at the centre of the beam, and assuming that the velocity distribution is linear
along the length of the beam, the rotational kinetic energy, Eker(t p )' of the specimen can be obtained by
integrating over its length,

Ek (t) = 8pAl1 o(t p ) [~+!!:] (13)

er p L2 24 3
The energy lost to the machine, Em(t p)' can be obtained by subtracting the beam energies Eb(t p) and Eker(t p )
from the hammer energy aE(t p )' as given by Equation 10.

2. Energy Balance at the End of the Impact Event (at t - tt)

At the end of the impact event, the external load, Pt(t), is reduced to zero and the broken halves of the
beam swing clear of the striking tup. At this instant, the energy balance can be written as

(14)

Once again the energy Eb(tt) obtained from Equation 8 measures the work of fracture and the strain energy
in the beam. Since the strain energy can be assumed to be negligible in the broken halves of the beam, all of
the energy Eb(tt) represents the work of fracture, or the fracture energy. Equation 13 can then be used at
t-tt to determine the rotational kinetic energy Eker(tt). Once Eker(tt) and Eb(tt) are known, Equation 14 can
be used to determine Em(tt).

, RESULTS

Tables 1 to IV and Figs. 6 to 9 present the experimental results. Tables I and III correspond to normal
strength (NS) concrete and Tables II and IV correspond to high strength (HS) concrete. Tables I and II present
the experimental results at the peak load (t-t p) for normal strength and high strength concrete, respectively.
Tables III and IV present the results at the end of the impact event (t-tt). Data for three different heights
of hammer drop are presented. Since Tables I through IV show substantial scatter in results, only the
corresponding mean values are plotted in Figs. 6 to 9.

Fig. 6 shows the maximum values of Pb(t), which occur at t=t p ' This peak equivalent bending load will be
referred to here as the impact strength. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that HS concrete, which is stronger in
static situstions, is also stronger in impact (10). Moreover, the apparent strength increases with an increase
in the drop height, that is, with an increase in the stress rate.

Fig. 7(a) shows the energy balance for NS and HS concretes at the peak load (t=t p)' At the peak load, the
energy lost by the hammer, aE(t p)' is 2 to 4 times the energy gained by the beam, Es(t p). The remainder of the
energy is assumed to be absorbed in the machine itself, in the form of vibrations and elastic energy. The
energy gained by the beam by virtue of its deformed shape, Eb(t p )' is found to be much smaller than its
kinetic energy, Eker(t p)' Also, the consistently lower values of energies Es(t p), Eker(t p)' and Eb(t p) for HS
concrete compared to NS concrete should be noted.
 30

Fig. 7(b) presents the components of the bending energy, Eb(t ), at the peak load, i.e., the work of
fracture, Ewof(t p), and the elstic strain energy, Ese(t p )' Most of the energy consumed by the beam up to the
peak bending load appears as the work of fracture. Both the work of fracture and the strain energy seem to
increase with an increase in the hammer drop height; the work of fracture increases at a higher rate than does
the strain energy. HS concrete, when compared to NS concrete, appears to have a reduced strain energy.

Fig. 8 presents the energy balance at the end of the impact event (t-t p )' Here, most of the energy lost
by the hammer, ~E(tt), is gained by the beam, Es(tt). The energy gained by the beam consists of the kinetic
energy of the broken halves, Eker(tt), and the bending energy, Eb(tt). Since, by the end of the impact event,
the specimen has little or rlo strain energy, the bending energy represents only the fracture energy.

If the difference between the energy lost by the hammer and the energy absorbed by the beam can be assumed
to be the energy lost to the machine, then the "machine loss" can be calculated at the peak load (t=t p ) and at
the end of the event (t=tt). Fig. 9 presents this machine energy calculated as a percentage of the total
energy lost by the hammer (Em/~E x 100%). As can be seen from Fig. 9, at the peak load, 60 to 80 percent of
the energy lost by the hammer is stored in the machine. However, by the end of the impact event (t-tt), over
90 percent of the energy lost by the hammer appears as specimen energy. It can also be noted from Fig. 9 that
HS concrete, being a stronger and stiffer material compared to NS concrete, showed higher machine losses.

DISCUSSION

High stress rate testing of cementitious materials requires sophisticated testing equipment. Knowledge of
the various modes in which energy can be lost during a test is essential to a proper analysis of the test
results. In the absence of this knowledge, the results can be grossly misleading. The energy lost by the
hammer cannot be assumed to be the energy consumed by the beam. Even if the machine losses can be assumed to
be constant for a given drop height for a given machine, the energy gained by the specimen still has to be
corrected for its kinetic energy.

The amount of energy lost to the machine seemed to depend upon the strength and stiffness of the material
tested. Energy losses were found to be higher when HS concrete, which is stronger and stiffer than NS
concrete, was tested. It is also likely that the energy lost to the machine depends upon the amount of energy
available. In this study, the mass of the hammer was about eight times as large as that of the beams tested,
and as a consequence the available hammer energy was very high compared to the energy absorption capacities of
the specimens. It is possible that the use of a smaller impact hammer would lead to smaller energy losses to
the machine.

HS concrete, although stronger in static as well as dynamic situations, was found to be more brittle than
NS concrete. This restricts, at least to some extent, its use in situations in which it may be called upon to
resist impact loading. Increased microcracking at higher stress rates is the probable cause for the increase
in fracture energy requirements at higher stress rates (10); the energy suddenly imparted to the beam is dissi-
pated in the form of microcracking at the aggregate-paste interface throughout the body of the specimen. As a
result, the high strength concrete, which exhibits a better cement-aggregate bond, could not absorb as much
energy as the normal strength concrete.

If it can be assumed that, after the beam fails, the broken halves of the beam have little or no strain
energy, then in the post-peak load region, most or all of the strain energy stored in the beam is used in
propagating the crack. Since the stored strtain energy at the peak load is much less than the overall fracture
energy required, it seems possible that the crack propagates while the beam continues to absorb energy from the
hammer and the various other machine parts.

CONCLUSIONS
1. At the time of peak external load, only a fraction of the energy lost by the hammer is absorbed by the
beam.

2. By the end of the impact event, over 90 percent of the energy lost by the hammer appears as the specimen
kinetic energy and fracture energy.

3. For the correct estimation of the energies, in addition to the instrumentation in the tup, supplementary
instrumentation (e.g., accelerometers) is essential.

4. The energy lost in the machine seems to be higher for a stronger and stiffer specimen.

5. High strength concrete was found to be more brittle than normal strength concrete.

6. The higher energy requirement in concrete at higher stress rates is probably due to the increased
microcracking at higher stress rates.
 31

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Mr. Glenn D. Jolly and Mr. Rod B. Nussbaumer for designing and constructing the
data acquisition system. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, and in part by s contract from Elkem Chemicals Inc., Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

REFERENCES

1. D.A. Abrams, "Effect of Rate of Application of Load on the Compressive Strength of Concrete," Proceedings,
ASTM, V. 17, part 2, 1917, pp. 364-367.

2. D. Watstein, "Effect of Straining Rate on the Compressive Strength and Elastic Properties of Concrete,"
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 49, No.8, 1953, pp. 729-756.

3. B.P. Hughes and R. Gregory, "Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in CompreSSion," Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 24, No. 78, 1972, pp. 25-36.

4. W. Suaris and S.P. Shah, "Properties of Concrete Subjected to Impact," Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 109, No.7, 1983, pp. 1727-1741.

5. A.J. Zielinsky and H.W. Reinhardt, "Stress Strain Behaviour of Concrete and Mortar at High Rates of
Tensile Loading," Cement and Concrete Reserach, V. 12, No.3, 1982, pp. 309-319.

6. R.C. Lueth, "An Analysis of Charpy Impact Testing as Applied to Cemented Carbide," Instrumented Impact
Testing, ASTM STP 563, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1974, pp. 166-179.

7. H. Abe, H.C. Chandan and R.C. Bradt, "Low Blow Charpy Impact of Silicon Carbides," Bulletin of the
American Ceramic Society, V. 57, No.6, 1978, pp. 587-595.

8. A. Bentur, S. Mindess and N. Banthia, "The Behaviour of Concrete Under Impact Loading: Experimental
Procedures and Me thod of Analysis," Ms terials and St ruc tures (RILEM), in press.

9. S. Mindess and A. Bentur, "A Preliminary Study of the Fracture of Concrete Beams Under Impact Loading,"
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 15, No.3, 1985, pp. 474-484.

10. N. Banthia, S. Mindess and A. Bentur, "Impact Behaviuor of Concrete Beams," Materials and Structures
(RILEM), accepted for publication.

11. W.L. Server, "Impact Three Point Bend Testing for Notched and Pre-Cracked Specimens," Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, V. 6, No. I, 1978, pp. 29-34.

12. W. Suaris and S.P. Shah, "Inertial Effects in Instrumented Impact Testing of Cementitious Composites,"
Journal of Cement, Concrete and Aggregate, 1982, pp. 78-83.
 32

NORMAL STRENGTH CONCRETE - RESULTS AT : .. [

p

HEIGHT OF HA.'fliER DROP

0.15 m (6)* 0.25 III (6)* O. SO m (7)*

STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD

~XI~UM ~INI~UM \frAN DEVIATION ~XI:-ltr.-! ~INIMLM ~AN iJEVIATION ~XI:-lmt MINIMUM :-mAIl DEVIATION

9440 7782 8460 604 14~,63 9178 l2l1n 2401 17727 16452 16932 428

25.18 19.75 22.86 2.37 42.06 33.36 37.24 3.ll 71.60 60.89 6.!j.b4 3.80

7.52 4.60 6.20 1.27 10.00 6.12 7.98 1.37 16.96 10.96 12.23 2.00

3.50 1.53 2.53 0.71 3.73 2.74 3.01 0.43 9.07 2.21 6.42 2. 51

0.64 0.)2 0.49 0.12 0.82 0.52 0.63 0.11 1.35 0.78 1.14 0.:9

2.85 1.20 2.05 0.58 2.90 2.04 2.38 D.n 7.90 1.42 5.27 2.41

E (t) (N.m) 10.12 6.13 B.72 1.53 13.':'7 8.86 10.95 1.64 23.56 14.63 19.60 3.03
, P

E (t) (~.m) 15.66 12.69 14.12 1.10 31.46 24.45 26.32 2. 97 48.39 40.47 ~5.1J3 3.H
m p

69 59 62 4.02 74 69 3.77 77 6) 4.18

11 iIIur:lb<'!f of Specimens Tested

HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE - RESULTS AT toot

P

HEIGHT OF HA.~R DROP

0.15 m (6)* 0.25 m (5)* O. SO m (6)*

STA....'IDARD STA,'iDARD STANDARD

:1AXIl1L'::1 :1eI~IU~1 MEAN DEVIATION ~UIMUM :1I~I~UM. :1Efu~ DEVIATIO:~ :'L-\.:U~\u}j ··ma:1L'M ~AN DEVIATION

18759 10573 13371 Z991 ~9:')6 18314 18760 446

'_E(tp) (N.m) 25.21 19.02 20.28 3.54 38.45 33.40 32.20 3.98 76.33 58.82 66.13 7.43

4.47 6.58 1.67 16.00 4.35 10.13 4.75

1.8b 2.55 0.376 3.80 4.64 0.659

').63 0.54 0.60 0.05 1.34 1.00 1.14 0.06

2.40 1.28 1.95 0.37 2.86 3.52 0.56

11.47 7.19 9.14 1.39 19.80 1.08 14.78 4.40

38.54 33.40 32.20 3.98 76.33 58.82 66.13 7.43

E (t )
~ " 100l 75 63 69 4.47 72 70 72.0 0.80 84 74 78 4.96
E(t p )

* Number of Speci~ens Tested

 TABLE III
NORMAL STRENGTH CONCRETE - RESULTS AT t-tt

HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP

0.15 m (6)* 0.25 m (6)* 0.50 m (7)*
STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD
MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
t,E(tt) (N.m) 76 64 72 4.7 131 94 116 15.3 249 231 240 5.8
Eker(tt) (N.m) 45 42 44 1.2 80 47 66 12.0 150 139 145 4.7
Eb(tt) (N.m) 31 19 25 4.3 60 27 43 12.4 100 87 90 6.4
Es(tt) (N.m) 73 63 69 3.9 130 74 109 23.0 248 230 235 7.31
Em(tt) (N.m) 3 1 2 1.0 20 1 7 7.7 12 0 5 4.0

~ x 100% 4 1.6 2.8 1.0 21 6.8 6.0 8.0 5.0 0 2.1 1.0
E

* Number of Specimens Tested

TABLE IV ......
HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE - RESULTS AT t=tt

HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP

0.15 m (6)* 0.25 m (5)* 0.50 m (6)*
STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD
MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
loE(tt) (N.m) 89 43 68 16.7 133 100 109 12.2 238 214 223 10.5
Eker(tt) (N.m) 54 13 36 16.8 89 54 64 13.6 127 116 121 5.5
Eb(tt) (N.m) 33 21 25 5.0 43 31 35 4.6 100 57 75 18.6
Es (tt) (N.m) 89 34 61 21.0 133 86 99 18.0 213 193 196 10.0
Em(tt) (N.m) 14 0 7 5.9 15 0 10 6.3 30 25 27 2.7

~ x 100% 21.1 0 10.3 5.4 10.8 0 9.2 3.7 13.7 10.2 12.1 1.5
E
--- --- ------------- - -----

* Number of Specimens Tested

 HAMMER
! ACCELEROMETERS

I
t===96cm
1~
(0)

rRECORDED
~~ / i
~ -impact hammer ASSUMED LINEARLY EXTRAPOLATED
~
""
(b)
tup
P,")
.... specimen x J
1-:'
. . 1--1--1t--,,-
~!':pecimen suppor' '" .f::]

~.~
p.lt)
(e)

Fig. 1. Overall view of the instrumented impact machine. The height of Fig. 2. Beam accelerations and deformations
the machine is about 4.5 m. (a) Positions of the accelerometers
(b) Acceleration distribution along the beam
(c) Displacements along the beam
 35

38~------------------~
34
~

30 r-
I
r- ,...~.5m
26 r-' DROP(OBS.)
I 1..-0.25m

-
'I '" DROP (OBS.)
11(1) P,,(I) Z &!2 t-
~ I
In.rtlol
'taCtion ~

,....0. 15m
o 18 DROP (OBS.l
R, R, CI
o !'1
IV o.5m
DROPIINT.)
..J 14 jl
,I ·1 .... 0 25m

10 II .1
II~ DROP (INT.)
,t '\
I',I Ii
'I
I~
.1
Fig. 3. Loading on the beam undergoing impact
(a) General dynamic loading 6 r- II I! II
(b) Equivalent static loading
~
2 ~I~\
i\L I\,\
'I O.15m
I V~OPUNT.
'\

o !l'p .l't ~"..l 1 I ~p:,~,t't I I

o 8 16 24 32 40 48 56
TIME ,msee.

Fig. 4. Typical tup load vs. time traces for three different
drop heights.

0...&1
40

0
<t 32
0
..J
(!) 0.6Pb Z
z
0
.¥24
.

X
0
z
lIJ
CI
m 018
..J ~""
;'/. "-NS
8

O~~~~~--~---
Uoe o 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75
DISPLACEMENTS, U HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP. m
Fig. 5. Schematic load vs. displacement plot Fig. 6. Variation of impact strength with
for the calcuations of strain energy drop height for NS and HS concretes.
and the work of fracture.
 36

100r-------------------------~ 10r----------------------~
(a)
(h)
90
--Normal Ilren91t1 concr.'.
----- HJ,II .trength C1)ncr.'.
80 - - Non"ol afrength cone",.
----- HiQh ",.n9Ih conerl'l

70 7

E 60 E 6
z Z
~ 50
>-
II: '"
II:

'"'" 40
Z '"
Z
'" 4

30

20

10

0.1 0.3 05 0.7

HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP. m HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP, m

Fig.7. Energy balance at the peak load: (a) Overall energy balance; and
(b) Energy distribution in the beam

250~--------------------------- 100
- - Normal .trength concrete
90 ----- Normal strength conc"t.
225 ----- High strength concrete
----- High strength concrete

z 80
ILl
200

;:-
j; _------... } At the
U _---- pea k load
<it
175 ::Iii 70
ILl
:I:
I-
E 150 z 60
z (/)
(/)
>- 0 50
Cl 125 ...J
II:
ILl >-
Cl
Z II: 40
ILl 100 ILl
Z
ILl
I-
75 z 30
ILl
U
II:
ILl
50 II. 20

25 10 L ______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - } Just after

....- - - - _ _ the failur.

0 0
0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
0.3 0.5 0.7
HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP, m
HEIGHT OF HAMMER DROP, m

Fig.B. Energy balance at the end of the Fig. 9. Percent energy lOBt to the machine.
impact event.

View publication stats