W. Suaris 1 a n d S. P.

S h a h I

Inertial Effects in the Instrumented Impact Testing of

Cementitious Composites

REFERENCE: Suaris, W. and Shah, S. P., "Inertial Effects in the In-
strumented Impact Testing of Cementltlous Composites," Cement,
Concrete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, Vol. 3, No. 2, Winter 1981, pp.
77-83.
ABSTRACT: The effects of specimen inertia on the instrumented im-
pact testing of cementitious composites are discussed and a method for
reducing such effects is proposed. A two degree of freedom model
capable of predicting the amplitude and period of inertial loading
oscillations on the tup-load versus time-trace is presented. Results of
tests conducted on asbestos cement and fiber-reinforced concrete are
presented and are compared with those predicted using the analytical
model. It is concluded that the model developed is satisfactory in pre-
dicting inertial loading effects.
KEYWORDS: cements, impact tests, strain rate, concretes, fiber-
reinforced concretes, dynamic loading, impulsive loading, fracture
toughness, modulus of rupture, energy, strains, debonding
and the test specimen is commonly measured by cementing strain
gauges to the tup. Assuming that the load measured by the tup is
the same as the bending load experienced by the test beam, one
can deduce the load versus deflection behavior of the test beam
and its dynamic fracture toughness from the observed load-time
trace. The possibility of such calculations makes the instrumented
impact test a useful tool in evaluating the dynamic response of
materials.
Many investigators have recognized that during an initial period
of time the load measured by the tup and that resisted by the beam
are not the same as a result of specimen inertia effects [1-8], which
manifest as oscillations on the signal obtained from the instru-
mented tup. Server et al [7] have recommended that reliable load
measurement be made after three periods of oscillations, after
which time the effects of inertia can be ignored. They proposed the
following formula to predict the period of oscillations:

In recent years there has been a rapid increase in the use of the
r = 3.36 ( W / S 0) (EBCs) 1/2 (1)
instrumented impact test for evaluation of the dynamic response of
a wide range of materials. During an instrumented impact test where
(Fig. 1) the compressive force interaction between the striker (tup)
r = period of inertial oscillations,
W ----specimen width,
B = specimen thickness,
S O = sonic velocity of the material,
Cs = specimen compliance, and
E = Young's modulus of elasticity of the test material.

For metallic and polymeric materials, the time to fracture tf can

be considerably larger than the period of inertial oscillations and,
as a result, it is possible to satisfy the guidelines suggested by
HOIST~
Server et al [7]. However, for brittle materials the time to fracture
is substantially smaller even for reasonably low impact velocities
and it may not be possible to avoid failure even during the first in-
T(~ STRAIN GAUGES
ertial oscillation. The problem for concrete is compounded because
of the need to test specimens much larger than the conventional
FLAG HOIST CON'n~OLS I~
,,,/~sE~_Y I~ Charpy size specimens, as the inertial effects increase with the in-
I FFtBIFFtBE~O~lC DUAL WLOC~ D','N~IC~ME O.
BEAM DISPLAY R E ~ ~E crease in size of the specimens.
TUP..~ .~.~U ]A¢f BLOCK STORAGE M ~
STRAIN II ~ lit f~l I I / IZ Experiments reported here indicate that it is possible to reduce
~'--'-1i"i--/~-- IIR I ~ , I { ° the amplitude of inertial oscillations by introducing a soft rubber
11 (1 h II xCT-I ~ L O C O ~ E ~ / /
I . . . . . . . I VELOCOMETER
.--I | pad between the tup and the specimen. To understand the effect of
reducing the tup-specimen interaction and to be able to predict its
ISOLATED CONCRETE
FOUNDATION effect, a theoretical model with two degrees of freedom of vibration
was developed. Unlike many of the previous analytical models, the
FIG. 1--Layout diagram of the instrumented impact system. proposed model predicts both the amplitude and the period of in-
ertial oscillations and is sensitive to the bending stiffness and the
1Researeh assistant and professor, respectively, Northwestern Univer- weight of the specimen, the effective stiffness between the tup, and
sity, Department of Civil Engineering, Evanston, Ill. 60201. the specimen and the velocity at impact. Both the experiments, the

© 1982 by the American Society for Testing and Materials 0149-6123/8t/0012-0077500.40

77
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
78 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

results of which validate the model, and the analytical model are
described in this paper. (6)

Analytical Model where g is the gravitational acceleration and v0 the impact velocity
of the hammer. To simplify the analysis, if it is assumed that the
A rigorous analysis of the impact test can be conducted by ana-
mass of the hammer is large when compared to the mass of the
lyzing the stress wave propagation within the specimen, tup, and
specimen, the solutions for xl and x 2 can be written as
anvils. As the first wave from the impact travels through the beam,
more of the body becomes involved in the motion and reflections
(0/ -I- fl)l/2 Ot'y
and dispersions will occur at all faces. However, when these tran-
sient phenomena have continued for some time, the motion will be-
X1(t) -- X/~fll/23/1/2vosin(wlt + 01) + x/2(c~ + fl)s/2
come periodic and simple solutions can be obtained for the ensuing
steady state of motion. X vOsin(~2t + q)2) (7)
The proposed two degree of freedom model that represents a OL
drop weight impact system is shown schematically in Fig. 2. The x2(t) -- "~(ot + f l ) l / Z f l l / 2 . y 1 / 2 v0sin(wlt + ~1)
falling hammer is represented by a lumped mass m h and the effec- o/
tive stiffness between the tup and the beam-specimen by a spring X/2(cx + t3) 3/2 v O s i n ( ° ° 2 t + 02) (8)
of stiffness k e. The beam is represented by an equivalent lumped
mass m s and an equivalent spring of stiffness k s . It is assumed that where w1 and w2 are the two natural frequencies given by
the anvils are infinitely stiff compared with the stiffness of the
beam-specimen. o~1 = (X/2 f l l / 2 v l / 2 ) / ( C ~ + f l ) I / 2 (9)
Assuming that the beam vibrates in its first mode, expressions
for m s and k s can be written as W2 = X/2 (Ot+fl) 1/2 (10)

m s = pl/2 (2) and

k s = 7r4EI/213 (3)
g (~+fl)l/2 ]
where (11)
~1 = - - t a n - I x/~v ° 71/2B1/2
p = mass per unit length of the specimen material,
E = Young's modulus of the specimen material,
1 = moment of inertia of the beam cross section, and
02 = - - t a n -1 ,/~v ° (Ot+fl) 1/2' (12)
l = support span of the specimen.
The equations of motion for the modelled system can now be writ- ot = k e / 2 m s
ten as
fl = k s / 2 m s
(oh mOs) I~121+ (_k;e --ke ~12
l I:l ,4, .)1 = k e / 2 m h

where x I and x2 are the displacements of the masses, mh and m s The load measured by the tup is given by:
from their static equilibrium positions, and 21 and 22 the corre-

IXl°l
sponding accelerations. PT(t) = ke[Xl(t ) --x2(t)] + mhg (13)
The initial conditions for the motion are given by
The bending load carried by the beam can be expressed as:

PB(t) = ks[x2(t) + g/28] (14)

(5)
Lx2 (°) where

= ks/2m h

To evaluate the tup load P T ( t ) , the impact velocity v0 and the

model parameters k e, m h, k s, and m s should be known. The mass
Xl
of the hammer m h is known. The equivalent mass m s and the
ke equivalent stiffness k s of the specimen can be calculated knowing
the specimen dimensions, the Young's modulus of the material,
and its density. The value of the effective tup stiffness k e depenc~s
X2 on, among other things, the presence of any padding material be-
k, tween the tup and the specimen. The effect of introducing a pad-
I ding material is shown in Fig. 3a and b. In Fig. 3 a P T ( t ) and P B ( t )
curves are drawn for a high value of k e (87.6 M N / m [6.0 × 106
FIG. 2 - - P r o p o s e d two degree o f f r e e d o m m o d e l lbf/ft]) (without the rubber pad, as explained later).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 SUARIS AND SHAH ON CEMENTITIOUS COMPOSITES 79

12.0 and

TUP-LOAD\ / ~ / ~ -- AEo : E l + EME + ESD (19)

8.0
{]ENDING L O A D - / - - ~ / / Note that the most significant term in Eq 15 is the first term. Thus
z
the energy dissipated by the hammer can be closely approximated
a
< 4.0
o as [1]:

A E o = E a [1 (Ea/Eo)] (20)
0
where
-2.0
o~2 0:4 o.'6 0.7 E a = v 0 ftoPT(t) dt (21)
TIME (m s)
(a)
and
8.0
Eo : 1/2 mhvo 2 (22)

LOADBENDIN
TUP-
G LO ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ Figure 4 shows the plots of A E 0, EME, and ESD versus time for
6.0
the k e values of 87.5 M N / m (6.0 × 106 lbf/ft) and 5.84 M N / m
z (0.4 X 106 lbf/ft). It can be seen that for a low value of k e (that is,
v using a rubber pad) the energy consumed by bending ESD is
o 4.0
substantially smaller than the energy dissipated by the h a m m e r
A E 0. Thus when a padding material is introduced it becomes
2.0 much more important to consider the energy stored by the speci-
men tup interaction EME while calculating the specimen bending
energy.
I i
0.5 1.0 1.5 1.75
TIME ( m s) Experimental Program
(b)
A series of impact tests were carried out to evaluate the validity
FIG. 3--Analytical tup load and beam bending load curves for: (a) k e = of the above model in predicting the amplitude and period of iner-
8Z5 MN/m and (b) k c : 5.84 MN/m. tial load oscillations of the tup load versus time record. Tests were

3.5
The tup-load trace is seen to indicate the oscillatory behavior 3.0
which has been observed generally. The bending load taken by the
beam is seen to oscillate with the same frequency but about 180 ° z
out of phase with the tup load as was experimentally observed by
Venzi et al [5]. Figure 3b shows a tup-load time trace evaluated for ~ 2.0
a lesser value of k e (5.84 M N / m [0.4 × 106 lbf/ft]). As will be
shown later, this value corresponds to the case when a rubber pad 1,0
is used. Although the oscillatory behavior is still present, the
magnitude of the oscillations is found to have decreased con- / ," / \- ,.,
siderably and on" inflection points are observed instead of the
0.2 0,4 0,6 0.7
sharp peaks seen in the case with higher k e. Also significant is the TIME (m s)
smaller deviation between the tup load and the beam bending (o)

load. 7.O
For any time t after impact, expressions for the energy dissipated
6.0
by the hammer A E 0, the strain energy consumed by bending of the
beam ESD, the kinetic energy of the beam E/, and the elastic
z
energy absorbed by the machine EME resulting from the interac- 4.0
tion between the tup and the specimen can be written as:
i
uJ
A E 0 = Y2mh(v02--~l 2) + m h g x I + [(mhglke) + ( m h g l k s ) ] m h g 2.0
(15)

E1 = 1/2 ms(x2) 2 (16) O:

0.5 1,0 1,5 1,75
TIME (m s)
(b)
EME:V:(PT2/ke) (17)
FIG. 4--Analytical energy versus time curves for: (a) k c = 8Z5 M N / m
ESD = ]/2 (PB2/ks) (18) and (b) k e = 5.84 MN/m.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
80 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES
conducted on specimens of asbestos cement cut from boards of
25.4-mm (1-in.) thick standard flat transite. Six different sizes of
specimens were tested. They were (width by depth by span) 2.5 by
5 by 15, 2.5 by 5 by 25, 2.5 by 5 by 35, 2.5 by 7.5 by 22.5, 2.5 by 7.5
by 37.5, and 2.5 by 7.5 by 52.5 cm. For each specimen size, tests
were conducted at three impact velocities of approximately 100,
200, and 300 cm/s. The effect of introducing a padding material
between the tup and the specimen was also investigated by con-
ducting tests with two different rubber pads. A total of 108 speci-
mens were tested. The measured modulus of rupture of 2.5- by
5-by 25-cm specimens tested at a stress rate of 0.14 MPa/s (20
psi/s) was 22.4 MPa (3250 psi).
Tests were also c o n d u c t e d on fiber-reinforced concrete beam
specimens with dimensions of 5 by 10 by 30 and 5 by 10 by 50 cm.
The mortar mixing proportions by weight for the specimens were
1:2:0.5 (cement:sand:water). Silica sand passing 4.75-mm
(No. 4) sieve and ASTM Type III portland cement (per ASTM
Specification for Portland Cement [C 150]) were used. The average
uniaxial compressive strength of the mortar matrix measured on
cylinders 7.5 cm in diameter and 15 cm long after 14 days moist
curing was 62.0 MPa (9000 psi). The fibers used were brass-coated
steel fibers (manufactured by National Standards Company, Niles,
Mich.) 2.5 cm long and 0.25 mm in diamter. A fiber volume frac-
tion of 1% was used for the present tests.
Impact tests were carried out using a drop weight impact system
(Dynatup 500, Fig. 1). The w e i g h t of t h e h a m m e r was 1068 N (240
lbf). During the impact event, load and energy E a (Eq 21) were re-
corded on a storage oscilloscope.
To coordinate the sweep with the beginning of an impact event,
a solid state fiber optic triggering device was used. For some fiber-
reinforced concrete specimens, the strains of the specimen at some
selected points were measured and recorded on a separate dual
trace oscilloscope. The tup was calibrated by loading it at a slow
rate in a MTS testing machine. The frequency response of the sys-
tem was 10 #s.
Results
Figure 5a shows a typical tup-load record for a test conducted on
asbestos cement when no padding material was introduced be-
tween the tup and the specimen. Inertial load oscillations of the
tup-load versus time-trace are observed. The specimen failed after
about two oscillations. Sometimes with high impact velocities and
lower specimen stiffnesses, only one oscillation was observed before
failure in a manner similar to the results on fiber-reinforced con-
crete beams reported by Hibbert [9]. Figure 5b shows the tup-load
versus time-trace when a rubber padding is introduced. It can be
seen that there is a substantial decrease in the inertial load oscilla-
tions as predicted by the present model (see Fig. 3a and b). Simi-
lar reductions in inertial load oscillations were observed by Madi-
son and Irwin [10] when they introduced half rounds of aluminum
as a padding material between the tup and the steel specimens
tested.
For brevity only the test results of 2.5- by 5- by 25-cm specimens
are presented in Table 1. The impact velocity v, the inertial load P !
(first peak or inflection point in the load time-trace), the time at
which P~ occurs, the maximum load Pmax, and the time to fracture
t f have been tabulated for each test.
Analytical estimates for PI (inflection points of Eq 14) were ob-
tained by using the proposed model. The mass of the hammer is
known (1068 N [240 tbf]) and the equivalent mass of the beam was
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
.~ E
~z
-$
(3 nr
i,i
TIME: 0,2 ms/div
.z ze
ZtD
CO od
W
TIME: 0.5 mstdiv
FIG. S--Observed tup-load versus time and energy versus time curves
for specimens tested: (top) without a rubber p a d and (bottom) with the Pad
B (specimen size: 2.5 by 5 by 25 cm, impaet velocity = 100 cm/s).
determined from Eq 2 knowing the density of the specimen mate-
rial (2000 kg/m 3 [125 lb/ft3]) and its dimensions. The specimen
Young's modulus, required for the evaluation of k s, was deter-
mined from the first natural frequency obtained by conducting a
resonance test on a cantilever beam specimen (2.5 by 2.5 by 10 cm)
and was found to be 17.23 GPa (2.5 X 106 psi). The stiffness k e ac-
counts for the deformations of the tup, rubber pad (if any), and the
local Brineil-type of deformations of the beam at the load point. If
the rubber pad is present then the k e value would be governed by
the stiffness of the pad. Thus for specimens tested with rubber
pads, the k e values were taken as the stiffness of the rubber pads.
The pad stiffnesses were calculated from the natural frequency of
the spring-mass system consisting of the r u b b e r pad and the ham-
mer and tup assembly. The hammer was dropped directly onto the
rubber pad and the natural frequency was calculated from the
period of the tup-load versus time trace. Two types of rubber pads
were used in the experimental program and they are designated as
Pads A and B. The stiffness of Pads A and B were found to be 14.6
and 5.84 MN/m (1.0 and 0.4 X 106 lbf/ft), respectively. A value
for ke for specimens tested without a rubber pad was not obtained
a priori.
Predicted values of P/ are compared with the experimental
values in Fig. 6. It can be observed that for specimens tested with
rubber pads, the analytical model (straight lines) compare favor-
ably with the data. This was also true for the other five series of
Specimens.
It was observed that for specimens tested without rubber pads,
an analytical solution with a k e value of 87.6 MN/m (6.0 × 106
lbf/ft) agreed well with the data from all six series (Fig. 6). Note
that a linear relationship between the inertial load and the impact
velocity was also observed by Cotterell [2], Saxton et al [6], and
Mann and Holzmann [11].
A comparison of the analytical and observed tup-load versus
time traces is shown in Fig. 7a and b. A good agreement is ob-
served between the two sets of curves up to the peak or inflection
 S U A R I S A N D S H A H ON C E M E N T I T I O U S C O M P O S I T E S 81

TABLE 1--Impact test results f o r 2.5- by 5- by 25-cm asbestos cement specimens, a

Impact Inertial Time at P/, Maximum Time at

Velocity Load t i at Load Maximum Load
v, PI, Pmax, Pmax, tf, MOR,
cm/s kN ms kN ms MPa Remarks

100 4.45 0.18 8.28 0.60 48.1 no pad

100 4.45 0.15 8.90 0.56 51.7 no pad
100 1.96 0.44 6.05 1.02 35.1 Pad A
100 2.14 0.42 7.12 1.08 41.3 Pad A
100 1.07 0.50 6.23 1.75 36.2 Pad B
100 1.07 ... 6.05 1.70 35.1 Pad B
200 11.58 0.12 11.58 0.12 67.2 no pad
200 9.43 0.15 10.32 ___ 66.2 no pad
200 4.18 0.36 4.81 0.58 27.9 Pad A
200 4.81 0.30 6.50 0.52 37.7 Pad A
200 3.20 0.50 7.12 0.90 41.3 Pad B
200 3.20 0.48 8.19 0.92 47.5 Pad B
294 16.73 0.13 16.73 0.12 97.1 no pad
294 14.24 0.14 14.24 0.14 82.7 no pad
294 7.83 0.28 7.83 0.28 45.5 Pad A
294 7.12 0.28 7.12 0.28 41.3 Pad A
294 6.05 0.58 6.05 0.58 35.1 Pad B
294 6.41 0.56 6.41 0.60 36.2 Pad B

al cm = 0.4 in., 1 kN = 225 lbf, 1 MPa = 145 psi.

20,0 15.0

O NO PAD 0

15.0 zlO.O
/ Ke=BT:6 MN/M
a

A S
,o.o
/ ~ " (I.OXl0' Ib/ft)
d. 5.0
QH
F-

5.0
oJ 0,2 O.3
TIME (m s)
(o)
I00 200 300
9.0
IMPACT VELOCITY (era/s)

FIG. 6--Inertial load versus impact velocity f o r 2.5- by 5- by 25-cm

asbestos cement specimens. C~ 6.O

?
13-
Pr(~\\
point for the specimen tested with a r u b b e r p a d (Fig. 7b). T h e poor / Pz(OBSERVE[))
~- 3.0
agreement for the specimen without any r u b b e r p a d may be a re-
sult of the actual value k e being different from t h a t assumed in the
analysis. The actual value of k e is influenced by the roughness of
the b e a m contact zone a n d possible local crushing, which may vary o12 0:4 0.6
TIME (rn s)
from one specimen to another. (b)
From the modulus of rupture ( M O R ) values shown in Table 1, it
is evident that the values of M O R for specimens tested without any FIG. 7--Comparison of analytical attd experimental tup load versus
r u b b e r pads are considerably higher t h a n those with the r u b b e r time curves for: (a) test with no rubber p a d used and (b) using Pad B.
pads, especially at the highest impact velocity tested. T h e M O R
values of specimens tested without any p a d d i n g material at the im-
pact velocity of 294 c m / s are four times the static M O R value a n d solely to the strain rate effects b u t is largely a consequence of tup-
this increase is substantially higher t h a n t h a t observed by other specimen interactions. Note t h a t the average impact strength of
researchers for cementitious composites [12-14]. For example, an the specimens tested with r u b b e r pads is a b o u t 1.7 times the static
increase in tensile strength of a b o u t 1.5 to 2.5 times the static strength of 22.4 M P a (3250 psi).
strength has been observed from "split H o p k i n s o n b a r tests" on Some of the results of tests c o n d u c t e d on concrete a n d fiber-
concrete specimens [12]. T h u s the unusually high value of M O R reinforced concrete specimens are given in T a b l e 2. Both the ex-
for specimens tested without any r u b b e r pads c a n n o t b e a t t r i b u t e d perimental a n d the predicted values of the inertial load PI a n d the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
82 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

TABLE 2--Impact test results for concrete and fiber concrete, a

Impact Effective
Dimensions Mix Velocity Stiffness PI, kN ti, ms
B by D by L, Proportions, v, k e,
cm Cement : Sand : Water: Fibers cm/s MN/m Analytical Experimental Analytical Experimental

5 by 10 by 30 1:2:0.5: 1% 108 175.2 22.9 23.8 0.19 0.20

5 by 10 by 30 1:2:0.5:0% 83 175.2 17.5 17.3 0.19 0.20
5 by 10 by 30 1:2:0.5: 1% 144 11.7 3.69 4.01 0.23 0.30
5 by 10 by 30 1:2:0.5:0% 144 11.7 3.69 4.01 0.23 0.30
5 by 10 by 30 1 : 2 : 0.5 : 1% 144 5.8 1.87 1.78 0.23 0.30
5 by 10 by 30 1 : 2 : 0.5 : 0% 144 5.8 1.87 1.78 0.23 0.35
S by 10 by 50 1 : 2 : 0.5 : 1% 167 175.2 39.0 42.9 0.21 0.25
5 by 10 by 50 1 : 2 : 0.5 : 0% 100 175.2 23.3 23.6 0.21 0.22
5 by 10 by 50 1:2:0.5: 1% 143 11.7 8.54 9.26 0.59 0.70
S by 10 by 50 1 : 2 : 0.5 : 0% 143 11.7 8.54 9.97 0.59 0.75
S by 10 by 50 1 : 2 : 0.5 : 1% 143 5.8 4.76 5.67 0.62 0.70
5 by 10 by 50 1:2:0.5:0% 143 5.8 4.76 4.63 0.62 0.80

al cm ~ 0.4 in., 1 kN = 225 lbf, and 1 MPa = 145 psi.

time tl at which PI occurs are shown. The density of concrete used 7.5 m m corresponds approximately to 15 times the deflection at
for the calculations was 2240 k g / m 3 (140 l b / f t 3) and a value of the peak load. It is seen t h a t the energy absorbed by the b e a m s
42.7 GPa (6.2 × 106 psi) was used for its Young's modulus, ob- under impact loading is about 30% higher t h a n that absorbed un-
tained from resonance tests on cantilever beams of fiber-reinforced der static loading. Since for steel fiber-reinforced concrete the
concrete (2.5 by 2.5 by 10 cm). primary source of energy absorption is during the fiber pulling-out
The ke values for the specimens tested with the rubber pads were process, the above results indicated that d e b o n d i n g processes of
taken as the stiffness values of the corresponding rubber pads, ob- fibers are not very rate sensitive.
tained as described earlier. A k e value of 175.2 M N / m (12.0 X 106 Figure 8 shows a typical load versus time and the strain versus
lbf/ft) was found to fit well with the observed results for the
specimens tested without any r u b b e r pad. A good agreement be-
tween the predicted and observed PI values can be seen in Table 2.
The experimentally observed period of inertial load oscillations
15,0
was, however, slightly greater t h a n the predicted values.
The values of M O R of fiber-reinforced concrete specimens are
shown in Table 3. The M O R values were calculated from the mea-
I0.0
sured peak load with the assumption that the material behaves z
elastically. The stress rate was calculated from the observed peak
load and the corresponding time. It can be seen that the dynamic
5.0
modulus of rupture is about twice t h a t of the specimen tested at
the slow static rate. This increase in the value of M O R caused by
impact loading is comparable to that observed by other in-
vestigators [12-14]. ,'.o z'.o ~:o 4'.0 .5.0
The energy absorbed by the b e a m ESD was calculated from the TIME (m s)
(o)
load-time trace A E 0 and subtracting the energy absorbed by the
rubber pad EME and the kinetic energy of the b e a m E 1.
These values when the central deflection of the b e a m was
7.5 mm (0.30 in.) are shown in Table 3. Note that the deflection of
-I00
~ ~ LJ / . . . . c.~UaTED
TABLE 3--Fiber-reinforced concrete beams under static and
x -200
1 /c ooo
impact loading."
_z
Bending Energy in N.m at n.-

Stress Rate, MOR, 7.5-mm (0.30-in.)

MPa/s MPa Central Deflection -300
I~. 50 ¢m ~I

16.2 × 103 18.6 58.5

15.5 × t03 17.8 56.0 -400
7.6 X 103 16.8 61.7 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.14 9.6 43.4 TIME (m s)
(b)
aSpecimen size is 5 by 10 by 50 cm with 1% 2.5-cm long steel fibers of
aspect ratio IO3. i cm = 0.4 in., 1 MPa = 145 psi, and 1.35 N-m = 1 FIG. 8--Typical (a) load versus time and (b) strain versus time records
lbf-ft. observed for a fiber-reinforced concrete specimen.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

time records of one of the fiber-reinforced concrete b e a m s tested.
The strain gauges were positioned on the b e a m as indicated in the
figure. In Fig. 8, t h e strains calculated by using elastic b e a m the-
ory are superimposed on the observed strains. Initially, these two
strain values are somewhat the same. After the cracking in the ma-
trix, the correspondence between the theoretical a n d observed val-
ues is not expected to hold. The strain records also show peak val-
ues at almost the same time at which the m a x i m u m value of the
tup load is observed. These comparisons indicate t h a t the tup-load
closely approximates the b e n d i n g load on t h e specimen.
Conclusion
It was illustrated how specimen inertia effects can lead to large
errors in calculating fracture parameters from the instrumented-
impact test if the t u p load is t a k e n as being equal to the b e n d i n g
load carried by the beam. T h e introduction of a soft pad ( r u b b e r in
this case) was f o u n d to be an effective way in reducing specimen in-
ertia effects. The two degree of freedom model developed was found
to be satisfactory in predicting the inertial loading effects on the
tup-load trace for the asbestos cement a n d fiber-reinforced con-
crete beams tested.
The model also yielded expressions for energy absorption by var-
ious mechanisms during impact. It was seen t h a t when a soft rub-
ber pad is introduced between the specimen a n d the t u p most of
the energy dissipated by the h a m m e r before fracture will be ab-
sorbed as elastic energy by the p a d a n d large errors would result if
this energy was not t a k e n into account when calculating the b e n d -
ing energy of the beam. The analysis conducted for u n n o t c h e d
beams may be easily extended to encompass n o t c h e d b e a m s by
taking into account the increase in compliance of the specimen as a
result of the introduction of a notch.
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Office un-
der contract No. D A A G 29-79-C-0162. T h e authors also wish to
t h a n k Dr. U. Gokoz for his help in developing the i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n
and help with the testing program.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 17 18:15:57 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes (Univ de los Andes) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
SUARIS AND SHAH ON CEMENTITIOUS COMPOSITES 83
References
[1] Ireland, D. R., "Production and Problems Associated with Reliable
Control of the Instrumented Impact Test," in Instrumented Impact
Testing, STP 563, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, 1974, pp. 3-29.
[2] Cotterell, B., "Fracture Toughness and the Charpy V-Notch Impact
Test," British WeMing Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, Feb. 1962, pp. 83-90.
[3] Radon, J. C. and Turner, C. E., "Fracture Toughness Measurements
by Instrumented Impact Testing," Journal of Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 1, No. 3, April 1969, pp. 411-428.
[4] Turner, C. E., "Measurement of Fracture Toughness by Instru-
mented Impact Test," in Impact Testing and Metals, STP 466,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1970, pp.
93-112.
[5] Venzi, S., Priest, A. H., and May, M. J., "Influence of Inertial Load
in Instrumental Impact Tests," in Impact Testing of Metals, STP
466, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1970,
pp. 165-180.
[6} Saxton, H. J., Ireland, D. R., and Server, W. L., "Analysis and Con-
trol of Inertial Effects During Instrumented Impact Testing," in In-
strumented Impact Testing, STP 563, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1974, pp. 50-73.
[7] Server, W. L., Wullaert, R. A., and Sheckhard, J. W., "Evaluation
of Current Procedures for Dynamic Fracture-Toughness Testing," in
Flaw Growth and Fracture, STP 631, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1977, pp. 446-461.
[8] Server, W. L., "Impact Three-Point Bend Testing for Notched and
Precracked Specimens," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 6,
No. 1, Jan. 1978, pp. 29-34.
[9] Hibbert, A. P., "Impact Resistance of Fiber Concrete," Ph.D. thesis,
University of Surrey, 1979.
[10] Madison, R. B. and Irwin, G. R., "Dynamic K c Testing of Structural
Steel," Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No. ST7, 1974, pp.
1331-1349.
[11] Man, J. and Holzmann, M., in Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute,
Vol. 208, Feb. 1970, p. 199.
[12] Kormeling, H. A., Zielinski, A. J., and Reinhardt, H. W., "Ex-
periments on Concrete Under Single and Repeated Impact Loading,"
Report 5-80-3, Delft University of Technology, Stevin Laboratory,
May 1980.
[13] Zech, B. and Wittmann, F. H., "Variability and Mean Value of
Strength of Concrete as a Function of Load," Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, Vol. 77, No. 5, Sept. 1980, pp. 358-362.
[14] Mindess, S. and Nadeau, J. S., "Effect of Loading Rate on the Flex-
ural Strength of Cement and Mortar," American Ceramic Society
Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 4, April 1977, pp. 429-430.