Ad 0603929
Ad 0603929
Ad 0603929
by
Brown University
Providence,
R. I. 02912
June, 1964
Rgst
Available Copy
ft
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Drucker,
Pagliarini,
P.
Rush and
It is shown that
steel balls are allowed to drop onto specimens of lead, steel and aluminum.
In each test the velocities of impact and rebound are measured as well as
the !iameter of the indentation remaining in the metal specimen and the time
of contact Letween specimen and indenter.
used in conjunction with the analysis to provide for each metal a dynamic
stress-strain curve which is then compared to results of a simple compression
test performed under impact conditions.
1,500 sec 1. Finally, the present analysis provides a model of the indentation
process whizh furnishes quitq accurate predictions of the size of the permanent
indentation, the time of contact during impact and the coefficient of
restitution, if the dynamic stress-strain relation of the material is known.
-21.
:introduction.
In one of the simplest of dynamic tests a small but hard indenter
It is an easy
matter, in general, to measure the velocities of impact and of rebound and the
size of the remaining indentation in the specimen.
Unfortu-
pressure be treated as constant from the start to the end of impact, and
Tabor's work [1) is based lirgely on thi3 assumption for which there is
experimental evidet~ce in the work of Crook [6] and of Tabor himself.
The
Furthermore,
strain and the strain-rate be evaluated using the diameter of the permanent
indentation in the specimen and the time of contact during impact.
Tabor and
Martel have given expressions for the yield pressure in terms of measurable
quantities [1].
However,
- 3-
is
Therefore,
Equation (7).
Such a power
relation appar-
ently holds very closely for a number of metals and alloys over a wide range of
temperatures [9 and 10].
Finally,
P/c
(1)
d/5D
(2)
is
is
tests.
explained below, the impact velocities are not so high that inertia effects
beco'ne important.
It
is
can be derived in a
completely different manner by taking for the relation between stress and
strain in the specimen an expression of the type a a bcn ,
combining this with Newton's second law, an expression is
the parameters
and
Finally, by
obtained containing
compression were miade on the same metals keeping the strain-rate 39 nearly
indicating that within the limit. of the present experiments the dynamic yield
stress of metals can be measured in impact tests w4 .t.- a hard ball.
The result.
also show that the yield stress of lead ard of steel depend more strongly on
strain-rate than tbht of the aluminum alloys tested.
NI.
",
means that within and in the neighborhood of the indentation the strain distri
bution (although not the strain magnitude) is independent of impact .Vlocit,
There is considerable evidence to suggest that this gives a good description c
impact within the range of present velocities,
In this it
It is true, as
pointed out by K. L. Johnson [12), that pla2tic effects are present in the
specimen during recovery but these are neglected in the analysis.
remains still
There
impact test starting at a value which probably depends on the initial velocity
of the ball and going down to zero.
rate varies from test to test.
This is clearly
is
available.
As will be seen,
leads t.
the present
is
a =
bcn
After the ball strikes the specimen, the rate if loss of kinetic energy
T
which it
suffers must at each instant equal the rate of work of the inden-
is
then
(Pwa2 /4) 8x
whore
If
z 6T
x .
For a spherical
6a/6x = 2D/a
where
that the indenting ball is hard and that there is not too much "piling-up" or
"sinking-in" near the contact area.
P = (8D/wa
for the yield pressure.
It
(5)
)(6T/6a)
remains to evaluate
6T/6a
tion
a constant [9].
a is
tested with
1/ciwer
where
is proportional to v1
v1
Hence,
If,
d 2/.
the energy
furthermre,
tween load and deflection, then the energy lost at any stage of impact will
depend only on the depth of penetration.
process
W is
Applying the
6W/6a = 2W/ca .
SW = 6T
so that
P= (l ) W/(wa 4/32D)
and is
occurs when
becomes equal
given by
'4
112
/32D)
11)mvl)/(wd
P
This is
(6)
(7)
It may be compared to
(8)
/(.d7/A2D)
(P)
derived by Martel and
(P)
(1-.0e2)X
(7)
is
(9)
v12)/(wd 4/32D)
and (9)
is
that (7)
The only
takes into
are
and (9)
'
This deriva-
tion makes use of Newton's second law and the stress-strain relation a= bcn
applied to the plastic loading stage.
Consequently,
depends on the
strain-rate with which one runs the simple compression test to determine the
stress-strain curve for the material.
very
d = f (c,n,b)
found to be
D (mV32
(10)
3/D
where
fI(c,n,b)
and
=[5n . 4 . (4 + n)/,cb]1/(4+n1)
dict that
d/D
a equals 2/(4 + n) .
f 1 (c,n,b)
(my2 /D 3 ) a/
1
as mentioned abo%
if,
in Equation (10).
f 1,\n,b) .
3 2/(4+n)
22
W
2
(D/v2)(mV/D)
fl(c,nb)]
(11)
However, to obtain the total time of contact and the coefficient of restituti(
one must consider also the recovery stage.
(2)
taking the recovery stage as entirely eJActic and ujing Hertz's theory cf
impact between elastic bodies [13).
-9radius
rI = D/2
r 2 , where
v2
diameter of the contact area during recovery is taken equal to the contict
diameter occurring at the end of the plastic stage.
Moreove.-,
if the force
B and
N are constants, it
is given by
e
v2/v1
1.1
(12)
where
2
L = (4 + N)[f 1 (c,n,b)](3+2N)/ /[fl(c,N,B)]4N
and
K
in which
ti
v1
(C. -
and
2.
V 1
E2 ,
+ (U. -
V2
2 ....
V2)/b2j
112
2.02 K rf (c,n,b)f
0 < n < 1
1 /2
(miD) 1 / 2 (m2/D3)12(f4+n)
(13)
t , is given
apprcxitnately by
(m/D)
1 /2
2 /D3 -(n+l)4(4n)
(14)
10 -
where
G
2.02 K (H
l)/fl(,n~)]/2
1)/[f
(cnb)]
2.3.(l-n)/'i(4n)
2
(mv2/D )
and
H=
5(c,n,b)]5/2
(MV2/D3)(l-n)/2(4+n)
This is the
Experimental Work
Specimens of four different materials were tested at room temperature
(Table 1).
uksd to predict the dynamic yield stress of a material at a given strain and a
given strain-rate from the results of dynamic indentation tests.
stress-strain curvv
ves
r ,*tained in more conventional simple compression tests
For coeparison,
However,
11
thick specimen.
d/5tD
The pressing
approximately
-i
equal to L.001 rec
a stop watch.
(2)
where
6 in. dia. and 10 in. in length, but only steel balls were used as indenters
In each test, impact velocity , indentation diameter,
and time of contact during impact were measured.
poefficient of resticution
mixture.
dia.)
-ranhite oil
In each test the load and deformation were recorded continuously and
the true stress and true strain computed taking the material as incompressible.
Results for the four metals tested are presented as the solid lines in Figure 3.
(4)
in the static compression tests were compressed against a Hopkinson bar by the
impact of a carriage travelling at velocities between 100 and 1,000 cm/sec.
- 12 -
The method of Karman and Duwez [(14 was adopted to keep the strain-rate as
nearly constant as possible throughout the test.
was made very heavy (10 lbs) and a disk of brittle material placed in front of
it which fractured shortly after impact and before the velocity of the carriage
changed substantially (Figure 1).
stant, this technique makes it possible to control fairly closely the total
deformation in the specimen.
The
difference between the final and the initial lengths of the specimen gave the
maximum strain, and the stress was found from the force pulse as measured with
the Hopkinson bir (a slender bar with strain gages which was calibrated under
both static aid dynamic loading conditions).
evaluated as the total strain divided by the total time of loading as measured
on the force pulse record.
It
is felt that the above set-up provided fairly closely the desired
experimental conditions.
A number
_eal-!tst,
within the specimen and of the end conditions probably was not great.
Calculations based on Davies'
dispersion within the Hopkinson bar should not affect the measurement of stress.
For a further critique of the technique the reader is referred to the work of
Kolsky [16] and of Hunter and Davies[172.
Figure 3 presents the results of this experiment in attrue stress-true
strain plot.
Dotted lines are drawn through the data points obtained for each
material at each of two averaged strain-rates, namely - 150 and - 1,500 sec
These results agree with the work by Lindholm 11o], Manjoine [19], and Johnson
ot al. (20].
- 13 -
and steel (approximately 100%) than it is for either of the two aluminum alloys
(approximately 20%).
IV.
(1) The Yield Stress as Found in Simple Compression and in Indentation Tests
(a)
dividing the maxim-am force, F, as given in Figure 2, by the area of the permanent indentation,
d2/4 .
formulae, Equations (1) and (2), and the resilts compared to the static strainstress curve obtained in simple compression (Figures 4-7).
the figures, the ratio of the yield pressure obtained in indentation tests to
the yield stress found in simple compression remains substantially constant.
However, for three of the materials tested the value of this cinstant
nearer 3.0 than it
3.59 (Table 1).
is
is apparently
In
simple coq-ression lead yielded along two shear planes oriented at about 450
to the axis of the cylindrical specimen,
(Figure 8).
This
In aluminum
in simple compression the slip lines on the wall of the cylindrical specimen
are parallel to the axis.
In the indentation
14 -
lowever, the
slip lines for aluminum lie along a radius whereas they are spiral3 For the
steel.
(b)
and (2).
for
Ira
accordance with the analysis given above, the slope of the log vI - log d curv,
provides the necessary value of
in Equation (7),
in
The
yield stress thus obtained is compared in Figures 4-7 with the results of the
dynamic compression tests.
indenter the best agreement is found with the stress-strain curve obtained it,
dynamic compression tests performed at a constant strain-rate of approximately
-l
The reason for this is not clear. In view of the fairly wide
1,500 se.
range of iWpct velocities in the experiments (2 cm/sec to 600 cm/sec) and the
corresponding change in the values of the average strain-rate as measured by
d/5tD (about 20 times), one might believe that the strain-rate would var,
considerably during a given test as well as from test to test.
There are,
however, two effects which when combined, might produce the present experimen
tal result.
impact, in terms of metal deformed or energy dissipated, wilt come near the
end of the plastic stage.
Therefore,
the depth of penetration is small and this difference is not important, but in
IN
115.WV-
15
impact at a high velocity the end of the plastic stage will be dominant and by
then the ball is moving much more slowly and the strain-rate is decreased.
Hence, the total (or average) response of the metal will not be influenced
greatly by the high yield stresses produced by the large strain-rates at the
start of impact.
factor which influences results involves the variation of the yield stress with
strain-rate.
If then
the piecise value of the strain-rate is not important, then an average strainrate becomes more meaningful and the indentation test provides a good measure
of the dynamic yield stress.
Other investigators have obtained similar results as regards strainrate.
Goldsmith and Yew [21] measured the impact force as a conical indenter
entered a specimen.
(a)
Indention Diameter
-16
and
n,
The parameters
Predic
best agreement fc
3In
h.
is
proportional to
If
va
where
i3 a constant independen,
oi
that
dicts that
(b)
r9l.
Impact Time
The total time of contact during impact is
3The
Experimental r,,sult
3
3results
and
presents
materials tested.
Agreement
fact that the initial elastic stage ij neglected in deriving Equation (14)
an
- 17 -
in
Bruation (14) var.ies no more than 10% for the range of velocities fvom 2 to
600 cm/sec.
is approximately
From the
b was
elevated temperatures).
(c'
Coefficient of Restitution
The coefficient of restitution as predicted using Equation (12)
of restitution values of
and
is
In
addition, the values of E for the specimen and ball were taken from Table 1,
whereas
approximately 50%.
a|
-18-
CONCWSIONS
It
is
indentation tests.
yield stress which agree closely with the results of impact tests in simple
compression.
colliding bodies combined with the fact that yield stress is not very sensit"
to changes in strain-rate within the limits of the present experiment.
Thi-
was found that the yield stress for lead and aluminum is
approxi-
mately twice as great dynamically as statically over the range of strains; fo.
aluminum the difference is
th.
total tine of contact, and the coefficient of restitution using a simple mode.
in which the specimen exhibits plastic work-hardening during loading and au
elastic recovery.
If
taken
As explained above,
this agreement is
This is
true of
probably due tc
geometry effects and to the mamner in which yield stress depends on strain-rat
Instead of the model used in the present investigation, the yield stress could
19
f&
hardening ne.
An earlier set of experiments indicated that for each metal a power
relation exits between the diameter of indentation and the velocity of the
ball at impact [9].
The present
a = bcn
and
deter-
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Tabor, D.,
2.
Goldsmith,
W.,
3.
4.
5.
6.
Crook, A. W.,
Impact,
London,
1960.
Chapman and Hall,
Series A, Vol.
212,
1952,
7.
8.
Yew, C. H. and Goldsmith. W.. "Stroan 1Dintr4hi,,t1ione in Soft NWI.:-L dauStatic and Dynamic Loading by a Stwl Sphere," Report of Institute of
Engineering Research, Unives Ity of California, Berkeley, California,
U, S. A., Serie No. 193, Issue No. 1, August, 1962.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Solids, Vol. 5,
Johnson,
K. L.,
Hertz, H.,
14.
Karman,
1957, p. 162,
Indenter," Nature,
13.
Vol. 199,
1963,
London,
1896, p.
161.
21
15.
Davies, R. M., "A Critical Study of the Hopkinson Pressure Bar," Royal Soc.
of London, Phil. Trans., Section A, Vol. 240, 1948, p. 375.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
nC'O
M M
.l
c*
0*z
HLM
(v~i
CA(
.
000~
to -- c~
tn
N miO
C A
&
000
00
000
NC'
m~O
iOn W)t
N04~
.,1*
04n4
to
a00
LA
[-4
N~4
41
000~
*0H
14O
V4r~
I)
U~b
I()
(D
Cv
N
1,0
.4
00
*4
bo
0
N-0
40*
0.
4.
Cto
4(,
0) 41
(n
040
-NN
000
to4
-40C4
4)
4.4 Q *
fnCoC
WV
23
00/
STO
S
-IM
FIG. I
DYNAMIC
HOPKINSON BAR
SPECIMEN
COMPRESSION
AND ANVIL
TEST.
214
2000__
1000
IOOOX----
800
600
...
(0
400
"I
X
9)
~200
uJcL
60o
_"
I' SALL
--
,o
-,
4
002
FIG. 2
/-_
_'
,....
/_
0.04
0.060.08 0.1
0.2
INDENTATION
DIAMETER,
1/2" BALL
0.4
d,
0.6 C.8 I
cm
25
j
0
oz
__
_0
00
4>
0T
0
u,0
cr
*q
0
n 0
Df~
__j
N-
00
zW
011-x
2
4UJ
\Iw
0
0~~
S~L
.0
IW
0Z
00
(n0
a
~~26
__
F-ON
cj,
.7
%%
U- CO
..
oz
.4,/
_~
-_
0
oC U
6C
--
/_
00
0
cyx
<
-r
1X
U))
Lt
WW
j)'
U'Cl
t L (f) a
W .,:
U)
cn
0l
w'
cn(n
cn
W 0U)
a,
wow
ox
Lo
CLI
s~
ww/6M-O
SS38iS 3fl~i.
_ _
27
00
cz
z1
~0
_
-0_
0-
6t
ino
wL
II-
0I
I0
).W
=4
--
0D) Vj)0
(n
(1)
I
I
I I
0n
_-
~'sdoi
'Sx
1~
0Jl.
< 0
28
(n)
~0
Hz
0
LiiL
a-Z
)
U)
oU
V)()
V)
N)
ZZ
--
zoz
L~
W
W
LLJ
in w
z-J
L)
I~~
L.
zwlz
Oisdo
c o
-D~~:f~
(
Wn U)N
<S~dS
29
cfJ)
V)
-1
< U0
Wz
-J
4
_
a)
U)
~
~4
0)
-:D
Z
00U)
w~
44Z
<
001
W
2- 0
4(f
LU
'Ji
w ~
a--
CL~
(/w)U)
-w
01>V
0
LI/~~
.0
0.w1a
_S38S3f
30
It
Tsd"b hw"
AIetf PXO fOLa4"m *bIgI"Ae*D4MA WIpem Pln-p
Ilefixe
Aprxmt it fidnaio ln ignli 1M
~uinI
31
4-
ZWZ
00z
~Ja
wJ 5
zow
COO.
0
ClU
~W
IiJ
1--
W z
>
0i
w~~~~
'p OIV.3N
_0 '16
W 0:3lI
32
0
-0
Z0~
ZZZ~
w
w--o
I-
0-
02
OW 0
t3 4
JW
< 0:-
I.
00
0.
z
0
U
>
0.
.4
rZ
cr
LL4
-g 8-
) m
z-0W
~~~ NOI3N ~
'p ~
Z~iVVO
33
U)
00-
w
o
z
4
w
Cl4 w
_-
_E_
CI
I
-
-1o
400
_
__
0k. 2%
cn
-C
0~
xr
U)
01
W I.WW
'Dd;
U,
-4o
____
____
____
___
____
____
___34
_ _
_0
0
I,.
-J
4ww
0w
oo
z
g.0
0
CCI
U))
~I
~J0
CL
~0
__
0>0
0
M_
-w
w
0_
_0_
0
0
IL
oL
0w
~
'NI~fhtiS8
:O LNI3II3x
- 39 -
APPENDIX A
throughout the impact process the indenter was resisted by the specimen
constant yield pressure which may be calculated from the total impact energ
the indenter and the volume of indentation.
m , striking with a velocity
v1
D, mas.
ai.
given as
(Al)
later
Sworkers (e.g. Andrew C2 to 4] and Tabor (5]) tried to perfect Martel's mcdu
including tht elastic properties of the material and found some agreement be
tracted from the total impact energy and that the elastic recovery within th
whrre
(1 -
H.d obtained
(A2)
Firthermcre,
- 36 and treating the recovery stage as solely elastic and obeying Hertzian theory
for the impact of elaotic bodies, Tabor obtained the yield pressure at the
beginning of the recovery stage
p 2 =8(.mv)/w80
1
2
r
3 22
where
v2
with
v, ,
u2 ,
E2
is
d23
K is
(A3)
(P)T
Ps
Pr
always
is the yield
(P)T
and
Pr
is
tion must be much greater at the beginning and at the middle of the impact stage
than at the end of the impact,
Pr
(P)T
In addition,
However,
he disagreed
with Tabor on the influence of the viscosity of the material on the yield pressure; he pointed out that the yield pressure would not remain substmntiatuy constant over a large portion of the impact if
of the material.
it
-37-
3sistent
with the fact that for most materials the yield stress has been fc
the force of impact at velocities ranging from 750 cm/sec to 4,500 cm/sec
found that yield pressure did not remain constant throughout the impact.
3
3
also found that for some materials a higher yield pressure was obtained .r
In additin,
ci
Ig
indentation tests with a quasL-static method of analysis and the cor ;tant
piessure assumption, Davis and Hunter (11 and 12] obtained a ratio of dyna
3
3At
U
1
- 38
yield pressure vas nearly independent of the size of the indentation and equal
to cc
, where
is
is
the
Furthermore,
by relating
lirearly the indentation diametex to the strain Tabor extended this result to
where
P = cc
(A4)
c = d/5D
(A5)
tion diameter,
d the indenta-
ness value taken at the edge of the indentation as the characteristic hardness of
an indentation.
-39
(Metaux),
2.
3.
4.
1895, p. 261.
9, 7th Series,
1930, p. 593.
Andrews, J. P., "On the Impact of Spheres of Soft Metals," Phil. Nag.,
Vol. 8, 7th Series, 1929, p. 781.
Andrews,
J. P.,
Phys.
Soc. of Londou,
Crook, A. 11.,
7.
8.
Yew,
C. H. and Goldsmith,
W.,
"Stress Distributions in
l9b.'-
10.
11.
12.
1962, p.201.
13.
Wilinsky, A.
!
I
I
- 40 -
14.
15.
-41l-
APPENDIX B
3
3
~dependent
Oil
and a stress-strair.
P
where
I
3
v, .
. .cb (a/D)n
is Tabor's constant.
(B.
For the
v-
where
(B2'
II ther,
not much "piling up" or "sinking in" near the contact area and the ball is
holds approximately.
I
m
I
ah apx tDlx
(B3
(B2)
42
and (B3),
f (c,nb)
D (mvl/D )
(B4)
where
f 1 (c,n,b) =5
1/(4+n)
n
4 . (4 + n)/wcb]
when the plastic deformation is pronounced and the elastic recovery is relatively small, this diameter can be considered to be approximately equal to that of
the permanent indentation.
Replacing
with
_._nvI)/(,rd /,21.
(12 1
cb,
P , as
.(B5)
As pointed out in the text (Section II), this expre ;ion for the yield pressure
is the same as that derived from the impact test re..;zts.
Equations (BI),
the plastic strain-hardening stage (the time lapse between the instant when the
impact starts and the instant when the maximum relative approach is attained),
tp , so that
p
where
o a I (f (cn~b)]2
2 (D/v )(mv22/D 3:.)2/(4+n)
v1
06)
is
The value of
1.
I
I
I
I
I:=:
43 -
w/2
from 0 tc
between o and 1
Efl(cnb)]2
3 2/(4+n)
(D/vl)(mv 2/D)
1
"
(B7)
I
I
I
-4-
APPENDIX
TABLE Cl
Results of Static Ball Tests on Lead using a 1" Steel Ball
Maximum Force,
(kg)
6.12
12.9
15.6
15.4
29.2
5600
63.5
61.9
136
265
266
260
0.001 sec
Indentation Diameter,
(cm)
0.172
0,233
0.253
0.268
0.360
0,463
0.505
0.507
0.697
0.921
0.929
0.948
45
TABLE
C2
Maximum Force, F
(kg)
74.3
74.8
0.001 see
Indentation Diameter,
(cm)
0.193
142
0 .198
0.257
265
686
1230
1637
0.335
0.506
0.660
0. 749
46
--
I
TABLE C3
0.001 sec-
5tD
Maximum Force. F
Indentation Diameter, d
(kg)
(cm)
10.1
10.4
31.4
0.0469
0.0489
0.0746
32.2
113
123
262
253
0.0758
0.133
0.138
0.192
0.191
I40
4"6
ago_
I
,I
II
0.251
0.251
0.234
656
976
1010
0.291
0.346
0.357
1000
0.351
47
TABLE C4a
Results of Static Ball Tfsts on Annealed 110OF
Aluminum using a 1" Steel Ball
0.001 sec.
Maximum Force,
Indentation Diameter, d
(cm)
(kg)
14.3
0.111
18.0
0.123
28.8
84.9
84.9
215
0.151
0.245
409
0.*498
406
0.493
702
0.633
953
0.730
0.247
0.365
TABLE C'b
Results of Static Ball Test. on Annealed 1OOF
Aluminum using a 1/2" Steel Ball
0.001 sec"1
Maximum Force, F
Indentation Diameter, d
(kg)
(cm)
10.9
20.1
21.1
33.0
51.6
103
180
183
0.0911
0.118
0.122
0.149
0.183
0,247
0.318
0.321
n-%r ,
-48
TABIX CS
Th~pact
Impact
Rebound
Coeff. of
Velocity
Height
Height
Restitution
h 2 (CM)
(em/secm)
I3.5
13.9
26.2
54.0
91.7
Time,
Indentation
t
(10-4 sec)
Diameter
d (cm)
0.240
0.210
0.186
0.169
0.144
0.142
0. 111
6.62
4.08
3.85
3.44
3.54
(10.14)
--
0.088
0.156
0.213
0.296
0.388
0.380
0.531
102
221
221
25.0
25.0
0.31
0.40
0.126
2.94
0.530
313
443
50.0
100.2
0.68
1.14
0.117
0.107
2.88
--
0.622
0.720
I3
100.2
1.17
0.103
2.74
0.728
139.6
1.53
0.105
2.77
0.794
523
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S1
Impact
49
TABLE C6
Results obtained with a 1/2" Steel Ball Striking Le-d
Impact
Impact
Rebound
Coeff. of
Velocity
Height
Height
Restitution
h2 (cm)
(cm/sec)
(cm)
2.67
30.2
105
d (cm)
0.037
0.115
0.194
0.264
0.39
0.79
0.126
313
50
0.70
0.70
1.70
0.118
01118
0.1.10
50
(10-. sec)
Diameter
3.66
25
50
140
2.00
1.75
221
313
524
Time,
Indentation
0.272
3.182
(0.087)
0.125
313
Impact
-1.40
--
--
1.37
0.308
0.313
0.313
0.390
- 50
TABLE C7
Impact
Impact
Rebound
Velocity
Height
V1 (cm/sec)
hI (cm)
Coeff. of
Impact
Height
Restitution
Time, t
h 2 (cm)
(10-4 sec)
Indentatic',
Diameter
d (cm)
--
2.1
0.665
3.28
12 .5
0.563
2.44
0.091
29o9
0.490
0.383
0.328
0.344
0.351
1.74
1.55
0.135
0.178
0.231
0.317
0.316
,.381
54.9
94.6
194
194
295
295
476
476
554
554
19.3
19.3
44.4
44.4
116
116
157
157
2.28
2.35
5.11
S." 4
11.1
10.14
13.2
13.2
0.339
0.340
0.310
0.299
oz.9Q
0.291
1.45
1.41
1.37
1.31
1.29
1.24
1.09
i.q
1.15
0.382
0.478
0.481
W, .S10
0.519
- 51
TABLE C8
Impact
Impact
Rebound
Velocity
Height
Height
Restitution
vI (cm/sec)
hI (cm)
h 2 (cm)
2.01
30.2
94.7
Coeff. of
Impact
Time,
Indentation
t
Diameter
(10-4 sec)
d (cm)
0.717
1.58
--
0.426
0.41
0.89
0.72
0,071
0.118
0.67
0.160
200
20.5
200
20.5
2.62
0.357
0.67
0.160I
304
299
480
480
556
556
47.2
45.6
117
117
158
158
5.40
5.07
11.0
11.2
14.0
14.6
0.338
0.333
0.306
0.309
0.298
0.304
0.59
0.69
0.61
-0.55
0.54
0.194
0.191
0.240
0.239
0.260
0.257
--
--
II
I
I-
I:
I
I
I,
I|
- 52 -
TABLE C9
Reaults obtained with a I" Steel Ball
Impact
Impact
Rebound
Coeff. of
Impact
Velocity
Height
Height
Restitution
Time, t
h2 (cm)
S(cm/sec)
136
187
106
66.8
44.5
372
189
383
194
463
525
566
650
650
(cm)
(10-4 sec)
9.52
2.97
0.559
0.91
17.9
5.79*
2.28*
1.01*
70.8
18.3 *
74.9
19.2 *
110
141
164
216
216
5.79
2.28
1.01
0.587
18.3
5.99
19.2
6.32
25.3
31.4
0.569
0.628
0.666
0.762
0.476
0.522
--
35.0
44.,8
4609
0.506
0.574
0.480
0.472
0.462
0.456
0.466
---
-3,72
---
-0.72
0.70
-0.68
0.68
Indentation
Diameter
d (cm)
0.175
0.211
0.160
0.125
0.106
0.294
0.209
0.296
0.211
0.330
0.350
0.362
0.384
0.385
- 53 -
TABLE C10
Results obtained with a 1/2" Steel Ball
striking Annealed C1018 Steel
Impact
Impact
Rebound
Coeff. of
Impact
Velocity
Height
Height
Restitution
Time, t
hI (cm)
h 2 (cm)
(cm/sec)
199
117
74.7
20.2
6.96*
2.85*
(10-4 sec)
Indentation
Diameter
d (cm)
0.107
6.96
0.587
0.41
2.85
1,39
0.6"0
0.699
---
0.516
0.37
0.147
0.599
--
0.106
0.521
0.37
0.148
0,579
--
0.108
19.5
0.0826
0.0658
378
72.9
195
19.5*
386
76.1
202
20.7
441
99.4
25.7
0.509
0.35
0.157
270
152
37.1
11.9
11.9
....--
0.565
--
0.123
0.092
6.99
20.7
6.96
527
142
34.5
0.493
0.34
0.1,2
527
142
34.8
0.495
0.35
0.174
651
651
651
305
217
217
217
47.7
47.1
0.469
--0.33
--
0.194
O.1io
0.191
0.131
47.6*
47.6
13.7
0.477
0.469
0.M36
- 514 -
7ABLE Cl1
Impact
Impact
Rebound
C-,eff. of
Impact
Velocity
Height
Height
Restitution
Time, t
h 2 (cm)
(10-4 sec)
0.262
0.369
0.250
0.332
0.237
0.230
1.45
1.54
1.44
-1.37
1.32
v1 (cm/sec)
274
71.9
367
91.6
484
556
(cm)
38.3
2.64*
68.6
14.27*
U19
158
2.64
0.36
4.27
0.471
6.69
8.37
* Successive bounces in
a single test.
Indentation
Diameter
d (cm)
0.412
0.217
0.469
0.248
0.537
0.570
- 55
TABLE C12
Impact
Impact
Rebound
Coeff. of
Velocity
weight
Height
Restitution
vI (cm/sec)
hI (cm)
h 2 (cm)
Impact
Time,
Indentation
t
(i0-4 sec)
Diameter
d (cm)
2.26
0.561
0.0236
3.73
11.2
11.3
0.574
0.494
0.460
1.70
1.31
1.15
0.0245
0.0460
0.0485
2.39
0.273
2.93
0.367
4.32
0.496
4.51
5.55
5.55
0.435
0.410
0.380
0.362
0.334
0.322
0.282
0.338
0.272
0.354
0.253
0.339
0.254
0.251
0.251
1.17
1.07
1.14
1.00
0.83
0.83
0.74
-0.74
-0.70
0.0684
0.0679
0.0926
0.0923
0.131
0.128
0.196
0=1n7
0.205
'.05
7.21
8.66
0.241
0.244
0.236
8.54
8.71
8.69
0.235
0.234
0.233
23.8
24.5
46.6
47.2
98.4
98.9
244
68.4
278
75.7
364
92.1
370
416
416
30.3
2.39*
39.5
2.93*
67.4
4.32*
69.9
88.4
88.4
487
487
121
121
550
559
559
155
155
159
159
--
0.70
0.63
0.62
0.68
0.110
0.231
0.125
0.235
0,2U6
0.246
0.68
0.268
0.265
-0.60
0.60
0.64
0.280
0.280
0.286
0.283