Experiment:08

8.1 Objective:
Find out impact energy absorbed in the V- Notched Specimen, measuring impact strength and
modulus of toughness.
8.2 Apparatus:
 Charpy impact tester
 Vernier caliper
 Centering device
 V-Notched Specimen
8.3 Diagram:

Figure (1)

8.4 Theory:
Charpy testing machine:
 evaluate an object's capacity to withstand high-rate loading and it is commonly used to determine
the service life of a part or material. Impact resistance can be among the most challenging qualities
to measure. There are two standard kinds of impact test.
he apparatus consists of a pendulum of known mass and length that is dropped from a known height
to impact a notched specimen of material. The energy transferred to the material can be inferred by
comparing the difference in the height of the hammer before and after the fracture (energy absorbed
by the fracture event).
The notch in the sample affects the results of the impact test,[8] thus it is necessary for the notch to
be of regular dimensions and geometry. The size of the sample can also affect results, since the
dimensions determine whether or not the material is in plane strain. This difference can greatly
affect the conclusions made.

Impact test results on low- and high-strength materials:

The impact energy of low-strength metals that do not show change of fracture mode with
temperature is usually high and insensitive to temperature. For these reasons, impact tests are not
widely used for assessing the fracture-resistance of low-strength materials whose fracture modes
remain unchanged with temperature. Impact tests typically show a ductile-brittle transition for low-
strength materials that do exhibit change in fracture mode with temperature such as body-centered
cubic (BCC) transition metals.
Generally high-strength materials have low impact energies which attest to the fact that fractures
easily initiate and propagate in high-strength materials. The impact energies of high-strength
materials other than steels or BCC transition metals are usually insensitive to temperature. High-
strength BCC steels display a wider variation of impact energy than high-strength metal that do not
have a BCC structure because steels undergo microscopic ductile-brittle transition. Regardless, the
maximum impact energy of high-strength steels is still low due to their brittleness.
FOREIGN OBJECT IMPACT DAMAGE TO COMPOSITES

the specimen and the energy which is absorbed when it fractures. It can be seen from Fig. 3, that for
the same specimens, but different drop weights, the dependence on the rate of loading is greater for
the smaller weight. In other words, the lower the ratio between the energy applied and the energy
absorbed, the higher the dependence on the rate of loading. I f we look at the same phenomenon in
Fig. 4, one can see that for the value of 50 ft.lb/in, the specimen did not fracture, and for 55 ft.lb/in,
it fractured with a high dependence on the rate of loading for this type of test. This phenomenon
occurs as a result of the

Figure (2)
(A) Shear mode of fracture in E-glass cross-ply laminate (lamination planes parallel to
load).
(B) Transverse buckling mode of fracture in unidirectional laminate Amination planes
parallel to load).
(C) Delamination mode of fracture in unidirectional laminate (lamination planes per-
pedicular to load).
FIG. 12-Fracture modes of cross-ply and unidirectional laminates. Photographs show side view.

change in the velocity of the drop weight while fracturing the specimen. When the energy applied
is slightly larger than the energy which is needed to fracture the specimen, the attenuation of the
velocity of the drop weight is large, and a large change in the rate of loading occurs during the test.
But when the energy applied is much larger than the energy needed to fracture the specimen, there
is only a slight change in the velocity and thus the results of the tests just show the dependence of
the energy absorbed for a fixed rate of loading.
A very important result can be obtained by comparing the data in Figs. 3 and

4. The cross-ply composite and the unidirectional composite absorb the same amount of
energy. Thus, the mechanism of energy absorption is mainly delamination, as the amount of fibers
which fractured in a unidirectional specimen is double the amount fractured in a cross-ply
specimen. Moreover, comparing the data from Figs. 3 and 6 for the 1/8-in. thick specimens, we see
that the cross-ply E-glass/epoxy and the unidirectional S-glass/epoxy also absorbed the same
amount of energy. Hence, it is obvious that the mechanism of absorbing energy is controlled by the
amount of delamination between layers and between fibers and matrix. The fracture of the fibers
themselves contributes only a small amount to the overall energy absorption.

Model of Fracture

Consider the loading of a beam supported at both ends, with a span long enough to create a tension
failure mode on the tension side of the beam. The suggested failure modes for Cases A, B, and C
are shown in Fig. 13.

Case A - T h e material is unidirectional, but consists of layers. The impact applied suddenly on the
beam causes the beam to deflect (after the stress waves have decayed). As the loading continues, a
failure of the outer layer occurs at the mid-point where the stress is maximum (or near it, at the
weakest point). The crack tip propagates through the matrix material until it reaches the next layer
of fibers and is arrested there. As the fibers in the first layer were broken a high shear stress exists
in the matrix between these two layers which initiates cracks running to both sides parallel to the
layers. Since the stress is decreasing toward the supports, the cracks will be arrested after some
distance. The impact is continued and when the stress in the second layer is high enough, the fibers
will be broken and again a crack will propagate up to the third layer and branch to the side. Those
cracks which run to the sides delaminating the specimen absorb the greatest amount of energy
during the failure process.
Case B - T h e material is a cross-ply laminate with the lamination planes in the horizontal
direction. The same mechanism is valid here, except that there are less layers to arrest the
propagating crack. Since in the unidirectional case, delamination did not occur at every layer, in the
cross-ply case approximately the same number of branching cracks occur as in the unidirectional
composite. Hence, the amount of energy absorption is almost identical in both cases.

Case C - Th e material is a cross-ply laminate with the lamination planes in the

vertical direction. In this case, the crack front is not straight as there are weak layers in the
thickness where it can propagate easily. These weak layers let the crack surround the other 'layers
and fracture the fibers without arresting the crack propagation. Thus, we get a clean cut through the
material, as can be seen in Fig. 12a, without branching of cracks to the sides, and with a low level
of energy absorption. Case D-The material is a unidirectional laminate with the lamination planes in
the vertical direction. Unlike all the other cases, here the failure occurs on the topside of the beams
or the compression side. As the interlaminar surface is the weak link, the failure occurs by buckling
and delamination between the layers, as can be seen in Fig. 12b. This mechanism of failure occurs
only here because at the bottom layer all the fibers are in the load direction, while in the cross-ply
material (vertical position) only half of the fibers are in the load direction, and thus it is half as
strong as the former case. In the horizontal position we do have delamination at the compression
side as can be seen in Fig. 11, but it is restricted Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon
Apr 29 15:50:03 EDT 2019 Downloaded/printed by Higher Education Commission (Higher
Education Commission) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
BROUTMAN AND ROTEM ON FIBER COMPOSITE MATERIALS 133 to a few layers while in
the vertical case it starts with many layers and propagates downward, thus absorbing a large amount
of energy.
8.5 Procedure:
1. Measure the cross-sectional area and height of the specimen
2. Measure the length, width, and depth of V- shaped notch
3. Plot the specimen on the support of Charpy impact tester with the help of centering device.
4. Raise the metal pendulum up to 1380 angle of attack from the vertical position
5. Unlock the pendulum by lifting the locking pi so the pendula fall freely and strike the
specimen
6. After striking the specimen, the pendulum continues its motion and forms angle β on the
opposite side. this angle is measured with the help of dial indicator scale mounted on the
tester installed.
8.6 Observations and calculations:
Geometric Parameters of Specimen

Length = L = 696 mm

Width = 8 mm

Hight = 9 mm
 Table 1: Summary of results obtain through

No α β Impact Impact Modulus of

of Degree Degrees Energ Strength toughness/Charpy

obs. s y (kJ/m2) impact value

(J) (MJ/m3)
1 135 117.5 70.36 0.9257 14.93

8.7 conclusion:
The result may be affected due to following reason
 Fraction
 Personal error
 Instrumental error
8.8 references:
1. S. Xu and H. W. Reinhardt, “Determination of double-K criterion for crack
propagation in quasi-brittle fracture—part I: experimental investigation of crack
propagation,” International Journal of Fracture, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 111–149, 1999. View
at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
2. X. U. Shilang and H. W. Reinhardt, “Determination of double-K criterion for crack
propagation in quasi-brittle fracture—part II: analytical evaluating and practical
measuring methods for three-point bending notched beams,” International Journal of
Fracture, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 151–177, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
3. S. Xu and H. W. Reinhardt, “Determination of double-K criterion for crack
propagation in quasi-brittle fracture—part III: compact tension specimens and wedge
splitting specimens,” International Journal of Fracture, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 179–193,
1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus