2002
DOI: 10.1016/s1566-1369(02)80025-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Observations on differences between the energy determined using an instrumented striker and dial/encoder energy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When plotting the difference between TK and mean{TO2-SI2/SI3} as a function of test date (Figure 9), a slightly increasing trend is observed. An investigation by Manahan et al [8], conducted in cooperation with NIST, offers a possible explanation to the systematically lower values yielded by the TK machine.…”
Section: Low-energy Specimensmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When plotting the difference between TK and mean{TO2-SI2/SI3} as a function of test date (Figure 9), a slightly increasing trend is observed. An investigation by Manahan et al [8], conducted in cooperation with NIST, offers a possible explanation to the systematically lower values yielded by the TK machine.…”
Section: Low-energy Specimensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Calculations performed on a simple two-mass, two-spring model of the striker/specimen assembly in [8] suggest that this difference in absorbed energy can be explained in terms of frequency shift in the applied force, caused by a stiffer design of the striker assembly in the TK machine. Indeed, this machine was found to be stiffer (less compliant) than TO2 or SI3 when the compliance of all the NIST Charpy machines was measured [9].…”
Section: Low-energy Specimensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Length and bending stiffness exert the largest impact on the value of the strain energy of the pendulum arm. The publication [20] shows that a 20% increase in the pendulum stiffness results in a 9% increase in the registered energy of the impact-damaged samples. Therefore, it seems reasonable to claim that the standard beyond the dimensions of the specimens should impose these two characteristics of the test device: length and bending stiffness of the pendulum arm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The investigated specimen was treated as a beam, supported on both sides, and loaded with a centrally focused force. The deflection of such a beam f is described as follows: (15) After the transformation taking into account the moment of inertia of the rectangular cross section, there is: (16) For the impact load model in question: (17) maximum stresses are the quotient of the bending moment and the flexural strength factor: (18) and the maximum deformation is described by the dependency: (19) In order to calculate the speeds of the deformation, it is necessary to divide them by the time after which there will be a deflection of the sample valued f: (20) where V is the speed of the pendulum.…”
Section: The Speed Of Deformation Of the Test Specimensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A possible explanation of these findings was proposed in [16], based on previous work conducted by Manahan et al in cooperation with NIST [17]. Based on calculations performed on a simple two-mass, two-spring model of the striker/specimen assembly, it was suggested that the difference in absorbed energies can be explained in terms of frequency shift in the applied force, caused by the stiffer design of the striker assembly in the TK machine 10 .…”
Section: Influence Of Hammer Configuration (Machine Type) On Charpy Tmentioning
confidence: 97%