Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Impact test - 100ft.lbs
(OP)
Hi, I've got a test standard which states the component must withstand an impact of 100 ft.lbs, I dread to ask this question but I just have to... is this test dropping a weight of 1lb from 100 ft? Therefore a 10lb weight from 10ft?
In metric measurements I've worked it as 13.7m kg
The reason for my question is that it seems like an incredibly difficult test and some competitors claim to have met it with their products. It says the test should be done with a steel weight with 2 inch spherical radius, a shame I can't do it with a foam weight with a 2 inch spherical radius.
Is my assumption of 1lb from 100ft correct, or is there the difference between mass and weight so I can divide the whole thing by gravity?
In metric measurements I've worked it as 13.7m kg
The reason for my question is that it seems like an incredibly difficult test and some competitors claim to have met it with their products. It says the test should be done with a steel weight with 2 inch spherical radius, a shame I can't do it with a foam weight with a 2 inch spherical radius.
Is my assumption of 1lb from 100ft correct, or is there the difference between mass and weight so I can divide the whole thing by gravity?





RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
I'd assume in your case probably the latter.
Given that gravitational potential energy = mgh I suggest you back calculate the required drop height.
Is it the Imperial/American units throwing you off with 'lb' being used both as a mass and the equivalent force under normal earth gravity?
I ask because this is an A-level or maybe just GCSE physics or applied math problem.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
As the impact is probably an energy then I think you're right - I can divide my 13.7mkg by 9.81m/s to drop the 1kg weight from a mere 1.4m which sounds more plausible.
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
If it is a Charpy Impact Test, then there are very standard methods for testing. I speak from an ASME VIII-1 pressure vessel code perspective, where you are referenced to SA-370 or ISO 148 (Parts 1, 2, and 3).
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
I'd used 1 lb force = 4.45 Newtons and work from there.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
l lbf = 4.45 N (courtesy of Google)
1 ft = .305 m (courtesy of Google and my 12" ruler)
accn from gravity = g = 9.81 m/s^2 (courtesy of it being drummed into me through my secondary education and beyond)
mass = M (cause I don't want to confuse with m for meters)
height = h (because, well it's obvious really)
4.45*.305*100 = 135.7 Nm = 135.7 Joules = Mgh = M*9.81*h
135.7/9.81= 13.8 mkg
So 1 kg mass dropped 13.8 meters?
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
As an old manager used to say "don't tell me that answer, tell me the answer I want to hear"
To give a little background this test is for an enclosure for fibre optics, they're almost all moulded from polypropylene which despite being around 10mm thick due to the height of its ribs would never survive a 1kg mass from 13.8 metres, or 10kg (22lb) from 1.4m (over 4½ feet)
I was really hoping the lb-force would help me out! But I appreciate the help, unfortunately there's nobody else at work I can talk this over with.
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Charpy test does use impact energy units of lb.-ft.
If it is not this the test type, then possibly the test standard or specification you have has a typo. Can you present at least a portion of the document for context of the terminology?
Walt
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Or a 4 in diameter steel ball from 10.54 ft.
Ted
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Yes, it means drop something like 10 lbs from 10 ft.
What is the component that has to meet this?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
24 Feb 16 18:38
I've also seen a similar test for safety glazing and racing helmets. Please tell us your test standard.
I think you're right, this kind of test would trouble a racing helmet, it's that kind of impact. It just seems a bit excessive for fibre optic enclosures that are underground.
1gibson (Mechanical)
24 Feb 16 21:22
How much does the component weight? Can you drop it from a calculated height, does that stay within the letter of the test requirement? Get the impact but without squashing the component between the floor and a weight?
Sneaky, but I like it. I've just re-read the test spec and I don't think that's allowed, unfortunately.
Strong (Mechanical)
24 Feb 16 21:30
Google: Charpy impact test
Charpy test does use impact energy units of lb.-ft.
If it is not this the test type, then possibly the test standard or specification you have has a typo. Can you present at least a portion of the document for context of the terminology?
Good suggestion for the Charpy test, I pulled out a test example and it said 75 ft.lbs was around 102J and 160 ft.lbs is 217J. That confirms my fear that approx 137J is what I need. No typo in the test document, there are other enclosures which require 50 ft.lbs for lesser tests.
Thanks, everyone.
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Until some guy with a JCB catches the edge of it, or Alan Titchmarsh slams a mattock into it while gardening or something.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Yes and no. I just watched a backhoe excavate near a sewer. Of course, they obliterated the sewer line they were supposed to avoid.
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
I think the copyright lawyers would hunt me down if I copy too much of the standard, but here's part of it. You guys will bail me out, won't you?
All closures shall be tested in their installed position using mounting hardware provided by the manufacturer. In all cases, the
impact device shall have a 50-mm (2-inch) spherical radius at the point of contact.
A closure shall not exhibit any mechanical damage after being subjected to mechanical impact at the cold and hot installation temperatures specified in Section 5.1.4, “Test Conditions/Temperatures.” The impact energies in Table 5-5 shall apply.
Table 5-5 Impact Criteria Levels
Environment________________Impact (ft-lbs)_____________Test Procedure
Buried, Underground______________100_________________Drop Tube
Wall Mount_____________________50_______________Pendulum & drop tube
Aerial_________________________50____________________Pendulum
Thin-walled closure_______________10_______________Pendulum or drop tube
NOTE: Damage to field-replaceable components that is not service affecting is permitted including damage to the manufacturer-supplied
closure mounting base.
It is desirable that a closure shall not exhibit any mechanical damage after
being subjected to mechanical impact at the cold and hot operating temperatures
I'm reading through the rest of the standard to see if I can get it classified as a thin-walled closure and what the problems of that would be in terms of the product in the market. The note after the table of "...damage is permitted..." looks like a get-out clause at first glance, but I would rather not pass the test and have to add the caveat of "it smashed to a million pieces".
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Sledge hammer would be closer but that's harder to imagine as an accident!
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Ted
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
"A closure shall not exhibit any mechanical damage after being subjected to mechanical impact."
A complete lack of "ANY physical damage" in my mind demands no chipped paint, or scratches, or even small dents, and is way beyond closing and latching and sealing properly.
I'm probably just naive, but a direct nudge or tap from a gently pawing earth moving device seems like more than 100 lb ft of energy.
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
Anyway, back on track, it's a good point about any physical damage. I read that as it would still seal correctly but it's open to interpretation!
RE: Impact test - 100ft.lbs
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?