yes? not sure if there was a question there or not ...
from peak load and E (and internal stress solution) you can easily get strain, and you need time to get strain rate (at least the way we're interpreting "rate"). could they have used "peak load rate" ?
that sounds much more reasonable (using the peak loading rate to determine the strain rate)
than the previous post (using peak load to determine strain rate)
What I have done to much their results was to calculate the peak load rate, Moment rate, stress rate. By assuming an E value , we get the strain rate. But again, my solution does not much their results.
Stath,
Why do you have to assume an E value to calculate strain rate? It seems to me you would need to assume an E value to get the moment rate or stress rate, but not for the strain rate because E is the same for load rate as it is for strain rate.
Ok. If I consider a 3 point bending test same with the paper written by Millard et al. 2013 with a deflection rate of 0.18 mm/min which is 0.003 mm/sec:
Span of beam = 300 mm
Width = 100 mm
Depth = 50 mm
s = My/I
M = PL/4
D = PL^3/48EI
stress = E x strain
strain = PLy / 4IE
Incorporating the deflection rate 0.003 mm/sec and rearranging the deflection:
strain = ( 48EIDLy / 4IE(L^3) )= 2 x 10^-5 s^-1.
According to the paper Millard et al 2013, the strain rate is 10^-5 s^-1 which does not agree with my calculations.
assuming load rate is reported, then to have a constant ratio (inferred by the geometry constants) you'd need ...
load rate (mm/sec) strain rate (strain/sec) strain/load
4.23E-6 5E-6 1.2
8.46E-2 1E-1 1.2
7E2 8.4E2 1.2
1E3 1.2E3 1.2
although it's reasonable that for high load rates (like 1m/sec) that the strain rate is lower, possibly a thousand times lower ...