Project Leader: Science Group - HSE: Information … · The tensile tests were carried out in accordance with BS EN 895:1995 Destructive tests on welds in metallic materials – Transverse

Harpur Hill, Buxton Derbyshire, SK17 9JN T: +44 (0)1298 218000 F: +44 (0)1298 218590 W: www.hsl.gov.uk

Investigation of the dynamic behaviour of aluminium welds in rail vehicle applications

HSL/2006/95

Dr William Geary Project Leader:

Author(s): Mr Chris J Atkin BEng (hons)

Dr Pete Apps BEng

Science Group: Engineering Control Group

© Crown copyright (2006)

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 11.1 Background ............................................................................................. 11.2 Sample preparation ................................................................................. 2

2 TEST PROGRAMME.................................................................................. 32.1 Instrumentation........................................................................................ 32.2 Material characterisation.......................................................................... 42.3 Static Tests.............................................................................................. 52.4 Dynamic Tests......................................................................................... 7

3 MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................ 11

4 STATIC TEST RESULTS ......................................................................... 134.1 Commissioning Test .............................................................................. 134.2 ‘Dog bone’ Static Tests.......................................................................... 13

5 DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS...................................................................... 155.1 Linescan camera analysis ..................................................................... 155.2 Force and elongation Data .................................................................... 165.3 Strain Data............................................................................................. 175.4 Failure mode.......................................................................................... 17

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................... 196.1 Summary of results................................................................................ 196.2 Discussion ............................................................................................. 196.3 Conclusion............................................................................................. 20

7 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 21

8 APPENDIX A SPECIMEN PHOTOGRAPHS............................................ 22

9 APPENDIX B GRAPHS OF RESULTS .................................................... 31

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives

It has been shown that there is little data available on the dynamic properties of welded

aluminium alloys. This information is of importance since the design of railway vehicles,

particularly with respect to crashworthiness, depends upon the appropriate use of mechanical

properties data in structural analysis and finite element calculations.

The aim of this preliminary study was to assess (using the HSL impact track facility), whether

the response of welded aluminium alloys varied depending on dynamic or static loading i.e.

strain rate effects.

Main Findings

The parent material was determined to be 6063 aluminium alloy. The weld material could only

be narrowed down to 5000 or 6000 series aluminium alloy.

In the dynamic tests, a significant increase in the energy absorption was noted (averaging

21.8%), along with increases in force to fracture (averaging 4.5%). The material generally failed

within 7mm of the weld boundary. Material fracture remained ductile at all strain rates.

Recommendations

Given the limited number of specimens tested, further work could investigate more specimens

with a view to reducing variance in the results and could look at greater impact velocities, to

determine if higher strain rates effected energy absorption and ductility of the material.

iii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

A recent review of the dynamic properties of aluminium alloys (Apps 2004) has shown that

little data is available on the properties of welds. The information is of importance since the

design of railway vehicles, particularly with respect to crashworthiness, depends upon the

appropriate use of mechanical properties data in structural analysis and finite element

calculations. The issue has recently been brought to HSE’s attention through a critical analysis

of a recent vehicle design where static materials properties data were used in a dynamic analysis

without verification.

This preliminary study was initiated to find if such material exhibited strain rate effects. Three

static and three dynamic tests using the HSL impact track were carried out to identify if further

work is required to characterise strain rate effects.

The tests were performed on structurally significant members extracted from a welded

aluminium driving module. This was made primarily from double skinned aluminium alloy

extrusions welded together to be representative of the driving end of a railway multiple unit, see

Figure 1.

0405-012/5 0405-012/4

Figure 1. Driving Module

These bodies were transported to the Health & Safety Laboratory site at Buxton, Figure 2,

where a suitable panel was identified for testing. The bodies had been fabricated by welding

together large sections of interlocking hollow aluminium extrusions which incorporated

structural bracing elements This panel included enough material for eight large scale tensile

specimens, centred on a weld and four small scale material characterisation samples, two

including the weld and two parent material.

1

Figure 2. Driving End Module stored at HSL Buxton FES0405-56/63

1.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION

The body panel was removed from the driving end module shown in Figure 2 by cold cutting

and marked up for specimen preparation as shown in Figure 3. Eight identical specimens were

extracted from the panel, along with four specimens for material characterisation as can be seen

in the centre of the figure.

Figure 3. Panel removed from module and marked for preparation

Specimens for the large scale test consisted of the full inner and outer skin including all

structural bracing. To allow clamping of the specimens at the ends the hollow section was filled

with an epoxy resin.

2

FES0405-56/63

2 TEST PROGRAMME

2.1 INSTRUMENTATION

The method of recording both the static and dynamic forces was by means of an “Applied

Measurements CSDM 1000kN (HSE)” impact rated loadcell, serial number 17713. Elongation

for the static test was measured by a Pioden linear potentiometer serial number 022499.

Elongation for the dynamic tests was calculated by the analysis of high speed video.

Local strain was measured with Measurements Group strain gauges type CEA-13-250UN-120,

lot number R-A59AF805.

For both the static and the dynamic tests, an LDS Vision logger recorded data. The energisation

voltage for the loadcell and potentiometer was provided by a Thandar power supply and this

voltage monitored by a calibrated Keithley digital multimeter, serial number 1036003. Signal

conditioners were used to provided suitable bridge completion for the strain gauges. The LDS

logger is shown in Figure 4.

FES0508-03/4

Figure 4. Instrumentation

The loadcell was calibrated to a maximum of 450kN using a Mayes servo-hydraulic test

machine. The potentiometer was calibrated with a dial vernier. Strain gauges were calibrated for

each test using precision shunt resistors, simulating a known strain.

All strain gauges were located on the centre line of the specimen 30mm from each edge of the

weld, as shown in Figure 5.

3

30mm30mm

FES0508-04/2 Figure 5. Strain gauge locations

All dynamic tests were recorded with a high speed video system, suspended on a frame above

the specimen. The system utilises a high speed CCD camera head streaming frames of video to

solid state memory. For the commissioning test on specimen 5 the camera captured an area of

208 by 304 pixels in 8bit greyscale at a frame rate of 3800fps. This frame rate was found to be

more than required and the subsequent tests on specimens 4,7 and 8 were captured with an area

of 256 by 512 pixels with a frame rate of 2000fps.

2.2 MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION

Quasi-static tensile tests were carried out on two parent samples and two weld samples

(transverse) taken from the outer skin of the side wall of the driving module section. The

specimens were machined with their longitudinal axis perpendicular to the extrusion direction in

the side wall sections of the module. In the case of the weld specimens, the weld was located in

the centre of the reduced gauge length. The tensile tests were carried out in accordance with BS

EN 895:1995 Destructive tests on welds in metallic materials – Transverse tensile test and BS

EN 10002-1:2001 Metallic Materials – Tensile Testing. The specimen geometry used is shown

in Figure 6.

25±0.1

11050

37

25

~240

25±0.1

11050

37

25

~240

Figure 6. Sheet tensile specimen geometry (all dimensions in mm).

The specimen thickness was approximately 2.5mm and both this and the gauge width were

measured at five points along the reduced length. An extensometer with a 50mm gauge length

was placed centrally on the reduced section to measure elongation. The tests were carried out

4

under position control in a servohydraulic test machine at a crosshead speed of 1.5mm/min,

increasing to 5mm/min following yielding.

2.3 STATIC TESTS

The static tests were conducted using the specimen truck that was to be used for the dynamic

tests on the HSL Impact Track. This helped ensure similarity of test conditions between static

and dynamic tests. The specimen truck consists of a main body with slots in which an anvil

slides, Figure 7.

Figure 7. Blue specimen truck

The specimen truck was used as a quasi-static tensile test machine by installing a matched pair

of hydraulic rams to move the anvil. The hydraulic rams, placed between the main body and the

anvil, in the main body slots, were double acting and powered by a twin output pump, so both

rams provided the same force at all times, Figure 8.

Figure 8. Hydraulic actuators FES0509-01/10

5

Each specimen was located inside the truck and fixed to the rigid end via a loadcell. The other

end of the specimen was attached to the sliding anvil

The elongation potentiometer was secured to the body of the sample truck with a large magnetic

base. The slider was connected to the moving anvil with another magnet. Figure 9 shows ‘dog

bone’ specimen number 1, in place. The potentiometer is visible in the upper left quadrant, and

the circular loadcell is shown at the right edge. The strain gauges can also be seen either side of

the central weld line.

Figure 9. Specimen number 1 in place in impact truck

FES0509-01/2

A schematic of the specimens, the method in which each was clamped and detailed dimensions

are shown in Figure 10.

6

Anvil end Fixed loadcell end

744 mm

315 mm

12

2 m

m

14

4 m

m

Red Strain Gauge(i.e. Below original weldas shown in Figure 3)

Blue Strain Gauge(i.e. Above original weldas shown in Figure 3)

Figure 10. Schematic of sample and clamping mechanism

Data for all static tests was recorded at 200 samples per second. Logging was initiated and

ceased manually.

2.4 DYNAMIC TESTS

The HSL impact test track is a very large scale dynamic test facility. It is situated in a natural

valley and uses gravity to accelerate trucks from any point on one or both valley sides, to an

impact zone in the flat of the valley. Each truck runs on its own set of rails, the hammer truck on

the outer rails and the specimen truck on the inner rails. This allows the hammer truck to run

past the specimen truck and collide with the anvil. The north slope of the track is 87m long at an

incline of 1 in 7 leading into a horizontal 18m impact zone. The track on the south side of the

valley has a similar 87m at 1 in 7 but also has a further run of 76m at 1 in 4, but only on the

outer (hammer truck) rails. There is a horizontal section at the top of each slope allowing for the

preparation of trucks. Winches at the end of these sections provide the means of hoisting the

trucks to the desired release point. With specimen and impact truck weighing up to 15 tonnes,

and hammer trucks weighing up to 10 tonnes, this arrangement can theoretically provide

maximum impact energies of 2 MegaJoules(MJ).

A view of the impact test track from the south side is shown in Figure 11

7

Figure 11. Impact track facility

Dynamic force is imparted to the sample by the hammer truck running over the specimen truck

and impacting the anvil. The specimen is loaded in the same way as in the static test, but relies

on the inertia of the majority of the truck to provide an anchor point.

Changing the height at which the hammer truck is released varies the magnitude of the energy

and thus the force of impact. The release system consists of a stationary winch truck and a

remotely operated bomb release.

For the dynamic tests a specimen truck of 9.6tonnes and a hammer truck of 1.1tonnes were

used, see Figures 12 and 13

8

FES0511-02/4 Figure 12. Specimen truck in position

FES0511-02/7

Figure 13. Hammer truck ready for release

9

Data for all dynamic tests was recorded at 20,000 samples per second. A pencil lead breaker

circuit initiated logging automatically. The logging ceased after a duration of 1 second.

Three dynamic tests were conducted with the weld facing upwards ( i.e. towards the high speed

camera ), the final test utilised a sample rotated through 90 degrees in order to observe the

failure mechanism from a side elevation.

10

3 MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 TENSILE PROPERTIES

Figure 14 shows stress-strain curves obtained from the quasi-static tensile tests carried out on

samples from the outer skin of the driving module. The results of these tests are also

summarised in Table 1.

Stress-Strain Curves

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

Strain (mm/mm)

Str

ess (

MP

a)

Parent 1

Parent 2

Weld 1

Weld 2

Figure 14. Stress-strain curves obtained from tensile tests on the parent and weld material.

Table 1. Summary of tensile results from parent and weld materialSample 0.2% Proof Stress

(MPa)UTS

(MPa)Elongation to

failure (%)

Parent 1 208 274 13.1Parent 2 207 269 8.9Weld 1 132 228 10.7Weld 2 130 224 9.5

The 0.2% proof stress and UTS values in the parent specimens were significantly higher than

those achieved in the weld specimens. The elongations to failure of the specimens are difficult

to compare as much of the deformation in the weld specimens was localised in the weld region

and measured elongation will therefore be a function of the gauge length. Also, parent

specimen #2 failed outside of the extensometer gauge length and hence the recorded elongation

to failure does not include the non-uniform elongation associated with necking.

Both of the weld specimens failed in the heat affected zone approximately 7mm from the fusion

boundary.

11

3.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

A chemical analysis was performed on the parent material using the ICP OES technique

(Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectroscopy). The results are shown in Table 2.

This indicated that the closest match to the parent material is aluminium alloy 6063.

Table 2 Results of chemical analysis for parent material and aluminium alloy 6063 specification

Mass % Tolerance Al 6063 Spec

Magnesium 0.53 ±0.05 0.45-0.9

Silicon 0.25 ±0.02 0.2-0.6

Manganese 0.07 ±0.01 0.1 max

Chromium <0.01 ----- 0.1 max

Iron 0.21 ±0.02 0.35 max

Copper 0.12 ±0.01 0.1 max

Titanium 0.023 ±0.002 0.1 max

Zinc 0.010 ±0.002 0.1 max

Aluminium 98.8 ----- remainder

Due to the limited amount of weld material it proved very difficult to obtain a clear chemical

analysis. Data from an SEM analysis, shown in figure 15, shows an increase in magnesium

content, however, due to contamination from the parent material, the analysis could be from a

number of 5000 or 6000 series alloys.

Figure 15. SEM analysis of Parent and Weld Material

12

4 STATIC TEST RESULTS

4.1 COMMISSIONING TEST

The commissioning test was conducted on a rectangular specimen 144mm wide. The result of

this test was a specimen failure at one of the clamping bolt holes, see Figure A1(b).

Instrumentation for this test did not include strain gauges, however force and elongation were

successfully recorded.

4.2 ‘DOG BONE’ STATIC TESTS

Due to the specimen not failing at the weld, but within the clamping region, all further tests

were carried out on ‘dog bone’ specimens with a reduced width over the test length. The width

was reduced from 144mm to 122mm over the gauge length of 315mm. Figure 16 shows static

specimen 1 in place after testing.

The strain gauges were designated colours, blue was the strain gauge nearest the loadcell (above

the weld, on the inner skin of the original driving module as shown in Figures 3 and 10) and red

was the gauge nearest the anvil (below the weld, on the inner skin of the original driving

module as shown in Figures 3 and 10).

Figure 16. Specimen 1 post test

FES0509-01/14 FES0509-01/15

The static specimens showed necking either side of the weld boundary, indicating a ductile

failure with gross plastic deformation. The tensile fractures occurred within 7mm of the weld

boundary, except for specimen 2 where the fracture follows a non-linear path, Figure A3(b).

The summary of data for the tests is shown in Table 3

13

Table 3 Summary of data for static tests

Elongation (mm) Energy Absorbed

(J)

Test

Specimen

Temperature Maximum

Force (kN)

At Weld

Failure1At Ultimate

Failure

To Weld

Failure1Total

6(Commissioning)

14oC 198.2 12.2 NA NA NA

1 14oC NA 11.4 34.3 NA NA

2 14oC 171.9 11.5 34.1 1510 1708

3 14oC 171.3 11.7 36.0 1401 17171: Weld failure is defined as the event that causes the first significant decrease in tensile strength

Elongation & Force Histories, Energy and strain gauge graphs are shown in Appendix B

Figures B1 to B3 show Force and Elongation histories for specimens 6,2 and 3

The blue trace shows the force applied over time to the specimen and the red trace shows the

corresponding elongation over time of the specimen. The green line is zero. Figures B2 and B3

show drop out in force and corresponding elongation, due to the force being manually reduced

to allow inspection of the condition of the specimen.

Figures B8 to B10 show Force against Elongation for specimens 6,2 and 3

The trace shows force plotted against elongation thus removing the dependency of time and

hence the area under the graph gives the energy absorbed. The first area indicates the portion to

first and second failures, which occur at substantially the same time. The final ramp indicates

the specimen rotating about the remaining two webs as the specimen tries to straighten out, until

ultimate failure.

Figures B15 to B17 show Strain Gauge histories for specimens 1,2 and 3

The blue trace shows the strain recorded by the blue strain gauge over time, the red trace shows

the corresponding red gauge. The grey trace shows the force history applied to the specimen.

The green line is zero.

Figure B15 (specimen 1) shows no force data, as the force was not recorded for that test.

Flat tops indicate that the gauge has reached the maximum value it can record. Data recorded

after the flat top event is still valid, however, the gauge may have delaminated during the event.

Modifications to the logging system were made in an attempt to rectify this in subsequent tests.

The phase difference between the two gauge traces indicates that the blue gauge records a

greater strain before that of the red gauge, prior to delamination. This indicates that the section

of material to the loadcell end (above the weld, on the inner skin of the original driving module)

is weaker than that of the anvil side (below the weld, on the inner skin of the driving module).

As these tests are quasi-static the time base is not directly relevant but indicates the sequence of

events.

14

5 DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

5.1 HIGH SPEED CAMERA ANALYSIS

5.1.1 Impact Velocity

To calculate the impact speed of the impact truck a section of it carried markers. This section

provided a 113mm calibrated length. This allowed subsequent analysis and calibration of each

frame to determine the input velocity. Figure 16 shows an example of the analysis.

113mm

Frame 260 (0.0ms) Frame 330 (18.41ms) Frame 400 (36.82ms)

64.9mm

129.2mm

Figure 17. High speed camera velocity analysis for Specimen 5

As seen in Figure 17, frame 260 shows the calibrated section. Frames 330 and 400 show the

passage of the impact truck and how the displacement was measured, from which the velocity

was calculated.

Table 4 Analysis of high speed video for input velocity

Frame Distance travelled (mm) Velocity (m/s)

260 0 NA

330 64.9 3.53

400 129.2 3.51

5.1.2 Sample Elongation

A similar technique to that described in 5.1.1 was used to determine the elongation of the

sample during loading. Figure 17 shows an example of the analysis.

15

303mm 335mm 358mm

Frame 700 (0.0ms) Frame 900 (52.63ms) Frame 1100 (105.26ms)

Figure 18. High Speed Video Elongation Analysis for Specimen 5

As can be seen in Figure 18, frame 700 shows the calibrated section at zero elongation. Frames

900 and 1100 show the elongation of the specimen as loaded by the impact truck. Elongation is

calculated by the differential distance between the measured points. For accurate data analysis

all individual frames were considered in the calculation.

Table 5 Analysis of high speed video for specimen elongation

Frame Distance between markers (mm) Elongation (mm)

700 303 0

900 335 32

1100 358 55

5.2 FORCE AND ELONGATION DATA

Force values were derived from the loadcell output using pre-determined calibration values. The

force and elongation histories are shown in Appendix B along with force/elongation graphs

providing energy absorption.

Figures B4 to B7 show Force and Elongation histories for specimens 5,4,7 and 8

The blue trace shows the force applied over time to the specimen and the red trace shows the

corresponding elongation over time of the specimen. The green line is zero.

Figures B11 to B14 show Force against Elongation for specimens 5,4,7 and 8

The trace shows force plotted against elongation thus removing the dependency of time and

hence the area under the graph gives the energy absorbed. The first area indicates the portion to

first failure, the second peak shows when the second failure occurs. The slight negative force

after the second peak shows the specimen relieving some of the elastic energy after failure. The

final ramp indicates the specimen rotating about the remaining two webs as it tries to straighten

out, until ultimate failure.

16

The dynamic specimens showed necking either side of the weld boundary, indicating a ductile

failure with gross plastic deformation. The tensile fractures occurred within 7mm of the weld

boundary, except for specimen 8 where the fracture occurs 30mm from the weld boundary,

Figure A8(b).

The summary of data for the tests is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Summary of data for dynamic tests

Elongation (mm) Energy

Absorbed (J)

Test

Specimen

Temperature Impact

Velocity

(m/s)

Maximum

Force (kN)

At Weld

Failure1At

Ultimate

failure

To Weld

Failure1Total

5 7oC 3.5 179.5 12.4 47.9 1714 2246

4 8oC 4.6 178.8 11.6 45.8 1714 2598

7 7oC 5.5 181.4 14.8 47.2 2208 3078

8 7oC 4.7 177.5 9.4 45.1 1491 21911: Weld failure is defined as the event that causes the first significant decrease in tensile strength

5.3 STRAIN DATA

The data from the strain gauges is detailed in Appendix B. In all tests the strain gauges

delaminated from the parent material before fracture.

Figures B18 to B21 show Strain Gauge histories for specimens 5,4,7 and 8

The blue trace shows the strain recorded by the blue strain gauge over time, the red trace shows

the corresponding red gauge. The grey trace shows the force history applied to the specimen.

The green line is zero.

The phase difference between the two gauge traces indicates that the blue gauge records a

greater strain before that of the red gauge, prior to delamination. This indicates that the section

of material to the loadcell end (above the weld, on the inner skin of the original driving module)

is weaker, probably due to geometrical effects, than that of the anvil side (below the weld, on

the inner skin of the driving module).

5.4 FAILURE MODE

Figure 19 shows a sequence of images from the high speed video. The sequence shows the

mechanism in which specimen 8 fails during dynamic testing.

17

Figure 19. Sequence of High Speed Video Frames showing Failure Mechanism

18

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Table 7 shows a summary of the results.

Table 7 Summary of results

Specimen Type Maximum Force

(kN)

Elongation at Weld

Failure (mm)

Energy absorbed at

Weld Failure (J)

Averaged Averaged Averaged

1 Static NA 11.4 NA

2 Static 171.9 11.5 1510

3 Static 171.3 171.6

11.7

11.5

14011456

5 Dynamic 179.5 12.4 1714

4 Dynamic 178.8 11.6 1682

7 Dynamic 181.4 14.8 2208

8 Dynamic 177.5

179.3

9.4

12.1

1491

1774

It can be noted that:

the dynamic tests caused failure at greater forces than the static tests, on average 4.5%

the elongation averages for the dynamic tests are apparently 5.2 % greater than for the

static,

there is a significant increase in the energy absorption in dynamic loading, on average

21.8%. This increase is due in part to the increase in force to failure, but also due to the

shape of the force elongation curve (for example compare Figure B10 to B11).

there appears to be a significant increase in the energy absorption capabilities for higher

impact velocities. Due to the limited number of tests, however, this could be a factor of

statistical variance.

6.2 DISCUSSION

The mode of failure was fairly consistent, and the sequence of failure can be seen in Figure 18.

The first fracture to occur was usually less than 7mm from the weld boundary. The second

fracture to occur was on the opposite face and other side of the interlock, again usually less than

7mm from the weld boundary. This event has been referred to as weld failure. The third fracture

was caused by severe rotation of the area near the interlock as the specimen tries to straighten

out. The process can be seen in Figure 18. The exceptions to this were specimen 2 (static),

where the fracture follows a non-linear path, Figure A3(b), and specimen 8 (dynamic) where the

second fracture occurs 30mm from the weld boundary, Figure A8(b)

The data from the strain gauges indicates that the section of material to the loadcell end (above

the weld, on the inner skin of the original driving module) is weaker, probably due to

geometrical effects, than that of the anvil side (below the weld, on the inner skin of the driving

module). Both areas in which the strain gauges were placed experienced gross plastic

deformation

19

6.3 CONCLUSION

The parent material was determined to be 6063 aluminium alloy. The weld material could only

be narrowed down to 5000 or 6000 series aluminium alloy.

Necking is evident in all ‘dog bone’ tests, which suggests a similar ductile failure for all static

and dynamic tests.

It is clear from the project that a small number of experimental tests have shown a trend towards

greater strength, whilst not compromising ductility for dynamic loading.

In the dynamic tests, higher impact velocities appear to show a significant increase in the energy

absorption capabilities. However, as the number of tests was limited to four, this could only be

confirmed with further study.

20

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

This was a preliminary study and, given the limited number of specimens tested, further work

could utilise more specimens with a view to reducing variance in the results.

Further investigation into higher impact velocities could determine if higher strain rates result in

greater energy absorption and a reduction in the ductility of the material. Impact velocities on

the HSL impact test track can be increased up to 30m/s.

21

8 APPENDIX A SPECIMEN PHOTOGRAPHS

22

Figure A1 Static Specimen 6spec6.cdr

0512-036/100

0512-036/097

0512-036/116

(a) General View

(b) Plan View of Fracture

(c) Side View of Fracture

23


0512-036/072

0512-036/070

0512-036/111

(a) General View



24

0512-036/077

0512-036/075

0512-036/112

(a) General View




25


0512-036/082

0512-036/113

0512-036/084

(a) General View



26

Figure A5 Dynamic Specimen 5spec5.cdr

0512-036/094

0512-036/092

0512-036/114

(a) General View



27


0512-036/089

0512-036/087

0512-036/115

(a) General View



28


0512-036/104

0512-036/102

0512-036/117

(a) General View



29


0512-036/109

0512-036/107

0512-036/118

(a) General View



30

9 APPENDIX B GRAPHS OF RESULTS

31

Figure B1 Static Commission Specimen 6 Force & Elongation History

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Fo

rce

(kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200

0

20

40

60

Elo

nga

tio

n (

mm

)

\data\pend06.jnb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Figure B2 Static Specimen 2 Force & Elongation History

Time (s)

Elo

ng

atio

n (

mm

)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0 100 200 300 400

\data\pend02.jnb

32

Figure B3 Static Specimen 3 Force & Elongation History

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Forc

e (

kN

)

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Elo

nga

tion (

mm

)

\data\pend03.jnb

Figure B4 Dynamic Specimen 5 Force & Elongation History

Time (s)

0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Forc

e (

kN

)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-20

0

20

40

60

Elo

ng

atio

n (

mm

)

\data\pend05.jnb

33

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80


Time (s)

0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25

Forc

e (

kN

)

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Elo

ng

atio

n (

mm

)

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

\data\pend07.jnb


Time (s)

Elo

ng

atio

n (

mm

)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28

\data\pend04.jnb

34


Time (s)

0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30

Fo

rce

(kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200

0

20

40

60

Elo

nga

tio

n (

mm

)

\data\pend08.jnb

35

Force / ElongationEnergy Absorbed 1812J

Elongation (mm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0

50

100

150

200

Figure B8 Static Commission Specimen 6 Force Elongation\data\pend06.jnb

Force / ElongationEnergy Absorbed

To Weld Failure 1510J

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

To Ultimate Failure 1708J

Elongation (mm)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure B9 Static Specimen 2 Force Elongation\data\pend02.jnb

36


Weld Failure 1401J

0

50

100

150

200

Ultimate Failure 1717J

Elongation (mm)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure B10 Static Specimen 3 Force Elongation\data\pend03.jnb


Weld Failure 1714J

-50

0

50

100

150

200


Elongation (mm)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure B11 Dynamic Specimen 5 Force Elongation\data\pend05.jnb

37


Weld Failure 1682J

-50

0

50

100

150

200


Elongation (mm)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60



Weld Failure 2208J

-50

0

50

100

150

200


Elongation (mm)

Fo

rce

(kN

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


38


Weld Failure 1491J

-50

0

50

100

150

200


Elongation (mm)

Forc

e (

kN

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


39

Figure B15 Static Specimen 1 Strain Gauge Data

Time (s)

250 300 350 400 450

Str

ain

(m

m/m

m)

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012


Time (s)

100 150 200 250 300

Forc

e (

kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Str

ain

(m

m/m

m)

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

40

Time (s)

50 100 150 200 250

Forc

e (

kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200S

tra

in (

mm

/mm

)

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012


Figure B18 Dynamic Specimen 5 Strain Gauge Data

Time (s)

0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105 0.110 0.115 0.120

Forc

e (

kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Str

ain

(m

m/m

m)

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

41


Time (s)

0.220 0.225 0.230 0.235 0.240 0.245 0.250

Forc

e (

kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200S

train

(m

m/m

m)

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012


Time (s)

0.205 0.210 0.215 0.220 0.225 0.230 0.235

Fo

rce

(kN

)

Str

ain

(m

m/m

m)

42

Figure B21 Dynamic Specimen 8 Strain Gauge DataTime (s)

0.250 0.255 0.260 0.265 0.270 0.275 0.280

Fo

rce

(kN

)

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Str

ain

(m

m/m

m)

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

43

Documents

Project Leader: Science Group - HSE: Information … · The tensile tests were carried out in accordance with BS EN 895:1995 Destructive tests on welds in metallic materials – Transverse