Comparing drop impact test method using strain gauge measurements

Journal article (2009)

Authors

Y. Liu External organisation
FJHG Kessels External organisation
W.D. van Driel Computational Design and Mechanics - Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
J.A.S. van Driel Dynamics of Micro and Nano Systems - Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
FL Sun External organisation
GQ Zhang External organisation
Research Group
Computational Design and Mechanics (Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering) (TU Delft)
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

2009

Language

Undefined/Unknown

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

Department

Precision and Microsystems Engineering

Research Group

Computational Design and Mechanics

Abstract

In this paper, strain gauges are used to measure the dynamic response during drop impact. A set of high-speed data acquisition system is used to capture the real-time response of critical locations. Finite Element Modelling is used to determine where to place the strain gauge measurements. Two board level drop impact test methods, A and B, are compared by the strain gauge measurements. Results show significant differences in strain amplitude, strain rate, frequency, rebound, and damping. Method B produces higher strain amplitude, stronger rebound, and less damping, while method A produces higher frequency and strain rate. Damping and rebound are important factors for both test methods. The differences of two test methods are due to the contributions from test condition and test board. Combination test were conducted to investigate the contribution of test condition and test board. Results show that test board dominates strain amplitude, frequency, mode and damping, while test condition shows influence on strain amplitude and rebound. Test condition A produces higher strain amplitude, while test condition B produces stronger rebound. Test board A produces higher frequency, while test board B produces higher strain amplitude and less damping. Test board contributes more to the strain amplitude than test condition. Strain rate is dependent on both the test condition and test board.