See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263678524

Impact Loading Tests on Timber Beams

Article in IABSE Symposium Report · January 2001

DOI: 10.2749/222137801796348818

CITATIONS READS

4 3,320

3 authors, including:

Paola Ronca Jan-Willem van de Kuilen

Politecnico di Milano Technische Universität München
29 PUBLICATIONS 183 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 1,256 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural failure criteria of wood structures View project

Entwicklung eines Bausystems für Parkhäuser in Buchen-Furnierschichtholz View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan-Willem van de Kuilen on 27 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Impact loading tests on timber beams

Nicoletta BOCCHIO Paola RONCA Jan-Willem VAN DE KUILEN

Civil Engineer Associate Professor Assistant professor
Cormio Engineering Politecnico of Milan Delft University of Technology
Brescia, Italy Milan, Italy Delft, Netherlands

Nicoletta Bocchio, born 1973,
received her civil engineering degree
from the University of Brescia in
2000. She did her final project at Delft
University of Technology about
impact loading on timber beams. At
present she works at Cormio
Engineering.
Paola Ronca, born 1947, received
her Degree in Architecture from the
Politecnico di Milano and her Civil
Engineering Master degree from the
Waterloo University, Canada.
Rehabilitation of Historic Structures,
masonry and timber, is the main field
of her interest.
Jan-Willem van de Kuilen, born 1965,
received his civil engineering degree at
Delft University of Technology in 1989.
Since 2000 he has been working at Delft
University of Technology on duration of
load effects, rehabilitation of structures
and the use of timber in road and water
works.

Summary
The modification factor for duration of load kmod , between the static and the impact condition, in
timber beams is studied. For the comparison of static and impact bending strength two species,
Angelim vermelho (Dinizia excelsa) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziessi) have been
investigated. The beams have been strength graded and have been subdivided into 2 groups, with
the same strength distribution, to be tested under static or impact loading respectively. During the
impact loading tests the time of failure and the displacement of the beam in the middle section have
been recorded and the strength under impact loading has been calculated. The modification factor
for duration of load kmod is investigated and compared with duration of load equations from
literature.

Keywords: impact loading of timber, strength grading, guard rails.

1. Introduction
The study was initiated by Delft University of Technology on request of Ministry of Transport of
The Netherlands. The ministry has initiated the development of a new timber guard-rail for
highways because of environmental impact of the current zinc-coated steel barriers. In Europe the
safety level of guard rails is regulated in two performance based standards: NEN-EN 1317-1/2 [1],
[2]. The three main criteria that define the capabilities of a safety barrier are the containment level,
the impact severity and the deformation of the restraint system expressed by the working width. The
Standard specifies the characteristics of tests, in terms of impact speed, impact angle and mass of
the vehicle. The cases involved in the project are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Vehicle impact test criteria

Test Impact Speed Impact angle Total vehicle Type of vehicle
(Km/h) (degrees) mass (Kg)
TB11 100 20 900 Car
TB51 70 20 13000 Bus

The project for Dutch Highways studies barriers of H2 class, impact severity level A and Working
Width W8. A barrier of H2 level is tested by TB51 + TB11 (table 1). According to EN1317-1, it is
possible to determine a first estimate of the average force of the impact. At the beginning of the
collision against a safety barrier, the component of the velocity of the centre of gravity of the vehicle
perpendicular to the barrier is Vn = Vsinα resulting Vn = 6.65 m/s for TB51.
2. Tests

The test series have been started with the investigation of the elastic and dynamic moduli of
elasticity. According to the static modulus of elasticity, the beams have been selected dividing each
species group into two subgroups to be tested later in static bending moment or in impact tests. The
specimens measure approximately 130 x 40 x 1600 mm. The beams have been conditioned in a
climate room at 80-85 % relative humidity and at 20 ºC, instead of the standardised relative
humidity of 65%. This was done to have moisture content in the timber beams close to the outdoor
conditions. The moisture content (MC) has been checked with an electronic moisture meter until the
equilibrium was reached. Table 2 shows for each species the number of beams and the average
moisture content (MC).

Table 2 Countries of provenience, number of specimens involved and MC for each wood species
species English name Country of number MC
origin
n. %
Angelim Angelim Brazil 21 20
Douglas Douglas Canada 20 16

2.1 Modulus of Elasticity tests

The modulus of elasticity has been determined by static and dynamic test methods. The first is
based on the relationship between the deformation of a piece of timber and the load, while the
second is based on the relationship between the frequency of a freely vibrating piece of timber and
its modulus of elasticity. The European Standard EN 408 [3] describes the procedures to measure
the static modulus of elasticity for sawn timber. It gives requirements for a four-point bending test,
while the test executed in this research program is a three-point bending. This has been chosen with
the aim to be in accordance with the impact loading condition in an actual guardrail. The span of the
test set-up was 1400 mm. The beam is loaded with a central load of up to 96 KG. From the
deformation, the load and the cross sectional dimensions the modulus of elasticity has been
determined. The dynamic modulus of elasticity has been measured checking the longitudinal
eigenfrequency of the specimens. This method is based on the Euler beam theory and it is in use
also at the TNO Centre for Timber Research [4].

2.2 Grading
After the non-destructive tests, the beams of each species have been divided into two groups to be
static or impact tested. The division over the groups was such that the groups had the same strength
statistical distribution. The selection has been made using the static modulus of elasticity as
criterion for strength. The sorting has been performed with the Estat calculated previously with 96
kg. It was accepted that the correlation between strength and stiffness is sufficiently high to select
beams. Studies have shown that stiffness is a very important criterion for timber strength [5].

2.3 Static bending strength

On the selected beams of these species a three-point static bending test has been performed in DUT
laboratories for determining the modulus of rupture. The beam is loaded by a piston in three-point
bending with a constant rate of increase in load (load-controlled) until failure. The load is recorded
with a precision of 0.01 kN. The displacement with respect to the supports is indicated with a
transducer with a precision of 0.01 mm. The values of the maximum load Fmax and the load at
proportional limit Fpl (where the slope of the tangent to the load-deformation curve starts to
decrease) have been recorded for all the beams.

Table 3 Results of modulus of elasticity, modulus of rupture and stress at proportional limit
Angelim Douglas
Avg. SD k CV Avg. SD k CV
Mpa MPa Mpa MPa MPa Mpa
fpl 75.7 10.9 57.8 0.14 43.5 7.5 31.1 0.17
fs 125.2 15.5 99.7 0.12 72.7 11.4 54.0 0.16
Estat 18747.6 2856.7 14048.3 0.15 11596.8 2614.4 7296.1 0.23
The value of 60% of Fpl on Fmax characterises the behaviour of both the species.
The stress at proportional limit fpl and the modulus of rupture fs (the bending strength) has been
calculated on the assumption of elastic behaviour with the classical equation.
The static modulus of elasticity has been calculated taking into consideration the force-displacement
measurements in the loading area between 10% and 40% of Fmax (elastic region).
A statistical analyses have been carried out to determine the average, fifth percentile point or
characteristic value 5% (indicates with k), standard deviation and coefficient of variation and they
are shown in Table 3. The statistical distribution assumed is uniform.

2.4 Impact loading tests

After the performance of static bending moment tests, impact loading tests have been performed to
compare the results with the static tests and study the influence of time of loading on the strength.
All tests were performed in three point bending. The impact loading test setup consists of a main
vertical steel frame with a foundation block. The main frame has two steel columns that guide a
drop hammer. The hammer consists of a mass of 196 KG in such a shape that the centre of gravity is
below the centre of gravity of the timber beam to be hit by the mass. The hammer can be elevated
with a hoisting device to the height desired, locked to the frame and from here released. The
hammer is instrumented in the middle with one accelerometer from which it is supposed to find the
acceleration (and velocity and displacement) of the mass. The accelerometer is connected an
amplifier positioned on the falling mass. The beams are simple supported. The beam is hit in the
middle section where it is instrumented at the bottom with a displacement transducer that can
measure the deflection of the beam and is connected to an amplifier. The transducer has been placed
in a steel tube to be protected from the timber pieces after failure. After the failure of the beam the
hammer will come to rest on 4 springs with 4 hydraulic shock absorbers inside. The amplifier of the
accelerometer and the displacement transducer are connected to two electrical generators of ± 15
Volts. The data from the accelerometer and the displacement transducer are stored in the data
acquisition system. The tests have been videotaped using a high-speed camera, named Kodak Ekta
Pro 450mx Imager that can record 9000 frames per second (one frame every 0.111 ms). The
specimens of Douglas and Angelim selected have been tested as simple supported beams over a
span of 1400 mm and drop height of 2540 mm. Considering uniformly accelerated motion, the
impact velocity is v = 7.06 m/s and the period of falling of the mass is 0.72 s. The corresponding
impact energy is 4.88 kJ.

2.5 Time of failure, displacement and acceleration

For each beam the accelerometer and the displacement transducer give the graphs of the
acceleration of the mass versus time and the displacement of the beam in the middle section versus
time. From the analysis of the videotapes these data have been derived:
- the time of the first contact between the mass and the beam;
- the time of failure, considered the period since the first contact to when at the tension side of the
beam the failure of the fibres starts;
- the time of the first cracking, that is when a “finger” develops at tension side, and it remains
stable without influencing the beam failure;
- if beam and mass have always been in contact of not (due to the impact);
- if the transducer and beam have always been in contact or not.
The development of small cracks (that don’t lead to the beam failure) due to grain deviation occurs
only in Angelim wood. The average value of the time of failure for all the specimens without
distinction between the species is 8.01 ms. The times obtained from the videotapes have been used
to analyse the time – displacement graphs, obtaining the deformation of the beams at first cracking
and at failure. It is possible to give some considerations regarding the results obtained from the
impact loading tests.
• The average value of the time of failure for Angelim is 8.59 ms, while Douglas fails at 7.42 ms.
Angelim shows in some cases a small crack that does not lead to direct failure of the whole
beam. Total failure occurs in a later stage and sometimes at a different position.
• Angelim shows also a higher average value of the deformation in the middle section with 59.5
mm, while Douglas presents an average value of 48.2 mm.
• On the assumption of uniformly accelerated motion, the transducer graphs have been studied
and for both the species they present a first delay period, where the transducer does not record
 any deformations, than a period of acceleration followed by a deceleration period. In the
acceleration interval the beam reaches a velocity by equal to or a little higher than the mass at
the contact (7m/s). It can be correlated to the frames analysis, that shows that mass and beam are
together at the beginning of the impact, but then the beam has a higher velocity than the mass
and they loose contact. Then the mass touches the beam again and the beam, already inflected,
fails.
• Looking at the time of failure, for both the species the specimens can be divided into 2 groups
each having a distinct failure time. The first group fails after about 6-7 ms, the second after
about 10 ms. The beams belonging to the first group have a lower average value of Edyn and,
logically, of the displacement at the failure.
• From the high-speed camera pictures the modes of failure of the different species have been
studied. It can be concluded that Angelim fails producing long longitudinal fingers caused by
the grain direction of the wood fibres, while Douglas fails with a brittle tension with short fibres.
These failure modes have been identified also in the static tests, indicating the same failure
mode for both impact and static tests.

2.6 Comparison between Impact and Static tests: kmod

In Eurocode 5 the design value Xd of a material property with the characteristic Xk is defined as:

Xd = kmod .Xk/ γM
where kmod is the modification factor taking in account the effect on the strength of the duration of
the actions and the moisture and γM is the partial safety factor for the material property. During an
instantaneous load EC5 prescribes to use kmod=1.1 for the First and the Second Service Class.
After the execution of the static bending moment and of impact loading tests the results have been
compared to determine the modification factor kmod, present in EC5 [6].
The modulus of rupture fs for the beam tested under impact loading has been predicted applying
multiple regression analysis. From the impact loading tests, the load acting on the beam has not
been measured directly. The data measured are the time of failure and the displacement. From the
displacement the failure load has been deducted using 3-point bending load (static equivalent). The
analysis has started from a simplified model, in which the timber beam behaviour is assumed to be
linear-elastic. The data available are the maximum deformation at failure δFail, the geometric
dimensions and dynamic modulus of elasticity Edyn. On the assumption of linear-elastic behaviour it
is possible from δFail to determine the maximum load FFail using the classical equation:
48δ Fail ⋅ E dyn ⋅ I
F fail =
l3
where I is the modulus of inertia of the section. On the assumption of simple beam theory, the
maximum stress fd is determined from Ffail with the classical equation for three point-bending:
F fail ⋅ l
fd =
4W
where W is the section modulus. In order to compare the static and impact bending moment
strengths, the static strength values of the beams for impact loading have been estimated using the
regression analysis. The static strengths have been predicted using the density and the static and
dynamic modulus of elasticity.

Table 4 Correlation coefficients between fs and the properties

R2 R2 ρ Estat Edyn In Table 4 the regression coefficients
Angelim Douglas are given depending on the parameter
0.382 0.770 X used. For both the species the best
0.777 0.567 X correlation takes in account all the three
0.692 0.721 X properties. Thus, for all the beams
0.777 0.793 X X tested with impact loading the static
0.722 0.807 X X bending strength fs has been predicted
0.777 0.733 X X on the basis of the multiple regression
0.778 0.808 X X X equation.
The strengths calculated for the impact loading and the strengths predicted for static loading have
been compared to find the modification factor for duration of load kmod. The modification factor
kmod is equal to fd/fs. In table 5 the comparison between static and impact is presented and at the
bottom of the table the average values are reported. For Angelim, the impact strength is higher that
the static bending strength, resulting in a kmod of 1.34. For Douglas the effect of the time of loading
is very small with value of 1.02.

Table 5 Results of kmod for assumed linear-elastic behaviour for Angelim and Douglas
Angelim Douglas
N. fd fs fd/fs N. fd fs fd/fs
MPa MPa MPa MPa
1.01 2.1 67.5 84.27 0.80
1.05 2.2 49.0 56.03 0.87
1.08 86.4 101.47 0.85 2.8 97.4 68.75 1.42
1.09 191.6 124.39 1.54 2.9 50.7 71.53 0.71
1.13 158.9 105.05 1.51 2.13 43.2 66.34 0.65
1.15 128.3 124.05 1.03 2.16 104.3 77.74 1.34
1.16 171.6 121.33 1.41 2.18 63.1 67.31 0.94
1.18 199.2 117.57 1.69 2.19 101.4 69.75 1.45
fd av fsav kmod fd av fsav kmod
MPa MPa MPa MPa
156.0 115.64 1.34 72.1 70.22 1.02
The modification factors are shown in figure 2. It was found that the beams generally fail after 6-7
ms or 10 ms, independent of the species. Most of the beams that fail at 6-7 ms show a kmod smaller
than 1, from 0.7 to 1, while the beams that fail at 10 ms show kmod from 1.35 to 1.65. This may due
to the presence in some beams of defects, like knots or grain deviation or it could also due to
microscopic factors influencing the strength.

Kmod - Tfail (linear-elastic)

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Kmod

1.0 Angelim
0.8
0.6 Douglas
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tfail (ms)

Fig.2: Correlation between kmod and time of failure for Angelim and Douglas.
The failure modes of the beams in the 6-7 ms and 10 ms group have been studied. It was found that
Douglas shows the same brittle failure for the 6-7 and 10 ms groups, while Angelim beams that fail
at 10 ms show crack initiation due to grain deviations and then increased load carrying capacity
until final failure. The derived kmod factors have been compared to known time to failure equations.
From the combination of data from Wood, Liska and Elmendorf an empirical hyperbolic time to
failure was derived [7]. The equation is:
108.4
y = 0.04636 + 18.3
x
where: y is the stress in ratio to ultimate strength in a standard test and x is the duration of stress to
failure in seconds. The equations are presented in Figure 3 with the test data. The group that fails in
10ms coincides with the first hyperbolic curve, while it is higher that the extrapolation of Pearson
 equation. In both cases the group of beams that fail in a 6-7 ms have a lower value. The equations
are based on defect-free specimens. Since in this project not all the specimens were defect free, this
may have influenced the ratio between impact and static strength, as compared to the literature.
Kmod - Tfail

1.8 Tfail =10 ms

1.7
1.6
1.5 Wood - Liska
1.4 - Elmendorf
1.3
Douglas
Kmod

1.2
1.1 Angelim
1.0 Tfail =6-7
0.9 ms
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Tfail - (log seconds)

Figure 3: Modification factor kmod - time of failure relation for impact loading and Wood-Liska –
Elmendorf [9]

3 Discussion of the results

• The two species behave in different ways: the average value of the impact strength fd for
Angelim is higher than the average value of the static strength fs, while for Douglas they are almost
the same. Apparently, Angelim under impact loading presents an increase of the strength when
linear elastic behaviour until failure is presumed. The coefficients of variations of fd for Angelim are
lower than the coefficients for Douglas. The same happens for fs in static bending.
• The failure modes showed that Angelim compared to Douglas is more plastic, while Douglas is
more brittle.
• For Angelim the average value of the modification factor kmod is 1.34, while in Douglas the
effect of the impact loading is very small with a kmod average value of 1.02.
• Figure 3 indicates that two distinct times to failure can be identified with 6-7 ms and 10 ms
respectively. The 10 ms group coincides or is higher than the time to failure predicted by the
equation, while the 6-7 ms group shows kmod values lower than the ones of the equation.

4 References
[1] - EN 1317-1, Road restraint system- Part 1:Terminology and general criteria for test methods.
Brussels, 1994
[2] - EN1317-2, Road restraint system- Part 2: Safety barriers- Performance classes, impact test
acceptance criteria and test methods. Brussels, 1994
[3] - EN 408 Timber structures – Structural timber and glued laminated timber – determination of
some phisycal and mechanical properties. Brussels, 1995.
[4] – De Vries, P.; Gard, W.F. The development of a strength grading system for small diameter
roundwood. HERON, Vol.43, No.4, 1998
[5] – Tsehaye, A.; Buchanan, A.H.; Walker, J.C.F. A comparison of density and stiffness for
predicting wood quality. Journal of the Institute of Wood Science, Volume13, No.6, Winter 1995.
[6] - ENV 1995 Eurocodice 5 – Progettazione delle strutture in legno.
[7] – Madsen, B. Structural Behavior of Timber. Timber Engineering Ltd., North Vancouver,
Canada, 1992.

View publication stats