AnsweredAssumed Answered

(non)Linear Dynamic or Drop Test: hammer impact study [Simulation]

Question asked by Christopher Schaefer on Aug 16, 2018
Latest reply on Aug 16, 2018 by Christopher Schaefer

Debating the pros and cons of using a Drop Test vs. a Dynamic (transient) analysis to replicate a hammer impact test. Approach being used in the lab is a "roving hammer" with a set of stationary accelerometers to measure response. Given the nature of the 3D geometry, a Drop Test won't capture every site on the model of interest but does capture a few.  Overall computational cost is relatively lower.


A fully transient analysis gets me the specific locations of interest at a higher comp cost but also more robust data to post-process. Ultimately, I need data in the frequency domain. Perhaps a Response Spectrum Analysis instead?

Finally, does anyone have experience replicating a hammer impact test?  Initially I was only going to split surfaces on the model and use a pulse at a node but I'm considering modeling the "hammer" and resolving the boundaries at contact. I realise this is more "expensive" but is it any more accurate?





ps- suggestion for simply supporting the 3d model?  I hang test specimens in the lab from a single point using a string.  I'd prefer to replicate this instead of imposing rigid boundary conditions along nodes either with constraints or 1-d elements.