Document Center is acquired by Nimonik

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the threshold value of impact-failure energy required to crack or break flat, rigid plastic specimens under various specified conditions of impact of a free-falling dart (tup), based on testing many specimens.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific hazard statements are given in Section 8.

1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

5.1 Plastics are viscoelastic and therefore are likely to be sensitive to changes in velocity of the mass falling on their surfaces. However, the velocity of a free-falling object is a function of the square root of the drop height. A change of a factor of two in the drop height will cause a change of only 1.4 in velocity. Hagan et al (2) found that the mean-failure energy of sheeting was constant at drop heights between 0.30 and 1.4 m. This suggests that a constant mass-variable height method will give the same results as the constant height-variable mass technique. On the other hand, different materials respond differently to changes in the velocity of impact. While both constant-mass and constant-height techniques are permitted by these methods, the constant-height method is to be used for those materials that are found to be rate-sensitive in the range of velocities encountered in falling-weight types of impact tests.

5.2 The test geometry FA causes a moderate level of stress concentration and is often used for most plastics.

5.3 Geometry FB causes a greater stress concentration and results in failure of tough or thick specimens that do not fail with Geometry FA (3). This approach at times will produce a punch shear failure on thick sheet. If that type of failure is undesirable, Geometry FC is to be used. Geometry FB is suitable for research and development because of the smaller test area required.

5.4 The test conditions of Geometry FC are the same as those of Test Method A of Test Method D1709. They have been used in specifications for extruded sheeting. A limitation of this geometry is that considerable material is required.

5.5 The test conditions of Geometry FD are the same as for Test Method D3763.

5.6 The test conditions of Geometry FE are the same as for ISO 6603-1.

5.7 Because of the nature of impact testing, the selection of a test method and tup must be somewhat arbitrary. Although a choice of tup geometries is available, knowledge of the final or intended end-use application shall be considered.

5.8 Clamping of the test specimen will improve the precision of the data. Therefore, clamping is recommended. However, with rigid specimens, it is possible to get valid determinations without clamping. Unclamped specimens tend to exhibit greater impact resistance.

5.9 Before proceeding with this test method, reference the specification of the material being tested. Table 1 of Classification System D4000 lists the ASTM materials standards that currently exist. Any test specimens preparation, conditioning, dimensions, or testing parameters or combination thereof covered in the relevant ASTM materials specification shall take precedence over those mentioned in this test method. If there are no relevant ASTM material specifications, then the default conditions apply.