COMPOSITION

OUTER HANDLE CASING

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is a method of determining material composition based on spectra from the temporal coherence of an infrared source1. The material for the outer part of the fiberglass hammer handle was identified as Fortilene 9205, a polypropylene homopolymer (a polymer resulting from the polymerization of a single monomer). Some of the mechanical properties portraying the high mechanical strength of Fortilene 9205 are shown below2: Physical Property Value Hardness 72 (Shore D) Tensile Strength at break 37.2 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 1.4 GPa One property that was very evident during our testing was the very high modulus of elasticity -- when performing the three-point bend test, the glass fibers within the handle core snapped before the outer casing of the hammer deformed. Thus, the high modulus of elasticity of the polypropylene makes it a suitable material for a protective outer layer for the hammer handle.

STRENGTH
FIBERGLASS
The FTIR identified the center of the hammer handle as PPG Fiberglass 1062 Roving, which is made of E-glass fibers (typically composed of 54 % SiO2, 22% CaO+MgO, 14% Al2O3, 10 % B2O3 and approximately 2% Na2O+K2O) with polyester used as a glass-reinforced plastic3 . Even without glass fiber reinforcement, polyester is extremely suitable for this application as its mechanical properties demonstrate very high mechanical strength; tensile strength and yield strength are in the ranges of 150 GPa and 120 MPa, respectively4. The main advantage of fiber reinforced polymers is the high strength to weight ratios that the glass fibers provide. This is important for the application of our hammer, as the handle must have very high mechanical strength while still allowing the user to lift it comfortably.

INSTRON THREE-POINT TEST

Utilizing the Instron for a three-point-test, we were able to find the Youngs modulus of each of the materials, as well as the failure point for each hammer. In normal use, we estimated the load would not exceed 8,000N. The data we received from the Instron shows us that the load would have to be more than 5500 N to begin permanently deforming the wood and fiberglass hammers and 16,000 N for the metal hammer. In none of the cases will the hammer actually break from the stress, just permanently deform. Although the hammers will still survive this impact, it is unfair to compare these two values. The normal use calculation is for a short impact, and is dependent on a lot of things (most importantly the length of time of deceleration of the hammer). The material that is being struck will affect this greatly. Slowly pressing on the hammer is a much different form of deformation. The metal hammer deformed evenly throughout the load exerted on it (although the stress-strain plot doesnt extend that far). Each of the other hammers cracked internally a number of times resulting in nearly vertical drops in load it was able to carry as strain increased.

2000

StressStrain Curve
Wood Fiberglass Metal

1800

1600

1400

1200 Stress (MPa)

1000

800

600

CH2 H C CH3

The homopolymeric structure of polypropylene is shown to the right. The structure reveals a lot about the mechanical properties of the material, which primarily arise due to the strong covalent bonds that exist between the carbon and hydrogen atoms.

The longitudinally arranged glass fibers increase the flexural strength of the handle, which is important as the handle will undergo significant flexural stress during service. Silane is used as a coupling agent to bond the glass fibers with the polyester5.

400

200

Strain (percent)

10

12

14

Diagram showing cross section of the inner core of the fiberglass handle. The diagram shows longitudinally arranged E-glass fibers, embedded in a polyester resin, bonded with silane.

EXPLORING YOUNGS MODULUS

Examining the Youngs Modulus of each of the materials, we find that our experimental value is three orders of magnitude less than the expected value for the material. The best explanation for this discrepancy is the compliance of the Instron machine. Since the hammers are very strong, the machine is pushing against itself to a great degree; a small amount of compression within the machine will greatly affect the order of magnitude of the stress-strain curve. Type of Hammer Wood Fiberglass Metal Predicted Youngs Modulus (Pa) 15 G 40 G 200 G Experimental Youngs Modulus (Pa) 33 M 211 M 1.3 G

GRIPS
Our tests identified the grips of the fiberglass and AntiVibe hammers to be Kraton G7820 and HYCAR 1092 CEP rubbers, respectively. Graph showing method used to analyze FTIR results. The output data from the FTIR (black) was matched with data from the KnowItALL AnyWare database (red) to find the appropriate material composition. Here the results for the grip of the fiberglass hammer are shown (Kraton G7820); as we can see the curves do not match up well in the 500 1000 cm range, which could imply inaccuracies in our analysis.
TPEs do not rely on cross-linking for elasticity.

Kraton G7820 is a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) with a modulus of elasticity equal to 4826 kPa6. TPEs are copolymers (polymers derived from two or more monomeric units) that are made up of a mix of plastics and rubbers giving the material both plastic and elastomeric properties. Elastomeric properties are extremely relevant for the hammer grip, where the TPE is able to effectively absorb a lot of the vibration during service. HYCAR 1092 CEP rubbers is a nitrile rubber, an acrylonitrile (ACN) and butadiene copolymer. This has similar properties to Kraton G7820, with a large youngs modulus of approximately 3 MPa .

Styrene units located at the end of butadiene chains form strong spherical shaped domains that hold the chains together. Elastic deformation occurs by easy and recoverable motion of the butadiene repeat chains Kraton G7820 contains approximately 33/67 % styrene/ butadiene7

[REFERENCES COMPOSITION] 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_spectroscopy 2 Data from http://bambergerpolymers.matweb.com/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=PS P130&group=General 3 FTIR Data 4 CES Edupack Software, Polyester

http://bambergerpolymers.matweb.com/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=PSP130&gro up=General http://www.glscorporation.com/gls2/print.jsp?productID=179 7 Kraton Properties Guide, Krayton Polymers Inc. 8 Askeland, D. The Science and Engineering of Materials. 5th Edition. 2006, USA.
5 6

[REFERENCES VIBRATION] 1 http://ergorehabblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/ergonomics-vibration-risk-factors-and.html 2 http://ergonomics.about.com/od/vibrationsyndromes/qt/vwfrisks.htm 3 http://www. .efunda.com/materials/alloys/carbon_steels/show_carbon.cfm?ID=AISI_1040&prop=all&Page_ Title=AISI%2010xx 4 R.C. Yang, Z. Li and K. Chen; Research on Physical Significance of the Larson-Miller Parameter and Its Electron

Theory for Heat-Resistant Steels CES Edupack Software, E-Glass www.matweb.com, http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatID=71302 7 www.matweb.com, http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatID=169 8 Technical Data Sheet 1062 Roving, PPG Fiberglass
5 6

SETUP
Extended exposure to vibration can be damaging to the human body. Vibrations below 250 Hz can cause microtrauma1, and vibrations 5-500Hz and can cause vibration white finger, caused by the body narrowing small blood vessels in the fingers2. One of the hammers we investigated claimed to be anti-vibration, so we decided to investigate this claim, especially as the handle material was steel, which tends to be more rigid than the ohter materials. To test this claim, we obtained accelerometers and mounted them on three axes at the base of the hammer handle as shown on the right. The hammer handle was held in a vise, and the impact tester was used to deliver an impact to the head. An oscilliscope read the output of the accelerometers and allowed the data to be saved. The signals were run through a ACC-PSI Power Supply preamplifyer made by Omega Technologies

William Dvorak, Oliver Haas, Leif Jentoft and Adam Kenvarg | Olin College, February 2008
In this project, we analyzed the materials used in three types of hammers with handles of metal, fiberglass, and wood. The makers of the metal model claimed it was anti-vibration, while the makers of the fiberglass model claimed it was unbreakable. We investigated the designs and tested these claims with a number of methods. We used Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to determine the material composition of the non-metallic components, and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) to determine the composition of metallic components. Hardness was determined using Rockwell tests on the hammer faces. Vibration was measured with piezo accelerometers and analyzed spectrographically. Flexural strength and the Youngs modulus were determined by three-point bend tests on the Instron. Our tests confirmed the claims of the steel hammer manufacturer--while the hammer obviously still vibrated, the vibrations were pushed away from the damaging lowfrequency spectrum. The claims of the fiberglass were somewhat less strong--it definitely failed structurally, but the failure would not cause the head to break off the handle.

XRF
One of the most obviously important aspects of a hammer is the hardness of the metal head. To begin with, we wanted to find the elements used in the steel alloys. To do so, we used the x-ray fluorescence (XRF), which analyses the metallic elemental composition of a material by mass. Using this method, we found the alloys to only contain iron and manganese as their metallic elements in a ratio of approximately .6% manganese to 99.4% iron by weight. Like all carbon-steels, these alloys contained a certain amount of diffused carbon, but it is impossible to determine the amount using the XRF.

HARDNESS TESTING
The next step was to test the hardness of the hammer heads. To test this we used the Rockwell Hardness tester to test the Rockwell C scale hardness of the hammer faces. This method works by applying a standard force with a standard impact tip and then measuring the amount of depression caused. For each hammer we did three trials, and then averaged the results. Our three hammers were similar in hardness, although the head from the hickory handle did have a noticeably higher measurement. The HRC measurements were 48.3 for the head of the fiberglass hammer, 50.1 for that of the metal hammer, and 56 for the head from the hammer with the wood handle. It is theoretically possible to find the carbon content of a steel alloy by measuring the hardness, however, as with all hammer, ours were cases hardened, although using an unknown method. This prevented us from finding the exact amount of carbon, however, it does allow for an interesting study in crystallography of metals.

RESULTS

MARTENSITE
The steel shown at 1000x magnification displays the telltale signs of a phase of steel known as martensite. Martensite is seen as needlelike grains, with barely visible prior-austenite grain boundaries. Martensite is formed when a hot steel alloy is quenched (dunked in a cold liquid) which creates rapid cooling. Hot steel is in the austenite phase, which is changed to the lower energy body-centered-tetragonal form of martensite when energy in the form of heat is quickly removed. Although martensite is a relatively high-energy phase, the rapid cooling does not allow for diffusion and the formation of lower energy phases, which locks the atoms in this metastable phase. The importance of finding martensite is that it shows that the steel was case hardened through quenching or other rapid cooling methods. In addition, martensite with the examined harness values only occurs in medium-to-high-carbon steels, which does give us some indication of the steel alloy. Through analysis of the steel used in the hammer heads, we found that the steel used is a carbon-steel in the highmedium to low-high carbon range that has been casehardened through a process of quenching or other similar rapid cooling methods. This makes sense as it creates a head that will not dent after striking other hard objects repeatedly, but will not chip as the interior is still relatively soft and gives a bit on impact. These traits are exactly what one would want when designing a hammer.

The Accelerometers The Rockwell Hardness Tester

The Fourrier Transform of the vibration shows that the metal hammer has a lot of vibration in the upper frequencies but less in the lower frequencies. The wood hammer, on the other hand, has a significant response in both the high and the low range. The peak vibration frequency is linked to the Youngs Modulus of the material. Waves propagate down the material based on its mass and on its spring constant. Although the steel is the most dense at 7.85 g/ cc, its stiffness more than makes up for that; it is a medium- to high- carbon steel, which gives it a Youngs modulus of 190 -210 GPa3, caused by the high FeFe bond energy of 14.2827 kJ/mol4. Fiberglass, on the other hand, has a lower Youngs modulus. It is a composite, composed of polyester resin and 1062 Roving made by PPG Fiberglass, a type of E Glass. The fibers have a youngs modulus of 72-85 GPa5. In this case, the fibers are bonded with a polyester resin; these have a youngs modulus The density is roughly 2.40 g/cc7since it is a borosilicate glass8. For the wood hammer, the Youngs modulus is 15.2 - 15.3 GPa6, while its density is 0.720 g/cc[ref6]. Thus, it is not surprising that it has a relatively large vibration response in the lower frequency range.

The Impact Tester

VIBRATION

HARDNESS