FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF HAMMOCKS TEST REPORT

(1)

The results presented in this document have meaning restricted and applies only to the sample(s) tested. This Test Report cannot be reproduced, except in full, without prior written permission of the Company. ASTEF – Associação Téc. Científico Engº Paulo Fortim - CNPJ 07.778137/0001-10 - Insc. Municipal 16.130-6 LAMEFF- Laboratório de Mecânica da Fratura e Fadiga – Campus do Pici – Bloco 729 – Fortaleza-CE CEP: 60.455-760 – Fone: (85) 3366 9075

FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF HAMMOCKS

TEST REPORT

Version

<1.0>

(2)

REPORT No. RT13-21

DEPARTMENT OF METALLURGY AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING LABORATORY FOR FRACTURE MECHANICS AND FATIGUE

TEST REQUIRED: STRENGTH TEST PRODUCT DESCRIPTION : HAMMOCKS VENDOR: MARAÑON HAMMOCKS BV

1.

DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES

Nine (9) hammocks divided into three (3) different models:

Model 1 - 160 kg. Model 2 - 160 kg. Model 3 - 160 kg. Model 4 - 180 kg. Model 5 - 180 kg. Model 6 - 240 kg. Model 7 - 240 kg. Model 8 - 240 kg. Model 9 - 180 kg.

2. VISUAL INSPECTION.

Visual inspection was carried out on all hammocks and it was observed the following points:

 Good appearance;

 Absence of defects in fabric and stitching;

(3)

3. FLEXURAL STRENGTH TESTING

To analysis of the mechanical behavior of the hammocks, it was used the load assembly as indicated in figure 1. For each flexural test, measurements of loads, hammocks deflections and fabric inspection were made. The load is gradually increased until the specimen breaks.

Figure 1 – Flexural Test Assembly

4. TEST RESULTS.

It was performed 9 (nine) tests of hammocks under the service condition of and the results are shown in the following tables:

(4)

Model 1 – 160 kg.

Figure 2 - Model 1

Model Admissible load (Kg) Failure Load

(Kg) Comments

1 520 800 There was no crackling.

Fabric Break at 800 kg.

(5)

Model 2 – 160 kg.

Figure 3 – Model 2.

2 495,78 762,75

There was no crackling. On the side of Rupture

occurred abruptly at the end of the wood support. Table 2 - Test results for Model 2.

(6)

Model 3- 160 kg.

Figure 4 - Model 3

Model Admissible load (Kg)

Failure Load

3 520 800 No snaps.

No breakage.

(7)

Model 4 - 180Kg

Figure 5 - Model 4

4 520 800  No snaps.

 No breakage.

(8)

Model 5 – 180Kg.

Figure 6 - Model 5

5 412,53 637,75

There was no crackling 637.75.

Break occurred in the lateral edge of the wood support.

(9)

Model 6 – 240Kg.

Figure 7 - Model 6

6

520 800 No snaps.

Not Broke.

(10)

Model 7 – 240Kg

Figure 8 - Model 7

Model Admissible load (Kg) Failure Load (Kg) Comments

7 520 800  No snaps.

 No breakage.

(11)

Model 8 – 240Kg.

Figure 9 - Model 8

8 ₅₂₀ ₈₀₀  No snaps.

 No breakage.

(12)

Model 9 – 180Kg

Figura 10 - Modelo 9

9 ₅₂₀ ₈₀₀  No snaps

 No breakage

(13)

5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

In the visual inspection, no critical or serious flaws were found, and also a good finishing was seen. The standard height of the base of the hammock to the ground was 1 m and the minimum standard height allowed for the trial is 10 cm.

In the trial of model 1 – The hammock broke at the contact area with the end of the supporting wood and had a resistance of 800 kg.

The hammock’s elasticity was very high and its base was at the limit height (10 cm) to the ground. Its maximum load for a safety coefficient of 35% was 520 kg.

In the trial of model 2 – The hammock broke at the contact area with the end of the supporting wood and had a resistance of 762.72 kg. The hammock’s elasticity was very high and its base was close to the limit height (10 cm) to the ground. Its maximum load for a safety coefficient of 35% was 520 kg.

In the trial of model 3 – The hammock did not break and had a resistance of 800 kg. The hammock’s elasticity was very high and its base was at the limit height (10 cm) to the ground. Its maximum load for a safety coefficient of 35% was 520 kg.

In the trial of model 4 – The hammock did not break and had a resistance of 800 kg. The hammock’s elasticity was very high and its base was below the limit height (10 cm) to the ground. Its maximum load for a safety coefficient of 35% was 520 kg.

In the trial of model 5 – The hammock broke at the contact area with the end of the supporting wood and had a resistance of 637.75 kg. Its maximum load for a safety coefficient of 35% was 520 kg.

In the trial of model 7 – The hammock did not break and had a resistance of 800 kg. The hammock’s elasticity was very high and its base was below the limit height (10 cm) to the ground. The end of the support wood left relief marks on the hammock. Its maximum load for a safety coefficient of 35% was 520 kg.

(14)

6. EQUIPMENT USED.

 Steel reaction frame;  Pneumatic actuator;

 Steel Structure for fixing hammock;

7. GENERAL TABLE.

Model

Admissible load.

Safety factor 35%.

Model 1 520 Model 2 495,78 Model 3 520 Model 4 520 Model 5 412,53 Model 6 520 Model 7 520 Model 8 520 Model 9 520 Table 10.

(15)