Materials and Design 31 (2010) 396–401

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Stress–strain behavior of composites under high strain rate compression along

thickness direction: Effect of loading condition
N.K. Naik *, Kavala Venkateswara Rao, Ch. Veerraju, G. Ravikumar
Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Investigations are carried out on the behavior of typical plain weave E-glass/epoxy; plain weave carbon/
Received 8 March 2009 epoxy; satin weave carbon/epoxy; and satin weave carbon – plain weave E-glass and epoxy hybrid com-
Accepted 3 June 2009 posites under high strain rate compressive loading along thickness direction. Compressive split Hopkin-
Available online 6 June 2009
son pressure bar apparatus was used for the studies. Two loading cases, namely, specimen not failed and
specimen failed during loading are investigated. The special characteristics of specimen not failed case
Keywords: are presented. For this case, the specimens are under compressive strain initially and are under tensile
Polymer matrix composites
strain during the later part of loading. The induced tensile strain is higher than the induced compressive
Mechanical properties
Impact
strain. This could lead to failure of specimen/structure under tensile strain even though the applied load
is compressive.
Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction The objective of the present study is to investigate the behavior

Polymer matrix composites are widely used in different high
performance structural applications during the last four decades.
Over the service life, the structures undergo different loading con-
ditions such as static/quasi-static, vibratory, creep, impact, blast
and fatigue. For their effective use in high performance applica-
tions, the behavior of such materials under high strain rate loading
should be fully understood. Even though typical studies are avail-
able on the mechanical behavior of composite materials under high
strain rate loading, the information is not complete for all the load-
ing conditions.
Initial studies on high strain rate testing of materials are pre-
sented in [1–5]. Split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus is
widely used for the studies on high strain rate behavior of materi-
als [6–8]. There are typical studies on the compressive behavior of
composites under high strain rate loading [8–15]. Critical reviews
are presented on this subject [16–18]. Behavior of composites un-
der transverse impact loading is one of the critical design require-
ments. For this high strain rate compressive studies are required
along thickness direction. Typical studies are available on this sub-
ject [8,19–26]. Based on the loading conditions, the specimens may
fail or may not fail. The studies available in the literature are for the
cases when the specimens have failed during compressive high
strain rate loading. The behavior of composites can be different
when the specimen does not fail during loading.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 2576 7114; fax: +91 22 2572 2602.
E-mail address: nknaik@aero.iitb.ac.in (N.K. Naik).
of typical polymer matrix composites under high strain rate com-
pressive loading along thickness direction. Studies are carried out
on typical plain weave E-glass/epoxy; plain weave carbon/epoxy;
satin weave carbon/epoxy; and satin weave carbon – plain weave
E-glass and epoxy hybrid composites. Special characteristics of
the case ‘‘specimen not failed” during loading are investigated.
Specifications of tows/strands, fabrics, resin and composites for
plain weave E-glass/epoxy and plain weave T300 carbon/epoxy are
presented in Appendix. Satin weave carbon/epoxy composites
were made using 8H fabric of T300 carbon. Thickness of the satin
weave T300 carbon layer was 0.34 mm. Fiber volume fraction
was 0.56. For hybrid composites, 55% of carbon T300 and 45% glass
were used. Fiber volume fraction was 0.53.
2. Compressive split Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus
2.1. Experimental technique and data acquisition
The standard compressive SHPB apparatus as shown in Fig. 1
was used for the studies. The main parts of the compressive SHPB
apparatus are: propelling mechanism, striker bar, incident bar,
transmitter bar and support stand. The diameter of the incident
and transmitter bars is 12 mm and the length was varied in the
range of 1000–1400 mm. The length of the striker bar was varied
in the range of 150–430 mm. The bars are made of SUS440C mar-
tensite stainless steel with Young’s modulus of 203 GPa and den-
sity of 7667 kg/m3.
When the striker bar impacts the incident bar, an elastic stress
pulse is generated and travels along the incident bar. When the

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.06.005
 N.K. Naik et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 396–401
Fig. 1. Compressive split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus: (a) schematic
arrangement and (b) photograph.
pulse reaches the specimen, which is sandwiched between the
incident and transmitter bars, part of the pulse is reflected and
the remaining part is transmitted through the specimen to the
transmitter bar. The strain gauges A and B are placed at the centers
of incident and transmitter bars respectively for providing the
time-resolved measure of the signals. Strain gauge A measures
both the incident and reflected pulses, whereas strain gauge B
measures the transmitted pulse. The strain gauges are installed
midway of the incident and transmitter bars to avoid overlapping
of the reflected signal with the incident signal and to keep the time
taken the same for both the signals to avoid time calculations dur-
ing measurements of the strain. The specimen then undergoes dy-
namic elastic-plastic deformation. From the reflected pulse, the
strain rate applied and the strain in the specimen are estimated,
and the transmitted pulse provides a measure of the stress.
The entire strain/deformation history within the specimen can
be obtained by taking measurements along the incident and trans-
mitter bars from strain gauges with the assistance of amplifier and
oscilloscope. From these signals and using one-dimensional wave
propagation theory, strain rate verses time, strain verses time,
stress verses time and stress verses strain history in the specimen
can be determined.
2.2. Specimen design and dimensions
Specimen design is one of the most important considerations in
SHPB testing. From the literature it is observed that cylindrical
specimens with L/D ratio of 0.5–2.0 are suitable for compressive
SHPB testing of polymer matrix composites [27]. The specimen
geometry and L/D ratio are important to achieve dynamic stress
equilibrium within the specimen. Further, it also controls the strain
rates generated.
In all the experiments, cylindrical specimens with L/D ratio of
0.75 were used. The diameter of the specimen used was 8 mm. This
ensures the impact on full cross-section of the specimen and also
permits the specimen to expand along radial direction within the
cross-sectional area of the bars after the compressive load is
applied.
Since the specimen diameter is less than the diameter of inci-
dent and transmitter bars, there can be deformations on the faces
of incident and transmitted bars after repeated usage. Flatness of
faces of incident and transmitter bars was monitored and the faces
were re-ground periodically to make them planar.
397
2.3. Pulse shaper technique
To increase the rise time, smoothen the pulse and to modify the
shape of the pulse, a pulse shaper was used. Three different mate-
rials, namely copper, brass and aluminum were used for making
the pulse shapers. The diameter of pulse shaper is 12.5 mm
whereas the thickness was varied in the range of 0.5–3 mm.
3. Theory
The design of SHPB is based on one-dimensional wave propaga-
tion in elastic bars which deals with the motion of particles in lon-
gitudinal direction. The one-dimensional system can ideally be
considered to be of infinite length and negligible diameter. Since
it is not possible in practice, the theory is adopted with certain
approximations. The analytical relations to calculate strain rate,
strain and stress as a function of time in the specimen in SHPB test-
ing are:
The strain rate; e_ S ðtÞ ¼ ð2C 0 =lS ÞeR ðtÞ ð1Þ
Z t
The average strain; eS ðtÞ ¼ ð2C 0 =lS Þ eR ðtÞ  dt ð2Þ
0
AB
The stress; rS ðtÞ ¼ E eT ðtÞ ð3Þ
AS
where C0 is the elastic wave velocity in the bars, lS the specimen
gauge length, AB the cross-sectional area of the bars, AS the cross-
sectional area of the specimen, E the Young’s modulus of the bars,
eR the reflected strain pulse, eT the transmitted strain pulse and t
is the time duration.
4. Calibration of compressive SHPB apparatus
For commissioning and assessing the accuracy of SHPB appara-
tus, calibration was carried out first. During calibration, the two
elastic bars were wrung together without a specimen sandwiched
between them. Lubrication was applied between the bars to mini-
mize friction. With this the incident and transmitter bars can be
treated as a single bar. Strain gauge signals on the oscilloscope dur-
ing calibration are presented in Fig. 2a. Channel 1 indicates the out-
put of the strain gauge mounted on the incident bar whereas
channel 2 indicates the output of the strain gauge mounted on
the transmitter bar. Here, I is the incident pulse with pulse dura-
tion equal to a1a2 whereas T is the transmitted pulse with pulse
duration equal to b1b2. During calibration, reflected pulse (R) is
not present. The amplitude and duration of incident and transmit-
ted pulses are nearly the same.
Force versus time plots are obtained from the strain gauge signals
and are presented in Fig. 2b. The force history obtained based on the
strain gauge mounted on the incident bar is indicated by F1 whereas
the force history obtained based on the strain gauge mounted on the
transmitter bar is indicated as F2. It may be noted that the force his-
tory obtained F1 and F2 match very well. This indicates that the stress
states within the incident bar and transmitter bar are exactly the
same. This ensures that the SHPB apparatus is perfectly aligned
and friction free. The apparatus is ready for further investigations.
5. Experiments
Studies were carried out on compressive SHPB apparatus
(Fig. 1). For the experimental studies, cylindrical specimens of
8 mm diameter and 6 mm length were used. The axis of the spec-
imens was along thickness direction of the composites.
The experimental studies were carried out at two different load-
ing conditions. In the first loading case, the applied force was so ad-
398 N.K. Naik et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 396–401
Fig. 2. Compressive SHPB test results obtained during calibration: (a) strain gauge
signals on oscilloscope and (b) force versus time behavior.
justed that the specimens were failing during compressive loading.
High strain rate compressive strength was obtained by these stud-
ies. Most of the studies available in literature are of this type. High
strain rate compressive strength properties for plain weave E-
glass/epoxy and plain weave T300 carbon/epoxy are presented in
[8].
There can be high strain rate compressive loading at which the
specimen/structure may not fail during loading. This may be be-
cause the induced compressive stress during loading is less than
the failure stress. Such studies are of interest. In the second loading
case considered, the applied force was so adjusted that the induced
compressive stress was less than the failure stress. In this case
specimen does not fail.
6. Results and discussion
Strain gauge signals obtained on oscilloscope during high strain
rate testing for plain weave E-glass/epoxy along thickness direc-
tion are presented in Fig. 3. Channel 1 indicates the output of the
strain gauge mounted on the incident bar whereas channel 2 indi-
cates the output of the strain gauge mounted on the transmitter
bar. Here, I is the incident pulse with pulse duration equal to
a1a2 whereas R is the reflected pulse with pulse duration equal
to a3a4. And T is the transmitted pulse. Point P indicates the rise
time. It may be noted that the pulse durations for incident and re-
flected signals are the same for the case when the specimen has
failed, i.e., for loading case 1 (Fig. 3a). On the other hand, the re-
flected and transmitted pulse durations are more than the incident
pulse duration for the case when the specimen has not failed, i.e.,
for loading case 2 (Fig. 3b). It may be noted that a1a2 = 195 ls for
Fig. 3. Strain gauge signals from high strain rate compressive test on SHPB – along
thickness, plain weave E-glass/epoxy: (a) specimen failed and (b) specimen not
failed.
both the loading cases, one and two. For loading case 1,
a1a2 = a3a4 where as for loading case 2, a1a2 < a3a4.
Fig. 4 presents time versus strain rate, time versus strain and
time versus stress plots for loading case 1. These plots were ob-
tained using strain gauge signals given in Fig. 3a and the analytical
relations to calculate strain rate, strain and stress as a function of
time in the specimen in SHPB testing. Here, point A indicates first
peak strain rate. Point E indicates peak stress. Detailed studies for
the case when the specimen has failed are presented in [8]. It may
be noted that, during the damage process, the strain rate is not
constant. The peak stress is reached at a time interval of 62 ls.
For loading case 2, time versus strain rate, time versus strain
and time versus stress plots are presented in Fig. 5. These plots
were obtained using strain gauge signals as given in Fig. 3b. It is
interesting to note that, even though applied loading is compres-
sive, the strain rate and strain change from compressive to tensile
during loading. In Fig. 5, point A indicates peak compressive strain
rate whereas point C indicates peak tensile strain rate. At point B,
the strain rate changes from compressive to tensile. At point D,
strain changes from compressive to tensile. Point E indicates peak
stress. The peak stress is reached at a time interval of 128 ls.
Fig. 6a presents stress versus strain plot for the case when the
specimen has failed whereas Fig. 6b presents stress versus strain
plot for the case when the specimen has not failed for plain weave
E-glass/epoxy. In Fig. 6a, point E indicates the peak stress, i.e., the
compressive strength of the specimen. It may be noted that com-
pressive strength is 540 MPa at strain rate of 1305 s1. The quasi-
 N.K. Naik et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 396–401
Fig. 4. High strain rate compressive test results for plain weave E-glass/epoxy –
along thickness, specimen failed: (a) time versus strain rate plot, (b) time versus
strain plot and (c) time versus stress plot.
static compressive strength is 420 MPa along thickness direction.
The quasi-static tests were carried out on universal testing ma-
chine using similar specimens as used for SHPB testing.
Stress–strain curve, in Fig. 6b, is for loading case 2. In this case
the specimen does not fail. Point E indicates peak compressive
stress for the loading considered. In this case the induced peek
stress is 352 MPa. Even though the loading is compressive, induced
strain changes from compressive to tensile at point D. The peak
stress at point E can vary based on the applied compressive load-
ing. As the applied compressive loading is increased, the stress–
strain diagram as shown in Fig. 6b would be tending towards the
stress–strain diagram as shown in Fig. 6a. It may be noted that
the strain state changing from compressive to tensile during com-
pressive loading is only for loading case 2. The reason for this is ex-
plained below.
Schematic of strain state in the specimen and the bars during
high strain rate compressive loading is presented in Fig. 7. Fig. 7a
is for loading case 1. Here, the incident pulse duration a1a2 is
195 ls. It may be noted that the failure of the specimen has taken
place at a time interval of 62 ls. The plots given in Fig. 4 beyond
62 ls would indicate post failure behavior. The bars and the spec-
imen are under compression throughout this duration.
As the striker bar hits the incident bar, energy input into the
system is absorbed by the specimen in the form of fracture energy
399
Fig. 5. High strain rate compressive test results for plain weave E-glass/epoxy –
along thickness, specimen not failed: (a) time versus strain rate plot, (b) time versus
strain plot and (c) time versus stress plot.
and elastic strain energy. For loading case 1, the specimen has no
stored elastic strain energy at the end of loading event. The entire
energy is absorbed in the form of fracture energy. In this case, the
duration for incident and reflected signals is nearly the same
(Fig. 3a). The strain rate and strain are compressive throughout
the loading (Fig. 4a and b).
Fig. 7b is for loading case 2. For this case, the energy stored in
the specimen would be predominantly in the form of elastic strain
energy. The energy absorbed in the form of fracture energy would
be practically equal to zero. The peak stress is reached at a time
interval of 128 ls.
For loading case 2, the bars would be exerting compressive load-
ing on to the specimen for the incident pulse duration a1a2 equal to
195 ls (Fig. 3b). Since the specimen is not failing during loading, the
stored elastic strain energy in the specimen would be released dur-
ing the later part of the loading process. The strain rate is changing
from compressive to tensile at point B at time duration of 45 ls
(Fig. 5a) whereas the strain is changing from compressive to tensile
at point D at time duration of 137 ls (Fig. 5b). Up to time duration of
137 ls, both the bars and the specimen would be under compressive
strain (Fig. 7b (i)). Because of the induced tensile strain after 137 ls,
the specimen would elongate up to its original length and possibly
further due to dynamic effect. The strain state is shown in Fig. 7b
(ii). Even though the resultant strain is compressive up to 137 ls,
the tensile strain would be superimposed on the compressive strain
after 45 ls in the specimen.
400 N.K. Naik et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 396–401

The contact between the specimen and the bars is maintained

throughout the loading cycle. This is because, even though the
specimen is under tensile strain during the later part of loading,
the bars are still exerting compressive load.
Fig. 8 presents stress–strain plots for loading case 2 for plain
weave carbon/epoxy; satin weave carbon/epoxy; and satin weave
carbon – plain weave E-glass and epoxy hybrid composites. The
qualitative behavior of these materials is similar to that of plain
weave E-glass epoxy (Fig. 6b). The stress at E does not indicate
the compressive strength. But it indicates the peak stress induced
for the applied loading condition. It may be noted that the in-
duced tensile strain is higher than the induced compressive
strain.
The compressive strength is 532 MPa, 593 MPa, 621 MPa and
680 MPa at strain rate of 1503 s1 for plain weave carbon/epoxy;
plain weave E-glass/epoxy; satin weave carbon/epoxy; and satin
weave carbon – plain weave E-glass and epoxy hybrid composites,
respectively [26].
From Figs. 6b and 8, it can be seen that the strain is compressive
initially and tensile later in the specimen. In the third quadrant,
both the stress and strain are compressive whereas in the forth
quadrant, the stress is compressive whereas the strain is tensile.
This phenomenon can be compared to Bouchenger effect [28].

Fig. 6. Stress versus strain plot from high strain rate compressive test on SHPB –
along thickness, plain weave E-glass/epoxy: (a) specimen failed and (b) specimen
not failed.

Fig. 7. Schematic of strain state in the specimen during high strain rate compres-
sive test on SHPB – along thickness: (a) loading case 1 and (b) loading case 2.

When the specimen is expanding, the strain energy stored in

the specimen would be transferred to the incident and transmit-
ter bars. The specimen would exert pressure on both the incident
and transmitter bars. This is possible because the specimen has
not failed and has a lot of elastic strain energy stored within it.
The pulses generated due to this would be superimposed on
the earlier transmitted and reflected pulses. This would lead to
longer pulse duration for reflected and transmitted pulses
(Fig. 3b).
The strain would be compressive initially in both the bars and
specimen as shown in Fig. 7b (i). It would be tensile in the speci-
men during later part of loading. But the strain would be compres-
sive in the bars even after the tensile strain is induced in the
Fig. 8. Stress versus strain plot from high strain rate compressive test on SHPB –
specimen (Fig. 7b (ii)). The change of strain state from compressive along thickness, specimen not failed: (a) plain weave carbon/epoxy, (b) satin weave
to tensile in the specimen can be visualized from the strain gauge carbon/epoxy and (c) satin weave carbon – plain weave E-glass and epoxy hybrid
signals obtained on the oscilloscope (Fig. 3b). composite.
 N.K. Naik et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 396–401 401

7. Conclusions [3] Hopkinson B. The effects of momentary stress in metals. Proc Phys Soc London
1904–1905;A74:498–506.
[4] Hopkinson B. A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation
For loading case 2, i.e., when the specimen has not failed during of high explosives by the impact of bullets. Philos Trans Roy Soc A
high strain rate compressive loading, specimens/structures are un- 1914;A213:437–56.
[5] Kolsky H. An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very
der compressive strain initially and would be under tensile strain
high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc London 1949;B62:676–700.
during the later part of loading. [6] Sierakowski RL, Chaturvedi SK. Dynamic loading and characterization of fiber-
The induced tensile strain is higher than the induced compres- reinforced composites. New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication; 1997. p.
41–78.
sive strain. Due to this, even if the specimens/structures do not fail
[7] Kuhn H, Medlin D, editors. ASM handbook: mechanical testing and evaluation,
under compression, they could fail under tension. vol. 8. Ohio: ASM International, Materials Park; 2000.
The overall stress–strain behavior is the same qualitatively for [8] Naik NK, Venkateswara Rao K. High strain rate behavior of woven fabric
the four material systems studied. composites under compressive loading. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;474:301–11.
[9] Harding J. Effect of strain rate and specimen geometry on the compressive
strength of woven glass-reinforced epoxy laminates. Composites
Acknowledgement 1993;24:323–32.
[10] Hsiao HM, Daniel IM, Cordes RD. Dynamic compressive behavior of thick
composite materials. Exp Mech 1998;38:172–80.
This work was partially supported by the Structures Panel, [11] Hou JP, Ruiz C. Measurement of the properties of woven CFRP T300/914 at
Aeronautics Research and Development Board, Ministry of Defense, different strain rates. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:2829–34.
Government of India, Grant No. DARO/08/1051204/M/I. [12] Gilat A, Golberg RK, Roberts GD. Experimental study of strain rate dependent
behavior of carbon/epoxy composite. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1469–76.
[13] Vural M, Ravichandran G. Transverse failure in thick S2-glass/epoxy fiber-
Appendix A reinforced composites. J Compos Mater 2004;38:609–23.
[14] Bing Q, Sun CT. Modeling and testing strain rate dependent compressive
strength of carbon/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:2481–91.
Specifications of tows/strands, fabrics, resin and composites [15] Tarfaoui M, Choukri S, Neme A. Effect of fibre orientation on mechanical
properties of the laminated polymer composites subjected to out-of-plane
Property T300 carbon/epoxy E-glass/ high strain rate compressive loadings. Compos Sci Technol 2008;68:477–85.
epoxy [16] Sierakowski RL. Strain rate effects in composites. J Appl Mech
1997;50:741–61.
Reinforcement T300 carbon E-glass [17] Gama BA, Lopatnikov SL, Gillespie Jr JW. Hopkinson bar experimental
Filament diameter (lm) 7 20 technique: a critical review. Appl Mech Rev 2004;57:223–49.
[18] Jacob GC, Starbuck JM, Fellers JF, Simunovic S, Boeman RG. Strain rate effects
Filament density (gm/cc) 1.76 2.62 on the mechanical properties of polymer composite materials. J Appl Polym Sci
Filaments per tow/strand 3000 182 2004;94:296–301.
Tow/strand tex (gm/Km) 203 150 [19] Jenq ST, Sheu SL. High strain rate compressional behavior of stitched and
unstitched composite laminates with radial constraint. Compos Struct
Type of weave Plain weave Plain weave 1993;25:427–38.
No. of counts (per cm) 4.76  12.1  [20] Li Z, Lambros J. Determination of dynamic response of brittle composites by
 
Crimp (%) 0.2 0.9  the use of the split Hopkinson pressure bar. Compos Sci Technol
1999;59:1097–107.
Fabric thickness (mm) 0.2 0.28
[21] Gama BA, Gillespie Jr JW, Mahfuz H, Raines RP, Haque A, Jeelani S, et al. High
Fabric aerial weight (gm/m2) 193 388 strain-rate behavior of plain-weave S-2 glass/vinyl ester composites. J Compos
Fiber volume fraction 0.51 0.52 Mater 2001;35:1201–28.
Void content (%) 0.5 0.75 [22] Hosur MV, Alexander J, Vaidya UK, Jeelani S. High strain rate compression
response of carbon/epoxy laminate composites. Compos Struct
Matrix Epoxy LY556 with hardener HY951 2001;52:405–17.
Process used Matched die moulding [23] Song B, Chen W, Weerasooriya T. Quasi-static and dynamic compressive
behaviors of a S-2 glass/SC15 composite. J Compos Mater 2003;37:1723–43.
 
Along both warp and fill. [24] Haque A, Ali M. High strain rate responses and failure analysis in polymer
matrix composites – an experimental and finite element study. J Compos
Mater 2005;39:423–50.
[25] Liu W, Sun B, Hu H, Gu B. Compressive behavior of biaxial spacer weft knitted
fabric reinforced composite at various strain rates. Polym Compos
References 2007;28:224.
[26] Naik NK, Veerraju Ch, Venkateswara Rao K. Hybrid composites under high
[1] Hopkinson J. On the rupture of iron wire by a blow (1872). In: Hopkinson B, strain rate compressive loading. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;498:87–99.
editor. Original papers by the late John Hopkinson, Scientific papers, vol. II. [27] Woldesenbet E, Vinson JR. Specimen geometry effects on the high strain rate
Cambridge University Press; 1901. p. 316–20 [article 38]. testing of graphite/epoxy composites. AIAA J 1999;37:1102–6.
[2] Hopkinson J. Further experiments on the rupture of iron wire by a blow (1872). [28] Bannantine JA, Comer JJ, Handrock JL. Fundamentals of metal fatigue
In: Hopkinson B, editor. Original papers by the late John Hopkinson, Scientific analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1990. p. 46–8.
papers, vol. II. Cambridge University Press; 1901. p. 316–20 [article 39].