Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 44

y

REPORT NO. 558

Tensile Testing of Metals


Proficiency Testing Program

November 2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PTA wishes to gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance provided for this
program by Mr Cesare Zamuner, BlueScope Steel Limited. This assistance
included providing input into the design of the program, technical advice and
discussion of the final report, as well as supplying the samples.

COPYRIGHT PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA 2007

PO Box 7507 Silverwater NSW 2128 AUSTRALIA


CONTENTS

1. FOREWORD 1

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM 1

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES 2

4. DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM 2

5. EXTREME RESULTS 3
Table A: Summary Statistics for All Tests 3
Table B: Summary of Statistical Outliers 4

6. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER'S COMMENTS 4

7. REFERENCES 9

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Summary of Results
Thickness A1
0.2% Proof Strength A2
Upper Yield Strength A3
Lower Yield Strength A4
Tensile Strength A5
Percentage Elongation After Fracture A6
Other Reported Results A7
APPENDIX B
Homogeneity Testing B1
APPENDIX C
Instructions to Participants C1
Results Sheet C2
-1-

1. FOREWORD

This report summarises the results of a proficiency testing program on the tensile
properties of metals.

Proficiency Testing Australia conducted the testing program in September and


October 2007. The aim of the program was to assess laboratories' ability to
competently perform the nominated tests.

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM

(a) A total of 16 laboratories participated in the program, 3 of which did not return
results for inclusion in the final report. Laboratories from the following states and
countries received samples:

6 VIC
4 NSW
2 WA
1 QLD
1 SA
1 SINGAPORE
1 PAKISTAN

To ensure confidential treatment of results, each laboratory was allocated a


unique code number. All reference to participants in this report is by allocated
code numbers.

(b) The results reported by participants are presented in Appendix A.

(c) Laboratories were provided with four steel strip samples and were asked to
perform tests for:

thickness;
0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2);
upper yield (ReH);
lower yield (ReL);
tensile strength (Rm); and
percentage elongation after fracture (A%).

Laboratories were required to perform all tests for which they hold NATA
accreditation and were invited to report results for any of the other tests.

(d) All testing, recording and reporting was to be performed in accordance with
AS1391 Metallic materials Tensile testing at ambient temperature (2005).
-2-

(e) Laboratories were requested to perform the tests according to the Instructions to
Participants provided and to record the results on the accompanying Results
Sheet, which was distributed with the samples. Copies of these documents
appear in Appendix C.

(f) Ten randomly selected specimens from each of the four samples were tested
and analysed for homogeneity by BlueScope Steel Limited. Based on the results
of this testing, the homogeneity of the samples was established (see Appendix
B).

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES

(a) Appendix A is divided into 7 sections (A1-A7).

Sections A1-A6 contain the analysis of results reported by laboratories for


thickness, 0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2), upper yield
(ReH), lower yield (ReL), tensile strength (Rm) and percentage elongation after
fracture (A%). These sections contain:

i) a table of results reported by laboratories for each sample, and the


calculated z-scores for these results;
ii) a listing of the summary statistics;
iii) ordered z-score charts.

Section A7 contains the results reported by laboratories for tensile specimen


width, tensile specimen gauge length, elastic stress or strain rate and plastic
strain rate.

(b) Appendix B contains details of the homogeneity testing.

(c) Appendix C contains copies of the Instructions to Participants and Results Sheet.

4. DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM

The samples for this program comprised of three cold rolled steel strip samples
and one hot rolled pickled strip sample. Samples 1 and 3 were continuous
yielding steel grades, while samples 2 and 4 were discontinuous yielding steel
grades.

All four samples differed for thickness, 0.2% proof strength, upper yield strength,
lower yield strength, tensile strength and percentage elongation after fracture.
-3-

5. EXTREME RESULTS

Robust z-scores have been used to assess each laboratorys testing


performance. When calculated from single results, z-scores are used to detect
excessively high or excessively low results in comparison to the consensus value
(the median). Any result with an absolute z-score greater than three
(i.e. <-3 or >3) is classified as an outlier.

For further details on the calculation and interpretation of robust z-scores, please
see the Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia (2006).

The following table summaries the results submitted by participants for the
program.

Table A: Summary Statistics for All Tests

Summary
Test Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Statistics

No. of Results 13 12 12 13
Thickness
(mm) Median 1.4100 0.8775 0.8065 2.1540
Normalised IQR 0.0030 0.0085 0.0039 0.0059
No. of Results 12 10
0.2% proof stress (non-
proportional elongation) Median 272.0 141.0
(Rp0.2) (MPa)
Normalised IQR 4.3 3.3
No. of Results 11 11
Upper yield
(ReH) Median 325.0 239.0
(MPa)
Normalised IQR 13.2 13.0
No. of Results 9 10
Lower yield
(ReL) Median 305.0 218.5
(MPa)
Normalised IQR 5.2 9.3
No. of Results 13 12 12 13
Tensile strength
(Rm) Median 404.0 375.0 302.8 337.0
(MPa)
Normalised IQR 5.9 7.7 5.4 4.6
No. of Results 13 12 12 13
Percentage elongation
Median 48.0 55.0 71.0 53.0
after fracture (A%)
Normalised IQR 3.7 3.0 5.2 6.7
-4-

Note:

Summary statistics for percentage elongation after fracture were calculated by


converting the results to the proportional gauge length 5.65So.

Table B: Summary of Statistical Outliers

Test Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Thickness 1, 10, 13, 18 4, 18 10, 13, 18 10, 18

0.2% proof strength 2 -

Upper yield strength 2 4

Lower yield strength 2, 8, 18 -

Tensile strength 10 2 2, 8, 10 2, 13
Percentage elongation
1 2 - -
after fracture

6. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISERS COMMENTS

The summary statistics and outliers identified for each of the tests are reported in
Tables A and B above. Complete details of the statistical analyses appear in
Appendix A.

6.1 Return rate

Thirteen of the 16 laboratories (81%) that participated in the program returned


results. Of the 13 laboratories that submitted results for the program, the return
rate for all tests is as follows:

Thickness 13 out of 13 100%


0.2% proof strength 12 out of 13 92%
Upper yield strength 12 out of 13 92%
Lower yield strength 10 out of 13 77%
Tensile strength 13 out of 13 100%
Percentage elongation after fracture 13 out of 13 100%
-5-

6.2 Performance summary

One or more statistical outliers were reported by 7 of the 13 laboratories (54%)


that returned results for this program. A total of 213 results were analysed in this
program. Of these results, 26 (12%) were outlier results.

6.3 Thickness

Five laboratories reported outliers for thickness. This was very disappointing, as
an accurate thickness measurement is essential for the accurate determination of
the proof, upper yield, lower yield and tensile strength properties.

Laboratory 18 reported outliers for all 4 samples. There was no obvious reason
for these thickness measurement errors, as there was no pattern to the error
percent or to the absolute value of the error. It was also noted that the thickness
measurements performed by this laboratory and laboratories 1 and 10 were
made to only two decimal places. For accurate determination of tensile
properties on material less than 1.5 mm thick, it is essential to measure thickness
accurately to the third decimal place.

Laboratory 10 reported outliers for samples 1, 3 and 4 and also obtained an


|z| score > 2 for sample 2. For this laboratory, the outliers for thickness
measurement on samples 1 and 3 have led to corresponding outliers for the
reported tensile strength on the same samples.

Laboratory 13 reported outliers for samples 1 and 3.

Laboratory 1 reported an outlier for sample 1 and also obtained an |z| score > 2
for sample 4.

Laboratory 4 reported an outlier for sample 2. It appears that this laboratory


measured the coated thickness instead of the base metal thickness as per the
instructions. This laboratory also obtained an |z| score > 2 for sample 3.

In addition, |z| scores > 2 were also obtained by laboratory 14 (for sample 2) and
laboratory 8 (for sample 4).

All laboratories, particularly those with outlier results, are reminded that they must
check their micrometers with a standard block each day before use.
-6-

6.4 0.2% Proof Strength

The range in proof strength values reported by the participating laboratories was
larger than expected. This is believed to be due, in part, to the differences in the
stress and strain rates employed. These rates ranged from 0.000016/sec to
0.0025/sec for the elastic rates and 0.00014/sec to 0.008/sec for the plastic
rates. (It was assumed that rates expressed as 85, 120 and 250/sec were to a
power of 10 to the minus 6. i.e. 250 x 10-6/ sec or 0.00025/sec).

Only one laboratory reported an outlier for 0.2% proof strength.

Laboratory 2 reported an outlier for sample 1. In addition, laboratory 14 obtained


an |z| score > 2 for sample 1.

There were no outliers reported for sample 3, although laboratories 5 and 18


obtained |z| scores > 2 for this sample.

One result, reported by laboratory 8 for sample 3, was not analysed because the
laboratory indicated this result was uncertain, as the sample was bending with
the extensometer attached.

Laboratory 18 quoted all of the strength properties to the second decimal place
despite the instruction to report the values to the nearest whole number. Given
that the uncertainty in the result is in the order of 2 to 2.5%, reporting strength
properties to the second decimal place suggests an accuracy that is
approximately 1000 times better than the uncertainty of the result.

6.5 Upper Yield Strength

The wide range in the reported upper yield strengths, for samples 2 and 4, was to
be expected. Upper yield strength measurements are very sensitive to sample
preparation, alignment of the specimen in the tensile machine, straining rate and
machine stiffness. It is therefore pleasing to see that only two laboratories
reported outliers for upper yield strength.

Laboratory 2 reported an outlier for sample 2 and laboratory 4 reported an outlier


for sample 4. In addition, laboratory 13 obtained an |z| score > 2 for sample 2.

Laboratory 14 could not determine a result for sample 4 because the test
equipment for this laboratory did not show sufficient resolution to determine an
upper yield for this sample.
-7-

6.6 Lower Yield Strength

The range in lower yield strength values reported by the participating laboratories
was smaller than it was for upper yield strength (62 MPa versus 91 MPa.) This
was to be expected, as the lower yield strength is less sensitive to the conditions
that affect the measurement of the upper yield strength.

Three laboratories reported outliers for lower yield strength. Laboratories 2, 8


and 18 reported outliers for sample 2.

There were no outliers reported for sample 4, although laboratory 8 obtained an


|z| score > 2 for this sample.

6.7 Tensile Strength

It was disappointing to see four laboratories report outliers for tensile strength.
Tensile strength is the easiest of the strength properties to measure, as it is the
least sensitive to sample preparation, alignment, machine stiffness and strain
rate (0.008/sec max).

With the exception of laboratory 10 and, to a lesser extent, laboratories 2, 4 and


13, there was good agreement on the tensile strengths reported for sample 1.
The results for laboratory 10 were out due to a thickness measurement error.
Adjusting for this error, the result for laboratory 10 becomes 399 MPa, which falls
well within one normalised IQR of the group median.

Laboratory 2 reported the only outlier on sample 2, but the value reported by
laboratory 4 (z-score -2.74) and laboratory 8 were also significantly different from
the group median, having |z| scores > 2. There was otherwise good agreement
between laboratories on this sample.

Three laboratories (2, 8 and 10) reported outliers for tensile strength on sample
3. There is no obvious reason for the outliers reported by laboratories 2 and 8,
but the outlier for laboratory 10 is due to a thickness measurement error. The
value reported by laboratory 13 on this sample was also significantly different to
the median, having an |z| score > 2.

Two laboratories (2 and 13) reported outliers on sample 4 and four other
laboratories (3, 5, 10 and 14) reported tensile strengths that differed significantly
from the group median.

It has been noted that all of the proof, upper and lower yield strength values
reported by laboratory 2 were lower than the median, while all of the tensile
strength values were significantly higher than the median. Some investigative
work is needed to determine the cause of this anomaly.
-8-

6.8 Percentage Elongation After Fracture

Three laboratories (4, 9 and 14) employed a 12.5 mm wide specimen with a 50
mm gauge length for their tensile testing in this program, while the other
laboratories all used a 20 mm wide specimen with a 80 mm gauge length. In
order to be able to compare the results for percentage elongation after fracture,
all of the results were converted to a proportional gauge length of 5.65 So (5.65
times the square root of the cross-sectional area). The conversion factors in
International Standard ISO 2566/1 were used for this purpose. These conversion
factors are as follows:

For sample 1, divide the 50 mm gauge length results by 0.76 and divide the
80 mm gauge length results by 0.68.
For sample 2, divide the 50 mm gauge length results by 0.66 and divide the
80 mm gauge length results by 0.63.
For sample 3, divide the 50 mm gauge length results by 0.66 and divide the
80 mm gauge length results by 0.60.
For sample 4, divide the 50 mm gauge length results by 0.80 and divide the
80 mm gauge length results by 0.74.

The results, converted to a proportional gauge length, are displayed in Appendix


A6.

Only two laboratories reported outliers for percentage elongation after fracture.
Laboratory 1 reported an elongation of 63% for sample 1. This is almost double
the value reported by the other laboratories and was probably due to a gross
error in the measurement of the final gauge length, as the same laboratory
reported a value that was close to the median on sample 4. Errors such as this
should have been detected when the report was checked and / or authorised.

Laboratory 2 reported an outlier for sample 2. In addition, laboratory 9 obtained


an |z| score > 2 for sample 2. There were no outliers reported for sample 3 or
sample 4.

6.9 Other Reported Results

In addition to reporting results for thickness, 0.2% proof stress, upper yield, lower
yield, tensile strength and percentage elongation after fracture, participants were
also asked to report the tensile specimen width, gauge length, elastic stress or
strain rate and plastic strain rate. The details reported by each of the
laboratories are displayed in Appendix A7.
-9-

The information reported is limited, but it was requested in the hope that it would
assist in the analysis of the results. In some instances, it was possible to explain
the variation in reported properties using this data. In other instances, there was
no obvious reason. It is the responsibility of the participating laboratories that
reported outliers to review their procedures, determine the cause of the non-
conformance and take effective corrective action.

7. REFERENCES

Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia (2006).

This document is located on the PTA website at www.pta.asn.au, under


Documents.
APPENDIX A

Summary of Results
Section A1

Thickness
A1.1

Thickness (mm) Results and Z-Scores

Lab Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4


Code Result Z-Score Result Z-Score Result Z-Score Result Z-Score
1 1.42 3.37 - - - - 2.17 2.70
2 1.412 0.67 0.876 -0.18 0.806 -0.13 2.160 1.01
3 1.408 -0.67 0.879 0.18 0.807 0.13 2.157 0.51
4 1.411 0.34 0.918 4.75 0.818 2.95 2.160 1.01
5 1.411 0.34 0.879 0.18 0.807 0.13 2.154 0.00
8 1.410 0.00 0.870 -0.88 0.800 -1.67 2.140 -2.36
9 1.410 0.00 0.874 -0.41 0.807 0.13 2.153 -0.17
10 1.50 30.35 0.90 2.64 0.94 34.30 2.18 4.38
13 1.424 4.72 0.864 -1.58 0.820 3.47 2.157 0.51
14 1.408 -0.67 0.898 2.40 0.803 -0.90 2.152 -0.34
15 1.410 0.00 0.880 0.29 0.805 -0.39 2.150 -0.67
17 1.405 -1.69 0.876 -0.18 0.805 -0.39 2.154 0.00
18 1.40 -3.37 0.85 -3.23 0.78 -6.81 2.10 -9.11

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4


No of Results 13 12 12 13
Median 1.4100 0.8775 0.8065 2.1540
Norm IQR 0.0030 0.0085 0.0039 0.0059
Robust CV 0.21% 0.97% 0.48% 0.28%
Minimum 1.400 0.850 0.780 2.100
Maximum 1.500 0.918 0.940 2.180
Range 0.100 0.068 0.160 0.080

Notes:

1. denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| > 3).

2. Laboratory 1 did not test samples 2 and 3, as they were below the minimum
thickness tested by the laboratory.
A1.2

Thickness - Sample 1

13

10
1
3

2
Robust Z-Score

2
4

5
15
8

9
0
3

14

-1
17

-2

-3
18

Laboratory Code

Thickness - Sample 2

4
3

10
14
2
Robust Z-Score

1
15
3

0
2

17
9

-1
8
13

-2

-3
18

Laboratory Code
A1.3

Thickness - Sample 3

13

10
4
3

2
Robust Z-Score

9
0

2
15

17
-1
14
8

-2

-3
18

Laboratory Code

Thickness - Sample 4

10
3

1
2
2

4
Robust Z-Score

1
13
3
17
5

0
9
14
15

-1

-2
8

-3
18

Laboratory Code
Section A2

0.2% Proof Strength


A2.1

0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2)


(MPa) Results and Z-Scores
Lab Sample 1 Sample 3
Code Result Z-Score Result Z-Score
1 272 0.00 - -
2 247 -5.77 139 -0.60
3 272 0.00 141 0.00
4 266 -1.39 146 1.50
5 269 -0.69 131 -3.00
8 275 0.69 177* -
9 271 -0.23 141 0.00
13 272 0.00 144 0.90
14 282 2.31 141 0.00
15 280 1.85 137 -1.20
17 276 0.92 144 0.90
18 277.37 1.24 150.03 2.71

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 3


No of Results 12 10
Median 272.0 141.0
Norm IQR 4.3 3.3
Robust CV 1.59% 2.37%
Minimum 247 131
Maximum 282 150
Range 35 19

Notes:

1. denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| > 3).

2. Laboratory 1 did not test sample 3, as it was below the minimum thickness tested
by the laboratory.

3. The result for sample 3 for laboratory 8 is uncertain because the sample was
bending with the extensometer attached.
A2.2

0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2) -


Sample 1
3

14
15
2

18
17
Robust Z-Score

8
13
3
1
0
9
5

-1
4

-2

-3
2

Laboratory Code

0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2) -


Sample 3
3

18
2 4
13

17
Robust Z-Score

1
14
9
3

0
2

-1
15

-2

-3
5

Laboratory Code
Section A3

Upper Yield Strength


A3.1

Upper yield (ReH) (MPa) Results and Z-Scores

Lab Sample 2 Sample 4


Code Result Z-Score Result Z-Score
1 - - 239 0.00
2 270 -4.18 225 -1.08
3 338 0.99 227 -0.93
4 325 0.00 285 3.55
5 326 0.08 232 -0.54
8 315 -0.76 250 0.85
9 319 -0.46 231 -0.62
13 361 2.73 256 1.31
14 306 -1.44 ND -
15 324 -0.08 248 0.69
17 335 0.76 238 -0.08
18 334.53 0.72 246.55 0.58

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 2 Sample 4


No of Results 11 11
Median 325.0 239.0
Norm IQR 13.2 13.0
Robust CV 4.05% 5.43%
Minimum 270 225
Maximum 361 285
Range 91 60

Notes:

1. denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| > 3).

2. Laboratory 1 did not test sample 2, as it was below the minimum thickness tested
by the laboratory.

3. ND denotes not determined. The test equipment for laboratory 14 did not show
sufficient resolution to determine an upper yield for sample 4.
A3.2

Upper yield (ReH) - Sample 2

13
3

17

3
Robust Z-Score

18
5
4
0

15
9
-1
8
14

-2

-3
2

Laboratory Code

Upper yield (ReH) - Sample 4

4
3

2
13
Robust Z-Score

1
15
18
1

0
17
5
9

-1
3
2

-2

-3
Laboratory Code
Section A4

Lower Yield Strength


A4.1

Lower yield (ReL) (MPa) Results and Z-Scores

Lab Sample 2 Sample 4


Code Result Z-Score Result Z-Score
1 - - 228 1.03
2 261 -8.48 218 -0.05
3 300 -0.96 218 -0.05
5 306 0.19 212 -0.70
8 288 -3.28 241 2.43
9 305 0.00 206 -1.35
13 309 0.77 201 -1.89
14 301 -0.77 219 0.05
17 307 0.39 220 0.16
18 322.58 3.39 229.63 1.20

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 2 Sample 4


No of Results 9 10
Median 305.0 218.5
Norm IQR 5.2 9.3
Robust CV 1.70% 4.24%
Minimum 261 201
Maximum 323 241
Range 62 40

Notes:

1. denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| > 3).

2. Laboratory 1 did not test sample 2, as it was below the minimum thickness tested
by the laboratory.
A4.2

Lower yield (ReL) - Sample 2

18
3

2
Robust Z-Score

13
1

17
5
9
0

-1
14
3

-2

-3
2

Laboratory Code

Lower yield (ReL) - Sample 4

8
2 18
1
Robust Z-Score

1
17
14

0
2

3
5

-1
9

-2
13

-3
Laboratory Code
Section A5

Tensile Strength
A5.1

Tensile strength (Rm) (MPa) Results and Z-Scores

Lab Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4


Code Result Z-Score Result Z-Score Result Z-Score Result Z-Score
1 405 0.17 - - - - 337 0.00
2 414 1.69 491 15.16 403 18.64 372 7.62
3 400 -0.68 373 -0.26 298 -0.90 328 -1.96
4 392 -2.03 354 -2.74 297 -1.09 337 0.00
5 404 0.00 374 -0.13 298 -0.90 325 -2.61
8 409 0.85 391 2.09 321 3.38 342 1.09
9 404 0.00 374 -0.13 305 0.40 337 0.00
10 375 -4.90 371 -0.52 257 -8.53 331 -1.31
13 391 -2.20 380 0.65 289 -2.57 322 -3.26
14 405 0.17 365 -1.31 303 0.03 331 -1.31
15 403 -0.17 376 0.13 303 0.03 335 -0.44
17 404 0.00 381 0.78 305 0.40 338 0.22
18 397.02 -1.18 388.29 1.74 302.67 -0.03 337.20 0.04

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4


No of Results 13 12 12 13
Median 404.0 375.0 302.8 337.0
Norm IQR 5.9 7.7 5.4 4.6
Robust CV 1.46% 2.04% 1.77% 1.36%
Minimum 375 354 257 322
Maximum 414 491 403 372
Range 39 137 146 50

Notes:

1. denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| > 3).

2. Laboratory 1 did not test samples 2 and 3, as they were below the minimum
thickness tested by the laboratory.
A5.2

Tensile strength (Rm) - Sample 1

2
Robust Z-Score

8
14
17

1
5

9
0

15
-1 3
18

-2
4
13

-3
10

Laboratory Code

Tensile strength (Rm) - Sample 2

2
3

8
18
2
17
Robust Z-Score

1
13
15

0
9
5
3
10

-1
14

-2
4

-3
Laboratory Code
A5.3

Tensile strength (Rm) - Sample 3

2
3

2
Robust Z-Score

17
9
14

15
18
0

-1
3

5
4

-2
13

-3
10

Laboratory Code

Tensile strength (Rm) - Sample 4

2
3

2
8
Robust Z-Score

1
17
18
9
1

0
15

-1
10

14

-2
3
5

-3
13

Laboratory Code
Section A6

Percentage Elongation
After Fracture
A6.1

Percentage elongation after fracture (A%)


Results and Proportional Gauge Length (PGL) Results
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Lab
Code PGL PGL PGL PGL
Result Result Result Result
Result Result Result Result
1 63 93 - - - - 43 58
2 32 47 29 46 41 68 35 47
3 35 51 35 56 43 72 40 54
4 34 45 34 52 46 70 38 48
5 35 51 35 56 45 75 45 61
8 33 49 35 56 42 70 42 57
9 35 46 40 61 45 68 38 48
10 31 46 32 51 38 63 39 53
13 35 51 34 54 45 75 43 58
14 35 46 34 52 43 65 42 53
15 36 53 36 57 43 72 42 57
17 32 47 35 56 47 78 39 53
18 32.68 48 33.72 53 45.58 76 34.48 47

Note:

To analyse the percentage elongation after fracture results, the results submitted by
participants were converted to a proportional gauge length. The proportional gauge
length used was 5.65 times the square root of the cross-sectional area. The
International Standard ISO 2566/1 was used for this conversion.
A6.2

Percentage elongation after fracture (A%)


Proportional Gauge Length (PGL) Results and Z-Scores
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Lab
Code PGL PGL PGL PGL
Z-Score Z-Score Z-Score Z-Score
Result Result Result Result
1 93 12.14 - - - - 58 0.75
2 47 -0.27 46 -3.04 68 -0.58 47 -0.90
3 51 0.81 56 0.34 72 0.19 54 0.15
4 45 -0.81 52 -1.01 70 -0.19 48 -0.75
5 51 0.81 56 0.34 75 0.77 61 1.20
8 49 0.27 56 0.34 70 -0.19 57 0.60
9 46 -0.54 61 2.02 68 -0.58 48 -0.75
10 46 -0.54 51 -1.35 63 -1.54 53 0.00
13 51 0.81 54 -0.34 75 0.77 58 0.75
14 46 -0.54 52 -1.01 65 -1.16 53 0.00
15 53 1.35 57 0.67 72 0.19 57 0.60
17 47 -0.27 56 0.34 78 1.35 53 0.00
18 48 0.00 53 -0.67 76 0.96 47 -0.90

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4


No of Results 13 12 12 13
Median 48.0 55.0 71.0 53.0
Norm IQR 3.7 3.0 5.2 6.7
Robust CV 7.72% 5.39% 7.31% 12.59%
Minimum 45 46 63 47
Maximum 93 61 78 61
Range 48 15 15 14

Notes:

1. denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| > 3).

2. Laboratory 1 did not test samples 2 and 3, as they were below the minimum
thickness tested by the laboratory.
A6.3

Percentage elongation after fracture (A%) -


Sample 1

1
3

15
Robust Z-Score

13
1

5
8
18
0

17
9

10

14

-1
4

-2

-3
Laboratory Code

Percentage elongation after fracture (A%) -


Sample 2
3

9
2
Robust Z-Score

1
15
17
5

8
3

0
13
18

-1
14
4
10

-2

-3
2

Laboratory Code
A6.4

Percentage elongation after fracture (A%) -


Sample 3
3

17
18
Robust Z-Score

13
1

5
15
3
0

8
9
2

-1
14
10

-2

-3
Laboratory Code

Percentage elongation after fracture (A%) -


Sample 4
3

5
Robust Z-Score

13
1
15

1
8
17
14
10

-1
9
4
18
2

-2

-3
Laboratory Code
Section A7

Other Reported Results


A7.1

Tensile specimen width and tensile specimen gauge length

Lab Tensile specimen width (mm) Tensile specimen gauge length (mm)
Code Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

1 20.18 - - 20.22 80 - - 80
2 20.33 20.29 20.36 20.30 80 80 80 80
3 20.30 20.34 20.34 20.23 80 80 80 80
4 12.53 12.42 12.53 12.53 50 50 50 50
5 19.98 19.97 19.97 19.97 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
8 20.08 20.09 20.08 20.08 80 80 80 80
9 12.49 12.41 12.34 12.60 50 50 50 50
10 20.09 19.75 19.84 20.03 80 80 80 80
13 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.50 80 80 80 80
14 12.81 12.68 12.67 12.83 50 50 50 50
15 20.04 20.04 20.04 20.03 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0
17 20.00 19.99 20.01 20.01 80 80 80 80
18 19.70 19.70 19.65 19.70 79.89 79.90 79.75 79.45

Elastic stress or strain rate and plastic strain rate


Elastic stress or strain rate Plastic strain rate
Lab (number / sec) (number / sec)
Code
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
1 250 - - 250 2500 - - 2500
2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
3 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
5 - 0.000037 - 0.000037 0.00014 - 0.00015 -
8 120 120 120 120 - - - -
13 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
14 0.000016 0.000019 0.000013 0.000011 - - - -
15 85 85 85 85 30 30 30 30
17 50 50 50 50 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
A7.2

Notes:

1. Laboratory 1 did not test samples 2 and 3, as they were below the minimum
thickness tested by the laboratory.

2. Laboratory 15 reported elastic strain rate as aE / sec and plastic strain rate as
mm / min.

3. The results for laboratory 17 for elastic stress or strain rate are expressed in
MPa / sec.
APPENDIX B

Homogeneity Testing
B1.1

HOMOGENEITY TESTING

Before the test pieces were distributed to participants, ten specimens from each sample
were selected at random and tested by BlueScope Steel Limited, Port Kembla. This was
done to assess the variability of the four samples to be used in the program. Results for
thickness, 0.2% proof stress, tensile strength and percentage elongation after fracture
were obtained for samples 1 and 3. Results for thickness, upper yield, lower yield, tensile
strength and percentage elongation after fracture were obtained for samples 2 and 4.
The results of this testing appear in the following tables.

Homogeneity Testing Results

Sample 1

0.2% proof Tensile


Sample Thickness % elongation
stress strength
Number (mm) after fracture
(MPa) (MPa)
PT101 1.408 272 404 51
PT102 1.408 276 401 54
PT104 1.410 272 403 55
PT115 1.408 279 410 55
PT126 1.406 277 410 49
PT129 1.411 276 408 50
PT131 1.408 273 406 51
PT133 1.402 274 405 52
PT141 1.405 278 408 50
PT142 1.401 279 404 52

Homogeneity Testing Results

Sample 2

Tensile
Sample Thickness Upper yield Lower yield % elongation
strength
Number (mm) (MPa) (MPa) after fracture
(MPa)
PT204 0.873 331 309 381 60
PT209 0.871 333 310 391 59
PT211 0.874 336 308 386 59
PT212 0.871 335 310 384 60
PT215 0.874 334 309 390 58
PT223 0.873 336 310 391 60
PT226 0.870 338 309 381 64
PT228 0.872 332 311 391 62
PT229 0.875 325 305 389 58
PT241 0.871 340 309 391 59
B1.2

Homogeneity Testing Results

Sample 3

0.2% proof Tensile


Sample Thickness % elongation
stress strength
Number (mm) after fracture
(MPa) (MPa)
PT302 0.810 144 305 73
PT312 0.809 144 304 73
PT317 0.809 140 304 75
PT318 0.808 140 305 78
PT319 0.808 140 305 72
PT320 0.809 139 304 77
PT330 0.811 140 305 75
PT333 0.809 140 305 75
PT335 0.808 141 305 74
PT338 0.810 141 304 72

Homogeneity Testing Results

Sample 4

Tensile
Sample Thickness Upper yield Lower yield % elongation
strength
Number (mm) (MPa) (MPa) after fracture
(MPa)
PT405 2.154 238 223 333 53
PT410 2.152 244 225 334 53
PT415 2.154 239 222 334 53
PT416 2.157 225 215 333 54
PT427 2.154 240 219 333 56
PT431 2.156 238 219 332 55
PT435 2.154 243 223 338 55
PT436 2.152 250 224 338 52
PT437 2.152 230 216 338 53
PT444 2.153 240 222 337 52

Please note that the percentage elongation after fracture results reported in the tables
above have been converted to the proportional gauge length 5.65 So.

Analysis of the homogeneity testing data indicated that the samples were sufficiently
homogeneous for the program and, therefore, any participant results identified as
extreme cannot be attributed to sample variability.
APPENDIX C

Instructions to Participants
and
Results Sheet
C1.1

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

Tensile Testing Of Metals Proficiency Testing Program

Instructions To Participants - September 2007

To ensure that the results of this program can be analysed correctly, participants are
asked to note carefully:

1) The samples for this tensile testing program comprise of three cold rolled steel
strip samples and one hot rolled pickled strip sample. They are labeled 1-x,
2-x, 3-x and 4-x. The set of samples includes both continuous (Samples 1-x
and 3-x) and discontinuous (2-x and 4-x) yielding steel grades.

The zincalume coat has been removed from one end of sample number 2-x to
allow participants to measure and calculate the tensile properties using the base
metal thickness.

2) The tests to be performed in this program are:

Thickness;
0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2);
Upper yield (ReH);
Lower yield (ReL);
Tensile strength (Rm); and
Percentage elongation after fracture (A%).

3) All of the samples have been aged and the tests may commence as soon as
samples are received.

4) All testing, recording and reporting is to be performed in accordance with


AS1391 Metallic materials Tensile testing at ambient temperature (2005).

5) Participants are requested to perform all tests listed above for which NATA
accreditation is held. Participants are welcome to report results for any other
tests for which NATA accreditation is not held, however, please note this on the
Results Sheet.

6) Report only one result per sample, based on the determination for each
property. For each determination, results are to be reported to the accuracy
and in the units indicated on the Results Sheet.

7) Testing for 0.2% proof stress (non-proportional elongation) is to be performed


on samples 1-x and 3-x only. Testing for upper yield (ReH) and lower yield
(ReL) are to be performed on samples 2-x and 4-x.

Tensile Testing of Metals September 2007 Page 1 of 3


C1.2

8) For this program, your laboratory has been allocated the code number on the
attached Results Sheet. All reference to your laboratory in reports associated
with this program will be via this code number, ensuring the confidentiality of
your results.

9) Return the Results Sheet, either by mail or facsimile, to:

Mark Bunt
Proficiency Testing Australia
PO Box 7507
Silverwater NSW 2128
AUSTRALIA
Telephone: + 61 2 9736 8397 (1300 782 867)
Fax: +61 2 9743 6664

All results should arrive at the above address by no later than Monday 8
October 2007. Results reported later than this date may not be analysed in the
final report.

Tensile Testing of Metals September 2007 Page 2 of 3


C2.1

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

Tensile Testing Of Metals Proficiency Testing Program


September 2007
RESULTS SHEET

Laboratory Code:

Report Results
Test results to
nearest Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Thickness 0.001 mm

0.2% proof stress (non-


1 MPa
proportional elongation) (Rp0.2)

Upper yield (ReH) 1 MPa

Lower yield (ReL) 1 MPa

Tensile strength (Rm) 1 MPa

Percentage elongation after


1%
fracture (A%)

Where possible, please also report the values for the following:

Report Results
Test results to
nearest Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Tensile specimen width 0.01 mm


Tensile specimen gauge
1 mm
length
number /
Elastic stress or strain rate
sec
number /
Plastic strain rate
sec

Print Name: _____________________ Signature & Date: ____________________

Tensile Testing of Metals September 2007 Page 3 of 3