7 vues

Transféré par 9245126694

grhhtjttyjyyjy

- A47A47M.10575
- a1info
- AISI 1020 Steel, Cold Rolled
- Steel
- Lifting Lug Design
- SECTION-1a.pdf
- IRECN Bridge Bearing-5
- ansys validation 100mtr report.pdf
- Simple Analysis of Cracked Concrete Section Under Flexure
- Numerical simulation of explosives and gun powder
- Pump Material Specification
- Comprehensive Study of High Strength Fiber Rienforced Concrete Under Pull Out Strength
- (EW-512-5) -Destructive Testing Methods - Training Workbook-Hobart Institute of Welding Technology [Yasser Tawfik]
- VPE-A10985-00-A0711
- Theories of Failure Under Static Load
- datastream
- Fourth Class Mech Thermo Questions Answers
- Pushover Analysis of Structures Considering Strain Rate Effects
- Ductile 7
- ASSESSMENT OF THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC FLAT SLAB.pdf

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 44

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.

CONTENTS

1. FOREWORD 1

5. EXTREME RESULTS 3

Table A: Summary Statistics for All Tests 3

Table B: Summary of Statistical Outliers 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.

October 2007. The aim of the program was to assess laboratories' ability to

competently perform the nominated tests.

(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

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

code numbers.

(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).

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:

calculated z-scores for these results;

ii) a listing of the summary statistics;

iii) ordered z-score charts.

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

strain rate.

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

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

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.

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:

converting the results to the proportional gauge length 5.65So.

Tensile strength 10 2 2, 8, 10 2, 13

Percentage elongation

1 2 - -

after fracture

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.

results. Of the 13 laboratories that submitted results for the program, the return

rate for all tests is as follows:

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-

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.

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

for sample 4.

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-

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).

an |z| score > 2 for sample 1.

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.

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.

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-

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.

and 18 reported outliers for sample 2.

|z| score > 2 for this sample.

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).

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-

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.

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.

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

sample 4.

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

Documents.

APPENDIX A

Summary of Results

Section A1

Thickness

A1.1

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

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:

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

A2.1

(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

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:

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

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

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

A3.1

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

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:

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

13

3

17

3

Robust Z-Score

18

5

4

0

15

9

-1

8

14

-2

-3

2

Laboratory Code

4

3

2

13

Robust Z-Score

1

15

18

1

0

17

5

9

-1

3

2

-2

-3

Laboratory Code

Section A4

A4.1

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

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:

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

by the laboratory.

A4.2

18

3

2

Robust Z-Score

13

1

17

5

9

0

-1

14

3

-2

-3

2

Laboratory Code

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

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

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:

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

thickness tested by the laboratory.

A5.2

2

Robust Z-Score

8

14

17

1

5

9

0

15

-1 3

18

-2

4

13

-3

10

Laboratory Code

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

2

3

2

Robust Z-Score

17

9

14

15

18

0

-1

3

5

4

-2

13

-3

10

Laboratory Code

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

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

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

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:

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

thickness tested by the laboratory.

A6.3

Sample 1

1

3

15

Robust Z-Score

13

1

5

8

18

0

17

9

10

14

-1

4

-2

-3

Laboratory Code

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

Sample 3

3

17

18

Robust Z-Score

13

1

5

15

3

0

8

9

2

-1

14

10

-2

-3

Laboratory Code

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

A7.1

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 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.

Sample 1

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

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

Sample 3

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

C2.1

September 2007

RESULTS SHEET

Laboratory Code:

Report Results

Test results to

nearest Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Thickness 0.001 mm

1 MPa

proportional elongation) (Rp0.2)

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 gauge

1 mm

length

number /

Elastic stress or strain rate

sec

number /

Plastic strain rate

sec

- A47A47M.10575Transféré parAdán Cogley Canto
- a1infoTransféré parAlejandroCoila
- AISI 1020 Steel, Cold RolledTransféré parJulio Eduardo Candia Ampuero
- SteelTransféré parmushroom0320
- Lifting Lug DesignTransféré parhtes2014
- SECTION-1a.pdfTransféré parMichael Mark
- IRECN Bridge Bearing-5Transféré parvpmohammed
- ansys validation 100mtr report.pdfTransféré parHusen Ghori
- Simple Analysis of Cracked Concrete Section Under FlexureTransféré parabooosy
- Numerical simulation of explosives and gun powderTransféré parBernard SCHAEFFER
- Pump Material SpecificationTransféré parshripaddixit
- Comprehensive Study of High Strength Fiber Rienforced Concrete Under Pull Out StrengthTransféré parIAEME Publication
- (EW-512-5) -Destructive Testing Methods - Training Workbook-Hobart Institute of Welding Technology [Yasser Tawfik]Transféré parkirubha_karan2000
- VPE-A10985-00-A0711Transféré parnome
- Theories of Failure Under Static LoadTransféré parSneh
- datastreamTransféré parNic James
- Fourth Class Mech Thermo Questions AnswersTransféré parCalvin Jude Goveia
- Pushover Analysis of Structures Considering Strain Rate EffectsTransféré parovunctezer
- Ductile 7Transféré parusama anter
- ASSESSMENT OF THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC FLAT SLAB.pdfTransféré parrjmrss88
- ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT BARS AVAILABLE IN NIGERIAN MARKET.Transféré parOpeyemi Joshua
- Analysis of Pawl Ratchet Mechanism in Heavy VehiclesTransféré parIRJET Journal
- Mapping Grid - Mechanics of Solids GTU FinalTransféré parGovind Shriram Chhawsaria
- d TestingTransféré parMau Atenas Perez
- Araldite Ly564 Aradur 2954.PDF ResinTransféré parAbdul Hakim Abdullah
- Beginners Guide to Design PhilosophiesTransféré parRoshin99
- Thermal Shock Effect on the Glass Thermal Stress Response and Crack PrppagationTransféré parArmin Ber
- Laboratory Behaviour of Rio de Janeiro Soft Clays.Transféré pargrf06
- Characterisation of AluminiumTransféré parsathishjey
- Comparative Evaluation of 4-Inch and 6-Inch Diameter Specimens for Testing Large Stone MixesTransféré parProf. Prithvi Singh Kandhal

- 220407411-BS-EN-10113-2.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- 2375-10366-1-PB.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- Yield_Line.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- Metric Dimensions and Weights of Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- Swithboard Rm.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- Swithboard Rm.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- Cuellar PabloTransféré par9245126694
- OAN 7ntyhtyj6r3Transféré par9245126694
- Design Change NoticeefererTransféré par9245126694
- 1482744419007vEbNFnd9BTcrKjr8Transféré par9245126694
- Design Fabrication Boom Rest.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- 272907178-UNI-EN-ISO-148-1-2011-Resilienza-pdf.pdfTransféré par9245126694
- CoverTransféré par9245126694
- Winsome Resistance DataTransféré par9245126694
- Tutorial 1+key(1)Transféré par9245126694
- Recommendation for the Application of SOLAS Regulation v-15Transféré parCahya Semesta
- 01 6261 ELV Technical Specs for Elevators R1dfvrgdvfeTransféré par9245126694
- MIT2_003SCF11_quiz2Transféré par9245126694
- Corroshield FastenersTransféré par9245126694
- Pending WorkTransféré par9245126694
- Hits SongsTransféré par9245126694
- Doc 031711Transféré parSirio333
- ModesTransféré parAbdulMathin
- Discussion- Design Example for Beams with Web Openings.pdfTransféré parAnonymous 2CMPbqwB
- Yield LineTransféré par9245126694
- scan 1234rerTransféré par9245126694
- Buoyancy Tank Stopper Plate Weld Details and Flood Valve Locations (1)Transféré par9245126694
- Area Efectiva de CorteTransféré parCarlos Bernabe
- 41469-CZN-00024_2016.pdfTransféré par9245126694

- KinematicsTransféré parkumutha
- CorEx-Science-Kits.pdfTransféré parGabriel Eivazian
- 350_9562852521 (1).pdfTransféré parroscarlos1936
- 老師-2015.pdfTransféré par黃丞安
- Thermo QuestionsTransféré parAriel Raye Rica
- Design of Reinforced Concrete FoundationsTransféré parVenu Gopal
- Raa Bak Exercisea3Transféré parNeeth
- The Prime Motivation for Doing Scientific Research in Space Rather Than on Earth is Its Unique Microgravity EnvironmentTransféré parThota Sri K Haritha
- Me 206 Fluid MachineryTransféré parMohammed Asif N
- 1-s2.0-S0920410514003714-mainTransféré parpastcal
- Buchanan2007_Pile Response to Liquefaction and Lateral SpreadingTransféré parnyghodsi
- WIN 2016Transféré parPrabhat Singh
- lab report about the Conservation of Mechanical EnergyTransféré parFer Tamez
- FIRST SCIENTIFIC LECTURETransféré pariperico68
- Lecture 12 - Specific Heat of Solids; The Einstein SolidTransféré parGit
- 2011 AJC Prelim H2 Physics P2Transféré parAletheia Lai
- PY102 Syllabus (Revised NOV. 19, 2014)Transféré parJosh Kilo
- Ractangular Ground Water TankTransféré parsurendra_panga
- 70 Thermou, Plumier, DoneuxTransféré parraajesh_cse807
- venturimeterTransféré parRo Win
- J.fluids.engineering.2009.Vol.131.N4Transféré parНильва Александр
- Buchmueller, Rueckl, WylerTransféré parzcapg17
- Tee Beam ProbTransféré parSai Gowtham
- WCECS2011_pp673-678Transféré par2340sergio
- Training manual for PVelite (Basic Level).docxTransféré parChl2ist
- Earthquake_source_model_using_strong_mot.pdfTransféré parNana Hanson
- chap6 PhysicsTransféré parMadhavi Sivan
- 91751123-Solucionario-Capitulo-13-Paul-E-Tippens.pdfTransféré parJean Carlo Sánchez
- FOUNDATION RCD of Footings 2 Rectangular FootingTransféré parChris Michelle Japin
- Drift Due to EarthquakeTransféré parAnilkmar P M