The current state of metrological support for static tension
https://doi.org/10.20915/2077-1177-2022-18-1-51-67
Abstract
The article presents a review and comparison of the requirements of the International Standard ISO 6892-1:2019 and the Interstate Standard GOST 1497-84 establishing a method for measuring the mechanical properties of metals under static tension.
A comparative analysis of the requirements for metrological support of static tension tests for parameters that affect the measuring results of mechanical properties, including test conditions, was carried out.
The main problems of applying GOST 1497-84 are highlighted, which require its harmonization with the International Standard ISO 6892-1:2019 and improvement of the metrological support system for static tension tests in the Russian Federation.
The scheme for ensuring the metrological traceability during static tension testing of the measuring results of mechanical properties to the primary reference measurement procedure, which requires the development of certified reference materials (CRMs) for various test units, was considered.
The authors believe that the proposed systematic approach to ensuring the uniformity of measurements of the characteristics of mechanical properties, using the primary reference methodology as a basis for comparison, will allow laboratories to ensure the reliability of the measuring results of mechanical properties, using not only intermediate precision measures, but also the correctness.
About the Authors
V. V. Tolmachev
UNIIM – Affiliated Branch of the D. I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir V. Tolmachev – Cand. Sci. (Physical and Mathematical Sciences), Head of the Department of metrology of mechanical and geometric quantities and characteristics
4 Krasnoarmeyskaya str., Ekaterinburg, 620075
I. N. Matveeva
UNIIM – Affiliated Branch of the D. I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ilona N. Matveeva – Researcher, Laboratory for Risk Management and Metrological Safety Assurance of Technological Systems
4 Krasnoarmeyskaya str., Ekaterinburg, 620075
References
1. Friedman J. B. Mechanical properties of metals. 3th ed. In 2 vol. Moscow: Mashinostroenie Publ.; 1974: 471 p. (In Russ.).
2. Bernstein M. L., Zaimovsky V. A. Mechanical properties of metals. 2nd ed. Moscow: Metallurgy Publ.; 1979: 495 p. (In Russ.).
3. Czichos H., Saito T., Smith L. Springer Handbook of Metrology and Testing. Berlin: Springer; 2011. 1229 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16641-9
4. Aegerter J., Bloching H., Sonne H. M. Influence of the testing speed on the yield/proof strength – Tensile testing in compliance with EN10002–1. Materials Testing. 2001;43(10):393–403. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2001–431006
5. McEnteggart I., Lohr R. D. Mechanical testing machine criteria. In: Dyson B. G., Loveday M. S., Gee M. G. (eds.) Materials metrology and standards for structural performance. London: Chapman & Hall; 1995. P. 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1264-2_2
6. Understanding ISO 6892–1:2016 and the Most Notable Changes. AZO Materials. 25 Jule 2016. Available at: https://www.azom.com/article.aspx? ArticleID=13017
7. Rides M., Lord J. TENSTAND final report: Computer-controlled tensile testing according to EN10002–1: Results of a comparison test programme to validate a proposal for an amendment of the standard. Teddington: National Physical Laboratory; 2005. 44 p.
8. Loveday L. J., Rides M. S., McEntaggart M. TENSTAND WP2 final report: Digital tensile software evaluation: Computer-controlled tensile testing machines validation of European Standard EN10002–1. Teddington: National Physical Laboratory; 2005.
9. Dean G. D., Loveday M. S., Cooper P. M., Read B. E., Roebuck B., Morrell. R. Aspects of modulus measurement. In: Materials metrology and standards for structural performance. London: Chapman & Hall; 1995. P. 150–209.
10. Roebuck, B., Lord, J.D., Cooper, P.M., McCartney, L. N. Data Acquisition and Analysis of Tensile Properties for Metal Matrix Composites. Journal of Testing and Evaluation. 1994;(22):63–69. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE12634J
11. Sonne H. M., Hesse B. B. Determination of Young’s modulus on steel sheet by computerized tensile test – Comparison of different evaluation concepts. In: Proceedings of Werkstoffprüfung [Materials testing]. Berlin: DVM; 1993.
12. Rides L. J., Loveday M. Modulus Measurement Methods TENSTAND WP3 Final Report NPL REPORT DEPC MPE, 2005.
13. Aegerter J., Frenz H., Kühn H.-J., Weissmüller C. EN ISO 6892–1:2009 Tensile Testing: Initial Experience from the Practical Implementation of the New Standard. Materials Testing. 2011;53(10):595–603. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.110269
14. Weissmüller C., Frenz H. Measurement Uncertainty for the Determination of Young’s Modulus on Steel. Materials Testing. 2013;55(9):643–647.
Review
For citations:
Tolmachev V.V., Matveeva I.N. The current state of metrological support for static tension. Measurement Standards. Reference Materials. 2022;18(1):51-67. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20915/2077-1177-2022-18-1-51-67
Views:
506
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Email this article 
