| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|11||$50.00||  ADD TO CART|
|Hardcopy (shipping and handling)||11||$50.00||  ADD TO CART|
Significance and Use
4.1 It is well understood how to measure the forces applied to a specimen under static conditions. Practices details the required process for verifying the static force measurement capabilities of testing machines. During dynamic operation however, additional errors may manifest themselves in a testing machine. Further verification is necessary to confirm the dynamic force measurement capabilities of testing machines.
Note 1: The static machine verification accomplished by Practices simply establishes the reference. Indicated forces measured from the force cell are compared with the dynamometer conditioned forces statically for confirmation and then dynamically for dynamic verification of the fatigue testing system's force output.
Note 2: The dynamic accuracy of the force cell's output will not always meet the accuracy requirement of this standard without correction. Dynamic correction to the force cell output can be applied provided that verification is performed after the correction has been applied.
Note 3: Overall test accuracy is a combination of measurement accuracy and control accuracy. This practice provides methods to evaluate either or both. As control accuracy is dependent on many more variables than measurement accuracy it is imperative that the test operator utilize appropriate measurement tools to confirm that the testing machine’s control behavior is consistent between verification activities and actual testing activities.
4.2 Dynamic errors are primarily span dependent, not level dependent. That is, the error for a particular force endlevel during dynamic operation is dependent on the immediately preceding force endlevel. Larger spans imply larger absolute errors for the same force endlevel.
4.3 Due to the many test machine factors that influence dynamic force accuracy, verification is recommended for every new combination of potential error producing factors. Primary factors are specimen design, machine configuration, test frequency, and loading span. Clearly, performing a full verification for each configuration is often impractical. To address this problem, dynamic verification is taken in two parts.
4.3.1 First, one or more full verifications are performed at least annually. The main body of this practice describes that procedure. This provides the most accurate estimate of dynamic errors, as it will account for electronic as well as acceleration-induced sources of error.
4.3.2 The second part, described in , is a simplified verification procedure. It provides a simplified method of estimating acceleration-induced errors only. This procedure is to be used for common configuration changes (that is, specimen/grip/crosshead height changes).
4.4 Dynamic verification of the fatigue system is recommended over the entire range of force and frequency over which the planned fatigue test series is to be performed. Endlevels are limited to the machine's verified static force as defined by the current static force verification when tested in accordance with Practices .
Note 4: There is uncertainty as to whether or not the vibration in a frame will be different when operating in compression as opposed to tension. As a consequence, this practice recommends performing verifications at maximum tension and maximum compression endlevels. The total span does not need to be between those two levels, but can be performed as two tests.
Note 5: Primary electronic characteristics affecting dynamic measurement accuracy are noise and bandwidth. Excessive noise is generally the dominant effect at the minimum test frequency. Insufficient bandwidth-induced errors are generally most significant at the maximum test frequency.
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude control or measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of forces applied by the machine or dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section . It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices or equivalent.
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section , the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered or performed by a person, or both, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is expected. Failure to obtain consistent results between verifications using the same machine configuration implies uncertain accuracy for dynamic tests performed during that time period.
1.5 This practice addresses the accuracy of the testing machine's force control or indicated forces, or both, as compared to a dynamometer's indicated dynamic forces. Force control verification is only applicable for test systems that have some form of indicated force peak/valley monitoring or amplitude control. For the purposes of this verification, the dynamometer's indicated dynamic forces will be considered the true forces. Phase lag between dynamometer and force transducer indicated forces is not within the scope of this practice.
1.6 The results of either the calculation or the full experimental verification must be reported per Section of this standard.
1.7 This practice provides no assurance that the shape of the actual waveform conforms to the intended waveform within any specified tolerance.
1.8 This standard is principally focused at room temperature operation. It is believed there are additional issues that must be addressed when testing at high temperatures. At the present time, this standard practice must be viewed as only a partial solution for high temperature testing.
1.9 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
ICS Number Code 77.040.10 (Mechanical testing of metals)
UNSPSC Code 41114608(Fatigue testers)
|Link to Active (This link will always route to the current Active version of the standard.)|
ASTM E467-08(2014), Standard Practice for Verification of Constant Amplitude Dynamic Forces in an Axial Fatigue Testing System, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.orgBack to Top