You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    If you are an ASTM Compass Subscriber and this document is part of your subscription, you can access it for free at ASTM Compass

    Analysis Round Robin Results on the Linearity of Fracture Toughness Test Data

    Published: 05 September 2014

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (676K) 18 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (24M) 182 $60   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    All ASTM standards require precision and bias statements that address the typical variability observed when performing the standard. It is useful to determine the different sources of variability in a given standard so that future efforts can be undertaken to minimize error in the resulting material properties measured by that standard. This analysis round robin was undertaken with nine participants using fifteen different previously measured load-displacement datasets from linear–elastic, KIC fracture toughness tests fabricated from aluminum, titanium, and steel material. Each round robin participant analyzed the data using their own previously proven methods. A bi-modal trend in PQ variation was noted with ±1 % variability capturing 40 % of the datasets and ±4 % generally capturing the remaining 60 % of the datasets, although there were outliers observed. In summary, the method used to analyze the load-displacement response in a linear–elastic fracture toughness test contributes to between a minimum of one-tenth and on average one-third of the overall uncertainty quoted in the KIC precision and bias statement. Although the analysis methodology is likely not a primary contributor to the overall variability observed in a fracture toughness test, it is a significant contributor. In two of the nine datasets, linearity analysis methodology accounted for in excess of 10 % error. The observed variability did not definitively appear to be material related although some systematic trends were noted as a function of participant.


    fracture toughness, linearity analysis, round robin

    Author Information:

    McKeighan, Peter C.
    Exponent, Warrenville, IL

    James, Mark A.
    Alcoa, Alcoa Center, PA

    Committee/Subcommittee: E08.03

    DOI: 10.1520/STP157120130117