EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
Materials Testing Machines
Investigation of error sources and
determination of measurement uncertainty
G. Dahlberg; MTS Systems Corporation, Eden Prairie, USA
In an effort to meet National, Inter-
national, and Commercial Accreditation
requirements, users of Materials Testing
Machines must establish adequate methods
of determining calibration and test measure-
ment uncertainties. Determining measure-
ment uncertainty for testing machines and
test data can be a very complex process.
Many factors affect the uncertainty of test
data produced by testing machines.
This paper examines measurement
uncertainty contributors associated with the
calibration and use of modern materials test-
ing machines. A list of uncertainty contribu-
tors is provided including examples of error
source values and their assumed statistical
distribution types. Methods of minimizing
certain error sources are described. Also
included, is a short section discussing mea-
surement uncertainty related to ISO calibra-
tion practices ISO 376, Metallic materials –
Calibration of force-proving instruments
used for the verification of uniaxial testing
machines and ISO 7500-1, Metallic materi-
als – Verification of static uniaxial testing
machines – Part 1: Tension/compression
testing machines – Verification and calibra-
tion of the force-measuring system
This paper discusses the effect of calibra-
tion uncertainties on test data produced by
materials testing machines. Examples of how
operators, materials, testing methods, and
testing machine limitations, contribute to the
measurement uncertainty of test data.
One of two conditions will exist when
testing materials or components. The materi-
al or component will either be under tested
or over tested. There is simply no way to per-
form a materials test that contains zero error
or has a zero value for the measurement
21
uncertainty. The task then is to identify as
many sources of error as possible, and take
measures to reduce or at least quantify, the
resultant measurement uncertainty of data
and or results produced by the material test-
ing machine. Under testing a material or
component may lead to safety, warranty, and
liability problems due to premature failure or
damage. This is of particular concern for the
transportation and medical industries. Under
testing conditions exist when the testing
machine end level forces are not achieved
and or the test speed, frequency, or cycle
count is less than required to meet testing
criteria. Over testing a material or compo-
nent may lead to waste of time and material
for design, fabrication, and test. Over testing
is expensive and can potentially reduce
competitive advantage. An over testing con-
dition typically occurs when forces exceed
the testing criteria. Under testing and over
testing conditions can occur when accelera-
tion induced forces are present, during tran-
sient cyclic overshoot of a start up wave-
form, when a testing machine is poorly
controlled, or when the system is misadjust-
ed or out of calibration status. So aside from
regulatory accreditation pressures, currently
being imposed on all areas of test and mea-
surement, there are other excellent reasons
for examining measurement uncertainty re-
lated to the operation of material testing
machines.
One common misconception and impor-
tant point of interest, is that Testing Machine
Manufacturers can provide total or combined
measurement uncertainty values for material
testing machines. This is simply not true and
it would be unwise for manufacturers to pro-
vide these values. Testing Machine manu-
facturers design systems and software to
perform specific tests under specified condi-
22
(1) ISO 10012-1: 1992(E),
ISO 7500-1: 1999(E)
(2) ANSI/NCSL Z540-1,1997.
Calibration – The set of
operations, which establish,
under specified conditions,
the relationship between
values indicated by a mea-
suring instrument or measu-
ring system, and the corre-
sponding standard or
known values derived from
the standard.
(3) Standard Uncertainty
express as one standard
deviation or one sigma.
(4) Statistical Distribution.
Reference ANSI/NCSL
Z540-2-1997, NIS 3003
Edition 8, May 1995
(5) ISO 376, Metallic material
– Calibration of force-pro-
ving instruments used for
the verification of uniaxial
testing machines, Table 2.
EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
tions. Many specifications are published as
optimal operating specifications. Few if any
systems are operated under optimal condi-
tions. Sources of measurement uncertainty
should be assessed experimentally for each
type of material, system configuration, and
testing protocol to be performed.
This paper concentrates on the indication
and application of force when performing
tests using material testing machines. The
author acknowledges that material testing
machines are used to apply and measure
additional physical metrology parameters
that may include but are not limited to dis-
placement, torsional force, angular displace-
ment, pressure, and strain. An uncertainty
analysis pertaining to any metrologically sig-
nificant parameter applied or measured, and
reported by the testing machine should be
assessed.
Static Calibration Uncertainty
Calibration – The set of operations which
establish, under specified conditions, the re-
lationship between values indicated by a
measuring instrument or measuring system,
or values represented by a material measure
or a reference material, and the correspond-
ing values of a quantity realized by a refer-
ence standard.(1) (2)
The term Calibration has often been
associated with the act of making adjust-
ments. When in fact the calibration process
Source
Primary Force Calibration
Force-Proving Device
Long Term Drift of Calibration Device
Environment
Process Repeatability
Major sources of measurement uncertain-
ty can be grouped into the following cate-
gories.
1) Uncertainty due to the calibration equip-
ment and calibration processes
2) Uncertainty of the Testing Machine as
calibrated
3) Uncertainty of the Testing Machine
during use
4) Uncertainty of the Test Results
It must be understood that the uncertain-
ty values presented in these examples are
representative of a particular uncertainty
analysis and do not represent all material
testing machines of any specific type and or
configuration. It should also be recognized
that various interpretations related to error
sources and their statistical contributions
may vary depending on the method of analy-
sis applied.
provides information so that adequate ad-
justments can be made if required. Perform-
ing a calibration does not always require an
adjustment.
Uncertainty Static Calibration:
Usc = v 0.052 + 0.252 + 0.042 + 0.022 +
0.022 = 0.26%
(Root Sum Squared Method – RSS)
Uncertainty (3) Distribution (4)
0.05% Class 1 (5) normal
0.25% Class 1 normal
0.04% rectangular
0.02% rectangular
0.02% normal
EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines 23

Primary Force Proving Devices are cali-
brated in compliance with well documented
practices. Although many countries have
developed there own calibration/verification
procedures, it is likely that most countries
will soon adopt ISO 376 as a common guide
when calibrating force-proving devices.
Table 1, shows the parameters evaluated
during an ISO 376 calibration and associated
classification criteria. (6)
I believe that most countries will also be
adopting ISO 7500-1 as a guide when cali-
brating the static force indicating perfor-
mance of the testing machine. Table 2,
shows the measurement parameters and
classification criteria for static force calibra-
tion of material testing machines.(7)
Environment is an important parameter
when calibrating testing machines. The tem-
perature is very closely controlled in labora-
tories calibrating force-proving devices. ISO
376 requires that the laboratory temperature
to be maintained with in ±1 ºC.(8) The cali-
bration is to be performed with in a tempera-
ture range of 18 ºC to 28 ºC. Adequate time
must also be allowed for the force-proving
device to attain a stable temperature. This
may take as long as an hour and can be
(6) ISO 376, Table 2.
assessed by monitoring the zero force indi- (7) ISO 7500-1, Table 2.
cation. (8) ISO 376, Section 6.4.3.

Characteristics of force-proving instruments Uncertaintyª

of applied
% calibration
Class of reproducibility of repeatability of interpolation of zero of reversibility force %
00 0.05 0.025 ±0.025 ±0.012 0.07 ±0.01
0.5 0.10 0.05 ±0.05 ±0.025 0.15 ±0.02
1 0.20 0.10 ±0.10 ±0.05 0.30 ±0.05
2 0.40 0.20 ±0.20 ±0.10 0.50 ±0.10
ª The uncertainty of the calibration force is obtained by combining the random and systematic errors of the calibration force.
Table 1

Characteristic values of the force-measuring system

Class of Maximum permissible value, %
Machine Relative error of Relative
range accuracy repeatability reversibility zero resolution
q b v fo a
0.5 ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.75 ±0.05 0.25
1 ±1.0 ±1.0 ±1.5 ±0.1 0.5
2 ±2.0 ±2.0 ±3.0 ±0.2 1.0
3 ±3.0 ±3.0 ±4.5 ±0.3 1.5
Table 2
24 EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
When these devices are used to calibrate
material testing machines, the environment
that the testing machine operates in can be
quite different. ISO 7500-1 requires that the
temperature during machine calibration not
(9) ISO 7500-1, Section 6.4.2. vary more than ±2 ºC.(9) The calibration of
the testing machine shall be carried out at
an ambient temperature between 10 ºC and
35 ºC. Most force proving devices have
temperature compensation gauges or meth-
ods for calculating the reference calibration
adjustment due to temperature.
When using dead weights, the force must
be compensated for the local value of gravity
and air buoyancy. I have not found any
evidence that humidity has an effect when
performing calibrations of material testing
systems. However, if force proving devices
are not adequately sealed against humidity,
extended time exposure to high humidity
environments can cause bonding of force
sensing gauges to degrade.
Process Repeatability is determined ex-
perimentally by having a number of techni-
cians perform calibrations with the same
equipment. This can be done two ways. The
technicians can use the calibration equip-
ment to calibrate an artifact that simulates a
system or the technicians can calibrate and
actual testing machine. If the technicians cal-
ibrate a testing machine, some of the vari-
ance in the data will be due to the testing
machine itself. This is difficult to assess.
Automated calibration systems help reduce
the variance due to process repeatability.
I have not included Alignment as one of
the uncertainty contributors related to cali-
bration. Calibration technicians are normally
trained to ensure proper axial alignment
when doing calibrations. Most systems
would be difficult to fixture if alignment were
in such a condition that the calibration data
would be significantly affected. The force-
proving device is rotated and data is ac-
quired during calibration. The force-proving
device’s sensitivity to a normally experienced
out of alignment condition is included in the
combined uncertainty for the device. This is
why fixtures and studs used with force-prov-
ing devices, should be used when force-
proving devices are being calibrated. I did
however experience a rare situation while
calibrating a universal testing machine. This
was a testing machine in which the system
force transducer is physically moved when
switching from Tension to Compression
mode or the reverse. An amount of dirt
and debris present on the mating surface
between the system crosshead and force
transducer caused an out of alignment con-
dition resulting in a 2% shift in the sensitivity
of the force indication device. Therefore it is
important to inspect these mating surfaces
prior to performing a calibration.
Many quality control programs require
that «As-Found» calibration data be obtained
prior to making any changes to a testing
machine. This is good metrology practice
and can provide confidence in data and tests
performed between calibration intervals. On
the other hand this practice can also uncover
evidence that materials or components have
been incorrectly tested. If As-Found calibra-
tion data is required, calibration data must
be recorded prior to cleaning or changing the
condition of the machine.
EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
Static Testing Machine Uncertainty
Source
Resolution
Uncorrected Error
Uncertainty Static Testing Machine:
Ustm = v 0.22 + 0.22 = 0.28%
Resolution is often defined as one half
the noise, with the lowest calibration force
applied, or one digit of a digital display,
whichever is greater.(10)
Uncorrected Error is the amount of error
from the static calibration of the testing
machine. This amount of error could be
equal to the maximum value of the error
allowable specific to the required Testing
Machine Classification. I have chosen 0.2%
because this is normally the largest amount
of error we would leave when recalibrating a
Class 1 type, testing machine. This value
may be as large as ±1.0% for a Class 1
machine.
Repeatability is included in the estimate
for Uncorrected Error. Repeatability may be
treated separately depending on the calibra-
tion or evaluation procedures used.
So far we have examined uncertainty
contributors related only to the static calibra-
tion and static performance of the testing
machine. This is an important point. Often
this is where the uncertainty analysis ends.
Currently accepted Material Testing Machine
calibration /verification procedures(11) allow
for the calibration of the system at low forces
with certified deadweights. This essentially
means that the force applying apparatus of
the testing system need not be turned on or
running during the calibration. This will pro-
vide for very stable and repeatable calibra-
tion data, but will not reflect any real world
application. The problem is that very few real
world tests are purely static in nature. It is my
opinion that most tests performed with mod-
25
Uncertainty Distribution
0.20% rectangular
0.20% rectangular
ern Material Testing Machines are dynamic
to a certain degree. Tests that utilize dead-
weights for simple proof testing, are the
exception.
Most modern material testing machines
provide for some type of closed loop control (10) ASTM E4-99,
Standard Practices for
of the machine. Simply described, closed
Force Verification of Testing
loop means that a signal from one of the sys- Machines, Sections 3.1.12,
tem’s calibrated transducers is fed back into 3.1.13.
the system’s control circuit to automatically (11) ISO 7500-1 Section 6.1,
re-adjust the system to maintain desired lev- ASTM E4-99 Section 1.1.
els of force and or displacement. System
performance is greatly influenced by many
factors related to closed loop operation. This
process is occurring continually during a
test. Therefore, the changing physical para-
meters being applied to the specimen as the
specimen’s physical characteristics change
cause the system to react producing a
dynamic response.
Does this mean that in order to have a
defined level of confidence in the data pro-
duced for any test requires a dynamic cali-
bration or verification? Possibly. But before
anyone should under take such an involved
task, there are a number of other things that
should be investigated.
Testing Machine Uncertainty
During Use
The measurement uncertainty contribu-
tors in the section have the potential of mak-
ing all calibration sources of measurement
uncertainty insignificant. Keep in mind that
sources of uncertainty are combined in the
RSS method. This results in added weight
for the major contributors. A material testing
machine ill suited for a particular test can
26 EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines

contribute errors in force measurement and
application well in excess of all other com-
bined uncertainties related to the testing
machine’s use.
I do not have data to provide representa-
tive uncertainty values for all listed error
sources. I have designated those error
sources for which I have no objective evi-
dence as Not Available (N/A).
Uncertainty Testing Machine During Use:
Utmdu = v0.042 + 0.12 + 0.52 + 0.12 +
0.012 + 0.12 = 0.53%

Force Measuring and Application System Effects

Source Uncertainty Distribution
Drift .04% rectangular
Noise .1% rectangular
Resolution .5% rectangular
Stability (servo-hydraulic supply) N/A
Backlash (electro-mechanical) .1% rectangular

Environment
Source Uncertainty Distribution
Temperature .01% rectangular
Power Fluctuations N/A

Specimen Alignment
Source Uncertainty Distribution
Testing Machine and Grips N/A
Damage to the machine N/A

Application and Procedural Errors

Source Uncertainty Distribution
Errors due to system zeroing .1% rectangular
Specimen preparation N/A
Errors in reading displays .5% normal
Test Speed .2% to > 10% rectangular

I have not included the uncertainty contri-
bution values for Errors in reading displays or
for Test Speed because I have included a
fairly large value for resolution. Depending on
the type of evaluation and testing being per-
formed, one of the other sources of resolu-
(12)
NIS 3003 Edition 8 May tion error may become the dominate contrib-
1995, ANSI/NCSL
utor resulting in a value less than or greater
Z540-2-1997
than 0.5%.
The combined Testing Machine
uncertainty can be expressed:
CUtm = v Usc2 + Ustm2 + Utmdu2 or
CUtm = v 0.262 + 0.282 + 0.532 = 0.65%
Expanded Testing Machine Uncertainty
(k = 2) (12) can be expressed:
EUtm = 2 x CUtm or
2 x 0.65 = 1.3% for a confidence level
of 95%
EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
Force Measuring and Application
System Effects
Drift during use can be related to the sys-
tem’s inability to control well. The system
may need to wonder off the target force by a
relatively large amount before the control
signal makes an adjustment to correct the
system. Drift can also occur due to system
devices changing relative to temperature.
Creep in the system’s force transducer can
add to this uncertainty value as well.
Noise can occur in the form of mechani-
cal noise, electrical noise, or both. Mechan-
ical noise to some degree is almost always
present when the system is running. In mod-
ern well designed and controlled systems
operating with in normal operating ranges of
measurement and control, the total noise
due to electrical and mechanical influences
may be ±0.1% or less.
Resolution error can be due to noise, data
acquisition capabilities, and or test speed. If
resolution is evaluated as a factor of noise
during test, the uncertainty contributor for
resolution determined from the static calibra-
tion analysis need not be summed in the
total combined uncertainty value. See Test
Speed below for additional explanation.
Stability can be affected by the number
of servo-hydraulic systems on a single
hydraulic supply. It is fairly easy to know
when the pump does not have enough flow
or pressure to produce the end level forces
required. But it is not so easy to assess what
happens to the specimen or system when
running long tests and numerous machines
on the same supply are starting and stopping
tests. The only way to know the effect is to
experimentally test this condition. I have not
included an uncertainty contribution value
because it is highly subject to the type of
testing and type of specimen /component
being tested. Ideally, there would be one
testing machine per supply or only one
machine would be running at one time. This
27
may not be economically feasible so it is an
area of potential error that should be investi-
gated.
Backlash in electro-mechanically driven
testing machines can influence testing
results. The amount of backlash present can
be assessed during calibration. Backlash
can also be minimized by causing the
crosshead to advance past the point in
which the test is to be started and then
adjusted to the start point of the test in the
intended direction of the test. This is a pro-
cedural issue and is only effective for unidi-
rectional tests. If automated bi-directional or
cyclic testing is to be performed with these
types of machines, the uncertainty contribu-
tion should be determined and include in the
combined measurement uncertainty.
Environment
Temperature during a test may be signifi-
cantly different than the temperature during
calibration. An evaluation of the effect of
this difference should be performed. Where
applicable, test results may be corrected
due to temperature differences. Temperature
changes during the test may also affect the
test results. These gradients should be
known and included in the uncertainty analy-
sis.
A typical load cell temperature coeffi-
cients specification.(13) (13) Interface, Inc. 1200
series load cell specificati-
ons, 2000 product catalog
Effect on Output - %/ºC Maximum: ±0.0015
Effect on Zero - %RO/ºC Maximum: ±0.0015
We have found in our testing that as long
as the load cell temperature remains at or
very near to the temperature at which the
test is started, the error due to the tempera-
ture being significantly different than the
temperature at the time of calibration is mini-
mal. Because the system load cell is normal-
ly zeroed at the beginning of a test, if the
temperature then changes during the test,
28 EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
this is when the system force device will
contain errors when indicating force. I have
included an amount of uncertainty for this
contributor that would reflect a 5 ºC change
in temperature from the start of a test.
Power fluctuations may affect testing
machine operation and data integrity. If the
power source meets recommended manu-
facturer’s specifications, no value for mea-
surement uncertainty need be included for
this condition.
Specimen Alignment
Good specimen alignment can be critical
to the life of the specimen being tested
and thus important to the data characteriz-
ing a particular material property. Testing
Machines and Grips are manufactured to
apply and maintain good alignment. Again, it
is difficult to put an uncertainty value to this
contributor because the value would be only
significant for a specific type of specimen
and test. Some manufacturers produce
alignment devices that are easy to use and
can be adjusted with force applied. I have
found these to work well when good align-
ment is critical.
Damage to the machine can occur at
any time. Inspection of the system is critical
to maintaining operational performance. A
damaged machine can induce an out of
alignment condition. Poorly maintained sys-
tems can lead to seal friction problems,
which can result in loss of hydraulic pressure
and oil leakage during cyclic testing. Servo-
Hydraulic systems require a clean oil supply
in order to operate optimally. Most manufac-
turers will offer oil sample testing. Poorly
maintained or damaged electro-mechanical
testing machines may have excessive gear
play and or drive belts that are stretched.
This can cause excessive backlash and start
up lag times. Assigning a value for measure-
ment uncertainty due to machine wear and
or damage is difficult.
With all potential sources of measure-
ment uncertainty in this section thus far,
round robin testing between different testing
machines and if possible between different
laboratories using adequate reference mate-
rials can provide evidence that the combined
measurement uncertainty due to these con-
tributors are minimized and with in adequate
control limits.
Application and Procedural Errors
These sources of measurement uncer-
tainty have the potential to be the most sig-
nificant sources of errors when performing
tests on materials and or components. These
sources of measurement uncertainty are also
the most commonly overlooked sources
when performing an uncertainty analysis.
Common data acquisition zeroing errors
can occur when the test operator arbitrarily
zeros the data acquisition system at the start
of a test. Careful attention and an under-
standing of the test conditions and testing
system configurations are important or sig-
nificant offsets in the resultant data can be
induced. This source of measurement uncer-
tainty is specific to the test and can have a
wide range of values. Fixturing, preloading,
and backlash can have an effect on this
component. I have included a value for mea-
surement uncertainty equal to the amount
commonly experienced when the system is
not zeroed after performing initial hysteresis
cycling or if hysteresis cycling is not per-
formed.
Specimen preparation is critical to repeat-
able and predictable results. It is my experi-
ence that most testing laboratories do a good
job of following established procedures when
fabricating and preparing specimens. But,
even relatively small dimensional machining
errors can cause large errors in specimen per-
formance. Again this is a difficult measure-
ment uncertainty source to quantify. Lot test-
ing can often uncover problems of this type.
EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines 29

Errors in reading displays are quickly
becoming a small source of measurement
uncertainty due to modern computer con-
trolled testing machines. I still on occasion
have situations where the customers are try-
ing to determine a force or data point on a
stress-strain curve below the first one inch
increment on a 10 inch chart recorder. Often
times the potential error related to this prac-
tice is neither assessed nor included in an
uncertainty analysis. Errors can easily equal
± 0.5%.
Test Speed The largest errors I have
pre-travel before force was applied. The brit-
tle nature of the polycarbonate specimen
resulted in a test duration that lasted only 0.2
second. There were two basic problems with
this test. The test engineer assumed that the
crosshead would be moving at the expected
speed when the failure occurred. Specimen
failure was defined as the peak force at
which the component physically came apart.
Crosshead Speed Ramp
20
Speed (in./min)

experienced related to the testing of materi- 15

als and or components have been due to
10
inappropriate application of the testing
machine. Testing machines are expensive 5
and it is not unrealistic to expect users of
testing machines to use their systems for as 0
0 5 45 85 125 165 225
many different types of tests as possible.
Many times the system’s limitations are not milliseconds
well understood. Here is an example of a real
world situation I was involved in.
The graph shows that the crosshead was Graph 1 – Testing Machine
Crosshead Speed
A testing laboratory designed a test pro- moving at approximately 16 inches/minute
tocol to test a polycarbonate component just prior to specimen failure. The customer’s
used in the medical industry. The test engi- test protocol specified that the test speed
neers wanted to simulate a patient’s instan- have a tolerance of ±5% of desired speed.
taneous arm movement, such as a convul- The graph shows that the speed at specimen
sion or involuntary muscle reaction. This failure was 20% below the test criteria.
movement would result in applying force to
the component attached to the patient via The second mistake was to assume that
intravenous tubes. A Tensile Pull Test was the testing machine’s data acquisition sys-
designed to determine the force at which tem was adequate to capture the force indi-
the polycarbonate component would break cation at the time of specimen failure. The
under such conditions. A minimum force was customer expected that the error of peak
required to validate the component for con- force indication would be no greater than
tinued production. The test protocol was ±5%. This was also not the case. Table 3, Table 3 – Date Acquired
from Tensile Pull Test of
performed for validation of design as well shows the data acquired just prior to speci- Polycarbonate specimen at
as for continued production. Manufactured men failure. 20 inches/minute
samples were brought in periodically for lot
qualification testing.
Force (N) ∆ Force (N) %

The test was designed to run on an elec- 1919

tro-mechanical material testing machine. The 2106 187 8.9
system was selected to move the crosshead 2301 195 8.5
at 20 inches/minute. The specimen to be
2507 206 8.5
tested was fixtured so that there was zero
30 EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
By examining the data shown in Table 3,
a couple of important things are apparent.
The data in the ∆ Force (N) column shows
the difference in force between sequentially
acquired data points. The difference between
the first two data points is 187 N and the
force between the last two data points prior
it specimen failure is 206 N. Because the
force is increasing between each acquired
data point, we know that the crosshead is
still accelerating to the desired test speed.
The next data point if the specimen had not
failed would likely have been approximately
216 N or 8.6% from the previous data point.
The system reported the specimen failure at
2507 N. The specimen could have failed any-
where with in an 8.6% window greater than
2507 N. Data from the reference device used
to prove these findings recorded an average
error in the reported peak force at failure of
-7.22% with a maximum error recorded at
-19.47%. This was based on a population of
60 tested samples.
It is important to note that this test result-
ed in errors that where conservative in
nature. The actual peak forces required to
cause the specimen to fail were much
greater than the test results would indicate.
Therefore related to safety and liability this
was an overly safe test.
This system was not capable of perform-
ing the test with in the expected design
specifications. There are a couple of things
that could have been done in order to run
this test closer to the design criteria. In order
for the crosshead to be moving at the
desired speed when the event occurs, the
system needs sufficient time to overcome
ramp up conditions. This could be accom-
plished by designing fixtures that let the
crosshead move a distance prior to the
application of force on the specimen. In
order to acquire test data with in the desired
±5% specification, the system’s data acqui-
sition system would need to sample much
faster. The system had sufficient static reso-
lution but dynamically it could not acquire
data fast enough. Few systems are capable
of sample rates sufficient to meet the
requirements of this testing protocol. The
best way to run this test and acquire data
with in the accuracy desired is to simply slow
the test down. When the test was slowed to
2 inches/minute the data acquired averaged
-0.43% with a maximum error of -1.22%
based on 12 tested samples. This of course
would not provide the instantaneous move-
ment the design engineers had originally
wanted to simulate.
The equipment used to validate the test-
ing protocol consisted of a certified traceable
high-speed data acquisition system capable
of 100,000 samples per second with 16 bits
of resolution. The data acquisition system
was connected to a certified force-proving
device fixtured in the load train during the
test. I wrote custom software to use with the
system in order to acquire and present the
results.
An interesting side note to this scenario
is that the customer would probably never
have become aware of this problem if they
had not purchased a new machine for testing
in the laboratory. They planned to run the
same tests on both machines to increase
testing efficiency and found that the new
machine produced data quite different than
their older machine. While I was there, I test-
ed their older machine as well and found that
the results from that machine were consider-
ably worse than the new machine. We deter-
mined that the older machine was sampling
at 50 samples per second where as the new
machine was sampling at 200 samples per
second. Errors in peak force indication for
the older machine averaged -35% with a
maximum error of -45%. Neither machine
was sampling fast enough to produce data
with in the desire specification.
EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
Uncertainty of Test Results
One method of determining the uncer-
tainty of test results is to obtain the standard
deviation of a series of tests performed with
one particular set of control samples (Ucsr)
on the same machine. The standard uncer-
tainty will include data scatter attributed to
the samples. If reference material samples
are available, tests can be run and the stan-
dard deviation derived (Urmsr). These values
are very dependent on the type of materials
and tests performed. The range of values
can easily range from 0.1% to 1.0% and
greater. For the purpose of this exercise I will
assign 1.0% to Ucsr and 0.5% to Urmsr.
The combined measurement uncertainty
for the testing machine and testing results
can be derived.
Combined Uncertainty of Testing Results:
CUtr = v Usc2 + Ustm2 + Utmdu2 + Ucsr2
- Urmsr2
CUtr = v 0.262 + 0.282 + 0.532 + 1.02 - 0.52
= 1.08%
Expanded Uncertainty for the Test Results
(k = 2)(14):
EUtr = 2 x CUtr = 2.16% for a confidence
level of 95%
Note: I have not included any value for
the uncertainty due to errors induced by
acceleration, system resonance, or other
dynamically induced error sources. It is not
recommended that tests be performed
when dynamically induce errors are present.
An evaluation of dynamically induced error
sources is beyond the scope of this paper.
31
Recommendations
These recommendations are intended to
minimize measurement uncertainty and pro-
vide increased confidence in data produced
by material testing machines.
1.) Once an uncertainty analysis is complete,
concentrate on reducing major sources
of measurement uncertainty.
2.) Know your testing machine’s capabilities.
Design your tests to operate with in the
testing machine’s capabilities. Verify
experimentally that all testing protocols
are operating with in expected specifica-
tions.
3.) Examine the raw test data from your
tests. Verify that the system is reporting
the correct results from the raw data.
4.) Test reference materials in a number of
machines and compare results between
machines. Participate in round robin test-
ing of reference materials between differ-
ent laboratories.
5.) Keep the testing machine in optimal
operating condition. Have your testing (14) NIS 3003, ANSI/NCSL
Z540-2-1997
machine on a scheduled maintenance
program and have it serviced by trained
individuals.
6.) Keep your testing machine in a calibrated
condition. Shorten calibration intervals
based on historical calibration results
where applicable.
32 EUROLAB International Workshop: Investigation and Verification of Materials Testing Machines
Bibliography
[1] ISO 10012-1: 1992 (E), Quality
assurance requirements for mea-
suring equipment –
Part 1: Metrological confirmation
system for measuring equipment.
[2] ISO 376: 1999 (E), Metallic materi-
als – Calibration of force-proving
instruments used for the verifica-
tion of uniaxial testing machines.
[3] ISO 7500-1: 1999 (E), Metallic
materials – Verification of static
uniaxial testing machines –
Part 1: Tension/compression test-
ing machines – Verification and
calibration of the force-measuring
system.
[4] NIS 3003 Edition 8: May 1995,
The Expression of Uncertainty and
Confidence in Measurement for
Calibrations.
[5] ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997,
U.S. Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement.
[6] ASTM E74-00a, Standard Practice
of Calibration of Force-Measuring
Instruments for Verifying the Force
Indication of Testing Machines.
ASTM Volume 03.01.
[7] ASTM E4-99, Standard Practices
for Force Verification of Testing
Machines. ASTM Volume 03.01.
[8] EAL-G22, Uncertainty of
Calibration Results in Force
Measurements
[9] Interface, Inc. Product Catalog
2000.