REPORT NO.

1208

Tensile Testing of Metals

Proficiency Testing Program
Round 13
July 2020

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PTA wishes to gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance provided
for this program by Mr S Sameem, ARL Laboratory Services Pty Ltd.
Also our thanks go to ARL Laboratory Services Pty Ltd, for the supply
and homogeneity testing of the samples.

© COPYRIGHT PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA 2020

PO Box 7507 Silverwater NSW 2128 AUSTRALIA
 CONTENTS

1. FOREWORD 1

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM 1

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES 2

4. DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM 3

5. OUTLIER RESULTS 4
Table A: Summary Statistics for All Tests 4
Table B: Summary of Statistical Outliers 5

6. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER'S COMMENTS 5

7. REFERENCES 13

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Summary of Results
0.2% Proof Stress A1.1
Lower Yield A2.1
Upper Yield A3.1
Tensile Strength A4.1
Percentage Elongation after Fracture A5.1
Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture A6.1
Method Information and Other Reported Results A7.1

APPENDIX B
Homogeneity Testing B1.1

APPENDIX C
Instructions to Participants C1.1
Results Sheet C2.1
 -1-

1. FOREWORD

This report summarises the results of a proficiency testing program on the

tensile properties of metals. It constitutes the thirteenth round of an ongoing
series of programs. This program is accredited to ISO/IEC 17043: 2010
“Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing” by
International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ).

Proficiency Testing Australia (PTA) conducted the testing program in April –

June 2020. The aim of the program was to assess laboratories' ability to
competently perform the nominated tests.

The Program Coordinator was Dr M Bunt. The Technical Adviser was

Mr S Sameem, ARL Laboratory Services Pty Ltd. This report was authorised
by Mrs K Cividin, PTA Quality Manager.

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM

(a) A total of 24 laboratories participated in the program, two of which did not
return results for inclusion in the final report. Laboratories from the following
countries received samples:

7 NEW ZEALAND
4 AUSTRALIA
4 THAILAND
1 BOTSWANA
1 BRAZIL
1 COLOMBIA
1 ETHIOPIA
1 QATAR
1 SAUDI ARABIA
1 SINGAPORE
1 TAIWAN
1 TANZANIA

To ensure confidential treatment of results, each laboratory was allocated a

unique code number. All reference to participants in this report is by allocated
code numbers. Please note that some laboratories submitted more than one
set of results. The code numbers of these laboratories (with appended letters)
could appear several times in the same data set.

(b) The results reported by participants are presented in Appendix A.

(c) Laboratories were provided with a carbon steel round bar, labelled Sample 1,
and an aluminium flat bar, labelled Sample 2. Both samples were
approximately 450 mm in length. The carbon steel round bar was
approximately 20 mm in diameter. The aluminium flat bar was approximately
40 mm in width and 6 mm in thickness.
 -2-

(d) Laboratories were asked to perform tests for:

 0.2% Proof Stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2);

 Lower and Upper Yield Strength (ReL and ReH), if applicable;
 Tensile Strength (Rm);
 Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%); and
 Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture (Z%).

(e) All testing, recording and reporting was to be performed in accordance with
the laboratory’s routine test methods, but testing in accordance with
AS 1391 or ISO 6892-1 were the preferred test methods.

(f) Laboratories were requested to perform the tests according to the Instructions
to Participants provided and to record the results, along with an estimate of
their measurement uncertainty (MU) for each result, on the accompanying
Results Sheet, which was distributed with the samples. Copies of these
documents appear in Appendix C.

(g) Prior to distribution, the samples were tested for homogeneity by ARL
Laboratory Services Pty Ltd. Based on the results of this testing, the
homogeneity of the samples was established (see Appendix B).

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES

(a) Appendix A is divided into seven sections (A1-A7).

Sections A1-A6 contain the analysis of results reported by laboratories for

0.2% Proof Stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2), Lower Yield (ReL),
Upper Yield (ReH), Tensile Strength (Rm), Percentage Elongation after
Fracture (A%) and Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture (Z%). These
sections contain, where appropriate:

i) a table of results reported by laboratories for each test, with estimates of

their MUs and calculated z-scores;
ii) a listing of the summary statistics; and
iii) ordered z-score charts.

Section A7 contains information on the methods used by laboratories and the

results reported by laboratories for Tensile Specimen Gauge Diameter,
Tensile Specimen Gauge Thickness, Tensile Specimen Gauge Width, Tensile
Specimen Gauge Length, Elastic Stress or Strain Rate and Plastic Strain
Rate.

(b) Appendix B contains details of the homogeneity testing.

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

Sheet.
 -3-

4. DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM

The summary statistics calculated for each test / sample consists of:

 No. of Results: the total number of results for that test / sample;
 Median: the middle value of the results;
 Normalised IQR: the normalised interquartile range of the results;
 Uncertainty of the Median: a robust estimate of the standard deviation
of the Median;
 Robust CV: the robust coefficient of variation expressed as a
percentage, i.e. 100 x Normalised IQR / Median;
 Minimum: the lowest laboratory result;
 Maximum: the highest laboratory result; and
 Range: the difference between the Maximum and Minimum.

The median is a measure of the centre of the data.

The normalised IQR is a measure of the spread of the results. It is calculated

by multiplying the interquartile range (IQR) by a correction factor, which
converts the IQR to an estimate of the standard deviation. The IQR is the
difference between the upper and lower quartiles (i.e. the values above and
below which a quarter of the results lie, respectively).

For normally distributed data, the uncertainty of the median is approximated

by:

 normIQR

2 n

where normIQR is the normalised IQR and n is the number of results.

In order to assess laboratories’ testing performance, a robust statistical

approach, using z-scores, was utilised. Z-scores give a measure of how far a
result is from the consensus value (i.e. the median), and gives a "score" to
each result relative to the other results in the group.

A z-score with an absolute value less than or equal to 2.0 is considered to be

satisfactory, whereas, a z-score with an absolute value greater than or equal
to 3.0 is considered to be an outlier and is marked by the symbol “§”.
Laboratories are also encouraged to review results which have an absolute
z-score value between 2.0 and 3.0 (i.e. 2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0). These results
are considered to be questionable results.

Ordered z-score charts indicate each laboratory's robust z-score, in order of

magnitude, marked with its laboratory code number. From these charts, each
laboratory can readily compare its performance relative to the other
laboratories.

The ordered z-score charts in Appendix A are limited on the vertical axis to
+3.0 and -3.0, so that outliers are clearly identifiable as those laboratories
whose "bar" extends beyond the chart boundary.
 -4-

For further details on the calculation and interpretation of robust z-scores and
ordered z-score charts, please see the Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia
(2019).

5. OUTLIER RESULTS
The following table summarises the results submitted by participants for the
program.

Table A: Summary Statistics for All Tests

Test Summary Statistics Sample 1 Sample 2

Number of Results 22 20
0.2% Proof Stress (non- Median 594.5 197.5
proportional elongation) (Rp0.2)
(MPa) Normalised IQR 25.8 19.3
Uncertainty (Median) 6.9 5.4
Number of Results 5 5
Lower Yield (ReL) Median n/a n/a
(MPa) Normalised IQR n/a n/a
Uncertainty (Median) n/a n/a
Number of Results 4 4
Upper Yield (ReH) Median n/a n/a
(MPa) Normalised IQR n/a n/a
Uncertainty (Median) n/a n/a
Number of Results 21 22
Tensile Strength (Rm) Median 630.0 229.0
(MPa) Normalised IQR 11.9 11.9
Uncertainty (Median) 3.2 3.2
Number of Results 19 20
Percentage Elongation Median 14.2 13.0
after Fracture
(A%) Normalised IQR 2.0 1.5
Uncertainty (Median) 0.6 0.4
Number of Results 19 n/a
Percentage Reduction in Median 54.0 n/a
Area after Fracture
(Z%) Normalised IQR 2.6 n/a
Uncertainty (Median) 0.8 n/a
 -5-

Table B: Summary of Statistical Outliers

(by laboratory code number)

Test Sample 1 Sample 2

0.2% Proof Stress 1, 13, 17B, 18 11, 21

Lower Yield

Upper Yield

Tensile Strength 1, 13, 17B, 18 -

Percentage Elongation
- 14, 20A, 20B
after Fracture
Percentage Reduction in
1, 17B
Area after Fracture

Notes:

1. For each test, the results for all test methods were pooled for analysis.

2. Summary statistics and z-scores for Percentage Elongation after Fracture

for Sample 1 were calculated by converting the results to a proportional
gauge length.

3. There was an insufficient number of results submitted for Lower Yield and
Upper Yield to calculate summary statistics or z-scores.

4. The Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture was only required to be

reported for Sample 1.

6. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER’S COMMENTS

Consensus values (medians), derived from participants’ results, are used as

the assigned values in this program. These values are not metrologically
traceable to an external reference. The summary statistics, uncertainties of
the assigned values and outliers, for each of the tests, are reported in Tables
A and B, above and on the previous page. Complete details of the statistical
analyses appear in Appendix A.
 -6-

6.1 Return rate

Twenty-two of the 24 laboratories (92%) that participated in the program

returned results. Of the 22 laboratories that submitted results for the program,
the return rate for all tests is as follows:

Test Sample 1 Sample 2

0.2% Proof Stress 20 out of 22 (91%) 19 out of 22 (86%)

Lower Yield 5 out of 22 (23%) 5 out of 22 (23%)

Upper Yield 4 out of 22 (18%) 4 out of 22 (18%)

Tensile Strength 19 out of 22 (86%) 20 out of 22 (91%)

Percentage Elongation
18 out of 22 (82%) 18 out of 22 (82%)
after Fracture
Percentage Reduction in
17 out of 22 (77%)
Area after Fracture

Note that the numbers in the above table refer only to results returned that
were able to be analysed. Some laboratories attempted some of the tests but
were unable to report results for a variety of reasons (such as the sample
failing outside the gauge length, for example).

6.2 Performance summary

One or more statistical outliers were reported by eight of the 22 laboratories

(36%) that returned results for this round of the program. The last round of
the Tensile Testing of Metals program where participants tested a round bar
sample and a flat bar sample was Round 7. For comparison, 21% of the
participants reported outlier results in Round 7 of the Tensile Testing of Metals
program (see Report No. 901 for more details).

A total of 143 results were analysed in this round of the program. Of these
results, fifteen (10%) were outliers. For comparison, 5% of the results
analysed in Round 7 of the Tensile Testing of Metals program were outliers
(see Report No. 901 for more details).
 -7-

6.3 0.2% Proof Stress

A total of 22 laboratories reported results for 0.2% Proof Stress. Twenty of

these laboratories reported results for Sample 1, while 19 of these
laboratories reported results for Sample 2. Of these 22 laboratories, nine
laboratories tested using AS 1391, including two laboratories that submitted
two sets of results. Nine laboratories tested using ISO 6892-1. One
laboratory tested using ASTM B557M. One laboratory tested using JIS Z
2241. Two laboratories did not specify the method that they used for testing
(see Appendix A7 for more details).

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 1, the median
and standard error of the 0.2% Proof Stress results was 589.0 ± 14.4 MPa.
For all methods pooled, the median and standard error of the 0.2% Proof
Stress results for Sample 1 was 594.5 ± 6.9 MPa.

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 2, the median
and standard error of the 0.2% Proof Stress results was 197.0 ± 2.2 MPa. For
all methods pooled, the median and standard error of the 0.2% Proof Stress
results for Sample 2 was 197.5 ± 5.4 MPa.

The methods were pooled when analysing the results for both samples.

Four laboratories (codes 1, 13, 17B and 18) reported outlier results for
Sample 1. Two laboratories (codes 11 and 21) reported outlier results for
Sample 2. Two laboratories (codes 7 and 22) obtained absolute z-scores
between 2.0 and 3.0 for Sample 1.

The yield and proof strengths are very sensitive to loading conditions. If the
test sample is subjected to higher load rates, the 0.2% Proof Stress results
obtained may be slightly higher than normal. Another reason for high 0.2%
Proof Stress results could be that the force measurements may not have been
zeroed prior to testing and, as a result, higher strength values could be
obtained. This may be the reason for the outlier results reported by laboratory
codes 1, 13, 17B and 18, who each reported higher than normal strength
values. These participants are highly encouraged to review their testing
procedures to ensure correct loading conditions are employed during the
tensile tests.

The same can also be said for laboratory codes 11 and 21. When testing
aluminium samples, or any other material, it is imperative to check and verify
that the correct loading conditions are applied. Otherwise erroneous results
will be obtained.

The robust CV for the 0.2% Proof Stress results for Sample 1 (the round bar
sample) was 4.3%, while the robust CV for Sample 2 (the flat bar sample) was
9.8%. The last round of this program where the 0.2% Proof Stress results for
a round bar sample and a flat bar sample were analysed was Round 7. In
Round 7 of this program the robust CV obtained for the round bar sample was
2.2%, while the robust CV for the flat bar sample was 12.2%. The robust CVs
obtained for this round of the program compare well with the robust CVs
obtained in Round 7 of the program (see Report No. 901 for more details).
 -8-

Fourteen laboratories reported measurement uncertainties associated with

their 0.2% Proof Stress test results in this round.

6.4 Lower Yield

Only 5 laboratories determined values for the Lower Yield. Four of these
laboratories tested using ISO 6892-1, while one laboratory tested using
AS 1391 (see Appendix A7 for more details).

There was an insufficient number of results submitted for Lower Yield to

calculate summary statistics or z-scores.

Two laboratories reported measurement uncertainties associated with their

Lower Yield test results in this round.

6.5 Upper Yield

Only 4 laboratories determined values for the Upper Yield. Three of these
laboratories tested using ISO 6892-1, while one laboratory tested using
AS 1391 (see Appendix A7 for more details).

There was an insufficient number of results submitted for Upper Yield to

calculate summary statistics or z-scores.

One laboratory reported measurement uncertainties associated with their

Upper Yield test results in this round.

6.6 Tensile Strength

A total of 22 laboratories reported results for Tensile Strength. Nineteen of

these laboratories reported results for Sample 1, while 20 of these
laboratories reported results for Sample 2. Of these 22 laboratories, nine
laboratories tested using AS 1391, including two laboratories that submitted
two sets of results. Nine laboratories tested using ISO 6892-1. One
laboratory tested using ASTM B557M. One laboratory tested using JIS Z
2241. Two laboratories did not specify the method that they used for testing
(see Appendix A7 for more details).

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 1, the median
and standard error of the Tensile Strength results was 631.5 ± 9.1 MPa. For
all methods pooled, the median and standard error of the Tensile Strength
results for Sample 1 was 630.0 ± 3.2 MPa.

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 2, the median
and standard error of the Tensile Strength results was 227.0 ± 2.0 MPa. For
all methods pooled, the median and standard error of the Tensile Strength
results for Sample 2 was 229.0 ± 3.2 MPa.

The methods were pooled when analysing the results for both samples.
 -9-

Four laboratories (codes 1, 13, 17B and 18) reported outlier results for
Sample 1. There were no outlier results reported for Sample 2. One
laboratory (code 6) obtained an absolute z-score between 2.0 and 3.0 for
Sample 1. Four laboratories (codes 11, 14, 21 and 22) obtained absolute
z-scores between 2.0 and 3.0 for Sample 2.

The same comments regarding the high results reported by laboratory codes
1, 11, 13, 17B, 18 and 21 for 0.2% Proof Stress can also be applied to the
high results that these laboratories reported for Tensile Strength.

The robust CV for the Tensile Strength results for Sample 1 (the round bar
sample) was 1.9%, while the robust CV for Sample 2 (the flat bar sample) was
5.2%. The last round of this program where the Tensile Strength results for a
round bar sample and a flat bar sample were analysed was Round 7. In
Round 7 of this program the robust CV obtained for the round bar sample was
1.4%, while the robust CV for the flat bar sample was 2.3%. The robust CVs
obtained for this round of the program are higher than the robust CVs
obtained in Round 7 of the program (see Report No. 901 for more details).

Fourteen laboratories reported measurement uncertainties associated with

their Tensile Strength test results in this round.

6.7 Percentage Elongation after Fracture

A total of 22 laboratories reported results for Percentage Elongation after

Fracture. Eighteen of these laboratories reported results for Sample 1, while
18 of these laboratories reported results for Sample 2. Of these 22
laboratories, nine laboratories tested using AS 1391, including two
laboratories that submitted two sets of results. Nine laboratories tested using
ISO 6892-1. One laboratory tested using ASTM B557M. One laboratory
tested using JIS Z 2241. Two laboratories did not specify the method that
they used for testing (see Appendix A7 for more details).

Participants were asked to use their routine methods for testing Sample 1.
This means that the participants could employ different gauge diameters and
different gauge lengths for their tensile testing of this sample. Therefore, it
was necessary to convert the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results
submitted by the participants for Sample 1 to a proportional gauge length of
5.65 √ S0 (5.65 times the square root of the original cross-sectional area).
The results were converted to a proportional gauge length using the formula
of ISO 2566-1. These results are displayed in Appendix A5. The exact
formula used to convert the results is given on page A5.1 of Appendix A5.

For the testing of Sample 2 there are currently no elongation conversion

values established for aluminium alloys. This means that to evaluate, verify
and compare Percentage Elongation after Fracture results for aluminium
samples, it is important to use the same tensile test conditions, as supplied.
Therefore, the participants were provided with instructions on how to machine
Sample 2. These instructions can be found on page C1.3 of Appendix C.
 -10-

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 1, the median
and standard error of the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results
(converted to a proportional gauge length) was 13.6 ± 0.9%. For all methods
pooled, the median and standard error of the Percentage Elongation after
Fracture results (converted to a proportional gauge length) for Sample 1 was
14.2 ± 0.6%.

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 2, the median
and standard error of the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results was
13.1 ± 0.4%. For all methods pooled, the median and standard error of the
Percentage Elongation after Fracture results for Sample 2 was 13.0 ± 0.4%.

The methods were pooled when analysing the results for both samples.

There were no outlier results reported for Sample 1. Three laboratories

(codes 14, 20A and 20B) reported outlier results for Sample 2. One
laboratory (code 4) obtained an absolute z-score between 2.0 and 3.0 for
Sample 2.

It was expected that there would be outlier results for Percentage Elongation
after Fracture for Sample 2. That is because not all participants are expected
to be familiar with aluminium material testing. The k-factor for laboratory code
14, being the lowest in this round, may suggest that the correct elongation
values were not supplied for evaluation by this laboratory. The very high
elongation values of 25%, reported by laboratory codes 20A and 20B, suggest
the use of defective measuring equipment.

The robust CV for the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results for
Sample 1 (the round bar sample) was 14.1%, while the robust CV for Sample
2 (the flat bar sample) was 11.4%. The last round of this program where the
Percentage Elongation after Fracture results for a round bar sample and a flat
bar sample were analysed was Round 7. In Round 7 of this program the
robust CV obtained for the round bar sample was 10.0%, while the robust CV
for the flat bar sample was 6.4%. The robust CVs obtained for this round of
the program are higher than the robust CVs obtained in Round 7 of the
program (see Report No. 901 for more details).

Fourteen laboratories reported measurement uncertainties associated with

their Percentage Elongation after Fracture test results in this round.

6.8 Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture

The Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture was only required to be

reported for Sample 1. A total of 17 laboratories reported results for
Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture. Of these 17 laboratories, eight
laboratories tested using AS 1391, including two laboratories that submitted
two sets of results. Eight laboratories tested using ISO 6892-1. One
laboratory did not specify the method that they used for testing (see Appendix
A7 for more details).
 -11-

For the laboratories that used the AS 1391 method for Sample 1, the median
and standard error of the Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture results
was 55.0 ± 1.4%. For all methods pooled, the median and standard error of
the Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture results for Sample 1 was
54.0 ± 0.8%.

The methods were pooled when analysing the results for Sample 1.

Two laboratories (codes 1 and 17B) reported outlier results for Sample 1.

For round samples, the Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture is one of
the most important tensile properties. If the correct cup and cone sections are
not identified, reduction areas obtained could be incorrect. Usually, the
Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture can be calculated by measuring
the smallest diameter of the tested bar in the cup section of the broken
samples. This should be checked with the cone section of the tested sample
and should be approximately the same value. The results reported by
laboratory codes 1 and 17B suggest that these laboratories could not correctly
identify the reduced area of the tested samples.

The robust CV for the Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture results for
Sample 1 (the round bar sample) was 4.9%. In Round 7 of this program the
robust CV obtained for the round bar sample was 4.1%. The robust CV
obtained for this round of the program compares well with the robust CV
obtained in Round 7 of the program (see Report No. 901 for more details).

Ten laboratories reported measurement uncertainties associated with their

Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture test results in this round.

6.9 Measurement Uncertainty

A lower percentage of participants in this round reported estimates of the

measurement uncertainty associated with their results than those that
reported measurement uncertainties in recent rounds of this program. The
number and percentage of laboratories that reported estimates of their
measurement uncertainty for each test is as follows:

 0.2% Proof Stress 14 out of 22 64%

 Lower Yield 2 out of 5 40%
 Upper Yield 1 out of 4 25%
 Tensile Strength 14 out of 22 64%
 Percentage Elongation after Fracture 14 out of 22 64%
 Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture 10 out of 17 59%

Any laboratories that reported a measurement uncertainty less than two times
the uncertainty of the median may have underestimated their measurement
uncertainty.
 -12-

Any laboratories that reported a measurement uncertainty greater than three

times the normalised IQR may have overestimated their measurement
uncertainty.

All the participants are highly encouraged to report and use measurement
uncertainty, so that the program analysis can provide a better outlook of the
overall performance for this program. An approach, such as that described in
AS 1391 Appendix H, “An Error Budget”, to the estimation of the
measurement uncertainty in tensile testing is an example of an approach that
could be followed.

6.10 Other Reported Results

In addition to reporting results for 0.2% Proof Stress, Lower Yield, Upper
Yield, Tensile Strength, Percentage Elongation after Fracture and Percentage
Reduction in Area after Fracture, participants were also asked to report the
Tensile Specimen Gauge Diameter, Tensile Specimen Gauge Thickness,
Tensile Specimen Gauge Width, Tensile Specimen Gauge Length, Elastic
Stress or Strain Rate and Plastic Strain Rate. The details reported by each of
the participants are displayed in Appendix A7.

It is highly recommended that all of the participants report all of this necessary
information, in order to better analyse the test results. The Tensile Specimen
Diameter and Tensile Specimen Gauge Length were required in order to
convert the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results to a proportional
gauge length for Sample 1. The Tensile Specimen Gauge Thickness, Tensile
Specimen Gauge Width and Tensile Specimen Gauge Length can be used to
check if the participants machined Sample 2 according to the Instructions to
Participants. The loading rates (both stress and strain rates) can be reviewed
for any abnormal test results. The loading rates are particularly important
when comparing test results for elongation and yield strength, as the loading
rates can affect these properties.

6.11 General Comments

The aim of this round of the program was to determine the capabilities and
proficiency of the participating laboratories in comparing and understanding
the role of specimen geometry and material type on the tensile properties of
the materials.

The overall performance of the participating laboratories in this round has

been very interesting. There were numerous outlier results for various tensile
properties and from different participants. Surprisingly, there were more
outlier results for the carbon steel sample than the aluminium sample (ten
versus five, respectively). These tensile proficiency testing programs can
greatly help the participants with outlier results to identify deficiencies that
may be present in their methodologies and address them. This will help in
improving the overall technical competency and proficiency of the participants.
 -13-

All the participating laboratories that reported results that have an absolute
z-score of more than 2.0 are highly encouraged to use these proficiency
testing programs to evaluate their testing methods, loading conditions,
preparation procedures, equipment management and training details. It is
expected of each participant to analyse their own proficiency testing results
and evaluate any trends.

7. REFERENCES

1. Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia (2019). (This document is located

on the PTA website at www.pta.asn.au under Programs / Documents).

2. ISO/IEC 17043: 2010 Conformity assessment – General requirements for

proficiency testing.

3. AS 1391 (2007) – Metallic materials – Tensile testing at ambient

temperature.

4. ISO 6892-1 (2016) – Metallic materials – Tensile testing – Part 1: Method

of test at room temperature.

5. ISO 2566-1 (1984) – Steel – Conversion of elongation values – Part 1:

Carbon and low alloy steels.

6. ASTM B557M – Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing Wrought and
Cast Aluminum and Magnesium-Alloy Products (Metric).

7. JIS Z 2241 (2011) – Metallic materials – Tensile testing – Method of test

at room temperature.
.
.
 APPENDIX A

Summary of Results
 Section A1

0.2% Proof Stress

 A1.1

0.2% Proof Stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2) (MPa) –

Results and Z-Scores
Sample 1 Sample 2
Lab Code
Result MU (±) Z-Score Result MU (±) Z-Score
1 702 - 4.17 § 230 - 1.69
2 593 - -0.06 - - -
4 577 17.3 -0.68 201 19.2 0.18
5 596 7 0.06 - - -
6 625 5% 1.18 210 5% 0.65
7 652 4 2.23 196 3 -0.08
8 602.86 - 0.32 176.05 - -1.11
9 578 4.5 -0.64 176 4 -1.12
11 562 8 -1.26 107 8 -4.70 §
12 586 6 -0.33 198 6 0.03
13 690 - 3.71 § 189 - -0.44
14 605 - 0.41 172 - -1.32
15 596 - 0.06 - - -
16 - - - 209 1 0.60
17A 588 3% -0.25 197 3% -0.03
17B 700 3% 4.10 § - - -
18 698 10 4.02 § 199 3 0.08
19 585 2% -0.37 193 2% -0.23
20A 589 6 -0.21 179 2 -0.96
20B 588 6 -0.25 203 2 0.29
21 597 - 0.10 256 - 3.04 §
22 528 - -2.58 172 - -1.32
23 - - - 208 13 0.55
24 571 5 -0.91 201 2 0.18

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 2

Number of Results 22 20
Median 594.5 197.5
Normalised IQR 25.8 19.3
Uncertainty (Median) 6.9 5.4
Robust CV 4.3% 9.8%
Minimum 528 107
Maximum 702 256
Range 174 149
 A1.2

Notes:
1. § denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| ≥ 3.0).
2. Laboratory code 5 could not report a result for 0.2% Proof Stress for Sample 2
because their extensometer failed.
3. The samples for laboratory code 12 were machined by another laboratory.

0.2% Proof Stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2) - Sample 1

17B
13

18

1
3

7
2

6
Robust Z-Score

14
8
21
15
5
0
2
20A
17A

20B
12
19
9

-1
4
24
11

-2
22

-3
Laboratory Code

0.2% Proof Stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2) - Sample 2

21
3

2
1
Robust Z-Score

16

1
23

6
20B
24
18
12

0
17A
7
19
13

-1
20A
9

8
14

22

-2

-3
11

Laboratory Code
Section A2

Lower Yield
 A2.1

Lower Yield (ReL) (MPa) – Results

Sample 1 Sample 2
Lab Code
Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
1 700 - 230 -
4 578 17.3 224 19.2
18 722 11 205 3
21 573 - 230 -
22 528 - 171 -

Notes:
1. There was an insufficient number of results submitted for Lower Yield to
calculate summary statistics or z-scores.
Section A3

Upper Yield
 A3.1

Upper Yield (ReH) (MPa) – Results

Sample 1 Sample 2
Lab Code
Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
1 702 - 230 -
18 727 11 207 3
21 577 - 237 -
22 528 - 172 -

Notes:
1. There was an insufficient number of results submitted for Upper Yield to
calculate summary statistics or z-scores.
 Section A4

Tensile Strength
 A4.1

Tensile Strength (Rm) (MPa) – Results and Z-Scores

Sample 1 Sample 2
Lab Code
Result MU (±) Z-Score Result MU (±) Z-Score
1 743 - 9.53 § 235 - 0.51
2 630 - 0.00 - - -
4 622 17.3 -0.67 252 19.2 1.94
5 633 7 0.25 229 3 0.00
6 655 5% 2.11 235 5% 0.51
7 - - - 225 2 -0.34
8 639.92 - 0.84 208.87 - -1.70
9 618 5 -1.01 210 5 -1.60
11 640 0.14 0.84 258 0.14 2.45
12 627 6 -0.25 229 6 0.00
13 734 - 8.77 § 218 - -0.93
14 628 - -0.17 203 - -2.19
15 631 - 0.08 - - -
16 - - - 236 1 0.59
17A 623 2% -0.59 227 2% -0.17
17B 740 2% 9.27 § 232 2% 0.25
18 741 8 9.36 § 226 3 -0.25
19 618 2% -1.01 222 2% -0.59
20A 630 6 0.00 211 2 -1.52
20B 639 6 0.76 234 2 0.42
21 624 - -0.51 264 - 2.95
22 626 - -0.34 202 - -2.28
23 - - - 236 13 0.59
24 621 5 -0.76 232 2 0.25

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 2

Number of Results 21 22
Median 630.0 229.0
Normalised IQR 11.9 11.9
Uncertainty (Median) 3.2 3.2
Robust CV 1.9% 5.2%
Minimum 618 202
Maximum 743 264
Range 125 62
 A4.2

Notes:
1. § denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| ≥ 3.0).
2. Laboratory code 7 machined Sample 1 at full section. The sample failed within
the jaws and so the Tensile Strength could not be reported for Sample 1.
3. The samples for laboratory code 12 were machined by another laboratory.

Tensile Strength (Rm) - Sample 1

17B
13

18

1
3

6
2

20B

11
8
Robust Z-Score

20A

5
15
2

0
14
12
22
17A

21

-1
4
24
19
9

-2

-3
Laboratory Code

Tensile Strength (Rm) - Sample 2

21
3
11
4

2
Robust Z-Score

20B

16

23

1
17B

6
24
12
5

0
17A
7

18
19

-1
13
9

20A
8

-2
14
22

-3
Laboratory Code
 Section A5

Percentage Elongation
after Fracture
 A5.1

Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%) –

Results and Proportional Gauge Length (PGL) Results
Sample 1 Sample 2
Lab Code
Result MU (±) PGL Result Result MU (±)
1 12 - 13 * -
2 14 - 14 - -
4 15 0.47 15 9 0.73
5 15.72 1 16 15.12 1
6 13 5% 13 12 5%
7 - - - 13 1
8 13.80 - 14 11.04 -
9 14 1 14 14 1
11 18.0 1 18 13.8 1
12 11 0.02 12 12 0.02
13 13.1 - 13 12.2 -
14 20 - 18 18 -
15 17 - 17 - -
16 - - - 12 1
17A 14 2% 14 13 2%
17B 11.7 2% 12 13.1 2%
18 12 1 12 14 1
19 15 2% 15 13 2%
20A 6* 1 - 25 1
20B 6* 1 - 25 1
21 15.4 - 18 13.4 -
22 14 - 15 * -
23 - - - 12 1
24 16 0.03 16 13 0.03
Notes:
1. To analyse the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results for Sample 1, the
results submitted by participants were converted to a proportional gauge length
(PGL) using the following formula:
0.4
 
 
Result  Tensile Specimen Gauge Length 
PGL Result =   
2 2
    Tensile Specimen Diameter  
   
  2   .
2. To analyse the Percentage Elongation after Fracture results for Sample 2, the
participants were provided with instructions on how to machine the sample (see
Appendix C).
 A5.2

Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%) – Results,

Proportional Gauge Length (PGL) Results and Z-Scores
Sample 1 Sample 2
Lab Code
PGL Result Z-Score Result Z-Score
1 13 -0.83 * -
2 14 -0.12 - -
4 15 0.38 9 -2.70
5 16 0.71 15.12 1.43
6 13 -0.54 12 -0.67
7 - - 13 0.00
8 14 -0.22 11.04 -1.32
9 14 -0.13 14 0.67
11 18 1.86 13.8 0.54
12 12 -1.00 12 -0.67
13 13 -0.57 12.2 -0.54
14 18 1.93 18 3.37 §
15 17 1.37 - -
16 - - 12 -0.67
17A 14 0.00 13 0.00
17B 12 -1.19 13.1 0.07
18 12 -1.14 14 0.67
19 15 0.26 13 0.00
20A - - 25 8.09 §
20B - - 25 8.09 §
21 18 1.87 13.4 0.27
22 15 0.24 * -
23 - - 12 -0.67
24 16 0.87 13 0.00

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1 Sample 2

Number of Results 19 20
Median 14.2 13.0
Normalised IQR 2.0 1.5
Uncertainty (Median) 0.6 0.4
Robust CV 14.1% 11.4%
Minimum 12 9
Maximum 18 25
Range 6 16
 A5.3

Notes:
1. § denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| ≥ 3.0).
2. * The sample failed outside of gauge length.
3. Laboratory code 7 machined Sample 1 at full section. The sample failed within
the jaws and so the Percentage Elongation after Fracture could not be reported
for Sample 1.
4. The samples for laboratory code 12 were machined by another laboratory.

Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%) - Sample 1

14
21
11
2

15
24
1
Robust Z-Score

5
19
22

4
17A

0
2
9
8
6
13

-1
1
12
18
17B

-2

-3
Laboratory Code

Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%) - Sample 2

20A

20B
14

2
5
18

1
Robust Z-Score

11

9
21
17B
17A

19

24
7

0
13
16

-1
23
12
6
8

-2

-3
4

Laboratory Code
 Section A6

Percentage Reduction in Area

after Fracture
 A6.1

Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture (Z%) –

Results and Z-Scores
Sample 1
Lab Code
Result MU (±) Z-Score
1 46 - -3.04 §
2 55 - 0.38
4 54 0.91 0.00
5 58 2 1.52
6 55 5% 0.38
7 - - -
8 53.69 - -0.12
9 57 1 1.14
11 55.11 - 0.42
12 53 0.02 -0.38
13 51 - -1.14
14 54 - 0.00
17A 55 2% 0.38
17B 66 2% 4.55 §
18 50 2 -1.52
19 55 2% 0.38
20A 52 3 -0.76
20B 50 3 -1.52
22 56 - 0.76
24 50 0.1 -1.52

Summary Statistics

Statistic Sample 1
Number of Results 19
Median 54.0
Normalised IQR 2.6
Uncertainty (Median) 0.8
Robust CV 4.9%
Minimum 46
Maximum 66
Range 20
 A6.2

Notes:
1. § denotes an outlier (i.e. |z-score| ≥ 3.0).
2. Laboratory code 7 machined Sample 1 at full section. The sample failed within
the jaws and so the Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture could not be
reported for Sample 1.
3. The samples for laboratory code 12 were machined by another laboratory.
4. The Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture was only required to be
reported for Sample 1.

Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture (Z%) - Sample 1

17B
3

5
9
22
1
Robust Z-Score

17A

11
19
2

6
14
4

0
8
12

-1
20A
13
24
18

20B

-2

-3
1

Laboratory Code
 Section A7

Method Information and

Other Reported Results
 A7.1

Method Information
Lab
0.2% Proof Stress Lower Yield Upper Yield
Code
1 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019
2 BS EN ISO 6892-1: 2016 - -
4 BS 6892-1 BS 6892-1 -
5 AS 1391 - -
6 AS 1391 - -
7 AS 1391 - -
8 ISO 6892-1 - -
9 AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) - -
11 ISO 6892-1: 2016 - -
12 AS 1391: 2007 - -
13 ISO 6892 - -
14 - - -
15 - - -
16 JIS Z 2241: 2011 - -
17A AS 1391 - -
17B AS 1391 - -
18 AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
19 AS 1391 - -
20A AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) - -
20B AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) - -
21 ISO 6892-1 ISO 6892-1 ISO 6892-1
22 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019
23 ASTM B557M - -
24 ISO 6892-1 (2016) - -

Note:
Method information for Lower Yield and Upper Yield has only been reported for
those laboratories that determined values for these tests.
 A7.2

Method Information
Lab Percentage Elongation Percentage Reduction in
Tensile Strength
Code after Fracture Area after Fracture
1 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019
2 BS EN ISO 6892-1: 2016 BS EN ISO 6892-1: 2016 BS EN ISO 6892-1: 2016
4 BS 6892-1 BS 6892-1 BS 6892-1
5 AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
6 AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
7 AS 1391 AS 1391 -
8 ISO 6892-1 ISO 6892-1 ISO 6892-1
9 AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017)
11 ISO 6892-1: 2016 ISO 6892-1: 2016 ISO 6892-1: 2016
12 AS 1391: 2007 AS 1391: 2007 AS 1391: 2007
13 ISO 6892 ISO 6892 ISO 6892
14 - - -
15 - - -
16 JIS Z 2241: 2011 JIS Z 2241: 2011 -
17A AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
17B AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
18 AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
19 AS 1391 AS 1391 AS 1391
20A AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017)
20B AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017) AS 1391 - 2007 (R2017)
21 ISO 6892-1 ISO 6892-1 -
22 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019 ISO 6892-1: 2019
23 ASTM B557M ASTM B557M -
24 ISO 6892-1 (2016) ISO 6892-1 (2016) ISO 6892-1 (2016)
 A7.3

Tensile Specimen Gauge Diameter and Tensile Specimen Gauge Thickness

Tensile Specimen Gauge Diameter (mm) Tensile Specimen Gauge Thickness (mm)
Lab
Sample 1 Sample 2
Code
Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
1 14.01 - 6.00 -
2 13.96 - - -
4 19.94 0.04 5.90 0.02
5 13.87 0.01 5 0.5
6 9.70 5% 5.8 5%
7 19.95 0.02 6.00 0.02
8 19.97 - 6.01 -
9 10.01 0.1 5.96 0.1
11 20.02 0.01 5.97 0.01
12 7.65 0.01 6.0 0.01
13 9.98 - 6.02 -
14 12.80 - 6.01 -
15 20.00 - - -
16 - - 6.01 0.05
17A 12.43 1% 6.00 1%
17B 12.54 1% 6.00 1%
18 10.06 0.01 5.99 0.01
19 12.47 1% 6.02 1%
20A 10.00 0.05 6.00 0.03
20B 10.00 0.03 6.00 0.03
21 20 - 6 -
22 14.07 - 5.96 -
23 - - 6.01 0.02
24 14.00 0.03 6.04 0.01
 A7.4

Tensile Specimen Gauge Width and Tensile Specimen Gauge Length

Tensile Specimen
Tensile Specimen Gauge Length (mm)
Gauge Width (mm)
Lab
Code Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2
Result MU (±) Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
1 20.59 - 79 - 86 -
2 - - 70 - - -
4 20.24 0.01 100 - 80 -
5 20 0.5 69 0.5 80 0.5
6 20 5% 50 5% 80 5%
7 20.00 0.04 100 1% 80 1%
8 19.39 - 99.97 - 80.05 -
9 20.0 0.1 50 0.1 80 0.1
11 20.53 0.01 100.0 0.6 80.0 0.6
12 8.1 0.01 50 0.01 50 0.01
13 19.93 - 50 - 80 -
14 25 - 50 - 69 -
15 - - 100 - - -
16 20.05 0.05 - - 80 1
17A 20.1 1% 65 1% 80 1%
17B 20.10 1% 65 1% 80 1%
18 12.53 0.01 50 1 50 1
19 19.94 1% 60 1% 75 1%
20A 20.00 0.02 50 1 80 1
20B 20.00 0.02 50 1 80 1
21 40 - 148 - 106 -
22 20.53 - 80 - 81 -
23 19.98 0.02 - - 80 0.02
24 20.05 0.04 70 0.7 80 0.8
 A7.5

Elastic Stress or Strain Rate (number / sec)

Lab Sample 1 Sample 2

Code Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
1 6 MPa s-1 - - -
2 0.00025 (Method A) - - -
4 6 MPa s-1 - 6 MPa s-1 -
5 0.00006207 - - -
6 - - - -
7 30.0 MPa 0.2 MPa 15.0 MPa 0.1 MPa
8 10 MPa / sec - 3 mm / min -
9 0.00025 - 0.00025 -
11 - - - -
12 12 MPa / sec - 12 MPa / sec -
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 - - - -
16 - - 0.025 -
17A 0.00032 - 0.000359 -
17B 0.00032 - - -
18 - - - -
19 0.0025 2% 0.0025 2%
20A 12 MPa / s 1 12 MPa / s 1
20B 12 MPa / s 1 12 MPa / s 1
21 - - - -
22 6 MPa s-1 - - -
23 - - 10 MPa / sec -
24 0.0016 - 0.0016 -
 A7.6

Plastic Strain Rate (number / sec)

Lab Sample 1 Sample 2

Code Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
1 0.005 - - -
2 0.0067 (Method A) - - -
4 6 MPa s-1 - 6 MPa s-1 -
5 0.0006000 - - -
6 - - - -
7 0.0067 0.0002 0.0067 0.0002
8 10 MPa / sec - 3 mm / min -
9 0.008 - 0.008 -
11 - - - -
12 0.004 - 0.004 -
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 - - - -
16 - - 0.173 -
17A 0.00362 - 0.00319 -
17B 0.00362 - - -
18 - - - -
19 0.0025 2% 0.0025 2%
20A - - - -
20B - - - -
21 - - - -
22 0.005 - - -
23 - - 0.5% / sec -
24 - - - -
APPENDIX B

Homogeneity
Testing
 B1.1

HOMOGENEITY TESTING

Before the test pieces were distributed to participants, eight specimens from each
sample were selected at random and tested by ARL Laboratory Services Pty Ltd. This
was done to assess the variability of the samples to be used in the program. The results
of this testing appear in the following tables.

Homogeneity Testing Results

Sample 1 – Steel Round Bar Sample

Cross- Tensile 0.2% Proof Gauge Elongation Reduction in

Sample
sectional Strength Stress Length After Area after
Number
Area (mm2) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) Fracture (%) Fracture (%)
1-2 72.38 645 620 50 14 57
1-9 72.38 650 625 50 14 56
1-11 76.98 675 640 50 13 54
1-13 75.43 645 620 50 14 57
1-24 75.43 650 625 50 14 57
1-26 76.98 645 625 50 14 54
1-35 75.43 645 630 50 13 56
1-39 75.90 650 630 50 13 55

Homogeneity Testing Results

Sample 2 – Aluminium Flat Bar Sample

Cross- Tensile 0.2% Proof Gauge Elongation

Sample
sectional Strength Stress Length After
Number
Area (mm2) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) Fracture (%)
2-2 120 240 210 80 11
2-10 119 235 210 80 11
2-12 119 230 205 80 11
2-20 119 230 200 80 11
2-25 121 250 220 80 11
2-27 119 225 200 80 10
2-31 120 245 220 80 11
2-40 120 225 200 80 12

Analysis of this testing data indicated that the samples were sufficiently homogeneous for
the program and, therefore, any participant results identified as outliers cannot be
attributed to sample variability.
 APPENDIX C

Instructions to Participants
and
Results Sheet
 C1.1

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

Tensile Testing Of Metals Proficiency Testing Program

Round 13, March 2020

Instructions To Participants

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 a carbon steel round
bar, labelled 1-x for Sample 1, and an aluminium flat bar, labelled 2-x for
Sample 2.

2) The tests to be performed in this program are:

 0.2% Proof Stress (non-proportional elongation) (Rp0.2), if applicable;

 Lower Yield Strength (ReL), if applicable;
 Upper Yield Strength (ReH), if applicable;
 Tensile Strength (Rm);
 Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%); and
 Percentage Reduction in Area after Fracture (Z%), if applicable.

3) Tests may commence as soon as samples are received. The carbon steel
sample (Sample 1) is to be treated in the same manner as your routinely tested
samples. For the aluminium sample (Sample 2), a Tensile Specimen Gauge
Length of 80 mm, Tensile Specimen Gauge Width of 20 mm, Parallel Length of
90 mm and Minimum Radius of Transition of 20 mm must be used (please see
the diagram on page 3 of these Instructions).

4) All testing, recording and reporting is to be performed in accordance with your

routine test methods, but testing in accordance with AS 1391 – Metallic
materials – Tensile testing at ambient temperature (2007) or ISO 6892-1 –
Metallic materials – Tensile testing – Part 1: Method of test at room temperature
(2016) are the preferred test methods.

5) 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.

6) The method of testing used should also be reported on the Results Sheet (e.g.
AS 1391, ISO 6892-1, etc.)

Tensile Testing of Metals, Round 13 March 2020 Page 1 of 4

 C1.2

7) The Percentage Elongation after Fracture (A%) results will be converted to a

proportional gauge length before analysis for Sample 1. Participants should
therefore report the Tensile Specimen Gauge Diameter and Tensile Specimen
Gauge Length for this sample on the Results Sheet. For Sample 2, please
report the Tensile Specimen Gauge Width, Tensile Specimen Thickness and
Tensile Specimen Gauge Length used on the Results Sheet.

8) Participants are also requested to calculate and report an estimate of

uncertainty of measurement for each reported measurement result. All
estimates of uncertainty of measurement must be given as a 95% confidence
interval (coverage factor k  2).

9) 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.

10) Return the Results Sheet, either by mail, email or facsimile, to:

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
Email: mbunt@pta.asn.au

All results should arrive at the above address by no later than Wednesday 20
May 2020. Results reported later than this date may not be analysed in the
final report.

Tensile Testing of Metals, Round 13 March 2020 Page 2 of 4

 C1.3

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

Tensile Testing Of Metals Proficiency Testing Program

Round 13, March 2020

Aluminium Sample Tensile Sizing

Tensile Testing of Metals, Round 13 March 2020 Page 3 of 4

 C2.1

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

Tensile Testing Of Metals Proficiency Testing Program

Round 13, March 2020
RESULTS SHEET
Laboratory Code:

Report Sample 1 Sample 2

Test results to Method
nearest Result MU (±) Result MU (±)
0.2% Proof Stress (non-
1 MPa
proportional elongation) (Rp0.2)
Lower Yield Strength (ReL) 1 MPa

Upper Yield Strength (ReH) 1 MPa

Tensile Strength (Rm) 1 MPa

Percentage Elongation after
1%
Fracture (A%)
Percentage Reduction in Area
1%
after Fracture (Z%)

Where possible, please also report the values for the following:

Report Sample 1 Sample 2

Test results to
nearest Result MU (±) Result MU (±)

Tensile Specimen Gauge Diameter 0.01 mm

Tensile Specimen Thickness 0.01 mm

Tensile Specimen Gauge Width 0.01 mm

Tensile Specimen Gauge Length 1 mm

Elastic Stress or Strain Rate number / sec

Plastic Strain Rate number / sec

All estimates of measurement uncertainty (MU) must be given as a 95% confidence

interval (coverage factor k  2).

Print Name: _____________________ Signature & Date: ____________________

Tensile Testing of Metals, Round 13 March 2020 Page 4 of 4

-----End of Report-----