Advertisement

Traceability for measurements carried out on incremental step loading equipment

  • Marcus Vinícius Rezende Júnior
  • José Eduardo Silveira LealEmail author
  • Raphael Rezende Pires
  • Marcelo Torres Piza Paes
  • Francisco Francelino Ramos Neto
  • Sinésio Domingues Franco
  • Rosenda Valdés Arencibia
Technical Paper
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The incremental step loading technique has been widely used for material hydrogen embrittlement characterization. However, due to numerous error sources that can affect the measurement results and to the current lack of standardization, users are facing difficulties in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty as well as in the metrological performance evaluation of incremental step loading equipment. The paper deals with evaluation of the metrological performance of equipment used to characterize the susceptibility of materials to hydrogen embrittlement through use of incremental step loading technique. Additionally, a procedure is developed to estimate the measurement uncertainty associated with the results obtained during the test. Two equipment configurations were verified. The first one, with a load cell of 20 kN, was used for test specimens with nominal dimensions of 30 mm, 30 mm and 200 mm in width, thickness and length, respectively; and the second, with a 1 kN load cell was used for test specimens with nominal dimensions of 10 mm × 10 mm × 60 mm. Three measurands were evaluated in each assemblage (force applied on the specimen, equipment arm positioning angle and stress). Several metrological parameters were estimated (bias, accuracy, expanded uncertainty, repeatability, maximum error, hysteresis and nonlinearity). The effectiveness of the proposed procedure for uncertainty assessment was tested by calculation of the uncertainty associated with lower value for fast fracture strength. From the obtained results, it was concluded that the two equipment configurations had excellent metrological properties, in both the loading and unloading phases. It was shown that the proposed procedure can properly estimate the uncertainty associated with measurement on incremental step loading testing. Considering the widely use of the incremental step loading technique, the results here presented can be particularly useful for ensuring the traceability of results to the International System of Units required by the ISO 17025 standard.

Keywords

Hydrogen embrittlement Measurement uncertainty Maximum error Incremental step loading technique 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Petrobras and the Brazilian financing agencies Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for supporting the development of this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Parkins RN, Elices M, Sanchez-Galvez V, Caballero L (1982) Environment sensitive cracking of pre-stressing steels. Corros Sci 22:379–405.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-938X(82)90017-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ma H, Liu Z, Du C et al (2015) Effect of cathodic potentials on the SCC behavior of E690 steel in simulated seawater. Mater Sci Eng, A 645:22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.05.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim SJ, Jang SK, Il KJ (2005) Electrochemical study of hydrogen embrittlement and optimum cathodic protection potential of welded high strength steel. Met Mater Int 11:63–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03027486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ćwiek J (2007) Hydrogen degradation of high strength weldable steels. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng 20:223–226Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park C, Kang N, Liu S et al (2018) Effect of prestrain on hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility of EH 36 steels using in situ slow-strain-rate testing. Met Mater Int.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-018-00221-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raymond L (1998) The susceptibility of fasteners to hydrogen embrittlement and stress corrosion cracking. In: Bickford J (ed) Handbook of bolts bolted joints. CRC Press, New York, pp 723–756Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Narimani N, Zarei B, Pouraliakbar H, Khalaj G (2015) Predictions of corrosion current density and potential by using chemical composition and corrosion cell characteristics in microalloyed pipeline steels. Measurement 62:97–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khalaj G, Pouraliakbar H, Arab N, Nazerfakhari M (2015) Correlation of passivation current density and potential by using chemical composition and corrosion cell characteristics in HSLA steels. Measurement 75:5–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.07.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raymond L (1996) Rising step-load test apparatus. US Patent 5,585,570Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Society for Testing and Materials (2015) ASTM F1624-06 standard test method for measurement of hydrogen embrittlement threshold in steel by the incremental step loading technique. ASTM B Stand.  https://doi.org/10.1520/f1624-12.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Society for Testing and Materials (2015) ASTM F519-17a standard test method for mechanical hydrogen embrittlement evaluation of plating/coating processes and service environments. ASTM Stand.  https://doi.org/10.1520/f0519-13.1.5.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ASTM (2016) ASTM A506 standard specification for alloy and structural alloy steel, sheet and strip, hot-rolled. 20–23.  https://doi.org/10.1520/a0506-16.2
  13. 13.
    ISO (2017) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories ISO/IEC 17025:2017, International Organization for Standardization, ISO/CASCO Committee on conformity assessment, 30Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abackerli AJ, Pereira PH, Calôgeno N Jr (2010) A case study on testing CMM uncertainty simulation software (VCMM). J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng XXXII:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Désenfant M, Priel M (2017) Reference and additional methods for measurement uncertainty evaluation. Measurement 95:339–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.10.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML (2008) JCGM 100:2008 Evaluation of measurement data—guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, 134Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhao W, Shao H, Liang B et al (2017) Power calibration of electrosurgical analyzers up to 1 MHz. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 66:3309–3315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arencibia RV, Silva MTA, Faria VNR et al (2019) Power calibration of electrosurgical units. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tim.2019.2896552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cauchick Miguel PA, King T, Abackerli AJ (2003) CMM touch trigger performance verification using a probe test apparatus. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 25:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-58782003000200006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greif N, Schrepf H, Richter D (2006) Software validation in metrology: a case study for a GUM-supporting software. Measurement 39:849–855.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2006.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wäldele F, Bittner B, Busch K et al (1993) Testing of coordinate measuring machine software. Precis Eng 15:121–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-6359(93)90348-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weckenmann A, Heinrichowski M (2003) Problems with software for running coordinate measuring machines. Precis Eng 7:87–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-6359(85)90095-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jywe W, Chen C (2007) A new 2D error separation technique for performance tests of CNC machine tools. Precis Eng 31:369–375.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2007.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alessandro V, Gianni C, Antonio S (2015) Axis geometrical errors analysis through a performance test to evaluate kinematic error in a five axis tilting-rotary table machine tool. Precis Eng 39:224–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2014.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Souza AM, Jannone E (2019) Global strategy of grinding wheel performance evaluation applied to grinding of superalloys. Precis Eng 57:113–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pilkey WD, Pilkey DF (2008) Peterson’s stress concentration factors, 3rd edn.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470211106
  27. 27.
    BIPM, IEC, IFCC et al (2008) Evaluation of measurement data—supplement 1 to the “guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement”—propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method. Eval JCGM 101(2):90Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rezende Júnior MV (2018) Avaliação do desempenho de um equipamento para medição da susceptibilidade à fragilização por hidrogênio pelo método RSL. http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2018.1236

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcus Vinícius Rezende Júnior
    • 1
  • José Eduardo Silveira Leal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raphael Rezende Pires
    • 1
  • Marcelo Torres Piza Paes
    • 2
  • Francisco Francelino Ramos Neto
    • 2
  • Sinésio Domingues Franco
    • 1
  • Rosenda Valdés Arencibia
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.Research and Development CenterPetrobrasRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations