E08.03 - Advanced Apparatus and Techniques

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 It is well understood how to measure the forces applied to a specimen under static conditions. Practices E4 details the required process for verifying the static force measurement capabilities of testing machines. During dynamic operation however, additional errors may manifest themselves in a testing machine. Further verification is necessary to confirm the dynamic force measurement capabilities of testing machines.
Note 1: The static machine verification accomplished by Practices E4 simply establishes the reference. Indicated forces measured from the force cell are compared with the dynamometer conditioned forces statically for confirmation and then dynamically for dynamic verification of the fatigue testing system's force output.
Note 2: The dynamic accuracy of the force cell's output will not always meet the accuracy requirement of this standard without correction. Dynamic correction to the force cell output can be applied provided that verification is performed after the correction has been applied.
Note 3: Overall test accuracy is a combination of measurement accuracy and control accuracy. This practice provides methods to evaluate either or both. As control accuracy is dependent on many more variables than measurement accuracy it is imperative that the test operator utilize appropriate measurement tools to confirm that the testing machine’s control behavior is consistent between verification activities and actual testing activities.  
4.2 Dynamic errors are primarily span dependent, not level dependent. That is, the error for a particular force endlevel during dynamic operation is dependent on the immediately preceding force endlevel. Larger spans imply larger absolute errors for the same force endlevel.  
4.3 Due to the many test machine factors that influence dynamic force accuracy, verification is recommended for every new combination of potential error producing factors. Primary factors are specimen design, machine configuration, test frequenc...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude control or measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of forces applied by the machine or dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section 9. It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices E4 or equivalent.  
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section 9, the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered or performed by a person, or both, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.  
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. Annex A1 provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.  
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is e...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 It is often necessary to determine the slope of a linear region within a test record, and for standardization purposes, it is desirable to have a method for determining the slope that is not subjective. There are numerous ASTM standard test methods where the test procedure or analysis requires that slope be determined, but the procedures for doing so are not well defined. Ideally, if multiple laboratories analyze the same data for determination of slope, they should produce the same result. The objective of this standard practice is to eliminate the linear-fit as a source of variability in test results.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice presents an automated, objective linear-fitting method for determining the slope of the linear portion of a test record. The method assumes that there is a linear region early in the test record where the value of the y variable increases roughly in proportion to the x variable and the slope of the record decreases after the linear region. The practice determines the best linear fit to the data based on the least normalized residual and provides metrics for evaluating the quality of the test record and the quality of the resultant fit.  
1.2 Data quality metrics are applied that evaluate the level of noise and the digital resolution of the data to determine if the test record is adequate for a linear regression analysis. Fit quality metrics use analysis of residuals in the vicinity of the fit range to determine if the test record is adequately linear and the fit range is sufficiently large.  
1.3 For test records that meet the data and fit quality metrics, the practice determines a repeatable slope without the need for operator input that is independent of operator judgment. For test records that fail one or more of the quality metrics, it is recommended that the analyst evaluate the fit to determine if it is acceptable.  
1.4 This practice represents a general purpose approach that is applicable for any test standard or method in which a linear fit is desired. It is intended that this practice can be called upon by standard test methods when slope must be determined.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This guide establishes a process for the verification of application software used to calculate the mechanical properties of materials.  
1.2 This guide has two purposes: (1) it provides guidelines for creating standard data sets for verifying computer-generated test results, and (2) it describes how users can verify whether the calculations in their application software produce accurate, acceptable results. This does not ensure that the software will produce correct results in all cases. The verification is only for those conditions covered by the standard data sets. This guide uses the concept of standard “data sets,” which are made available by the ASTM groups responsible for each of the individual standards.  
1.3 This guide defines the terminology, the format, and the process for the use of these data sets and how the data sets are to be used for verification. It does not define the specific data sets required to verify each of the application standards. Rather, such data sets would become a necessary part of the standard and would be classified as an adjunct in accord with the definition in section B29 of the “Form and Style for ASTM Standards.” This classifies an adjunct as any material that is required for use of the standard but is not practicable to publish as an integral part of the standard.  
1.4 In Annex A1 there is an example of how such data sets would be made available for one example standard.  
1.5 Because the verification data sets are contained in files supplied to the application software in the computer, this procedure only provides verification of post-test calculations performed by the computer system. It does not evaluate the data acquisition system, real-time calculations, or any other part of the software beyond the post-test calculations.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types– Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. In its most basic form, a mechanical testing system consists of a test frame with grips which attach to a test specimen, a method of applying forces to the specimen, and a number of transducers which measure the forces and displacements applied to the specimen. The output from these transducers may be in digital or analog form, but if they are analog, they are first amplified and filtered and then converted to digital form using analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The resulting stream of digital data may be digitally filtered and manipulated to result in a stream of output Basic Data which is presented to the user in the form of a displayed or printed output, or as a data file in a computer. Various algorithms may be applied to the Basic Data to derive parameters representing, for example, the peaks and valleys of the forces and displacements applied to the specimen, or the stresses and strains applied to the specimen and so forth. Such parameters are the Derived Data. The whole measurement system may be divided into three sections for the purpose of verification: the mechanical test frame and its components, the electrical measurement system, and the computer processing of data.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. It does not cover static load verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practices E4, or static extensometer verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practice E83. The user is also referred to Practice E467.  
1.2 The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described in this guide is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types– Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. The purpose of this guide is to provide methods that give confidence that such Basic and Derived Data describe the properties of the material adequately. It does this by setting minimum or maximum targets for key system parameters, suggesting how to measure these parameters if their actual values are not known.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This guide assists potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Each non-contacting optical strain measurement system must be evaluated to determine reliable estimates for the accuracy of the resulting Derived Data.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this document is to assist potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Optical data contains information related to specimen strains and the image analysis process converts the encoded optical information into strain data. The enclosed document describes potential sources of error in the strain data and describes general methods for quantifying the error and estimating the accuracy of the measurements when applying non-contacting methods to the study of events for which the optical integration time is much smaller than the inverse of the maximum temporal frequency in the encoded data (that is, events that can be regarded as static during the integration time). A brief application of the approach, along with specific examples defining the various terms, is given in the Appendix.  
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 It is often necessary to determine the slope of a linear region within a test record, and for standardization purposes, it is desirable to have a method for determining the slope that is not subjective. There are numerous ASTM standard test methods where the test procedure or analysis requires that slope be determined, but the procedures for doing so are not well defined. Ideally, if multiple laboratories analyze the same data for determination of slope, they should produce the same result. The objective of this standard practice is to eliminate the linear-fit as a source of variability in test results.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice presents an automated, objective linear-fitting method for determining the slope of the linear portion of a test record. The method assumes that there is a linear region early in the test record where the value of the y variable increases roughly in proportion to the x variable and the slope of the record decreases after the linear region. The practice determines the best linear fit to the data based on the least normalized residual and provides metrics for evaluating the quality of the test record and the quality of the resultant fit.  
1.2 Data quality metrics are applied that evaluate the level of noise and the digital resolution of the data to determine if the test record is adequate for a linear regression analysis. Fit quality metrics use analysis of residuals in the vicinity of the fit range to determine if the test record is adequately linear and the fit range is sufficiently large.  
1.3 For test records that meet the data and fit quality metrics, the practice determines a repeatable slope without the need for operator input that is independent of operator judgment. For test records that fail one or more of the quality metrics, it is recommended that the analyst evaluate the fit to determine if it is acceptable.  
1.4 This practice represents a general purpose approach that is applicable for any test standard or method in which a linear fit is desired. It is intended that this practice can be called upon by standard test methods when slope must be determined.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 It is well understood how to measure the forces applied to a specimen under static conditions. Practices E4 details the required process for verifying the static force measurement capabilities of testing machines. During dynamic operation however, additional errors may manifest themselves in a testing machine. Further verification is necessary to confirm the dynamic force measurement capabilities of testing machines.
Note 1: The static machine verification accomplished by Practices E4 simply establishes the reference. Indicated forces measured from the force cell are compared with the dynamometer conditioned forces statically for confirmation and then dynamically for dynamic verification of the fatigue testing system's force output.
Note 2: The dynamic accuracy of the force cell's output will not always meet the accuracy requirement of this standard without correction. Dynamic correction to the force cell output can be applied provided that verification is performed after the correction has been applied.
Note 3: Overall test accuracy is a combination of measurement accuracy and control accuracy. This practice provides methods to evaluate either or both. As control accuracy is dependent on many more variables than measurement accuracy it is imperative that the test operator utilize appropriate measurement tools to confirm that the testing machine’s control behavior is consistent between verification activities and actual testing activities.  
4.2 Dynamic errors are primarily span dependent, not level dependent. That is, the error for a particular force endlevel during dynamic operation is dependent on the immediately preceding force endlevel. Larger spans imply larger absolute errors for the same force endlevel.  
4.3 Due to the many test machine factors that influence dynamic force accuracy, verification is recommended for every new combination of potential error producing factors. Primary factors are specimen design, machine configuration, test frequenc...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude control or measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of forces applied by the machine or dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section 9. It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices E4 or equivalent.  
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section 9, the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered or performed by a person, or both, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.  
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. Annex A1 provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.  
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is e...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
It is well understood how to measure the forces applied to a specimen under static conditions. Practices E4 details the required process for verifying the static force measurement capabilities of testing machines. During dynamic operation however, additional errors may manifest themselves in a testing machine. Further verification is necessary to confirm the dynamic force measurement capabilities of testing machines.
Note 1—The static machine verification accomplished by Practices E4 simply establishes the reference. Indicated forces measured from the force cell are compared with the dynamometer conditioned forces statically for confirmation and then dynamically for dynamic verification of the fatigue testing system's force output.
Note 2—The dynamic accuracy of the force cell's output will not always meet the accuracy requirement of this standard without correction. Dynamic correction to the force cell output can be applied provided that verification is performed after the correction has been applied.
Note 3—Overall test accuracy is a combination of measurement accuracy and control accuracy. This practice provides methods to evaluate either or both. As control accuracy is dependent on many more variables than measurement accuracy it is imperative that the test operator utilize appropriate measurement tools to confirm that the testing machine’s control behavior is consistent between verification activities and actual testing activities.
Dynamic errors are primarily span dependent, not level dependent. That is, the error for a particular force endlevel during dynamic operation is dependent on the immediately preceding force endlevel. Larger spans imply larger absolute errors for the same force endlevel.
Due to the many test machine factors that influence dynamic force accuracy, verification is recommended for every new combination of potential error producing factors. Primary factors are specimen design, machine configuration, test frequency, and loading...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude control or measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of forces applied by the machine or dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section 9. It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices E4 or equivalent.
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section 9, the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered or performed by a person, or both, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. Annex A1 provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is expe...

SCOPE
1.1 This guide establishes a process for the verification of application software used to calculate the mechanical properties of materials.  
1.2 This guide has two purposes: (1) it provides guidelines for creating standard data sets for verifying computer-generated test results, and (2) it describes how users can verify whether the calculations in their application software produce accurate, acceptable results. This does not ensure that the software will produce correct results in all cases. The verification is only for those conditions covered by the standard data sets. This guide uses the concept of standard “data sets,” which are made available by the ASTM groups responsible for each of the individual standards.  
1.3 This guide defines the terminology, the format, and the process for the use of these data sets and how the data sets are to be used for verification. It does not define the specific data sets required to verify each of the application standards. Rather, such data sets would become a necessary part of the standard and would be classified as an adjunct in accord with the definition in section B29 of the “Form and Style for ASTM Standards.” This classifies an adjunct as any material that is required for use of the standard but is not practicable to publish as an integral part of the standard.
1.4 In Annex A1 there is an example of how such data sets would be made available for one example standard.  
1.5 Because the verification data sets are contained in files supplied to the application software in the computer, this procedure only provides verification of post-test calculations performed by the computer system. It does not evaluate the data acquisition system, real-time calculations, or any other part of the software beyond the post-test calculations.

ABSTRACT
This guide assists potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Each non-contacting optical strain measurement system must be evaluated to determine reliable estimates for the accuracy of the resulting Derived Data.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this document is to assist potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Optical data contains information related to specimen strains and the image analysis process converts the encoded optical information into strain data. The enclosed document describes potential sources of error in the strain data and describes general methods for quantifying the error and estimating the accuracy of the measurements when applying non-contacting methods to the study of events for which the optical integration time is much smaller than the inverse of the maximum temporal frequency in the encoded data (that is, events that can be regarded as static during the integration time). A brief application of the approach, along with specific examples defining the various terms, is given in the Appendix.

ABSTRACT
This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types: Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. In its most basic form, a mechanical testing system consists of a test frame with grips which attach to a test specimen, a method of applying forces to the specimen, and a number of transducers which measure the forces and displacements applied to the specimen. The output from these transducers may be in digital or analog form, but if they are analog, they are first amplified and filtered and then converted to digital form using analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The resulting stream of digital data may be digitally filtered and manipulated to result in a stream of output Basic Data which is presented to the user in the form of a displayed or printed output, or as a data file in a computer. Various algorithms may be applied to the Basic Data to derive parameters representing, for example, the peaks and valleys of the forces and displacements applied to the specimen, or the stresses and strains applied to the specimen and so forth. Such parameters are the Derived Data. The whole measurement system may be divided into three sections for the purpose of verification: the mechanical test frame and its components, the electrical measurement system, and the computer processing of data. oeability, which are performed on the top coat only.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. It does not cover static load verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practices E 4, or static extensometer verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practice E 83. The user is also referred to Practice E 467.
1.2 The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described in this guide is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types- Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. The purpose of this guide is to provide methods that give confidence that such Basic and Derived Data describe the properties of the material adequately. It does this by setting minimum or maximum targets for key system parameters, suggesting how to measure these parameters if their actual values are not known.

ABSTRACT
This guide assists potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Each non-contacting optical strain measurement system must be evaluated to determine reliable estimates for the accuracy of the resulting Derived Data.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this document is to assist potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Optical data contains information related to specimen strains and the image analysis process converts the encoded optical information into strain data. The enclosed document describes potential sources of error in the strain data and describes general methods for quantifying the error and estimating the accuracy of the measurements when applying non-contacting methods to the study of events for which the optical integration time is much smaller than the inverse of the maximum temporal frequency in the encoded data (that is, events that can be regarded as static during the integration time). A brief application of the approach, along with specific examples defining the various terms, is given in the Appendix.

SCOPE
1.1 This guide establishes a process for the verification of application software used to calculate the mechanical properties of materials.  
1.2 This guide has two purposes: (1) it provides guidelines for creating standard data sets for verifying computer-generated test results, and (2) it describes how users can verify whether the calculations in their application software produce accurate, acceptable results. This does not ensure that the software will produce correct results in all cases. The verification is only for those conditions covered by the standard data sets. This guide uses the concept of standard “data sets,” which are made available by the ASTM groups responsible for each of the individual standards.  
1.3 This guide defines the terminology, the format, and the process for the use of these data sets and how the data sets are to be used for verification. It does not define the specific data sets required to verify each of the application standards. Rather, such data sets would become a necessary part of the standard and would be classified as an adjunct in accord with the definition in section B29 of the “Form and Style for ASTM Standards.” This classifies an adjunct as any material that is required for use of the standard but is not practicable to publish as an integral part of the standard.
1.4 In Annex A1 there is an example of how such data sets would be made available for one example standard.  
1.5 Because the verification data sets are contained in files supplied to the application software in the computer, this procedure only provides verification of post-test calculations performed by the computer system. It does not evaluate the data acquisition system, real-time calculations, or any other part of the software beyond the post-test calculations.

ABSTRACT
This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types: Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. In its most basic form, a mechanical testing system consists of a test frame with grips which attach to a test specimen, a method of applying forces to the specimen, and a number of transducers which measure the forces and displacements applied to the specimen. The output from these transducers may be in digital or analog form, but if they are analog, they are first amplified and filtered and then converted to digital form using analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The resulting stream of digital data may be digitally filtered and manipulated to result in a stream of output Basic Data which is presented to the user in the form of a displayed or printed output, or as a data file in a computer. Various algorithms may be applied to the Basic Data to derive parameters representing, for example, the peaks and valleys of the forces and displacements applied to the specimen, or the stresses and strains applied to the specimen and so forth. Such parameters are the Derived Data. The whole measurement system may be divided into three sections for the purpose of verification: the mechanical test frame and its components, the electrical measurement system, and the computer processing of data. oeability, which are performed on the top coat only.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. It does not cover static load verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practices E 4, or static extensometer verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practice E 83. The user is also referred to Practice E 467.
1.2 The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described in this guide is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types- Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. The purpose of this guide is to provide methods that give confidence that such Basic and Derived Data describe the properties of the material adequately. It does this by setting minimum or maximum targets for key system parameters, suggesting how to measure these parameters if their actual values are not known.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
It is well understood how to measure the forces applied to a specimen under static conditions. Practices E 4 details the required process for verifying the static force measurement capabilities of testing machines. During dynamic operation however, additional errors may manifest themselves in a testing machine. Further verification is necessary to confirm the dynamic force measurement capabilities of testing machines.
Note 1—The static machine verification accomplished by Practices E 4 simply establishes the reference. Indicated forces measured from the force cell are compared with the dynamometer conditioned forces statically for confirmation and then dynamically for dynamic verification of the fatigue testing system's force output.
Note 2—The dynamic accuracy of the force cell's output will not always meet the accuracy requirement of this standard without correction. Dynamic correction to the force cell output can be applied provided that verification is performed after the correction has been applied.
Note 3—Overall test accuracy is a combination of measurement accuracy and control accuracy. This practice provides methods to evaluate either or both. As control accuracy is dependent on many more variables than measurement accuracy it is imperative that the test operator utilize appropriate measurement tools to confirm that the testing machine’s control behavior is consistent between verification activities and actual testing activities.
Dynamic errors are primarily span dependent, not level dependent. That is, the error for a particular force endlevel during dynamic operation is dependent on the immediately preceding force endlevel. Larger spans imply larger absolute errors for the same force endlevel.
Due to the many test machine factors that influence dynamic force accuracy, verification is recommended for every new combination of potential error producing factors. Primary factors are specimen design, machine configuration, test frequency, and loadi...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude control or measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of forces applied by the machine or dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section 9. It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices E 4 or equivalent.
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section 9, the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered or performed by a person, or both, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. Annex A1 provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is exp...

SCOPE
1.1 This guide establishes a process for the verification of application software used to calculate the mechanical properties of materials.
1.2 This guide has two purposes: (1) it provides guidelines for creating standard data sets for verifying computer-generated test results, and (2) it describes how users can verify whether the calculations in their application software produce accurate, acceptable results. This does not ensure that the software will produce correct results in all cases. The verification is only for those conditions covered by the standard data sets. This guide uses the concept of standard "data sets," which are made available by the ASTM groups responsible for each of the individual standards.
1.3 This guide defines the terminology, the format, and the process for the use of these data sets and how the data sets are to be used for verification. It does not define the specific data sets required to verify each of the application standards. Rather, such data sets would become a necessary part of the standard and would be classified as an adjunct in accord with the definition in section B 29 of the "Form and Style for ASTM Standards." This classifies an adjunct as any material that is required for use of the standard but is not practicable to publish as an integral part of the standard.
1.4 In there is an example of how such data sets would be made available for one example standard.
1.5 Because the verification data sets are contained in files supplied to the application software in the computer, this procedure only provides verification of post-test calculations performed by the computer system. It does not evaluate the data acquisition system, real-time calculations, or any other part of the software beyond the post-test calculations.

SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section 9. It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices E 4 or equivalent.
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section 9, the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered and/or performed by a person, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. Annex A1 provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is expected. Failure to obtain consistent results between verifications using the same machine configuration implies uncertain accuracy for dynamic tests performed during that time period.
1.5 This practice addresses the accuracy of the testing machine's indicated forces as compared to a dynamometer's indicated dynamic forces. For the purposes of this verification, the dynamometer's indicated dynamic forces will be considered the true forces. Phase lag between dynamometer and force transducer indicated forces is not within the scope of this practice.
1.6 The results of either the Annex A1 calculation or the full experimental verification must be reported per Section 10 of this standard.
1.7 This standard does not address the issue of a test machine's control accuracy. It does not provide assurance that the force obtained equals the force commanded within the specified accuracy. The correlation being verified is between the test machine's indicated force and the true force on the test specimen as measured by a dynamometer.
1.8 This practice provides no assurance that the shape of the actual waveform conforms to the intended waveform within any specified tolerance.
1.9 This standard is principally focused at room temperature operation. It is believed there are additional issues that must be addressed when testing at high temperatures. At the present time, this standard practice must be viewed as only a partial solution for high temperature testing.

ABSTRACT
This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types: Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. In its most basic form, a mechanical testing system consists of a test frame with grips which attach to a test specimen, a method of applying forces to the specimen, and a number of transducers which measure the forces and displacements applied to the specimen. The output from these transducers may be in digital or analog form, but if they are analog, they are first amplified and filtered and then converted to digital form using analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The resulting stream of digital data may be digitally filtered and manipulated to result in a stream of output Basic Data which is presented to the user in the form of a displayed or printed output, or as a data file in a computer. Various algorithms may be applied to the Basic Data to derive parameters representing, for example, the peaks and valleys of the forces and displacements applied to the specimen, or the stresses and strains applied to the specimen and so forth. Such parameters are the Derived Data. The whole measurement system may be divided into three sections for the purpose of verification: the mechanical test frame and its components, the electrical measurement system, and the computer processing of data. oeability, which are performed on the top coat only.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. It does not cover static load verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practices E 4, or static extensometer verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practice E 83. The user is also referred to Practice E 467.
1.2 The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described in this guide is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types- Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. The purpose of this guide is to provide methods that give confidence that such Basic and Derived Data describe the properties of the material adequately. It does this by setting minimum or maximum targets for key system parameters, suggesting how to measure these parameters if their actual values are not known.

ABSTRACT
This guide assists potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Each non-contacting optical strain measurement system must be evaluated to determine reliable estimates for the accuracy of the resulting Derived Data.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this document is to assist potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Optical data contains information related to specimen strains and the image analysis process converts the encoded optical information into strain data. The enclosed document describes potential sources of error in the strain data and describes general methods for quantifying the error and estimating the accuracy of the measurements when applying non-contacting methods to the study of events for which the optical integration time is much smaller than the inverse of the maximum temporal frequency in the encoded data (that is, events that can be regarded as static during the integration time). A brief application of the approach, along with specific examples defining the various terms, is given in the Appendix.

SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this guide is to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. It does not cover static load verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practices E4, or static extensometer verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practice E83. The use is also referred to Practice E467.  
1.2 The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described in this guide is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types - Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. The purpose of this guide is to provide methods which give confidence that such Basic and Derived Data describe the properties of the material adequately. It does this by setting minimum or maximum targets for key system parameters, suggesting how to measure these parameters it their actual values are not known.

SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the verification of constant-amplitude testing in an axial load fatigue testing system. Annex A1 provides methods for determining whether an actual experimental verification as described within this standard is required. The results of either the Annex calculation or the experimental verification must be reported as per Section 9 of this practice.