Skip to main content
Log in

A Review Study of Differences Between Alignment Verification Standards

  • Review Article
  • Published:
MAPAN Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

ASTM E1012(2019) and ISO 23788(2012) are both available methods based on using strain-gaged alignment transducers for alignment verification of material test machines. It is significant to make known the scope and applications of these standards, as poor alignment adversely affects test results. In this paper, similarities and differences of ASTM E1012(2019) and ISO 23788(2012) are criticized by scanning criteria such as sources of misalignment, configurations of strain-gaged alignment transducers, verification of machine alignment, and determination of alignment class.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aydemir, B., Vatan, C., & Dizdar H. (2016). Alignment measurement on material test machines and its importance. Proceedings of 1st International Mediterranean Science and Engineering Congress (IMSEC 2016), Adana/Turkey: 206–212

  2. TUBITAK National Metrology Institute. Evaluation of Alignment Measurement Results Made Using Thick Sample. https://www.ume.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/laboratuvarlarimiz/yayinlar-17

  3. ISO 7500–1:2018, Metallic Materials - Calibration and Verification of Static Uniaxial Testing Machines - Tension/Compression Testing Machines - Calibration and Verification of the Force-Measuring System.

  4. ASTM E4–21, 2021, Standard Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines.

  5. ISO 9513:2012, Metallic Materials. Calibration of Extensometer Systems Used in Uniaxial Testing.

  6. ASTM E83–16, 2016, Standard Practice for Verification and Classification of Extensometer Systems.

  7. B.W. Christ and S.R. Swanson, Alignment Problems in the Tensile Test. J. testing. eval, 4 (1976) 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE11371J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. H.C. Wu and D.R. Rummler. Anal. Misalignment. tension test. (1979). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3443653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pelleg, J. (2012). Mechanical properties of materials 190 Springer Science & Business Media.

  10. ASTM E1012(2019), Standard Practice for Verification of Testing Frame and Specimen Alignment Under Tensile and Compressive Axial Force

  11. ISO 23788(2012), Metallic Materials Verification of the Alignment of the Fatigue Testing Machines.

  12. MIL-STD-1312B, Military Standard: Fastener Test Methods.

  13. S400 Certified Materials Test Laboratories (CTML): Metallic Materials, Ge-Avation Quality System Requirements.

  14. AC7101, Nadcap Audit Criteria for Materials Testing Laboratories.

  15. MTS Systems Corporation. Driving Variability from the Material Testing Equation. http://www.mts.com/cs/groups/public/documents/library/dev_002347.pdf

  16. Instron, Instron Note. Composites Testing: Challenges & Solutions JEC Europe - March 2015. https://www.slideshare.net/Instron/composites-testing-challengessolutions-march2015

  17. Trevisan, L., Fabricio, D.A.K., & Reguly, A. (2015). Study of the Misalignment of Test Specimens Submitted to Fatigue Test Through Different Fastening Systems. IJRMET, vol. 5, Issue 2, ISSN : 2249–5762 (Online)

  18. Instron. Alignment Calibration. https://www.instron.us/-/media/literature-library/services/2006/03/alignment-calibration.pdf?la=en

  19. ASTM E606–2019, Standard Test Method for Strain-Controlled Fatigue Testing

  20. ASTM E251–20a, 2020, Standard Test Methods for Performance Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages.

  21. ASTM E1237–20, 2020, Standard Guide for Installing Bonded Resistance Strain Gages.

  22. Kandil, F. A. (1998). Code of practice for the measurement of bending in uniaxial low cycle fatigue testing. http://eprintspublications.npl.co.uk/id/eprint/1559

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Birgul Kacar or Bulent Aydemir.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kacar, B., Aydemir, B. A Review Study of Differences Between Alignment Verification Standards. MAPAN 37, 881–890 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-022-00585-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-022-00585-y

Keywords

Navigation