Designation and Reporting of % Elongation in Metals Tensile Test Data

[MatTest2005]

New member - thanks for the add.

I routinely perform tensile testing using specimens with either a 1.0" gauge length or a 2.0" gauge length (both 4D type specimens, ASTM E8-24). Often, in reporting my results, I am asked to specify the manufacturer's acceptance criteria (min allowable) along with my test results. For % Elongation, I report the gauge length of the specimen with the % Elongation results. However, the manufacturer's acceptance criteria for % Elongation is often provided specifically for a 2.0" gauge length. In those cases, I go ahead and report my test results and state the gauge length of the specimen. My question is this: what are your thoughts on reporting a % Elongation from a 1.0" gauge length specimen and comparing it to an acceptance criterion based on a 2.0" gauge length? If both specimens are ASTM E8 4D specimen types, should it matter? Should I simply be reporting my % Elongation results and stating "4D specimen"? Thanks.

 

[EdStainless]

Is this all just ASTM work?
If so then just report it as 4d and move on.
I have had the other issue, AMS specs that require 2" gage length and parts that only 0.1375" in diameter.
It is very difficult to meet elongation in that situation.