I just took another look at your calibration data in the attachment. Two points arise:
1) This is not a correct way to report calibration for a UTM. International standards govern the process and much more data is required. Do you have a complete certificate to International Standards which you can post?
2) The errors shown are far too big for a UTM. Most international standards expect 1% or better. In the second reading the error is 14%!! Interestingly this also matches the huge difference between your test results.
My conclusion from the data received so far is that there is a serious problem with the load measuring system on your UTM. Damaged / overloaded load cell or electronic failure.
If this is the case - both of these points should have been highlighted by the calibration organisation!
Not to sure if GR&R can be perform for these destructive test using UTM.. it seems that the results with the lowest is 22,43KN and the highest is 26,15KN. Each test specimen will give different results - true enough as each is of different property.
Not to sure if GR&R can be perform for these destructive test using UTM.. it seems that the results with the lowest is 22,43KN and the highest is 26,15KN. Each test specimen will give different results - true enough as each is of different property.
Let's not confuse GR&R with the larger subject of measurement system analysis. If we can't perform a controlled analysis to verify the efficacy of a device, then its results must be considered unreliable, and mostly useless. Using specimens from the same heat or lot of material--sections of a single metal bar, e.g.--should yield reasonably similar results.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.