Issue 35

O. Plekhov et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 35 (2016) 414-423; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.35.47

Sample

m, g

d, mm

E, GPa

 , g/cm 3

 i, 10 -5

П0(initial)

4.65219 4.68840 4.43544 3.26927 4.63726 4.45456 3.26388 4.63924 4.42786 3.20559 4.50312

5.00 5.00 4.90 4.22 5.00 4.90 4.22 5.00 4.90 4.22 5.00

7.8787 7.8717 7.8708 7.8686 7.8640 7.8608 7.8602 7.8660 7.8660 7.8660 7.8526

186.2 184.2 182.5 180.0 184.4 182.7 181.7 182.5 182.6 182.4 169.0

63.0 52.4 47.1 50.9 52.5 59.0 68.4 46.5 52.9 69.0

П1

П2

П3

П4

890 Table 4 : Physical and geometrical parameters of samples with different diameters





0,0011

0,004

0,0010

0,003

0,0009

0,002

0,0008

Fe 

0,001

Fe 

0,0007

0,0006

0,000

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

 V/V

 V/V

а) b) Figure 6 : The evolution of dilatation Δρ/ρ versus variation of sample volume ΔV/V caused by the decrease of the sample diameter (a) , the evolution of dilatation Δρ/ρ versus variation of sample volume ΔV/V caused by the decrease of the sample length (b) .

ln E, GPa

Fe ARMKO

5,24



5,22

5,20

5,18

0,0005

0,0010 

0,0015

Figure 7 : The evolution of Young`s modulus versus dilatation caused by the decrease of the sample diameter .

419