See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281734167

Testing of pipe sections

Article  in  Materials Testing · July 2015

DOI: 10.3139/120.110759

CITATIONS READS

4 2,534

7 authors, including:

Anatolii Andreiev O. Golovko

Universität Paderborn Leibniz Universität Hannover
30 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Iaroslav Frolov Florian Nürnberger

National Metallurgical Academy of Ukraine Leibniz Universität Hannover
52 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS    179 PUBLICATIONS   903 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AnodZnStahl: Anodisieren von Legierungsschichten pressgehärteter Stähle zur Verbesserung der Haftvermittlung in Hybrid- und Lacksystemen View project

Intrinsic hybrid composites for lightweight structures – Principles of manufacturing, characterisation and dimensioning (SPP 1712) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anatolii Andreiev on 12 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Testing of pipe sections
Anatolii Andreiev, Oleksandr Golovko,
Iaroslav Frolov, Dnipropetrovs’k,
Ukraine, Florian Nürnberger, Lars Oliver
Wolf, Garbsen, Mirko Schaper and
Olexandr Grydin, Paderborn, Germany
Article Information
Correspondence Address
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by UB Paderborn on July 15, 2015
Dipl.-Ing. Lars Oliver Wolf
Leibniz Universität Hannover
Institut für Werkstoffkunde
An der Universität 2
D-30823 Garbsen, Germany
E-mail: wolf@iw.uni-hannover.de
Keywords
Materials testing, Receiving control,
Transversal tensile tests, Properties of pipes,
Pipe sections samples
For personal use only.
Assessing the level of mechanical proper-
ties of metal products is an important task
in engineering. Durability of constructions,
product weight and their cost depend on
the values of these mechanical properties.
The main mechanical properties are ob-
tained by static compression, tensile, bend-
ing or torsion tests of standard samples as
well as by dynamic (impact) tests.
All of these types of tests are used in one
or another form to determine the mechani-
cal properties and usage characteristics of
pipes and can be divided into two groups of
methods:
1. Test methods for defining the qualitative
characteristics of pipe properties (bend-
ing, pin expansion, flanging, flattening,
hydrostatic pressure tests), which could
be named technological tests. deformation process induces significant
These tests are employed to estimate
the ability of the pipe to withstand cer-
tain loads without cracking.
2. Test methods for quantitative measur-
ing of the mechanical properties of the
pipe (tensile test of standard samples,
cut from the pipe wall; length of pipe;
ring samples, etc.).
Among the above mentioned methods, the
hydrostatic pressure test most closely ap-
proximates the current conditions of pipe
usage. However, this method is costly and
57 (2015) 7-8  © Carl Hanser Verlag, München  Materials Testing
COMPONENT-ORIENTED TESTING 643
A device and the basic technology has been developed for tensile
testing pipe sections samples (tensile testing PSS) for quantitative
estimating ultimate tensile and yield stresses in ring samples
(PSS samples) cut from pipes. This tensile testing device provides
the opportunity for compensating frictional forces during the
tensile test, and using exchangeable bearings, the device can be
adapted to a wide assortment of pipes. Research has been carried
out regarding the shape and size of a stress concentrator intro-
duced into the sample. Relationships have been derived between
the shape of the tensile loading curves and the characteristic
forces for different types of stress concentrators. It is proposed to
use PSS with stress concentrators to prevent plastic deformation
in one of the supporting sections (this also allows to correlate
the applied forces to one section). The concentrator should be
introduced into the tube wall of the sample as a drilled hole.
This method is comparatively simple with respect to established
testing methods.
is not suitable for a quick estimating of the for pipes with a wall thickness below 4 mm
pipe properties. Tensile tests are most because of the low thickness of the pipe
commonly employed, using both longitudi- wall [1]. On the other hand, testing pipes
nal and transversal samples, to determine having a small diameter are limited be-
the mechanical properties by means of cause of the large curvature of the pipe
quantitative characteristics such as yield contour [2]. Thus, tensile tests are pres-
strength, tensile strength and elongation ently applied to ring samples cut from the
(see Figure 1). pipe. Currently, some methods shown by
Tensile testing tube sections and sam- Arsene and Bai [3] and Link et al. [4] as
ples cut in the longitudinal direction of the well as two standards – DSTU 2528-94 [5]
pipe (see Figures 1a and 1b) have many and EN ISO 8496-2002 [6] – describe the
limitations. During such tests, forces act on test procedures. Also, different methods for
the pipe in the longitudinal direction (paral- both standards are known which apply ten-
lel to the pipe axis). However, as is well
known, during its use, the pipe is subjected
to loads in the radial and tangential direc-
tions. Furthermore, during the manufac-
ture of pipes (particularly cold rolling), the
anisotropy in the pipe metal which often
cannot be completely eliminated by heat
treatment. Moreover, the effect of notches
and other defects, which are usually located
along the axis of the tube and have a deci-
sive influence on the pipe strength during
its usage, are not taken into consideration.
Tensile tests of standard samples cut in
the transversal direction (see Figure 1c) Figure 1: Schematic illustration of pipe sam-
pling for tensile tests, a) tube section tested
are limited to the nominal pipe sizes (diam- lengthwise (longitudinal direction), b) sample of
eter and wall thickness). On the one hand, the pipe wall (longitudinal direction), c) sample
it is difficult to obtain a standard sample of the pipe wall (transverse direction) [1]
 644 COMPONENT-ORIENTED TESTING
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by UB Paderborn on July 15, 2015
Figure 2: Schematic illustration of ring sample tensile testing according to
conditions of the DSTU 2528-94 (A) and EN ISO 8496-2002 (B)
sion to solid ring samples cut from pipes.
The simulation of tensile tests of PSS were
provided by Chenstohova University of
For personal use only.
Technology (Prof. Dyia) using FORGE 3D
[7]. Schemes of tests and stress-strain
curves are depicted in Figure 2.
The method described in the standard
ISO 8496 [6] involves using two cylindrical
mandrels to tension load ring samples pos-
sessing inner diameters greater than
100 mm and outer diameter greater than
150 mm. The width of the sample should be
equal to 15 mm or, if the wall thickness size
is more than 15 mm, equal the wall thick-
ness. This sample size ratio does not allow
to predict the location of the fracture during
the test. Thus, it is difficult to convert the
obtained results to quantitative characteris-
tics of the mechanical properties.
For sample testing according to DSTU
2528-94 [5], two semi-cylindrical mandrels
are used whose outer diameters in the
closed condition are equal to the inner di-
ameter of the test sample.
Width of the sample is calculated accord-
ing to Equation (1):
b = 4.83 · 10 - 3 · D20 /s (1)
Т (°С) Quantities, which characterize durability and plasticity Ring samples Standard samples
Rm (MPa)
20 Rp0.2 (MPa)
A (%)
Table 1: Tensile test results of PSS and standard samples [8]
Figure 3: Modified tool for tensile tests of PSS samples:
1 – half-shell, 2 – semi-cylindrical mandrel, 3 – assembled device
with b: width of sample (mm), D0: inner di-
ameter of pipe (mm) and s: wall thickness
of pipe (mm).
In this case, the wall thickness of the
sample is always less than its width. This
provides an arbitrary fracture of the sam-
ple in one of the two supporting sections
situated in the opening plane of semi-cy-
lindrical mandrels. Conversion of the ob-
tained force values into the tensile
strength is carried out according to Equa-
tion (2):
Rm = Fm /S0 (2)
with Rm: ultimate strength (MPa), Fm:
maximal load force (MN), S0: initial area of
the two opposite supporting cross-sections
(mm2) situated in the opening plane of the
semi-cylindrical mandrels cf. Equation (3):
S0 = s1 · b1 + s2 · b2 (3)
with s1 and s2: wall thicknesses of the sam-
ple in two opposite supporting cross-sections
situated in the opening plane of the semi-
cylindrical mandrels (mm) and b1 and b2:
width of sample in two opposite supporting
402 451
637 745
28 53
cross-sections situated in the opening plane
of the semi-cylindrical mandrels (mm).
To determine the yield strength in Equa-
tion (2), the applied force corresponding to a
specific residual deformation of the sample
(for example, a deformation equal to 0.2 % of
the estimated length of the working part of
the sample) is used instead of Fm.
Using the sum of the two opposite sup-
porting cross-section areas as an initial
area in Equation 2 reduces the level of ac-
curacy of determining the yield stress and
tensile strength, although both elastic and
plastic deformations initially occur in both
sections. However, after the deformation
localizes in one section, a further increase
in the load results in a deformation of only
one supporting section. Thus, stress values
are thereby underestimated.
This is partly confirmed by quantitative
discrepancies in the mechanical properties,
which were obtained for the same pipe from
tensile tests using standard samples (cut in
the longitudinal direction) and PSS [8]. The
results of these tests are presented in Table 1.
According to the results of Table 1, ulti-
mate and yield strengths for PSS are about
12 % to 15 % less than those for standard
samples. The elongation of PSS is half the
value compared to standard samples.
Regarding the results given above and
also by Kovalev et al. [9], the present study
is aimed at developing a tensile test method
and device for obtaining quantitative val-
ues for the mechanical properties of pipes
in the axis normal to direction of forming
(rolling, extrusion, drawing, etc.).
57 (2015) 7-8
 COMPONENT-ORIENTED TESTING 645

According to the purpose of this study, it
was suggested to use a modified PSS hav-
ing a stress concentrator to locate the plas-
tic deformation in only one section of the
ring during the tensile test.
Test set-up
For the modified PSS tensile test, a tool was
developed having two exchangeable semi-
cylindrical mandrels (see Figure 3).
The developed features provide the fol-
lowing advantages:
1. The device consists of two symmetrical
parts. This makes the device more ver-
satile than existing analogs.
2. The use of exchangeable mandrels al-
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by UB Paderborn on July 15, 2015
During the first stage of the investiga-
tions, it was decided to use PSS with a
drilled hole. In this study, the choice of
this type of concentrator is related to the
comparative simplicity of its implemen-
tation. The PSS with a stress concentrator
is located in such a way that the concen-
trator plane was situated parallel to the
load axis.
To define the required minimum size of
the concentrator (diameter of the hole)
which provides plastic deformation of only
one of the loaded supporting sections, ten-
sile tests were carried out using PSSs hav-
ing different diameters of concentrator.
Schematic representation of the sample
showing the concentrator is depicted in
testing (mm2) (Equation (5)) and S01: area
of sample in cross-section 1 prior to testing
(mm2) (Equation (6)).
S02 = S01 · b02 (5)
with s02 : actual wall thickness of sample in
section 2 prior to testing (mm) and b02 : ac-
tual width of sample in section 2 prior to
testing in mm.
S01 = s01 · (b02 – d01 ) (6)
with s01: actual wall thickness of sample in
section 1 prior to testing (mm), b01: actual
width of sample in section 1 prior to testing
(mm), d01: actual diameter of concentrator

lows to test a wide range of pipe sizes
using one device.
3. The ability of the mandrels to rotate in-
side the half-shell allows the frictional
forces to balance which arise at the con-
tact between the tool and sample during
the test.
Geometrical shape
of the samples
For personal use only.
Figure 5.
The main parameters of the tests are pre-
sented in Table 2.
Equation (4) was used as a factor to char-
acterize the actual ratio of the supporting
cross-sectional sizes of sections 1 and 2
(see Figure 5) prior to testing.
n = S02 /S01 (4)
in section 1 prior to testing (mm).
Equation (7) shows the ratio between ar-
eas at cross-section 2 which was used as a
factor to characterize the wall thinning
without a concentrator during testing prior
to and after testing:
k = S02 /S12 (7)
with k: factor characterizing thinning of

with n: factor characterizing the ratio of the the section 2 during testing,
Several types of sample shapes are known sizes of sections 1 and 2 before testing, S02 : S12: area of sample in cross-section 2 after
(see Figure 4). area of sample in cross-section 2 prior to testing (mm2) (Equation (8)).

Characteristic
Parameter
Test 1 Test 2
Type of tensile testing machine FP 100, Heckert Zwick Z250, Zwick
Displacement rate of gripping device
2 2
(mm × min-1)
Testing temperature (°C) 20 20
Nominal sample sizes (mm) D = 48, s = 1.7, b = 15 D = 45, s = 1.5, b = 18
Nominal stress concentrator sizes
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.3, 11, 12 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
(diameter, mm)
Figure 4: Possible stress concentrator shapes in Number of samples with one nominal size
the PSS 3 3
of concentrator
steel 1.4401 steel 1.0580
Sample materials
(EN 10027) (EN 10297 - 1)
Nominal mechanical properties of material: Rm = 515 Rm = 490 – 630
ultimate strength (MPa), yield strength (MPa), Rp0.2 = 205 Rp0.2 = 355
elongation (%) [10] A = 35 A = 22

Table 2: Tensile test parameters for 1.4401 and 1.0580 steel samples

Figure 6: Ring samples

Figure 5: PSS having a concentrator for tensile (PSS) of 1.4401 steel
test, D: outer diameter of the sample (mm), s: prior to and after testing;
wall thickness of the sample (mm), b: width of the given values indicate
the sample (mm), d: diameter of the concentrator the nominal diameter of
(mm), 1 – 4 – sections in which “b” and “s” were the stress concentrator
measured prior to testing, 2 – 4 – sections in
which “b” and “s” were measured after testing

57 (2015) 7-8
 646 COMPONENT-ORIENTED TESTING
Figure 7: Steel 1.0580
PSS prior to and
after testing
S12 = s12 · b12 (8)
s12: actual wall thickness of sample in sec-
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by UB Paderborn on July 15, 2015
tion 2 after testing (mm), b12: actual width
of sample in section 2 after testing (mm).
Using the relative values for character-
izing the sizes of the samples prior to and
after testing allows one to take into account
the inaccuracies during sample prepara-
tion and those in the pipe wall thickness
(both in the longitudinal and the transver-
sal direction).
For personal use only.
Results
Images of the 1.4401 steel [10] samples are pre-
sented in Figure 6 prior to and after testing.
Images of the 1.0580 steel [10] samples are
presented in Figure 7 prior to and after testing.
Initial analyses of the test results for
measuring the geometric dimensions re-
vealed no geometrical changes in sections 3
and 4 of all samples. Thus, only cross-sec-
tions 1 and 2 are compared in the following.
To compare the characteristics of the
load-displacement curves, three profiles are
shown in Figure 8 for 1.4401 steel samples
Figure 8: Force vs. tool displacement curves for the modified PSS,
1, 2, 3 – nominal diameter of concentrator 3 mm, 8 mm and
12 mm, respectively
having concentrator nominal diameters of
3 mm, 8 mm and 12 mm, respectively.
For the force-displacement curves pre-
sented in Figure 8, a zone is depicted
where the force values rise to about 1.5 kN
to 2 kN. This zone can be described as a
deformation of specimen straightening.
Following this stage, the sample wall be-
gins to deform elastoplastically.
Figure 9 depicts a scatter plot of the rela-
tionship between the maximum measured
force values and the ratio coefficient “n”
together with a polynomial trend line (tests
using 1.4401 steel samples). A fourth order
polynomial having a coefficient of multiple
determination R2 of 0.97 was chosen (Equa-
tion (9)) to correlate this data:
F = 0.48n4 - 6.32n3 + 30.56n2 -
66.65n + 71.84 (9)
As seen in Figure 9, the trend line features
an inflection point within the range “n”
equal to 2.5 to 3.
A similar scatter plot with polynomial
trend line for 1.0580 steel samples is illus-
trated in Figure 10. A fourth order polyno-
Figure 9: Maximum forces of the force-displacement curves as a function
of the ratio coefficient n and a fourth order polynomial approximation
(1.4401 steel samples)
mial having a coefficient of multiple deter-
mination R2 of 0.96 was chosen for the
1.0580 steel samples (Equation (10)) to ap-
proximate this data:
 7.23n4 - 76.5n3 + 120.11n2 -
F=1
88.34n + 55.87 (10)
Correspondingly, the scatter plots for the re-
lationship between the ratio coefficient k
(Equation (7)) and the ratio coefficient n
(Equation (4)) together with the polynomial
trend lines based on the obtained data for
1.4401 and the 1.0580 steel samples are
shown in the Figures 11 and 12, respectively.
These graphs depict the dependence of the
thinning of supporting section 2 on the size
of the concentrator. It can be seen from Fig-
ure 11 that as the coefficient “n” (Equation 4)
approaches the value of 2.5, “k” closely ap-
proximates the value of 1.02. This suggests
that when the ratio of the areas of supporting
sections 1 and 2 is greater than 2.5, a thin-
ning of section 2 is practically absent.
For the 1.0580 steel (see Figure 12), with
an increase in the coefficient “n” (Equation
4) values to 1.5, “k” closely approximates
the value of 1.01. This suggests that when
the ratio of the areas of supporting sections
2 and 1 is greater than 1.5, a thinning of
section 2 is practically absent.
A fourth degree polynomial was approxi-
mated for each of the scatter plot of Fig-
ure 11 (1.4401 steel) and Figure 12 (1.0580
steel) (Equations (11) and (12)):
k = 0.0036n4 - 0.0511n3 + 0.2693n2
−0.625n + 1.5731 (11)
k = −0.1579n4 + 0.6285n3 - 0.6389n2 -
0.195n + 1.4172 (12)
57 (2015) 7-8

Figure 10: Maximum forces of the force-displacement curves as a function
of the ratio coefficient n and a fourth order polynomial approximation
(1.0580 steel samples)
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by UB Paderborn on July 15, 2015
Coefficients of multiple determination R2
for 1.4401 steel (Equation (11)) and 1.0580
steel (Equation (12)) were 0.87 and 0.89,
respectively. These polynomials also ex-
hibit inflection points in the range of 2.5 to
3 (1.4401 steel) and 1.5 to 1.7 (1.0580
steel), respectively. In general, it can be
noted that both polynomial lines have a
similar character. The low value of the con-
For personal use only.
fidence interval for the second approxima-
tion (Figures 11 and 12) in comparison
with the first (Figures 9 and 10) can be ex-
plained as follows:
The relationships F = f (n) are based on
values obtained using a calibrated tensile
testing machine. Thus, these values have
a high accuracy. On the other hand, the
approximation has been generated using
values obtained by a digital measuring
device having an accuracy of measure-
ment of 0.1 mm and a tubular micrometer
with a measurement error of 0.05 mm.
Hence, the results which were obtained
using the latter method possess a rela-
tively lower level of accuracy compared
with the results obtained from the tensile
testing machine.
57 (2015) 7-8
COMPONENT-ORIENTED TESTING
Figure 11: Plot of coefficient k (Equation (7)) as a function of
coefficient n (Equation (4)), samples of 1.4401 steel
Thus, during tensile testing of samples
with a stress concentrator using the tool
shown in Figure 4, plots of the coefficient
k (Equation 7) as a function of the coeffi-
cient n (Equation 4) (see Figure 11) con-
sist of two parts: falling curvilinear and
straight horizontal. The latter indicates
that there is a ratio between the sizes of
sections 1 and 2 (see Figure 5) which pro-
vides a transition from elastic to plastic
deformation only in the supporting sec-
tion 1 (the cross-section with the concen-
trator, see Figure 5).
This ratio varies for different materi-
als. For example, for the 1.4401 steel,
this ratio is in the range of 2.5 ± 0.1, and
for the 1.0580 steel in the range of
1.6 ± 0.1. For the tensile testing, it is nec-
essary to determine the dimensions of
the concentrator so that the coefficient
“k” is a straight horizontal zone (see Fig-
ures 11 and 12). This ensures an absence
of plastic deformation in supporting sec-
tion 2 (see Figure 5). In this case, all the
plastic deformation up to fracture of sam-
ple is guaranteed to be concentrated in
one supporting section (section with a
Figure 12: Plot of coeffi-
cient k (Equation (7)) as
a function of coefficient
n (Equation (4)), samples
of 1.0580 steel
647
concentrator, see Figure 5). The method
to convert the strength into the tensile
test, as well as to plot the “stress-strain”
curve requires further research. Further-
more, in the above-mentioned procedure,
the effect of reinforcing the metal due to
straightening of the PSS during the test
has not yet been taken into considera-
tion. However, the influence of this
straightening can be minimized by ap-
proximating the outer diameters of the
mandrels to the inner diameter of the
pipe. Consideration of this influence also
requires further research.
Conclusions
Analysis of existing test methods to deter-
mine the properties of pipes shows that
tensile testing of PSS cut from the pipe
are simple and comparatively accurate.
Among these methods of testing, the ring
sample is the most universal. To estimate
the accuracy level of this method, a de-
vice for tensile testing PSS has been de-
veloped. To eliminate plastic deformation
in one of the supporting cross-sections,
usage of a stress concentrator was pro-
posed. This allows the applied forces to be
correlated to only one supporting section
of plastic deformation. The concentrator
was proposed to take the form as a
through hole in the wall of the sample.
This is due to the relative simplicity of its
implementation in comparison with the
other technical solutions.
For samples made of 1.4401 (EN 10027)
austenitic steel and 1.0580 (EN 10297-1)
steel, the minimum necessary ratios of the
areas in the diametrically opposite sup-
porting cross-sections were determined
which ensure plastic deformation only in
one of the supporting sections.
 648 COMPONENT-ORIENTED TESTING

References Abstract
 1 DSTU 3365-96: Metal Tubes: Selection of
Testings, Tube Stocks and Specimens for
Mechanische Prüfung von Rohrabschnitten. Eine Prüfvorrichtung und
Mechanic and Technological Tests, Ukrainian die grundlegende Technologie zur quantitativen Bewertung von Zugfestig-
National Standard (1998) (in Ukrainian)
keit und Dehngrenze mittels Zugversuchen an Rohrabschnitten (Ringzug-
 2 V. Dehtjarev, I. Frolov, A. Bobuh, O. Kulak,
T. Svjatyna: Stress analysis at tensile testing of versuche) wurden entwickelt. Die Prüfvorrichtung bietet die Möglichkeit
ring samples, Metallurgicheskaja i gornorudnaja zur Kompensation von Reibungskräften während der Prüfung. Dank aus-
promyshlennost’ 7 (2012), pp. 227-233
(in Russian) tauschbarer Lager ist diese für eine Vielzahl von unterschiedlichen Rohren
 3 S. Arsene, J. Bai: A new approach to measur- verwendbar. Die Untersuchung befasst sich eingehend mit der Form des
ing transverse properties of structural tubing
by a ring test, Journal of Testing and Evalua-
Probenkörpers sowie der Größe des Spannungskonzentrators. Zusammen-
tion 24 (1996), No. 6, pp. 386-391 hänge zwischen den Kurvenverläufen und den charakteristischen Kräften,
DOI:10.1520/JTE11461J ausgehend von verschiedenen Spannungskonzentratoren werden darge-
 4 T. M. Link, D. A. Koss, A. T. Motta: Failure of
zircaloy cladding under transverse plane- stellt. Für derartige Tests bieten sich Rohrabschnitte mit lokaler Span-
strain deformation, Nuclear Engineering and nungskonzentration an, um plastische Deformationen in einem der gela-
Design 186 (1998), pp. 379-394
gerten Bereiche zu vermeiden (dies erlaubt die Spannungskonzentration
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by UB Paderborn on July 15, 2015

DOI:10.1016/S0029-5493(98)00284-2
 5 DSTU 2528-94: A Method for Tensile Testing der aufgebrachten Kräfte auf einen Bereich). Zur Spannungskonzentration
of Annular Specimens under Conditions of
an der Probe sollte eine Durchgangsbohrung in die Rohrwand eingebracht
Heating (Ukrainian National Standard (1995)
(in Russian) werden. Im Vergleich zu üblichen Prüfverfahren ist die vorgestellte Test-
 6 ISO 8496: Metallic Materials, Tube, Ring methode eine einfache und anwendungsfreundliche Möglichkeit.
Tensile Test (2013)
 7 Transvalor Forge v2008 2D and 3D Forging
Data File – Users Guide
 8 E. A. Krajnyuk, A. S. Mitrofanov, L. S. Ozhigov,
V. I. Savchenko: Strength and ductility of
For personal use only.

metal of heat-exchanging tubes of steam
generator of power units with reactors WWER-
1000, Voprosy Atomnoj Nauki i Tekhniki,
Fizika Radiatsionnykh Povrezhdenij i
Radiatsionnoe Materialovedenie m2 (2012),
pp. 52-55 (in Russian)
 9 V. V. Kovalev, V. N. Kiselevskii, V. A. Borisenko,
V. V. Bukhanovskii: High-temperature
strength of KTTs-110 zirconium alloy,
Strength of Materials 36 (2004), No. 3,
pp. 314-320
DOI:10.1023/B:STOM.0000035765.22963.ad
10 J. E. Bringas: Handbook of Comparative World
Steel Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA (2004)
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/120.110759
Materials Testing
57 (2015) 7-8, pages 643-648
© Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 0025-5300
The authors of this contribution
M. Sc. Anatolii Andreiev, born in 1990, is Scien-
tific Assistant and PhD student at the Depart-
ment of Metal Forming at the National Metallur-
gical Academy of Ukraine. He works on defor-
mation modes of seamless tubes and pipes
production.
Prof. Dr. Oleksandr Golovko, born in 1972,
is Chair of the Department of Metal Forming
at the National Metallurgical Academy of
Ukraine. His scientific interests relate to
extrusion and integrated technologies in light
alloys production.
Prof. Dr. Iaroslav Frolov, born in 1975, is Vice
Chair of the Department of Metal Forming at the
National Metallurgical Academy of Ukraine. His
scientific interests concentrate on relations be-
tween properties of metal and deformation and
thermal modes of treatment.
Dr.-Ing. Florian Nürnberger, born in 1977, is
Chief Engineer at the Institut für Werkstoffkunde
(Materials Science) of the Leibniz Universität
Hannover, Germany. His main research interests
are integrated heat treatment processes.
Dipl.-Ing. Lars Oliver Wolf, born in 1985, is Scien-
tific Assistant and PhD student at the Institut für
Werkstoffkunde (Materials Science) of the Leibniz
Universität Hannover, Germany. His research inter-
ests concentrate on heat treatment processes of HSLA
steels as well as of quenched and tempered steels.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Mirko Schaper, born in
1966, is Head of the Chair of Materials Science
(Universität Paderborn, Germany). His scientific
topics are design and characterization of new
high-strength metallic-based materials, micro-
structure specific material modeling and develop-
ment of casting technologies.
Dr. Olexandr Grydin, born in 1976, is Chief
Engineer at the Chair of Materials Science (Uni-
versität Paderborn, Germany). His scientific inter-
ests lie in the field of materials processing tech-
nologies such as twin-roll casting, extrusion of
light metals and integrated heat treatment as well
as materials characterization and mathematical
modeling of their behavior.

57 (2015) 7-8

View publication stats