Why do the elongation at break and impact absorption energy need to be divided into “longitudinal” and “transverse”?
Thread Content
In the two standards GB9948-2013 and GB6479-2013, why are the elongation after fracture and impact absorption energy divided into \"longitudinal\" and \"transverse\" values? Why don’t standards such as GB713-2014, GB24511-2009, GB13296-2013, and GB/T14976-2013 classify elongation rate and impact absorption energy into \"longitudinal\" and \"transverse\" categories?
This post was last edited by wxd9017 on 2017-7-29 at 10:50. The test values for elongation after breakage and impact absorption energy are generally higher in the longitudinal direction than in the transverse direction; if only one value is provided without distinguishing between these directions, the requirements are relatively stricter.
Is there any source for the above view?
The rolling direction of the steel plate (longitudinal, in the length direction) results in greater deformation, a finer microstructure, and thus better mechanical properties； In the width direction (transverse direction), mechanical properties are slightly weaker due to less plastic deformation; however, some steel plates are rolled in both longitudinal and transverse directions, resulting in sufficient deformation in both axes, so the difference in mechanical properties between the transverse and longitudinal directions is not significant. Wugang Panglong
“Its mechanical properties are slightly weaker than those in the transverse direction,” there is a typo here; it should be weaker than those in the longitudinal direction. Could you summarize which steel plates are rolled in the longitudinal and transverse directions? Which ones are merely processed by longitudinal rolling?