Stress conversion factors, table

Besides the ASTM standard tests, a number of general reference books have been published on testing and on the mechanical properties of polymers and viscoelastic materials (2-7). Unfortunately, a great variety of units are used in reporting values of mechanical tests. Stresses, moduli of elasticity, and other properties are given in such units as MK.S (SI), cgs, and English units. A table of conversion factors is given in Appendix II. 

Pressure difference may be in pounds per square inch, atmospheres, bars, pascals, centimeters of mercury, inches of water, or whatever chosen. (It may be noted that pressure is ordinarily expressed in mass-distance units, as mass per unit area, rather than as stress in force-distance units, as force per unit area, with the pascal being an example of the latter.) For convenience, a few conversion factors are supplied in Table 19.8. 

Most common solvents are Newtonian fluids. Looking at Eq. (1.61) we can see that the units of viscosity will be given by the ratio of the shear stress and the shear rate which is mass/distance-time. Typical units used for viscosity are given in Table 1.12 along with their conversion factors. The ratio of the viscosity and the density is another commonly used term that is known as the... 

In order to prevent the breaking of the HiP strengthening dne to continuing stresses over time, i.e., conditions of cyclic loading, suitable conversion factors, qi, can be adopted when testing the serviceability limit states, where the values listed in Table 5.4 should be applied. 

Stress during service can be checked considering the fact that fiber-reinforced composite stresses, computed for the quasi-permanent loading condition, should satisfy the limitation Of <>//n , whereis the FRP characteristic strength at failure and n is the conversion factor whose values are those suggested in the related tables. Stresses in concrete and steel should be limited according to that described under the current regulation. 

A, comparison between CEF parameters obtained using tensor operators and the commonly used Stevens formalism can be made by a numerical conversion (see table 1). We follow the common convention of writing the tensor parameters as and inverting the indices for the Stevens parameters, B ". Table 1 also contains the conversation factors for a comparison with parameters used by a group at the ETH Zurich. Further details about conversions between various formalisms are available elsewhere (Bleaney and Stevens 1953, Hutchings 1964, Kassman 1970), We stress that care is necessary when comparing parameters obtained by different groups and different techniques. 

---