Issue 35

O. Plekhov et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 35 (2016) 414-423; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.35.47 419 Sample m, g d, mm  , g/cm 3 E, GPa  i, 10 -5 П0(initial) 4.65219 5.00 7.8787 186.2 63.0 П1 4.68840 5.00 7.8717 184.2 52.4 4.43544 4.90 7.8708 182.5 47.1 3.26927 4.22 7.8686 180.0 50.9 П2 4.63726 5.00 7.8640 184.4 52.5 4.45456 4.90 7.8608 182.7 59.0 3.26388 4.22 7.8602 181.7 68.4 П3 4.63924 5.00 7.8660 182.5 46.5 4.42786 4.90 7.8660 182.6 52.9 3.20559 4.22 7.8660 182.4 69.0 П4 4.50312 5.00 7.8526 169.0 890 Table 4 : Physical and geometrical parameters of samples with different diameters 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,0006 0,0007 0,0008 0,0009 0,0010 0,0011 Fe   V/V  0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 0,000 0,001 0,002 0,003 0,004 Fe   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) . 0,0005 0,0010 0,0015 5,18 5,20 5,22 5,24 Fe ARMKO   ln E, GPa Figure 7 : The evolution of Young`s modulus versus dilatation caused by the decrease of the sample diameter .