b'Figure 3. (Above) Solidworks 3D modelcladding tubes in the hoop direction. Intensile tests. We also conducted ringpull showing the assembled grip body withthe case of the FeCrAl cladding tubes,and tensile tests on annealed samples 3.0 mm diameter mandrel inserts useda comparison was made to tensilefrom the same FeCrAl tube to isolate the for the gaugeless ring pull testingtests from samples of the same tubeimpact of strength and ductility on the and the strengths between the testingringpull test results. That comparison is Figure 4. (Right) DIC visualizedtechniques were similar.still being analyzed.hoop (tangential) strain using custom developed interpretation software Additionally, substantial progress wasLastly, we developed post processing DIC made towards the ringpull techniquestrain analysis tools that are planned to testing and analysis. Based on analyticalbe released open-source. This toolset is strain calculations and verificationcapable of separating out different strain by experimental testing on a newlycomponents including the hoop strain, designed test fixture, Figure 3, theidentifying tensile and compressive relationship between tube diameterlocations during the ring deformation, and mandrel diameter is bettercalculating stress and strain from the understood. When the tube/mandrelload/displacement data, and extracting diameter ratio is too large, then therequantitative strength and ductility values. is a tendency to fail the sample whereThe analysis tools also incorporate the tube is in contact with the mandrelfigure building capabilities for visual and the potential of brittle samples tocommunication of the data. Figure 4, for prematurely break. With a tube/mandrelexample, shows the hoop (tangential) diameter ration too small, there arestrain results during a test, there are issues with sample gauge dimensionsboth tensile and compressive strains inbeing far from and incomparable tothe ring116 2021|AFC ACCOMPLISHMENTS'