Tensile Test and Impact Test
Nick Leach
Group 3a
MAE 244, Sec. 2, Dr. Feng
September 7, 2005
Introduction:
In industrial applications, all materials’ quality and reliability need to be assessed
and their characterizations should be determined (i.e. their yield stress, peak stress,
maximum percent strain, modulus, and toughness). The materials’ composite (ductile or
brittle) should also be determined by observation and comparison of the break in the
material. In order to calculate the values of these characterizations, we will need to utilize
the theories of Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, the impact energy equation, and the
stress and strain equations. In the experiment we will utilize two pieces of equipment: the
Sonntag Universal Impact Machine for the impact test and the Instron electromechanical
testing machine for the tensile test.
Objectives:
For each material in the tensile test what will be the value of Young’s
Modulus, the yield stress, and the ultimate stress? Compare experimentally
determined values with the expected values in a table and discuss the accuracy of
the comparisons.
Report the total strain before rupture for each material and compare with
attached textbook value. Qualitatively discuss the type of failure (appearance).
Also discuss the ductility of the specimen in terms of the total strain before
rupture. Which material has the highest elongation at failure?
Estimate the material toughness for both materials and compare these with
calculations made by the test software. Can brittle material and ductile materials
have the same toughness?
Schematic:
Figure 1: Instron Electromechanical Testing Machine for Tensile Test
Figure 2: Sonntag Universal Impact Machine
Analysis of Results:
• Data Reduction: Young’s Modulus is calculated using the equation
E=σ/ε (1)
where σ is the bending stress, ε is the bending strain, and E is the Modulus of
Elasticity which is constant for a given material. During this lab though, I had to
estimate Young’s Modulus by observing the graphical data from the tensile test.
Poisson’s Ratio is calculated using the equation
-ν=εT/εL (2)
where εT is the lateral strain and εL is the longitudinal strain. The impact energy is
calculated using the equation
CV=mg(∆h) (3)
where m is the mass of the pendulum, g is the acceleration of gravity, and ∆h is
the change in height. The stress and strain were calculated (given) by the
computer software.
• Comparisons:
Plexiglas Tensile Graph
18000
16000
14000
12000
Strain µ (mm/mm)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
-2000
Stress σ (psi)
Graph 1: Stress v. Strain for Plexiglas
Plexiglas
Young’s Modulus (E) 758 ksi
Yield Stress (σy) 13.5 ksi
Ultimate Stress (σult) 15.6 ksi
Ultimate Strain (εult) .086 mm/mm
Toughness 3970
Table 1: Plexiglas values
Aluminum Tensile Graph
1000
900
800
700
Strain m (mm/mm)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-100
Stress s (psi)
Aluminum 6061-T6
Young’s Modulus (E) 179 ksi
Yield Stress (σy) 780 psi
Ultimate Stress (σult) 890 ksi
Ultimate Strain (εult) .086 mm/mm
Toughness 68.59
Table 2: Aluminum values
Discussion:
• Conclusions:
The failure appearance for the Plexiglas was almost a straight cut through
the cross section and the surface of the break was fibrous. This tells us that
Plexiglas is a ductile material. On the other hand, the failure appearance for the
Aluminum was a diagonal break with necking and cleavage apparent in the area
of the break. This indicates a brittle material.
The elongation of the materials was pretty much the same. The difference
between the toughness of ductile and brittle materials is that ductile materials
obviously have a much greater toughness which can be seen just by observing
their tensile graphs.
• Limitations and Experimental Error:
o The largest error was on my part while using Excel to construct the data
graphs. All calculated and estimated values were dependent upon the
accuracy of the data given and computed within the spreadsheet, so if the
actual graph was messed up (which they are, I believe), then all the values
computed with the data are crap. Other than that, the systems used to
collect the data were of good enough quality to prevent any data errors
other than negligible ones inherent to the surfaces.
References:
Appendix:
