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: