Introduction: Tensile test

Tensile testing is one of the most fundamental experiments that must be held to learn the
behaviour of each material and its properties to design safe structures. Additionally, during the
learning, new composites materials could be designed to fit the appropriate field of engineering.
The main objective of that laboratory session was to make the tensile strength experiment on three
common materials, namely cold drawn carbon steel 0.4%, aluminium and free machining brass and
identify its mechanical properties. Such values as ultimate strength (u), maximum load (Pmax),
modulus of elasticity (E) and yield strength were found for each material from obtained stress-
strain curves. Actually, the main reason for conducting that tensile experiment is to learn more
about the relationship of normal stress and normal strain for each material individually. After
obtaining all values required for the analysis, 3 materials were compared.
All specimen were tested once for each material in the Tinius Olsen H25KS load frame machine. All
three testing materials were cylindrical with the same gauge length of approximately 27mm The
initial diameter (4.8mm) of the specimen was measured by caliper. The cross section was circular
with enlarged end grips to ensure that the highest stresses to occur within the gauge length region
to avoid rupture in or near the grips.
The specimen were then put into the machine mountings to fix the piece of material. After the
setting of jogging speed (in our case 50mm/min), the machine started to apply normal tension,
which resulted in elongation of the material and eventually led to fracture. Thus, the forces over
elongation plots were printed out in all three cases considered.


Tinius Olsen Model H25K-S UTM (2013)



Results

Figure 1 Stress-Strain Diagram for cold drawn plain steel 0,4%


Figure 2 Stress-Strain Diagram for free machining brass
138
338
538
738
938
1,138
1,338
00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)

Strain (mm/mm)
Stress-Strain Diagram for Cold drawn plain
carbon steel 0.4%
075
175
275
375
475
575
675
775
00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)

Strain (mm/mm)
Stress-Strain Diagram for Free machining brass

Figure 3 Stress-Strain Diagram for Aluminium
Table 1 Comparison between measured and true values of ultimate strength for different materials
Material
Ultimate strength
u

measured (MPa)
Ultimate strength
u

tabulated (MPa)
Deviation
(%)
Cold drawn plain
carbon steel 0.4%
1098,33 600 (Callister, 2011) 45,37
Aluminum 354,01 300 (Callister, 2011) 15,26
Free machining brass 600,98 469 (E-Z lok, 2013) 21,96

Table 2 Comparison between measured and true values of yield strength for different materials
Material
Yield strength
y

measured (MPa)
Yield strength
y

tabulated (MPa)
Deviation
(%)
Cold drawn plain
carbon steel 0.4%
958 515 (Callister, 2011) 46,24
Aluminum 475 310 (Callister, 2011) 34,74
Free machining brass 320 241 (E-Z lok, 2013) 24,69






020
070
120
170
220
270
320
370
420
00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)

Strain (mm/mm)
Stress-Strain Diagram for Aluminium
The Youngs modulus was measured by calculating the slope of the linear region of stress-strain
diagram. For that purpose several points on this line was taken to calculate the slope. The following
equation was used:

(1)
Table 3 Calculated Youngs modulus on the linear region of Stress-Strain diagram for different materials
Steel

Brass

Aluminium
Young's modulus (GPa)

Young's modulus
(GPa)

Young's modulus
(GPa)
18,651

18,651

9,325
26,111

20,516

16,786
22,381

18,651

14,921
26,111

18,651

16,786
22,381

Average value (GPa)

13,056
22,381

19,117

11,191
22,381

Average value (GPa)
Average value (GPa)

13,677
22,914

Table 4 Comparison between measured and true values of Youngs modulus for different materials
Cold drawn plain
carbon steel 0.4%
Free machining brass Aluminium
Average value (GPa) Average value (GPa) Average value (GPa)
22,914 19,117 13,677
Tabulated value
(GPa)
Tabulated value
(GPa)
Tabulated value
(GPa)
207 (Callister, 2011) 97 (Callister, 2011) 69 (Callister, 2011)
Deviation (%) Deviation (%) Deviation (%)
803,38 407,40 404.50

From table 4 it can be seen that the difference between true and measured values is immense. It is
clearly indicates on some kind of faulty of apparatus which was used during the experiment.

Table 5 Maximum load applied on the specimen for different materials
Material Maximum load (N)
Cold drawn plain carbon steel 0.4% 19875
Aluminum 6406
Free machining brass 10875




Table 6 Initial diameter, diameter after rupture and percent reduction area for different materials
Material
Initial
diameter
(mm)
Final diameter
(mm)
%RA
Cold drawn plain
carbon steel 0.4%
4,8 4,1 27,04
Aluminum 4,8 3,5 46,83
Free machining brass 4,8 4,0 30,56

Results analysis and discussion
1. According to the results obtained, from the stress strain plots, it can be seen that all three materials
yielded and the results showed quite significant deviation from the theoretical results. The most
resistant material to tensile deformation was plain carbon steel with calculated yield strength of
958MPa (theoretical 515MPa). Aluminum yield strength was measured to be 475Mpa (theoretical
310MPa) and the calculated yield strength of brass was 320MPa (theoretical 241MPa).
Yield strength is basically the value of stress after which the plastic deformation take place. During
yielding, materials undergo plastic deformation with a slight increase in load.
Yield strength is a very significant value that must always be taken into consideration for engineering
construction design. When designing a construction, the materials that are used must withstand the
forces applied to avoid plastic deformation. In other words, the appropriate material with the high yield
strength must be used or the cross sectional area could be enlarged so that the forces applied must
produce normal stresses that are below the yield strength.
2. Comparison of all specimen for the ultimate strength showed that the cold drawn carbon steel is the
material that can sustain the largest stress before failure with the measured value of approximately
1098Mpa, compared to theoretical data of 600MPa (46% difference). Brass and aluminum tensile
strengths were calculated to be 600 MPa and 354 MPa respectively.
Tensile strength is the maximum stress that is applied before the material ruptures or fails. Due to the
mechanical properties the significance of the tensile strength is widely found in the design of brittle
materials and similar compositions. Since rupture in brittle materials occur in the highest stress value,
tensile strength is very significant data that must be obtained in order to avoid failure of brittle
materials.
3. The analysis of elastic modulae provided the most deflected results. For instance the most resistant
material was found to be carbon steel again with the Youngs modulus of about 23GPa. The free
machining brass could withstand about 19GPa of the stress before plastic deformation, whereas
aluminiums measured value was in the region of 13.6GPa.
Young's modulus is an individual property of a material. It is actually the ability to resist the deformation
due to the force applied. Materials with higher elastic modulus are more resistant to the deformation
(metals, heavy alloys), and hence, it would take more stress to reach for the material to reach the same
strain with higher Young's modulus compared to the one with lower. Engineers are more likely to use
materials which would withstand large stresses within elastic region and thus materials with high elastic
modulus is more preferable in structural design.
4. Aluminum was claimed to be the most ductile material since it could undergo larger deformations
before rupture occurred with the area reduction of approximately 47%.
Ductile materials are mostly preferred in tension engineering design due to its mechanical properties.
Firstly, ductility means the efficient way to absorb energy and consequently, this results in much more
larger deformation if overloaded, before fracture (Hibbeler, 2011). Regarding the brittle materials, they
can hardly reach the yielding region, which means that they cannot withstand overloading since it will
lead directly to the rupture without deformation, when tension is considered. However, when
compression is analyzed, brittle materials have an advantage in a face of ductile materials as they are
more resistant to axial compression deformations rather than ductile ones. Thus, in structural design, in
compression regions brittle materials are in favor.
5.
Figure 4 shows the fracture profile of plain carbon steel. It
can be seen that this profile is almost straight line. This is
because steel failed due to the normal stresses, which act
perpendicular to the surface of the specimen i.e.
perpendicular to line of fracture. The necking indicates
that material is ductile.





Figure 5 represents rupture profile of the brass. In this case
profile is not straight line anymore (in comparison with
steel). This is due to the fact that shear and normal stress
contribute equally in breaking of brass. In some regions
brass failed due to normal stresses, in another due to the
shear stresses, which are maximum at 45
o
degree angle. It
is shown on figure 6.





Figure 4 Fracture profile of plain carbon steel
Figure 5 Fracture profile of free machining
brass
Figure 6 Fracture surface of brass
The fracture profile of the Aluminium is shown on the figure 7.
According to this figure rupture occurred at 45o degree angle. Thus
Aluminium failed due to the shear stresses. The material necks
significantly compared to the plain carbon steel and brass. In these
metals necking is not so pronounce.
Conclusion
During this laboratory session, three different materials including carbon steel, brass and aluminum
were tested by the tensile strength experiment. The behavior of both brittle and ductile materials
under tensile forces was observed. According to the graphs and other obtained data during the
experiment three materials have yielded. Carbon steel was found to be the most resistant material
against tensile stress. Whereas, the aluminum was determined as the most ductile material, being
able to withstand more deformations in comparison with the other two materials. Furthermore, the
fracture profiles of each material have been demonstrated via images. These parameters play very
important role in choosing the material for engineering purposes. It is important to mention that the
safety issues are also very significant and because of that engineers are testing and analyzing the
behavior of a variety of materials by such experiments as tensile stress experiment.
Reference list
Callister, W. and Rethwisch, D. (2011). Materials Science and Engineering, 8
th
ed. Wiley, Hoboken
Hibeller, R. (2011). Mechanics of Materials, 8
th
edition, Prentice Hall, Boston
E-Z Lok. (2013). Free-Cutting Brass, UNS C36000. Retrieved 16 October 2013, from
http://www.ezlok.com/TechnicalInfo/MPBrass.html
Tinius Olsen. (2013). Benchtop Testers Model H25K-S UTM. Retrieved 13 October 2013, from
http://www.tiniusolsen.com/products/bench-machines/bench-h25k-s.html
Figure 7 Fracture profile of Aluminium