Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Spring 2018
TITLE: UNIAXIAL TENSION TEST
Experiment # : 1
Date : 12 / 02/ 2018
Section # : 602
Group # : 3
This report is entirely our own work and we have kept a soft/ hard copy for our own
records. It is based on experimental work which we performed in the MECE - 306
MATERIAL SCIENCE AND APPLICATION LABORATORY. This report and the
laboratory work on which it is based, has not been submitted for assessment in any other
unit of study. We are aware of the University’s policies on cheating and plagiarism. We
understand the safety concerns related to this experiment.
Submitted by:
SR. Number Name RIT ID Signature
Marks Obtained:
Table of Contents
Table of Figures 3
Symbols Used 3
Abstract 4
Introduction 5
Experiment Procedure 8
Discussion 12
Sources of Error 13
Conclusion 13
References 14
2/14
Table of Figures and tables
Table 1………………………………………………………………………………………..…8
Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………….….9
Table 3…………………………………………………………………………………….……10
Figure 6………………………………………………………………………………………...12
Symbols Used
µε Microstrain
µV Microvolts
Σ Sum
3/14
Abstract
Comprehending the mechanics of materials is core to all engineering operations. Naturally, the
tensile test to study the behavior of material on application of load is the most common method
of determining the properties of the material; in order to fulfill two main purposes – Engineering
design to establish strength and point of failure of material based on its deflection, elasticity and
geometry, and Quality control for the manufacturers to verify and confirm specifications of the
material. And thus, the uniaxial tension test is the most effective tool in providing a homogenous
The experiment conducted here aimed to study and compare the behavior of three metals:
Aluminum, Steel, and Copper, in order to investigate the relationship between stress and strain,
as described by Hooke’s Law: ɛ =E σ1, explored through a direct proportionality curve obtained
where the slope of curve shows the elastic property of young modulus. By subjecting a strip of
material, having its initial dimensions recorded, to a controlled tensile stress along a single axis,
using a typical tensile testing machine with a strain gauge in half bridge connection mounted on
the specimen, observing change in dimensions with changing loads provides a stress-strain
profile of the material under its elastic limit. The loads in the experiment were hence
administered as to keep the deflections within the limit of elasticity. The results from this
4/14
Introduction
deflection in dimension, and P, the load applied, to know what ultimate stress we might expect
for the material to return to its original shape and size on account of force removal. From
strengths of material point of view, it’s essential to base our conclusions on the constitution and
Looking at the history of developments for understanding mechanics of materials, one of the
most significant was the recognition that strength of a uniaxially loaded material displays a
relation to its cross-sectional area. This concept naturally follows when we consider the strength
of material to stem from a series of chemical bonds linking one cross-section to the one adjacent
to it, as shown in the figure below, where each bond is imagined as a spring with a known
stiffness and strength. Reasonably, the number of such bonds rises proportionally with increase
in cross-sectional area. The axial strength of the material will hence increase as square of its
diameter. However, the material will in-fact become weaker as from statistical analysis, the
longer the specimen, the greater is the occurrence of strength-reducing flaws. (Roylance, 2008)
(What-when-how.com.)
When reporting strength, it is customary to account for the area by dividing load by
cross-sectional area.
5/14
In many engineering designs, reaching maximum possible strength is not the only target, we also
want to ensure that the structure is equally flexible to counter and resist potential deflections in
its geometry. Apparently, it’s a trade-off between strength and elasticity, specifications which are
selected depending on the purpose and conditions of design. We try to achieve an optimum
balance between strength and stiffness, aiming for the materials to be not too brittle to break
instantly without much deflection and neither too elastic to exhibit large deflections upon
induced upon application of specific load, and strength, which is the maximum load a material
can carry before breaking or the material’s resistance to failure leading from excessive
deformations. The stiffness is determined by subjecting the sample to relatively small loads,
staying within the limit of elasticity, and measuring the resulting deformation. As the
deformations in the materials under study are very small for the required loading conditions, one
Therefore, for the purposes of describing elasticity of any material, precise observations could
only be possible applying Robert Hooke’s experiments resulting in the expression P=Kδ where
K is the constant of proportionality called stiffness having the units N/m, δ is the deflection in
length, and P is the stress Force/ Cross-sectional area, hence using a long, coiled, thin wire
having very small cross-sectional area, to indicate uniform stretching of the material under
6/14
tensile stress by having negligible displacements in cross-sectional area but more deflections in
length. Based upon this notion are the devices designed to measure strain called strain gauges.
Strain gauges work as a transducer to convert external force or pressure into electrical display
according to the physics of metals to show increased resistance upon increase in length as in
(Sub.allaboutcircuits.com, 2018)
It is to be marked that stress σ = P/A induced in a tensile specimen upon application of a fixed
load is independent of material properties, while the deflection depends on the material property
E, as relating to its microstructural layout. Therefore, although the stress developed in different
materials would be same, the deflections would vary depending on material properties.
Thus, the current study took into consideration three metal structures, Aluminum, Copper, and
Steel, and using uniaxial testing by recording constant increments in load and resulting
displacement, to compare their Modulus of Elasticity in order to make conclusions about their
atomic arrangement and resulting properties for an interest in structural durability. To make
direct comparisons between materials, loading responses must be normalized against a set
geometry; therefore all samples taken are of same initial shape and size to compute stress and
strain from load and displacement respectively. Here, the Engineering stress is calculated as
σe = P/Ao
7/14
Where P is the applied load and Ao is the initial cross sectional area of the sample normal to the
εe = ΔL/Lo
Where ΔL is the measured displacement and Lo is initial sample length along a single axis.
Experiment Procedure
● Brass, Aluminium, Steel, and Copper specimens of 2mm by 10mm cross-sectional area
● Wheatstone Bridge
For each specimen, place into the holder on the strain gage trainer using the provided bolt. Using
the wires, connect the vertical strain gages to socket 1 and 4 of the Wheatstone bridge. Adjust the
gage factor on the wheatstone bridge based on the label of the metal specimen. Allow a moment
for the wires and bridge to warm up, as temperature changes will affect the readings. When
ready, zero out the Wheatstone bridge by holding the zero button for three seconds. Slowly and
8/14
carefully attach the weights to the specimen in increments of 1 kg and record the strain and
current from digital display for each weight added after the readings have stabilized. Repeat for
each specimen
9/14
Data and Results
10/14
Figure 3,4 & 5 : Stress VS Strain Graphs of Steel, Aluminium and Copper respectively
11/14
Discussion
As shown on the graph, the result of graphing the strain of each material as a function of the
stress applied. These graphs, known as stress-strain curves, are of great importance to materials
scientists and engineers as they make decisions regarding the application of materials. The slope
of the graph is the Young’s modulus. Each slope is converted to mPa (the standard unit for
stiffness. All graphs do not represent the entire stress-strain curve as we are only concerned with
the elastic region in this lab. Graphically comparing the stress-strain curves for all three
specimens Of the materials tested, the steel specimen had the highest modulus of elasticity. This
comes as no surprise considering that steel is widely used in the construction of buildings, which
12/14
are large structures that should bend and sway as little as possible. Copper had lower moduli,
which again comes as no surprise as these metals are almost never used as a main structural
material. Copper is used in wires which can be easily bent, which are easily dented. It was
surprising to us that aluminium had the lowest slope, but it does make sense considering that it is
easy to crush an aluminium can, and that the aluminium body of a car may dent even in a light
collision.
Sources of Errors
We used strain gages to examine the elongation of brass, copper, aluminum and
steel. Strain gages are the best to measure localized strains and strains in elastic
regions and is very cheap. However, it is very sensitive to temperature change and
cannot measure large deformations. Once the provided data were visualised in a graphical
format, several errors were found. Most of which can be attributed to errors due to failure in
Conclusion
By the end of the experiment, we were able to plot the stress versus strain of all the specimens
and determining the material with the highest and the lowest young's moduli, which was Steel
and Aluminium respectively. So, it helps us to understand different properties of the material by
13/14
only knowing this amount of information. This experiment shows the wide difference, which do
References
References
http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tmp124119_thumb.jpg
http://web.mit.edu/dlizardo/www/UniaxialTestingLabReportV6.pdf
http://courses.washington.edu/me354a/chap5.pdf
14/14