FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

LABAROATORY REPORT
Semester 1 2016/2017

COURSE :AEROSPACE LABORATORY II

CODE : EAS3922
LAB TITLE : COMPRESSION TEST

NAME : MOHD FAZRI BIN SEDAN

MATRIC NO. : 178141

PROGRAM : BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (AEROSPACE)

DATE OF EXPERIMENT : 22 SEPTEMBER 2016

DATE OF SUBMITION : 04 OCTOBER 2016

LECTURE : DR. DAYANG LAILA HJ ABANG ABDUL MAJID

INSTRUCTOR : SIVASANGHARI KARUNAKARAN

TECHNICAN : EN. MUHAMMAD ILYAS MOHD GHAZALI

1
1.0 Objective
1.1 To study and observe the techniques of the compression testing.
1.2 To determine the mechanical properties on three different sizes of the tested
specimen.

2.0 Introduction
A compression test is a method for determining the behavior of materials under a
compressive load. Compression tests are conducted by loading the test specimen between two
plates and then applying a force to the specimen by moving the crossheads together. The
compression test is used to determine elastic limit, proportionality limit, yield point, yield
strength and compressive strength.
Compressive Strength - It is the maximum compressive stress that a material is capable
of withstanding without fracture. Brittle materials fracture during testing and have a definite
compressive strength values. The compressive strength of ductile materials is determined by
their degree of distortion during testing.
Structure components such as columns and struts are subjected to compressive load in
applications. These components are made of high compressive strength materials. Not all the
materials are strong in compression. Several materials, which are good in tension, are poor in
compression. Many materials poor in tension are good in compression. The strength is
determined by conducting a compression test. During the test, the specimen is compressed and
deformation vs. the applied load is recorded.
Compression test is just opposite in nature to tensile test. Nature of deformation and
fracture is quite different from that in tensile test. Compressive load tends to squeeze the
specimen. Brittle materials are generally weak in tension but strong in compression.

2
 Figure 1. Stress against strain graph
Formula:
Young’s modulus = slope of stress Vs Strain.
Ultimate compressive strength (UCS) = Force (N) just before rupture / (original c/s area)

, = … . (1)

3.0 Specimens and equipments

Figure 2. Instron Series 8500 (left) and wood specimens (right)

3.1 Universal testing machine – Instron Series 8500

3.2 Vernier calliper
3.3 Compression specimen – wood variety of height and diameter

4.0 Procedures
4.1 Vernier calliper was used to measure the original size of specimens.
4.2 The specimen was centered between the compression test plates.
4.3 The required parameters were set on the control panel under specimen column.
4.4 The load applied was adjusted / reset to zero before starting the experiment.
4.5 Start button was pressed to start the compression test.
4.6 The specimen was observed, as the load is gradually applied.
4.7 The maximum load was recorded and loading was continued until deformation
occurred.
4.8 The machine was stopped and the specimen was removed.
4.9 The experiment was repeated with other specimens.
4.10 The type of failure for each specimen was observed and described.
3
5.0 Results

Dimensions of the specimens

Table 1. Height and diameter of Specimen A (wood A) before and after compression
Parameters Before compression After compression
Reading 1st 2nd 3rd Average 1st 2nd 3rd Average
Height (mm) 25.6 26.0 25.9 25.9 6.1 6.6 6.2 6.3
Diameter (mm) 28.2 27.9 27.6 27.9 37.1 35.8 33.3 35.4

Table 2. Height and diameter of Specimen B (Wood B) before and after compression
Parameters Before compression After compression
Reading 1st 2nd 3rd Average 1st 2nd 3rd Average
Height (mm) 43.0 44.0 44.0 43.7 21.7 21.9 22.7 22.1
Diameter (mm) 28.0 21.5 20.0 23.2 36.4 34.8 35.9 35.7

Table 3. Height and diameter of Specimen C (Wood C) before and after compression
Parameters Before compression After compression
Reading 1st 2nd 3rd Average 1st 2nd 3rd Average
Height (mm) 58.7 58.6 57.7 58.7 53.7 53.3 53.8 53.6
Diameter (mm) 21.9 21.3 22.0 21.5 24.0 23.9 24.7 24.2

Table 4. Specimens cross section before the compression

Specimen
Cross section = ,
A 5.983 × 10-4
B 4.227 × 10-4
C 3.631 × 10-4

The raw data obtained from the universal test machine is further processed into graphical
form and shown below:

4
Load applied (N) against displacement (mm) graphs

Load applied (N) against Displacement (mm) of Specimen A

60000

50000

40000
Load Applied (N)

30000

20000

10000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-10000
Displacement (mm)

Figure 3. Load applied (N) against displacement (mm) graph of specimen A

Applied load (N) against displacement (mm) of specimen B

16000
14000
12000
Applied load (N)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.00E+00 2.00E+00 4.00E+00 6.00E+00 8.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.20E+01 1.40E+01 1.60E+01
-2000
Displacement (mm)

Figure 4. Load applied (N) against displacement (mm) graph of specimen B

5
 Load applied (N) against displacement (mm) of specimen C
14000

12000

10000
Load applied (N)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2000
Displacement (mm)

Figure 5. Load applied (N) against displacement (mm) graph of specimen C

Compressive stress (MPa) against Compressive strain (%) graphs

Compressive stress (MPa) against Compressive strain (%) of

specimen A
90
80
Compressive Stress (MPa)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Compressive Strain (%)

Figure 6. Compressive stress (MPa) against compressive strain (%) graph of specimen A

6
 Compressive stress (MPa) against Compressive strain (%) of specimen
B
40
35
Compressive stress (MPa)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Compressive Strain (%)

Figure 7. Compressive stress (MPa) against compressive strain (%) graph of specimen B

Compressive stress (MPa) against compressive strain (%) of specimen

C
40
35
Compressive stress (MPa)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Compressive strain (%)

Figure 8. Compressive stress (MPa) against compressive strain (%) graph of specimen C

Table 4. Mechanical properties result of the specimen obtained from the experimental data.

Specimen A B C
Modulus of elasticity, E (MPa) 7.32 14.50 24.45
Proportional limit (MPa) 20.43 24.51 30.09
Yield strength, (Mpa) 26.35 31.31 28.62
Ultimate compression stress 22.09 34.19 34.44
(Mpa)
Maximum load (N) 13460.00 12997.62 13937.14
Load at time failure (N) 10860.00 12140.00 -

7
 Specimen Maximum load, Stress, Original length, Final length,
(N) (MPa) (mm) (mm)
A 13460.00 22.09 25.90 6.30
B 12997.62 34.43 43.70 22.10
C 13937.14 34.19 53.60 53.60

Table 5. Condition of the specimen before and after compression

Specimen Status after Condition before compression Condition after

compression Compression
A Fracture,
Buckling
occurred

B Fracture,
Buckling
occurred

C Failed to
complete the
compression
test until
fracture point

8
6.0 Discussion
6.1 Discuss on the shape of obtained stress-strain curve.
From the plotted graph, we can see that all three specimens have graphs of different
shapes. At the beginning of the compression test, the compressive stress increases
linearly with compression strain until reaching its elastic limit. Beyond that, the
specimen undergoes yielding. However, for our experiment, only wood A and B
portrays an obvious yielding process, while for wood C, it is difficult to see at which
point it actually undergoes yielding. After that, the compressive strength keeps on
increasing until ultimate compressive strength is reached, the specimen fractures and
compressive stress decreases. We see that for wood A, compressive stress decreases
quite steadily after Ultimate compressive stress (UCS). However, for wood B and wood
C, the compressive stress is jerking with increasing compressive strain. This may be
due to broken pieces of wood left on the test plate after UCS. The broken pieces could
have been like another separated specimen placed for test. In wood A graph, after
failure point the graph suddenly exponentially increased this is might be due to machine
error , because after the wood A failed the machine still compress the specimen that
cause the load applied increased with increasing strain value.

6.2 Compare and discuss the experimental results with theory.

The modulus of elasticity for wood (timber) is 12 GPa, which is way much higher than
the value we got from the experiment. The difference between both of these results is
due to errors during the experiment, which will be explained later. And theoretically,
the longer the length of wood the more ultimate compressive stress it can withstand and
caused in increasing value of proportional limit, yield strength, modulus of elasticity,
maximum load and more time to reach fracture point. From experiment data the theory
is proven. From table 4 it shows that wood C has the highest mechanical properties
among specimens except the yield strength were wood B has the highest yield strength
because wood B has bigger cross-section area compared to wood C. From equation (1),
cross section area is inversely proportional to the stress. The higher the cross section
area the higher the stress acting on the wood surface.

9
6.3 Discuss on the mechanical properties of the tested specimens.
Under compression test, several mechanical properties of the specimens can be
examined. Before the curve reaches its proportional limit, the material can be loaded
and still recover its original shape after the load is removed. This is due to the elasticity
of the specimen which is ability of a material to return to its original shape after the
load is removed. Once the specimen is being loaded over the elastic limit, it will
undergo plastic deformation. Plasticity is the ability of a material to deform
permanently without breaking or rupturing. Besides that, the specimen’s strength is the
property that enables a metal to resist deformation under load. Compression strength is
a measurement of the resistance to being compressed when placed in a compression
load. In this experiment 3 dimension of wood that has different height and almost
similar diameter is used to compare their mechanical properties under stress load. From
table 4 obviously we can see that the wood C has the highest mechanical properties the
longer the length of wood the longer time it takes to yield and the higher the ultimate
compressive stress this mean wood C has the highest capacity to withstand loads
tending to reduce size. From figure 6, the graph shows that the stress over strain to reach
proportional limit, yield point, and fracture point of wood C is higher compared to wood
A, and wood B. But, mechanical properties of wood C should be more than the data
recorded during the compression test. Only wood A and B able to reach the fracture
point. Wood C only reach maximum compressive stress and plastic region due to
ununiformed distribution of load on the top of the specimen make it slip from the
machine compressor.

Non-uniform stress
distribution on the top of
Wood C

Figure 9. Wood C after compression test

10
 6.4 Discuss on the factors that can be affected to the experimental results.
Firstly, the error may be due to the grip of the test plates on the specimen. As the test
plates are adjusted by human, there can be a tendency of whether a tight grip on the
specimen or a loose one. And this contributes to the deviation from the theoretical
value. Secondly, human errors while taking the measurement also causes inaccuracy in
our results. Third, the specimens were not cut perfectly to the dimensions that it should
have. For example, the cylinder does not have a flat circular surface, but rather an
inclined one. This has caused ununiform stress distribution on the specimen surface and
also inaccurate dimension measurement in the beginning of the experiment. Other than
affected by friction and varying cross sectional area.

6.5 Discuss the buckling of column effect that occur in the specimens.

Buckling is the uncontrolled lateral displacement of a column at which point no

additional load from critical load can be supported. Columns are usually considered as vertical
structural elements. The loads applied to a column are only axial loads. Loads on columns are
typically applied at the ends of the member, producing axial compressive stresses. Column are
defined by their length between support end, which is short or long column. In this experiment,
wood A, B, and C act as the column, we can represent this experiment as a axial support system
as shown in figure . Column slenderness and length greatly influence a column’s ability to
carry load. Very short such as wood A in this experiment, stout column fail by crushing due to
material failure. Failure occurs once the stress exceeds the elastic (yield point) limit of the
material. Long, slender columns such as wood B and wood C fail by buckling. This buckling
is effected by the column’s dimensions and its modulus of elasticity. Failure of material will
occur at a lower stress level than its material strength due to buckling, this explained why
modulus of elasticity, E obtained from experiment is slightly different from theoretical value.

11
 Buckling effect is obviously seen in wood B after the compression test (Figure ). Wood
B buckled when the load applied is beyond its critical load. From table 4 wood A has larger
maximum load compared to wood B. This is because, long columns fail by buckling at stress
level that are below the elastic limit of the column material but very short column lengths
require extremely large loads to cause the member to buckle and if the load is large enough it
result in high stresses that caused crushing rather than buckling. In addition, buckling effect is
not shown by wood C after the test due to error.
Buckling can be avoided if the loads were applied absolutely axially or in other words
the load applied must be less or equal to critical load that the column can withstand. The relation
to calculate the critical load as follow:

= … . (2)

Where, = critical axial load that causes buckling in the column.

E = modulus of elasticity of the column material
= smallest moment of inertia of the column cross-section
L = column length between pinned ends

From equation (2), Critical axial load is inversely proportional to length of column. As
the column length increases, the critical load rapidly decreases. This mean in theory by using
the relationship of and length of column we can arrange the wood specimens in term
of increasing critical load, that is, < < .

Load

Axial support
(wood specimen)

Figure 10. Axial support system used in this experiment

12
 Buckling effect

Fracture point

Figure 11. Wood B after compression

7.0 Conclusion

All objectives were achieved in this experiment. Mechanical properties like modulus of
elasticity, proportional limit, yield limit and ultimate compressive stress are analyzed from the
results of the experiment and shown in table 4.

8.0 References

1. Mechanics of Materials, Seventh SI Edition, R.C Hibbeler, Pearson.

2. Engineering Mechanics Statics, Tenth Edition in SI Units, R.C Hibbeler, Pearson.
3. William D Callister, JR.(1999). ‘Materials Science and Engineering an Introduction’,
4th edition. John Willey & Sons, Inc.
4. Engineering Toolbox http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-
d_417.html

13