MECHANICS OF MATERIAL

ENGI 1233

EXPERIMENT 1
TENSION TEST

CHARMISH A PATEL

Group No.: 21
Date of Experiment: 26th Sep 2022
Purpose

To observe behaviour of elastic metals under tension. To observe stress and normal
failure. To obtain modulus of elasticity, yield stress, ultimate stress and failure
strain.

Theory

Test is conducted by plotting the stress-strain diagram. (σ = P/Ao against ε = ΔL/L).

Here σ is the stress, P is the applied load, Ao is the original cross-sectional area, ε is the
longitudinal strain and ΔL is the change in length of the original gauge length L.

“Figure 1.1 – Conventional and true stress-strain diagrams for a ductile material
(steel) (not to scale)” (Hibbler, Mechanics of material)
The figure 1.1 is initially a straight line with σ = Eε, and the slope of that resulting
graph is termed as elastic modulus, E. When the stress is no longer proportional,
that is termed as proportional limit. At that part the material behaves elastically.
The curve in the figure tends to bend and flattens out until the stress reaches its
elastic limit. If at this point the load is removed, then the specimen will return back
to its original form.

“When yielding has ended, a further load can be applied to the specimen, resulting
in a curve that rises continuously but becomes flatter until it reaches a maximum
stress referred to as the ultimate stress, σu. The rise in the curve in this manner is
called strain hardening. Throughout the test, while the specimen is elongating, its
cross-sectional area will decrease. This decrease in area is fairly uniform over the
specimen’s entire gauge length, even up to the strain corresponding to the ultimate
stress” (EMEC 1233 Lab Manual).
“At the ultimate stress, the cross-sectional area begins to decrease in a localized
region of the specimen, instead of over its entire length. This phenomenon is
caused by slip planes formed within the material, and the actual strains produced
are caused by shear stress. As a result, the constriction or “neck” gradually tends to
form in this region as the specimen elongates further. Since the cross-sectional area
within this region is continuously decreasing, the smaller area can only carry an
ever-decreasing load. Hence the nominal stress-strain diagram tends to curve
downward until the specimen breaks at the fracture stress, σf” (EMEC 1233 Lab
Manual).
“Instead of always using the original cross-sectional area and specimen length to
calculate the stress and strain we could have used the actual cross-sectional area
and specimen length at the instant the load is measured. The values of stresses and
strains computed from these measurements are called true stress and true strain and
a plot of their values is called the true stress-strain diagram as shown in Fig. 1.1.
Note that the both conventional and true stress-strain diagrams are practically
coincident when the strain is small. The differences between the diagrams begin to
appear in the strain-hardening range, where the magnitude of strain becomes more
significant. In particular there is a large divergence within the necking region. Here
it can be seen from the conventional stress-strain diagram that the specimen
actually supports a decreasing load, since the cross sectional area is constant when
calculating the conventional (engineering) stress, (σ = P/Ao). However, from the
true stress-strain diagram, the actual area A within the necking region is always
decreasing until fracture σf΄, and so the material actually sustains increasing stress,
since σ = P/A” (EMEC 1233 Lab Manual).
“Although the true and conventional (nominal) stress-strain diagrams are different,
most engineering design is done within the elastic range, since the distortion of the
material is generally not severe within this range. Provided the material is “stiff”,
like most metals, the strain up to the elastic limit will remain small and the error in
using the engineering values of σ and ε is very small (about 0.1%) compared with
their true values. This is one of the primary reasons for using conventional stress-
strain diagrams” (EMEC 1233 Lab Manual).

“Figure 1.2 Sample stress-strain diagram for a mild steel” (Hibbler,

Mechanics of material).
 “Figure 1.3 Yield strength for aluminum alloy”
(Hibbler, Mechanics of material).

Figure 1.2 and 1.3 summarizes the entire theory behind the experiment. It can be
noticed that graph shows actual conventional stress-strain curve for a mild steel
specimen.
Procedure

Universal testing machine (Tinius Olsen, Horsham, PA) shown in the Figure 1-4 is
used in order to carry out the experiment. Specimens used in the experiment were
Mild steel and Aluminum. Extensometer was used in order to measure the
longitudinal strain. The specimens were inserted in the holder one by one, and the
procedure was conducted as per the lab instructor. The load was applied to the
tension specimen, and it was increased gradually. The load and strain at different
points were recorded until the failure of the specimen occurs. It was made sure that
the extensometer was removed before the failure, in order to prevent any predicted
damages to the equipment.

Equipment
The following equipments were used in order to carry out the experiment. Figure
1-4 shows the setup for the experiment.
Universal testing machines (UTM)
Data acquisition system
Extensometer
Micrometer
Vernier Calliper
Punch.
 Figure 1-4 – Experiment setup (By Stangier)

Figure 1-5 – Dimension per the standard (By Stangier)

Figure 1-6 – Specimens (By Stangier)

The figure 1-6 shows the specimen used for both the materials, and figure 1-5
denotes the standard dimensions used for the specimens.

Results

The Table 1-1 indicates the theoretical values for the specimens, and Table 1-2
describes the data recorded by performing the experiment.
“Table 1-1 Data provided for aluminum 6061-T6”
(By Stangier)

“Table 1-2 Data sheet” (By Stangier)

Figure 1-7- Stress vs strain graph for Aluminum
 The Figure 1-7 shows the stress vs strain graph for the Aluminum. It was noticed
from the values in the graph that the yield stress, which was about 37500 in the
graph, is equivalent to that of the theoretical values provided in the data.

Figure 1-8 -Handwritten calculations for Aluminum 6061-T6

 “Table 1-3 Data provided for Steel”
(By Stangier)

Table 1-3 indicates the different values provided for the steel specimen. Followed
by Table 1-4 which indicates the various data recorded while performing the
experiment.
Table 1-4 Data sheet (By Stangier)
Figure 1-9- Stress vs strain graph for Steel
Figure 1-10 -Handwritten calculations for Steel

Discussion

From the calculated values it can be noticed that the provided range of yield stress
for Aluminum material is 37.7-40.4 *10^3 psi. The experiment conducted indicates
the graphical value of 38000 psi which is within the reference range provided.
However, modulus of elasticity given in table 1-1 is 10*10^6 psi, and the values
generated graphically as seen in figure 1-7 is 11.23*10^6 psi which is just the
higher range of the given value. The published value of elongation at failure is 16-
18.5%, however handwritten calculation in Figure 1-8 indicates that the failure was
at 22.5% which is a bit more then given data, but it needs to be noted that the
reason behind these would be the errors happened when conducting the
experiment. Also, the ultimate stress value calculated graphically is within the
range of the published value.
Similarly, from the calculated values of steel it can be noticed that the provided
range of yield stress for Steel material is 44*10^3 psi. The experiment conducted
indicates the graphical value of 53000 psi which quite higher than reference range
provided. However, modulus of elasticity given in table 1-3 is 29*10^6 psi, and the
values generated graphically as seen in figure 1-9 is 32.10*10^6 psi which is just
the higher range of the given value. The published value of elongation at failure is
23%, however handwritten calculation in Figure 1-8 indicates that the failure was
at 35.5% which is a bit more then given data, but it needs to be noted that the
reason behind these would be the errors happened when conducting the
experiment. Also, the ultimate stress value calculated graphically 78600 psi is
within the range of the published value 65-90*10^3 psi.

There were many errors noticed while conducting the experiment which resulted
into calculated values that were off from that of the given published values. It was
noted that the measurement was taken manually which would be a part of the error.
Also, the measuring instrument were calibrated but not accurate to decimals
values. The outcome of the specimen was not as expected as seen in the figure 1-
11 and 1-12.
Figure 1-11 Specimen result post experiment for Steel material

Figure 1-12 Specimen result post experiment

for Aluminum material
Conclusion

It can be concluded from the experiment that the result was very accurate for most
the aspects, however there were errors due to which the published values of Yield
stress seem to be way lower then that of calculated values.
Although the stress- strain graph was achieved as per requirement which was the
aim of the experiment.

References

Lab manual 1233 (By Stangier)

https://mycourselink.lakeheadu.ca/d2l/le/content/102048/viewContent/1441083/Vi
ew

Mechanics of material (By Hibbler)

-Chapter 3, section 3.1-3.4