Laboratory #1: Tension Test of Steel and Aluminum CE 3020 Construction Materials

Submitted to: Dr. Roberto Leon

By: Bill Simpson June 2, 2003

CE3020 C2 Katie Burns Morgan Crace Pete Jenior

ABSTRACT The objectives of this experiment include determining the strength and certain elastic and inelastic properties of steel and an aluminum alloy, observing the behavior of the materials under tensile load, and studying the failure characteristics of the materials. Steel has a higher maximum tensile strength (68,600 psi while aluminum has a measured amount of 58,733 psi), yet aluminum has a higher rupture strength (56,266 psi, compared to 53,243 for steel). Aluminum has a proportional limit at 32,760 psi with steel at 29,257 psi. The aluminum has a lower percent elongation at 10.5% while steel is at 19.5% elongation at failure where it experienced necking. Calculated elastic modulus values are not close to the expected typical values of 29 million psi for steel and 10 million psi for aluminum. The measured values are lower - 12.7 million psi for steel and 6.1 million psi for aluminum. The aluminum fractures in a direct manner at a 45 degree plane due to brittle characteristics while the steel has a curved cup and cone shaped fracture from necking, where it can withstand loads longer past the yield point. Deviations from the expected and typical values are from errors in measurements and human error. These results from the experiment help familiarize experimenters with properties of different metals and in which situations each would be appropriate.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 OBJECTIVE 1.2 MATERIALS 1.3 EQUIPMENT 1.4 PROCEDURE 1.5 RESULTS 1.6 DISCUSSION 1.7 CONCUSION 1.8 APPENDIX

1 1 1 1 2 5 6 8

1.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of the lab is to determine and compare the strength, elastic properties and inelastic properties of plain carbon steel and aluminum alloy. The behavior of these two materials under load and at failure is of special interest when examining the properties of the materials and determining differences. 1.2 MATERIALS One sample of two materials in the ASTM standard flat tensile form Material 1: C1050 Steel Material 2: 2024 T351 Aluminum 1.3 EQUIPMENT A universal testing machine with grips Electronic extensometer Caliper Metal Marker 1.4 PROCEDURE First an ASTM standard tensile specimen of aluminum alloy is obtained. The specimen is measured with the caliper in three locations along the shaft for width and the width is averaged and recorded. The same is then repeated for the thickness of the specimens shaft. The caliper is then set and locked at two inches. The caliper is placed on the shaft and the marker is used to make two marks on the shaft two inches apart. These marks are clearly marked on the metal. All the steps above are repeated for the carbon steel sample. The aluminum sample is then placed in the grips of the universal-testing machine. At least 80% of each end of the sample is placed in either grip. The extensometer needs to have enough room to attach to the sample. Each grip is unattached and reattached swiftly and strongly to ensure that no slip will occur. The zeroing pin is inserted into the extensometer. The extensometer is attached to the sample in the grips. The zeroing pin is then removed. The tensile load is then applied by starting the testing machine. If the measured load does not increase past about 7, then stop the test and start over by reattaching the sample because slip is occurring. The tensile load is applied until the computer automatically pauses the test. The extensometer is removed. The test is resumed until the specimen fails. After failure the max load and the load at failure is recorded. The broken pieces are removed from the grips. The two pieces are carefully fit back together and the distance between the two marks is recorded. Also the thickness and width close to the fracture are measured and recorded. The character and location of fracture is also noted and recorded. The testing procedure is repeated for the steel specimen.

1.5 RESULTS 2024 T351 Aluminum

Stress - Strain Curve
70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.1200 0.1400 0.1600
Strain (in/in)

Stress (psi)

Stress - Strain Curve 45000

Proportional Limit

40000 35000
Stress (psi)

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0.00000

.2% Offset yield

0.00500

0.01000

0.01500

Strain (in/in)

C1050 Steel

Stress - Strain Curve

80000.00 70000.00 60000.00 Stress (psi) 50000.00 40000.00 30000.00 20000.00 10000.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500

Strain (in/in)

Stress - Strain Curve

50000.00 45000.00 40000.00 Stress (psi) 35000.00 30000.00 25000.00 20000.00 15000.00 10000.00 5000.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060
Proportional Limit

Strain (in/in)

Table 1 Specific Items from the Tension Test of Steel and Aluminum Tension Test of Steel and Aluminum Proportional Limit Upper Yield Point Lower Yield Point .2% offset yield Maximum Tensile Strength Rupture Strength Percent Elongation at Failure Modulus of Elasticity Toughness Type and Character of Fracture True Stress at Failure Steel 29,257 psi None None None 68,600 psi 53,243 psi 19.5% 12,720,495 psi 13,207 lb-in/in3 Curved cup & cone 103,528 psi Aluminum 32,760 psi None None 43,553 psi 58,733 psi 56,266 psi 10.5% 6,181,132 psi 7,524 lb-in/in3 Shear/direct (45 degrees) 75,357 psi

Proportional Limit: The proportional limit was obtained by finding the maximum stress on the graphs where the stress-strain relationship is linear, defined by E. It was determined by drawing a line on the graph through the linear portion, and finding the last value on that line. Upper and Lower Yield Point: Using the data and graphs from the tests, the upper yield point corresponded to the maximum and minimum yield point stress in between the linear elastic region and the uniform plastic deformation region. This property was determined by observation of the graph of our data points obtained in the lab. .2% Offset Yield: The strain corresponding to 0.2% of the final strain with the slope of the line parallel to the elastic modulus resulted in finding the 0.2% offset yield strength from the graph. Maximum Tensile Strength: The maximum tensile strength was found from the data obtained in the lab. It corresponds to the maximum amount of stress imposed upon the specimen. From the lab data, maximum tensile strengths were found by using the max function in the Excel files. Rupture Strength: The rupture strength is the stress applied when the specimen failed. The rupture strength was obtained from the data files at the point where the specimen was believed to fail. Percent Elongation at Failure: This number is obtained by dividing the change in length by the original length and multiplying that quantity by 100. Modulus of Elasticity: The modulus of elasticity is the slope of the linear portion of the graph. It was obtained by drawing a line through the linear elastic region of the data, where E equals the slope of the line, then calculated by using two points on that line from our data - finding the change in stress and dividing it by the change in the strain.
4

Toughness: It is defined as the area under the curve, or the energy absorbed before failure, toughness was calculated with the help of Excel and manually using geometry. Type and Character of Fracture: The fractures observed during testing included direct fractures where the material fails along a 45 degree plane and the curved cup and cone fracture. True Stress at Failure: This material property was found by dividing the load applied at failure by the final area (after necking had occurred). 1.6 DISCUSSION 1. Compare the measured yield strength and elastic modulus for the metals with typical values. The yield strength for aluminum was measured to be 43,553 psi, which is greater than the expected value of 34,000 psi for aluminum. The yield strength for the steel was not able to be measured. The typical value is 36,000 psi for steel. The calculated elastic modulus for aluminum at 6,181,132 psi is lower than the expected 10 million psi value. The calculated 12.7 million psi elastic modulus for steel is lower than the typical value of 29 million psi. These discrepancies could be due to human error in measuring and calculating data or due to temperature control errors. It is also difficult to read off of the exploded graph in Excel. 2. Describe possible sources of error during the test and their effect on data and calculations. Possible sources of error could occur during the test in human error such as measuring the gage lengths initially, which would affect calculations of final strain and elongation. The testing machine could have not been calibrated lately which would cause the measurements of the samples to be inaccurate causing the stress to be inaccurate as well as other data. Impurities in the metal could cause slight variation in the numbers. Reading off a graph in Excel is not the most accurate way to measure these values. More accurate readings and calculations could be made with a more advanced program. When testing just one time of such a small sample, variations are going to occur. Due to the low number samples (one) this kind of error is not able to be compared to other data taken in the same laboratory under the same conditions. 3. Compare the measured properties of the two metals, including strength, ductility, elastic modulus, and toughness. The steel had a higher elastic modulus than aluminum, which is expected. Steel also had a higher tensile strength than the aluminum; however, the aluminum had a higher rupture strength than steel, which was not expected. Steel has a 19.5% elongation compared to 10.5% elongation in aluminum making the steel more ductile. The steel is significantly tougher than the aluminum. 4. Discuss the difference between Engineering Stress and True Stress and whether there is a significant difference between these values at failure.
5

Engineering stress uses the initial cross sectional area while true stress uses the instantaneous cross sectional area. True stress is much more accurate, but it is more difficult to find the changing cross sectional area. The true stress is higher than the engineering stress. In this experiment, true stress is much, much higher than the engineering stress after the necking had occurred. Under loading, necking can occur where the cross sectional area decreases and the difference between engineering stress and true stress becomes more apparent. In this area between the maximum load and failure, necking becomes significant enough that there is a gradual decrease in Engineering Stress as increased load is applied while True Stress does not decrease, taking into account the loss of area. 5. Explain the necking process, and discuss how the necking of the specimen relates to the shape of the stress-strain curve. Under tensile loading, materials that undergo yielding begin to neck, exhibiting plastic instability. Since yielding became more localized in one region, the cross sectional area is reduced during the testing. If the material continues to be strained, failure occurs in that necking region. As the stress-strain curve rises, eventually the rate of strain hardening decreases and the strain hardening can no longer compensate for the reduction in cross-sectional area. When necking occurs, there is a difference between true stress and engineering stress; the stress-strain curve begins to decrease on the y-axis since the material cannot handle the amount of strain. The necking process is the result of very high load causing plastic deformation. Necking results in a difference between true stress and engineering stress. When necking occurs, the stress-strain curve begins to decrease on the y-axis because the material cannot handle the amount of strain. 6. Compare the appearance of the fracture surface for each material. Discuss what the failure surface reveals about each materials behavior under tensile loading. The aluminum specimens tend to fail in a direct fracture along a 45 degree line with little elongation. The steel specimens tend to fail in a cup and cone curved fracture along a narrow cross section due to necking. The 45 degree plane through the aluminum specimens indicates more brittle characteristics under tensile loading where crack growth and spreading lead to fracture due to flaws and imperfections raising stress. The steel specimens have a curved cup and cone fracture exhibiting plastic instability and necking characteristics under tensile loading. Yielding becomes localized in one region which then the cross sectional area is reduced. Due to these properties, it is easy to see that steel is more ductile than the aluminum and that the more brittle aluminum will crack and shear easier. 1.7 CONCUSION This experiment helped students observe and achieve a basic understanding of the behaviors of steel and aluminum under tensile loading conditions. Strength and properties of metals involving elongation and elastic modulus were determined based upon stress-strain curves and data collected, and failure characteristics involving direct fractures and necking could be observed. The aluminum specimen had a higher proportional limit at 32,760 psi compared to the steels 29,257 psi value. The steel specimen withstood greater tensile strength conditions at 68,600 psi as aluminum
6

measured to be 58,733 psi. The steel had greater percent elongation at failure with 12.5% compared to aluminums 10.5. The modulus of elasticity calculations were lower than the expected values, steel at 12.7 million psi and aluminum at 6.1 million psi and discrepancies in calculations could be due to human error.

Appendix