Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Matthew DeMasi

Andrew Chapman
ENME E3114 Spring 2015
Experiment Date: March 5, 2015
Experiment 1: Material Properties in Tension and Compression
Objective:
The purpose of this lab was to test and observe the failure mechanisms of different
specimens under tension and compression. Specimens of A36 steel, cast iron,
rubber, wood, and concrete were loaded under tension and compression to observe
the material properties such as yield strength, ultimate strength, and ductility.
Apparatus, Specimen and Testing Conditions:
Apparatus:
INSTRON 600DX This machine has a maximum capacity of 135 kip in
tension and compression. The machine was used to test the tension of the
A36 steel, the cast iron, and the ash wood specimens; it also was used to test
the compression of the ash wood and concrete specimens. It has capabilities
of load and displacement control, and has a controller system to display load
and strain values.
INSTRON 1500 HDX This machine has a maximum capacity of 300 kip in
tension and compression. This machine was used to test tension and
compression of the concrete. It has capabilities of load and displacement
control.
Crane Apparatus The crane apparatus held a connection so that the rubber
sheets could hang vertically from one end.
Extensometer Compressometer The extensometer is an LVDT to measure
the vertical displacement on the concrete cylinder. The compressometer is an
LVDT to measure the horizontal displacement on the concrete cylinder.
2 inch extensometer Limited to 10%; 0.2 in seen after sufficient plastic
deformation.
Caliper
Tape Measure
Weights of 5 lbs and 10 lbs.
Specimens:
A36 Steel (Tension) Diameter = 0.504 in; Gauge Length = 2 in
Cast Iron (Tension) Diameter =0.0505 in; Gauge Length = 2in
Ash Wood (Tension) Cross Section: Height = 0.372 in, width = 0.197 in;
Length = 1.9875 in
Ash Wood (Compression) Cross Section: height = 1.879 in; width = 1.989 in;
Length = 7.9375 in
Concrete (Axial Compression and Compression along diameter) Diameter =
4 in; Height = 8 in
Three Rubber Sheets
o Uniform Sheet Grid Size: Cross Section: Height = 1.085 in, Width =
1.026 in; Thickness = 0.258 in
o Sheet with Notches Grid Size: Cross Section: Height = 1.263 in, Width
= 1.274 in; Thickness = 0.248 in

Sheet with Hole Grid Size: Cross Section: Height = 1.001 in, Width =
0.999 in; Thickness = 0.252 in

Conditions:
Concrete was made in January, so that curing for a minimum of 27 days was
achieved.
For the compression testing on the ash wood, there was a knot on the outer
face.
Procedures:
A. Steel
1. Measure the cross sectional dimensions and length of the A36 steel
between gage points.
2. Load the specimen in tension on the INSTRON 600DX. At yielding,
remove the extensometer once it reaches its limit (10%). Measure the
deformed cross section and gage length.
3. Continue loading the specimen until failure. At every 0.1 inch increase
in length, measure the cross section and length of the specimen. At
failure, measure the final length of the specimen.
4. Measure the cross sectional dimensions and length of the Cast iron
specimen. Load on the INSTRON 600DX until failure and then measure
its cross section and length.
B. Wood
1. Measure the cross section and length of the tensile wood specimen.
Load on the INSTRON 600DX until failure.
2. Measure the cross section and length of the compressive wood
specimen. Load on the INSTRON 600DX until failure.
C. Concrete
1. Measure the cross section and length of the concrete specimens.
2. With the extensometer compressometer attached to the concrete
specimen, load to 50,000 lbs on the INSTRON 600DX.
3. Transfer to the INSTRON 1500 HDX until failure and record the load.
4. Place a specimen along its diameter on the INSTRON 1500 HDX and
load until failure.
D. Rubber
1. Measure the initial grid size of the uniform rubber sheet. Attach the
sheet to the crane apparatus, and load in increments of 5 lbs until 50
lbs is reached. For each load, measure the deformed grid size. Repeat
procedure for the rubber sheet with notches and the rubber sheet with
the hole.

Figure 1: Concrete under compression


Figure 2: Necking of A36 steel under tension.
Data Analysis & Discussion of Results:
Figure 3: Engineering Stress Strain Curve (-x) of the uniform rubber sheet.
50
45
40
35
30
Stress (psi) 25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Strain, y (in/in)

Figure 4: Engineering Stress Strain Curve (-y) of the uniform rubber sheet.

50
45
40
35
30
25

Stress, (psi)

20
15
10
5
-0.1 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

0
0

Strain, -x (in/in)

The stress was calculated by

=P/ A 0

and the strain was calculated by

L
L0 .

As shown in Figures 3 and 4, as the stress is increased, the strain increases in the y
direction and decreases in the x direction. This was shown in the experiment as
when more load was applied (an increase in stress), the length of the sheet
increased (y-strain increases). As the vertical length increases, the horizontal
section of the rubber sheet decreases (x-strain decreases). The curves are not linear
though because there are unequal increases or decreases in strain for
corresponding increases in stress. There may be significant error in the use of the
caliper as the small deformations could lead to skewed results; repeating
measurements often produced vastly different results due to the small size of
deformations. Thus, these calculations are inaccurate due to lack of precise testing.
Figure 5: Poissons Ratio-Stress Curve (-) of the uniform Rubber Sheet.
7
6
5
4
Poisson's Ratio,

3
2
1
0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stress, (psi)

Poissons Ratio was calculated by:

= y / x . When plotted against the stress, the

Poissons Ratio steadily decreased with an increases in stress for low stress values.
However, the graph linearity ends with a horizontal line and a slight increase. This is
most likely an indication of an error in the experiment; as discussed, the slightest of
movements of the caliper produced very large discrepancies in value which most
likely skewed the result.
Figure 6: Engineering Stress Strain Curve (-y) of the uniform rubber sheet,
notched rubber sheet, and rubber sheet with hole.
60
50
40
Full Sheet Stress-Strain
Stress, (psi)

Notched Sheet Stress-Strain

30
20

10
Hole Sheet Stress-Strain
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Strain, y (in/in)

The hole and notch produced an overall flatter stress strain curve than that of the
uniform specimen. For the same stress, the hole deformed the greatest (strain),
and the uniform sheet deformed the least. Thus, the holes and notches deformed
more easily than that of the uniform sheet.
Figure 7: Engineering Stress Strain Curve of the A36 Steel Specimen.
70000
60000
50000
40000
Stress (lb/in2)

30000
20000
10000
0
0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07


Strain (in/in)

The A36 steel specimen was loaded in tension on the INSTRON 600 DX, which
recorded the load and strain. The stress was calculated by:

=P/ A

in which P was the load, and A was the initial area. As seen in the graph, the stressstrain relationship is elastic until the yield point is reached (at the sharp tip at the
end of the elastic region). At this point, plastic deformation begins as the material
starts to yield in the horizontal line region. The graph then curved upwards during
strain hardening in which an increase in load can be supported by the specimen.
This curve rises continuously but become flatter until the ultimate stress (the
highest point in the graph) is reached. The graph then curves downward until
fracture.
Table 1: A comparison of the experimental and accepted values of A36 steel under
tension.
Experimental Values

Accepted Reference
Values
Minimum 36,000
29,000,000

Yield Strength (psi)


51,667
Youngs Modulus, E
29,306,536
(psi)
Ultimate Strength (psi) 65,473
58,000-80,000
The yield strength is the point on the stress-strain graph (Figure 7) in which yielding
starts. At this point, the specimen will continue to elongate without any increase in
load; it is in a perfectly plastic state. This is seen in the horizontal line as there is an
increase in strain without an increase in stress. The experimentally calculated yield
strength meets the requirement to be over the accepted minimum of 36 ksi. The
Youngs Modulus for A36 steel is 29000 ksi; the experimentally determined value,
from the slope of the stress-strain elastic region, is extremely close to the accepted
value. The ultimate strength is the maximum stress supported by the material; it is
the highest point on the graph. The determined value falls within the range of
accepted values of 58-80 ksi.
Figure 8: A comparison of the true stress-strain and engineering stress-strain curves
of A36 steel.

90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
Stress (lb/in2) 40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07


Strain (in/in)

Engineering Stress Strain

The true stress was determined from

True Stress Strain

=PA

in which A is the deformed

area. The true strain is calculated from =ln(L/L0)=ln(1+). Due to necking, the true
stress is greater than the engineering stress towards fracture, but is similar to the
engineering stress in the elastic range. This is seen in Figure 8 as the curves are
nearly identical in the elastic range, but true stress is greater than the engineering
stress for points beyond the elastic range.
The A36 material displayed ductile behavior; ductile materials are capable of
absorbing large amount of energy and will exhibit large deformation before failing.
This is seen by the elastic stress-strain behavior, yielding at constant stress, strain
hardening, and failure by necking. There is a large deformation during yielding and
strain hardening before the failure occurs.
The fracture surface is indicative of a ductile material. During elongation, the
deformation is uniform over the length as the cross sectional area decreases up to
the ultimate stress. However, right before failure, the specimen displayed necking in
a localized region of the specimen. This neck forms as the specimen elongates
further until it fractures right at this neck in the center.
Table 2: The ultimate strength of cast iron under tension.
Ultimate Strength (psi) 39222
The cast iron displayed brittle behavior, indicated by a lack of a well defined
fracture stress or a yield point. There is very little yielding because once past the
elastic region, the specimen will fracture completely without necking. This is a
uniform deformation throughout the length until failure. The fracture surface
occurred at the cross section without necking; the cross section of the fracture was
thus the same as the cross section at a point without fracture. It failed more toward
the joint of the specimen; this could be an indication of a microscopic crack at that
point that quickly spread across the specimen.

The Stress strain curve for the concrete cylinder under compression is shown
in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: Stress-strain curve for concrete cylinder under compression
5000
4000
3000
Stress (psi)

2000
1000
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Strain (in/in)

The ultimate strength, fc, was determined to be 4056 psi. The youngs modulus, E,
was determined to be 6635. Poissons Ratio was calculated by:

= y / x . The

Poissons Ratio was plotted against the stress as shown in Figure 9.


Figure 9: Poissons ratio vs. stress for concrete cylinder under compression
16
14
12
10
Poisson's Ration, v

8
6
4
2
0
0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500


Stress

The concrete cylinder in tension supported a maximum load of 18,037 lbs when
force was applied to its side (non-axial compression). The equivalent tensile
strength was then computed using the formula:

f t=

2P
DL . This yielded a tensile

strength of 359 lbs. The manner in which the concrete cylinders failed was
dramatically different depending on whether compression or tension was applied.
The cylinder in compression exhibited a pyramid-like failure, where the upper
portion of the cylinder ended up being shaped like an inverted cone (Figure 10). The
cylinder in tension failed along the cylinders diameter line all along the axis (Figure
11).

Figure 10: Concrete compression failure


Figure 11: Concrete
tension failure
The ash wood in tension had a minimum cross section of 0.0737in 2 and failed
at a max load of 804lbs. This gives a maximum strength of 10912psi in tension. The
ash wood in compression had a cross section of 3.606 and failed at a max load of
37455lbs, giving a maximum strength of 10387psi in compression. The wood
samples were unique from the metal, concrete, and rubber samples in that they had
pronounced grains. When the wood samples failed, they failed along their grains.
However, the failures of the ash wood samples in tension and compression did show
some marked differences. The wood in compression failed in a clean break along the
grain, while the fibers in tension were ripped apart, making for a much more jagged
failure.
Conclusions:

Experimentally determined generally fell within theoretical ranges for the


steel, wood, concrete, and rubber tests.
The inconsistency of the Poissons ratio vs stress diagram for the uniform
rubber sheet indicates the presence of potential errors.
A potential source of error in the rubber tests was in the accuracy of
measurements. As weight was added, some of the dimensions changed in
ways antithetical to expectations.
A potential source of error in the compression tests for both wood and
concrete was that the samples may not have been loaded completely

vertically. Any deviation off of the vertical would have given inaccurate
strengths for the materials.