Torsion I

Prepared by: Nash Bonaventura

Group Members:
Danielle Jones
Christian Torpey
Sodzid Pajeme
Edgar Cordero
Devon Foster
Bryce Shumaker

Section #: Group 4A

Performed on: 11/1/2018

Due on: 11/30/2018
Motive
Torsional tests are useful for uncovering a number of mechanical properties. These
properties can describe the strength, ductility, modulus of elasticity and modulus of rup-
ture for a specimen under torsion. Torsional testing differs from tensile testing in that
failure under torsion often occurs unexpected and the specimen do not experience a lo-
calized reduction in area prior to failing [1]. This ensures that the shear stress and strain
are in fact accurate and do not need to be adjusted to find ”true” values as tensile test data
does because of the necking that may occur.
For applications requiring a member that is undergoing torsional forces (e.g. drive-
shafts or support beams under complex loading) it is often preferred to perform a tor-
sional test to uncover how said specimen would perform under a relevant load.

i
1 Experimental Procedure
One specimen of each, aluminum 2024, aluminum 6061, A36 hot-rolled steel, and gray
20 cast iron, was milled to appropriate dimensions for placement in the Tinius-Olsen
torsion testing machine (Figure 1). All of the samples were cut to a length of 10 inches,
while the cast iron sample was cut to a length of 5 inches.

Figure 1: The Tinius-Olsen torsion testing machine with a specimen (B) mounted between
the stationary head (A), which contains the load sensor, and the turning head (C) that
contains the radial displacement sensor.

Prior to mounting the samples in the grips of the testing machine, a straight line was
drawn along the longitudinal axis to aid in observing the amount of twist the specimen
underwent.
The samples were then turned at a continuous rate that was increased once 5 minutes
into the experiment, then increased again 15 minutes into the experiment. The purpose
of this approach was to collect smoother data points in the elastic region with a relatively
slow loading rate.
The Tinius-Olsen torsion testing machine is outfitted with sensors to monitor the an-
gle of twist and the applied torque in real time (see figure 1). The torque sensor has a
negligible I.L.E. until it surpasses 20in∗lb, then the I.L.E. associated with the torque val-
ues is ±0.5% of the torque at that instance. The I.L.E. associated with the angle of twist is
±0.1% of the reading or 0.05◦ , whichever is greater.
Once collected, the data was exported as a file with two column-vectors of data points
via computer software. The first vector contained the angle of twist in degrees and the
second vector contained the torsional load in inch∗pounds. This data was then processed
using MatLab software to construct shear stress versus shear strain curves.
All testing was conducted at room temperature (≈72◦ F).

1
2 Results and Discussion
The ultimate shear stress (τu ), the yield shear stress (τy ), shear modulus (G), and the
fracture shear strain (γ f ) were all derived from the shear stress versus shear strain curves
using equations 1-4.
   
1 dM
τu = ∗ 3M + θL [2] (1)
2πr3 dθ

In Equation 1 r is the radius of the specimen, M is the applied moment, θ is the angle
of twist (i.e. the displacement), L is the length of the specimen and dM
dθ is the slope of the
M versus θ curve.
Mr
τf = [2] (2)
J

For Equation 2, M and r maintain their symbolism while J represents the polar mo-
ment of the specimen.
τe
G= [2] (3)
γe

Equation 3 is simply the slope of the elastic region of the shear stress versus shear
strain plot where the variables τe and γe represent shear stress and shear strain respec-
tively at a point within the elastic region.

rθ
γf = [2] (4)
L

The parameters of Equation 4 maintain the previous symbolism that was prescribed
for Equation 1.
The ultimate shear stress coincided with the shear stress at the point of fracture in all
of the tests and is a measure of the maximum stress that may be applied to a member
before catastrophic failure. The yield shear stress is a measure of how much stress may
be applied to a member before it experiences permanent plastic deformation and was ob-
tained by zooming in on the elastic region to determine where the linearity of the plot
ceased. Shear modulus corresponds to a materials ability to withstand shear stress with-
out deformation (i.e. a high shear modulus is associated with a material that withstands
a high shear stress with little deformation) and it was determined in a similar fashion as
the yield shear strength in that the elastic region was zoomed in on and a random point

2
was chosen within this region to analyze the slope at said point. The fracture shear strain
was simply taken as the value of strain that coincided with the point of fracture and can
be correlated with the ductility of a material.
All numerical values were obtained from the plots at the described points via the data
cursor tool available on the MatLab plot toolbar.

2.1 Aluminum 2024 Results

The aluminum 2024 alloy is primarily alloyed with copper and is used in high strength
to weight ratio applications requiring fatigue resistance (e.g. aviation parts) [3]. The
addition of copper in the alloying process increases the strength substantially by way of
precipitation hardening [4]. In theory this increase in strength should come at a slight
reduction in ductility.

Figure 2: Shear stress versus shear strain graph for aluminum 2024.

The mechanical property values obtained from the shear stress versus shear strain
graph for aluminum 2024 (Figure 2) are as follows; τu = (52.1 ± 1.3)ksi, τy = (27.2 ±
0.2)ksi, G = (1900 ± 17)ksi, γ f = (0.443 ± 0.002).
These experimental values were then compared with values readily available on the
internet from source [3]. A trivial percent error calculation was carried out between the
two sources’ values (Appendix C) for the yield shear strength and the shear modulus. For
τy the percent error calculated was 33.7% and G had a percent error of 53.2%.

3
2.2 Aluminum 6061 Results
Aluminum 6061 is alloyed with primarily magnesium, zinc, and silicon and is consid-
ered one of the most versatile aluminum alloys due to its weldability and its high work-
ability [4]. It is considered to be a medium strength aluminum and therefore should in
theory be slightly more ductile than a higher strength alloy such as 2024.

Figure 3: Shear stress versus shear strain graph for aluminum 2024.

The mechanical property values obtained from the shear stress versus shear strain
graph for aluminum 6061 (Figure 3) are as follows; τu = (39 ± 1.1)ksi, τy = (28.5 ± 0.2)ksi,
G = (1800 ± 16)ksi, γ f = (1.40 ± 0.01).
These experimental values were then compared with values readily available on the
internet from source [5]. For τy the percent error calculated was 5% and G had a percent
error of 52.3%.

2.3 A36 Hot-Rolled Steel Results

A36 steel is primarily alloyed with manganese, silicon, and copper and is considered
highly versatile due to its considerable strength and workability [6]. A36 is generally
hot-rolled to relieve any residual internal stress that results from the working. As a con-
sequence, its strength is slightly reduced so it should be more ductile and tough (i.e. able
to absorb considerable energy).

4
Figure 4: Shear stress versus shear strain graph for A36 hot-rolled steel. It should be noted
that the A36 hot-rolled steel exhibited what appears to be a yield point phenomenon
which is due to rapid fluctuations in strength when yielding occurs.

The mechanical property values obtained from the shear stress versus shear strain
graph for A36 hot-rolled steel (Figure 4) are as follows; τu = (80.7 ± 1.5)ksi, τy = (37.5 ±
0.3)ksi, G = (2100 ± 19)ksi, γ f = (1.512 ± 0.006).
Only a value for the shear modulus was available from source [7] which yielded a
percent error of 52.3%.

2.4 Gray 20 Cast Iron Results

Grade 20 cast iron is gray cast iron in the as-fabricated condition with no temper or
treatment [8] and is superior for damping applications. It is more brittle than other cast
irons due to the graphite flakes within the ferrite matrix that essentially act as voids (i.e.
discontinuities) within the matrix. In theory gray cast iron is too brittle to exhibit an
elastic region since almost any deformation leads to catastrophic failure. Which was the
case in this experiment, therefore only the ultimate shear strength and shear strain were
obtainable from the curve in Figure 5.

5
 Figure 5: Shear stress versus shear strain graph for gray 20 cast iron.

The mechanical property values obtained from the shear stress versus shear strain
graph for gray 20 cast iron are τu = (43.2 ± 1.3)ksi andγ f = (0.0347 ± 0.0002).
No values were readily available for gray 20 cast iron’s properties under shear which
would be comparable to the values obtained during the experiment.

2.5 Aluminum 2024 and Aluminum 6061

The values obtained in testing for both of the aluminum alloys are tabulated in Table 1
for comparison with one another.

Table 1: Experimental mechanical properties found for aluminum 2024 and aluminum
6061.
Aluminum 2024 Aluminum 6061
τu 52.1±1.3 39±1.1
τy 27.2±0.2 28.5±0.2
γf 0.443±0.002 1.40±0.01
G 1900±17 1800±16

As was expected the 6061 alloy exhibited a lower strength and was almost three times
more ductile than the 2024 alloy. The shear moduli were close in magnitude which was

6
also expected as the shear modulus is rather constant for materials of only slightly varying
compositions.

2.6 Ductility
When the values of fracture strain for all four of the samples are compared (Table 2) it
becomes apparent that the theory of less ductile materials (e.g. gray 20 cast iron) with-
standing less strain before fracture than a more ductile material (e.g. A36 HR steel) holds
true.

Table 2: Experimental values for shear strain for all four specimen.

Aluminum 2024 Aluminum 6061 A36 Hot-Rolled Steel Gray 20 Cast Iron
γf 0.443±0.002 1.40±0.01 1.512±0.006 0.0347±0.0002

The data also supports the notion that aluminum 2024 is consequently less ductile than
aluminum 6061 due to its higher strength, achieved by improved precipitation hardening
from a relatively high concentration of copper.

2.7 Fracture Behavior

When ductile materials fail under torsion they normally do so due to shear along the
maximum shear stress planes and have a relatively clean and straight fracture. This is
because the maximum shear stress planes are oriented normal to the longitudinal axis [1].
All of the specimen except for gray 20 cast iron were relatively ductile and appeared to
fail primarily due to the maximum shear stress (Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8).

7
Figure 6: Ductile fracture surface of A36 hot-rolled steel.

8
Figure 7: Ductile fracture surface of aluminum 6061.

9
Figure 8: Ductile fracture surface of aluminum 2024. It should be noticed the fracture
surface appears more rough when compared to the fracture surface of aluminum 6061
(which had a γ f almost three times bigger).

Brittle materials fail due to tension along the planes of maximum tensile stress which
are oriented 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis. Due to the obscure orientation, brittle
materials exhibit a relatively jagged helical path of fracture [1].
In the previous section it is apparent the most brittle material tested was the gray 20
cast iron and the fracture behavior it exhibited confirms that (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

10
Figure 9: Brittle fracture surface of gray 20 cast iron identifiable by its jagged helical break
along the planes oriented 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis.

11
Figure 10: Brittle fracture of gray 20 cast iron identifiable by its jagged helical break along
the planes oriented 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis.

2.8 Relevance to Tensile Test Results

For isotropic materials the equivalent stress (σ̄) may be determined via Equation 5 using
the shear stress (τ) obtained through torsional testing [2]. The equivalent strain (ē) may
be determined with Equation 6 using the shear strain (γ) found in torsional testing.
√
σ̄ = 3τ [2] (5)

γ
ē = √ [2] (6)
3

In tensile tests equivalent stress and equivalent strain are simply the true stress and
true strain.

12
2.9 Error Discussion
The sources of error can partly be attributed to flakes of previous samples in the grips
of the machine leading to slip. On occasion the grips were not tightened enough by the
student mounting the sample which lead to additional slip. It is also possible that the
sensors were not properly zeroed out before initiating a fresh test run.
To achieve more accurate data points that exhibit less noise it would be favorable to
maintain one slow rate of loading throughout the entirety of the experiment rather than
increase the rate periodically.

3 Conclusion
Select mechanical properties may be derived from torsion testing that can quantify a
materials strength and ductility under pure torsion. The most brittle material, Gray 20
cast iron, was found to have an ultimate shear strength of τu = (43.2 ± 1.3)ksi andγ f =
(0.0347 ± 0.0002). For the next most brittle, aluminum 2024, the mechanical proper-
ties uncovered were τu = (52.1 ± 1.3)ksi, τy = (27.2 ± 0.2)ksi, G = (1900 ± 17)ksi, and
γ f = (0.443 ± 0.002). Aluminum 6061 was rather ductile with mechanical properties of
τu = (39 ± 1.1)ksi, τy = (28.5 ± 0.2)ksi, G = (1800 ± 16)ksi, and γ f = (1.40 ± 0.01). The
most strong and most ductile material was discovered to be A36 hot-rolled steel with me-
chanical properties of τu = (80.7 ± 1.5)ksi, τy = (37.5 ± 0.3)ksi, G = (2100 ± 19)ksi, and
γ f = (1.512 ± 0.006).
These values can be related to values obtained in tensile testing with the application
of the equivalent stress equations.

13
References
[1] D. Campbell, “Eml3012c; lecture 6: Torsion test.”

[2] ——, “Eml3012c; torsion lab manual.”

[3] http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet print.aspx?matguid=

67d8cd7c00a04ba29b618484f7ff7524, mechanical Properties of Aluminum 2024,
Accessed: 11/19/2018.

[4] http://www.aaaairsupport.com/what-are-7075-2024-and-6061-aluminum-alloys/,
general information aluminum 2024 and aluminum 6061, Accessed: 11/19/2018.

[5] http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma6061t6, mechan-

ical Properties of Aluminum 6061, Accessed: 11/19/2018.

[6] http://www.infra-metals.com/astm-a36/, general information A36, Accessed:

11/19/2018.

[7] http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet print.aspx?matguid=

d1844977c5c8440cb9a3a967f8909c3a, mechanical Properties of A36 Hot-Rolled
Steel, Accessed: 11/19/2018.

[8] http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=
f3cd25980ab24fdaa5893252cd2bc192&ckck=1, mechanical Properties of Grey Cast
Iron Grade-20, Accessed: 11/19/2018.

14
Appendix A - Raw Data in form of Scatter Plots

Figure A-1: Scatter plot of raw data points acquired in torsion test aluminum 2024.

Figure A-2: Scatter plot of raw data points acquired in torsion test aluminum 6061.

A-1
Figure A-3: Scatter plot of raw data points acquired in torsion test A36 hot rolled steel.

Figure A-4: Scatter plot of raw data points acquired in torsion test gray 20 cast iron.

A-2
Appendix B - Matlab Code

Figure B-1: Matlab code, lines 1-33.

Figure B-2: Matlab code, lines 34-65.

B-1
Figure B-3: Matlab code, lines 66-98.

Figure B-4: Matlab code, lines 99-131.

B-2
Figure B-5: Matlab code, lines 132-164.

Figure B-6: Matlab code, lines 165-182.

B-3
Appendix C - Hand-Worked Calculations

Figure C-1: Miscellaneous hand-worked equations.

C-1
Figure C-2: Miscellaneous hand-worked equations.

C-2
Figure C-3: Miscellaneous hand-worked equations.

C-3
Figure C-4: Miscellaneous hand-worked equations.

C-4