You are on page 1of 10

# Statement of Hypothesis: Under the mode of tensile failure, we predict that the aluminum sheet will be able to withstand

1120 lbs., the aluminum rod will be able to withstand 2209.5 lbs., and the hot-rolled steel rod will be able to withstand 2705.4 lbs. The hypothesized maximum loads are neatly provided in the following table: Aluminum Sheet (2024-T3) Predicted Failure Load 1120 lbs. Aluminum Rod (6061T6) 2209.5 lbs. Hot-Rolled Steel (SAE 1020) 2705.4 lbs.

Pre-Lab Evaluation, Criticism, and Comparison (Differences in Conceptual Approach, any errors found, and the root cause of those errors): Differences In Conceptual Approach - For any given laboratory experiment, a team or individual must filter through a plethora of conceptual approaches before the most efficient and robust method is found. This is what science would describe as the design phase, however, this particular experiment required no such design phase because all testing specimens were provided by the university beforehand. This meant that there was no process of determining which materials should be tested, what lengths they should have, what shape they should be, how they should be tested, etc. Since every team member was already on the same page, the only remaining task was to simply begin the testing of all given materials and record their respective failure loads, elongations, and stress/strain plots. In conclusion, there could be no difference in conceptual approach between all three team members for this particular laboratory experiment with the exception of deciding which site to trust for material data. In general Matweb website was used considering since it was prompted by Dr. Holland for an earlier prelab. Differences in Calculations - Within this laboratory experiment, each team member was required to calculate and hypothesize the maximum possible load each specimen could withstand before undergoing tension failure. After evaluating the calculations of all three pre--labs, we could not help but notice a few slight differences between the final answers. This was due to the fact that some team members utilized different online sources to find their Ultimate Tensile Strength values. As a result, our predicted maximum loads had a specific range for each tested specimen. All predicted values from all three pre--labs are tabulated below: *For future reference, all calculations were done using the equations given in the Numerical Predictions
section.

## Predicted Failure Loads

Tory Johansen

Matt Beyer

Sam Houser

Aluminum Sheet

1120 lbs.

1040 lbs.

1120 lbs.

Aluminum Rod

2208.9 lbs.

2208 lbs.

2209.5 lbs

Hot-Rolled Steel

2704.7 lbs.

3190 lbs.

2705 lbs

As you can see from the table, even a small difference in a materials ultimate tensile strength can slightly affect its calculated maximum load. However, it is also smart to keep in mind that the equation used to calculate the values above depends on only three things: cross-sectional area, maximum load, and the ultimate tensile strength. Remembering that the cross-sectional area of each specimen was already pre-determined, we could exactly pinpoint the teams sole source of error between our maximum load predictions. Final Thoughts - After thorough comparison, it is clear that each team member performed all of the necessary calculations correctly. The lack of a design phase eliminated the need to filter through countless variables, thus forcing the team to choose a single pre-lab strictly based off which ultimate tensile strength values seemed most reasonable. *The team quickly choose the above hypothesized values because the ultimate tensile strength values used in their calculation had the largest amount of repetition within the online materials community. Even though one group member had differing predicted failure loads, the team as a whole still did not have enough information to say with certainty that those particular values were impossible, and even further, incorrect. In conclusion, each team member did their respective part and no blatant errors were discovered between the three pre-labs. *What was the basis for selecting the approach/calculations from one prelab over another?

## Numerical Predictions (of quantities to be measured: stiffness, strength, etc.)

For a few select material properties, we were required to perform research on the internet and find reasonable values for all three specimens to be tested. These material properties included: yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and Poissons ratio.These values were to be used as a reference in which to compare our experimental data obtained from the Instron Machine. In the end, the team decided upon values from two different sites, Matweb and SubTech (see References below for website citations) --- the values and cross--sectional areas are tabulated below:

Yield Strength

Ultimate Strength

Modulus of Elasticity

Poissons Ratio

Cross-Sectional Area

## 0.016 in2 0.0491 in2 0.0491 in2

*The cross-sectional areas were calculated using a rod diameter of 0.25 in. and a plate thickness and width of 0.008 in. and 2 in. respectively - for equations see the end of this section.

As for our calculated failure loads, we used the following equation: Maximum Load = (Ultimate Tensile Strength) * (Cross-Sectional Area). Since the ultimate tensile strength and crosssectional area were found online and provided beforehand (respectively) we were able to quickly determine the hypothesized failure loads previously stated above. The actual calculations for our predictions are as follows: Aluminum Sheet: Maximum Load = (Ultimate Tensile Strength) * (Cross-Sectional Area) Maximum Load = (70,000 psi) * (0.016 in^2) = 1120 lbs. Aluminum Rod: Maximum Load = (Ultimate Tensile Strength) * (Cross-Sectional Area) Maximum Load = (45,000 psi) * (0.0491 in^2) = 2209.5 lbs. Hot-Rolled Steel: Maximum Load = (Ultimate Tensile Strength) * (Cross-Sectional Area) Maximum Load = (55,100 psi) * (0.0491 in^2) =2705.4 lbs. *Assume a transverse strain so that we can have a Poissons Ratio - Explain how our assumption affected our calculations.

Lab Actions: First review and follow all laboratory safety rules prior to any handiwork Measure and record the width, length, and thickness of each specimen (as needed) Install the appropriate Instron grips for each specimen Create/name a file (for each specimen) and save it to a USB Drive Securely install the specimen into the Instrons lower grip Adjust the height of the Instrons upper grip (as necessary) to match that of the specimen Complete the installation process by tightening the upper grip onto the specimen as well Carefully attach the extensometer onto the middle of the rod (for rods only) Click Auto Offset to zero all values on the Instron Machine Click Run Watch the real-time stress plot (wait for the specimen to being yielding) Click Stop once the specimen has begun to yield Remove the extensometer from the rod Click Run to resume the test Click Stop once failure has occurred Click Finish to output data Make sure the specimens data saved correctly Remove each specimen from the Instron Machine Repeat for all specimens For aluminum samples after failure, touch the failed surface. Do you observe the rise in temperature? Also, observe the failed surface and report the condition in your report.

## Measurement Results from lab:

*For all measurement results, see Appendices A, B, and C

See data files How did we calculate our hypothesized elastic limit for each individual specimen? How did we calculate our hypothesized Modulus of Resilience for each individual specimen? UR = (Elastic Limit^2)/(2E) Calculate the area under the linear portion of the stress-strain curve (from the data file) How did we calculate our hypothesized Modulus of Toughness for each individual specimen? UT = [(Elastic Limit+Ultimate Tensile Strength)*(Lf-L0)]/(2*L0) Calculate the area under the entire stress-strain curve (from the data file) Calculate poissons ratio: (deltaVolume/Volume)=0=(1+(deltaL/L))^(1-2*nu)-12705.

Comparison of measurement results with the calculations above: Compare our predicted failure load with the actual failure load Compare the calculated material properties with the actual properties from our source(s)

Evaluation of how well measurement results match prelab calculations and what are the sources of error and variation: Be specific and detailed on your sources of error, no more hand waving Aluminum sheet: This sample produced results that compare very poorly to those calculated before the lab. The yield strength was found to be 6777 psi, which is significantly lower than the researched value of 50,000 psi. The ultimate strength was found to be 16,705 psi, also significantly lower than the researched value of 70,000 psi. The modulus of elasticity was 3,280,023 psi compared to 10,600,000 psi, poissons ratio ratio was .5 compared to .33, and finally the failure load experimentally was 267.28 lbf compared to 1120 lbf. The results for each property being compared to calculations have at best a 50% error. This large error cannot be simply due to experimental error; the only logical cause is that either the dimensions of the sheet are vastly incorrect or that the material is not, as we have been told to assume, aluminum 2024-T3. Beyond this major problem, further sources of error exist that certainly contributed to discrepancies when compared to calculated values. Chief among these errors is the human component in selecting the yield point and the 20% offset. The number of data points if very limited (around 20) in the linear region, causing the estimate for yield to be rough at best. When determining where plot leaves the linear range, no two humans will pick exactly the same value which is further compounded by the large slope (E) of the linear range. A slight difference in opinion on the point where the linear region ends encompases a large range in stress. For

example, a strain of .001 corresponds to a stress of 4390 psi, while a strain of .0011 corresponds to a stress of 5100 psi. The percent change in strain is much less than that for stress. These errors in yielding determination compound throughout many of the rest of the calculations. Elastic limit, elastic modulus, modulus of resilience, modulus of toughness, poissons ratio, and yield strength all depend upon yielding values. For example, the modulus of resilience depends both inversely upon the elastic modulus and directly to a second power of the modulus. The experimental poissons ratio calculation is flawed as well. This calculation assumes constant volume and density, the second of which likely is not the case. If density is not constant, then the volume can change making our calculation incorrect. Aluminum Rod: After thoroughly reviewing the data output for the aluminum rod, the final results showed surprisingly large amounts of accuracy to theoretical results. For this particular experiment, we were only required to compare the four material properties stated previously. For the aluminum rod, the percent errors were typically on a reasonable range, considering the data output we were allowed to work with. The yield strength had the largest percent error because its calculation is based off of a 0.2% permanent deformation which for the data and graph we possessed, was difficult to estimate since 0.2% is extremely small on a scale of 5% increments. The ultimate strength, when compared to our reference value, only had a percent error of around 5.5%. The experimental value was found directly from the Instron Machine and thus there was no real calculation necessary. However, the presence of a small percent error could be a result of the theoretical value found from the online source. All materials depend on certain variables such as temperature which when taken into account this specific material, could modify the ultimate tensile strength enough to create the calculated percent error. Obviously not all materials consist of the exact same composition, thus allowing each individual specimen (even within the same family) to have their own ultimate tensile strength values. The modulus of elasticity, or the elastic modulus, was calculated by averaging the (stress/strain) values for the linear portion of the stress-strain plot. Part of the 7.4% error could have easily been caused by the skewed beginning values on the plot. This plot shows a jump where the Instron Machine did not evenly pull the rod (in an imperfect world, this is inevitable). When we calculated the average, therefore, our values are going to be slightly lower than they should be. The predicted failure load, when compared to our theoretical value, came out to only a 1.5% error. Considering all of the potential variables, this is a very positive result. Just like the the ultimate strength, the maximum load was pulled directly from the Instron Machines data output. Sources of this slight error would most likely look very similar to the sources of error for the ultimate strength. Our theoretical value, after translating it to a theoretical failure load, could vary for every individual specimen due to things such as temperature and composition (impurities).

Theoretical

% Error

## 14.58 10.77 7.8

3.54 Modulus of Toughness 18500 Poissons Ratio Failure Load 0.5 3540.91 lbs 0.28 2705.4 lbs 78.57 30.88

Experimental Elastic Limit Yield Strength Ultimate Strength Modulus of Elasticity Modulus of Resilience 4.332 Modulus of Toughness 10286 Poissons Ratio Failure Load 0.5 2242.11 lbs 9120 psi 36000 psi 47559 psi 9260697 psi

Theoretical

% Error

51.52 1.48

Theoretical

% Error

50000 psi

86.45

76.14 69.06

-51.52 76.14

## Conclusion similarities and differences between materials see questions

Reference

"Online Materials Information Resource." Matweb material property data. Matweb, LLC., 2011. Web. 25 Mar 2012. <http://www.matweb.com/>. Holland, Steve. "AerE 321L: Aerospace Structures Laboratory." Thermography Research Group. Iowa State Univeristy, n.d. Web. 25 Mar 2012. <http://thermal.cnde.iastate.edu/aere321l/ notes.wsgi>. "AISI Steel Mechanical Characteristics." Engineers Edge: Solutions By Design. Engineers Edge, 2012. Web. 26 Mar 2012. <http://www.engineersedge.com/materials/carbon-steelproperties.htm>. Aerospace Metal Distributor. ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc, 0. <http:// www.aerospacemetals.com/index.html>. Kopeliovich, Dmitri. "Carbon Steel SAE 1020." SAE Technical Papers. SubsTech: Substances and Technology, 2008. Web. 26 Mar 2012. <http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php? id=carbon_steel_sae_1020>. "Carbon Steel AISI 1020 ." eFunda. eFunda , 2012. Web. 26 Mar 2012. <http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/carbon_steels/show_carbon.cfm? ID=AISI_1020&prop=all&Page_Title=AISI 1020>.

Report 1) Determine and tabulate the following properties Elastic limit, yield strength, ultimate strength, modulus of elasticity, modulus of resilience, modulus to toughness, poissons ratio 2) Compare the following to reference values calculating the source of error: yield strength, ultimate strength, modulus of elasticity, poissons ratio 3) Discuss reasons for sources of error 4) Provide a stress-strain plot appropriately labeled for all specimens 5) Summarize in words the similarities and differences in material properties for the two materials tested, Present relationships between various material properties for the materials tested 6) Provide the E value to the TA. He/she will collect all values for the class and provide them to you 7) include technical drawings of the specimens 8) Include all items from the formal test report checklist. Questions: 1) The specimen probably failed somewhere other than directly in the middle. What determines where a specimen fails? Sample impurities and locations of stress concentrations. Also, each sample likely had unknown internal loads. 2) Why is it often difficult to evaluate the elastic limit? It is difficult to find transition from linear relationship between stress and strain for a limited number of data points. Also, the large slope of the linear region means that a slight difference in location of transition corresponds to a great difference in the elastic limit. 3) What is the effect of poor alignment of the specimen? Why is the estimate of tensile strength of a specimen more accurate for an aligned specimen than an inaccurately aligned specimen? Need to account for transverse strain in addition to longitudinal, grain orientation 4) Why would a stress-strain diagram be preferable to a load elongation diagram for presenting the results of a tension test? The elongation is extremely small, appears linear even after yielding. After yielding sample continues to elongate but also changes dimensions cross sectionally. This causes behavior that can change quickly and is no longer proportional to poisson's ratio, so it is unpredictable.

5) Report the condition of failed surface. Report why there is a rise in temperature in aluminum samples. Also, explain why the failed surface in aluminum sample is at an angle? Both rods had significant necking. Our Al rod didnt have any angle