You are on page 1of 9

ME 328-01

Lab Project 1: Tensile Testing of Metals


Due: 12/19/2016
Team 103
Colleen Burrows
Jessica Byun
Charisse Haines
Arisa Kouchi
Introduction:

In this project, Al 2024 and Al 1100 were tensile tested to examine material properties. One
sample of each metal in its given form was tested. The other samples were annealed and
quenched before testing to discover the effects of heat treatment. From the raw data, the Youngs
Modulus, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and ductility were calculated.

Al 2024 is an alloy containing 3.8-4.9% Cu, 0.1% Cr, and 0.5% Fe [2]. The sample received had
temper designation T3, meaning that it has been heat-treated, cold worked, and naturally aged
[1].

Aluminum 1100-H14 is non-alloyed and strain-hardening to hard [1]. The metal indicated by
the 1100 contains less than 0.01% of other metallic elements [2].

One sample of each of the aluminums was annealed and quenched, a procedure to make the
temper designation 0.

Experimental Procedure:

One of each aluminum type was baked for 1.5 hours in a furnace at 415, cooled for 45
minutes, and quenched in water.

For each specimen, the cross-sectional areas and lengths were measured using a caliper and
tensile tested until failure with the 5K ATS 905 screw-driven load frame tensile tester with a
loading rate of 0.1 in/min.

Data and Results:

Before testing, the sample dimensions were measured (Table 1).

2024-T3 2024-0 1100-H14 1100-0

Original Length 4.072 4.075 4.1185 4.0815


(in)

Original 0.0348 0.0323 0.0340 0.0325


Cross-Sectional
Area (in2)

Table 1: The original cross sectional area and length before tensile testing.
Data outputted from the tensile tester was the load and elongation measurements (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Load-elongation graph obtained from the raw data with the toe-region included.

Figure 1 shows that the 2024-T3 alloy received the most force before failure and experienced the
least displacement while the 1100-H14 alloy received the least force and the most displacement.

From this load-displacement data, the engineering stress and strain were calculated (Equations 1,
2 and Figure 2).
= AFo
Equation 1: Engineering stress ( ), where F is the force applied and Ao is the original cross-sectional
area.

l
= lo
Equation 2: Engineering strain ( ), where l is the elongation and lo is the original length of the
specimen.
Figure 2: Engineering Stress-Strain curves for all of the samples with toe region removed.

The ultimate tensile strengths (UTS) can be found by analyzing the highest stress values for each
of the four curves (Table 2). The UTS for
2024-T3 is 52,342 psi, 2024-0 is 16,967 psi, 1100-H14
is 17,330psi, and 1100-0 is 11,709psi.

The elastic portion of the engineering stress-strain curves is before plastic deformation begins to
occur after yield (Figure 3).

The Youngs Modulus (E) is the slope of the elastic region (Equation 3, Table 2). The yield
stress (y) can be found where the 0.002 strain offset line with slope E and the stress-strain curve
intersect (Table 2).

(14.6 ksi 9.56 ksi)


E=
= 0.00698790.004286525 = 1.86779 x 106 psi
Equation 3: Youngs Modulus value (E), which is also the slope of the elastic region of the curve. Since
there are more than two points on the curve, the slope can be found with a linear regression of the points
in the elastic region.
The ductility of the materials can be found through percent elongation (Equation 4, Table 2).

p = T OT Ey
%EL = p 100
Equation 4: Ductility (%EL), where p is the plastic strain, TOT is the strain at the fracture point, y is the
yield strength, and E is Youngs Modulus.

Engineering stress and strain use the original cross-sectional areas and lengths in the
denominator suggesting that the materials are becoming weaker after UTS. However, the true
stress and strain values correct this using instantaneous measurements. From the engineering
stress and strain, the true values are calculated (Equations 5, 6 and Figure 4).

T = |1 + |
Equation 5: Engineering stress (T), where is the engineering stress and the is the engineering strain.

T = ln |1 + |
Equation 6: True engineering stress (T), where is the engineering strain.

Figure 4: True stress-strain curves from the onset of plastic deformation (after y) up to necking (before
UTS).
The true stress is related to the true strain by the strength hardening constant and exponent,
which is only valid during plastic deformation before necking (Equation 7).
T = k nT
Equation 7: Relates the true engineering stress (T), the strength hardening exponent (n), and the strength
hardening constant (k) to the true strain (T).

In this power-law relationship, the slope of the logarithmic expression of Equation 7 is n and k is
10y-intercept (Figure 5).
The material properties found from the experiment and the published values [3,4] are in Table 2.

2024-T3 Sample 2024-T3 Actual 2024-0 Sample 2024-0 Actual

E (106 psi) 2 10.5 0.718 10.5

y (ksi) 50 50 25 11

UTS (ksi) 59.69 70 32.60 27

%EL 6.11 18 5.43 20

n 5.1481 - 5.4143 -

k 1.90546 - 4.4999 -

1100-H14 1100-H14 1100-0 Sample 1100-0 Actual


Sample Actual

E (106 psi) 1 10 0.523 10

y (ksi) 17.5 17 5.5 5

UTS (ksi) 18.02 18 12.55 13

%EL 4.40 9 15.00 35

n 4.4585 - 4.7999 -

k 1.3125 - 3.5294 -

Table 2: The material properties found for each sample from the testing and the published values for the
metals. Most of the properties vary based on metal and temper designation, but the Youngs Modulus
does not because it only depends on material structure.
Conclusion:
From before to after annealing, the ultimate and yield strengths decreased for both metals. The
ductility of the 2024 alloy was consistent but increased for the 1100. Between the calculated
results and published values, the yield and ultimate stresses were consistent, but the calculated
Youngs Moduli and ductility were significantly smaller. For the 2024-0 alloy, the yield strength
is supposed to be 11 ksi, but our toe region on the engineering stress-strain curve goes past 11 ksi
and increases rapidly, which makes the calculated yield strength high in comparison to the
theoretical value. A possible reason for this error is the mechanical complications encountered
with the tester. Error also comes from the inaccuracy of displacement measurements. In the raw
data, the length is measured as the entire specimen, which is not necessarily the displacement of
the metal itself due to the clamps. More error could come from the sample slipping due to an
insufficient grip. These directly caused the calculated Youngs Modulus to be incorrect, and that
value is used in the ductility equation making it incorrect as well.
References:

[1] Alloy Descriptions., Alloy Temper Designations, Alumeco.


http://www.alumeco.com/Knowledge-and-Technique/Aluminium-data/Temper-descriptio
ns.aspx
[2] Michael Bauccio, ASM Metals Reference Book, third ed., Ed. ASM International, Materials
Park, OH, 1993
[3] E. A. Avallone, T. Baumeister, A. M. Sadegh, Mark's standard handbook for mechanical
engineers, eleventh ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006, pp. 388.
[4] W. D. Callister Jr., D. G. Rethwisch, Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction,
ninth ed., John Wiley & sons, Inc. 2013, pp. 886.