See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266387727

The Effects of Specimen Geometry on the Accuracy of Tensile Testing of

Metallic Superplastic Materials

Article  in  Key Engineering Materials · May 2010

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.433.325

CITATIONS READS

2 328

3 authors:

Fadi Abu-Farha Mohammad Nazzal

Clemson University German Jordanian University
37 PUBLICATIONS   738 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   205 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard Curtis
St Benedict's, Ealing, UK
52 PUBLICATIONS   1,093 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MSc research View project

Material Forming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fadi Abu-Farha on 04 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Key Engineering Materials Vol. 433 (2010) pp 325-331
© (2010) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.433.325

The Effects of Specimen Geometry on the Accuracy of Tensile Testing

of Metallic Superplastic Materials

Fadi Abu-Farha1, a, Mohammed Nazzal2,b and Richard Curtis3,c

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Penn State Erie, Erie, PA 16510, USA
2
School of Technological Sciences, German Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan
3
King’s College Dental Institute, Guy’s Tower, King’s College London, London, UK
a
fka10@psu.edu, bmohammad.nazzal@gju.edu.jo, crichard.curtis@kcl.ac.uk

Keywords: Superplastic Materials, Tensile Testing, Specimen Geometry, Material Flow.

Abstract. This work investigates the sensitivity of a superplastic material’s tensile test to the major
geometrical parameters of the selected test specimen. This required generating a large number of
specimens by systematically varying the gauge length, gauge width, grip length and width of a
standard geometry. The specimens were prepared from a moderately superplastic AZ31B-H24
magnesium alloy sheet and were then stretched at a selected rate and temperature. Deformation in
each specimen was tracked via an electrochemically-etched fine grid which was particularly used to
quantify the amount of material flow from the grip into the gauge region. The consequences of the
latter on the accuracy of measured stresses and strains were correlated back to the corresponding
geometrical parameters. Ultimately, the results were utilized to set the guidelines for selecting the
optimum parameters in a “proper” specimen, for testing the unique class of superplastic materials.

Introduction
When reviewing the efforts on tensile testing of superplastic materials, one needs not to look for
long before realizing the discrepancies in the test specimens adopted by the various researchers. For
a long time, this could have been blamed on the lack of a specialized standard that specifies the
proper specimen geometry, and teaches the proper procedure for testing these materials. But this is
not the case anymore, since three standards have been introduced within the past decade [1-3].
Unhappily, these standards do not agree on several issues including the size and dimensions of the
proposed test specimens. Additionally, they do not explain how those geometries were arrived at
and whether they were optimized for accurate testing results. Perhaps that’s why we still come
across efforts with specimens that do not conform to any of the standard ones.
This issue is problematic from different perspectives. The fact that superplastic materials are
tested at elevated temperatures does not allow the use of extensometers making strain measurements
entirely dependent on the specimen geometry and the way a gauge length is defined. Also, with the
lack of a standard specimen, it is likely to challenge the accuracy of claims of extreme superplastic
elongations, particularly those exceeding 5000% [4]. More importantly, it is rather hard to compare
or cross-use the data produced by various investigators, even for the same materials. This has
provoked several efforts on trying to understand the influence of specimen geometry on the tensile
test. Bate et al. [4], for instance, focused on studying the effects of the gauge length-to-width ratio.
Johnson et al. [5] investigated material flow and its effects on strain rate non-uniformity along the
gauge length of the specimen. Both suggest a large gauge length-to-width ratio to minimize test
errors. In this work, we complement such efforts by attempting a comprehensive experimental
investigation on the effects of four geometrical parameters; namely gauge length, width, grip length
and width. The impact of varying each parameter on the test specimen’s deformation is evaluated in
the gauge region as well as the grip region and the outcome is correlated to the accuracy of the
measured stresses and strains. It is hoped that the results would promote discussions on developing
a universally-accepted specimen geometry for the tensile testing of superplastic materials.

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the
publisher: Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland, www.ttp.net. (ID: 128.118.38.44-14/12/09,15:50:02)
326 Superplasticity in Advanced Materials

Experiments
Test Specimens. The layout of the specimen geometry is schematically shown in Fig. 1; it is based
on a previous effort by the investigators, and closely resembles the geometries found in the major
superplastic testing standards (ASTM E2448, BS-ISO 20032, JIS H7501) [1-3]. Multiple specimens
sharing the overall geometry were investigated; yet the focus in this effort is merely directed to a
handful of carefully selected ones. As shown in the list and further illustrated by Fig. 2, the
specimens were clustered in four groups, each is characterized by the variability of a particular
parameter; gauge length (l), gauge width (w), grip length (l’) or grip width (w’). Comparison among
the specimens of each group is intended to demonstrate the effects of the corresponding geometrical
parameter. Furthermore, it is believed that the interactions between these parameters are equally
important, and thus we consider three aspect ratios, defined as:
AR-Gauge (Gauge Section’s Aspect Ratio) = l/w
AR-Grip (Grip Section’s Aspect Ratio) = l’/w’
AR-GG (Grip-to-Gauge Aspect Ratio) = w’/w
The results of the investigation will be used to draw some guidelines on selecting the appropriate
specimen geometrical parameters so that they guarantee the proper aspect ratios.

Specimen l w l' w' AR-Gauge AR-Grip AR-GG

Designation (l/w) (l'/w') (w'/w)
l3w2-l'2w'2 18 6 16 24 3 0.67 4
l4w2-l'2w'2 24 6 16 24 4 0.67 4
l5w2-l'2w'2 30 6 16 24 5 0.67 4
l6w2-l'2w'2 36 6 16 24 6 0.67 4
l6w2-l'2w'2 36 6 16 24 6 0.67 4
l6w3-l'2w'2 36 9 16 24 4 0.67 2.67
l6w4-l'2w'2 36 12 16 24 3 0.67 2
l5w2-l'2w'1 30 6 16 18 5 0.89 3
l5w2-l'2w'2 30 6 16 24 5 0.67 4
l5w2-l'2w'3 30 6 16 30 5 0.53 5
l5w2-l'1w'2 30 6 12 24 5 0.50 4
l5w2-l'2w'2 30 6 16 24 5 0.67 4
l5w2-l'3w'2 30 6 20 24 5 0.80 4
l5w2-l'4w'2 30 6 24 24 5 1.00 4

Fig. 1 Overall test specimen geometry with a list of all the different geometrical parameters

All specimens were machined from an AZ31B-H24 magnesium sheet; a material known for its
relatively small grain size and hence good superplastic behaviour in the as-received condition. In
comparing between the different proposed specimens, several deformation aspects shall be assessed.
And to facilitate the assessment with some degree of accuracy, a 1 mm square grid was
electrochemically-etched on the surface of each specimen, as will be demonstrated in later figures.
Specimens were lightly polished before etching; this was found to improve visibility of the etched
lines after substantial stretching and prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures.
 Key Engineering Materials Vol. 433 327

Gauge Length (l) Gauge Width (w) Grip Width (w’) Grip Length (l’)

Fig. 2 Test specimens clustered in four different sets, each targeting a particular parameter

Experimental Setup. Tensile tests were carried out using an 810 MTS load frame, fitted with a
custom-built heating chamber that facilitates testing at temperatures exceeding 600ºC, maintaining
the target temperature to within ±2º. A 5 K+ load cell was used to capture the tensile forces
imposed on the specimen while the elongation was based on the displacement of the frame’s cross-
head beam (no extensometer was used). Recently developed quick-mount grips were used for fast
trouble-free mounting of the test specimen, hence ensuring highly repeatable and consistent tests.
The grips were specifically designed to overcome the critical issues of thermal expansion, heating
time and holding time typically encountered in elevated temperature testing of superplastic
materials. More details on the grips, their features and advantages over conventional grips can all
be found in a previous publication [6]. To accommodate the variety of specimens to be tested in
this work, three sets of grips (identical except for the gap between the grip’s shoulders) were
needed. An example of the utilized grips is shown in Fig. 3a, with a schematic illustrating the
specimen mounting process given in Fig. 3b.

(a) (b)

Fig. 3 (a) One of the three quick mount grips used in this investigation (b) a schematic
demonstrating the easiness of gripping the test specimen

Tensile Tests. After attaching and aligning the grips, the entire assembly is heated to the desired
temperature and allowed to equilibrate for an adequate amount of time. Consequential thermal
expansion of grips and shafts requires final adjustment of the distance between the grips by moving
the cross-head beam accordingly. The heating chamber is then opened and a test specimen is
quickly inserted in the specified gap, before closing the chamber again. This is found to take no
more than 5 seconds, hence causing a slight drop in the chamber’s temperature [6]. A total of 10
minutes is allowed for the test specimen to reach and equilibrate at the chamber’s temperature. The
test is then started by moving the cross-head beam at a constant rate, until the desired amount of
deformation is achieved. The specimen is retrieved, and the test is repeated for other specimens.
328 Superplasticity in Advanced Materials

All tests were carried out at 400ºC; a temperature at which the AZ31B-H24 magnesium alloy
was found to exhibit optimum superplastic behaviour [7]. Specimens were stretched to a true strain
of 1.25, at a constant speed corresponding to an initial strain rate of 5x10-4 s-1. By doing so, each
specimen was effectively deformed at strain rates varying between 5x10-4 and 2x10-4 s-1, which was
intended in order to make the investigation less dependent on a particular strain rate.

Results and Discussion

Effect of Gauge Length. Fig. 4a shows the first set of specimens, all identical except for the gauge
length, before and after deformation. While all specimens failed around the targeted 1.25 strain, it
was noticed that the short one (l=18 mm) did not, even when the test was repeated two additional
times. In fact, that particular specimen experienced 1.33-1.4 strain before failure. To try and
understand that, the attention was directed to the grip region of each specimen and the deformed
square grid was used to measure the amount of material flow into the gauge region. As the gauge
length decreased, those measurements indicate a slight increase in material flow. However, when
considering the ratio of material flow to the initial gauge length of the specimen (MF/l), the
difference becomes significant, as clearly illustrated by the curves of Fig. 4b. With the ratio
reaching 35% for the short (18 mm) specimen, it is deduced to exceed 100% for some of the even
shorter specimens found in the literature [8]. Also, let us not forget that these numbers are based on
a moderate plastic strain of 1.25; deforming other superplastic materials to larger strain limits would
certainly inflate these numbers. It is believed that the material flowing into the gauge region leads
to prolonged deformation before failure, giving “misleading” insights about material’s formability;
an issue that becomes more critical with the larger ratios associated with short specimens. A final
look at the stress/strain curves in Fig. 4c shows great similarities between the four specimens, with a
slightly higher curve in the case of the 18 mm one. Material flow is expected to be causing such a
lift, yet the difference is not significant enough in this case; the picture will be clearer with the
results of the subsequent sections.

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 4 a) Tensile specimens with different initial gauge lengths (18, 24, 30 & 36 mm) stretched to
1.25 true strain (b) corresponding plot of material flow (c) stress/strain curves
 Key Engineering Materials Vol. 433 329

Effect of Gauge Width. By fixing the gauge length and increasing the gauge width instead, the
level of material flow becomes undeniably great, as clearly depicted by Fig. 5. Part b of the figure
shows that the flow in the widest specimen (12 mm) is so large that the grip region is entirely
distorted. Yet more important are the consequences of this substantial material flow on stresses and
strains; and this is demonstrated by Fig. 6. Material flow measurements reflect a (MF/l) ratio that
exceeds 60% in the widest specimen, and that’s considering a reasonable gauge length of 24 mm!
When the maximum localized strain was measured in each specimen, the 6 mm specimen failed
following a localized neck at a strain of 1.85 while the 12 mm specimen did not fail and showed a
maximum localized strain of 1.1. The latter value is lower than the overall strain imposed on the
entire gauge length (1.25) and that’s a very deceiving result! Besides, a look back at Fig. 5b
portrays different levels of deformation uniformity in spite of the identical gauge length in the three
specimens; the 12 mm specimen in particular shows no signs of necking, but rather the potential for
further deformation. In fact when stretched to failure, the 12 mm specimen recorded an overall
strain {ln (lf /l)} of 1.67 which is far larger than this alloy’s known limit at the given testing
conditions.

(a) (b)
Fig. 5 (a) Tensile specimens with different gauge widths (6, 9 & 12 mm) stretched to 1.25 true strain
(b) close-up on material flow from grip to gauge region in the same specimens

On the other hand, the impact of such extreme levels of material flow is found equally
detrimental to stress/strain curves. The additional flow of material into the gauge region makes it
effectively larger, and requires hence larger forces to deform the specimen, leading to inflated
stress/strain curves as clearly demonstrated by Fig. 6b. This has great implications on the accuracy
of any constitutive model developed to capture the behaviour of the investigated material. In simple
terms, the model might be accurate yet we could be trying to model the wrong material behaviour!

(a) (b)
Fig. 6 (a) A plot of material flow and maximum localized strain for the specimens in Fig. 5 (b) the
corresponding stress/strain curves
330 Superplasticity in Advanced Materials

Effect of Gauge Length-to-Width Ratio. The previous two sections hint at adopting a larger
gauge length and a smaller gauge width in seeking proper test specimen geometry. And instead of
targeting particular values, it is more sensible to specify a particular gauge length-to-width ratio
(AR-Gauge) that would guarantee acceptable levels of material flow. Based on the presented and
other results, it was concluded that such a ratio should be no less than 4.

Effect of Grip Region’s Size. Naturally, the grip region is expected to play a role in the amount of
material flow a specimen would experience and so it was necessary to complete the picture by
considering the influence of the grip region’s size and its proportion to the gauge region. Fig. 7
shows the last two sets of specimens from Fig. 2 after stretching to 1.25 overall true strain.
Generally speaking, the influence of l’ and w’ on material flow is not acute, with a tendency to
cause slight increase in material flow as their values decrease, as shown in Fig. 7b, hence instructing
the use of a larger grip area. By interpreting the results in a different way, and correlating the grip to
the gauge region, it is recommended to design the grip such that the AR-GG is no less than 4, and
the AR-Grip is larger than 0.5.

(a) (b)
Fig. 7 (a) Tensile specimens with different grip widths (18, 24 & 30 mm) and grip lengths (12, 16,
20 & 24 mm) are stretched to 1.25 true strain (b) corresponding material flow measurements

Summary
This experimental investigation demonstrates how the differences in the geometrical parameters of a
uniaxial test specimen could lead to large disparities in the results, both in terms of stresses and
strains. It is such disparities that call for a unified standard specimen for testing superplastic
materials. Material flow from the grip into the gauge region was found to be the prime source of
errors and its minimization was therefore the criterion in seeking a “proper” test specimen. The
investigation concludes with valuable guidelines that specify what the ratios between the
specimen’s geometrical parameters should be for more accurate tensile testing results.

References
[1] Method for Evaluation of Tensile Properties of Metallic Superplastic Materials, JIS H 7501
(2002).
[2] Standard Test Method for Determining the Superplastic Properties of Metallic Sheet Materials,
ASTM E2448 (2005).
[3] Method for Evaluation of Tensile Properties of Metallic Superplastic Materials, BS ISO 20032
(2007).
 Key Engineering Materials Vol. 433 331

[4] P. Bate, N. Ridley and K. Sotoudeh: Materials Science and Technology, Vol. 24 (2008), p.
1265
[5] K. Johnson, M. Khaleel, C. Lavender, S. Pitman, J. Smith, M. Smith and C. Hamilton:
Materials Science Forum, Vols. 170-172 (1994), p. 627
[6] F. Abu-Farha and R. Curtis: Proceedings of the EuroSPF 2008 Conference, Carcassonne,
France, 03rd – 05th September 2008.
[7] F. Abu-Farha and M. Khraisheh: Journal of Advanced Engineering Materials, Vol. 9 (2007), p.
777
[8] Y. Ma and T. Langdon: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, Vol. 25 (1994), p. 2309

View publication stats