May 4th 2021 A*

The Effects of Filler Content On Metals When Under a

Tensile Load.

Niyusha Toosi
2050945
Introduction
Mechanical properties of a material
affect how it behaves under an applied
force, and can be compared and
classified by these properties.
Characteristics of metals define their
range of usefulness, where they can be
applied and whether they meet
regulatory requirements; the most
common properties considered are
strength, ductility, hardness,
impact resistance, and fracture
toughness[1]. In the following practical,
three steel metal samples with different
carbon filler contents were clamped in a
Hounsfield Tensometer, where an
expansive, tensile force was applied.
Alloys are generally stronger than pure
metals, but previous data[2] shows that
the Young's modulus (stiffness) is
independent of the alloy content, at the
same temperature, but the yield stress
increases as the filler content increases.
The aim of the experiment was to
understand the importance of
mechanical properties of materials,
produce a stress-strain curve of the data
to analyse interpret how filler contents
contribute to materials’ properties.
Stress and strain are fundamental
concepts that are used to describe how a
body responds to external loads. Stress
can be defined as the internal resistive
Results and Discussion
Load and extension data from the
tensile test was used to calculate stress
and strain, using equations 1 and 2. The
stress-strain curve, seen in fig.1, was
produced from the data, where the
dashed lines mark the yield strength of
the different metal samples. All three
plots have a similar gradient in the
elastic region, with the yield, ultimate,
1
force per unit area of a body against
deformation. When looking at uniaxial
loading:
!
σ=" (1)
where σ = stress (N m-2/Pa)
F = force applied
A = cross sectional area
Strain is the ratio of change in length to
the original length when subjected to a
force; it is a quantity that describes the
deformations that occur within a body:
#
𝜀=$ (2)
!
where ε = strain
𝑙! = original length
e = extension = (𝑙 − 𝑙! )
𝑙 = stretched length
Plotting a stress–strain curve allows
mechanical properties to be identified
simply, such as material stiffness. A
body resists permanent deformation if
the force applied doesn’t exceed a limit;
the gradient of this (linear) elastic
behaviour defines the stiffness of the
material (Young’s Modulus):
σ
𝐸= %
(3)
where E = Young’s Modulus (N m-2/Pa)
and fracture strength increasing, with
carbon content. Sample C (5% filler
content) had greater values for all data
in table 1, in comparison to samples A
and B (0% and 2% filler content). The
large area under the plot for the high
carbon steel displays ductile behaviour,
but the increase in Young's Modulus
suggests discrepancies. The amount you
would expect the material to elastically
 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 0% carbon
Stress (GPa)

0.5 2% carbon
0.4 5% carbon
0.3 A yield point
0.2 B yield point
0.1 C yiel d point
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Strain

Fig.1 stress-strain plots of steel samples with different carbon contents.

Table 1 mechanical properties of the three metallic materials, obtained from the graph above.

Sample Filler Yield Ultimate Fracture Elongation Modulus of

Resilience
name content strength strength strength at fracture elasticity
GPa GPa GPa mm GPa MJ . m-3
A 0% 0.605 0.611 0.445 4.0 20.0 1.48
B 2% 0.697 0.707 0.561 4.2 19.5 3.34
C 5% 0.802 0.835 0.708 4.7 21.4 3.66

stretch when under a tensile load is
expected to be unaffected by the
percentage of filler. An increase in
strength with filler content is displayed
from the plots in fig.1, as well as the
higher stress values in table 1. There is
also a short elastic region shown from
the graph, which is common for metals.
similar resiliency of 3.34 and 3.66
MJ . m-3, seen in table 1, despite the
difference in filler content. Resilience
was determined by the area under each
plot, in the elastic region; it is the
ability of a material to absorb energy
when it is deformed elastically, and
release that energy upon unloading[4].

The yield strengths for the three
samples are not distinct in fig.1, using
the 0.2% offset method would aid in
verifying the accuracy of the results;
yield strength is important as errors
occur when structural materials
experience a force larger than this
value. Sample C can withstand a higher
load content before plastic deformation
as its yield strength, ultimate strength
and fracture strength are noticeably
greater than the other specimens.
Samples B and C, with the filler, have
Ductile behaviour was interpreted from
the area under the three plots of data, as
well as the elongation at fracture (see
figures above). The degree at which
metal C could be bent or stretched
before rupture is greater than metal B,
even though their resilience is similar.
Toughness is also demonstrated from
the metal samples, the alloys were able
to absorb more energy before rupture,
shown by the longer plots. So filler
content displays an increase in
toughness and ductility. The strength of

2
the specimen samples was the only
mechanical property that increased
proportionally with filler content, it is
identified from the region where
necking occurred. The greatest ultimate
strength was of the metal with the
highest filler content, as expected
sample C can bear the most stress
before failure.
The elastic region of the plots (in fig.1)
are not perfectly linear, and sample C
has a steeper gradient. Due to the
indefinite trendline, values such as the
elastic limit and yield strength are open
to interpretation. Further calculations
(for Young’s Modulus and resilience)
from extrapolated data may have
caused imprecisions in the data in table
1. Repeating the test for each specimen
could get more accurate and refined
results.
Force and displacement data varies
with specimen dimension or material,
so is only applicable for a given
sample. Force was normalised with the
cross sectional area and displacement
with the object’s gauge length, and
produced more generic stress-strain
results – favourable for fair
comparison between different samples
of the same material. From the strain-
stress graph in fig.1, many mechanical
properties were observed and enabled
to be compared with other pure metals
and alloys for validity.
Conclusion
From the tensile experiment, with use
of a Hounsfield Tensometer, the
mechanical properties of the materials
were obtained from the stress-strain
plots of data. It was found that the yield
strength and toughness increased with
filler content, so the upper limit of load
that can be safely applied to samples B
and C are greater. The amount of filler
content had a limited effect on
resilience, an important consideration
for structures that are needed to
perform in the elastic region. An
increase in ductility and Young’s
Modulus for sample C was unexpected,
as alloys tend to be more brittle and do
not affect the stiffness. Overall, alloyed
metals displayed more ductile but less
elastic properties. Repeat tests would
product more reliable and accurate
results, and also ensures repeatability.
The effects of temperature could be
investigated next to see how it affects
the mechanical properties of metals
under a tensile load.
References
1. “Nondestructive Evaluation Physics
: Materials,” Nde-ed.org, 2021.
https://www.nde-
ed.org/Physics/Materials/Mechanica
l/Mechanical.xhtml (accessed May
03, 2021).
2. “Young’s Modulus of Elasticity for
Metals and Alloys,”
Engineeringtoolbox.com,2021.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.co
m/young-modulus-d_773.html
(accessed May 03, 2021).
3. Wikipedia Contributors, “Carbon
steel,” Wikipedia, Apr. 12, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo
n_steel (accessed May 03, 2021).
4. Wikipedia Contributors, “Resilience
(materials science),” Wikipedia,
May 03, 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resili
ence_(materials_science) (accessed
May 03, 2021).