Tensile and Hardness Testing

Lab

1
1. Abstract
The purpose of this lab is to find the bulk mechanical properties of the 3 unknown
specimen A,B and C, in order to find their type using CES Edu pack. The tensile and hardness
tests results were used to calculate mechanical properties, and specimen A, B
, and C were identified to be Stainless steel , Aluminum and polyoxymethylene respectively
.However, some values of their properties did not match CES Edu packs values, hence, for an
accurate result a specimen should be tested a multiple of times, to obtain reliable mechanical
properties.

2. Introduction
The four types of engineering materials are Composites, polymers, Metal Alloys,
Ceramics and glasses. Tensile strength is the resistance a material possesses to breaking under a
tensile stress, while hardness is the resistance to surface indentation. (Callister, 2003)
In this practical, three different materials with different bulk mechanical properties are
tested to determine their behavior under a tensile force to determine what type of material they
are. Brittle materials such as metals usually have a high elastic modulus, due to their HCP
crystalline structure. Whereas, ductile materials like polymers have a low elastic modulus due to
FCC crystalline structure. A tensile test is conducted to differentiate between each material.
Therefore, it is the process of subjecting a material to elongation in a universal testing machine
(UTS), until the material fractures (Wright, 2011). The materials tested are most likely to be
categorized as polymers and metal alloys from observation. The strain produced is dependent on
the extension, which in turn depends on the load applied. This data will help derive an
engineering stress-strain graph and help gather more analytic data such as Young’s modulus,
The yield point , UTS ,Fracture stress, and even determine its ductility. Secondly, a hardness test
was conducted to help determine estimate a materials yield strength. The process was subjecting
the material a square based shaped indenter (Vickers). The hardness test is usually done for hard
brittle materials with a high elastic modulus. Alternatively, there are other methods to measure
hardness like different types of surface indentation; Rockwell and Brinell. (Ashby and Jones,
2012, p.8.6).
The results from the hardness test (Vickers), and the tensile test (young’s modulus, yield
stress and fracture stress) were entered into a database of materials (CES Edu pack), to help
narrow down the results to determine the three samples based on their varying mechanical
properties.
3. Materials and Methodology

3.1 Materials
To complete the whole experiment, the materials below are needed:
1) Blue hill software
2) Calipers

3) Metal wire strain gauge clamps

4) Safety spectacles

5) Three Unknown Samples A, B, C

6) Universal testing machine
Figure 1: Universal testing machine

3.2 Set up
3.2.1 Overall setting

The whole experiment was completed by using the Blue hill programme to collect the data of
specimens. Before the experiment starts, the software was set up and the original diameter
and the gauge length of all specimens were recorded by using the calipers provided. Then, the
data was input into the programme immediately.

3.2.2 Positioning the specimens

The specimens were mounted into the machine (figure2) by the following
steps: First, the sample was placed in the bottom part of the machine by
unscrewing the collects with Allen key. Second, the collects were closed
around the sample and fixed by placing the rings around it. Next, screws
were tightened loosely around the sample by using the Allen key. Then, the
sample was fit in between the upper collects by pressing the black switch to
bring the crosshead down.
After that, the top collects were closed, and the second ring was
Figure 2: overview of the machine
placed around the collects. Lastly, screws around the ring were tightened by using the Allen
key again.
3.2.3 Calibration and positioning strain gauge
The jog speed in the programme was reduced to 10. First, a load of about 0.1kN was
placed on the sample by using the black buttons. Next, the gauge length was reset in the
crosshead settings. Secondly, two sides of the cup-and-cones of strain gauge were pressed close
to the gauge and it was held in this position. Hence, the strain was set to 0.00 by clicking the
button of ‘calibrate’ in the settings. Thirdly, the strain gauge was placed around the closed
position again. Then, the metal wire strain gage clamps were hooked around the center of the
specimen. Next, the strain was set again by pressing the button of ‘balance’ in the settings.
Lastly, the test was started after closing the machine door.

3.3 Precautions
 Wear safety goggles while operating the machine.

 Do not unscrew the collets all the way, as they can fall.

 Only one person should manage the crosshead and black buttons.

 Do not open door while machine is running

3.4 Testing procedure

During the test, the specimens were loaded to a specific load by
a tensile force (30kN for specimen A, 5kN for specimen B, 3kN for
specimen C). then the strain gauge was removed and ‘End Hold’ was
clicked, and the machine stopped
automatically at intervals of extension , and the door was opened to measure the gauge length
and diameter. After that, the test was continued by pressing the button ‘Resume’. The gauge
length and diameter were measured until the specimen reached fracture, then the machine was
stopped automatically. Next, the specimen was removed from the machine and the final length,
the diameter of the necking region were measured by using the calipers. After the test and
measurement were done, the collected data were entered by clicking the button of ‘Next’. Lastly,
the test was ended by pressing the ‘Finish’ and ‘Finish Sample’. The above procedures were
repeated for the other two specimens
3.5 Variables extracted from Bluehill programme:
The UTS machine transferred and recorded the data of the specimens up to their
fracture points into the program, the strain gauge measured the strain using the
gauge extension up to the specific load. After the gauge was removed, the strain
was calculated using the crosshead extension. (engineering strain)

 Independent variables: time(s), Load(N)

 Dependent variables: Strain (dimensionless ,mm/mm) , extension (mm)

3.6 Plotting and calculation

The data was exported into an Excel spreadsheet, in order to calculate the bulk
mechanical properties and plot the stress- strain graphs.
The Graph of engineering stress and true stress against engineering strain were plotted by using
the following equations:
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 ∶ 𝜎 = 𝐹
𝑒𝑛𝑔 𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 𝐴𝑜
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

Formulae 1

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 ∶ 𝜎 =
instantaneous 𝐹
𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 =𝐴
Formulae 2

where the instantaneous diameter was measured using calipers and using: Area:
𝐴= πrA , the instantaneous area was obtained, (r = radius)

𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝐿 − 𝐿0) 𝛿𝐿

𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 ∶ 𝜀𝑒𝑛𝑔 = = =
𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝐿0 𝐿0

This was used after the strain gauge was removed, up to fracture point

Formulae 3
The young’s modulus was found using the engineering stress and the strain found by the
strain gauge at the cut-off point
𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝜎
𝐸 = 𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = Formula 4

Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) Found by: using the maximum load applied divided by
original area
𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥
σUTS =
𝐴𝑜
Ductility: engineering strain at failure
𝐿𝑓 − 𝐿𝑜
εfailure =
𝐿𝑜

Fracture stress: fracture force, divided by the original area

𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 =
𝐴𝑜

3.7 Identifying materials

By observing the material , specimen a and b are most likely to be metal alloy or
composites whereas specimen c is either polymer or composite.
After calculating the bulk mechanical properties, the elastic modulus, Yield stress and UTS ,
hardness were input into the programme CES Edu Pack .This helped identify the type of
material and its category from the specific data for each material input.
4. Results

Final Results using CES Edu pack:

Sample A: Stainless steel
Sample B: Aluminum
Sample C: Polyoxymethylene

Table 4.1 , Showing the bulk mechanical properties that were used to identify the specimens A,B,C
using CES Eupack.

Bulk mechanical Sample A Sample B Sample C

properties

Youngs 197.1 64.5 3.4

modulus (GPa)
Offset strain (0.1%) 0.00281 0.00255 0.013
Offset stress 388.4 92.54 36.7
(0.1%) MPa
Ultimate Tensile 754.5 218.5 86.5
Stress (MPa)
Fracture stress (MPa) 81 3.9 17.5
Ductility 0.1 0.2 0.4
Work done to 172.7 80.4 63.2
fracture (J)
Hardness (VHN) 184 75 72

Toughness(MJ/m3) 260 339.8 633.6

Reduction in area (%) 34.6 66.8 62.2

 Figure 4.2: Graph showing the variation of engineering and true stress (MPa) of samples
A, B, and C as a function of engineering strain up to fracture point. The toughness is the
ability of a material to deform plastically without fracturing, it is represented by the area
under the curve, up to fracture, found by integration of the curve’s equation up to fracture
point.

engineering stress strain

450
400
350
300
250
Stress (mPa)

200
150
100 SAMPLE A
50 SAMPLE B SAMPLE C
0

0 0.005 0.01
strain

Figure 4.3 : Graph showing the variation of the engineering stress in MPa as a function of
engineering strain up to yield point of sample A, B, and C. The gradient of these lines is the
youngs modulus.
 Extension vs Force
40000
35000
30000
y A = 10.585x6 - 355.89x5 + 3679x4 - 15742x3 + 24534x2 + 7146.7x + 788.12
25000
20000
15000
force (N)

10000 WORK FOR B

5000 WORK FOR A
0 y B= -2.1456x6 + 60.499x5 - 674.51x4 + 3760.3x3 - 11035x2 + 16497x - 35.827
-5000 0 WORK FOR C y C = -0.0018x6 + 0.1438x5 - 4.634x4 + 74.185x3 - 618.97x2 + 2569.2x -
328.28

5 10 15 20
EXTENSION (mm)

Figure 4.4 : The area under the Force – extension graph for each sample is the work done or
the work to fracture as (W=Fd) (d is the distance which in this case is the extension of the
material)), which is found by integrating of the equations of the curves.

Figure 4.5 The figures for stress- strain have no definite separation between the elastic and
plastic region, and therefore a proof line of 0.1% is used to indicate a yield point offset
strain/stress. Proof lines for Samples A,B,C.
4.6 Sample calculations for Sample A:

Original cross-sectional area= πr2= π(4)2= 50.27 mm2

Original length = 57.75mm

Load of 36497 N // cut-off point : (young’s modulus calculation)

Engineering stress (at cutoff point) = UVWUW.YV

= 394.28 MPa
Z.ZZA

Strain gauge measurement = 0.002

Youngs modulus =𝛿⁄𝜀 = _V`.AW𝑥 UZbc = 197.14 GPa
Z.ZZA

Examples for 3 mm extension:

True stress = 𝐹⁄𝐴i =_Yde_.Y = 747.9 MPa

`V.U`
_
True strain =∆𝑙⁄𝑙i= ed.def_
= 0.0506
_
Engineering strain =∆𝑙⁄𝑙o = ed.de = 0.0519
Engineering stress = 𝐹⁄𝐴o = _Yde_.Y = 731.2 MPa
eZ.AY

Properties:

UTS =𝐹max⁄𝐴o = 37896/50.265= 754 MPa

Fracture stress = Fracture load / Ao = 4072.22/50.26 = 81.01 MPa
Ductility= ∆𝑙(at fracture)⁄𝑙¡= 5.824/57.75=0.1
Reduction in area = ( 50.26-32.877) / 50.26 x 100 = 34.6
% Hardness (Vickers) : 185
𝑻𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑨 = area under graph
Z.U
∫ 𝑦𝐴 = ∫Z ( -9E+10x6 + 3E+10x5 - 3E+09x4 + 1E+08x3 - 3E+06x2 + 46103x + 193.61)
dx =260 MJ/m3
5. Discussion

5.1 Analyzing Table 3.1

The results of the experiment were recorded in table 3.1 using the formulas
stated, The property that differentiated each sample from the other was the young's
modulus.
Young’s modulus is a constant per material of the measure of elastic deformation
(Ashby and Jones, 2005). A high elastic modulus indicates a stiff material; therefore,
sample A had the highest young’s modulus of (197.1 GPa) which indicates it has
the highest resistance to plastic deformation. Whereas, Sample C has a low elastic
modulus of 3.4 GPa, which indicates cannot withstand a load without deforming
plastically. Sample B falls in-between sample A and C, where it can withstand a
load and still obey the elastic limit. This is represented on figure 4.3
In this experiment a tensile force was applied throughout, Sample A had the
highest ability to withstand the load, as it had a UTS of 754.4 MPa, making it the
strongest material out of all samples. Therefore, sample A yields at the highest stress
(388.4Mpa) and deforms the least at strain (0.002), and fractures at the highest
stress(81 MPa).Sample C has the lowest UTS (86.5 MPa) and yields at the lowest
stress , as it is the most ductile material with a value of (0.4) ,and has the largest
plastic region, due to it being the least stiff material due to its closely packed molecules
that allows layers to slide over each other more easily (Askeland,1996).
Sample falls in between A and C again, in Yield stress, UTS and making it an
intermediate in ductility for a value of (0.2). The unexpected change in trend occurs in
the data for fracture stress, where sample C fractures at a higher stress than sample A,
as well as the percentage in reduction of area being less., These changes can be
taken considered as anomalies due to a systematic or random error.
Toughness was observed to increase from sample A to C from 260 MJ/m3 to
633 MJ/m3, this is due to sample C having the highest ability to deform plastically
without fracturing, whereas sample A has the lowest ability to absorb energy during
deformation. Work to fracture is the force per extension needed to cause a fracture,
therefore as sample A has the highest UTS, it will need the greatest work done to
fracture. Sample B falls in-between sample A and C in both categories.
The hardness data has been obtained from the Vickers hardness test obtained
from the Vickers indenter tool. It Is observed that as the hardness was increasing
so was the young’s modulus.
The average young’s modulus for sample A, B, C obtained from other groups was
194.1 GPa, 58.9 GPa and 3 GPa respectively . Which is very close in range to the
values from this experiment , making the data more reliable. Moreover, they
obtained the same type of materials.
 5.2 Analyzing figure 4.2
Fig 4.2 shows that the true stress value of a material tends to be significantly
greater than its engineering stress after the yield point, in the plastic region. This
correlation can be justified by analyzing their formulas where both are equal to the
force per unit area however, true stress is divided by the instantaneous area , actual
area of the material when the force is being applied, and the engineering stress is
divided by the initial area .And, since the area of a material is constant (has a negligible
change) throughout its elastic region yet in its plastic region ,it is subjected to physical
changes hence the area will no longer be constant. Therefore, when a tensile force is
applied
∆A>0 in the plastic region whereas ∆A≃ 0 in the elastic thus true stress in the plastic
region > engineering stress (vice versa if it was subjected to a compression force)
and true stress ≃ engineering stress in the elastic region.
In the plastic region the true stress should be used for a more accurate results of
the materials mechanical properties especially in a more ductile materials (sample C)
since they are more prone to deform plastically than brittle materials (sample A). using
the equation δ true=δeng l ⁄ lo allows the conversion of engineering stress to true stress
however prior to the necking point since the strain will no longer be uniform in the
gauge length. (Roylance , 2001)

5.3 (table) Comparing Edu pack values with Sample A,B,C Results

Bulk mechanical Sample A CES Edu Sample CES Edu Sample CES Edu
properties pack B pack C pack
results results results
(Stainless (Aluminum) (POM)
steel)
Youngs 197.1 189 - 197 64.5 63 - 68 3.4 2.76 –
modulus (GPa) 3.59
Yield stress 388.4 327- 363 92.54 205 - 310 36.7 65.5 – 69
(MPa)
UTS (MPa) 754.5 525 - 620 218.5 510 - 620 86.5 66.9-69
Hardness 184 170 - 210 75 103 - 260 72 20 - 25
Table 5.3 Shows that both yield stress and UTS of the tested materials do not lie within
Edu pack’s range and since this is common between all three specimens therefore the cause Is
most likely to be a error in the method. However further justifications can be drawn.

12
 Sample A experimental value of UTS is 754.5 MPa which is greater than the results
found using Edu pack [525;620] MPa , since the UTS is a stress in the plastic region the area is
significantly changing as the load is being applied therefore A instantaneous at UTS is not
approximately equal to the original area. Moreover, the errors that are discussed contributes to
this difference in results. The same justification is applied for the results for sample b and c.
5.4 Improvements to method:
 To improve accuracy of the results, in inputting the values into CES Edu pack, 10%
error was taken into accountability for a maximum and minimum value for each
sample to increase accuracy of data.
 Repeat tensile testing and obtain multiple results for each sample, find average of
results for reliability
 Take more regular intervals for diameter to calculate true stress and strain.
 Using a larger number of groups data and taking average for reliability
 the measurement of the indentation made by a tool hence getting an accurate result from
one test is expected.

5.5 Errors:
 The UTS machine was supposed to pause at specific load, in order to measure the
diameter, but it didn’t stop and continued loading until fracture. This reduced the
analytic data available.
 the difference in the experimental values and edupack values for the yield point is
due to a 0.1% proof line was drawn to find the yield points for all samples
therefore the answers are an approximation of where the yielding of the material
might be but not the actual value hence justifies the incompatible values to Edu
pack.
 Error in calibrating strain gauge to 0.00, this could’ve affected the accuracy of
results.
 Strain gauge measures the strain up to yield cut off point only, and
engineering stress is calculated which is less accurate
 Crosshead extension was assumed to be the gauge extension, after the strain
gauge is removed.

13
6. Conclusion

After the 2 tests hardness and tensile tests the specimens a, b, and c were identified to be
Stainless steel, Aluminum and polyoxymethylene with an young’s modulus of 197.1 GPa, 64.5
GPa, 3.4 GPa . Respectively, Not all values of the materials mechanical properties matched Edu
pack values even when a 10% margin of error was applied therefore multiple tensile test should
be conducted in-order to rule out some of the errors that were discussed, as well as focusing on
the plastic region since the area is being subjected to drastic changes. However, the tests
conducted were relevant as they were able to help us calculate a materials property and identify
it.

7. Reference List

Askeland, D.R. 1996. The Science and Engineering of Materials.

Callister, W.D. 2003. The Introductory Materials Science and Engineering

Course. MRS Proceedings. 760

Department of Materials Science and Engineering (2019). STRESS - STRAIN

CURVES. [online] MA 02139: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available
at: http://web.mit.edu/course/3/3.11/www/modules/ss.pdf [Accessed 1 Dec. 2019].

Jones, D.R.H. and Ashby, M.F. 2012.Introduction to Engineering

Materials. Engineering Materials 1. 4th Edition. p.8.6

Jr, W.D.C. 2000. Materials Science and Engineering - An Introduction (5th

ed.). Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials. 47(1).

Michigan Tech.2019.Tensile test experiment.[online].[assessed 2 Dec 2019].