Materials Lab 1

Mechanical Testing Report

Patrick Connolly
2777107C
Introduction

This lab was a test of 3 samples: a copper rod, a steel rod and a copper cylinder, to measure the
load needed to deform and in the case of the rods break the sample. This report will cover the
method used to carry out these tests and also share my results of these tests. These tests will help
engineers use the correct materials for their designs.

Materials and Method

First we shall cover the copper rod sample, this is a dumbbell shaped rod with a length between
anchor points of 25mm and a cross sectional area of 20m m 2. Next the steel rod is the same
dimensions and shape as the copper rod and is make up of 0.1%C steel. Finally the copper
cylinder is approximately long.

Test 1 (copper rod sample): We first load the Hounsfield tensometers with the copper rod sample,
the tensometer is then used to apply a force across the rod until deformation and finally breakage
of the sample is observed. The data taken from the tensometer is then used to create a
spreadsheet and then used to create a stress strain graph (graph 1.1) below.

Test 2 (steel rod sample): We load the tensometer with the sample then use the machine to apply
force across it until, like the copper sample, we observe deformation then breakage of the sample,
the data produced will then make a stress strain graph (graph 1.2) below.

Test 3 (copper compression): We set the tensometer up to apply force through the copper sample,
this sample will the be compressed and will either show barrelling or buckling deformation.

Then we shall use Young’s Modulus to compare the experimental data to published data

Finally we must take into account the deformation of the tensometer we are using to do this we
load a ‘stiff metal bar’ and put force across it until reaching 10kN, then using the force-
displacement curve we can calculate the machines stiffness, then using this data we can correct
our original stress-strain curves of both the steel and copper sample.

Results

Copper and Steel Tension test:

Below is a graph plotted of stress and strain of the copper sample and the steel sample , the stress
is calculated by dividing the force applied by the internal area (in this case being 20m m 2), the
strain is calculated by dividing the extension by the original length (in this case being 25mm).

Graph 1.1 Graph 1.2

Using Graph 1.2 we can calculate the upper and lower yield stress of the steel sample, we
conclude that the upper yield stress is 8.51kN and the lower yield stress is 8.41 kN
Next we may calculate the Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) this is done using the following formula:

Formula 2.1

This therefore calculates the UTS of the steel sample to be 425.5 N/M 2 and the copper sample to
be 355.5 N/M 2

Young’s Modulus is calculated using the formula below (formula 2.2):

Formula 2.2

We can say with our experimental data that the young’s modulus is 50.84 GPa for copper and
156.43 GPa for steel.

Calibration of the tensometer:

Using the below graph (graph 1.3) we see the force extension curve of the “stiff” bar.

Graph 1.3

Using this curve we can calculate the stiffness of the machine which is equal to the gradient of the
graph 1.3 above. Which is calculated to be 0.05 N/mm.
Below are the stress strain graphs with the new calibrated strain value:

Graph 1.4 Graph 1.5

Compression Test of the Copper Sample:

We see below the stress strain graph of the copper compression sample:

Graph 1.6

From Graph 1.6 we can say the Compressive Yield Limit is equal to 0.01kN.
The following photograph was taken during the experiment it shows the copper sample undergoing
barrelling.

Discussion

We shall first discuss the differences in the two materials, the copper sample undergoes plastic
deform-formation longer than the steel sample. This is do to the the copper being more ductile than
steel. After the machines deformation was taken into account the values shifted but not drastically
this is a good indication that the tensometer is fairly accurate. The method we used was adequate
however some elements could have been better regulated such as and not limited to the
temperatures of the samples. Our experimental value of the Youngs modulus is lower than
published data, this could be due to mechanical tolerances of our tensometer not being low
enough to measure accurately enough.
Appendix

Graph 1.1

Graph 1.2
Graph 1.3

Graph 1.4
Graph 1.5

Graph 1.6