PAPUA NEW GUINEA

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

EN113- MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES

LAB REPORT #1
TENSILE TEST PRACTICAL REPORT

Leilah Apet

24304434

BEME-1

Lecture: Dr. Ales

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 29/03/2024

ABSTRACT

This experiment was conducted to compare the mechanical properties of aluminum and
brass. This test is one of the basic kinds of mechanical test performed on a material and
measuring the reaction of the material to the force applied. Before the test was carried out
the specimen are being measured. The specimen initial diameter and length are measured
with a vernier caliper and after the sample have been measured setting up of tensiometer
is commenced. The main purpose of this experiment is to observe the materials tensile
behavior, as well as compare and analyze their mechanical properties.[8]

Prior to applying the force on specimen, cross-sectional width and the gauge potion and
gage length of the specimen are measured carefully. As the result of the experiment is
calculated manually as a result the of a failure in pulling force, a graph of force in Newton
versus displacement in meters is obtain.

The cross-sectional areas as well as the materials strain and the stress have been acquired
after the calculation, which enables the sketching of the stress-strain graphs for each
material. The modulus of elasticity for each sample was determined by taking the slope as
the elastic deformation region was overlaid onto the data in order to calculate the yield
strength of each material.

The metallography of each material revealed their physical structure and deflects due to
fatigue failure. Surprisingly, the experiment modulus of elasticity was extremely different
form than the expected value. This disproportionally might be created by a scaling
inaccuracy during the experiment.[9][10]

PAGE 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES

ABSTRACT 1

TABLE OF CONTEN 2

INTRODUCTION 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS 6

RESULTS 8

DISCUSSION 11

CONCLUSION 12

REFERENCE 13

APPENDICS 14

PAGE 2
INTRODUCTION

For a safe design of structural components in bridges, railways lines, marine ships,
aircrafts, pressure vessels and etc. the tensile of the material used are analysis for better
design. It involves the application of tension to a specimen until it fractures. It is an
important test for determining a materials tensile strength and ductility. This test is
performed in a manually by using the handle of a tensiometer. This experiment is
purposely to help us learn to perform a tensile test and the significance of the stress-strain
curve.[8]

Objectives

❖ To study the deformation and fracture characteristics of the Brass against the
Aluminum when they are subjected to uniaxial load.
❖ To observe the load extension and the stress-strain relationship in both the
aluminum and brass
❖ Learn to perform the tensile testing
❖ To study the basic of uniaxial testing

A Stress -Strain

Tensile loading on material have caused the material to undergo deformation. This kind of
deformation can either be elastic or plastic deformation. The elastic deformation is
characterized by linear relationship between the extension and applied load. Engineering
stress σ is given by the ratio of load applied to the original cross-sectional area where as
engineering strain ε is given by change in the length(extension) ∆L over the original
length L. [1,2,3,4,5&6]

Hence;

𝑃 ∆𝐿
𝜎 = 𝐴𝑜 (Equation 1) and 𝜀 = 𝐿𝑜 (Equation 2)

PAGE 3
Where,

σ is engineering stress

P is the applied axial load

Ao is the original cross-sectional area

ε is the engineering strain

∆L is the extension

Lo is the original length

The engineering stress stain relationship for elastic deformation is based on Hooke’s Law.
The gradient on this curve gives a modulus of elastically called. The Young’s Modulus E
𝜎
𝐸=
𝜀
Where,

E is Youngs Modulus

σ is engineering stress

ε is the engineering strain

Youngs Modulus is of great importance in engineering application for materials that are
subjected to deformation.

[1,2,3,4,5&6]

PAGE 4
Figure 1: stress-strain relationship under uniaxial loading. Source [1,2,3,4,5&6]

PAGE 5
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment begins with the measurement of the specimens (see Fig 2 .0a) the
specimens are measured using the vernier caliper (Fig 2.0b.) By use of Vernier caliper the
thickness and with of each sample of brass and aluminum were measured. The gage
length of each specimen was determined to be 37mm and the gage width was 5mm
respectively.

Position the left and the right side of the clamps in their proper places to accommodate
the length of the test sample. Place the specimen between the tensile clamps. Both of the
sides are a tighten with the sleaves and a spline see [ Fig 2.01]. A strain gage see Fig 2.02 is
attached to the tensiometer which is measuring the strain and an extensometer measures
the elongation of the specimen during the test.

The test is commenced by gradually spinning the wheel of the tensiometer in a clock wise
direction in an interval of 0.25 the strain is added. The resultant extension(strain) of the
specimen is observed is recorded after the load is applied [Fig 2.03]

When the strain reaches 7.25[Fig 2.04] (which is the applied force) the aluminum
specimen fracture and the brass specimen comes to fracture when the applied force is at
7.75. see [Fig 2.05]

After the fracture has occurred to the specimen the final diameter and the length are
measured [Fig 2.06a&b] The value obtains from the reading the stain gauge are being
tabulated on the board.

[Fig 2.0a&b]; Measuring of the initial length [Fig 2.01]: Sleave and spline

specimen using the venire caliper

PAGE 6
[Fig 2.02]: Strain gauge

[Fig 2.03]: Stress gauge

[Fig 2.04]: Aluminum fracture [Fig 2.05]: Brass fracture

[Fig 2.06b]: Final diameter

[Fig 2.06a]: Final measurement of

length

PAGE 7
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

TENSILE TEST RESULT

SPECIMEN BRASS ALUMINIUM

Initial diameter Do (mm) 5 5
Final diameter d (mm) 3.5 2.5
Initial length Lo (mm) 37 37
Final length l (mm) 47.5 45
Yield Strength (YS) (N) load=1875 load=200
Ultimate tensile strength (N) load=6130 load=1800
Fracture (N) 5490 1089
Strain Rate (mm/min) 2.2 5.47

[Figure 2.07]: Table of Dimensional Result

“BRASS” “ ALUMINIUM”

P(KN) P(N) Є=∆L- σ=P/Ao

Lo/Lo P(KN) P(N) ε=∆L-Lo/Lo σ=P/Ao
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.67 2670 0.25 13598.2 0.66 660 0.25 40366972.48
3.89 3890 0.5 19811.61 1.02 1020 0.5 62385321.1
4.28 4280 0.75 21797.86 1.36 1360 0.75 83180428.13

4.51 4510 1 22969.24 1.62 1620 1 99082568.81

4.75 4750 1.25 24191.55 1.82 1820 1.25 111314984.7
4.95 4950 1.5 25210.14 2.03 2030 1.5 124159021.4
5.16 5160 1.75 26279.66 2.09 2090 1.75 127828746.2
5.29 5290 2 26941.75 2.24 2240 2 137003058.1
5.4 5400 2.25 27501.97 2.36 2360 2.25 144342507.6

PAGE 8
 5.47 5470 2.5 27858.48 2.48 2480 2.5 151681957.2
5.62 5620 2.75 28622.42 2.61 2610 2.75 159633027.5
5.66 5660 3 28826.14 2.63 2630 3 160856269.1
5.7 5700 3.25 29029.86 2.63 2630 3.25 160856269.1
5.8 5800 3.5 29539.16 2.68 2680 3.5 163914373.1
5.86 5860 3.75 29844.73 2.71 2710 3.75 165749235.5
5.89 5890 4 29997.52 2.76 2760 4 168807339.4
5.9 5900 4.25 30048.45 2.75 2750 4.25 168195718.7
5.94 5940 4.5 30252.17 2.81 2810 4.5 171865443.4
5.98 5980 4.75 30455.89 2.79 2790 4.75 170642201.8
5.975 5975 5 30430.43 2.78 2780 5 170030581
5.97 5970 5.25 30404.96 2.76 2760 5.25 168807339.4
5.98 5980 5.5 30455.89 2.7 2700 5.5 165137614.7
5.95 5950 5.75 30303.1 2.6 2600 5.75 159021406.7
5.93 5930 6 30201.24 2.52 2520 6 154128440.4
5.86 5860 6.25 29844.73 2.32 2320 6.25 141896024.5
5.7 5700 6.5 29029.86 2.08 2080 6.5 127217125.4
5.51 5510 6.75 28062.2 1.92 1920 6.75 117431192.7
5.24 5240 7 26687.1 1.57 1570 7 96024464.83
4.89 4890 7.25 24904.57 1.2 1200 7.25 73394495.41

[Figure 2.08]

PAGE 9
 Stress-strain of Brass
35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 2.09:

Stress-strain "Aluminium"
160000000

140000000

120000000

100000000

80000000

60000000

40000000

20000000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 2.10:

PAGE 10
DISCUSSION

The data obtained from the tensiometer shows the difference in rates of extensions in
brass and aluminium samples. From data on cross- sectional area, length, extension and
axial loads, the strains and stress for both sample specimens were calculated. When
subjected to same amount of load, there was relatively high extension in aluminium than
in brass. This had contributed in differenced in the strain-stress graph of the specimen.
Brass reached yield point at stress of 19811.60732 N (Fig)while aluminium reached yield
strength at 33613445.38 N. Hence it can be sseen that aluminum has more tensile strength
than brass. When the gradients of both brass and aluminium were calculated, aluminium
had higher gradient than brass (Equation 3). The gradients of stress- strain curves give the
Young’s Modulus, which affect the deflection of material under different loads. Further
loading of both specimens beyond the yield point gave a stack difference; brass reached
fracture point at approximately 24904.6 N while aluminium reached fracture at 6115355.23
N. Both the specimens are Faced Center Cubic crystal structure which means change in
length indicate the ductility of the material when loadedd. There were large amounts of
necking observed in the aluminum than there was in brass.

The changes encountered in cross sectional area cannot be influenced by engineering

stress- strain relationships; the changes can only be possible for true stress- strain curves.
Normally, true strains are of higher values than those of engineering strains. This can be
explained by the fact that true strains take place in transverse directions of the gage
length. High values of stress and strains in aluminum are attributed to strain hardening.
Strain hardening or work hardening in aluminum occurs at higher values of stress in
aluminium. In the graph, it can be seen that for engineering stress- strain curves, the
curves drop downwards after necking has occurred in aluminum see (Fig 2.1). However,
this phenomenon cannot be seen in normal true stress- strain curves, the curves would
reach the highest region of fracture see (Fig 1).

Engineering stress and strains were calculated after the load were applied on the specimen
using the table top manually operated tensiometer. The data on strain was obtained on
the cross head after necking had occurred. The engineering stress was then calculated by
dividing the applied load by the original cross- sectional area (Equation 4). For
engineering strains, the changes in length (extensions) were divided by the original length
(Equation 2). In calculations of true stress, the load applied could be divided by the
instantaneous area. True strain is calculated by dividing the change in length by the
instantaneous final lengthh.

PAGE 11
From the conducted experiment the data did not coincides with the result displayed on
the graph as well as on the table. This must be due to scaling accuracy during the
tabulating and the calculation of the applied axial load (P) which is measured in
kilonewton and later converted to Newton.

CONCLUSION

Many engineering applications that require high tensile strength of alloys which can
withstand high axial loads before fracture can occur. However, from the test done on these
two specimens and the results did not coincides with the theorical knowledge about the
two alloys. It can be concluded that this experiment is a failure. Aluminum experiences
low ductility rates compared to brass and have therefore high values of Young’s Modulus,
a factor that determines deflections in structural components. This experiment therefore
gives a direct distinction in the relationship of tensile strength to the theoretical data.
[1,2,3,4,5&6]

PAGE 12
REFERENCE

[1]. Davies, J. (2004). Tensile Testing (2nd Edition ed.). ASM International.

[2] G, J., & Barry. (2012). Mechanics of Materials (8th Edition ed.). CL Engineering.

[3] Marc, K. K. (2008). Mechanical Behavior of Materials (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.

[4] Michael F. Asby, K. J. (2013). Materials and Design (3rd Edition ed.). Butterworth.

[5] Richard Budynas, K. D. (2014). Mc-Graw Hill Series in Mechanical Engineering (10th
Edition ed.). Mc-Graw Hill Series.

[6] Richard, A. (2002). Advanced Mechanics of Materials. (R. J. Schmidt, Ed.) Wile

URL: https://www.studocu.com (For 1,2,3,4,5 and 6)

[7]. Khayal, Osama. (2019). LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS TENSILE TESTING.

[8]. Arthur J., (26 September 2017). Purpose of Tensile Test

URL: https://bizfluent.com

[9] M. Ali Siddiqui, “Fracture Mechanics & Failure Analysis: Lecture Fractography,” 16
March 2016.

[Online]. Available: https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadAliSiddiqui6/fracture-

mechanics-failure-analysislectures-fractography. [Accessed 11 October 2019]

[10] W.D. Callister and D.G. Rethwisch, Materials Science and Engineering: An
Introduction, 9.ed.,2016

URL: https://www.studocu.com/row [9&10]

PAGE 13
APPENDIX

Hooke’s Law Equation 3 Equation 4

𝜎
𝐸= 𝜀
𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 2

=13598.832/0.25 33613445.4/0.25 =π (0.0025m) ^2

= 1.9635*10^-5m^2

=54392.79328 (Brass) = 134453781.6 (Aluminum)

Equation 1
𝑃
𝜎 = 𝐴𝑜

=2670/0.01963455408 660/1.9635*10^-5

= 135984.7537N/m^2 (Brass) =33613445.38 N/m^2(Aluminum)

Equation 2

∆𝐿
𝜀 = 𝐿𝑜

=47.5-37/37 & =45-37/37

=0.2837 =0.216

PAGE 14
Figure 2.2 Practical test Result

SPECIMEN Brass Aluminum

Initial diameter Do 5 5
(mm)

Final diameter d (mm) 3.5 2.5

Initial length Lo (mm) 37 37

Final length l (mm) 47.5 45

Yield Strength (YS) (N) 19811.60732 33613445.4

Ultimate tensile strength 30430.42513 14311790

(N)
Fracture (N) 24904.6 6115355.23

Youngs modulus 54392.793 1345781.6

Area 1.963*10^-5 1.963*10^-5

PAGE 15