Lab 5: Tensile Testing of a Metal and a Polymer

MatSci Section 3

Oliver Bashan
10/6/2014

Table of Contents

Abstract Pg. 2
Introduction.. Pg. 2
Procedure Pg. 2
Results and Observations. Pg. 3
Discussion Pg. 6
Conclusion.. Pg. 6
References.. Pg. 6
Tables and Charts.. Pg. 6

Abstract:
The importance of this lab is to show how tensile strength and other properties of a given
material are determined and compared to literature using lab testing techniques. The elongation and
change in cross sectional area are the two main measurements that are required to produce the data to
be compared.
Introduction:
Mechanical testing is one if not the most important way to test materials and to determine what
the best material for any given job is. Nothing is better than putting a material in a machine that will
simulate the conditions that the material will face in the real world. On top of production similar
conditions, the machine can exceed the every day to day forces that the material will face to test its
ultimate limit. Formulas can only get one so far and because formulas are based off of theories that are
usually very accurate, mechanical testing is the only way to either confirm or deny the mathematical
calculations. Since hardly any given material is perfectly made due to large quantities, quality control
and just pure luck, not all parts of the same given material will have exactly the same strength
properties. There are many examples where materials including aluminum and polymers are used;
airplanes, boats, bridgesetc.
Procedure:
Open up the TESTVIEW2 software, then click RUN and then HOLD to pause the program. Click
on the SYSTEM button and set the units to N for Newtons, stroke to cm and STROKE RANGE to 4%. The
LOAD is the force being applied and the STROKE is the change in length of the test specimen. Next click
X-AXIS to set the stroke. Click HOLD and the POSITION 0 to set the machine back to its original position.
A few dimensions were needed before the samples could be placed into the machines. The width,
thickness, and test section length was measured using calipers. The test section length is the section
of the material that is under the highest stress. Once the polymer was put in place, centered between
the jaws, the 8 allen screws could be tightened to secure the test piece. For the aluminum, the two pins
needed to be pushed though the holes in the machine jaws and in the test piece.
For polymer sample:
Once the sample is mounted, press RAMP to set CONTROL to STROKE, enter 1.4 for
FINAL. This is used to set the total maximum stroke distance and then .2 for RATE, this is the rate of
movement. Next press SET to close the ramp window. Set the DATA POINTS to 10,000, the press CLEAR
DATA and then HOLD. The test will now begin and the jaws of the machine will start moving. The
computer will now record the data and sketch a graph of the force vs. stroke in the TESTVIEW2 window.
Once the sample fails or breaks, or once the stroke limit is reached, press HOLD. Click POSITION 0 then
SAVE YOUR DATA.

For aluminum sample:

Once the sample is mounted, press HOLD then in the LOAD ENTRY box, enter 40N and
press SET LOAD. Next, press HOLD again to engage the command. The gage length of the extensometer
needs to be measured with the supplied calipers to have a starting value. Once the measurement is
made and recorded, the extensometer can be put onto the sample by pulling back the clips and sliding
onto the aluminum. Now, press OFFSET, and once the windows pops up, press ZERO STRAIN then OK.
This sets the strain to 0. Press RAMP and set CONTROL to STROKE, then enter .5 for FINAL, and .1 for
RATE. Press SET to close the ramp window. After this is completed, the TA came to check the setup and
to confirm that everything was done properly to ensure safe operation. Press CLEAR DATA and then
HOLD to start the test. Once the sample failed, POSITION 0 was pressed followed by SAVE YOUR DATA.
The ending extensometer gage length will be recorded by the TESTVIEW2 software so there was no
need to measure it by hand.
Results:

Figure 1: Stress Vs. Strain curve for the Polymer test sample

1000
900
800

y = 17294x + 134.09
R = 0.9889

700
600
500

Series1

400

Linear (Series1)

300
200
100
0
-0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Figure 2: Slope of Polymer sample producing Youngs Modulus

Stress vs. Strain

Aluminum

30000

25000

Stress

20000

15000
Crosshead
Extensometer

10000

5000

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Strain
Figure 3: Stress Vs. Strain curve for the Aluminum test sample

25000
y = 806908x - 16441
R = 0.9721

20000

15000
Series1
Linear (Series1)

10000

5000

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Figure 4: Slope of Aluminum sample producing Youngs Modulus

Discussion:
On an atomic level, the samples cubic structure is being pulled out of its original shape. The
crystal structures must be able to re-arrange themselves in the correct orientation or the material will
fail and break. No new bonds are formed which renders the material useless. Aluminum is far less
elastic and isnt as able to reform new bonds as well as the Polymer which is why it cant stretch as far
and breaks earlier. The Polymer is a lot more elastic, allowing it to stretch and get skinnier before failing
and breaking. The extensometer is a lot more accurate as it is measuring the beginning and end gage
length, strain. Measurements were done accurately, at very small intervals, every time the computer
logged the data. The crosshead displacement data is based on no-precise measurements made by hand
estimating precise beginning gage length and no accurate ending gage length was obtained.

Aluminum
Polycarbonate

Literature
70.3 GPa
2.6 GPa

Experimental
80.6 GPa
1.729 GPa

Figure 5: Comparison of Young's Modulus between Literature and Experimental values

Conclusion:
This lab went to show how a weaker material, Polycarbonate, can stretch farther than a stronger
material, Aluminum. The difference between the two materials was measured and compared producing
a strong indication that Aluminum does in fact have a higher Youngs Modulus. This lab also shows how
off the Literature and Experimental values may be due to user error and machine error. It is possible
that these machines were not as accurate as the ones used by the authors of the book or just that
human error including caliper measurements has a larger part in it than previously thought.
References:
No references were used for this lab.
Tables, Charts:

Youngs Modulus
Yield Stress
Ultimate Strength
Fracture Stress
Strain to Failure

Polymer
1.7293 GPa
.1396 GPa
.1450 GPa
.1450 GPa
.0192 GPa

Aluminum
80.6909 GPa
1.6340 GPa
2.4001 GPa
1.8803 GPa
.0366 GPa