Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Objective: Our objective in this lab is to determine the stress and strain of specimens from the load vs deformation

graph that was gathered using the compression test, where then we compare the specimens with each other. Seeing the difference between compressed wood in a parallel side and perpendicular side and also compare the metals, like the difference between aluminum vs steel and the two different type of steel. Background: Compressive strength in the lab is being calculated by making the material go through forces that is being applied axially on the surface, until the material reaches to fracture. Using the compression test system we are able to collect the force vs displacement values which then we can calculate the compression strength, which helps distinguish between which material is softer or stronger against crushing. Materials:
o o o

2 Pine wood cubes Steel cylinder Aluminum cylinder

Equipment:
o

MTS 810 Material Test System: Load Unit, Model No. 318.10, Serial No. 0415157 Force Transducer, Model No. 661.20E-03, SVN. V90916 Caliper

Procedure:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

We measure each specimens length, width and thickness Place the specimen in compression test system Turn on the system and apply the load Measure the specs after the compression We repeat this process for each specimen and record the data of the load vs displacement

Data: Table 1: Specs for Wood in the Parallel Position Wood Parallel Intial Length ( ) (in) Intial Width ( ) (in) Intial Final Thickness Length ( )(in) ( ) (in) Final Width ( ) (in) Final Area of Thickness the ( )(in) surface intial ( ) ( ) 0.976 0.943812 0.978 0.96824 0.974 0.95742 0.976 0.956471 Area of the surface Fina ( ) ( ) 0.964288 0.96333 0.960364 0.962661

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average

4.022 0.971 4.031 0.98 4.025 0.972 4.026 0.974333

0.972 3.955 0.988 0.988 3.958 0.985 0.985 3.954 0.986 0.981667 3.955667 0.986333

Table 2: Specs for Wood in the Perpendicular Position Wood Perpendicula r Intial Length ( ) (in) Intial Width ( ) (in) Intial Thicknes s ( )(in) Final Length ( ) (in) Final Width ( ) (in) Final Thicknes s ( )(in) Area of the surface intial ( ) ( ) 0.87285 6 0.89018 8 0.88945 5 0.88415 4 Area of the surface Fina ( ) ( ) 0.83706 9 0.84745 9 0.84765 1 0.84407 3

0.959 0.952 0.953 Average 0.954667

0.898 0.901 0.903 0.90066 7

0.972 0.988 0.985 0.981667

0.941 0.942 0.951 0.94466 7

Table 3: Specs for 2024 Aluminum 2024 Al Diameter Length Intial Intial (Do) (in) (Lo)(in) 0.5 0.897 0.5 0.898 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.898333 Diameter Length Final (Df) Final (in) (Lf) (in) 0.52 0.518 0.521 0.519667 0.832 0.835 0.835 0.834 Area of the Area of the surface surface Fina intial ( ) ( )( ) ( ) 0.19635 0.212372 0.19635 0.210741 0.19635 0.213189 0.19635 0.212101

Average

Table 4: Specs for 1018 HR Steel 1018 Steel Diameter Length Intial Intial (Do) (in) (Lo)(in) 0.5 0.908 0.501 0.904 0.499 0.905 0.5 0.905667 Diameter Length Final (Df) Final (in) (Lf) (in) 0.515 0.516 0.513 0.514667 0.842 0.842 0.842 0.842 Area of the Area of the surface surface Fina intial ( ) ( )( ) ( ) 0.19635 0.208307 0.197136 0.209117 0.195565 0.206692 0.19635 0.208039

Average

Table 5: Specimen Ultimate Modulus Compressive of Strength Elasticity (ksi) 9.921 1095.9 17.74 64917 Proportional Limit Strength (ksi) 8.789 17.75 Proportional Yield Limit Strain Strength (in/in) (ksi) 9.22E-03 1560 in/in 41.96 60.254

Wood in Parallel Position Wood in Perpendicular Position 2024 Aluminum 1018 HR Steel

Graphs: Figure 1:

Compressive Stress vs Strain of the Wood in Parallel Position


12
(1.25E-02 in/in,9.921 ksi) Ultimate Compressive Strength

10 Copressive Stress (ksi) 8 6 4 2 0 0.00E+00


(Slope is 1095.9) Modulus of Elasticity

-5.00E-03

5.00E-03

1.00E-02 Strain (in/in)

1.50E-02

2.00E-02

2.50E-02

Figure 2:

Copressive Strength (ksi) vs Strain (in/in) of the Wood in Perpendicular Position


2000 Ultimate Compressive Strength (3651 in/in, 1774.667 psi) which causes 0.05in deformation 1800 1600 1400 Stress (psi) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Strain (in/in)
(Slope is 64917 psi ) Modulus of Elasticity (1560 in/in ,1426.87 psi) Proportional Limit

Figure 3:

Force (lbf) vs Displacement (in)


1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 Displacement (in)

Force (lbf)

at displacment 0.05in the Force is 1566.4lbf

0.04

0.05

0.06

Figure 4:

Copressive Strength (ksi) vs Strain (in/in) for 2024 Aluminum


100 90 80 Copressive Stress (ksi) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 Strain (in/in)

(0.019 in/in ,42.96 ksi) Yield Strength

Figure 5:

Compressive Stress (ksi) vs Strain (in/in) for 1018 HR Steel


100 90 Copressive Stress (ksi) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Copressive Strain (in/in) 0.06 0.08 0.1

(0.01921 in/in ,60.25396 ksi) Yield Strength

Calculations: Area of the cross-section: Example: Average initial cross-section area for the wood in the parallel position

Stress Example: Stress of 1018 HR Steel at force 50 psi

Strain Example: Strain of 1018 HR Steel at displacement 0.02 in

Modulus of Elasticity Example: Modulus of elasticity for the wood in parallel position

Discussions: After calculating the values of each specimens surface area that was used to compress the force on from the data collected, I then calculated the stress and strain of each materials process of compression. The deformation was not very clear because of the amount of compression that was put but it was visible and tested by seeing the difference in the length (height) before and after the process of compression where the height became shorter and the surface area becoming bigger. In the 1018 HR steel we were even able to see the compression causing the black roll around the side surface to fracture, as well as seeing the woods line fracture on the sides. I was able to see how the parallel positioned wood has a much higher ultimate compressive strength than the wood in perpendicular position, which was expected. Also how yield strength of steel is a bit higher than aluminum which was also what I expected. Estimation of ultimate yield strength, compression strength and proportional limit was very tough because it was estimation by just looking at stress vs strain curve and pin-point it, the numbers might not be accurate but it is a very close estimation since the action and the location on the curve is correct. But estimating the force that caused 0.05in displacement on the force vs displacement curve was

accurate because I was able to go over the data and locate where 0.05in have been reached and at which force. When testing the metals the conditions after it was compressed, the height became shorter and the cross-section in the middle became and a little bit on each surface, even black color on the HR steel was easily removed because of the compression, so it was clear the condition of the metals after. My estimation were very close, even though it was very difficult to point it on the graph in excel, due to the huge number of points in the graph. This would one of source of error that might make my number not as accurate as I hope it would be. Another source of error could be in calculating the measurements of the materials diameter or lengths, because when calculating the values it was done on a flat surface it was calculated while being while standing which can cause some error because of the hand movement and not being very accurate.

Questions: Part A:

1)
There was a fracture or rapture horizontally in an angle

2) The published value of the modulus of elasticity of pine wood along the grain in the book was 1,300,000 psi and I calculated my value to be 1,095,500 psi. The value is not very far off, I calculated the modulus of elasticity using excel so it was very precise if I rounded my number it would possibly be closer to the book value. 3) Parallel would be easier fractured as seen by the test, it is because having the parallel compressed there is high possibility that the glue separate as in perpendicular the glue sticks more because its being compressed more causing it not fracture that easy 4) Yes, because it consist of cellulose fibers in a lignin and hemicellulose matrix 5) Because of the type of material, wood could be rapturing just by the holders and when it is being tensile tested it is almost impossible to calculate it correctly because of how brittle it is and fast can rapture.

Part B:

1) I have calculated really close values to the book, yield strength for Aluminum in the book was 47 ksi and I have calculated to be 43 ksi. As for steel, in the book it was 53 ksi and I have calculated to be 60 ksi

2) Definitely not compression causes the cylinder to have bigger cross-section in the middle, shorter height.
Conclusion: I was able to see how very different and almost similar materials react to a compression test, how perpendicular position wood is harder to fracture than a parallel positioned. Also the conditions of the metals after the compression are the same, where the middle cross-section is bigger and shorter height. I was also able to interpret values such as Modulus of Elasticity, Yield Strength, Yield Strain, Ultimate compression strength and proportional limit from the Stress vs Strain curve, which very useful in determining the difference between materials and which one takes more load or stress to compress and when does it fracture. There possible sources of error while using the caliper because it was not used accurately.

Compression Test of Wood and Metals Lab #2

Bader Al Babtain July 24, 2012 ME 213 Lab (AM)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen