Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Mechanical Testing

Introduction:
An experiment was carried out using an instron machine, in order to measure the extension of 2 different samples with increasing load until the sample fractures. In this report I will plot a graph of stress against strain to calculate youngs modulus and identify the ultimate tensile strength and yield strength.

Results: From the force


*ield strength

extension data, I was able to

calculate the stress and strain for each sample from which, I then plotted a graph. Figure 1 shows the relationship *ield between stress and strain of both strength sample 1 and 2. he graph shows that sample 2 reached brea!ing point well before sample 1 suggesting that it must be made from a much wea!er > material than sample 1. I was then # able to wor! out youngs modulus for both samples by wor!ing out the gradient for both samples. he "alue Figure 1: Graph of Stress with that I calculated for #ample 1 is $.%% &'a. his is a "ery small "alue Strain suggesting that the sample is made from a material which is not "ery stiff. he "alue that I calculated for #ample 2 is 1.() &'a. his is also a low "alue for *oungs modulus suggesting that the sample is made from a material which is brittle as the sample bro!e without being sub+ected to a significant amount of strain. ,n figure 1, I ha"e indicated the ultimate tensile strength for both samples as this is the highest pea! on the graph. he yield strength is the point at which the graph starts to cur"e- I ha"e also indicated the point on figure 1. For Sample Sample 2 sample 1, the yield strength is ./01)0.0.$1 and for sample 2 its 1 1$.0%(/.%./. he elongation to brea! for sample 1 has a strain of 1... and sample 2 has a strain of $.11. he ultimate tensile Length(mm) 0$ .$ strength for sample 1 is 0$01%$%. and for sample 2 is 11./.21)). Figure 2 shows the measurements that were made Width (mm) 12.(% 12.($ for both samples before and after the samples ruptured. Thic ness (mm) 1.)$ 1. 1(

Accuracy of measurements:

As the micrometre was used to wor! out the thic!ness of both samples before and after the sample bro!e the precision error of 1$.1. 12.%( the micrometre is 2 $.$1 mm. Also, a 1. cm ruler was used to wor! out the length and width of the sample and therefore the 2.)0 1.2$ precision error is 2 $.. mm. he percentage error of the measurements of both samples can be calculated by using the Figure 2: Table showing measurements of both e3uation 4precision error5 reading ta!en6 x 1$$ 7 8 error. For samples sample 1, the "alue that I obtained for the percentage error was 2.118 and the "alue that I obtained for sample 2 was $.%28.
Length after brea (mm) Width after brea (mm) Thic ness after brea (mm)

12)

.$

Conclusion:

In conclusion, by calculating the *oungs modulus for both samples, I was able to determine which materials both samples could ha"e been made from using !nown "alues. 9y loo!ing at two different sources :i!ipedia and the engineering toolbox, I found that the "alue of $.%% &'a gi"es a material of ;igh <ensity 'olyethylene 4;<'=6. Also, a "alue of 1.() &'a gi"es a material of 'olypropylene. 1

herefore, sample 1 must be made from ;<'= and sample 2 must be made from 'olypropylene.

UV Vis Spectrophotometry
Introduction:
An experiment was carried out to ma!e up . different concentrations of rodhamine solution using a stoc! solution. hen >A ? Ais #pectrophotometry was used for each of the . solutions in order to produce a graph of absorbance against wa"elength. his could then be used to find the extinction coefficient using the 9eer ? Bambert law which will then enable me to find the concentration of solution x.

Results: Figure 1 shows the traces of


absorbance against wa"elength for the . different concentrations. >sing this graph, I was able to plot a graph of concentration against intensity at a wa"elength of .1. which can be seen in figure 2. 9y wor!ing out the gradient of the graph I obtained a "alue of $.1) BmolC1 cmC1. his can then be used to wor! out the extinction coefficient of the pea! by using the following e3uation2Figure 1 ? &raph of absorbance against wa"elength
$./ $.0 $..

:hen the e3uation is rearranged you get, A5c 7 b. herefore, $.1) BmolC1 cmC1 7 . In order to wor! out the coefficient at a wa"elength of .2$nm, the same e3uation would be used. herefore, the "alue that I obtained for A5c is $.$%BmolC1 cmC1. #o, the extinction coefficient at a wa"elength of .2$nm is $.$%BmolC1 cmC1.In order to wor! out the concentration of solution D, I plotted a graph of
Figure 2 ! &raph of Intensity against @oncentration at wa"elength of

$.) $.1

"# bc A7 Absorbance of $ntensit% against Graph 7 extinction coefficient 4BmolC1 cmC 1 &oncentration 6 c 7 concentration b 7 path length of sample

% i s e t n $

$.2 $.1 $ C$.1 $ 1 2 1 ) . 0

&oncentration ('mol( L)

wa"elength against absorbance and measured the absorbance that corresponded to the highest pea! which was $.22) at a wa"elength of ..$. >sing this "alue, I can use the abo"e e3uation to wor! out the concentration of solution x as- A7 bc, when rearranging the e3uation, A5 7 bc, herefore $.22)5 $.1) 7 1.0. he concentration of solution D is 1.0Emol5B.

Associated Error:

he errors in"ol"ed in the experiment could ha"e occurred when preparing the solutions of different concentrations using the stoc! solution. his could ha"e caused my results to be slightly inaccurate leading to inaccurate "alues for the extinction coefficient of the solution of rodhamine.

Figure 2 ! graph of intensity against concentration


1

Scanning Electron Microscopy


Wikepediahttp:55en.wi!ipedia.org5wi!i5*oungFsGmodulusHaccessed:2)51$511I, Engineering Toolboxhttp:55www.engineeringtoolbox.com5youngCmodulusCdG)1/.htmlHaccessed: 2)51$511I 2 http:55teaching.shu.ac.u!5hwb5chemistry5tutorials5molspec5beers1.htm

Introduction: A scanning electron microscope was used to produce images of a specimen showing 1
orders of magnitude.

Figure 2 ? 2nd order of magnitude with a magnification of x1.2$

Figure 1 ? 1st order of magnitude with a magnification of x1)$

Figure * C Image of specimen

Figure ) ? 1rd order of magnitude with a magnification of x/.$$ 9y loo!ing at the image of the specimen, we can see that the specimen consists of a metal surface with . 1

metal rods placed on top of it. his can be seen in figure 1 as the image produced by the scanning electron microscope shows the rods on the specimen in 1<. :hen the magnification is increased, the image produced Jooms into one of the rods and the contrast shows where the specimen is denser.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen