Axial Force

12-232 Solid Mechanics Lab

Group 4

Christopher Haas

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

March 5, 2018
 Abstract

In this lab, an axial tension test was performed on two metal specimens, one steel and one aluminum, to
calculate the Young’s modulus of elasticity (E), yield strength (Fᵧ), ultimate tensile strength (Fᵤ), and
rupture strength (F)ᵣ of the two metal specimens. The data was collected electronically by applying a
load using the Instron 3385H Universal testing machine (Instron). After the lab, the stress and strain
were calculated by using the given quantities: force, extension, initial gage length, and initial cross-
sectional area. Theoretical value of E of each specimen type were then compared to the experimentally
determined value.

Steel and aluminum are common building materials that are often put under large amounts of force. A
suspension bridge is a commonly used civil engineering tensile structure. The use of these materials in
large scale projects, like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, requires a confidence in the amount of
force they can withstand. If the yield strength is surpassed, the structure will begin to deform, resulting
in a sagging structure, and eventually, a rupture if force is continually applied. To avoid this, engineers
can test the tensile strength of a material to understand how structures will respond to certain loads.

In this experiment, each specimen was secured into the Instron, which continuously pulled the specimen
at either end. Load and displacement were electronically recorded by a proprietary testing software
package. This was done until failure of the specimen to withstand the load and the specimen was
ruptured.

The observed data was the extension of the specimen due to the force applied by the Instron with
respect to time. The stress and strain of each specimen was calculated from the load and extension
data. Stress was then plotted versus the strain. For the steel specimen, observed E=31,747 ksi, Fᵧ=107.3
ksi, Fᵤ=123.05 ksi, and Fᵣ=103.3 ksi. For the aluminum specimen, observed E=11,064 ksi, Fᵧ=44.2 ksi,
Fᵤ=44.9 ksi, Fᵣ=38.2 ksi. Neither specimen had a definite plateau, so the yield strength was calculated
using the 0.2% offset method. No comparison can be made for the strength properties of either metal,
other than E. The modulus of elasticity was approximately 9.7% larger than expected for the steel gage
and 2.3% smaller for the aluminum gage. There are multiple factors that could lead to this error, the
most prominent is the normal variation of E between different specimens of the same material.

Overall, the experiment demonstrated the linear relationship between strain and stress in the elastic
stage along with the expected curve after the yield strength of the material was reached.

ii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... ii

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Theory ................................................................................................................................................ 1

3.0 Experimental Procedure .................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Equipment.................................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Test Specimens .......................................................................................................................... 2

3.4 Procedure................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 2

5.0 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 4

6.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Appendix A Sample Calculations ........................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B Raw Data ............................................................................................................................ B-1

Appendix C Calculated Data .................................................................................................................. C-1

iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this experiment is to compare the strength properties of two metals, steel and
aluminum. We will also compare the experimental value of E to the theoretical value of E. In this
experiment, each specimen was secured into the Instron 3385H Universal testing machine (Instron),
which continuously pulled the specimen at either end. Load and displacement were electronically
recorded by a proprietary testing software package. This was done until failure of the specimen to
withstand the load and the specimen was ruptured. The experiment compares the stress and strain of
two specimens of metal to find the elasticity moduli, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and
rupture strength.

Steel and aluminum are common building materials, that are often put under large amounts of force. A
suspension bridge is a commonly used civil engineering tensile structure. The use of these materials in
large scale projects, like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, requires a confidence in the amount of
force they can withstand. If the yield strength is surpassed, the structure will begin to deform, resulting
in a sagging structure, and eventually, a rupture if force is continually applied. To avoid this, engineers
can test the tensile strength of a material to understand how structures will respond to certain loads.

To design a structural member that successfully withstands axial tensile forces, the engineer needs to be
able to select a cross-section that will allow for a larger yield strength. To select a cross-section, the
engineer must be able to predict yield strength of a member. For the suspension bridge example, if the
yield strength is exceeded, the bridge will deform and rupture with use. To predict the yield strength,
the plotted elastic modulus E will demonstrate where the yield plateau begins. The lab will measure the
strength properties of both specimens.

2.0 THEORY

1
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

3.1 OVERVIEW

3.2 TEST SPECIMENS

3.3 PROCEDURE

4.0 RESULTS
Using the data from the experiment, the following properties of both specimens were calculated by
plotting the following graphs shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 and analyzing the results. Specimen 1 was the
steel gage, specimen 2 was the aluminum gage.

Figure 2 shows the complete stress versus strain over a time period for both steel and aluminum
specimens.

Comparison of Stress vs. Strain for Two Metals

140.00
Fu = 123.05 ksi
120.00

Fr = 103.32 ksi Specimen 1

100.00

Specimen 2
Stress(ksi)

80.00

60.00 Fu = 49.44 ksi

40.00
Fr = 38.21 ksi
20.00

0.00
0.00E+00 2.00E-02 4.00E-02 6.00E-02 8.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.20E-01 1.40E-01 1.60E-01 1.80E-01 2.00E-01
Strain (in/in)

Figure 2: Specimen 1 and Specimen 2 Stress vs. Strain Graph Comparison

The theoretical elasticity modulus (E) for both specimen 1 and 2 are plotted against the experimental
results in Figure 3. ETheoretical for specimen 1 is 31,800 ksi, while specimen 2 has a ETheoretical of 11,000 ksi.

Figure 3 shows the elastic modulus for both steel and aluminum gages.

2
 120.00 Comparison of Elastic Moduli for Two Metals

100.00

80.00
Stress(ksi)

60.00
Specimen 1

40.00 Specimen 2

20.00

0.00
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03 6.00E-03
Strain (in/in)

Figure 3: Comparison of Elastic Moduli of Specimen 1 and Specimen 2

Figure 4 shows the 0.2% offset method to find yield strength due to a lack of distinct yield strength
plateau.

Comparison of Yield Strength for Two Metals

140.00

120.00 Fy = 107.25 ksi

100.00 0.2% Offset Method

80.00
Stress(ksi)

Specimen 1
60.00
Fy = 44.25 ksi Specimen 2

40.00
0.2% Offset Method

20.00

0.00
0.00E+00 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03 1.00E-02
Strain (in/in)

Figure 4: Comparison of Yield Strength with 0.2% Offset

3
In Figure 4, we use the 0.2% offset method to find the yield strength due to a lack of a well-defined yield
strength plateau. We see that the yield strengths after the 0.2% offset for Specimen 1 and Specimen 2
are 107.3 ksi and 44.3 ksi, respectively.

Table 1 has a summary of the strength properties found from Figure 2 and Figure 4.

Table 1: Property values of Steel and Aluminum Specimens

Strength Properties
S1 S2
E (ksi) 31800 11000
Fy (ksi) 107.25 44.25
Fu (ksi) 123.05 49.44
Fr (ksi) 103.32 38.21

Table 2 compares the least square fit values obtained from the Excel command to the calculated least
squared fit values using Equation (5) and Equation (6).

Table 2: Compared Least Square Fit Regression Values

Compare Least Square Fit Values

S1 S2
Excel Formula Excel Formula
E (ksi) 31747.00 31747.18 11064.00 11064.36
Intercept (ksi) 7.38 7.38 2.90 2.90

We see that the Excel equation given on Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 in Appendix C as well as in Table 2
(Excel) matches the manually computed values (Formula).

5.0 DISCUSSION

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

4
Appendix A Sample Calculations
1/3

A-1
 2/3

A-2
 Solid Mechanics Lab Axial Prelab CH 01/29/2018 3/3

Excel Data Sheet for computations of #3

A-3
Appendix B Raw Data

Table B-1 provides the raw data for test specimens S1 and S2. Representative data is provided for t = 83
s to t = 112 s for Specimen 1 and t = 80 s to t = 109 s for Specimen 2. The load is the value recorded from
the load cell and the extension is the value from the extensometer. The full data set is available on
request.

B-1
Table B-1: Representative Raw Data for S1 and S2

B-2
Appendix C Calculated Data

Table C-1 provides the calculated data for test specimens S1 and S2. Representative data is provided for
t = 83 s to t = 112 s for specimen 1 and t = 80 s to t = 109 s for Specimen 2. The full data set is available
on request.

Table C-1: Representative Calculated Data for S1 and S2

C-1
Figure C-1: Elastic Modulus of Specimen 1 from t = 83 s to t = 112 s

Elastic Modulus - Specimen 1

40.00
35.00 y = 31747x + 7.3783
R² = 0.9993
30.00
25.00
Stress (ksi)

20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
4.00E-04 5.00E-04 6.00E-04 7.00E-04 8.00E-04 9.00E-04 1.00E-03

Specimen 1 Strain (in/in)

Figure C-2: Elastic Modulus of Specimen 1 from t = 80 s to t = 109 s

25.00 Elastic Modulus - Specimen 2

y = 11064x + 2.9009
20.00 R² = 0.9998

15.00
Stress (ksi)

10.00

5.00

0.00
8.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.20E-03 1.40E-03 1.60E-03 1.80E-03 2.00E-03
Strain (in/in)
Specimen 2
Linear (Specimen 2)

C-2
Table C-2: Property values of Steel and Aluminum Specimens

Strength Properties
S1 S2
E (ksi) 31800 11000
Fy (ksi) 107.25 44.25
Fu (ksi) 123.05 49.44
Fr (ksi) 103.32 38.21

C-3