Pontificia Universidad

Javeriana Cali

Solid mechanics

Axial load lab

Camilo Ríos
Juan Felipe Rojas
José Daniel Arango

INTRODUCTION

In the laboratory, each group was assigned a specimen of a different material. All the teams
had to take the measurements of the specimen following the methodology of the standard
(ASTM E8/E8M-09 for metals or ASTM D638-14 for polymers, as it shows in the figure 1
and 2 respectively) [1][2]. Once the initial measurements were taken, the specimen was
placed into the universal testing machine, where the tensile test was carried out. The test was
performed until the failure of the specimen, to carry out the last step of the laboratory, which
was to take again some measurements of the specimen (length and cross section).
Once the work is finished and the data collected (by the universal tensile machine and the
failure measurements), there is enough information to make the comparison of the materials
and reach some conclusions, as will be shown in this report.

Figure 1. Lengths in the strain and stress test. ASTM E8/E8M-09 Figure 2. Lengths in the strain and stress test. ASTM D638-14
 In Table I, it is shown the collected data from the strain and stress LAB. The data presented
exhibit the measurements of the specimen before and after the test. These measurements
were taken by the students with a caliper, so there may be a small margin of error.

Table I. Comparison between the initial and final lengths, and the Maximum apply force.
Material Pmax Time (s) V Li Lf ai ei af ef
[N*mm] [mm/ [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
min]

Copper 5899,57 93,39 3 162,3 166,1 6,02 3,18 4,82 3,22

Brass 8107,94 218,7 3 162,1 176,4 6,16 3,36 5,7 3,12

Aluminum 3412,81 146,8 3 162,1 169,5 6,02 3,07 5,93 2,95

Empack 1165,75 184,31 50 167,1 293,0 13,93 3,05 5,39 1,08

Teflón 802,71 275,1 50 166,8 300.4 13,02 3,31 7,92 2,41

STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAM
With the data collected by the universal testing machine, we made the stress vs strain diagram
as shown in graph 1, in this we can see the curve of the 5 materials (the analysis of the
mechanical properties will be done later), however, to see more clearly the curve of the
polymers we made a second diagram as represented in the graph 2, where the Empack and
Teflon are presented. The Empack graph is a little distorted by irregularities presented in
practice. To be more concise, once the material fails, the universal machine continues taking
data, so it is possible to see a constant with zero effort after the failure of the material.
the diagram shows a linear zone (elastic zone) and a curve or parabola (plastic zone) and a
point of rupture or ultimate tensile stress.

Graph 1. Stress vs strain of the five materials Graph 2. Stress vs strain of the polymers
With the use of Excel and the analysis of graphs 1 and 2, some key data were obtained for
the development of the analysis of each of the materials, these data are presented in Table ll
where, young modulus, yield stress, ultimate stress and maximum elongation are specified.
(the method of data collection can be found in the annexes).

Table II. Comparison between the initial and final lengths, and the Maximum apply force.
Material Young Modulus Yield stress [Mpa] Ultimate stress Maximum elongation
(N/mm2) [MPa] (mm)

Copper 10,255 Gpa 284,93 Mpa 308,15 Mpa 4,67 (9 %)

Brass 18,310 Gpa 218,35 Mpa 391,73 Mpa 14,32 (22%%)

Aluminum 10,260 Gpa 150,01 Mpa 184,67 Mpa 7,33 (14%)

Empack 0,55273 Gpa 25,59 Mpa 27,41 Mpa 353,40 (696%)

Teflon 0,3305 Gpa 11,14 Mpa 18,61 Mpa 232,74 (458%)

After obtaining the data in Table 2, we can see a difference between the results of the metallic
materials and the polymeric materials, however, we can also see that if we compare the
metallic materials with each other, we can identify certain differences in their mechanical
properties, as well with polymers.

● COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MATERIALS

Each material has different properties, making it able to distinguish them by its
characteristic, from table 2 we will analyze each of the mechanical properties and
compare the different materials between them.

The first data we will analyze will be the ductility or fragility of each of these materials, this
mechanical characteristic determines the ability of a material to deform plastically before
it reaches rupture, it is said that if the material achieves large deformations before failure,
it is ductile, On the other hand, if it fails at low deformations the material is known as fragile
[4]. By means of the previous analysis, and with the results of table ll we can conclude
that between the metals the most ductile material is brass with an elongation of 14.32 mm
, we can also make sure that the most fragile material is copper with a final elongation of
4.67 mm; on the contrary, it can be seen that the final deformations in polymers differ
greatly with metals due to their differences in the microstructure of each of the materials
and their atomic bonds, additionally if we compare the Empack with the Teflon, we can
determine that the Teflon with 232,74 mm of deformation is less ductil than the Empack
that had a final elongation of 353,40 mm. The above can be corroborated in the same
way by means of the area under the curve of the graph 1 (stress vs strain of the five
materials), where coherence is kept with the above [5].
 In contrast, metals have a greater yield stress than polymers, this property is determined
by the ability of a material to return to its original dimensions once the stress on the
material has been removed, knowing the above and taking into account the values in
Table ll we can conclude that the material with the greatest yield stress is copper with
284,93 MPa, and the material with the least yield stress within metals is aluminum with
150,01 Mpa, which means that copper withstands higher stress without causing plastic
deformation. Added to the above we see that polymers have an extremely low yield stress
which means that they are bad to recover their dimensions if they are subjected to stress
efforts.

The most resistant material can be determined by means of the ultimate stress, for this
reason the most tensile material is brass, which means that it is able to withstand the
greatest efforts before reaching failure, in contrast we are able to identify that metals are
more resistant than polymers. If we order hierarchically the 5 materials, we obtain:
1. Brass: 391,73 Mpa
2. Copper: 308,15 Mpa
3. Aluminum :184,67 Mpa
4. Empack: 27,41 Mpa
5. Teflon: 18,61 Mpa

With the yougn modulus we can determine which material is more rigid or less rigid, from
Table ll we can determine that brass (18,310 Gpa) is the material with the greatest
stiffness, this means that it has the greatest capacity to resist deformations when an
external force is applied to it, during the elastic phase. On the other hand, copper and
aluminum have a very similar stiffness, in contrast the polymers have a very low stiffness,
which means that when faced with high loads, they do not recover their original measures.
which means, the material is stiffer when it resists stresses at low deformations in the
elastic zone.

Some of its applications by its characteristics are:

The brass is most used in applications which are needed to support high pressure or hits,
like locks, plumbing, valves, and electrical plugs, all of those for being able to withstand
deformation.

The Empack and Teflon are easily malleable and not those hard materials, helping in the
industry for manufacturing prototypes or parts of machinery or even practice
manufacturing. The Empack thanks to its ductility are used as gears for small devices and
coating for protection.

Copper is most used in electrical wiring, plumbing and industrial machinery like distillation
plants. The Aluminum is used for many things, most likely to be found in frames, structural
devices like power towers, aircraft, and spacecraft components mostly for being
lightweight.

COMPARISONS WITH EXTERNAL MEASUREMENTS

ACP MATERIALS presents the properties of the Aluminum in different types. In comparison
to the LAB's measurements, in contrast to the external one, the Tensile strength helps us to
determine the most similar piece of Aluminum in the data sheet. The comparison between the
measurements taken, will go by the variables of Maximum Elongation and Young Modulus,
shown in Table V, contrasting to how well we do in the LAB, and how we obtained our
information.[4]

E-Z LOK presents the properties of the Brass. In comparison to the LAB's measurements, in
contrast to the external one, we use the Maximum Elongation and the Young Modulus shown
in Table V, to determine the info taken during and after the LAB. [7]

MatWeb presents the properties of the Copper. In comparison to the LAB's measurements, in
contrast to the external one, we use the Maximum Elongation and the Young Modulus shown
in Table V, to determine the info taken during and after the LAB. [8]

Comparing the data shown in Table V in terms of the Aluminum. The numbers to the
Maximum elongation, represents a high accuracy between both, exposing the idea of a similar
area of analysis, defining the concept of Maximum Elongation (% of elongation vs. initial size
when break occurs). In terms of the Young Modulus, it is remarkable the difference between
both, it’ll represent an enormous elongation in comparison to ours, by Hooke's Law.

Comparing the data shown in Table V in terms of the Brass. The data obtained from E-Z LOK,
presents an enormous difference in comparison to the Maximum Elongation and Young
Modulus of our specimen. This difference may take place in terms of the area of analysis, the
“norma” and the exact type of composition of Brass taking into examination.

Comparing the data shown in Table V in terms of the Copper. In the same way as we interpret
the data shown in the paragraph before, in this case by WebMath, the measurements of an
external analysis take place into an enormous difference of examination, so it might be by the
terms of the area of analysis, the “norma” and the type of composition of copper.

Table V. Comparison of measurements from an external test.

Measurements Unit Specimen - LAB External Specimen

Aluminum Copper Brass Aluminum Copper Brass

Maximum % 7,33 (14%) 4,67 (9%) 14,32 (22%) 6 60% 53%

elongation (5,65%)

Young MPA 10260 10255 18310 69000 110000 97000

Modulus

Metalia presents the properties of Teflon and Empack (High Density polyethylene), to
compare to the LAB's measurements from a specimen, we use the Young Modulus and
Maximum Elongation. From the data shown in Table VI, it's clearly the difference between
both, comparing the low measurements obtained in front of the high data search, in terms of
the Maximum Elongation. This big difference in the Elongation may be looked up by the terms
of the area of analysis, the “norma” and the type of composition of Teflon and Empack. [9]
 Table VI. Comparison of measurements from an external test.
Measurements Unit Specimen - LAB External Specimen

Teflon Empack Teflon Empack

Maximum % 133,65 (80,1%) 125,91 (75,34%) > 250 % > 50 %

elongation

Young MPA 330.5 527.3 750 750

Modulus

TEST PARAMETERS

The process carried out during the laboratory corresponds to the “norma” ASTM E8/E8M or
ASTM D638-14, as the case may be, the measurements were taken accordingly and the
machine was tensioned according to the standard (holding the specimen on both sides at
approximately 50 mm, one of the two sides remains static while the second side moves away
generating the force and deformation), Furthermore, the test was carried out until the material
ruptured.

However, some inconsistencies can be found in the dimensions of the specimens. for metals
there are two types of standard specimens, the one that is closest to the one referenced in
table 1 is the “Sheet type” as shown in table VII; this table shows the standard dimensions of
the specimens for tension tests, and we can see noticeable differences in the length, where
the standard length is 200 mm (38 mm difference with respect to the 162 mm of the specimens
used), nevertheless, the deformation distance corresponds to the measurements established
by the standard (50.8 mm), Additionally, the width also differs by 6.5 mm, since the standard
width is 12.5 mm and that of the specimen studied was 6 mm.

On the other hand, in the polymers we can find a different situation, for this there are 5 types
of specimens, as can be seen in table number VII, the specimen used in the study was type
1, where we can find quite similar dimensions between the standard and the laboratory ones,
with a standard width of 13 mm (that of the specimen used was 13.48 ± 0.45), a standard
length of 165 mm (with respect to the 167 mm of the specimen used) and a thickness that
should be less than 7 mm (where the thickness used was 3.18 ± 0.13 mm).

Table VIl. ASTM E8/E8M standard specimen dimensions.

 Table VIll. ASTM D638-14 standard specimen dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

• After the development of the laboratory, the analysis of the mechanical properties, the
comparison with the standard values and the determination of the correctness or not
of the methodology used, it can be evidenced that the final data show an approach to
those already established, this in the metals where the data do not coincide in their
totality with those referenced in some technical data sheets, and this can be caused in
great part by the dimensional differences previously mentioned, with respect to the
standard ones. In addition, the initial state of the specimens could cause a variation in
the results, nonetheless, in the polymers, the data are a little closer to the standard
ones, and this can be caused by the dimensional differences previously mentioned,
concerning the standard ones, in addition to the initial state of the specimens, which
could cause a variation in the results.
• through the laboratory we were able to identify how metals are more resistant to tensile
forces than polymers.
• It was also possible to identify how polymers have a longer plastic zone than metals,
which in industry could lead to a controlled and less catastrophic failure.
• With the young's modulus we analyze that it is inversely proportional to the deformation
(meaning that ductile materials have lower young's module) and directly proportional
to the stress resistance (meaning that fragile materials have higher young's module).
• Polymers do not withstand great stresses in the elastic zone, but when they are
deformed plastically, they achieve large deformations and withstand longer times and
lengths than metals.
REFERENCES

[1] Norma ASTM E8/E8M-09. Standard test methods for tension tests of metallic materials.

[2] Norma ASTM D638-14. Standard test methods for tensile properties of plastics.

[3] Groover, M.P. (2007) Fundamentos de Manufactura Moderna: Materiales, procesos y sistemas. México, D.F.
Mc. Graw Hill. 3a Edición. p. 51.
(https://books.google.com.co/books?id=tcV0l37tUr0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false )

[4]https://www.seepsa.com.mx/blog/ingenieria/ductilidad-y-
fragilidad/#:~:text=La%20ductilidad%20de%20un%20material,a%205%25%20se%20consideran%20d%C3%BAc
tiles.
[5] https://www.prontubeam.com/articulos/12_2015_PROP_MAT/12_2015_PROP_MAT.php

[6]http://acpmaterials.es/images/valenciana/fichas_tecnicas/aluminios/Ficha%20Tecnica%20Aluminio%20AW105
0_ACP.pdf

[7] Brass Material Properties | Discover Brass Mechanical Properties & Physical Properties Online - E-Z LOK
(ezlok.com)

[8] https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?matguid=9aebe83845c04c1db5126fada6f76f7e

[9](https://www.metalia.es/data/empresas/ValencianaACP/pdf/Valenciana_%20de_ACP_Informacion_Tecnica_d
e_Plasticos_Tecnicos.pdf )
(https://www.dmh.at/materiales/product/44_uhmw-pe420/ )
ANNEXES

After reading the LAB report analysis, it's important to watch out for the different calculations
the group had during the procedure of getting some sort of variables that occur from the strain
test. As the Young Modulus, Strain Resistance, Maximum elongation, and the Tensile strength

Strain Resistance and length difference

Ductile materials

Formulas
How did we make the stress-strain graph?
How do we find the Young Modulus?
How do we find the yield limit?

solid .xlsx

Images