Young’s that while graph was calculated by

Young’s Modulus
of Elasticity

4BUIL006W.Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Laboratory Report

Name:
Cosmin
Ichim

Student
Number: 16008870/1

 

 

 

 

 

Contents
Section 1
1)    Objective. 3
2)    Procedure. 3
3)    Observations 4
 Young’s Modulus in Tension – Metal 4
 Young’s Modulus in Bending – Timber 5
4)    Results 6
Raw Data. 6
Derived Data. 7
5)    Discussion. 10
-Comments on E.. 11
– Component
stiffness and material stiffness 11
-Metal use for
structural applications 11
6)    Conclusion. 11
7)    References 12
8)    Bibliography. 12
 
Section 2
4)    Results 13
Raw Data. 13
Derived Data. 13
 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Section 1

Objectives

The aims and objectives of the
investigation are the following:

·       To determine the values of   by using Young`s Modulus of Elasticity after
calculations of 0.3% Carbon Steel ( Mild Steel) and 60/40 Brass

 

·       To determine the values of   by using Young`s Modulus of Elasticity after
calculations of Parana Pine and Mahogany timbers.

 

·       Determine the stiffness by calculating using
the data from the graphs and comparing all information gathered with the
published values provided from previous investigations.

 

 

Procedure

The
procedure for this investigation was followed without modification “As per Lab
Sheet”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observations

During
the investigation an amount of observations have been collected.

The
observations are gathered into two main sections which represents the nature of
the test (type) and the actual materials which were supplied.

Strength extensometer tensile testing machine

(Young`s
Modulus in tension)

 

·      
Mild Steel –
0.3% Carbon Steel

 

                                                                                                                     
Figure
1

Testing Carbon Steel 0.3% gave out not too many
observational aspects to be recorded.

The results support that while graph was calculated by
the software the naked eye couldn`t see the elastic extension as it was almost 0.05mm.

Taking that in consider the fact that the sample didn’t
move at all can be explained.

Nothing could be smelt or heard during the experiment,
and it lasted up to 54 seconds.

 

Suggestions

The
material used is stiff as all the aspects such as duration, being motionless,
and force needed to get the limits of elasticity prove this.

 

·      
60/40 Brass

                                                                           Figure
2- Brass Sample

When tested Brass 60/40, again the
observational aspects are not a strong point as the elastic extension was microscopic(0.02mm).
Without the performance of the extensometer this variation in terms of length
could be missed. The sample didn`t move at all and nothing could be smelt or
heard during the experiment. It lasted up to 40 seconds

Suggestions

After this test ended, the data gathered
proved that 60/40 is not as stiff as Carbon Steel 0.3%.

Brass took quicker to reach its elastic limit
which indicates that is softer and the force applied its lower which proves
that Carbon Steel 0.3% is stiffer.

3-Point
bending machine

(Young`s Modulus in bending)

 

·       Parana Pine

                                                                                                                                
Figure 3 – 3-point
bending

After 25 seconds the sample of Parana Pine
started to bend in its centre where the force where applied. The bent could be
visible without any problems. Once it reached its elastic limit the timber
sample slightly got back to its original shape and no visible dents could be
seen.

Nothing could be smelt or heard during this
experiment and the test finished relatively quick, lasting up to 38 seconds.

 

Suggestions

The class which Parana pine occupies is
softwood. Using the data gathered during the test it could be observed that
stiffness isn`t a strong feature of this type of timber.

 

·       Mahogany

In this test there wasn’t the impressive type
of bend presented in the Parana Pine`s test.

Once it reached its elastic limit the sample
got back in the shape as it was at the beginning of the process.

Nothing could be smelt or heard during this
experiment and the duration of the test was 30 seconds.

 

Suggestions

The class which Mahogany timber occupies is
hardwood.  The sample rapidly got back to
its original shape when it reached its elastic limit. This might indicate that
based on the observations from the test the Mahogany timber it is stiffer compared
with the Parana pine timber.

The test finished within a couple of seconds
quicker and it needed more force than the sample tested before which again,
might suggest that there is this difference in terms of stiffness.

 

 

 

 

4. Results

Raw Data

Table 1: Measurement of Carbon Steel 0.3% and
Brass 60/40 tested for Young’s Modulus in Tension

 

Metal

Diameter (mm)

Gauge Length (mm)

1

Carbon Steel
0.3%

7.96

50

2

Brass60/40

7.96

50

.

Table 1: Measurement of Parana Pine and
Mahogany tested for Young’s Modulus in Bending

 

Timber

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Beam Span (mm)

1

Parana Pine

20.35

7.20

120

2

Mahogany

20.09

7.36

120

 

Derived
Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 –
0.3% Carbon Steel Graph

This
graph above presents the load-extension of 0.3% Carbon Steel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 – 60/40
Bra

This
graph above presents the load-extension of 60/40 Brass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 –
Parana Pine

This
graph above presents the load extension of Parana Pine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     Figure 7 – Mahogany

This
graph above presents the load extension of Mahogany

 

Young`s
Modulus in tension

0.3% Carbon
Steel:

Diameter
= 7.96mm

Gauge
length= 50mm

Extension(x)
= 0.04-0.01=0.03mm

Axe(y)=
125mm

1mm= 88N

Radius(r)=
3.98mm

Area(

Between
2 horizontal lines = 70mm

F=
88N x 70mm=6160N

E=

E=

 

60/40 Brass (example of
calculation demonstrated above)

x

y

1mm

r

A

F

E

0.01mm

125mm

17.6N

3.98mm

49.739

1284.8N

129154.1848

 

Young`s Modulus
in bending

Parana Pine

Y=
114.5 mm

1mm=5.240N

X
=1.5mm

Length(l)=120mm

Breadth(b)=20.35mm

Depth(d)=7.20mm

Between
2 horizontal lines= 61mm

F=
319.64N

E==1219.644

 

Mahogany (example of calculation
demonstrated above)

x

y

1mm

l

b

d

F

E

1mm

115mm

5.217N

120mm

20.09mm

7.36mm

365.19N

19696.522

Material

Experiment Values

Published Values

Difference

Test 1

 

 

 

0.3% Carbon Steel

206.41GPa

210.GPa(lab sheet)

3.59GPa

60/40 Brass

129.15GPa

100.GPa(lab sheet)

29.15GPa

Test 2

 

 

 

Parana Pine

12.19GPa

7.5GPa – 11GPa
(Building and Civil Engineering Sector
Policy and Strategy Committee, 2002, p.22)
 

4.69GPa
– 1.19GPa
 

Mahogany

19.69GPa

16.1GPa – 19.3GPa
(Building and Civil Engineering Sector
Policy and Strategy Committee, 2002, p.30)
 

(3.59GPa) – (+0.39GPa)

 

 

5)Discussion

– Comments on E

 

– Comment on E

 

As Gordon states that E “describes the elastic
flexibility of a material” (1991, page39), therefore it is a measure of
materials (also known as elastic modulus) and its property is to estimate the
change caused by applying force on a specific component.

After the investigation data was gathered from it
and if to compare the E values from the experiment values and the published
values can be observed that the ones from experiment are in general slightly
higher.

The explanation for this aspect would that there could be
human errors or the machines might not have been adjusted as well as they were
in the tests of the published values. Also the material sample might be defective.

 


Component stiffness and material stiffness

 

It is wanted to know the material stiffness as the
component stiffness may very all the time.

It is known from the experiment that the timbers
tested have a low value of E compared with the E from Carbon Steel therefore
the sized of the timber can be adjusted so the stiffness can be increased. A
good example used in construction is the timber beam`s different sizes. The
timber beam can be laid flat and it won`t be as stiff as if it would be turned
90 degrees and place it with the depth facing downwards. Hats how component
stiffness may be changed but the material stiffness stays the same.

 

 

-Metal use for structural applications

 

The investigation demonstrated that steel should be used for
structural applications as it has a greater resistance to elastic deformation
than the brass. The data gathered and the results from calculations from this experiment
proves that it is stiffer than brass and can endure higher stresses.

6) Conclusion

 

Following the investigation, The Young`s Modulus in Tension
tests showed that Carbon Steel 0.3% have a greater value    of E than 60/40 Brass. Also, it was able to
endure a force with higher value without having any permanent marks, dents. As
a result, it was clearly that the Carbon Steel is a stiffer material than Brass
based on the data gathered.

After the second experiment, The Young`s
Modulus in Bending, it indicated that the Parana Pine is not as stiff as the
Mahogany timber. The Mahogany demonstrated a higher resistance to elastic
deformation. However, in construction industry, the materials that are not as
stiff as others may be improved by reinforcement and this aspect shouldn’t be omitted.

 

7) References

 

Gordon, J.E. (1991). The New Science
of Strong Materials or Why You Don’t Fall Through the Floor. London: Penguin
Group

Building and Civil Engineering Sector
Policy and Strategy Committee. (2002) BS 5268-2:2002. 5th ed.
London: Standards Policy and Strategy Committee

 

8) Bibliography

 

Figure
1: https://www.shimadzu.com/an/sites/default/files/ckeditor/an/industry/petrochemicalchemical/qn5042000000k62u-img/qn5042000000nggy.jpg

Figure
2 : http://modulusandmatrix.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/metal-testing-sample.png

Figure
3:   http://www.impactsolutions.co.uk/impact/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/3pointbend.png

Figure
4: Printed Graph Given

Figure
5: Printed Graph Given

Figure
6: Printed Graph Given

Figure
7: Printed Graph Given

 

 

Section 1

·      The Tensile Test of Metals

 

Results

 Raw Data

 

Metal

Diameter (mm)

Maximum Load(N)

1

Steel 0.1%
Carbon

4.87

7900

2

Steel 0.4%
Carbon

4.99

13315

3

Steel 1.0%
Carbon

4.93

17930

4

Aluminium Alloy

5.06

6759

.

Derived Data

 

 

Figure 8 – Tensile Test 0.1 %, 0.4%,
&1.0% Carbon Steel Graph

 

 

Figure 9 – Tensile
test of Aluminium Alloy Graph

 

0.1%
Carbon Steel

a) Yield Stress==

Radius
(r)=4.87mm2.435mm=2.435

Original
cross-sectional area(A)=

A=x=3.14x 5.99225=18.6177665

Axes(y) = 106mm

1mm=30000N 106mm

1mm=283.018N

From 0 to intersection point = 19mm

Force at yield is = 19 mm x 283.018 N= 5377.342N

Yield stress = = =288.840

 

 

 

b) UTS=

For the purpose of this experiment the calculations
for the ultimate force have been made using the graph provided and the formula
as instructed.

From 0 to intersection
point = 28 mm

Ultimate force = 28 mm x 283.018 N= 7924.504N

 

Sample
Label

Diameter
(mm)

Maximum
Load(N)

Area(A)

Yield
stress

Ultimate
Tensile Strength(UTS)

Proof
Stress
at
0.2%

1

Steel 0.1% Carbon

4.87mm

7900N

18.617

288.840

425.659

 

2

Steel 0.4% Carbon

4.99mm

13315N

19.546

398.188

687.780.

 

3

Steel 1.0% Carbon

4.93mm

17930N

19.078

563.721

942.008

 

4

Aluminium Alloy

5.06mm

6759N

20.098

 

336.786

320.739

 UTS = == 425.659

 

Using the above
calculations all the results have been plotted in the following table:

 

 

 

Sample Label

Elongation %

Reduction in
 Area %

 

1

Steel 0.1% Carbon

36

62

 

2

Steel 0.4% Carbon

25

55

 

3

Steel 1.0% Carbon

19

30

 

4

Aluminium Alloy

15

72

 

 

 

 

Table showing the ductility parameters of percentage
Elongation and percentage Reduction in Area in the table.