I.

Objective
The primary objective of this lab was to analyze how several different specimens reacted under
increasing uniaxial load. Samples of Aluminum 606!T6" Steel ##0" $S!# %ubber and $olycarbonate were
subjected to increasing axial loads using a mechanical testing machine. &n performing these experiments" we as
engineers were able to experience first!hand the derivations of materials formulas that are largely empirical. 'y
reviewing the respective stress vs. strain graphs" we can easily calculate the (oung)s modulus" 0.*+ offset yield"
and ultimate tensile strength of the material.
II. Experimental Methods:
2.1 Aluminum 6061-T6
,e performed our first test on a cylindrical rod of Aluminum 606!T6. The tensile testing machine that
we used was called A-.AT /Advanced .aterials Tester0" which has a maximum tensile load of about 0"000
1ewtons. The aluminum specimen was a cylindrical rod" characterized by its larger diameter for the top and
bottom portions /2*.3 mm0 and a thinner centralized diameter /26 mm0. &t was constructed in this way so that
deformation would ta4e place in the center and not the outsides" where the instrument clamps would ma4e it
difficult to measure. After we secured the specimen in the machine" we calibrated the extensometer" which
ultimately measures local deformation in the central region of the specimen. ,e initialized the test" and A-.AT
began applying a steadily!increasing uniaxial load. 1umerical data was uploaded to a computer in the form of a
5orce /10 vs. -eformation /mm0 plot" and also in raw data file that can be exported into .icrosoft 6xcel for
further review. The machine continued to apply uniaxial load until the specimen experienced failure. This failure
occurred in the narrow central section" as expected" within the region of the extensometer)s 4nives.
2.2 4140 Steel
,e tested two different specimens of steel using the mechanical testing apparatus. The first specimen
was a cylindrical rod of steel that had been annealed by the lab technician prior to the test. This process of
annealing consisted of heating the specimen in an oven to alter its mechanical properties. The annealed
specimen had an initial central diameter of 6.7 mm. The second specimen was a cylindrical rod of as!received
steel that had not been altered prior to testing. The as!received specimen had an initial diameter of 6 mm. ,e
tested the annealed specimen first. ,e clamped the specimen into the machine" calibrated the extensometer" and
initialized. ,e followed a similar procedure afterwards for the piece of as!received steel. 'oth specimens were
subjected to increasing uniaxial loads until failure. %esults of both tests were uploaded numerically and in the
form of a 5orce vs. 6longation graph on the computer.
*.8 PS-4 Rubber
The specimen of rubber was cut from a thin" flat polymer sheet" so instead of a circular cross!section"
it had a rectangular cross!section /8.# mm x mm0. The width of the specimen was greater on the top and the
bottom with a narrower central!region" so that deformation would be localized to the center. This particular test
was performed by a smaller" more accurate electronic tensile!tester /9wic4: %oell 9 *.70 with a maximum
tensile load of about *"700 1ewtons. ,e measured deformation in this specimen by using a camera that was
calibrated to measure the differences in positions of mar4ings drawn on the specimen itself. ;nce the test was
initialized" the machine underwent a cyclic pattern of loading:unloading" and data was uploaded to the computer
in a 5orce /10 vs. 6longation /mm0 graph. The specimen was not tested until failure.
2.4 Polycarbonate
&n order to analyze the mechanical properties of $olycarbonate" we used a cylindrical specimen with a
similar shape to that of the aluminum and steel specimens. The cross!sectional area at both ends was greater
than the area of the center so that deformation would be constrained to the narrower central region. The initial
diameter of this central region was approximately 2<mm. ,e clamped the specimen into place on the tensile
testing apparatus and calibrated the extensometer. ,e placed the extensometer towards the very center where the

specimen was li4ely to deform" and the test was initialized. The machine applied a steadily increasing uniaxial
load" but the rate at which load increased was much slower so that the specimen would experience maximum
deformation. 1umerical data of the test was uploaded to a computer" as well as a graph of 5orce vs. 6longation
of the specimen. =niaxial load continued to increase steadily until the specimen experienced failure.
III. Results
Lab Data Conversions
As stated earlier" >ab data from each test was uploaded in the form of a 5orce /10 vs. 6longation /mm0
graph. &n order to obtain 6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain relations" the following e?uations were used@

enineerin
=
Loa!
A
fffffffffffffffff
AB

enineerin
=
L @L
0
L
0
ffffffffffffffffffff
A*B
&n addition" True Stress vs. True Strain relations can be derived from 4nown properties /as well as
6ngineering Stress and 6ngineering Strain0 using the following relationships@

true
=
P
A
fffff
=
P
A
0
ffffffff
A
l
l
0
fffff
=
en
+
en
b c
A8B

true
= R! =
Z
L
0
L
!L
L
ffffffff
= ln
L
L
0
fffffff
f g
= ln +
en
b c
A#B
True Stress and True Strain differ from their 6ngineering counterparts in that True Stress and Strain ta4e into
account the instantaneous cross!section and length" as opposed to the undeformed cross!section and length.
5ormulas [3] and [4] assume that volume stays constant. Craphs of 6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain" as
well as True Stress and True Strain" for each material are attached to the end of this lab report and will be
referenced throughout.
".1 Aluminum 6160 T-6
As is evident in i!ure "#$" the aluminum specimen initially deformed linearly with respect to the
applied force. This occurred because the material itself was in the elastic regime" and molecular bonds remained
intact but continued to flex under increasing uniaxial tension. &f the load was suddenly removed while the
material was still in this regime" the specimen would have returned bac4 to its original length. Dowever" around
<000 1" i!ure "#$ shows that the trend is no longer linear" and bonds are beginning to separate at the
molecular level. The specimen begins to visibly deform /as made evident by the formation of a localized nec40
and wea4ens under increasing load. The near vertical drop that i!ure "#$ shows around 0"000 1 is the
machine unloading and allowing the specimen to e?uilibrate. A similar trend can be noted in i!ure "#%" which
displays the 6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain of the material. As the machine unloads" the specimen
returns along the same linear slope under which it deformed initially. This is because the #oun$s %o!ulus
/measure of the stiffness of a material0 is a property of the material itself and does not change when the
specimen deforms. (oung)s .odulus" represented by the gradient of the linear portion of i!ure "#%" can be
calculated using the following formula@
& =

enineerin

enineerin
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
=
' A
0
*
L L
0
*
fffffffffffffffffff
=
'L
0
A
0
L
0
fffffffffffffffffffff
A7B
*
;nce load is re!applied to the specimen" i!ure "#% shows that a maximum occurs. This maximum" which will
be discussed further in the Discussion subsection" is the (ltimate Tensile Strent)" or

(TS " of the material@

(TS
=
'
max
A
0
fffffffffffff
A6B
This is the maximum stress that the material can sustain. After this is reached" the material begins to elongate
more at decreasing load until" ultimately" it fails. This failure occurs at a deformation of about 2*.<7 mm in
i!ure "#$" and at an engineering strain of about 2.6 in i!ure "#%.
8.* As-Receive! 4140 Steel
%esults of the 5orce vs. 6longation relation for the As!%eceived Steel test can be seen in i!ure &#$.
The specimen elongates linearly until about *3 41 of 5orce" when it enters the plastic regime. After this point"
the specimen will no longer return to its original length if the load is ta4en away. &t is also after this point that
the specimen experiences elongation under /relatively0 constant loading conditions. 1otice that around .7 mm
of elongation /around 0.* on the extensometer data set on i!ure &#%0" the graph follows a downward line with
the same slope as the initial linear slope experienced by the specimen in its elastic regime. This is a result of the
machine unloading. The specimen unloads and e?uilibrates with respect to its (oung)s .odulus [']. &f the
specimen had been unloaded completely" the line would have intersected the abscissa at around .# mm"
signifying that the specimen had been permanently elongated by .# mm. &nstead" load was reapplied until it
reached the constant load that it had been applying before" and the specimen undergoes continual tensile stress
until it ultimately fails.
8.8 Anneale! 4140 Steel
Elose investigation of i!ure (#$" which represents the relationship between 5orce and 6longation for
the annealed steel specimen" reveals surprising results. 6ven though it is made from the same material as as!
received steel" it behaves differently once it begins to plastically deform. At around 7 41" the specimen exits
the plastic regime" and we see that it goes through a period of parabolic deformation until it begins to deform
under constant load /slope F 00. This is largely due to the annealing process" which will be discussed more in!
depth in the Discussion subsection. i!ure (#$ and i!ure (#% both document an unloading:reloading cycle
shortly after the specimen begins to plastically deform" and as expected" it traces bac4 a line with the same slope
as its (oung)s .odulus ['] in i!ure (#%. As stated earlier" the specimen eventually begins to deform with near
constant loading conditions" reaches

(TS [)]" deforms under decreasing uniaxial load" and finally fails.
".4 PS-4 Rubber
%ubber is a polymer" so it reacted very differently to increasing uniaxial load than the metals that were
tested. This is because polymers do not exhibit crystallization or structure at the molecular level. &nstead" most
polymers are composed of Earbon bac4bones that are very flexible and" due to this flexibility" are able to fold in
on each!other and exhibit greater bond forces. This flexibility becomes evident in i!ure *#$" which is a graph
of the 5orce /10 vs. 6longation /mm0 of the $S!# rubber specimen. The trend is linear for the most part. ,hat is
particularly uni?ue about this specimen is that it never exits the elastic regime" despite the fact that it
experiments a large deformation. &nstead" it exhibits linear behavior in both 5orce vs. -eformation and
6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain /i!ure *#%0 as the mechanical device cycles through loading and
unloading. This linear behavior is a result of the structural properties of polymers. &n this particular test" the
material was not allowed to fail" and accordingly" no

(TS [)] was recorded.

".* Polycarbonate
$olycarbonate is also an example of a polymer" so its results to uniaxial tension testing are uni?ue as
well. According to i!ure E#$" we see that the specimen begins in the elastic regime" represented by the
linearity of the 5orce:6longation graph. &t obeys Doo4e)s law in this regime" as the gradient of the slope remains
constant in i!ure E#%. The specimen began to yield as the graph in i!ure E#% reaches non!linearity. The
specimen began to form a localized nec4 during the time period represented by the initial downward slope after
8
yield. As the slope begins to increase" the localized nec4 propagates outward from the center and the material
itself begins to strain harden" represented by the gradually increasing slop in i!ure E#%. This property sets
polycarbonate apart from the metal specimens" as aluminum and steel both failed shortly after the appearance of
a localized nec4 and do not experience strain hardening after

(TS [)] was reached. This phenomenon occurs

because the flexible carbon chains that ma4e up polycarbonate re!orient themselves as strain increases and are
able to establish stable bonds as a result of this orientation. 6ventually" the strain becomes to great and carbon
chains can no longer re!orient themselves" resulting in fracture at the molecular level and overall failure of the
material.
I+. *iscussion
4.1 6061-T6 Aluminum
According to i!ure "#%" which represents the 6ngineering Stress [$] vs. Strain [%] curve for the
aluminum specimen" (oung)s .odulus ['] comes in at around 6G C$a. This is relatively similar to recorded
values" which are usually between 6G and 3 C$a. The (oung)s .odulus for this specimen was deduced by
fitting a line to the linear portion of i!ure "#% and recording the slope
HH
. At around 800 .$a on i!ure "#%"
the specimen enters the plastic regime. Shortly thereafter" the line representing 0.2+ ,--set #iel! intersects with
the plot. This intersection is the 0.2+ ,--set #iel! Strent) /

# 0 which is where a tensile plastic strain /

en
.
0 of
0.*+ is achieved. 5or the aluminum specimen" the value for

y is around 800 .$a. The maximum depicted in

i!ure "#% /where the slope of the data set is zero0 is representative of the

(TS [)] of the specimen" which in

this case" is around 8#< .$a. i!ure "#3 depicts the True Stress vs. True Strain of the aluminum specimen test"
and allows us to visualize the instantaneous stress:strain relationship of the specimen.
The reduction in area of a material often provides information on how ductile that material is. %eduction
of area can be found using the following relationship@
/ .ercent
` a
=
A
0
@A
-
A
-
fffffffffffffffffffffffff
h
j
i
k
C00 A3B
&n the case of aluminum" the percent area reduction is 27*+ /
A
0
F *<.306 mm
*
and
A
-
F 8.< mm
*
0. 'ecause
this percent area reduction is pretty high" we can classify the material as a relatively ductile material.
#.* As-Receive! Steel
i!ure &#% depicts the 6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain curve for two data sets@ extensometer
data and crosshead data. The (oung)s .odulus ['] for this annealed steel specimen was roughly *08 C$a" which
is relatively similar to recorded values of ##0 steel /*00!**0 C$a0. The (oung)s .odulus was deduced in a
similar manner to that of aluminum" by fitting a line to the linear portion of the i!ure &#% and recording the
slope. 5or both data sets" we can see the specimen leaving the elastic regime at around <70 .$a of stress.
Shortly thereafter" in relation to the extensometer data set" the line representing 0.2+ ,--set #iel! intersects with
the plot" giving a

y of around <3 .$a. 'oth data sets reach a maximum value /zero slope0 at around <G3 .$a"
and this is the value for

(TS . ,e deduce that the percent area reduction [,] is about 7G+ /
A
0
F *G.*3 mm
*
and
A
- F .G mm
*
0. 'ecause the percent reduction is greater than 70+" the material is more ductile than it is
brittle. i!ure &#3 depicts the True Stress [3] vs. True Strain [)] of the as!received steel specimen test.
#.8 Anneale! Steel
6xtensometer and Erosshead data sets for 6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain for Annealed Steel
are depicted in i!ure (#%. The slope of the linearity for i!ure (#% is roughly **7 C$a" which coincides with
literature values for the (oung)s .odulus of steel. The material begins to plastically deform at around 77 .$a
of uniaxial stress" which is about 7#+ of the as!received specimen. &n this case" the 0.*+ ;ffset (ield was

# F
#30 .$a" which is about #G+ of the value for

# for as!received steel. %eferring to i!ure (#%" the ultimate

HH
5itted lines for the (oung)s .odulus of each material can be found in the appendices /5igure (!I0.
#
tensile strength is

(TS F 366 .$a. Although this number is still less than

(TS for as!received steel" it is much

greater than 70+. &n fact"

(TS for annealed steel is about 3G+ of

(TS for as!received steel. This goes to show

that" although annealed steel was wea4er over all" it was much more flexible than as!received steel. ;nce
annealed steel left the elastic regime" it had a greater coefficient of ductility than its as!received counterpart. The
percent area reduction of annealed steal is 260+ /
A
0
F *G.*3 mm
*
and
A
-
F .G mm
*
0. ,ith this in mind" we
can conclude that the ductility of annealed steel is slightly higher than as!received steel. i!ure (#3 represents
the True Stress:True Strain relationship of annealed steel.
4.4 PS-4 Rubber
A graph representing the 6ngineering Stress vs. 6ngineering Strain of the $S!# %ubber specimen can be
found on i!ure *#%. The (oung)s .odulus of this material is about #.G .$a" which coincides with recorded
values of rubber /usually around # .$a0. The specimen never left the elastic regime" and did not fail" so values
for

# "

(TS " and percent area reduction cannot be deduced from this test. 'ecause rubber is a polymer and
undergoes gratuitous strain before failure" we can calculate the stress at 00+ engineering strain of the material"
simply by fitting a line on i!ure *#% and recording the value for

en at 00+ strain. &n this case" that value is

about 8.8* .$a. A graph for True Stress vs. True Strain for rubber can be found on i!ure *#3.
4.* Polycarbonate
i!ure E#% depicts the

en vs.

en for polycarbonate. &nspection of the gradient of the first linear

slope on the graph returns a (oung)s .odulus of *.*7 C$a /recorded values@ between *!*.# C$a0. The 0.*+
;ffset (ield for this specimen is *G .$a" and the maximum

(TS of the material is 7< .$a /represented by the

hump in the graph created by the transition from a positive to a negative slope0. The percent area reduction for
the polycarbonate specimen is 6#+" where
A
0
F 68.6 mm
*
and
A
-
F *8.8 mm
*
. As expected" polycarbonate is
very ductile because it is a polymer. 'ecause the specimen was strained beyond 00+" we can conclude that

en at 00+ strain is #6.# .$a. A graph of True Stress vs. True Strain for polycarbonate is available on i!ure
E#3.
4.6 Table o- Pro.erties
Material -oun!.s
Modulus /M0a1
2.%3 O44set -ield
5tren!th /M0a1
6ltimate 7ensile
5tren!th /M0a1
0ercent "rea
Reduction at racture
660!T6 Aluminum 6G"0< 800 8#< 7*+
As!%eceived ##0 Steel *08"#7* <3 <G3 7G+
Annealed ##0 Steel **#"866 #30 366 60+
$S# %ubber #.<G 1:A 1:A 1:A
$olycarbonate *"*78 *G 7< 6#+
+. (onclusion
The primary objective to this lab was to explore the derivations of empirical formulas that are
widely used in materials engineering. 'y studying the reactions of various material specimens under
uniaxial tension" we can derive valuable information on their structural and mechanical ma4eup.
There)s little use in plugging and chugging certain variables in mechanical engineering problems
without 4nowing how they were derived. This lab helped us as engineers discover how certain
mechanical properties came to be.
7
6