The Tension Test of Steel (LAB 1)

Tomasz Sudol

ASE 324L University of Texas at Austin 6/15/2006

1.0 ABSTRACT Tensile tests were done at the University of Texas at Austin on both cold rolled steel (CRS) and hot rolled steel (HRS) specimens. A constant ramp load was applied to the specimens by an alectromechanical loading device until fracture occurred. Two extensometers measured the radial and axial strains on the test specimens. After fracture had occurred, the stress-strain curves were analyzed to obtain a basic understanding of how CRS and HRS differ in behavior. The Youngs Modulus for CRS and HRS was found to be 26773 ksi and 30108 ksi, respectively. Furthermore, CRS was found to have a lower Poissons Ratio than HRS. Upper and lower yielding stress was determined for HRS and compared to the yielding stress obtained from the 0.2% proof stress of the CRS. The CRS proved to have a higher yielding stress. Also, the CRS had a higher ultimate tensile strength than HRS. However, the HRS was found to be much more malleable than CRS. The hardening exponent and ductility were used to compare malleability. It was shown that CRS is stronger while HRS is generally more malleable.

2.0 INTRODUCTION A base knowledge of material properties is essential to todays practicing engineers. This knowledge of how materials respond to loads is essential and the concepts of mechanics of solids span most of the engineering fields in some way or another. The elasticity of material used in the frame of an aircraft, for example, has to be strong enough so that the it can withstand the forces it is subjected to in flight and yet flexible enough to be able to damp the effects of turbulence for the sake of the passengers comfort. Aerospace engineers refer to this subject as the study of aeroelasticity. Civil and architectural engineers, on the other hand, use properties of materials to determine which materials to use in the construction of buildings, bridges, and countless other structures whose reliability depends on how the material deforms when subjected to a load. The purpose of this lab is to investigate the behavior of hot and cold rolled 1020 steel when subjected to a uniform ramp loading. Familiarization with methods of tension testing is also part of this experiment. A solid base of discerning material characteristics from stress-strain curves is another objective of the lab.

3.0 EXPERIMENTAL AND DATA REDUCTION PROCEDURES 3.1 Experimental Procedure A specimen of hot rolled steel (HRS) was loaded onto a screw-driven loading device to provide the displacement control. Then some preliminary measurements were made. These included the specimen diameter and gage length. The gage length was marked on the specimen for later measuring purposes. A transducer with a linear response was used to acquire data. The calibration constant for the transducer was taken to be 2 kips/V. An extensometer with a calibration of 5%/V was used to measure the specimen axial strain. The calibration output of the diametrical extensometer used to measure radial strain was 0.0427 in/V. The tensile test of the HRS consisted of applying a ramp displacement by the loading device until the specimen broke. The data gathered was in terms of load and deformation which were converted to stress and strain and graphed on a stress-strain curve. The same was then repeated for cold rolled steel (CRS). 3.2 Data Reduction Procedures The linear response of the transducers used in the measurements can be described by the relation Q = V (1)

where Q is the quantity being measured, is a constant of proportionality specific to the machine, and V is the output voltage. In this case, the constant of proportionality is equal to 5%/V for the axial extensometer and 2 kips/V for the load cell. Stress and strain are related through Hookes Law, a linear relationship between stress and strain as a multiple of Youngs Modulus. Hookes Law states

= E

(2)

where is stress, E is Youngs Modulus (the stiffness of the material), and is the strain. Eq. (2) only applies to the elastic region, where strain and stress are linearly proportional to each other. Deformation in the elastic region is reversible, whereas deformation in the plastic region of the strain-stress curve permanently deforms the material. A good

measure of the effect of stiffness is Poissons Ratio, which is the ratio of radial strain to axial strain

t . a

(3)

where t is the radial strain and a is the axial strain. The Poissons Ratio depends on where on a stress-strain curve a material lies. Ductility is a measure of how malleable a material is by describing its deformation as it is axially loaded. Ductility can be discussed in terms of elongation and area reduction. When describing elongation, ductility is a measure of how the length of a specimen changes, and is given by Dl = L f Lo Lo 100 (4)

where L f is the final length after deformation has stopped, and Lo is the initial length of the specimen before it is subjected to a load. Area reduction ductility pertains to how the cross-sectional area of the specimen deforms when subjected to a load, and is given by Da = Ao A f Ao 100 . (5)

In this expression, Ao is the original cross-sectional area before deformation occurs due to a load. A f is the final cross-sectional area after the material stops deforming. A number of ductility data are presented later in the lab, but for example purposes. The following is an elongation ductility calculation for HRS: Dl = 2.63 2 100 = 0.315 100 = 31.5% 2
1 = H n E

The hardening exponent is described by

p =

(6)

and stems from the sum of the elastic and plastic strains and reduces to Eq. (6) with the use of Eq. (2). In Eq. (6), n is the hardening exponent, which in this lab was found by plotting the log functions of axial and radial strains.

The toughness was calculated by obtaining the area under the stress-strain graphs which is mathematically described by the integral T = d
0

(7)

Where material stress is integrated with respect to axial strain f . Due to the fact that the integral in Eq. (7) cannot be easily performed, an approximation using the trapezoidal rule was obtained.

3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Experimental Parameters A number of initial measurements were first taken before performing the tests on the tensile specimens. After the tensile tests were done, the specimens were again measured for comparison. Observations about the nature of the fracture were also made. All of these data are listed in Table 1. CRS 05 in 2 in 0.1964 in 0.306 in 2.377 in 0.0735 in Out cup/cone HRS 0.495 in 2 in 0.1901 in 0.389 in 2.63 in 0.1188 in Out cup/cone

Initial Diameter Initial Length Initial Area (crosssectional) Final Diameter Final Length Final Area Neck Fracture

TABLE 1 Measured and Observed Data Before and After Tensile Tests on CRS and HRS 3.2 Extensometer and Crosshead for CRS

When comparing the extensometer stress-strain data to that obtained with the crosshead in Fig. 1, it is clear that the crosshead data is shifted significantly to the right. This is due to the fact that while the load was applied to the tensile specimen, the crosshead itself was deforming. This deformation is the cause of the shift of the crosshead data in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 - Stress vs. Strain for Extensometer and Crosshead (CRS)

90 80 70 60 stress (ksi) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.05 -10 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 axial strain 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 extensometer crosshead

When examining Fig. 2, the same shift can be noticed despite the fact that HRS is being analyzed. Once again, deformation of the crosshead is to blame for this.

Fig. 2 - Stress vs. Strain for Extensometer and Crosshead (HRS)

90

80

70

60

stress (ksi)

50

extensometer
40

crosshead
30 20

1 0

0 -0.2 -0.1 -10 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

strain

3.3

Basic Stress-Strain Curve

A number of basic material properties can be obtained from analyzing a simple stressstrain plot. Fig. 3 shows some of these properties of CRS.
Figure 3 - Stress vs. Strain (CRS)
90 80 70 60 stress (ksi) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.02 -10 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 Series1

axial strain

The elastic region of the CRS can be seen in Fig. 3 to exist approximately below the strain of 0.01. The plastic region exits at all values of strain above the elastic region. The ultimate tensile strength is the maximum value of the entire plot and can be eyeballed to be around 85 ksi. From the hooking of the data past the strain of about 0.08, it is evident that upon fracture, the neck occurs outside of the gage and the fracture itself resembles a cup/cone. The fracture point is the last point on the plot, and is about 57 ksi. More precise values of some of these data will be presented later. The basic stress-strain behavior of HRS can be determined by re-examining Fig. 2. 3.4 Derivation of Youngs Modulus Youngs Modulus can be derived from the stress-strain curve for both CRS and HRS in Figs. 3 and 2. It applies to the elastic portions of the graphs where the stress is proportionally related to the strain. Youngs Modulus, otherwise known as the modulus of elasticity, is equal to the slope of the elastic region of both CRS and HRS plots. Fig. 4 shows a cropped set of data from the elastic region of Fig. 3.

Figure 4 - Youngs Modulus (CRS)

60 50 40 stress (ksi) 30 20 10 0 -0.0005 -10 strain 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 y = 26773x - 3.0576

A trendline is fitted to the data and the slope of the equation of the trendline is, in fact, Youngs Modulus for CRS, which equals 26773 ksi. A similar approach was taken to obtain Youngs Modulus for HRS. Fig. 5 shows a similar cropping of data to Fig. 4, but this time for the elastic region of the extensometer data in Fig. 2.
Figure 5 - Young's Modulus (HRS)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.0005 -10
strain

stress (ksi)

y = 30108x - 2.9349

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the Youngs Modulus for HRS is 30108 ksi the slope of the trendline fitted to the data. 3.5 Poissons Ratio Poissons Ratio was obtained by graphing the radial strain verse the axial strain. This relationship is represented by Eq. (3). 3.5.1 Poissons Ratio of CRS Cropping of data was once again used to find an elastic property of CRS. This time, the Poissons Ratio for the elastic portion of radial vs. axial strain curve was analyzed. This data is shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 6 -Poisson's Ratio Plot (CRS)
0 0 -0.0001 -0.0002 radial strain -0.0003 -0.0004 -0.0005 -0.0006 -0.0007 -0.0008 axial strain y = -0.23x + 3E-05 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035

Once again, it is the slope of the trendline that gives the value of interest. Poissons Ratio for the elastic region of CRS is equal to 0.23. It is positive due to the nature of Eq. (3), which states that Poissons Ratio is the negative of the ratio of the two strains. Similarly, a portion of a plastic region of the stress was analyzed, and once again the slope of the trendline equaled Poissons Ratio. This is seen in Fig. 7.

Figure 7 - Poissants Ratio (CRS)

0 0 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0006 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006

radial strain

-0.0008 -0.001 -0.0012 -0.0014 y = -0.4036x + 0.0004 -0.0016 -0.0018

axial strain

Fig. 7 shows the Poissons Ratio of the plastic region of CRS to be 0.40. 3.5.2 Poissons Ratio of HRS The same methods used in section 3.5.1 were employed to obtain the Poissons Ratios for HRS. The cropped data on which trendlines were fitted to are seen in Figs. 8 and 9.
Figure 8 - Poissants Ratio (elastic - HRS)
0 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006

radial strain

-0.001

-0.0015 y = -0.4203x - 8E-05 -0.002

-0.0025 axial strain

Figure 9 - Poissons Ratio (plastic - HRS)

0 -0.0002 -0.0001 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012

-0.0002 radial strain

-0.0003 y = -0.5093x - 3E-05 -0.0004

-0.0005

-0.0006 axial strain

Fig. 8 shows that Poissons Ratio for the elastic region of HRS was 0.42. Furthermore, the Poissons Ratio for the plastic region of HRS was 0.51, as seen in Fig. 9. 3.6 Proof Stress for CRS The 0.2% proof stress is a universal method for determining where the elastic region of a material transitions to the plastic region. The stress-strain data in Fig. 3 was used to illustrate this concept. A 0.2% offset is plotted in Fig. 10.
Figure 10 - 0.2% O ffset
90 80 70 stress (ksi) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 s train 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

The point where the 0.2% offset line crosses the data is the 0.2% proof stress. This point is considered the yield stress of CRS. Closer inspection of the data in Fig. 10 in a spreadsheet showed that the 0.2% proof stress (yield stress) was 74.31 ksi for CRS. 3.7 Yield Strength for HRS The upper and lower yield strengths were obtained from the plot of stress vs. strain for HRS, shown in Fig. 11.

Figure 11 - Stress vs Strain (HRS)

90 80 70 60 stress (ksi) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -10 0 0.05 strain 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

The upper yield strength is the greatest value of the elastic region of Fig. 11. The lower yield strength is the lowest value of the small notch which forms at the end of Luders Band (small region of no stress growth following elastic region.) From examining the values in Fig. 11 more closely on a spreadsheet, the upper and lower yield strengths were found to be 62.12 ksi and 55.9 ksi, respectively.

3.8 Ultimate Tensile Strength The ultimate tensile strength is the highest value on a stress-strain curve. From Fig. 3, the ultimate tensile strength for CRS is obtained by reading the largest value of the entire plot, which equals 85.56 ksi. The ultimate tensile strength for HRS can be obtained from Fig. 11. The highest value of this plot is 79.53 ksi. 3.9 Hardening Exponent The hardening exponent was obtained by plotting the natural logs of stress vs. strain. The data was then fitted with a linear trendline whose slope represented the inverse of the hardening exponent. Fig. 12 shows this data for CRS.
Figure 12 - Hardening Exponent
4.36 4.34 4.32 y = 0.0659x + 4.7081 ln(stress) 4.3 4.28 4.26 4.24 4.22 4.2 4.18 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 ln(Ep) -4 -3 -2 -1 0

From Fig. 12, it is seen that the hardening exponent for CRS is 1/0.0659 which is equal to 15.17. Fig. 13 shows similar data for HRS.

F u 1 - H rd n gE p n n ig re 3 a e in x o e t
0 -1 .4 -1 .2 -1 -0 .8 -0 .6 -0 .4 -0 .2 -0 .2 -0 .4 ln(stress) -0 .6 y=0 6 5 -0 5 2 .8 2 x .0 3 -0 .8 -1 -1 .2 -1 .4 ln p (E ) 0

The hardening exponent for HRS is 1/0.8625 which equals 1.16 much lower than that of CRS. 4.0 Toughness The toughness of both CRS and HRS was measured by summing up the are below the stress-strain curve. This followed from Eq. (7), which states that the toughness is the integral of stress. The area under the stress-strain plots was obtained by using integral approximation methods and is therefore just that an approximation. In any case, the area under the curve in Fig. 3 was estimated to obtain a value of the toughness of CRS. This approximation turned out to be around 19.8 ksi. Similarly, the area under Fig. 11 was estimated to obtain the HRS toughness, which turned out to be somewhat higher ~ 34.74 ksi. 4.1 Ductility The ductility of CRS and HRS was calculated using Eqs. (4) and (5). Both, the elongation and area reduction ductility were obtained which led to the conclusion that HRS is, for the most part, more malleable. The crosshead and extensometer ductilities were also calculated, and all of these values are listed in Table 2. Ductility Elongation Area Reduction Crosshead CRS 18.85 % 62.55 % 30.6% HRS 31.5% 37.49% 53.9%

Extensometer 9.58% 20.24% TABLE 2 Ductility Values

5.0 CONCLUSION This experiment proved that CRS is noticeably stronger than HRS. CRS not only had a higher Youngs Modulus, but it also had a higher yield strength and ultimate tensile strength. However, the HRS was found to be considerably more malleable than CRS. HRS was found to have a higher value of toughness and a generally higher value of ductility. The HRS also had a much lower hardening exponent. These data suggest that in cases where a strong, stiff material is needed, CRS is better suited for the job. On the other hand, if a tough material that easily changes shape is needed, HRS is better suited.