Tensile Testing Lab

ME843

Group 1:
Siyamak Javadian
Sepehr Esmaeili Khatir
Mark Boots
Charles Aire

April - May, 2012

 Abstract

Mechanical properties and fracture surfaces of 6061 aluminum, 1018 and 12L14 steel, and
cast iron samples are analyzed using tensile testing and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
The eect of heat treatment on the material properties and fracture surfaces is examined:
annealing, austenitizing and quenching, and aluminum aging are all seen to have an eect
on the strength and ductility. We present stress-strain curves for a range of samples, and
tabulate results for the Youngs Modulus, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, elonga-
tion, and area reduction. The measured properties are compared successfully with nominal
values for each material, with the exception of the oset yield strength, which we attribute
to a specific error in methodology. The dierences between ductile and brittle fracture are
found to be easily visible in SEM images of the fracture surfaces.
Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Theory 1
2.1 Tensile Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1.1 Sample Composition and Nominal Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Advantages of SEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Characteristics of Brittle and Ductile Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Apparatus 5
3.1 Tensile Test Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Furnace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 SEM Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Procedure 6
4.1 Sample Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Tensile Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 SEM Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5 Analysis 8
5.1 Tensile Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1 Calculation of Stress and Strain for Stress-Strain Curves . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2 Youngs Modulus (Elastic Modulus) E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3 0.2% Oset Yield Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.4 Upper and Lower Yield Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.5 Ultimate Tensile Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.6 Percent Elongation at Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.7 Percent Area Reduction at Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.8 Failure Strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6 Results and Discussion 13

6.1 Identification of Mixed-up Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2 Tensile Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1 Comparison of measured properties to nominal values . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.2 Eect of Heat Treatment on Steel Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.3 Eect of Heat Treatment on Aluminum Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ii
 6.3 SEM Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7 Conclusions 19

List of Figures
1 Typical stress-strain curves of dierent materials. [1, p. 244] . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Schematic of a tensile testing machine. [9] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Tensile testing samples are machined into this round form. The extension un-
der load takes place almost entirely across the length of the reduced diameter
section LR . A standard gauge length L0 of 50.8 mm is inscribed within this
section and used to measure the percent elongation after fracture (as long as
fracture takes place within the marked gauge section). . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Schematic of the components of a typical scanning electron microscope. [2] . 7
5 Comparison of two methods to determine strain from tensile test
readings: The extensometer measures strain in the sample directly, by sens-
ing displacement from its initial width as a fraction of that width. The curve
produced from extensometer strain (left) has a slope that agrees with the
nominal Youngs Modulus for this material (12L14 Steel: 200 GPa [6]). The
strain calculated using = x/L0 produces an unreasonable slope (right), be-
cause the crosshead displacement x includes extension of the entire sample;
not just the gauge length L0 . Additionally, the mechanical slack in the test
machine allows displacement x without any real stress or strain at the start
of the test, causing an oset along the strain axis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) shows no presence of lead in the sam-
ples that were assumed to be 12L14 steel; instead, they must be 1018 steel. . 14
7 Stress-strain curves for all samples. The blue sections use direct strain read-
ings from the extensometer; the red sections use strains calculated with Equa-
tion 5, and are shifted to match up to the last extensometer strain at the
switch-over point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

iii
8 Comparison of heat treatments on 1018 and 12L14 steel alloys: After
austenitizing at 950 C and quenching, the ultimate strength is dramatically
increased, but the ductility is reduced: failure occurs at a lower strain. Anneal-
ing at 650 C has the opposite eect: it increases the ductility by relieving
stresses and crystal defects, but reduces the tensile strength. The eect of
austenitizing is stronger in 12L14 steel (solid lines) than 1018 steel (dashed
lines). The stress-strain curve for cast iron is shown for comparison. . . . . . 17
9 Comparison of heat treatments on 6061-T6511 Aluminum Alloy:
Aging at 200 C for 1 hour is able to provide a small improvement in ductility,
at the expense of a small reduction in tensile strength. However, continuing
the aging process for 24 hours is not beneficial: it appears to reduce both
strength and ductility compared to the as-received sample. . . . . . . . . . . 18
10 Aluminum (left) and cast iron (right) fracture surfaces: Aluminum exhibits
ductile fracture, with a surface of cups and cones and micro-voids. By
contrast, the brittle fracture of cast iron leaves flat cleavage planes that are
easily visible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11 As-received (left) and austenitized/quenched 1018 steel (right): The heat
treatment makes the steel more brittle, reducing the size of the cup-and-cone
structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12 As-received (left) and heat-treated [1 hr] aluminum (right): The small increase
in the ductility of the heat-treated aluminum can be seen in the increased size
of the cup-and-cone structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

iv
1 Introduction

Measuring mechanical properties is one of the most common methods used to characterize
materials, especially metals. Of the dierent mechanical tests available (hardness, creep,
Charpy impact, and others), the tensile test is a very useful method because of the dierent
information that can be extracted from the data. However, tensile testing requires machining
specimens with specific dimensions according to standards, and it is a destructive test. In this
lab, we use it to determine the Youngs Modulus, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength,
and ductility of several aluminum, iron, and steel samples, and we compare the eects of
heat treatment.

Scanning Electron Microscopy is a powerful imaging method for characterization of mate-

rials and analysis of their microstructure. Microstructure determines the final properties,
such as mechanical, corrosion and other material properties, which should be considered in
selection of materials for a specific application. In this experiment, SEM is used to study
the microstructure of fractured surfaces to determine whether they exhibit brittle or ductile
fracture.

2 Theory

2.1 Tensile Test

In a tensile test, a sample is machined to specific dimensions and mounted within a universal
testing machine. The machine applies an increasing tensile load to the sample, while mea-
suring the extension in the length of the sample and the instantaneous load. The tension is
increased until the sample fractures; along the way, materials can undergo strain hardening,
necking, and other eects. The raw output of the tensile test is in the form of a load vs.
crosshead extension curve, although modern machines also include the ability to directly
measure the extension of the sample. Calculations are used to normalize out the eect of
sample dimension to produce a stress-strain curve, which should ideally be a property of the
material.

Dierent materials show dierent reaction under load depending on the type of the bonding
between atoms. For example, ceramics do not show any plastic deformation and simply
fracture after a linear elastic region; polymers show large plastic deformation, and metals
usually have both elastic and plastic regions. Even dierent metals show dierent behaviours:

1
Some low-carbon mild steels show lower and upper yield points as crystal dislocations pile up
under strain; other metals do not show such behaviour. Figure 1 shows typical stress-strain
curves for some materials.

Figure 1: Typical stress-strain curves of dierent materials. [1, p. 244]

Testing parameters greatly aect the obtained results, so they should always be reported
along with the results. Gauge length, strain rate and temperature parameters should be
reported beside the stress-strain curve.

Up to the necking point, the distribution of tensile stress under test should be uniform (for
a flawless sample, mounted with no bending moments). At necking, complex triaxial stress
is applied; stress rises at the necking point, finally leading to the fracture of the material.
[3]

2.1.1 Sample Composition and Nominal Properties

In this lab, we test samples of four dierent materials: pure nodular cast iron, AISI 1018
steel, AISI 12L14 steel, and 6061-T6511 aluminum alloy. Dierent heat treatments were
applied to copies of the steel and aluminum samples, as shown in Table 1. The nominal
properties of each material [4][5][6][8] are also shown in Table 1.

The composition of the 1018 and 12L14 steels are similar, with the exception of lead added
to 12L14 to improve machineability:

2
Table 1: Samples, heat treatments tested, nominal properties, and composition.
Nominal properties include the Youngs Modulus E, yield strength y , ultimate tensile
strength T , and percent elongation P E.

Material Heat Treatments Nominal Properties Composition (% Wt)

Nodular Cast Iron [4] - As received E = 83 170 GPa

y = 120 290 MPa
T = 69 480 MPa
P E = 35%
AISI 1018 Steel [5] - As received E = 190 210 GPa C: 0.15 - 0.20
- Annealed at 600 C, 1 hr y = 386 MPa Mn: 0.60 - 0.90
- Austenitized at 950 C T = 634 MPa P: 0.04 max
0.5 hr, then quenched P E = 27% S: 0.05 max
AISI 12L14 Steel [6] - As received E = 190 210 GPa C: 0.15 max
- Austenitized at 950 C y = 415 MPa Mn: 0.85 - 1.15
0.5 hr, then quenched T = 540 MPa P: 0.04 - 0.09
P E = 10% S: 0.26 - 0.35
Pb: 0.15 - 0.35
6061-T6511 - As received E = 70 80 GPa
Aluminum - Aged 200 C, 1 hr y = 275 MPa
Alloy [7][8] - Aged 200 C, 24 hr T = 310 MPa
P E = 12%

3
2.2 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

In SEM, a focused electron beam is emitted from a filament connected to high voltage, then
focused with magnetic lenses onto the sample surface. The beam interacts with the surface of
the sample and releases secondary electrons and X-rays, which can be used to gain analytical
and structural information as the beam is swept across the surface.

2.2.1 Advantages of SEM

1. We can use SEM to observe the surface of any solid (metallic, ceramic, polymers and
organics) in low or extremely high magnifications. [2]

2. The depth of field that remains in focus is much greater than with an optical micro-
scope. [2]

3. We can get analytical data on the chemical composition of the sample if the SEM is
equipped with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). [2]

2.2.2 Characteristics of Brittle and Ductile Fractures

Ductile and brittle fracture surfaces have specific characteristics, which can be easily distin-
guished using SEM images. Details of the formation of these characteristics is outside the
scope of this report, but it is discussed briefly here.

In brittle fracture, there is no permanent deformation and we can see shiny flat cleavage
surfaces parallel to the mean surface. In ductile fracture, there is permanent deformation and
a dull fracture surface.[3] Another important characteristic of ductile fracture is the cup and
cone feature: due to high plastic deformation before fracture, the surface is stretched into
local cones, which match up with cups on the opposite surface. (These cups and cones are
easily visible in the fracture images we present in the Results section.) In ductile fractures
of aluminum, micro-voids can also be identified.

4
3 Apparatus

3.1 Tensile Test Apparatus

The tensile testing machine we used is the INSTRON(TM) universal testing machine (Fig-
ure 2). A round bar test sample is machined as shown in Figure 3, and threads are cut
into the grip sections. The sample is then threaded into the grips of the machine. The
test is conducted using an electric motor and ball-screw drives to displace the crosshead
at a constant rate, straining the sample in tension until it fractures. An extensometer is
attached to the gauge section of the sample to measure the sample extension directly, and
the instantaneous tension is measured using a load cell (strain gauge). All of these signals
are recorded throughout the test using a computer data acquisition system.

Figure 2: Schematic of a tensile testing machine. [9]

3.2 Furnace

A ThermoScientific THERMOLYNE electric furnace is used to prepare the heat-treated

samples according to the instructions in Table 1.

Figure 3: Tensile testing samples are machined into this round form. The extension under
load takes place almost entirely across the length of the reduced diameter section LR . A
standard gauge length L0 of 50.8 mm is inscribed within this section and used to measure
the percent elongation after fracture (as long as fracture takes place within the marked gauge
section).

3.3 SEM Apparatus

A scanning electron microscope (JSM 6010 LV) manufactured by JEOL is used to study the
fracture surfaces of the samples.

A schematic of the beam production and focussing is shown in Figure 4. Electrons are emit-
ted from an electron gun and focused and directed towards the sample with condenser and
objective lenses, and restricted by dierent apertures. Resulting from collision of primary
electrons with the sample, dierent phenomena occur. If the primary electrons eject elec-
trons from the sample, the ejected electrons will be called secondary electrons; they give
topographical information of the surface. If the primary electrons are scattered back by the
sample, they will be called back-scattered electrons. As the beam is swept across the surface,
each of these types of electrons is counted using detectors in the SEM, and gives dierent
information about the surface. The inside of the SEM sample chamber, and especially the
electron gun, must be maintained under appropriate vacuum. [2]

4 Procedure

4.1 Sample Preparation

1. Samples were received in machined form according to Figure 3, with nominal diameters
between 12.3 and 12.8 mm.

6
 Figure 4: Schematic of the components of a typical scanning electron microscope. [2]

2. Copies of the aluminum and steel samples were heat treated as described in Table 1.
In the austenitization process, samples were heated to 950 C for 0.5 hr, and then
quenched in room-temperature water.

4.2 Tensile Testing

1. Gauge sections of L0 = 50.8 mm were inscribed on the samples for the purpose of later
measuring the final elongation.

2. The samples were tested to failure using the INSTRON machine, at a strain rate of
0.0833 mm/s.

3. After failure, the sample were removed, the broken pieces were matched back together,
and the final length of the gauge section LF was measured to determine percent elon-
gation. The minimum diameter of the necked section was also measured, to determine
percent area reduction.

7
4.3 SEM Test

After the tensile test, the samples were cut to smaller length to be able to fit easily in the
SEM chamber; the fractured surfaces were kept. These were washed with acetone to remove
oil and grease, rinsed in alcohol, dried, and mounted inside the SEM for imaging.

5 Analysis

5.1 Tensile Testing

5.1.1 Calculation of Stress and Strain for Stress-Strain Curves

The instrumentation of the tensile testing machine records three raw measurements at 0.1
second intervals during the test:

1. The displacement of the crosshead from its initial position (extension) x, in mm.

2. The extension of the extensometer from its initial width, as a percentage of the initial
width. This provides a direct measure of the strain, for the part of the sample the
extensometer is attached to (approximately the gauge section). However, the exten-
someter has a limited range and needs to be removed part-way through the test.

3. The tensile load L applied to the sample, measured using a load cell, in kg-f.

Stress Calculation

The sample diameter D is measured in three locations along the reduced length, and used
to calculate an average diameter:

D = (D1 + D2 + D3 )/3 (1)

The initial cross-sectional area A0 is

A0 = D2 /4, (2)

and the engineering stress is computed using the cross-sectional area A0 and the measured
load L in kg-f:

= Lg/A0 (3)

8
where g = 9.811 m/s2 is the acceleration due to gravity.

Strain Calculation

For the part of the test where the extensometer is connected, it provides a direct and accurate
reading of the engineering strain . After the extensometer is disconnected, it is necessary
to calculate the strain from the crosshead displacement (extension) x. However, there are
two significant problems:

At the very start of the test, there is mechanical slop and slack in the machine,
and in the connections to the sample. The initial displacement of the crosshead must
take up this slack. Therefore, at the beginning of the test there can be displacement
without any strain applied to the sample. As the slack is taken up and the machine
loads to saturation, the displacement starts to become approximately linear with the
strain. This eect is apparent in the load-extension plots, where there can be up to 1
mm of displacement with almost no load.

The total crosshead extension x is the sum of extension occurring over the entire sample
length, as well as limited extension of the machine components. Most of this extension
can be assumed to take place over the reduced length of the sample LR (Figure ??).
Unfortunately, we did not measure LR prior to fracturing any of the samples.

The formula for engineering strain is

L L0
= (4)
L0

where L is the tensioned length of initial section L0 .

For the purpose of this lab, weve been instructed to use the gauge length L0 to
compute the strain from the extension x:

x
= (5)
L0

However, this is incorrect because the crosshead extension x measures not just the
increase of the gauge length L0 , but the increase in the total length of the sample (ap-
proximately LR ). Because we are lacking LR measurements, we have used Equation 5,
as instructed, to compute for the part of the stress-strain curve after the extensometer
was removed.

9
Figure 5 demonstrates these two problems by co-plotting the stress-strain measured directly
by the extensometer, and the stress-strain derived from Equation 5. The slope of the linear
region calculated using = x/L0 does not match the slope of the extensometers direct strain
measurement, and the linear region of this curve does not intersect the origin as it should. We
confirm that the direct extensometer strain produces a reasonable Youngs Modulus E = 195
GPa for 12L14 steel, while the = x/L0 curve produces an unreasonably low E = 11.7 GPa.

Figure 5: Comparison of two methods to determine strain from tensile test read-
ings: The extensometer measures strain in the sample directly, by sensing displacement
from its initial width as a fraction of that width. The curve produced from extensometer
strain (left) has a slope that agrees with the nominal Youngs Modulus for this material
(12L14 Steel: 200 GPa [6]). The strain calculated using = x/L0 produces an unreasonable
slope (right), because the crosshead displacement x includes extension of the entire sample;
not just the gauge length L0 . Additionally, the mechanical slack in the test machine allows
displacement x without any real stress or strain at the start of the test, causing an oset
along the strain axis.

10
To plot stress-strain curves with the correct slope of the elastic region, we use the exten-
someter strain measurements as long as the extensometer is connected. After this point,
we switch to calculating the strain from Equation 5 as instructed. It is necessary to shift
this part of the curve left along the strain axis to match up with the first part of the curve.
Unfortunately, this method produces a discontinuity in the slope of the elastic region at
the switch-over point, which introduces error into determination of the 0.2% oset yield
strength.

We recommend that in the future, the length of the reduced section LR should be measured
for each sample prior to the test. This value (instead of the gauge length L0 ) should be
entered into the Instron BlueHill test software when it asks for the length of the reduced
area,

and also used in external calculations to approximate strain from extension.

5.1.2 Youngs Modulus (Elastic Modulus) E

The Youngs Modulus relates the stress to the strain in the elastic regime. For accuracy, we
compute this using the strain measured directly by the extensometer. Using linear regression,
we fit a line to the initial elastic region of the curve, from 50 MPa up to the point where the
extensometer is removed (or up to the point where elastic deformation ends, if this comes
first).1 The slope of this line is the Youngs Modulus E.

5.1.3 0.2% Oset Yield Strength

For samples that do not show upper and lower yield points, a 0.2% oset yield strength
is typically determined from the stress-strain curve. We do this by fitting a line to the
initial elastic region of the curve, from 50 MPa up to the point where the extensometer was
removed, using linear regression. A second line is generated parallel to this line, displaced
by +0.2% (0.002) along the strain axis (Figure ??). The stress value at the intersection of
this line with the stress-strain curve provides the oset yield strength.
1
We start fitting at 50 MPa to avoid the error observed in the strain at the very start of the test.

11
5.1.4 Upper and Lower Yield Strengths

For samples showing upper and lower yield points, the strengths can be read directly from
the stress value at these points.

5.1.5 Ultimate Tensile Strength

The ultimate tensile strength is the largest stress value supported by the sample during
strain-hardening. It is read from the maximum value of the stress-strain curve.

5.1.6 Percent Elongation at Fracture

To determine the percent elongation at fracture, the sample is scribed with lines marking
the standard gauge length of L0 = 50.8 mm. After the sample is fractured, the two halves
are carefully matched up and positioned back together as closely as possible. The distance
LF between the lines is measured, and the percent elongation is calculated:

LF L0
PE = 100% (6)
L0

In some cases, the samples neck and fracture outside the marked gauge lines. This makes the
determination of the final length LF impossible (if the line was obscured), or meaningless (if
all elongation happened outside of the marked section: LF = L0 ). We discuss this further in
the Results section. In the future, we recommend marking several independent sets of gauge
lines, at overlapping intervals covering the entire reduced length, so that an appropriate pair
of gauge lines can be found on either side of the fracture, regardless of where the necking
and fracture happens.

5.1.7 Percent Area Reduction at Fracture

When the sample necks prior to fracture, the area is reduced. The percent area reduction
is calculated by measuring the initial average diameter D0 using callipers prior to the test.
After the sample is fractured, the minimum diameter of the necked region DF is measured
again. The percent area reduction is calculated as

A0 AF D02 DF2
P AR = 100% = 100% (7)
A0 D02

12
Determining the percent area reduction is almost always possible, even when the percent
elongation cannot be found because the sample fractured outside the marked gauge re-
gion.

5.1.8 Failure Strain

The failure strain is the strain value at the final point of the stress-strain curve before
fracture. It can be read directly from the stress-strain curve, although we expect this value
to also be aected by the problems described in Section 5.1.1.

6 Results and Discussion

6.1 Identification of Mixed-up Samples

The 1018 and 12L14 steel samples appear visually identical. Unfortunately, during sample
preparation, specimens of each type were possibly mis-labelled, creating confusion around
which was which. (This confusion occurred for both the as-received AND austenitized sam-
ples.)

To resolve this confusion, our group used SEM imaging with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy
(EDS) to measure both of our samples, which we originally assumed to be 12L14 steel (as-
received and austenitized). The critical dierence in the composition of the 1018 and 12L14
material is the presence of 0.15 - 0.3 % lead by weight in 12L14 (Table 1).

Figure 6 shows the emission spectrum of one of our samples taken with EDS. While we were
able to detect all other alloyed elements with concentrations < 1% by weight, we were not
able to detect any lead emission in either sample. Because lead is heavier than the other
elements we detected at similar concentration, we believe that any lead that should have
been present in 12L14 would have been detectable using this method. Since lead was not
detected, we conclude that our group actually has two 1018 samples; this means that both
the as-received and austenitized samples have been mis-labelled. Corrected labels are used
in Table 1.

An ideal test would have also used EDS on the other (so-called 1018) samples, confirming
the presence and detectability of lead. Unfortunately, the group with these samples has
already disposed of them.

13
Figure 6: EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) shows no presence of lead in the samples
that were assumed to be 12L14 steel; instead, they must be 1018 steel.

Nonetheless, our identification of the sample mis-labelling is consistent with the tensile test-
ing results in the following section. We know that the annealed sample is certainly 1018 steel.
Annealing must always reduce the ultimate tensile strength, and with our revised labelling,
this is true: annealing decreases the 1018 ultimate strength from 666 MPa to 559 MPa. If the
1018 and 12L14 samples were interpreted as originally labelled, annealing would appear to
increase the tensile strength from 527 MPa to 559 MPa, which should not be possible.

6.2 Tensile Testing

We use the methods and calculations described in the previous section to generate stress-
strain curves and compute the Youngs Modulus, 0.2% Oset Strength, Tensile Strength,
Percent Elongation, Percent Area Reduction, and Failure Strain. These results are summa-
rized for all samples in Table 2.

The annealed 1018 steel (Sample #4) is the only specimen to show upper and lower yield
points (461 MPa and 450 MPa respectively). We conclude that the cold-rolling process
that produced the as-received samples causes sufficient strain hardening to move beyond the
upper and lower yield points. For the yield points to be visible, annealing is required to
relieve the dislocation stresses and undo this work hardening.

In Figure 7, we plot the stress-strain curves for all samples; these curves show the construction
that was used to determine the 0.2% oset yield strength. Blue lines indicate the accurate
strain section derived from extensometer readings, and red curves use strain values calculated
via Equation 5.

Figure 8 and 9 compare the stress-strain curves for ferrous alloys and aluminum alloys with

14
Figure 7: Stress-strain curves for all samples. The blue sections use direct strain readings
from the extensometer; the red sections use strains calculated with Equation 5, and are
shifted to match up to the last extensometer strain at the switch-over point.
15
Table 2: Material properties and quantities derived from tensile testing for all
samples. Percent Elongation values in [brackets] should be assumed to be incorrect. (In
these cases the samples necked and fractured outside of the marked gauge section, so that
measurements of the gauge length were either nearly impossible, or irrelevant because all of
the elongation happened outside the measured section.)

Sample Material Treatment Youngs 0.2% Oset Tensile % % Failure

# Modulus Strength Strength Elongation Area Strain
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa) Reduction

2 1018 Steel As Received 208.0 494 666 15.4% 55.2% 0.183

4 Annealed 600 C 197.0 442 559 21.7% 60.1% 0.272
7 Austenitized 950 C 173.6 418 880 [0.6% ] 42.8% 0.111
1 12L14 Steel As Received 194.5 415 527 16.1% 50.9% 0.157
8 Austenitized 950 C 172.2 493 1074 [1.8% ] 30.7% 0.131
3 Cast Iron As Received 156.2 355 478 15.0% 10.9% 0.210
5 6061-T6511 As Received 65.5 162 325 17.9% 55.3% 0.214
6 Al Alloy Heated 200 C, 1 hr 68.0 176 308 19.1% 51.1% 0.225
9 Heated 200 C, 24 hr 66.6 177 289 [14.8% ] 58.1% 0.205

dierent heat treatment processes.

6.2.1 Comparison of measured properties to nominal values

Comparison of the measured values in Table 2 to the nominal specifications in Table 1

indicates that all measurements are within 10% of the expected values, with the exception
of the 0.2% yield strengths. All of our measured yield strengths are lower than the nominal
values. We attribute this to the discontinuity in the slopes of the elastic stress-strain curves,
due to the problem identified in Section 5.1.1, which causes the 0.2% oset line to cross the
stress-strain curve sooner than it should.

6.2.2 Eect of Heat Treatment on Steel Alloys

Figure 8 shows how annealing and austenitizing aect material properties in steels.

Compared to the as-received 1018 sample, the annealed sample shows a lower tensile
strength, but a much higher failure strain, indicating improved ductility. This is because
annealing redistributes a crystal to its equilibrium state and destroys dislocations. With
fewer dislocations, strain hardening is less eective and the ultimate tensile strength is less.
We can confirm in Table 2 that the percent elongation (21.7%) and percent area reduction
(60.1%) are both higher in the annealed sample compared to the as-received sample (15.4%,
55.2%), which also indicates higher ductility.

16
Figure 8: Comparison of heat treatments on 1018 and 12L14 steel alloys: After
austenitizing at 950 C and quenching, the ultimate strength is dramatically increased,
but the ductility is reduced: failure occurs at a lower strain. Annealing at 650 C has the
opposite eect: it increases the ductility by relieving stresses and crystal defects, but reduces
the tensile strength. The eect of austenitizing is stronger in 12L14 steel (solid lines) than
1018 steel (dashed lines). The stress-strain curve for cast iron is shown for comparison.

17
Austenitizing and quenching of steels has the opposite eect: the tensile strength and hard-
ness are dramatically increased, but the ductility is lost, so failure happens at a lower strain
value: The quenched 1018 sample fails at = 0.11, compared to = 0.18 for the as-received
sample. The percent area reduction at failure (42.8%) is also reduced compared to the as-
received sample (55.2%). However, it has much higher tensile strength: 880 MPa vs. 666
MPa for the as-received sample, and 559 MPa for the annealed sample.

The same eects are true for the leaded 12L14 steel. However, the eect of austenitizing and
quenching is even stronger in this case, taking the ultimate tensile strength from 527 to 1074
MPa. This could be due to dierences in the amount of strain hardening during cold-rolling
of each as-received metal, or a consequence of the lead in the crystal structure.

Figure 9: Comparison of heat treatments on 6061-T6511 Aluminum Alloy: Aging

at 200 C for 1 hour is able to provide a small improvement in ductility, at the expense of
a small reduction in tensile strength. However, continuing the aging process for 24 hours is
not beneficial: it appears to reduce both strength and ductility compared to the as-received
sample.

18
6.2.3 Eect of Heat Treatment on Aluminum Alloys

The eect of heat treatment on Aluminum Alloys is less pronounced. Figure 9 shows that
heating the sample for 1 hour at 200 C. causes a small decrease in the ultimate tensile
strength (325 to 308 MPa), but an increase in the ductility: it fails at = 0.225 instead of
= 0.214. The percent elongation increases slightly (17.9% to 19.1%) as well, consistent
with higher ductility.

However, heating the sample for longer (24 hours at 200 C.) appears to be disadvantageous:
both ultimate strength and ductility are reduced, from 325 MPa to 289 MPa and = 0.214
to = 0.205 respectively. This is likely because the 6061-T6511 alloy has already been
optimally heat treated as-received (T651 designates the heat treatment process). Therefore,
further treatment is unlikely to substantially improve its mechanical properties, and may
actually deteriorate them.

6.3 SEM Testing

We examine the fracture surfaces of all samples using SEM, at various magnifications. For
the samples exhibiting ductile fracture (steel and aluminum), we expect to see cone and
cup surfaces. The cast iron sample exhibited brittle fracture, and therefore we expected to
see flat cleavage surfaces instead of cones and cups.

Figure 10 confirms that this is true: the brittle fracture surface of cast iron is shown alongside
the cup-and-cone surface of aluminum. In Figure 11, we see that austenitizing and quenching
makes the 1018 steel more brittle: the size of the cups and cones is much smaller in the heat-
treated sample than the as-received sample. Finally, in Figure 12, we see that aging at 200
has a minimal eect on ductility of 6061 aluminum, since all of these samples have already
been heat treated (T651).

7 Conclusions

In this lab, we examine 6061 aluminum, 1018 and 12L14 carbon steel, and cast iron samples
to determine their mechanical properties and fracture morphology. We subject the aluminum
samples to two dierent durations of heat treatment at 200 C, and subject the steel samples
to annealing (600 C) and austenitization (950 C) followed by quenching.

19
Figure 10: Aluminum (left) and cast iron (right) fracture surfaces: Aluminum exhibits
ductile fracture, with a surface of cups and cones and micro-voids. By contrast, the brittle
fracture of cast iron leaves flat cleavage planes that are easily visible.

Figure 11: As-received (left) and austenitized/quenched 1018 steel (right): The heat treat-
ment makes the steel more brittle, reducing the size of the cup-and-cone structures.

20
Figure 12: As-received (left) and heat-treated [1 hr] aluminum (right): The small increase
in the ductility of the heat-treated aluminum can be seen in the increased size of the cup-
and-cone structures.

Using tensile testing, we determine mechanical properties for the Youngs modulus, yield
strength, ultimate tensile strength, elongation, and area reduction. Tabulated values for all
materials and all heat treatments can be found in Table 2. With the exception of the yield
strength, all of the properties were found to agree within 10% with the expected nominal
values for these materials (Table 1). Our oset yield strengths are consistently low due to an
error in methodology, which can be corrected in future versions of the test. We determine that
the eect of annealing is to increase the ductility while reducing the ultimate strength; this is
evident in both the stress-strain curves (Figure 8) and the Percent Elongation / Percent Area
Reduction values (Table 2). Austenitization has the opposite eect: the ultimate strength
is substantially increased, while severely reducing the ductility. We find that austenitization
has a larger eect on the 12L14 steel than the 1018 steel. Finally, we observe only a small
eect due to heat treatment of the aluminum samples, since the as-received samples have
already been heat treated according to Process T651.

Using SEM imaging, we find the dierence between ductile and brittle fractures to be easily
visible: Cast iron shows large flat cleavage planes, while the ductile samples exhibit porous
surfaces with voids and cups and cones. Increasing the ductility increases the size of the
cups and cones; therefore, the eect of heat treatment on the ductility is easily visible in
both steel and aluminum. (The austenitized steel samples have smaller cups and cones, and
are seen to be more brittle.)

Finally, we use another SEM with EDS capability to properly identify the confused 1018 and
12L14 samples based on the presence/absence of lead emission in the EDS spectrum.

21
References

[1] ASTM International, ASTM E8 / E8M - 11 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing
of Metallic Materials. 2009. DOI: 10.1520/E0008 E0008M-11

[2] Hitachi SEM Manual, 2009.

[3] New Hampshire Materials Laboratory, Ductile and Brittle Fracture. Electronic
resource, accessed May 29, 2012. http://www.nhml.com/resources/2004/1/1/
ductile--brittle-fracture.

[4] eFunda, Inc, Properties of Common Solid Materials. Electronic resource, accessed
May 30, 2012. http://www.efunda.com/materials/common_matl/Common_Matl.cfm?
MatlPhase=Solid&MatlProp=Mechanical#Mechanical

[5] eFunda, Inc, Carbon Steel aisi 1018. Electronic resource, accessed May 30, 2012.
http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/carbon_steels/show_carbon.cfm?id=
aisi_1018&prop=all&page_title=aisi%201018l

[6] eFunda, Inc, Carbon Steel aisi 12L14. Electronic resource, accessed May
30, 2012. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/carbon_steels/show_carbon.
cfm?id=aisi_12l14&prop=all&page_title=aisi%2012l14

[7] eFunda, Inc, Aluminum Alloy AA 6061. Electronic resource, accessed May
30, 2012. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/show_aluminum.
cfm?ID=AA_6061&show_prop=uts&Page_Title=Aluminum%20Alloy%20AA%206061

[8] eFunda, Inc, Aluminum Alloy AA 6061. Electronic resource, accessed May
30, 2012. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/show_aluminum.
cfm?ID=AA_6061&prop=all&Page_Title=AA%206061

[9] University of Aberdeen, Plasticity and Testing. Electronic resource, accessed May 29,
2012. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~eng907/teaching/plasticity/lab.htm

22