Abstract

The need of reliable metals required in different fields has led to the creation of alloys
that could meet those requirements. As good example, Stainless Steel 316 and Al 2024 were
created to meet certain standards. Therefore, a tension test has been conducted on both. The data
collected was analyzed to calculated the ultimate stress and the Youngs Modules. the
calculations then helped to determine which material was more brittle or ductile

Introduction
We have created an enormous amount of different materials by chemically mixing
elements that have a variety of properties. Metals has been very demandable in multiple
industries because of its thermal & electrical properties, and its a very mixable element. Alloys
coming from steel and aluminum are the most popular ones. However, there are a great selection
of them, and they are differentiated by their properties. One of the most important property is
their strength. Its beneficial to know how much stress it can support before breaking. Thats
why a tension test is necessary.
A tension test is very valuable because with it we can obtain important information about
the metal such as its breaking point, yield strength, Youngs Modulus, toughness, resilience,
Poissons ratio and ultimate stress.
Yield Strength
Its the point where plastic deformation starts to happen. Since its hard to tell where
exactly starts to happen, its calculated by setting 2% off the slope line that defines the Youngs
Modulus.

(1) =

Youngs Modulus
It is the slope between the starting point and the Yield Strength created by the stress vs
strain graph. Its represented by the capital letter (E).

(2) =

Ultimate Stress
Its the maximum stress supported by the metal. Its where the sample shows signs of
deformation.

(3) =

Toughness
Its the ability of the metal to support plastic deformation before breaking. Its measure
by the amount of energy/volume.
Resilience
Its the ability of the material to support elastic deformation. As the toughness, it is
measure by the amount of energy/volume.
Poissons ratio
Its the lateral strain over the longitudinal strain created by the stress applied.

(4) =

Ductility vs Brittleness
Depending on the industry or filed, the demand of ductile or brittle materials varies. They
both very important in general. Brittle materials have the ability to support large loads in
compression environments. For example, they would be ideal in construction materials.
Nevertheless, they tend to break practically easy. On the other hand, ductile materials dont
support large loads, but they are more tolerant to the plastic deformation created by loads.
Therefore, they dont break as easy. For example, cables are perfect ductile materials; they bend
easily but dont break.
Since is important to know the properties of metals we will take two metal samples and put
them under tensile stress until rupture point. Frist sample is a Stainless Steel 316 and the second
one is an Aluminum 2024.
Stainless Steel(SS) 316 uses and properties
SS 316s chemical composition: Fe, <0.03% C, 16-18.5% Cr, 10-14% Ni, 2-3% Mo, <2% Mn,
<1% Si, <0.045% P, <0.03% S.
E= 27.5572x10^6psi to 29.7327x10^6psi
UTS= 69.6181x10^3 to 89.924x10^6
According to the website Azo Materials, SS 316 is perfect for corrosive environments due to
high percentage of Cr. It has a marine grade stainless steel grade. They also describe the metal
as having good resistance to corrosion in hot environments. Some of the applications listed in the
website are: Chemical containers, springs, heat exchangers, boat fittings, etc.
Aluminum(Al) 2024 uses and properties
Chemical Composition Al 93.5%, Cu 4.4%, Mg 1.5% & Mn 0.6%
E = 10.152x10^6psi to 11.603x10^6 psi
According to the website Azo Materials, Al 2024 is good in corrosive environments, but
not so good in hot ones. Some applications are truck wheels, aircraft structures, etc.
Experimental setup and procedure
Before the experiment both samples were hard tested in a Rockwell (C & B)) machine.
AL 2024 (HRC) SS 316 (HRB)
76.64 12.37
77.45 11.29
76.93 10.53
(Table 1)

Also, dimensions of both samples were measured and two dots, of 1 inch apart, were
marked at the edges of the gauges.
Al 2024 SS 316
m (g) 0.05 0.06
Height (mm) 12.71 12.48
Length(mm) 101.57 101.89
Width(mm) 6.36 3.14
Height gauge(mm) 6.32 6.42
Length gauge(in) 1.005 1.005
(Table 2)
Each sample was placed in the upper grip of an ADMET eXpert 2613 machine and then
leveled, so it was completely vertical, and finally adjusted to the lower grip. Formerly, an
extensometer was set at the gauge of each sample. Lastly, carefully the pin that prevents it from
moving was removed as shown in fig1

SS 316 sample ready to be tested. Fig1

 The measurements of the gauge, found in Table 2, were put in the MTESTQuattro
software that controlled the machine; the load was set to zero, and the test begun. The test last
about 2 minutes, and run at 50 samples/sec, unit each sample broke as shown in fig 2 & fig 3

SS 316 sample broken

Fig2

The data collected was then analyzed. In fig 3 and fig 4, we can see the stress vs strain
graphs from which we calculated the Young Modules, the Ultimate stress and the Yield strength.

(Fig3) (Fig4)
Results
From the Aluminum stress vs strain graph, we calculated, using eq. (3), an ultimate stress
of 68715.5 psi and a Youngs Modules of 9.98087E+6. psi
From the SS 316 stress vs strain graph, we calculated an ultimate stress of 90947.6 psi
and a Youngs modulus of 2.35256E+7 psi.
Both samples were measured to see how much elongated. SS 316 elongated 0.45in and
the Al 2024 elongated 0.135in as shown in fig 5

Al 2024

SS 316

Both samples measured after the test.

Fig 5
Conclusion/Discussion of Findings
To calculate the Youngs Modulus in each sample it was necessary to calculated the slop
of the graph using LabVIEW. For the Al 2024, we had to select about 1300 set points to get a
decent Youngs Modulus according to the actual value, shown in fig 6. Contrarily, for the SS
316, we had to select just about 100 set of points out of 5200, as shown fig6. We had to use this
small amount of set of points because the graph gave us a negative slope of for the first 400
points and curved line after the 500 points, as shown in fig 8 & 9 respectively.

Fig6 Fig7
Fig 8 Fig 9

The negative slope shown in fig 7 might be caused by an unappropriated set of the
software since a couple of tests were done before ours.
The elongation of the SS 316 sample was more notorious, in fig. 5, due to its ductility.
The sample necked as show as shown in fig.10, so it elongated. Contrarily, the Al 2024 sample
didnt show any necking signs. Therefore, it could say that it was indeed more brittle.

Fig. 10
SS 316 necking

The Youngs Modulus and the Ultimate stress were accurate according to the data previously
posted.
 References
Material Science | News | Materials Engineering | News. (n.d.). Retrieved October 03,
2017, from https://www.azom.com/
Callister, W. D. (2008). Fundamentals of materials science and engineering: an
interactive e-text. Chichester: John Wiley.