Lab 4: Uni-Axial Tension Testing

Written By: Ryan Betz

1
Introduction:

When examining the correct material to use for a biomedical application, precision is necessary.

There are many different aspects of a material to examine from biocompatibility so the body

does not reject the material, to seeing if the material is strong enough to perform the desired task.

If the material is not compatible to the body, then the surgeons will have to perform surgery to

remove the material before serious harm comes about. If the material is too strong, there could be

a limitation formed by the metal such as the individual not having as much mobility after the

material is placed in the body. On the other hand, if a material is too weak then the material has a

chance to break and damage internal organs. Another risk associated with breaking of the

material is more surgery needed to fix the problem. Biomedical engineers have to figure out the

correct balance of stiffness along with ductility in order to allow the individual with the implant

the ability to perform functions that they could without the material. If the material cannot

mimic the normal functions of the body, injury could come about as the material will hinder

normal movement.

The goal of the lab was to examine the elastic modulus of the aluminum rod along with other

properties of the material. An aluminum rod (Aluminum 6061-T6) was used in the experiment to

measure the properties that the metal exhibited. The main device that helped to record data for

this experiment was the Tinius Olsen Testing Machine. This machine performs a uniaxial tension

test by locking one end of the rod down and pulling with an increasing force on one end. This

force along with the displacement from the starting position is vital in trying to solve for the

modulus of elasticity, along with other factors on the stress strain curve. One other gadget used

was an extensometer. The extensometer was used to measure the elastic deformation region as it

measures the small range of change of length. This small measurement of elastic deformation

2
allows for the elastic region of material to be determined. This is due to the Tinius Testing

Machine not having tension right at the beginning of the test and therefore the linear elastic line

cannot be found. The line instead of being straight had a curve due to the lag of not being taut to

start the experiment.

The relevance to biomedical engineering, in specific, biomechanics is that the axial load applied

can be analyzed. Through this, the forces that the metal can withstand are able to be seen. One

way to get even better results is to place the metal in an environment that mimics the body. This

change in composition of the air and change in the heat that the material is exposed could help to

gain more accurate results. These alterations in comparison to not testing as if in the body could

change the properties of the material. If the properties were to change even the slightest this

could alter the functionality of the material which is bad. If the metal broke easier under ideal

body conditions this would be something that could not be used for an implant in the body as

major health issues could arise.

This test even under not ideal body conditions is extremely useful to a biomedical engineer. This

is due to the relevant data collected not only about the stresses and strains, but how this compares

to biological tissue such as bone. If the testing of bone and a different material occurred and the

findings of the tests were similar, the material would be a good candidate for the body. The next

aspect to examine is seeing if the material is biocompatible. If so, the material such as titanium

could be used to aid or replace a bone that is not functioning correctly.

The first part of the experiment dealt with creation of the LabVIEW code. This code was an

integral part to the lab as it helped to take the data from recording along with some user’s inputs

about the material and show not only stress versus strain curves, but what the ultimate strength

and tensile strength were among many things. The code had to take the data file of the results

3
from the UTM and sort the components by every third component equaling a different aspect of

what was being tested. From there the program performs many calculations to give the user all

the information about the material that is being tested. This type of program helps to reduce time

that the lab spends on acquiring results along with the fact that it could be used for more than one

thing. One key component before testing the metal and using the UTM is to zero the data so less

error will be associated with the lab.

Results:

Table 1: These are the table of the variables used in the lab setting.

Ao Initial cross sectional area

Table 2: This table shows the diameters found through the use of an electronic caliper and the
associated cross sectional area that can be calculated as well based on the diameter.
Original Cross Sectional Area
Diameter (mm) Area (mm2)
1 8.55 57.41
2 8.53 57.15
3 8.51 56.87
4 8.55 57.41
5 8.55 57.41
Average 8.54 57.25

4
Table 3: This table shows the measured lengths of the gage before and after testing. Also shown
is the final diameter measured at the fracture point of the material and the corresponding cross
sectional area. The last part of the table is the speed at which the UTM was operating when
pulling the Al bar.
Initial Gage Length 111.4 mm
Final Gage Length 118.9 mm
Final Diameter 6.05 mm
Final Cross Sectional Area 28.74 mm2
UTM Speed 2.5 mm/min

Table 4: This table shows the values when running the experiment using the LabVIEW to import
the data from extensometer and the Tinius Olsen Testing Machine. All of this data like fracture
strength could be generated when putting in initial diameter and initial gage length and final
diameter and gage length.
Ultimate Strength (Us) 298 MPa
Fracture Strength (Uf) 224 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 69.8 GPa
Yield Strength (σy) 274 MPa
Modulus of Resilience (Ur) 540 KPa
Ductility (D) .067
Area Reduction (%A) 49.7%

Table 5: This table represents the values found about the material and all their values. This is in
the middle column followed by the percent error in comparison to the data collected during the
lab. These percent error values can be found in the right hand column
Property Literature Values Percent Error
Ultimate Strength (Us) 310 MPa 3.87%
Fracture Strength (Uf) 209 MPa 6.69%
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 68.9 GPa 1.31%
Yield Strength (σy) 276 Mpa 0.72%
Modulus of Resilience (Ur) 530 KPa 1.89%
Ductility (D) Not given N/A
Area Reduction (%A) Not given N/A
.

Equations:

1) Force= ( Lcmax
30000 )
∗Number generated by UTM

2) Jaw Displacement =0.001mm∗( Number generated by UTM )

5
 0.1
3) Extensometer Strain= ( 30000 )∗Number generated by UTM
These are the three equations used for lab. For the first equation, the force in Pa was found by

taking the loading cell max and dividing that by 30000. For the experiment the load cell max was

50000 and this value was multiplied by every third value generated by the UTM. For the second

equation, this was jaw displacement. This is when the jaws exerted a greater force on the metal

increasing the strain. The calculation was 0.001mm* every third value generated by the UTM.

Finally, the extensometer strain. The equation took the number generated by the UTM and

multiplied it by the first value in the equation. Again the program took every third value and

multiplied it by this value. The values that were given by the UTM in order were force,

extensometer strain and jaw displacement.

Discussion:

Through analyzing the results collected from the experiment in comparison to the literature

values some interesting conclusions can be made. The first part that is interesting is the ultimate

strength of the material was found to be around 3.87% less than the literature value. This means

the max force that the material can withstand is smaller than the literature value for Al 6061-T6.

Another component that was interesting was the fracture strength of the material tested in the lab

was 6.7% greater. This means that the fracture occurred at a higher force than the literature

values. Some other components to analyze between the literature values and the experimental

data are Modulus of Resilience and Modulus of Elasticity. Both of the values determined in lab

were slightly bigger, 1.89% and 1.31% respectively, which means that the material tested in lab

had a greater elasticity region as the slope was larger. Finally, the yield strength was compared

6
between literature values and the experimental. The experimental yield strength was found to be

0.72% less than the literature value.

During the lab there were many sources of error. One of the sources dealt with measuring the

initial gage length along with the diameter. The tool used to measure these components was an

electronic caliper, but there is still human error associated with this type of measuring. As a lab

group, the goal was to minimize error by taking five readings of the diameter and averaging

them. If the caliper was not zeroed then the measurements would be off. For the gage length only

one measurement was taken so there could be a good amount of error associated with the value

and this is not a good thing. Finally, in measuring the diameter and gage length after testing there

is a decent amount of error as the smallest diameter measured might not have been the actual

smallest. This along with the gage length could have been off so there might have been error in

measurement of the items. These are all human errors associated with the measuring.

Some other source of error which is key can be seen in figure 1 in the appendix, but the top

graph. The error in the graph is associated to the starting position which was -0.05. The graph is

correct other than this one error. This error was associated with the strain gauge of the UTM not

being reset fully. This means that instead of starting the experiment after setup at 0, the

experiment started in the negative. For other groups their total strain to fracture was about 0.15

which is exactly what the value in the graph below shows, but the only difference is the starting

value. This is an error associated with the lab except the error is not detrimental only shows a

flaw in the procedure. If the experiment was to be completed again, the thing to make sure of

before testing the metal bar would be to zero all the recording mechanisms. This will give the

best values for the experiment and show a graph that is correct instead of starting in negative

stain because the initial displacement was negative.

7
The effects of the error in recording has no effect on the calculations just the data presented as

the graph is off. This is in comparison to the errors in the measuring of the bar which might

affect calculations and therefore mess up some of the data of the lab. Error is associated in most

labs, but the goal is to do everything necessary to make sure that the error is minimized. Any

examples can range from a procedural component like not zeroing the machine to a

measurements error at the beginning of the lab with the calipers.

The Tinius Olsen is a great machine when it comes to testing uni-axial loads on materials. This

can allow biomedical engineers to try and examine if different metals and materials that are

biocompatible and have the ability to withstand the loads that the body undergoes in day to day

life. Through testing biomedical engineers can not only choose the metal, but also design

materials that will help replace or aid with bones. Another test that can occur in the Tinius Olsen

machine is the use of soft tissue and polymers to replace tissues in the body and see what loads

they can undergo. The Tinius Olsen machine is accurate in allowing biomedical engineers the

ability to test different substances in an effort to replace bone or tissue depending on what is

needed to help people live their everyday lives.

References:
[1]"ASM material data sheet," in ASM Aerospace. [Online]. Available:
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6061t6. Accessed: Oct. 21,
2016.
[2] Gielo-Perczak, Krystyna, Ph.D. “Lab#4 Uni-Axial Tension Testing.” BME 3600 Lab.
Bronwell, Storrs. 28 Sept. 2016. Lab
Appendix:

8
Figure 1: This figure shows the front panel of the LABVIEW program used to run the data
collected from the extensometer and the Tinius Olsen Testing Machine. Different values found in
the program were Modulus of Elasticity to ultimate strength of the material.

9
Figure 2: This figure shows the block diagram of the LABVIEW program used to run the data
collected from the extensometer and the Tinius Olsen Testing Machine.

10