BRINELL HARDNESS TEST

ENGR 244

SECTION TI-X

by ALEC THAEMLITZ

40098763

With ZACHARY B, ESSA H AND NATASHA M

FEBRUARY 5 2019

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
MATERIALS

 One steel and one aluminum tension sample with threaded ends
 One deformation sensor and indicator
 Tension testing machine (hydraulic pump and jack configured to retract when
pumped, and sensor)
 V-groove tray
 Digital caliper

PROCEDURE

1. Measure the diameter of the sample at the center and measure its gauge length (length
of rod having the tested diameter) using a digital caliper.
2. Install the sample into the tension tester by threading them into the screw-on caps all
the way and then loosening them by ½ a turn.
3. Install the deformation sensor with the set screws over the wide part of the sample and
zero the indicator.
4. a. Aluminum: Record readings of load and deformation in increments of roughly
500N until load ceases to rapidly increase (around 5000N). Next, take readings in
increments of 0.5mm until visible necking occurs, after which readings are taken
every 0.25mm of deformation until failure.
b. Steel: Record readings of load and deformation in increments of roughly 500N until
a load of 5000N is reached. After that, take readings in increments of 200N until load
ceases to rapidly increase (around 8000N). Next, take readings in increments of
0.25mm until visible necking occurs, after which readings are taken every 0.1mm of
deformation until failure.
5. Remove the sensor from the machine and then remove the sample.
6. Measure the fracture diameter and the final length of the sample with a digital
caliper.1

1
Steps 5 and 6 deviate from the original procedure but follows the lab TA’s instructions.
 RESULTS

Tables 1 & 2: Tension test data for aluminum

and steel
Steel
Aluminum Load Deformation Strain Stress
Load Deformation Strain Stress 504 0.06 0.0006 41.13005
568 0.04 0.0004 29.16168 1012 0.1 0.001 82.58654
999 0.09 0.000899 51.28965 1513 0.12 0.0012 123.4718
1503 0.12 0.001199 77.16551 2004 0.15 0.0015 163.5409
2003 0.17 0.001699 102.836 2515 0.17 0.001701 205.2422
2512 0.21 0.002098 128.9686 3018 0.19 0.001901 246.2907
3013 0.26 0.002598 154.6904 3516 0.21 0.002101 286.9311
3502 0.3 0.002998 179.7961 3999 0.23 0.002301 326.3474
4006 0.33 0.003297 205.672 4502 0.25 0.002501 367.3958
4505 0.37 0.003697 231.2912 5022 0.28 0.002801 409.8316
5003 0.42 0.004197 256.859 5200 0.28 0.002801 424.3577
5400 0.65 0.006495 277.2413 5400 0.29 0.002901 440.6791
5503 1.19 0.01189 282.5295 5643 0.3 0.003001 460.5097
5480 1.65 0.016487 281.3486 5805 0.31 0.003101 473.7301
5519 2.13 0.021283 283.3509 6006 0.32 0.003201 490.1331
5579 2.64 0.026379 286.4314 6204 0.33 0.003301 506.2914
5614 3.13 0.031275 288.2283 6408 0.34 0.003401 522.9392
5676 3.64 0.036371 291.4115 6614 0.36 0.003601 539.7503
5712 4.17 0.041667 293.2597 6821 0.37 0.003701 556.643
5787 4.69 0.046863 297.1103 7011 0.39 0.003901 572.1484
5790 5.19 0.051859 297.2643 7218 0.41 0.004101 589.0411
5805 5.64 0.056355 298.0344 7421 0.45 0.004501 605.6074
5880 6.21 0.06205 301.885 7613 0.49 0.004901 621.276
5865 6.66 0.066547 301.1149 7670 0.61 0.006102 625.9276
5879 7.14 0.071343 301.8337 7753 0.84 0.008403 632.701
5879 7.64 0.076339 301.8337 7770 1.03 0.010303 634.0883
5865 8.12 0.081135 301.1149 7787 1.16 0.011603 635.4756
5900 8.71 0.08703 302.9118 7824 1.41 0.014104 638.4951
5780 9.13 0.091227 296.7509 7827 1.6 0.016005 638.7399
5650 9.38 0.093725 290.0766 7825 1.92 0.019206 638.5767
5405 9.67 0.096623 277.4981 7805 2.13 0.021306 636.9446
5116 9.89 0.098821 262.6605 7777 2.41 0.024107 634.6596
4783 10.04 0.10032 245.564 7603 2.65 0.026508 620.4599
4025 10.65 0.106415 206.6475 7244 2.96 0.029609 591.1629
3474 11.67 0.116607 178.3586 6628 3.29 0.03291 540.8928
6220 3.5 0.035011 507.5971
5881 3.65 0.036511 479.9322
3470 4.68 0.046814 283.1772
 Figure 1: Engineering stress-strain curve for aluminum

350

300

250
Stress (MPa)

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain

Figure 2: Engineering stress-strain curve for steel

700

600

500
Stress (Mpa)

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Strain
Table 3: Experimental properties of aluminum and steel
Property Aluminum Steel
Yield Strength (MPa) 277 611
Ultimate strength (Mpa) 303 639
% elongation 11.7 4.68
Mod. of elasticity (GPa)* 61.0 141
% reduction of area 71.5 43.8
Proportional limit (MPa)
True fracture stress (MPa) 625 504

Figure 3: Sketches of the fracture area of steel and aluminum

FORMULAS

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑁)
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) =
𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑚)
( ) 𝑝𝑖
2
𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑚𝑚)
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝑚𝑚)
𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑚𝑚)
% 𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =
𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝑚𝑚)
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝑀𝑃𝑎)
𝑀𝑜𝑑. 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐺𝑃𝑎) =
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 − 𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
% 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 =
𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (𝑁)
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) =
𝑅𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑚)
( ) 𝑝𝑖
2
* The elastic modulus was obtained by taking the average slope of the stress strain curves in
the elastic region, ignoring the first data points due to lack of measuring accuracy.

DISCUSSION

1. A stress-strain diagram is advantageous because it is more general than a load-

elongation diagram. Since it does not depend on the cross-sectional area of the
specimen of its length, it is only based on intrinsic properties of the material being
tested. As such, data from the stress-strain curve can easily be applied to any design
situation.

2. The modulus of elasticity’s magnitude defines a material’s resistance to strain (and

hence deformation) under stress. A material with a higher modulus of elasticity will
need to be put under more stress to exhibit the same amount of strain as a material
with a lower modulus of elasticity.

3. When plotting the engineering stress-strain curve for a specimen in compressive

loading, the stress should continue to increase after the proportional limit, with the
ultimate compressive stress being at the rupture point. This is because the diameter of
the sample will increase as more load is applied and strain increases. This will allow it
to support more and more load. For a ductile sample such as the aluminum, and
without buckling, the sample will eventually develop vertical cracks at the site of the
failure as its cross section expands more the material can take. With these voids it
 becomes much weaker. Since the steal is a little more brittle it may fracture by
fracturing and then shearing instead.

4. The ductility of a material is the characteristic of being able to withstand plastic

deformation without rupturing. The percent elongation at rupture is the most direct
indicator of ductility, as the greater the percentage, the greater the deformation. Since
plastic deformation does not occur evenly everywhere in the sample, the gauge length
can affect the percent elongation, which is why the reduction of area at the neck is
also used in conjunction with % elongation to describe ductility.2

5. For aluminum, yield strength, ultimate strength and % elongation are all within 2.5%
error of the expected results, which is accurate. However, the modulus of elasticity
jumps to an experimental error of 11.6%. Possible sources of error include human
error such as incorrectly timing the readings of load and deformation. It is also
possible that the screw-on caps were not set correctly into the machine which would
cause an uneven distribution of the load in the sample. The machining process could
have also affected the properties of the material because of the heating and working.
The true stress at fracture for aluminum is high, which may be due to a bad reading of
the load at rupture.

Our results weren’t so accurate for the steel. Errors range between 18.3% for the
ultimate strength and 53.5% for the % elongation. The machine was set up and
calibrated the same way as it was for the aluminum sample and the force sensor was
never touched, so the equipment can likely be ruled out as the source of the 47.2%
and 18.3% error for the yield and ultimate strengths. The deformation indicator’s
measurement is backed up by our final measurement of the length with a digital
caliper, so the deformation indicator should not be the cause of the huge error in %
elongation. In addition to the errors listed for aluminum, the grade of steel from our
test may be different from the one given in the lab manual considering how large the
% errors are and the apparent lack of catastrophic experimental mistakes. The higher
tensile strengths are consistent with the lower % elongation than the given values.
That being said, the shape of the stress-strain curve corresponds pretty well to that of
a low alloy steel of this grade.

CONCLUSION
The steel sample has a higher tensile strength than the aluminum, but is also more
brittle when comparing % elongation, reduction of area, and the shape of the rupture. For
aluminum, the experiment is accurate enough to match the given data for tensile strengths
and percent elongation, but not the other characteristics. The test for steel isn’t completely
invalid in itself, but it is very far off from the given properties of C12 L14.

2
« Ductility », Donghao Stainless Steel. https://tubingchina.com/Ductility.htm
PICTURES