LAB REPORT

MATERIALS LAB – 3 POINT BENDING TEST

Sanith Vaddepalli
510362324
 1. Introduction
AIM - The objective of the experiment is to;

• To Conduct a 3-point bending test on the provided glass specimen and interpret the obtained
results
• To determine the mechanical properties (Flexure modulus and strength) of the given specimen
• To Understand the concepts of fracture mechanics and calculate Stress intensity factor, and
fracture toughness)
• To interpret and apply the concept of Weibull analysis to the fracture analysis.

Background
A 3 point test is performed to determine the modulus of elasticity in bending, stress-strain response and
flexure stress-strain of the provided specimen. The specimen is kept under two simply supported joints in
a Universal testing machine. The load is applied at the center of the specimen until a fracture occurs and
the corresponding load-displacement data is recorded.

Fig 1. Forces in a 3 point bending

Source -https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Beam_bending.svg/500px-
Beam_bending.svg.png

Fig 2. Compressive and tensile stress

Source -
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikip
edia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Beam_s
tress.svg/500px-
Beam_stress.svg.png
As depicted in fig 1 the maximum tensile strength is applied at the center of the specimen. The upper half
of the specimen undergoes compression and the lower half undergoes tension. In general, brittle materials
display higher strength in compression than in tension as the crack propagates faster in tension. i.e tensile
strength of ceramic is about one-tenth of their compressive force [1].

The stress experienced by the specimen can be calculated by the thickness, bending moment and moment
of inertia. The results of tensile stress obtained by the test are not an accurate depiction as the failure
occurs around the griping of the specimen

• Flexural strength - “Flexural strength, also known as modulus of rupture, or bend strength,
or transverse rupture strength is a material property, defined as the stress in a material just
before it yields in a flexure test.” [2]

• Flexure modulus - the modulus defines the slope of the stress deflection curve

2. Theory (Derivation for Flexural strength and Flexural modulus and

FBD, SFD, BMD )

i. Flexural strength -

Free body diagram,

From equilibrium condition.

Along y axis,

Moment,

From eq 1 & 2

Moment = Force x Distance

Bending moment diagram

 ii. Flexural modulus

We know that deflation at the center of the beam is given by,

Where E is the Young’s Modulus and I is moment of area defined by,

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12
If the applied force is considered as p and it is plotted on a graph against wo (displacement ). We obtain straight
line and the gradient of the line is given by

The gradient of a lien is given by,

Hence,
3. Procedure

i. Apparatus

• Specimen- are of two groups (control group and pre-existing crack.)

• UTM (universal testing machine)
• 3 point fixture
• Vernier caliper

ii. Steps -

1. The thickness and width of the specimen are measured using a vernier caliper at three different
points and the average of the value is tabulated in the datasheet.

2. The support span length is measured and tabulated.

3. The bending test is performed in an Instron Universal Test Machine with Instron Application
Software where the load cell is 1 kN the load cell is calibrated to a load rate of 1mm/min and a
data logging rate of 20ms.

4. The specimen is placed symmetrically between two supports such that an anvil is positioned at the
mid-span of the specimen. Now, the anvil is lowered just above the specimen and the reading is
set to zero. A small compression preload of 0.1 -1 N is applied then the load reading is set to zero.

5. Click the start button to begin the test. The force and displacement of the specimen are recorded
till the specimen fails. At the end of the test, the date is saved to a predefined location.

6. The required mechanical properties (fracture load, flexural strength, fracture modulus ) and values
are calculated from the obtained load vs displacement graph.
 4. Results

Specimen No
Type Geometry

L (mm) w (mm) t (mm) I (mm4)

1 Control 60 25.57 1.02 2.26

2 Control 60 25.19 1.07 2.50

3 Crack 60 25.10 1.07 2.56

4 crack 60 25.15 1.06 2.49

5 Crack 60 25.15 1.07 2.71

Average 60 25.23 1.76 2.504

• Length = 60 mm
• Width = 25.2 mm
• Thickness =1.07 mm
• I = 2.5 mm4

Load VS Displacement
35
30
25
FORCE (N)

20
15
10
5
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
DISPLACEMENT (MM)
Second sample is used calculations of material properties

P= 29.21 N {From graph}

• The maximum bending moment,

𝑃𝐿 29.21 𝑥 60
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 438.15 Nmm
𝐴 4

• Maximum bending stress / Flexural strength,

1.07
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 × 𝑐 438.15 × 2
𝜎𝑓𝑏 = = = 92.73 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝐼 2.527746

• Slope of the graph = Y2-Y1/X2-X1

ΔY
Slope (m) =42.04568 = ΔX

𝐿3 𝑑𝑃 603
𝐸= × = × 42.04 = 73.65 𝐺𝑃𝑎
4𝑤𝑡 3 𝑑v 4 × 25.16 × 1.073

Calculation for all 5 samples ,

Specimen No Slope Fracture M max Flexural Flexural

(dP/dv) Load (P) (N) Strength Modulus (E)
(N/mm) (𝝈𝒇𝒃) (MPa) (GPa)

1 41.6421 29.1727 437.59

92.82 72.95
2 42.79 29.2161 438.15
92.73 73.70
3 (Crack) 42.18 25.8536 387.804
82.266 73.89
4 (Crack) 47.22 17.287 259.3
55.006 82.72
5 (Crack) 42.2108 16.063 240.9045
51.102 73.75
 • Weibull analysis

The survival probability P,

𝜎 𝑚
−( )
𝑃𝑠 ( 𝑉0 ) = 𝑒 𝜎0

Volume of the specimen = 60x25.16x1.07 = 1615.27 mm3

𝑙𝑛[−ln (1 − 𝑃𝑓 )] = 𝑚𝑙𝑛 𝜎𝑖 − 𝑚𝑙𝑛 𝜎𝑜 = 9.59 ln(σ) − 41

Y= mx+ C = 9.5-41

𝑚 = 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 9.5

−𝑚 ln 𝜎0 = −41

𝜎0 = 72.4 𝑀𝑝𝑎

The survival probability for glass specimen:

𝜎 9.5
𝑃𝑠 (1615.27) = 𝑒 −(72.457)

5. Discussion

As the test was performed on a brittle specimen the data Cleary depicts the effect of cracks and
imperfections on the strength of a material. From the data it can be observed that control group could with
stand a maximum load of 29.21 N before failure, whereas test specimen with a surface crack could withstand
a load of 18N. Even though the 3 test specimen, have similar specification such as thickness length width
they display different strengths this is due to the surface cracks and defects

• Effects of surface defects

Fracture toughness of materials depicts the resistance of brittle materials to failure or crack propagation an d
it is quantified by the equation K=Yσ√(π×a) From this equation it can be seen that fracture toughness is
directly proportional to the crack size which means lower load could also cause failure if the crack size is
larger. In other words, with an increase in crack size, the concentration factor also increases leading to
failures at lower loads.

Failure in any materials occurs due to the breakage of atomic bonds. Ductile material displays significant
plastic formation as these bonds are broken whereas brittle material does not display any plastic deformation
the crack propagates instantly leading to catastrophic failures. Any imperfections due to surface defects
become regions of stress concentration.

Reasons for variation in obtained data

• Specimen gripping - The specimen could have been placed at the exact same spot during each test.
Minute variation in placement can affect the facture load of the specimen

• Material impurities- surface impurities such during manufacturing can cause stress concentration
leading to cracks or non-uniform arrangement

• Geometry - small variation in geometric properties can provide different mechanical properties of
flexural stress and modulus.

• Treatment - Surface cracks on some specimens may have been larger to others as the treatment is
done manually.

6. Conclusion

The bent test is a very efficient method to determine the maximum load a material can withstand as the
deformation is directly proportional to the applied load. From the obtained load VS displacement curve, we
can observe that crack propagation in a brittle martial happens without any plastic deformation. The
deformation is directly promotional to the applied load. The presence of surface defects significantly effect
the load-bearing capacity of brittle material. The presence of crack lead to the formation of stress
concentration near that region and failure takes place even at lower loads.
The Weibull analysis performed indicates that the survival probability of a specimen is higher it is
subjected to lower stress i.e. for stress 20MPa the survival probability is 97% and 2% for a stress of 90
MPA

References

[1] Michael Ashby (2011). Materials selection in mechanical design. Butterworth-Heinemann. p.

40.
[2] Michael Ashby (2011). Materials selection in mechanical design. Butterworth-Heinemann. p.
40.