Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

MECHENG 242: Mechanics of Materials 1

Laboratory A Report

​
Report Instructions

During the laboratory you performed a tensile test to failure on a provided steel sample and
gathered load and displacement data from the instrumented tensometer. You also recorded the
geometry of the test specimen both before and after the test. You should now use that data to
complete the following report, which is to be submitted via the assignment on Canvas by the
due date stated. All graphs in the report should be produced using appropriate graphing
software and not hand drawn. All text should be typed. Any equations and derivations may be
handwritten if preferred.
Specimen: AS-1443:M1020 Low Carbon Mild Steel

Gauge Length: 49.99 mm

Initial Sample Diameter:

​
Measurement / mm
1 5.01
2 4.93
3 5.02
Mean 4.99

Initial Sample Cross-Sectional Area: 19.56 mm2

Final Length of Sample: 54.13 mm

Minimum Sample Diameter After Test: 3.73 mm

%age Elongation: 8.28%

%age Reduction in Cross-Sectional Area: 44.14%

a)​ In the box below, provide the calculations that verify the dimensions of your sample
and the rate of extension comply with the BS EN ISO 6892 standard.
Verify the Dimensions:
For proportional test pieces, original gauge length Lo should follow:

Lo = k 𝑆o

Where k = 5.65, and 𝑆o = 19.56 mm2, is the initial cross-sectional area (Section 8.1)

Lo = 5.65 19. 56 = 24.99 mm​

Allows rounding to the nearest 5mm as difference is less than 10% of Lo

25−24.99
Difference = 24.99
× 100% = 0.04% < 10%

However, as the gauge length given is 49.99mm, which is about twice the proportional
gauge length (24.99mm). The standard allows for non-proportional test pieces, where Lo
doesn’t follow the k = 5.65 relationship, rather k = 11.3. This must be clearly indicated per
Section 8.1.

50−49.99
Difference = 49.99
× 100% = 0.02% < 10%

This is therefore acceptable, and the gauge length can be treated as a non-proportional test
piece (A50mm).
Verify the Rate of Extension:
The standard specifies testing rates based on strain rate (method A) or stress rate (method
B). Method A is recommended, using two strain rate ranges to determine other properties.
Range 2 is recommended.

Range 2: Strain rate 𝑒Le = 0.00025𝑠-1 ± 20%

Calculate the crosshead separation rate (υc) for Method A2:

υc = Lc𝑒Le

The parallel length Lc must be greater than Lo. As is not specified, a common
approximation is Lc ≈ 1. 5 × 49.99 = 74.99 mm

For Range 2: υc = Lc𝑒Le = 74.99 × 0.00025 = 0.0187 mm/s = 1.125 mm/min

With a tolerance of ±20%
υc = 1.125 ± 0.225 mm/min

Assumed Rate of Extension:​

Although the crosshead separation rate used in the test was not given, a common rate of 1-2
mm/min is common for labs testing steel.

Summary:​
The specimen has a mean diameter of 4.99 mm (from three measurements: 5.01 mm, 4.93
mm, 5.02 mm), yielding an initial cross-sectional area of 19.56 mm2, which matches the
calculated value (19.554 mm2) per Section 7. The gauge length of 49.99 mm is treated as a
non-proportional test piece (A50mm), meeting the minimum requirement (Lo ≥ 15 mm) per
Section 6.11. The crosshead separation rate, assumed at 1 mm/min, falls within the
acceptable range for Method A, Range 2 per Section 10.3.2.2. Thereby, ensuring
compliance with BS EN ISO 6892-1:2019.

b)​ Please provide a plot of your load and extension data below. Provide a title for the
graph, labels for the axes and appropriate units for both scales.
 c)​ Using your load and extension data together with your dimensional measurements,
plot stress vs. strain for your test sample. Provide a title for the graph, labels for the
axes and appropriate units for both scales.

d)​ Calculate the following material properties from your obtained data plotted in (c):

Young’s Modulus: ​ ​ 21.614 GPa

0.2% Proof Stress:​ ​ 690.119 MPa

Ultimate Tensile Strength:​ 698.379 MPa

Engineering Fracture Stress:​ 493.321 MPa

True Fracture Stress:​ ​ 883.062 MPa

Extension at break:​ ​ 8.720 %

​
e)​ Please provide a plot of the load and extension data from the tensile test performed at
Newmarket below. Provide a title for the graph, labels for the axes and appropriate
units for both scales.​

f)​ Using the force and displacement data from Newmarket together with nominal
dimensional measurements, plot stress vs. strain for the test sample. Provide a title for
the graph, labels for the axes and appropriate units for both scales.
g)​ Calculate the following material properties from your obtained data plotted in (f):

Young’s Modulus: ​ ​ 39.256 GPa

0.2% Proof Stress:​ ​ 722.957 MPa

Ultimate Tensile Strength:​ 723.471 MPa

Engineering Fracture Stress:​ 509.089 MPa

True Fracture Stress:​ ​ 1122.006 MPa

Extension at break:​ ​ 9.428 %

h)​ Using the tensile stress and composite strain data from, plot stress vs. strain for the
test sample. Provide a title for the graph, labels for the axes and appropriate units for
both scales.
i)​ Calculate the following material properties from your obtained data plotted in (h):

Young’s Modulus: ​ ​ 189.882 GPa

0.2% Proof Stress:​ ​ 720.244 MPa

Ultimate Tensile Strength:​ 723.471 MPa

Engineering Fracture Stress:​ 509.089 MPa

True Fracture Stress:​ ​ 1122.006 MPa

Extension at break:​ ​ 9.428 %

Questions

1.​ Give THREE reasons why it is important to standardise material testing procedures.
Consistency: Ensures repeatable, reliable results by standardising variables like strain
rate, specimen dimensions, and test conditions, thereby minimising errors.

Comparability: Enables direct comparison of material properties across labs,

manufacturers, or regions, aiding in quality assurance and material selection.

Safety: Verifies materials meet performance standards, reducing the risk of

unexpected failures in critical applications like structures or machinery.

2.​ What sources of error do you think were present in your testing procedure that would
deviate from the testing standard?

Strain Measurement & Young's Modulus Calculation:

Issue: My calculated Young’s Modulus (21.6 GPa) is extremely low for steel, indicating a
significant deviation from expected values (~200 GPa).

Potential Errors vs. Standard:

Extensometer Attachment: Incorrect attachment, such as slippage during the elastic

portion or setting the wrong gauge length (49.99 mm), could lead to inaccurate strain
readings, skewing modulus per BS EN ISO 6892 Section 9.

Using Crosshead Displacement: Relying on the machine’s crosshead movement for

strain instead of an extensometer on the gauge length likely underestimated strain,
violating the standard’s precision requirements (Section 9) and affecting elongation
(8.28%).

Data Processing: Selecting an incorrect or non-linear portion of the stress-strain curve

for modulus calculation could further distort results, deviating from Section 10’s
guidelines.

Additional Notes: Specimen misalignment or uneven machining (Section 7) and testing

outside 23°C ± 5°C (Section 5) might also contribute, impacting strength (698.379 MPa) and
reduction in area (44.14%).
3.​ Compare the results obtained for the different material properties from your own data
(in section c) and from the force and displacement data from Newmarket (in f).
Comment on the reasons for any discrepancy between them.

Explanations and Hypotheses

1.​ Young’s Modulus: My 21.614 GPa is far below Newmarket’s 39.256 GPa, an 81.6%
gap, likely because my test had initial noise or I used a shorter elastic range,
underestimating stiffness. Newmarket’s higher value, though still low, might reflect a
cleaner start or better extensometer use. Hypothesis: My setup suffered from
uncorrected machine compliance or misalignment.​

2.​ 0.2% Proof Stress & UTS: My proof stress (690.119 MPa) and UTS (698.379 MPa)
are lower than Newmarket’s (722.957 MPa, 723.471 MPa) by 4.8% and 3.6%,
possibly due to a slower strain rate in my test, reducing material strength.
Newmarket’s higher values suggest a faster rate enhancing stiffness. Hypothesis:
Newmarket applied a quicker strain rate, boosting strength before yielding and peak
load.​

3.​ Fracture Stress: My Engineering Fracture Stress (493.321 MPa) and True Fracture
Stress (883.062 MPa) trail Newmarket’s (509.089 MPa, 1122.006 MPa) by 3.2% and
27.1%, indicating my test had a lower failure load or less necking. Newmarket’s
higher true stress might come from a smaller measured final area or added
corrections. Hypothesis: Newmarket’s sample necked more, or they adjusted for
necking differently.​

4.​ Extension at Break: My 8.720% is 8.1% less than Newmarket’s 9.428%, suggesting
my test ended sooner, possibly using direct strain measurement, while Newmarket’s
higher value likely reflects machine displacement capturing extra movement.
Hypothesis: My test stopped at true fracture, while Newmarket included post-fracture
displacement.​

5.​ Plateau Behavior: My graph plateaus at UTS (~698 MPa) for ~1% strain before a
slow drop, while Newmarket’s (~723 MPa) holds for ~4% strain, then declines
gradually. My shorter plateau implies rapid necking, possibly from a faster strain rate
or sample flaw, whereas Newmarket’s longer stretch shows more ductility.
Hypothesis: My higher strain rate or a defective sample sped up necking, while
Newmarket’s slower rate allowed extended deformation.
4.​ Compare the results obtained for the different material properties from your own data
(in section c) and from the tensile stress and composite strain data from Newmarket
(in h). Comment on the reasons for any discrepancy between them.

Explanations and Hypotheses

1.​ Young’s Modulus: My Young's Modulus (21.614 GPa) is 81.6% lower than
Newmarket’s (39.256 GPa), likely due to initial test noise or using a shorter elastic
range, underestimating stiffness. Newmarket's value might reflect cleaner data or
better extensometer use.
Hypothesis: My setup perhaps had uncorrected machine compliance or misalignment,
reducing calculated stiffness.

2.​ 0.2% Proof Stress & UTS: My proof stress (690.119 MPa) and UTS (698.379 MPa)
are 4.8% and 3.6% below Newmarket’s (722.957 MPa, 723.471 MPa), possibly due to
a slower strain rate in my test reducing strength. Newmarket’s higher values could
indicate a faster testing rate.
Hypothesis: Newmarket likely used a slightly faster strain rate, boosting measured
strength values.

3.​ Fracture Stress: My Engineering (493.321 MPa) and True Fracture Stress (883.062
MPa) are 3.2% and 27.1% below Newmarket’s (509.089 MPa, 1122.006 MPa),
suggesting my sample failed at lower stress or necked less. Newmarket’s higher true
stress might result from a smaller measured final area or different necking corrections.
Hypothesis: Newmarket's sample necked more, or their method for finding the final
area differed.

4.​ Extension at Break: My 8.720% elongation is 8.1% less than Newmarket’s 9.428%,
suggesting less overall plastic deformation in my test. This might reflect direct strain
measurement versus Newmarket potentially including machine displacement.
Hypothesis: My measurement likely captured strain until fracture, while Newmarket's
might include some post-fracture machine movement.

5.​ Plateau Behavior: My graph plateaus at UTS (~698 MPa) for ~1% strain, while
Newmarket’s (~723 MPa) holds for ~4% strain. My shorter plateau implies faster
necking progression, maybe from a higher strain rate post-yield or a sample
imperfection, whereas Newmarket's shows more extended uniform deformation.
Hypothesis: A higher effective strain rate or a minor flaw in my sample could have
accelerated necking compared to Newmarket's test.
 5.​ Compare your results for %age elongation measured/calculated in the laboratory and
the extension at break from section (c). Comment on which one you think is more
repeatable between different testing apparatus and give justifications for your answer.

Comparison of Elongation Values:

%age Elongation (Measured/Calculated): 8.28%

This value is typically obtained after the test by manually fitting the two broken
halves of the specimen back together and measuring the final distance between the
original gauge marks (Lu). The calculation is: A% = [(Lu - L0) / L0] * 100. It
represents the permanent plastic elongation over the initial gauge length.

Extension at Break (from Section (c) data): 8.720%

This value usually comes from the testing machine's data acquisition system. It
represents the strain recorded by the extensometer (or sometimes derived from
machine crosshead displacement) at the point the system defines as "fracture" (e.g.,
based on a specific load drop). It captures the total elongation (elastic + plastic)
recorded by the sensor up to that fracture point.

The two values are quite close (difference of about 0.44 percentage points), which suggests
reasonable consistency between the manual post-test measurement and the electronic
measurement at failure in this case.

Repeatability Between Different Apparatus:

%age Elongation (Manual A%):

Potential Variability: Depends on operator skill in fitting the broken pieces accurately
and measuring the final length (Lu). Precision of the original gauge marks is also
important. Non-uniform fractures can make measurement difficult.
Factors Promoting Repeatability: It's a standardised procedure (defined in BS EN ISO
6892-1). It directly measures permanent deformation over the defined gauge length,
making it less sensitive to machine stiffness, variations in grip effects outside the
gauge length, or the exact electronic definition of the fracture point.

Extension at Break (Electronic):

Potential Variability: Highly dependent on the type, class, and calibration of the
extensometer used. How and where the extensometer is attached is crucial. If machine
crosshead displacement is used instead, results include machine/grip deformation and
are generally less repeatable for material properties. The software algorithm used to
detect the exact "fracture point" (e.g., % load drop threshold) can vary between
machines/labs.
Factors Promoting Repeatability: When using a properly calibrated, high-quality
extensometer attached directly to the gauge length, the measurement can be very
precise for that specific setup.
Conclusion on Repeatability:

In my opinion, the %age Elongation (A%) measured manually after fracture is likely
to be more repeatable between different testing apparatus, provided it is performed
carefully according to the standard (BS EN ISO 6892-1).