Deduction of material properties from stress vs strain curves

José Luis Camargo

Camila Contreras
Sharon González
____________________________________________________________________________

Objectives
General objectives
- Identify and compare the different
mechanical properties of two materials

Specific objectives
- Plot the stress vs strain graphs for each
material
- Identify crucial points in the stress vs
strain curves, which help understand the
Figure #1. Strain vs deformation curves for sample 1 and
mechanical behaviour of materials.
2.

Ecuations Similarly, the segment of the function

To find the final length of the samples, utilized to calculate the elasticity modulus for
we added the value of the extension, to the sample 2 is shown in figure #2.
initial length. Once the final length was obtained
for each stress value, the elongation was
calculated with the following equation:

To calculate the value of the modulus of

elasticity for each material, we took the nearest
part of the function to the yielding point which
presented a linear behaviour, and calculated the
slope, knowing that:
Figure #2. Linearization of the elastic deformation
section for sample #2

Also, in order to find the yield stress, a line

The modulus for elasticity for sample 1
parallel to the slope of the elastic deformation
and 2 had a magnitude of 1134 GPa and 847
section is drawn at the value of 0.2%
GPa respectively, Where sample #1 had a
deformation.
higher value, meaning that it requires a bigger
Mechanical behaviour of the materials
amount of strain to deform elastically, and a
The samples utilized consisted of a low
lower percentage of plastic deformation to reach
carbon-steel alloy (0.16%C) (Sample #2), and a
its maximum stress;which makes sense, since a
higher carbon-steel alloy (0.21%C)(Sample #1).
higher percentage of carbon should result in a
The strain vs deformation curves for both alloys
more imperfect crystal structure, due to more
are shown below in figure #1, where the orange
substitutional defects, and thus, more
line corresponds to sample #2.
impediment for dislocations to move around.
Taking this into account, it is possible to
conclude that sample #2 is made of a more
ductile material than sample #1.
Furthermore, the fractures presented in
the specimens also indicate a more ductile
behaviour for sample 2, where a more
pronounced necking was observed (ductile
fracture); than in sample 1, where little necking,
and a moderately ductile fracture occurred (cup
and cone fracture), making it a more brittle
material. The fractures presented in each
sample are shown below in figure #3 and figure
#4.
Figure #3. Sample 2 and 1 from top to bottom
after rupture.
​Figure #4. Tensile fracture sample #2
Figure #5. Tensile fracture sample #1
It’s to be noted that the behaviour of
sample 1 is different from the one expected,
having a lower yielding point than sample 2
(82,5 and 140,3 GPa respectively), even though
it is made of a more brittle material; Therefore,
there must had been an internal crack which
amplified the applied stress, due to the decrease
of the area to which the force was applied, as
shown in the equation below.
The errors that should be taken into account are
the deviation of the specimens measures from
the theoretical measures (ASTM rules), as well
as the error associated to the machine
(​INSTRON-EMIC series 3300 ​), which,
according to the manufacturer, is less than
0.5%. (“3300 series universal testing systems
for tension, compression, flexure, peel
testing”)
Comparing the experimental, and theoretical
values for the modulus of elasticity, me can tell
that the method is not exact, which can be
attributed in some proportion to the possibility
that the equipment was not calibrated; yet, the
difference between values is so drastical, that
it's even possible that the alloys do not
correspond to the given C%.
("Metal Alloy Elemental Composition Search", 2018)
Bibliography
Askeland, D. ​Essentials of materials science
and engineering (3rd edition)
Matweb.Material property data. Retrieved 10
May 2018, from ​http://www.matweb.com/index.aspx
Metal Alloy Elemental Composition Search.
(2018). Retrieved from
http://www.matweb.com/search/CompositionSearch.a
spx
Instron 3300 series. 3300 series universal
testing systems for tension, compression, flexure,
peel testing. Retrieved from 10 may 2018, from:
http://www.instron.es/es-es/products/testing-systems/
universal-testing-systems/electromechanical/3300