Lab #1:

Materials Testing & Uncertainty Analysis

BE 351 – Biomedical Engineering Lab

Submitted on December 7, 2016

Christine Harper
Stefanie Panzenhagen
Taylor Smith
Benjamin Stone

Return to Christine Harper CM 1039.

Abstract
The purpose of this lab was to identify the material of given sample polymer specimens. This
was done by experimentally determining the material properties using area, length, displacement,
and load measurements from tensile testing. These measurements were used to create stress-
strain diagrams for each sample (n=6), and the material properties were extracted from the
diagrams and averaged. The experimentally determined E-modulus is 654.8 MPa, the yield
strength is 13.13 MPa, and the ultimate strength is 28.75 ± 8.80. Based off of these material
properties, the unknown polymer is determined to be PTFE.

Introduction
In this experiment, a tensile test was conducted on an unknown polymer. A tensile test is a
mechanical test that pulls on a material and allows researchers to determine how material reacts
to forces applied in tension. A complete tensile profile can be obtained as a material is pulled
until failure. This profile is usually shown as a stress-strain diagram, and many different
properties of the material can be obtained from this diagram. For example, the material’s yield
strength, which is defined as the stress in the material when plastic deformation starts to occur,
can be found by either locating a local minimum on the curve or using the 0.2% offset method.
A material’s E-modulus, which is a measure of stiffness, can be found by calculating the slope in
the linear region of the curve. The ultimate tensile strength of a material can be found by
selecting the maximum load the material sustains.

The objective of this experiment was to determine the material of the sample polymer by first
determining the polymer’s E-modulus, yield strength, and ultimate tensile strength. To
accomplish this, stress-strain plots were created for each sample. The material’s E-modulus,
yield strength, and ultimate tensile strength were then extracted from these plots, and the
polymer was identified using these properties.

Methods
Six pre-cut polymer specimens of an unknown material were provided and labeled. The gauge
length was marked on each specimen; this was determined by eye as the linear region of the
specimen. Then the gauge length, width, and thickness of the specimens were measured with
digital calipers and recorded in Table 1. To account for variability within the specimen, multiple
measurements were taken on each specimen for width and thickness. Three measurements of
width were taken: one at each line marking the gauge length and one approximately centered
between the two lines. Two measurements for thickness were taken: one at each line marking the
gauge length. A specimen was then secured in an Instron 10 kN load cell (model 2580 Dual
Column Tabletop) with the edge of the grips aligned on the pre-marked gauge length lines. The
load was balanced after securing one end of the specimen so that any tension from the
application of the second grip would be recorded. The displacement was set to zero after both
grips were attached. A tensile load was applied at a rate of 2.5 mm/s until the specimen broke;
the force and displacement were recorded. This was repeated for all six specimens.

1
Table 1. The gauge length, average width, and average thickness of each polymer specimen.
Specimen Number Gauge Length (mm) Average Width (mm) Average Thickness (mm)

1 24.39 ± 0.03 7.05 ± 0.09 0.53 ± 0.03

2 22.35 ± 0.03 7.02 ± 0.04 0.52 ± 0.03

3 21.02 ± 0.03 8.08 ± 0.03 0.54 ± 0.03

4 23.37 ± 0.03 7.01 ± 0.03 0.53 ± 0.03

5 22.85 ± 0.03 7.00 ± 0.03 0.53 ± 0.03

6 24.57 ± 0.03 7.01 ± 0.04 0.53 ± 0.03

Results
The resultant force displacement curves for the tensile tests can be found in Figure 1. This force
and displacement data was then normalized to stress and strain (Figure 2); sample calculations
for stress and strain can be found later in this section.

140

120

100

Specimen 1
Force (N)

80
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
60
Specimen 4
Specimen 5
40
Specimen 6

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Displacement (mm)
Figure 1.The relationship between applied force and resultant displacement for specimens 1-6
during tensile testing.

2
 45

40

35

30
Stress (MPa)

25

Specimen 1
20
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
15
Specimen 4
Specimen 5
10
Specimen 6

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strain
Figure 2.The relationship between applied stress and resultant strain for specimens 1-6 during
tensile testing.

Table 2. The experimentally determined elastic modulus, yield strength, and ultimate tensile
strength of each polymer specimen during tensile testing.
Specimen Number Elastic Modulus Yield Strength (MPa) Ultimate Tensile
(MPa) Strength (MPa)

1 656.1 12.78 19.75 ± 1.20

2 650.6 12.95 20.20 ± 1.23

3 652.1 12.84 30.45 ± 1.72

4 657.6 13.59 25.08 ± 1.50

5 666.7 13.29 38.90 ± 2.24

6 645.9 13.30 38.10 ± 2.30

Average 654.3 13.13 28.75 ± 8.80

3
Sample Calculations

Stress-Strain Calculations
Equation 1 is a sample calculation for stress. The data is from specimen 1 at a time of 1 second. σ
represents stress in MPa, F represent force in N, w represents width in mm, and t represents
thickness in mm.
𝐹 47.32 𝑁
𝜎 = 𝑤∗𝑡 = 7.05 𝑚𝑚∗0.53 𝑚𝑚 = 12.78 𝑀𝑃𝑎 (Equation 1)

Equation 2 is a sample calculation for strain. The data is from specimen 1 at a time of 1 second. ε
represents strain and is unitless, Δl represent displacement in mm, and l represents gage length in
mm.
𝛥𝑙 2.45 𝑚𝑚
𝜀= 𝑙
= 24.39 𝑚𝑚 = 0.100 (Equation 2)

Sample Uncertainty Calculation for UTS

Uncertainty in the force applied, the width, and the thickness were each calculated using the
following equation:
𝑢𝑖 = √𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 2 + 𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 2 (Equation 3)

where 𝑢𝑖 is the uncertainty an individual variable based on accuracy and readability,

𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 is the uncertainty in a variable due to readability, and 𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 is the uncertainty in
a variable due to the accuracy of the measuring instrument. Using the digital calipers,
𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.005 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 = 0.03 𝑚𝑚 for width and thickness. With the specific
load cell used, 𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.000005 𝑁 and 𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 =0.0004F, where F is the force applied.
The total uncertainty in an individual variable, 𝑢, was calculated using the following equation:

𝑢 = √𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 2 + 𝑢𝑖 2 (Equation 4)

where 𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 is the standard deviation between trials of each measurement. Once 𝑢 was
calculated for each variable, the following equation was used to calculate the uncertainty in
ultimate tensile strength, 𝑢𝜎,𝑈𝑇𝑆 , due to uncertainty in measurements:

𝐹 2 𝐹 2 1 2
𝑢𝜎,𝑈𝑇𝑆 = √(𝑢𝑤 ∗ 𝑡∗𝑤 2 ) + (𝑢𝑡 ∗ 𝑡 2 ∗𝑤 ) + (𝑢𝐹 ∗ 𝑤∗𝑡) (Equation 5)

where 𝑢𝑤 , 𝑢𝑡 , and 𝑢𝐹 are the total uncertainties in width, thickness, and force applied. 𝐹, 𝑤, and 𝑡
refer to the force applied, width, and thickness of the polymer specimen. To calculate the total
uncertainty in ultimate tensile strength, 𝑢 𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿,𝑈𝑇𝑆 , the following equation was used:

4
 𝑢 𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿,𝑈𝑇𝑆 = √𝑢𝜎,𝑈𝑇𝑆 2 + 𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑈𝑇𝑆 2 (Equation 6)

where 𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑈𝑇𝑆 is the standard deviation between the six ultimate tensile strengths found.

Elastic Modulus Calculation

The elastic modulus was found by zooming in on the linear region of the data, then fitting a
trendline to that data. The slope of the trend line is the elastic modulus. A sample calculation is
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. A portion of the stress-strain plot for specimen 1 undergoing tensile testing with a
linear trendline fitted to determine E-modulus. The E-modulus for this specimen is 656.09 MPa.

Yield Point Calculation

The yield strength was determined to be the local maximum on the stress-strain plots. For this
data the 0.2% offset method was not appropriate.

Figure 4. The stress-strain plot for specimen 1 undergoing tensile testing used to determine the
yield strength. The yield strength for this specimen was estimated to be 12.78 MPa.

5
Discussion

The material was determined to be PTFE because the experimental yield strength of 13.13 MPa
is within the expected range (9-30 MPa), the experimental ultimate tensile strength of 28.75 ±
8.80 MPa is within the expected range (10-43 MPa), and the experimental E-modulus of 654.8
MPa is within the expected range (410-750 MPa).

The ultimate tensile strength was determined to be 28.75 MPa with a fairly large uncertainty of
8.80 MPa. Although this uncertainty does appear high, it is not uncommon to have large range
ultimate tensile strength. The uncertainty comes largely from the variability between specimens,
not from the uncertainty stemming from taking measurements.

This material is ductile because it deformed a relatively large amount before failure. Every
specimen showed over 100% elongation before breaking.

Sources of Error
There were potential sources of error in this experiment. One source of error could have been
human error in determining the linear region of each sample. If the region marked was not
entirely linear, the calculations for the stress would have been incorrect, resulting in incorrect
calculations for the properties of the polymer. One way the effect of this error could be reduced
is to have multiple samples, because it is less likely that every sample was marked incorrectly.
Another source of error could have been how the sample was placed in the load cell. If the linear
region of the sample was not exactly perpendicular to the base, this would have altered the way
in which stress was applied to the polymer, skewing the data incorrectly. In order to minimize
the effect, multiple samples should be tested and multiple people should check the position of the
sample within the load cell. Another possible source of error was where the measurements for
width were taken. The width measurement was taken at three points and varied at each (the
middle and both ends of the linear region). This may be due to the caliper slightly squeezing the
sample during measurement. This would have resulted in lower reported values of width, which
would cause the stress calculated to be higher than the actual stress. A way in which the effect of
this error could be reduced is to have multiple width measurements taken and check that the
deviation within these measurements is not higher than the accuracy of the tool used.

Conclusions
The unknown polymer was successfully identified to be PTFE. Though the first two samples
appeared to fail differently than the samples 3-6, the yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and
elastic modulus were all within the expected ranges for PTFE after creating stress-strain
diagrams for each sample. These findings demonstrate the usefulness of tensile testing in
determining material properties.