Running Head: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS

Mechanical Properties of Metals and Polymers

Group Members:

Wyatt Gray, Evan Bolen, Felicia King,

Sam Fogel, and Scott Friedrich

EMAT 252

Professor Roberta Amendola

Section 009, Section Leader: Izzy Gordon

October 9, 2018
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 1

Abstract

This experiment was designed to test the physical properties of polymers and metals.

Deformation testing of nine different materials (three metals and six polymers) yielded data on

elastic deformation, plastic deformation, and failure behavior of each material. Of the tests, eight

of the materials were submitted to tensile stresses up to the point of failure and one (high density

polyethylene (HDPE)) was submitted to compressive stress up to the point of a threshold force.

The first component of this lab focused on three different metal types: 2024-T3 aluminium, 1020

annealed steel, and 360 brass; the second component focused on the characteristic behavior of

six different polymer samples: HDPE, acrylic, high impact polystyrene (HIPS), nylon 6,

acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and polypropylene. During deformation, force and

position data were collected. From the recorded data, stress-strain curves were generated for each

material and used to determine mechanical properties for the materials: yield strength (𝜎𝒚 ), yield

strain (𝜀𝒚 ), tensile strength (TS), strain at fracture (𝜀𝒇 ), and Young’s modulus (E). Material

property testing is used to predict material behavior in application. Engineers are dependent on

information gathered through deformation testing to pick appropriate materials for their designs,

ensuring that they create reliable and safe products.

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 2

Mechanical Properties of Metals and Polymers

Introduction

The purpose of this experiment is to examine, compare, and test the mechanical

properties of three metals and six polymers. The specific materials tested were: annealed steel,

brass, and aluminum for metals; and acrylic, high density polyethylene (HDPE), high impact

polystyrene (HIPS), 15% glass-filled nylon 6, polypropylene, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

(ABS) for polymers. Tensile and compressive stress-strain tests were used to ascertain these

mechanical properties. Tension testing, one of the most common mechanical stress-strain tests,

deforms the specimen under a uniaxial tensile load evenly distributed through the experimental

area of the specimen. Tension testing is usually destructive, continuing up until material fracture.

Tension test specimens, normally dogbones, are designed with two main regions: a threaded

region and an experimental region (see Figure 1). The threaded regions with a larger cross-

sectional area is subjected to less stress than the experimental region, ensuring that the sample

fails in the experimental region. Test samples are mounted into the holding grips of the testing

apparatus (Appendix B, Equipment ID #1). The experimental region of test specimens is

typically circular in cross-section with a uniform diameter normally one-fourth the diameter of

the threaded region. Stresses in this region are much higher than that of the threaded region of

the sample. Thus, during testing, deformation is confined to this region. This also decreases the

likelihood of fractures occurring in the threaded region of the specimen. This test elongates

material until fracture. The second test performed was the compression test. Compression testing

is similar to tension testing except the force is a compressive. This compressive force uniaxially

contracts the specimen in the same direction the compressive force is applied. Therefore, to
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 3

investigate mechanical properties of materials, compressive and tensile tests were administered

to acquire these mechanical properties. [1]

Background

Tension tests were conducted for every sample, metals and polymers, excluding the High

Density Polyethylene (HDPE), which was tested in compression. The test results provided

information to determine engineering stress and engineering strain:

𝐹
engineering stress, 𝜎 = 𝐴
0

𝚫𝐿
engineering strain, 𝜀 = 𝐿0

calculated at short time intervals until failure (for tensile tests) or upon reaching a threshold

tension (for the compression test). Engineering stress is force over area and is reported in units of

pressure (N), while engineering strain is unitless. After plotting stress against strain, material

properties can be determined, includes: yield strength (𝜎𝒚 ), yield strain (𝜀𝒚 ), tensile strength (TS),

strain at fracture (𝜀𝒇 ), and Young’s modulus (E). Figure 2 shows a generic stress-strain curve

with key points labeled, illustrating how material properties can be read off of a typical stress-

strain graph [2].

The yield point (point A in Figure 2) is the first inflection point on the stress-strain curve

and represents the transition in the material from elastic to plastic deformation [3]. Stress and

strain at the yield point are important material properties and are referred to as yield strength and

yield strain, respectively. Before the yield point, strain is proportional to applied force and

deformation can be recovered with the removal of the applied force, while any force beyond the

yield point causes permanent plastic deformation [3, 4]. On an atomic scale, elastic deformation

is the staining of primary, interatomic bonds and the yield strength reflects the resilience of

interatomic bonding to applied stress [4]. Engineers look at yield strain when selecting product
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 4

materials, usually picking materials whose yield strength is above anticipated loading to ensuring

that deformation of their products under anticipated working conditions will be elastic and

recoverable [1].

Tensile strength (point D in Figure 2) is the max stress a material can withstand; this

explains why TS is actually short for UTS or the ultimate tensile load. For materials that neck

before failure, like many metals, TS is achieved immediately before necking begins. For

polymers, whose stress-strain curves have different characteristic shape than metals during

plastic deformation, TS is defined as the stress at failure (Figure 3). Tensile strength is the

maximum force the material can withstand before catastrophic failure; TS corresponds to the

maximum stress a material can withstand, but if this stress is applied and maintained it would

result in material failure. In most cases, engineers will select materials whose TS is significantly

above anticipated loading in application to significantly decrease likelihood of part failure. [1]

Fracture (point E in Figure 2) is the point of failure when the material ruptures. Strain at

fracture provides information about the material’s ductility; the higher the strain at fracture, the

higher the material’s ductility. Behavior of a material’s engineering stress versus engineering

strain curve before fracture provides information about how the material fails; for example, if

stress drops with increased strain before fracture, then the material fails after necking (true

stress-true strain plots would not show this behavior). Necking is the reduction of the cross

sectional area in a specific point on the material before failure.

Material stiffness is quantified as Young’s modulus (also referred to as the modulus of

elasticity). Young’s modulus is the slope of a material’s stress-strain curve during elastic

deformation (slope from point O to point A in Figure 2) when the plot is linear, thus:
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 σ
Young’s modulus, E = 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = ε
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 5

The atomic-level structural makeup of the material being tested dictates its Young’s modulus.

Metals are composed of metallically bonded atoms and have a crystalline structure. In contrast,

polymers are long, covalently bonded chain molecules that create semicrystalline solids

composed of chain-folded lamellae (the semicrystalline regions) and amorphous regions. Unlike

metals, weak secondary bonds in the amorphous regions of polymers can be broken during

elastic deformation. As a result of their molecular structure, Young’s moduli of polymers are

roughly 10-100 times smaller than those for metals; polymers are reliably an order of magnitude

less stiff than metals. [1]

This lab explores the material properties of a varied selection of materials from stiff brass

to highly ductile polypropylene. Metals and polymers are vital materials to modern

manufacturing, used in innumerable and highly variable applications. Metals and polymers

however have significantly different properties that are derived from differences in this

microscopic and macroscopic structures. Understanding the properties of these materials is

critical to material selection and ultimate success and safety of products.

As previously noted, polymers create semicrystalline solids composed of varying degrees

of orderly lamellae and unorderly amorphous regions. Because polymers can undergo significant

deformation before intramolecular bonds are strained, these materials are pliable with high

elasticity and high yield strain when compared to the metals. Amorphous regions in polymers

have free-moving chains of molecules that are randomly organized so that when tension is

applied to a polymer, these chains begin to untangle and stretch out. Significant straining of the

sample can occur just in this “untangling” of the amorphous region and before the lamellae are

effected or intramolecular bonds are strained. This is what gives polymers their high elasticity.

Further, during plastic deformation, the semicrystalline lamellae go through an additional three
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 6

stages of deformation: tilting, to reorient the lamellae parallel to the stress force; separation,

which begins to segment the lamellae; and lastly drawing, which unravels the orderly structure of

the lamellar chain-folds. Only in the last stage of drawing is the polymeric backbone being

stressed. The many stages of deformation before drawing primarily break secondary,

intermolecular bonds in the material, which explains the low strength and higher extensibility of

many polymers. [1]

In contrast to polymers, metals are stiff and strong materials. Metal stiffness is a function

of its crystalline structure--elastic deformation immediately stresses interatomic bonds. Plastic

deformation in metals is caused when there is a dislocation of the crystal structures, a “slip” of

the metallic crystal along a plane. The polymers used in this lab will have a larger maximum

elastic deformation. [1]

Procedure

Sample preparation

Before the experiment was conducted, each specimen was measured with electronic

calipers (Appendix B, Equipment ID #3). Measurements for diameter and length of sample were

recorded. For the coupon samples, the diameter at the middle of the experimental section was

recorded and length was measured in between the fillets on each end of the sample before the

transition to the threaded section (see Figure 4). For the flat dogbones, the diameter of the

smallest middle section was recorded and the length was measured in between the two necked

sections (see Figure 5).

Threaded tensile samples

Deformation experiments were conducted using the PASCO Materials Testing Machine

(Appendix, Equipment ID #2) along with associated software (Appendix B, Equipment ID #3)
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 7

and accessories (Appendix B, Equipment IDs #4-6). The shorter section of the threads was

screwed into the load cell (see Figure 6) until no threads were exposed and all of the fillet was

still visible. The cross head was then lowered until the long section of threads was completely

covered. Next, the knurled cap was threaded until it was tight against the counterbore of the hole

in the cross head and the safety shield was mounted. Then, the record button was pressed on the

PASCO Capstone software and the hand crank was immediately turned clockwise at a speed of

0.2 mm/s to 0.4 mm/s until the sample failed. The procedure stated above was used for the

following samples: 2024-T3 aluminum, 360 brass, 1020 annealed steel, and acrylic.

Flat coupon samples

The flat coupon fixture(Appendix B, Equipment ID #4) was installed on the PASCO

Materials Testing Machine to perform the procedure that follows. The flat coupon was placed in

the bottom fixture (because of the symmetry of the coupon it did not matter which end was

placed down or up) and tightened until the coupon was held in place and did not slip vertically or

horizontally. The cross head was then lowered until the flat coupon could be tightened into the

top fixture. Then the record button was pressed on the Pasco Capstone software and the hand

crank was immediately turned clockwise at a speed of 0.2 mm/s to 0.4 mm/s until the coupon

failed. The procedure stated above was used for the following samples: HIPS, nylon 6, HDPE,

ABS, and polypropylene.

Spring

Two Clevis adapters (Appendix B, Equipment ID #6) were attached to the PASCO

Materials Testing Machine with a single spring pinned to top and bottom Clevis adapter. Then

the record button was pressed on the Pasco Capstone software and the hand crank was
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 8

immediately turned clockwise at a speed of 0.2 mm/s to 0.4 mm/s until a max force of 4 N was

reached. Once the max force was reached, the data recording was stopped manually.

Compression sample

The PASCO Compression Fixture (Appendix B, Equipment ID #5) was installed to the

PASCO Material Testing Machine to perform the procedure that follows. The HDPE sample was

placed in the center of the compression fixture, then the cross head was lowered until it provided

enough force to prevent the sample from sliding around but not enough force that the sample

started to deform. Then the record button was pressed on the PASCO Capstone software and the

hand crank was immediately turned counter-clockwise at a speed of 0.2 mm/s to 0.4 mm/s until a

max force of 3200 N was reached. Once the max force was reached, the data recording was

stopped manually.

Data analysis

Raw data from the laboratory tests recorded load force (N) to the nearest Newton, change

in relative position (m), and speed of deformation (mm/min) every 0.2 seconds during the

recording period. The recording period began once the recording button was clicked by the

experimenter and ended at material fracture for tensile tests and at a 3200 N load force for the

compressive test. This raw data was cleaned, removing all leading measurements before

appreciable loads were applied, based on a given threshold: 30 N for all metals, 5N for

polypropylene, -100N for HDPE, and 10N for all remaining polymers.

Once raw data was cleaned, the first recorded position was defined as the original length

with extension equal to zero, 𝛥𝐿 = 0. Extension values, 𝛥𝐿, were generated by shifting all

position data to reflect this definition, subtracting the first position value from each position

value, thus calculating 𝛥𝐿 for each data point. These extension values were used along with
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS 9

measured gauge length (𝐿0 ) to calculate strain. Stress was determined using the measured force

and the calculated cross-sectional area, based on the measured diameter. These calculated stress

and strain values were then utilized to generate stress-strain graphs for each material. The stress-

strain graphs were then used to quantify properties of the different materials.

Young’s modulus

As noted, Young’s modulus is equal to the slope of the linear elastic deformation section

of a stress-strain plot. Each plot was visually inspected to determine the upper bound of the

initial linear region. Young’s modulus was then calculated as:

σ𝑓 −σ𝑖
𝐸= ε𝑓 − ε𝑖

using the visually determined upper limit, point(σ𝑓 , ε𝑓 ), and the initial data recording,

point(σ𝑖 , ε𝑖 ).

Yield point

As a convention, yield point is determined by drawing a straight line from 0.0002 (0.2%)

strain with a slope equal to Young’s modulus of the given material and finding its point of

intersection with the stress-strain curve. Because the data was non-continuous, a linear

approximation was used when the point of intersection fell between two measured values to

determine a more precise yield point.

Tensile strength

Tensile strength was determined as the maximum stress value recorded for metal

samples. For polymer samples, tensile strength was determined to be the stress at fracture.

Spring analysis

Resolution on force data was limited to integer values, resulting in a “stair-step” behavior

in the raw force versus extension graph (Figure 7). To clean the data and better characterize the
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
10

spring, the first stable data points for each 1 N bin (where following data did not drop down to a

lower bin) were compiled and graphed to determine the spring constant, k, equal to the slope of

the line of best fit.

Categorization of material behavior at failure

Material behavior was categorized as ductile, moderately ductile, or brittle.

Categorization of each material took into account fracture behavior (e.g. does the material neck?)

and the shape of the stress strain-strain curve.

Results

For each each of the nine tests, with the exclusion of HDPE, Young’s modulus, tensile

strength, yield strength, yield strain, and strain at fracture were calculated (see Table 1 for test

summaries and Table 2 for values). For HDPE only Young’s Modulus was determined, it

calculated to be 2.52 GPa.

Metal samples were stressed in tension up until failure (Figure 8) and their behavior

under loading was plotted as a stress-strain graph (Figure 9). The stiffness of the metals samples

were between 22.42 and 32.43 GPa. Tensile strength was relatively consistent between all

samples ranging from 418.30-504.93 MPa. The onset of plastic deformation (yield strength) for

annealed steel was 288.14 MPa at a strain value of 0.013, for brass was 439.68 MPa at a strain

value of 0.0216, and aluminum was 385.32 MPa at a strain value of 0.0176. Of the metals, brass

was the most resilient to plastic deformation, showing the highest yield strength and yield strain.

Notably, the aluminum sample fractured at a distinct 45° angle (Figure 10).

Polymer samples showed a diverse range of responses to applied loads, with some

materials showing large deformation (Figure 11). Polymer samples’ behavior during deformation

was plotted as a stress-strain graph (see Figure 12 for coupon samples, Figure 13 for acrylic, and
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
11

Figure 14 for HDPE). Stiffness of polymers was an order of magnitude than that of the metal

samples, ranging from 1.33-2.52 GPa. Tensile strength ranged from 36.16 MPa to 82.71 MPa,

polypropylene and acrylic respectively. Yield strength was consistent between polymer samples,

however yield strain varied greatly from 0.03 to 0.085, an almost three-fold difference.

Additionally strain at fracture was highly variable with brittle nylon 6 fracturing at strain value

of 0.194, and highly extensible polypropylene with a fracture strain of 5.57.

The spring constant was calculated to be 170.7 N/m; the change in length and force

applied were directly proportional (𝑅 2 = 0.997) (Figure 15).

Discussion

Hooke’s law dictates that the force need to express or compress a spring varies linearly

with the spring’s change in length, or elongation, by some spring constant. The linear correlation

observed between the force and elongation of the spring in the experiment supports Hooke’s law,

as demonstrated by the high R-squared value of 0.997 for line of best fit.

All metal samples were moderately ductile (Table 3). Steel is known for its characteristic

strength and extensibility. The results of this laboratory indicate that the steel sample was much

weaker than expected, having the lowest yield and tensile strengths of the three metals. Despite

the surprising weakness, the steel was highly extensible with a yield strain of 0.314, almost twice

that of aluminum, the second most ductile metal. Steel was also the most stiff of all the tested

materials with a Young’s modulus of 32.43 GPa. Brass proved to be stiff, strong, and resistant to

plastic deformation, having a yield strength of 439.68 MPa, the highest of the materials tested.

Additionally, brass fails by necking, which may be a benefit in application by providing a

warning before failure. The last metal, aluminum, was the strongest of all metals tested (tensile

strength of 504.93 MPa). Based on the stress-strain behavior, aluminum was also resistant to
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
12

plastic deformation with increasing strength up until it failed by brittle fracture. This brittle

fracture was surprising, given that aluminum is a face-centered cubic (FCC) metal, which are

typically known for their ductility. The fracture in the aluminum sample was at a distinct 45°

angle, suggesting it may have fracture along the [111] slip plane [5]. The measured tensile

strengths of the metal samples were consistent with those reported by the material’s distributor,

but the calculated stiffnesses were 3.12-6.17x smaller than those reported (Table 4).

The polymer samples showed very different material properties when compared to metals

and even had considerable variation among each other. Between the 5 materials that were

destructively tested, failure behavior ranged from ductile to moderately ductile to brittle (Table

3) [6, 7]. Polypropylene was relatively stiff, but highly extensible with a strain at fracture of

5.57. Additionally, polypropylene was the weakest of all the materials with a tensile strength of

36.16 MPa. ABS and HIPS had similar stress-strain behavior, both strong and extensible with

strains of greater than 1 at failure. ABS and HIPS did differ in key ways: ABS necked and

appeared ductile at failure, while HIPS appeared moderately brittle at failure, additionally ABS

was almost 50% more resistant to plastic strain, having a considerably higher tensile strength.

Nylon 6 was both stiff and relatively inextensible with a strain at fracture more similar to the

metals than to the other polymers. Nylon 6 was also showed evidence of brittle fracture. This

brittleness along with the measured inextensibility may have resulted from the 15% glass content

in the material; glass being a ceramic is strong, stiff, and very brittle. HDPE was tested under

compression, bulging under load on its non-compressed axes. HDPE was the stiffest of the

polymers, which may be due to its high density structure. The high density of HDPE is a result of

the macromolecule’s minimal branching, which allows it molecule to be more densely packed,

increasing the degree of secondary bonding and therefore the stiffness of the material when
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
13

elastically deformed. The last polymer tested, acrylic, was inextensible and brittle in failure.

Acrylic was also the stiffest and strongest of the polymers with a Young’s modulus of 2.20 GPa

and tensile strength of 82.71 MPa. The values for polymer stiffness and strength were consistent

with PASCO expected values (Table 4).

Potential sources of error

A few errors occurred during the experiment which potentially affected accuracy of the

data collected. During sample testing, the crank used to apply an upward tension force on the

material being tested was powered entirely by hand, making it nearly impossible to maintain a

consistent speed. This was true for all tests conducted, both metals and polymers. When testing

the 360 brass sample, the individual cranking the wheel momentarily paused due to an outside

distraction.

When testing the 2024-T3 aluminum sample, multiple trials were required due to

premature breakage in the gauge (Figure 16). The first aluminum replicate results implied that

the metal was brittle, fracturing immediately after yielding. These results were not consistent

with known material traits, so a second replicate was tested. This brittle fracture was likely due

to impurities in the aluminum sample, most likely oxide films. An oxide film is a thin layer

deposited on the surface of a metal which has undergone an oxidation reaction from air or

moisture surrounding the material. These reactions can result in a dramatic decline in tensile

strength and yield point. It is impossible to know for sure, but the aluminum sample showed

signs of a lowered tensile strength, suggesting an oxide film impurity could have affected the

mechanical properties of the aluminum sample. [8]

Another notable error occurred when testing the Acrylic tensile. When applying the

tension force, the upward moving mechanism of the PASCO Materials Testing Machine directly
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
14

contacted the safety shield, creating a momentary relief in stress upon the acrylic tensile, a

fluctuation in load could cause an unknown response from the material being tested.

Lastly, the software used to measure applied force, PASCO Capstone, rounded to the

nearest integer value for force reducing accuracy when calculating for stress.

Conclusion

Material properties dictate how materials function in application and use. These

properties are quantified using a variety of metrics including Young’s modulus, yield strength,

yield stress, tensile strength, and strain at fracture. Engineers look at these metrics when picking

materials in order to choose materials whose properties are best matched to the intended

operating conditions for a product being designed.

During this laboratory, deformation testing was conducted on nine materials; eight

materials were tested in tension until fracture and one sample was tested in compression.

Metals are composed of metallic crystalline structures whose primary bonds are stressed

immediately during elastic deformation and slip along crystal slip planes to plastically deform.

Reflecting their crystalline structure, metal samples were stiff, strong, and moderately ductile.

Properties varied by metal, with each material showing specific strengths: steel was the stiffest

and most ductile, brass was the most resistant to plastic deformation, and aluminum was the

strongest.

Polymers by comparison are made of long chain molecules that form semicrystalline

solid composed of both amorphous and orderly regions; the untangling and straightening of the

amorphous region accounts for elastic deformation, while the degradation of the orderly lamellae

accounts for plastic deformation, both of which can be quite high. Polymers were an order of

magnitude less stiff and the most ductile polymer (polypropylene) was over 17-times more
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
15

extensible than the most ductile of the metals. Notably: HDPE, acrylic, and polypropylene were

all stiff, while the other polymers were soft; acrylic is strong, yet inextensible; nylon 6 is strong

and brittle; and ABS and HIPS are both strong and extensible.

Based on measured material properties determined by deformation testing, material

scientists and engineers can choose materials that optimize product performance, longevity, and

safety. Future studies should focus on elucidating the link between microscopic structure and

material properties, particularly stiffness.

 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
16

APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures

Figure 1. Diagram of threaded tensile sample.

Figure 2. Generic stress-strain curve. Material properties can be determined based on a stress-strain
curve for the material. Young’s modulus is the slope of the curve during elastic deformation (from O to
A) when the plot is linear. The yield point (A) is the inflection point that represents the transition from
elastic to plastic deformation. Tensile stress (D) is the global maximum of the curve. Fracture (E) is the
point of failure when the material ruptures. [Source: mechanicalbooster.com]
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
17

Figure 3. Generic polymer stress-strain curves. Tensile strength, TS, for polymers is defined as the
stress at fracture. [Source: polymerinnovationblog.com]

Figure 4. Measurement locations for threaded tensile samples.

Figure 5. Measurement locations for flat coupon samples.

 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
18

Figure 6. Diagram of PASCO Material Testing Machine.

Figure 7. Raw spring data. As a result of the 1 N resolution of the PASCO Material Testing Machine,
raw data for the spring test has a stair-step shape.
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
19

Table 1. Laboratory tests summary. A summary of the 3 metal and 6 polymer deformation tests
conducted.

Material Material type Sample type Test

Annealed Steel Metal Threaded tensile Tension

Brass Metal Threaded tensile Tension

Aluminum Metal Threaded tensile Tension

Nylon 6 Polymer Flat coupon Tension

Polypropylene Polymer Flat coupon Tension

ABS Polymer Flat coupon Tension

HIPS Polymer Flat coupon Tension

Acrylic Polymer Threaded tensile Tension

HDPE Polymer Compression Cylinder Compression

Table 2. Calculated material properties of test materials. These properties were determined based on
the stress-strain behavior observed for each material.
Young’s Tensile Yield Strain at
modulus, strength, strength, Yield strain, fracture,
Material E (GPa) TS (MPa) 𝜎𝒚 (MPa) 𝜀𝒚 𝜀𝒇

Metal samples

Annealed Steel 32.43 418.30 288.14 0.013 0.314

Brass 26.48 487.81 439.68 0.0216 0.149

Aluminum 22.42 504.93 385.32 0.0176 0.167

Polymer samples

Nylon 6 1.63 56.16 43.39 0.069 0.194

Polypropylene 2.17 36.16 36.16 0.061 5.57

ABS 1.52 57.19 58.46 0.085 1.13

HIPS 1.33 53.65 38.61 0.03 1.15

Acrylic 2.20 82.71 63.99 0.03 0.106

HDPE 2.52 X X X X
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
20

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Metal test samples. (a) Samples before testing shown from left to right: 1020 annealed steel,
360 brass, and 2024-T3 aluminum. (b) The same samples after destructive testing.

Figure 9. Stress-strain curves of the metal samples: annealed steel, brass, and aluminum. These
stress-strain curves were utilized to determine the material characteristics of the metals.
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
21

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Aluminum fracture. (a) The aluminum samples broke near the bottom threads at a striking
45° angle. (b) The fracture surface at 50x magnification; note the shiny portions that may be evidence of
slip during plastic deformation along a matching 45° plane in some metallic crystals.

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Polymers samples (a) Samples before testing shown from left to right: Acrylic, HDPE, ABS,
Nylon 6, HIPS, and Polypropylene . (b) The same samples after destructive testing.
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
22

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. Stress-strain curves of the polymer samples tested in tension: nylon 6, ABS, HIPS, and
polypropylene. (a) These stress-strain curves were utilized to determine the material characteristics of the
metals. (b) A closer look at the behavior of the polymers at low strain (< 1.2), most clearly showing the
behavior of nylon 6, ABS, and HIPS.
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
23

Figure 13. Stress-strain curve of acrylic.

Figure 14. Stress-strain curve of HDPE in compression.

 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
24

Figure 15. Spring elongation under a tensile load. Hooke’s law predicts a linear correlation between
elongation of a spring and applied force. This relationship is described by the spring constant k, the slope
of the line when force is plotted by elongation, measured in N/m.

Table 3. Material behavior in failure. Material behavior in failure is categorized as ductile, moderately
ductile, or brittle. Categorization of each material took into account fracture behavior and the shape of the
stress strain-strain curve.

Material Behavior
Material in Failure

Metal samples

Annealed Steel Moderately Ductile

Brass Moderately Ductile

Aluminum Moderately Ductile*

Polymer samples

Nylon 6 Brittle

Polypropylene Ductile

ABS Ductile

HIPS Moderately Ductile

Acrylic Brittle

HDPE X
*First trial of aluminum behaved as a brittle material
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
25

Table 4. PASCO anticipated material properties for lab samples. The reported material properties
reported by the lab sample distributor.

Young’s Tensile
modulus, strength,
Material E (GPa) TS (MPa)

Metal samples

Annealed Steel 200 400

Brass 80 500

Aluminum 70 400

Polymer samples

Nylon 6 2.9 98

Polypropylene 1.9 34

ABS 2.3 47

HIPS 2 23

Acrylic 3 80

HDPE X X
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
26

Figure 16. Stress-strain curves of two of the three aluminum replicates. Replicate 1 (orange) shows
brittle failure immediately following the onset of plastic deformation; this behavior was not consistent
with anticipated response to tensile loading. In response to the unexpected behavior, two more replicates
were run. The stress-strain curve for Replicate 2 (green) was more characteristic of typical aluminum
behavior and was used for all further analysis. Data from Replicate 3 was erroneous and discarded.
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
27

APPENDIX B: Laboratory Equipment

Equipment Equipment
ID Name Picture Model Number Serial Number

#1 Neiko Digital 01407A N/A

0-6” Caliper

#2 PASCO ME-8236 N/A

Materials
Testing
Machine

#3 PASCO N/A N/A

Capstone
Software

#4 PASCO Flat ME-8238 N/A

Coupon Fixture
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
28

#5 PASCO ME-8247 N/A

Compression
Fixture

#6 PASCO Clevis ME-8245 N/A

Adapter
 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS AND POLYMERS
29

References

[1] Callister, W. D., & Rethwisch, D. G. (2015). Fundamentals of materials science and

engineering an integrated approach. Hoboken: Wiley.

[2] Generic stress-strain figure:

Mishra, P. (2017, November 16). Stress Strain Curve – Relationship, Diagram and Explanation.

Retrieved from http://www.mechanicalbooster.com/2016/09/stress-strain-curve-

relationship-diagram-explanation.html

[3] Britannica, T. E. (2016, June 06). Yield point. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/science/yield-point

[4] Elastic/Plastic Deformation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nde-

ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/deformation.htm

[5] Jackson A.G. (1991) Slip Systems. In: Handbook of Crystallography. Springer, New York,

NY

[6] Gotro, J. (2018, June 22). Characterization of Thermosets Part 21: Tensile Testing of

Polymers; A Molecular Interpretation. Retrieved from

https://polymerinnovationblog.com/characterization-thermosets-part-21-tensile-testing-

polymers-molecular-interpretation/

[7] Brittle Fracture. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-

science/brittle-fracture

[8] Davis, B. R. (2006, March). Final Report on Effect of Impurities in Aluminum. Retrieved

from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306292737_Final_Report_on_Effect_of_Impuri

ties_in_Aluminum