(Mechanics of materials lab)

“Energy Absorbed at fracture Test “
Introduction

There are two main methods of testing materials: - Tensile Testing: where the
material is tested (stretched or bent) at a low strain rate. This test gives a figure
for the ability of a material to withstand a static or slowly applied force, giving
‘yield strength’. The materials in this test display a more ductile nature. -
Impact Testing: where the material is fractured at a high strain rate. This test
gives a figure for the ability of a material to withstand a sharp impact, giving an
indication of its toughness. The materials in this test display a more brittle
nature. The notched bar fracture energy is defined as the energy absorbed in
fracturing a standard sized specimen having a standard sized notch. The energy
absorbed by the specimen is derived using the principle of exchange of energy.
When the pendulum is released, it accelerates downwards, exchanging its initial
potential energy for kinetic energy. As it strikes the specimen, some of kinetic
energy is transferred to the specimen in order to break it. The pendulum then
continues with a reduced amount of kinetic energy, which is exchanged for
potential energy as the pendulum rises to a height lower than the starting
height.

Objective:
 
To investigate the nature of fracture in materials and its relationship to material
toughness

Apparatus
Fracture Testing Machine, Instrument box, specimen, Cutting block.
Procedure
1. Place 38 mm long specimen in the specimen block and cut a notch. The
notch must face into the direction of impact.
2. Measure the exact diameter of specimen before use.
3. Connect the instrumentation box.
4. Allow the pendulum to come to a complete rest just above the specimen
shear block, a square black indicator should illuminate in the top right hand
corner of the display, next to “Ready to Arm”. If it does not, then the apparatus
is not level. Re adjust the bench to make the apparatus level.
5. Use the lifting control on the front of the apparatus to move the pendulum up
to its starting position at the top left. An electromagnet will energize and hold
the pendulum in place. The Instrumentation Box will display the words “Load
Specimen Press Release”.
6. Insert the specimen and block into its place under the shear block at the base
of the apparatus, making sure it is fully inserted.
7. Make sure all persons are standing clear of the apparatus and press the
release button.
8. Record the readings displayed by the instrumentation box.
9. Wait for the pendulum to stop swinging before preparing the next specimen.
Test each material three times, recording the results and produce an average for
the energy loss to fracture.
Results
Energy =

ENERGY
MATERIAL a b LOST AVERAGE
(JULES)
aluminum 99 89 0.407
0.366
99 91 0.325

brass 99 88 0.448
0.488
100 87 0.529

steel 100 82 0.732

0.712
100 83 0.692
Discussion
As seen in our results, the steel showed a transition from greater than 50%
ductility. This means that, in practical applications, if the metal reaches a
temperature of 0° C or lower, a failure will be much more likely to occur as the
decrease in ductility lessens the amount of energy that can be absorbed before
fracture. While static tests would show some changes in strength and ductility,
only impact tests will show the abrupt change in susceptibility to sudden
loading and the development of more velocity-sensitive behaviors. The more
comprehensive view of the changes in behavior that occur at different
temperatures is the advantage of impact tests over static testing.
While we could not compare our results, we do know that error may have
occurred in many different places. In the procedure used,
Mechanically, the specimens may not have been precisely centered due to
human error. Thermally, we may have exceeded our goal time of five seconds
from removal of the specimen to testing, which could have caused significant
changes in the temperatures of the samples. There are also general sources,
such as friction within the pivot bearing, air resistance, frictional resistance of
the pointer, and the kinetic energy transmitted to the specimen;
Also, any variations or impurities in the samples themselves could affect the
results and prevent them from matching published values.

Conclusion
In conclusion, our results were consistent with reasonably expected behaviors
for steels. the steels tested exhibited the typical transition from ductility to
brittle fracture However, as a large range of results would lie within the
expected ranges of different types of steels, considering that composition, heat-
treating, and many other factors result in a wide variety of possible results, this
may not be a significant verification of our work.