CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES

College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology

Department of Civil Engineering

2018 Fall Semester

Course No. CE 3120 - 01 Strength of Materials Lab

Topic No. 2

Title: Tensile Test of Carbon Steel, Aluminum, and Brass

Date of Experiment: September 26, 2018

Date due: October 31, 2018 Group No.1:

Date handed: October 31, 2018 Edgar E. Chavez

Khalid Alqarni

Mohammed Alshubrumi

Aaron Corey

Alejandro Lopez

Grade________________________
 1

Abstract

In the strength and materials lab, we have successfully learned about the principles of
strength and mechanics through standard physical tests of engineering materials including
torsion, tension, compression, and bending. Using the results we have obtained from all the
experiments, we were able to make the necessary calculations to complete each lab report.
Through each lab, we learned to analyze deformations, forces, moments, strains and stresses
under a variety of loading conditions, including tension, compression, torsion, bending, or any
combination of these basic types of loading for the different materials we have tested. The
materials we have tested throughout the first three labs were: carbon steel, aluminum, and
naval brass. For the first three experiments, we were tasked with calculating the elastic
modulus, the yield point, and ultimate strength. Other experiments required finding direct shear,
calculating flexure, and determining slenderness ratio. We learned how to use the equipment
around the strength of materials laboratory in order to successfully compile the data and
determine these calculations as demonstrated within this report.

Table of contents
i. The motion of a mass on a spring
i.1 Picture of spring 1
i.2 Picture of spring 2
i.3 Spring with the mass
ii. Springs in series and parallel
ii.1 ruler next to parallel set up
ii.2 Separation between springs in a parallel set up
iii. The experiment of simple vibration
iv. Salter Model10 experiment

List of figures
Pg.7 Figure 1: used Figure 7:
Pg 7 Figure 2: test Figure 8:
Pg 7 Figure 3: test Figure 9:
Pg 7 Figure 4: Group working Figure 10:
Figure 5: Figure 11:
Figure 6:

List of Tables
Table 1: 1 data Table 5: data
Table 2: 1 graph Table 6: graph
Table 3: 2 data Table 7: data
Table 4: 2 graph Table 8: graph
 2

Table 9: data
Table 10: graph

Introduction and Background

The mechanical properties of a material under applied forces are important. when
utilizing, for any application, a failure of the material is undesirable. To avoid such scenario
engineers came to test a variety of materials and emphasize the contributing factors.
Three of the fundamental mechanical properties of metals are the elastic modulus,
the yield point, and the ultimate strength.

Objectives

The purpose of this experiment is to determine

● the Proportional Limit.
● Yield Stress, Ultimate Stress, and Rupture Stress.
● Modulus of Elasticity.
● % of elongation and % reduction in the area of Naval Brass and Aluminum.

Experimental Apparatus, Methods, and Procedure

For this experiment we used:

● Universal Testing Machine, Tinius-Olsen, 200kip pit mounted.

● Micrometer.
● Ball Micrometer.
● Steel Scale.
● Dividers.
● Extensometer.
● 2-in gage point punch.

The procedure is similar to that of the tensile test, the only difference is choosing the eccentricity
test instead.
1) Initial Setup:
- We used the marking punch and an engineer hammer to make two dimples in the
sample material, which are the specimens of Carbon Steel, Aluminum, and Brass.
- We used the motors on the Tinius-Olsen UTM, positioning the machine and threading
sample in place.
- We checked to make sure the top and bottom nuts are secured.
 3

- After we were given a sign from the computer, we applied the Extensometer to the two
dimples.
2) Computer Setup:
- We launched the graphing software to operate along with Tinius-Olsen UTM.
- We went to file and loaded for the metal tensile test.
3) Engaging hydraulics:
-We closed both valves by turning them clockwise.
-We allowed the machine to start up and then set it to zero.
-We started the test software and slowly engaged the load valve.
-We unloaded the valve when three intervals of the percentage of yield were applied.

Results and Discussion

For Carbon Steel (1018)

 4

Do= 0.506in Df=0.305 in Lo=1.993 in Lf=2.686 in

Proportional limit: ksi
Percent Elongation: ((2.686in-1.993in)/1.993in) x 100% = 34.8%
Initial Area: π/4*d2=0.201 in2 Final Area = 0.073 in2
Percent Area reduction: ((0.073sq-in – 0.201sq-in)/0.201sq-in ) X 100% =63.7%
Yield strength: 59.7 ksi
Ultimate strength: 15,210 lbf
Modulus of Elasticity: 29.9 ksi
U= ½(Stress)^2x(Strain)= 5144.53 psi

Proportional Limit 16,554.6 lbf

Yield Point 52,900 psi

Yield Strength 10,340 lb

Ultimate Strength 15,210 lbf

Rupture Strength 53,400 psi

Modulus elasticity 29.9 ksi

Modulus resilience 5144.53 psi

Percent elongation (gauge length) 36.3%

Percent reduction (area) 65.3%

For Aluminum (7075 T-6)

 5

Do= 0.507in Df=0.305 in Lo=1.983 in Lf= 2.686 in

Proportional limit: 16,450 ksi
Percent Elongation: ((2.686in-1.993in)/1.993in) x 100% = 34.8%
Initial Area: π/4*d2=0.201 in2 Final Area = 0.073 in2
Percent Area reduction: ((0.073sq-in – 0.201sq-in)/0.201sq-in ) X 100% =63.7%
Yield strength: 46,000 ksi
Ultimate strength: 65,200 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity: 9,560 ksi
U= ½(Stress)^2x(Strain)= 4927.3 psi

Proportional Limit 15,233.6 lbf

Yield Point 46,000 psi

Yield Strength 10,340 lb

Ultimate Strength 16,450 lbf

 6

Rupture Strength 54,294 psi

Modulus elasticity 29.9 *10^6 psi

Modulus resilience 4927.3 psi

Percent elongation (gauge length) 34.8%

Percent reduction (area) 63.7%

For Naval Brass

Do= 0.507in Df=0.4222 in Lo=2.008 in Lf= 2.571 in

Proportional limit:13,130 ksi
 7

Percent Elongation: ((2.571in-2.008in)/2.008in) x 100% = 28.04%

Initial Area: π/4*d2=0.202 in2 Final Area = 0.073 in2
Percent Area reduction: ((0.078sq-in – 0.202sq-in)/0.202sq-in ) X 100% =61.39%
Yield strength: 58 ksi
Ultimate strength: 65,200 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity: 9,180 ksi
U= ½(Stress)^2x(Strain)=4820.2 psi

Proportional Limit 13,130 lbf

Yield Point 58,000 psi

Yield Strength 10,340 lb

Ultimate Strength 13,170 lbf

Rupture Strength 46,000 psi

Modulus elasticity 29.9 *10^6 psi

Modulus resilience 5144.53 psi

Percent elongation (gauge length) 28.04%

Percent reduction (area) 61.39%

Discussion Analysis:

The first experiment test conducted on the C1018 mild carbon steel was a success. The
Stress-Strain diagram showed a linear portion in the beginning followed by a “bump” that
dropped and stayed relatively steady and flat. The linear portion before the bump represents the
elastic portion of the stress vs strain for the steel. This is the stress that the steel can withstand
during tension and remain unchanged in shape. The slope of the linear portion represents the
Elastic modulus and is calculated by looking at the graph values. Where the proportional limit
occurs, the stress and strain is recorded and E = 𝞼/𝞮. Because the values are recorded based
on eye approximation, there is slight error in the readings and the value calculated for the elastic
modulus is E = 29850 ksi using 𝞼 = 59.7 ksi and 𝞮 = 0.2% = 0.002. This is close to the actual
Elastic modulus of steel of 29000 ksi. The possible error can be attributed to human error when
reading results.

The flat portion of the graph represents the yield portion and this is where the steel
deforms before failure. This is a good property for a usable material since it gives a visual
warning before failure. The test conducted shows a relatively flat yield portion, however, there is
visual inconsistency and this can be contributed to two possible factors. The first factor for error
can be due to the manufacturing of the steel and small defects within the material itself. The
second error can be due to human error. When setting up the tensile experiment, the test piece
 8

was not put in place correctly at first, which can be seen on the graph at the very beginning of
the recording since the slope is not entirely consistent with the elastic portion at the beginning.
This was possibly due to one of the threads of the test material not being held in place and was
snapped into place after the load became larger. This “snap” position would be sufficient to hold
the material to withstand tension loads but create inconsistency during the yield portion. This
error could also be the reason for the Elastic modulus calculation to be slightly off. This mistake
was noticed early during testing but had to be completed as is. The other tests were made sure
to not create this mistake again.

The ultimate and failure stresses were not recorded due to the limitations of testing
equipment that did not allow the recording of stresses where strain exceeded 4%. Theoretical
values can be assumed at this point. Overall, the experiment was a success and consistent with
what a typical stress-strain diagram for C1018 mild steel with only a small error.

The stress-strain diagrams and calculations for aluminum and brass work similar and
calculated almost identically to steel. The exception is that due to not having a well defined
proportional limit like steel, the slope for the linear portion of aluminum and brass, short as it
may be, is offset by a strain of 0.2%. Where the identical, offset slope touches the curve of the
graph, that value of stress is defined as the yield limit.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Our eccentric testing of Carbon Steel, Aluminum, and Naval Brass to fracture under a
tensile stress to the point of breakage showed that although all of the
samples exhibited consistent behavior, each of the three stress-strain curves was approximately
overlapping.