Sarawak Campus

Assignment Cover Sheet

(for individual and group assignments)
This cover sheet is to be attached to all assignments, both hard copy and electronic format

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS
Unit Code ENG10002 Unit Title Engineering Materials
Tutorial/Lab Group Lecturer/Tutor Name Dr. Chung Ping Ping
Assignment Title Lab 3 - Impact Testing of Metals
Due date 05/18/2023 Date Received 05/18/2023
DECLARATION
For both individual and group assignments, in the case of assignment submission on behalf of another student, it is assumed that permission has
been given. The University takes no responsibility for any loss, damage, theft, or alteration of the assignment.

To be completed if this is an individual assignment

I declare that this assignment is my individual work. I have not worked collaboratively, nor have I copied from any other student’s work or from any
other source/s, except where due acknowledgment is made explicitly in the text, nor has any part been written for me by another person.

Student Details Student ID Number Student Name Student Signature

Student 1 101216264 Moey Ching Ren
To be completed if this is a group assignment
We declare that this is a group assignment and that no part of this submission has been copied from any other student's work or from any other
source except where due acknowledgment is made explicitly in the text, nor has any part been written for us by another person.

Student Details Student ID Number(s) Student Name(s) Student Signature (s)

Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5

MARKER’S COMMENTS

Total Mark Marker’s Signature Date

EXTENSION CERTIFICATE
This assignment has been given an extension by
Unit Convenor
Extended due Date Received
date

Version 4, 2 August 2016. Owner: The Academic Board, Sarawak.

This cover sheet is a live document available on the Swinburne Sarawak intranet; a print copy may not be the latest version
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Experiment Procedures ................................................................................................................. 1
4. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 2
5. Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 4
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Figures
Figure 1. Aluminium specimen ............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Steel specimen ....................................................................................................................... 2

List of Tables
Table 1. Initial measurements and calculated results for metallic specimen.......................................... 2
1. Introduction
Impact testing is a crucial process used to evaluate the performance and durability of metals
under sudden and intense loads. It provides valuable insights into their ability to withstand
high-velocity impacts and resist fractures, offering key information for material selection in
various applications. One of the most commonly employed methods in this field is the Charpy
and Izod tests. These tests involve striking a notched metal specimen with a pendulum in the
Charpy test, while the Izod test clamps the specimen vertically. Impact strength, often referred
to as impact resistance, measures a metal's ability to absorb energy without fracturing. This
property is determined by assessing the impact energy required to cause a fracture, commonly
known as fracture toughness. By subjecting metals to controlled impact forces, engineers and
researchers can assess their resilience, structural integrity, and potential for failure in real-world
scenarios. Through impact testing, the critical characteristics of metals can be quantified,
enabling informed decisions in industries such as construction, automotive, aerospace, and
beyond.

2. Objectives
The objectives of the impact testing of metals experiment are:

• To determine impact energy for both aluminium and steel specimens.

• To determine impact strength for both aluminium and steel specimens.
• To analyze the failure modes of aluminium and steel specimens.
• To compare the results obtained between the aluminium and steel specimens.

3. Experiment Procedures
In this experiment, the procedures are shown below.

1. The alminium and steel specimens were prepared before the lab session started.
2. The length of the cross-sectional area for each specimen is measured using a vernier
caliper.
3. Before experimenting, students were reminded to take precautions.
4. To ensure safety, the pendulum is locked to the releasing level and the locking
mechanism were in the lock position.
5. Then, the aluminium specimen is placed horizontally on the impact testing machine as
this experiment is conducted using the Charpy test whereby the V-notch of the specimen
is facing away from the hammer.
6. After ensuring that the specimen is placed properly in the holder, the hammer and the
pendulum are lifted.
7. The hand wheel is turned and stopped at 120°.
8. The support block is then removed from the machine.
9. Before the pendulum is released, make sure that there were no individuals or items
present inside the safety area.

1
 10. The pendulum is released by releasing the locking mechanism.
11. The pendulum is swung and struck at the aluminium specimen. Enable the pendulum
to move without any hindrance for a few cycles.
12. The swing is stopped by using the brake mechanism.
13. The final angle reading from the energy scale after impact is recorded.
14. The aluminium specimen is removed from the holder.
15. The appearance of the fracture surface is inspected and discussed further.
16. Step 3 to 14 is repeated using a steel specimen and results are then recorded in Table 1.
17. Compare and discuss the findings for both specimens.

4. Results

Figure 1. Aluminium specimen Figure 2. Steel specimen

Table 1. Initial measurements and calculated results for metallic specimen

Test Specimen Aluminium Steel

Test Specimen cross-
94.09 91.20
sectional area, A (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 )
Angle reading from the
82 54
energy scale after impact (°)
Resultant energy* (J) 174.17 83.41
Energy absorbed during
129.27 220.03
impact, E (J)
Impact strength (J/𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ) 1.37 2.41

Data obtained during the experiment:

Side length, a
Aluminium: 9.70 mm
Steel: 9.55 mm

2
Angle reading from the energy scale after impact
Aluminium: 82°

Resultant energy determined in reference table: 174.17 J

Steel: 54°
Resultant energy determined in reference table: 83.41 J

Angle reading from the energy scale before impact

Aluminium = Steel = 120°
Resultant energy determined in reference table: 303.44 J

Calculations for cross-sectional area:

Aluminium

𝐴𝐴 = 𝑎𝑎2

𝐴𝐴 = 9.702

= 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐

Steel

𝐴𝐴 = 𝑎𝑎2

𝐴𝐴 = 9.552

= 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐

Calculations for the energy absorbed during impact:

Aluminium

𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸120° − 𝐸𝐸82°

= 303.44 − 174.17

= 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝑱𝑱

Steel

𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸120° − 𝐸𝐸82°

= 303.44 − 83.41

= 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝑱𝑱

3
Calculations for impact strength:
Aluminium
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠ℎ =
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
129.27
=
94.09
= 𝟏𝟏. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 𝐉𝐉/𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐

Steel
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠ℎ =
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
220.03
=
91.20
= 𝟐𝟐. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝐉𝐉/𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐

5. Discussions
In Table 1, the energy absorbed during impact for the aluminium specimen is 129.27 J whereby
the energy absorbed during impact for the steel specimen is 220.03 J. It is clearly shown that
the steel specimen has higher energy absorption than the aluminium specimen. This indicates
that the steel specimen can withstand and absorb a larger amount of energy before a fracture
occurs compared to the aluminium specimen. Therefore, in applications where impact
resistance is critical, steel may be a preferred choice over aluminum.
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
Besides that, in Table 1, by using the formula 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠ℎ = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐−𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 , the
impact strength for both aluminium and steel specimens is calculated. The impact strength for
the aluminum specimen is 1.37 J/mm2, while the impact strength for the steel specimen is 2.41
J/mm2. Impact strength is a measure of a material's ability to absorb energy before fracturing.
Based on the provided values, it can be concluded that the steel specimen has a higher
resistance to fracture compared to the aluminum specimen. The higher impact strength of steel
indicates that it can withstand greater impact forces and absorb more energy before fracturing,
making it more resistant to fracture. This characteristic makes steel a suitable choice for
applications requiring high-impact resistance and structural integrity.
When comparing the fracture surface of the aluminum and steel specimens, distinct differences
can be observed. In Figure 1, aluminum typically exhibits a more granular, fibrous, or “Cup-
and-Cone” fracture surface, indicating a ductile failure mode. Ductile fractures occur due to
the plastic deformation of the material before ultimate failure. On the other hand, in Figure 2,
the fracture surface of steel often reveals a more jagged, crystalline, or “Matted” appearance,
indicating a brittle failure mode. Brittle fractures occur with minimal or no plastic deformation,
resulting in sudden and catastrophic failure. Understanding the failure modes of these materials
is crucial for designing structures and components. While aluminum's ductile behavior allows
4
for energy absorption and deformation, steel's brittle failure can lead to sudden and potentially
more severe consequences in certain applications.

When comparing the fracture toughness of the aluminum and steel specimens, no calculations
were conducted in this experiment. However, fracture toughness can be estimated by
examining the appearance of the fractured surfaces. Steel generally exhibits a smoother and
more uniform fracture surface, indicating higher fracture toughness. This suggests that steel
has a greater ability to withstand crack propagation and resist failure under applied loads. In
contrast, the fractured surface of aluminum may appear more rough and irregular, indicating
relatively lower fracture toughness. Although these observations are based on visual inspection
rather than precise calculations, they provide valuable insights into the relative toughness of
the materials tested in this experiment.

6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the experimental results demonstrate that the steel specimen exhibits higher
energy absorption, impact strength, and resistance to fracture compared to the aluminum
specimen. The steel specimen can withstand and absorb a larger amount of energy before a
fracture occurs, indicating its superior performance in applications where impact resistance is
critical. The fracture surfaces of the specimens further support these findings, with aluminum
showing a ductile failure mode and steel exhibiting a brittle failure mode. While aluminum's
ductile behavior allows for energy absorption and deformation, steel's higher fracture
toughness makes it better suited for applications requiring superior toughness and structural
integrity. These results emphasize the importance of material selection based on the specific
requirements of the intended application.