AERO40005 Material Laboratory Report

Guy Paterson
02226440

Abstract
Abstract is a concise summary of the report describing objectives and methods. Abstracts should
also summarize main results and conclusions.

05/12/22
Contents
List of Figures 2

List of Tables 2

List of Symbols 2

1 Introduction 3

2 Theory and Background 3

2.1 Strain Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Tensile Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Hardness Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Methodology 4
3.1 Strain Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Tension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 Hardness Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Results and Discussions 6

4.1 Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3 Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5 Conclusions 9

References 9

Appendix 9

1
List of Figures
1 Wheatstone bridge with Strain Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Indentor for Vickers micro-Hardness Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Force vs. Amplified Gauge Voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Nominal Stress vs. Strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 True Stress vs. Strain for Aluminium, Carbon Fibre, Polymer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6 True Stress vs. True Strain, Nominal Stress vs. Nominal Strain for Aluminium . . . . . . 7
7 True Stress vs. True Strain, Nominal Stress vs. Nominal Strain for Carbon Fibre . . . . . 8
8 True Stress vs. True Strain, Nominal Stress vs. Nominal Strain for Polymer . . . . . . . . 8

List of Tables
1 Measured Comparison of material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Accepted Comparison of Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Vickers Hardness Measurements for unloaded Aluminium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

List of Symbols
Vg Amplified Gauge Voltage
D1´3 Diameters of Specimen
A0 Initial Cross-sectional Area of Gauge Section
GAIN Gain of Amplifier
S Gauge Factor
Vin Potential Difference across Battery
F Tensile Force on Specimen
w1´3 Widths of Gauge Section
t1´3 Thicknesses of Gauge Section
L0 Initial Length of Gauge Section
∆L Extension
σn Nominal Stress
σt True Stress
ϵn Nominal Strain
ϵt True Strain
ρ Resistivity
H Hardness
HV Vickers Hardness
d1´2 Diagonals of Indentation
σY Yield Stress
g Gravitational Acceleration
A Cross-sectional Area
L Length of Gauge Portion
E Elastic Modulus
H˚ Hardness Predicted by Tabor Construction

2
1 Introduction
Introduction presents the significance of the experiment and explains the aims and objectives.

2 Theory and Background

2.1 Strain Test
In this test, strain is calculated by a resistance strain gauge. The principle of how a strain gauge func-
tions is that the resistance of an conductor changes as it is stretched. By the equation:[1]
ρL
R“
A
Therefore when attached in the axial direction along the specimen, the tensile force applied to the spec-
imen is felt by the strain gauge. This causes the strain gauge to deform and consequently the ratio of
L{A to change, changing its resistance. If the strain remains at low values, the ratio ∆R{R is almost
proportional to nominal strain, ϵn , where the constant of proportionality is expressed by the gauge factor,
S.[1]
∆R ∆R
∝ ϵn 6 “ Sϵn r1s
R R
Since ∆R will always be very small, to increase accuracy a Wheatstone bridge is used. Where a Wheat-
stone bridge is a device consisting of four resistors in a loop. Solving the electrical equations using Ohm’s
Laws, we find:[1]
∆R 4Vg
“ r1s
R Vin GAIN
4Vg
6 ϵn “ r1s
Vin S GAIN

Figure 1: Wheatstone bridge with Strain Gauge

[?]

2.2 Tensile Test

Nominal stress and strain are defined with initial area, A0 and initial length, L0 respectively. However to
define the true stress and strain, it must be defined by instantaneous area, A, and length, L, respectively.
True stress and strain is almost equal to nominal stress and strain at small deformations, but diverge at
greater deformations. Therefore true strain is defined as:[3]
ż ϵt żL
dL dL L
dϵt “ “ dϵ “ “ ln p q “ ln p1 ` ϵn q r3s
L 0 L0 L L0
For the specimens tested in Tensile Test (Aluminium, Carbon Fibre, Polymer) the volume can be assumed
to stay constant. Therefore true stress is defined as:[3]
F F A0 A0 A0 L
σt “ “ “ σn A0 L0 “ AL ñ “ r3s
A A A0 A A L0
L
σt “ σn “ σn p1 ` ϵn q r3s
L0

3
2.3 Hardness Test
’Hardness of a material can be defined as its resistance to penetration by a rigid (non-deformable)
object.’ [Vito]. To relate a quantitative value to hardness, Vickers Hardness is often used, where the
Vickers indenter is a rigid square pyramid. Vickers Hardness, HV is defined as:[2]

F 2 sin p68˝ qF
HV “ “ 2 r2s
Acontact d
d1 ` d2
d“ r2s
2

Figure 2: Indentor for Vickers micro-Hardness Test

[2]

Since hardness is controlled by plasticity rather than elasticity, hardness is not a property of the
materials Elastic Modulus, E, but a property of the materials yield stress, σY . In fact the relationship
for ductile metals between hardness and yield stress was proposed by J.Tabor (1951), H “ 3σY .[4] Since
this relationship is in terms of H not HV, the formula below is used to convert H to HV:[2]

HV g
H“ r2s
sin p68˝ q

3 Methodology
3.1 Strain Test
3.1.1 Apparatus
-Hand operated tensiometer.
-Strain gauge.
-Specimens.
-Vernier caliper.
-Wheatstone bridge and circuit.
-Voltmeter.
-Potentiometer.
-Battery.

3.1.2 Procedure
-Vernier caliper was used to measure three different diameters, D1´3 of the gauge section of the first
specimen at different positions and angles.
-The average diameter was computed, D, and then the average area, by A0 “ πD 4
-The GAIN used by the amplifier was recorded.[1]
- The gauge factor, S, used by the strain gauge was recorded.[1]
-The specimen was screwed to the hand operated tensiometer, without applying any load onto the
specimen.[1]
-The external buttons of the circuit was pressed and the wires, of the strain gauge, was slotted in to
connect to the Wheatstone bridge.[1]
-The Wheatstone bridge was turned off and Vin was recorded with a DC voltmeter.[1]
-The Wheatstone bridge was turned off and the potentiometer was adjusted to set Vg to 0, to balance

4
the bridge.[1]
-In increments of 0.5 kN, the wheel of the tensiometer was slowly turned to each increment. [1]
-At each step the Vg was recorded to the corresponding force in the results table.[1]
-This procedure was stopped at 3.5 kN, to stay within the limits of the strain gauge.[1]
-The specimen was then unloaded in 0.5 kN increments and the V g for recorded for each increments.
The procedure was stopped at 0 kN.[1]
-The specimen was unscrewed and the whole procedure was repeated for all specimens.[1]

-Copy the data recorded into an excel file

F
-Calculate stress, σ, for every reading by σn “ A0 .
4V g
-Calculate strain, ϵ, for every reading by ϵn “ Vin S GAIN .

3.2 Tension Test

3.2.1 Apparatus
-Hand operated tensiometer.
-Extensometer.
-Specimens.
-Vernier caliper.
-Data logger.
-Computer with installed program.
-Transparent safety guard.

3.2.2 Procedure
-A vernier caliper was used to measure three widths, w1´3 , and thicknesses,t1´3 of the gauge section of
the specimen at different positions.
-The average width, w, and average thickness, t was computed. Then the average initial area, by A0 “ wt
was computed.
-The length, L0 , of the gauge portion for the specimen was measured.
-The specimen was inserted into the jaw of the tensiometer. Do not apply load onto the specimen in this
step.[2]
-Extensometer was setup.[2]
-Transparent safety guard was placed in front of tensiometer.[2]
-The software was tured on for data acquisition.[2]
-The wheel of the tensiometer was turned at a slow constant rate, for good data.[2]
-When the material was in the plastic region, the specimen was unloaded to an arbitrary point and then
the specimen was loaded until failure.[2]
-The data acquisition software was stopped and the data was saved to a file.
-This procedure was repeated for all specimens.[2]

-Copy all data into excel.

-For all data, compute Nominal Stress, σn , by σn “ AF0 .
-For all data, compute Nominal Strain, ϵn , by ϵn “ ∆L L0
-For all data, compute True Strain, ϵt , by ϵt “ ln p1 ` ϵn q.
-For all data, compute True Stress, σt , by σt “ σn p1 ` ϵn q.
-Sort all data with respect to time.
-Delete all data that occurs after the breaking point of the specimen.
-Delete all data that does not follow the trend of the linear elastic region of the data. Replace these
points with extrapolated data from the linear data. use data within 0.3 and 0.7 times the yield stress.
-Shift all data, such that nominal and true strain at 0N is equal to 0.

5
3.3 Hardness Test
3.3.1 Apparatus
-Vickers micro-hardness tester.
-Sand paper of different grits.
-Specimens

3.3.2 Procedure
-The Vickers micro-hardness tester was set to apply 1kgf for 10s.[2]
-Then a side of the grip portion of the specimen was polished with different grits of sand paper.[2]
-The grip portion of the specimen was placed into the Vickers micro-hardness tester and the focus of the
microscope was adusted until a sharp image is seen.
-The relevant button was pressed to start the test.[2]
-After the test,the focus of the microscope was adjusted until the corners of the indentation were sharp.
An image of the indentation was saved.[2]
-The two diagonals, d1´2 , was measured and the appropriate button was pressed for the machine to
calculate HV01/10, and the values were recorded.[2]
-The procedure was repeated for 5 Vickers hardness values, where successive tests were at least 2mm
from previous indentations for good data.[2]

4 Results and Discussions

Results and discussions is the main part of the report in which key findings are presented in graphs and
tables and discussed. It is very important to refer to all figures and tables in the text. A number of
graphs and tables without relevant individual explanation cannot be considered as an acceptable results
section. You should quantitatively analyse errors and uncertainties in this section.

4.1 Graphs

Figure 3: Force vs. Amplified Gauge Voltage

Figure 3 and 4 display the elastic response of metals. They show the same trend because both F ∝ Vg
and σn ∝ ϵn for materials in the elastic region, which was the case for the Strain Test. The gradient of
figure 4 is equal to the elastic modulus, E, of its respective material. Therefore figure 4 clearly shows
that the stiffest specimen was Copper, then Brass and then Aluminium.
It is worth noting that plotting loading and unloading separately, in both figures 3 and 4, would result in
different gradients. This is because in unloading there was increased friction between the specimen and
the grip of the tensiometer, which caused higher strains at the same loading. This would explain why
the measured value of Elastic Modulus was less than accepted values, as the plotted unloading points
were used for the linear regression line.
Figure 5 compares the true stress and strain for the different specimens. This provides visual aids to
the quoted material properties in Table 1. The most notable of which is Carbon Fiber’s much greater
yield stress than Aluminium and Aluminium’s much greater yield stress than the polymer. That trend is

6
 Figure 4: Nominal Stress vs. Strain

Figure 5: True Stress vs. Strain for Aluminium, Carbon Fibre, Polymer

also true for elastic modulus. Figure 5 also displays the difference in ductility between specimens, with
the Polymer being the greatest and Carbon Fibre displaying its brittle property.

Figure 6: True Stress vs. True Strain, Nominal Stress vs. Nominal Strain for Aluminium

Figure 6 compares true and nominal stress for Aluminium. It displays that σt ě σn for all strains for
Aluminium. This can be shown from equation 6 since σn ą 0. Figure 6 shows the unloading properties
for Aluminium. It shows, and has been quantitatively checked, that the gradient for unloading is equal
to the measured elastic modulus for Aluminium and also the reloading follows the same stress-strain as
unloading.
Figure 7 compares true and nominal stress for a Carbon Fibre. It displays that σt ě σn for all strains
for a Polymer. This can be shown from equation 6 since σn ą 0. However the graph shows almost
identical lines so σt « σn . This is because for Carbon Fibre strains are relatively small compared to the
other specimens, due to its low ductility.
Figure 8 compares true and nominal stress for a Thermosetting Polymer. It displays that σt ě σn for
all strains for a Polymer. This can be shown from equation 6 since σn ą 0. Figure 8 shows the unloading
properties for Polymers. It shows a hysteresis loop formed by unloading. The area enclosed by the loop
is equal to the dissipated energy per unit volume, due to permanent plastic deformation.

7
 Figure 7: True Stress vs. True Strain, Nominal Stress vs. Nominal Strain for Carbon Fibre

Figure 8: True Stress vs. True Strain, Nominal Stress vs. Nominal Strain for Polymer

4.2 Tables
Tables should be accompanied by a caption and table number above. For further details about tables
and tabulation of data, see IC Aero Report Style Guide.

Table 1: Measured Comparison of material properties

Measured Elastic Modulus (GPa) Measured Critical Stress (MPa) UTS (MPa) Measured Ductility Specific Stiffness (MPa/kgm´3 ) Specific Strength (MPa/kgm´3 )
Aluminium 28 180 210 0.095 0.010 0.079
Carbon Fibre 32 620 620 0.019 0.019 0.036
Polymer 0.65 53 67 0.30 0.000046 0.048

Table 1 displays the most important material properties of the specimens measured in the tensile test,
and is a quantitative summary to Figure 6. These properties are vital for material selection depending
on the engineering application. Specific properties is defined as that property per unit density, which is
very important in aerospace applications where weight saving is key.

Table 2: Accepted Comparison of Material Properties

Measured Elastic Modulus (GPa) Measured Critical Stress (MPa) UTS (MPa) Measured Ductility Specific Stiffness (MPa/kgm´3 ) Specific Strength (MPa/kgm´3 )
Aluminium 28 180 210 0.095 0.010 0.079
Carbon Fibre 32 620 620 0.019 0.019 0.036
Polymer 0.65 53 67 0.30 0.000046 0.048

Table 3: Vickers Hardness Measurements for unloaded Aluminium

First Diagonal (µm) Second Diagonal (µm) HV01/10 (kgf/mm2 ) H (N/mm2 )
Indentation1 163.17 161.19 70.5 691
Indentation2 163.95 164.71 68.7 673
Indentation3 161.49 159.95 71.8 704
Indentation4 157.24 161.51 73.0 716
Indentation5 164.84 162.12 69.4 681

8
4.3 Equations
FL
E“ (1)
AE
F
σn “ (2)
A0
∆L
ϵn “ (3)
L0
∆L
ϵn “ (4)
L0
ϵt “ ln p1 ` ϵn q (5)
σt “ σn p1 ` ϵn q (6)
4V g
ϵn “ (7)
Vin S GAIN
2 sin p68˝ qF d1 ` d2
HV “ 2 d“ (8)
d 2
HV g
H“ (9)
sin p68˝ q
ρL
R“ (10)
A
Table 3 shows the raw data of the Vickers micro Hardness test for unloaded Aluminium. The average
Hardness, H, is 693N {mm2 and the standard deviation is 17.3. Using a tabor construction at ϵn “ 0.09
with a projection line, H ˚ « 690N {mm2 which results in a percentage difference of 0.43% between
H ˚ and H. The percentage error in H, calculated from the average and standard deviation, is 3.74%.
0.43% ă 3.74% suggesting that the tabor construction for Aluminium is accurate.

5 Conclusions
Here, you draw conclusions based on the presented results. In conclusions, you should discuss the success
of the experiment and address aims and objectives of the experiment

References
[1] Tagariellei Laboratory handout 1 of 2 Strain Measurements with resistance strain gauges.
[Handout] Imperial College London
[2] Tagariellei Laboratory handout 2 of 2 Mechanical response of solids: tension and hardness
experiments [Handout] Imperial College London
[3]
[4] Wheatstone

Appendix
Appendix include supporting information such as raw data, additional calculations, etc.