Strength of Materials, Vol. 52, No.

2, March, 2020

LONGITUDINAL ELASTIC MODULUS AND POISSON’S RATIO COMPUTATIONS

WITH AUTOMATIC EXPERIMENTAL DATA PROCESSING OF THE MATERIALS

A. V. Drozdov UDC 620.17/681.518.5

A MEPR Calculator program is described that provides automatic computations of the longitudinal
elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of structural materials in accordance with operating test
standards. The deformation diagram of the material with a clear-cut linear section is examined.
The program permits of valuating the agreement between calculated and experimental data with
the coefficients of determination r 2 and variation V in elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio
computations. The program features the on-line display and visualization of the calculated
parameters in establishing the limits of the linear section of the deformation diagram, which makes
longitudinal elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio computations much easier and faster on condition
of the best data agreement.

Keywords: elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, computation, tension, compression, yield limit, coefficient of determination,
coefficient of variation.

Introduction. The longitudinal elastic modulus, or Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s ratio are related to basic
physical characteristics of the materials, which describe their elastic deformability under mechanical loading. Those
characteristics are determining factors for evaluating a stress-strain state of the structures, their strength and carrying
capacity.
The longitudinal elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio are determined under linear stress state conditions, viz
in tension or compression of rods, a procedure of evaluating the elastic modulus is given in [1–4]. Of all the possible
versions of elastic moduli, examine the so-called linear modulus, which is defined for the deformation diagram of the
material with a more or less pronounced linear section. Other elastic moduli, determined at a tangent or chord to the
nonlinear deformation diagram, are not examined. The elastic modulus on the linear section CD of the deformation
diagram is evaluated as the ratio of an increment of mechanical stress in the specimen to the corresponding increment
of its relative strain (Fig. 1). The length of the section for calculations should be as large as possible. The upper point
D on the deformation diagram should be below the proportionality limit (Fig. 1). Moreover, strains should be less
than 0.25%; in this case, the variations of specimen cross-sectional sizes and span of extensometer measurements
under loading can be neglected.
In the ideal case, the deformation diagram is linear, starting from zero stresses and strains. However, in
practice, a marked departure of the diagram from linearity on the initial section of specimen loading is often observed
(portion AC in Fig. 1, the so-called “toe region”) [2, 3]. Such a phenomenon is caused by the initial mutual
adjustment of the specimen and loading equipment elements [2, 3] and does not characterize the elastic properties of
the material. To correctly evaluate the mechanical characteristics of the material, including yield limit, it is necessary
after computing the elastic modulus on the linear section CD, to extend it to the intersection with the deformation
axis (point B). Then, translate the origin of coordinates to the point B with correcting the strain values (Fig. 1).

Pisarenko Institute of Problems of Strength, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
(drosdov@ipp.kiev.ua). Translated from Problemy Prochnosti, No. 1, pp. 175 – 184, March – April, 2020. Original
article submitted June 30, 2019.

0039–2316/20/5202–0329 © 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 329

 Fig. 1. Deformation diagram of the material with Hooke’s law distance on the initial loading section.

At present, the deformation diagrams are numerically represented using modern measuring systems,
computers, and corresponding software. The bodies of registered and calculated mechanical stresses s i and strains
e i (longitudinal and transverse) usually make up tens and hundreds of points. Normally, the elastic modulus is
calculated by the least-squares method [1, 5]. The agreement between calculated elastic moduli and experimental
data is evaluated with the coefficient of linear determination [1, 5], or squared correlation coefficient r 2 , defined by
the formula
2
æ N N N ö
ç ås ie i - 1 å s i å e i ÷÷
ç
r2 = è i =1 N i =1 i =1 ø ,
æ N 2 öæ N 2 ö (1)
ç 1 æç N ö ÷ç 1 æç N ö ÷
çç å i ås i ÷÷ çç å i åe i
s 2
- ÷ e 2
- ÷
N çè i =1 ÷ N çè i =1 ÷ ÷÷
è i =1 ø øè i =1 ø ø

where N is the number of s i and e i pairs used for computing the elastic modulus. In calculations, it is desirable
to get r 2 values, which tend to 1.00.
It is suggested in [1] that such an evaluation would require a more convenient coefficient of variation V (%),
determined as
V = 100 (1 r 2 - 1) ( N - 2). (2)

The smaller the V value, the closer the agreement between the calculated and experimental data. The coefficient of
variation V should not exceed 2% under normal experimental conditions. For aluminum alloys, its value makes up
less than 0.5% [1].
The procedure of determining Poisson’s ratio [6] proposes the construction of two linear relations between
longitudinal (axial) and transverse deformations and applied loads with a potential use of the least-squares method to
decrease computational errors. Poisson’s ratio is defined as the ratio of transverse deformation slope to that of the
longitudinal one at the stresses, which should be below the proportionality limit. In [6], the agreement between
calculated and experimental data was not evaluated.
The elastic modulus assessment is a more time-consuming process, as compared to that of such mechanical
characteristics, as ultimate strength, yield limit, tensile elongation, etc. It is associated with the fact that the linear
section on the deformation diagram (linear sections for Poisson’s ratio) should be defined, its slope determined, and
the agreement between experimental and calculated data evaluated. In the case of the inadequate result, this section
of the diagram and further iteration of computations should be corrected. For the assessment of Poisson’s ratio, the

330
 Fig. 2. General view of the Preprocessing page.

body of computations would be greater since it is necessary to define the linear sections on the deformation diagrams
in the longitudinal and transverse directions and perform corresponding calculations. Evaluation of the data fit is not
regulated [6]. Moreover, certain operations would be required to visualize experimental and current calculated data.
A great body of computations, the need for data display, and subjective factors strongly complicate and make it
difficult to reliably assess the above mechanical characteristics.
MEPR Calculator Program. A special MEPR Calculator (Module Elasticity & Poisson’s Ratio Calculator)
program was developed to automate elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio computations for different structural
materials, to output and visualize the deformation diagram and computation parameters as well as to evaluate the
on-line data fit. As a prototype of this program, the more universal one was used [7], wherein only those parts were
taken that refer to elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio computations. To meet the requirements of standards [1–5], the
selected parts were essentially updated, new procedures were added, which permitted complementing the procedure
(standard) for Poisson’s ratio evaluation. As program development progressed, multiple checking calculations of
tensile test results were performed for different structural materials.
The program provides reading of normal text files with *csv, *txt, and *raw expansions, which contain the
bodies of physical magnitudes registered and/or calculated in the process of testing. The program starts from reading
of a selected file and automated location of initial experimental data in the table of input data. The file of
experimental data, in addition to the major part, including the bodies of registered data, can contain a certain
supplemental informative heading part where test conditions, specimen description, etc. may be cited. The above
involves the automated selection of the major file part with data bodies for further computations.
The graphic interface of the program includes two reversible pages: Preprocessing and Calculating. The
upper part of the Preprocessing page contains the table of input data (pos. 1 in Fig. 2), panel of input data
transformation (pos. 2), table of output data for stresses, longitudinal and transverse strains (pos. 3), the lower part
bears two graphic windows with timing diagrams of selected input and output data (pos. 4 and 5). In the fields of
those diagrams, minimum and maximum data of selected bodies are also displayed.
The application of the program is illustrated below by the example of the elastic modulus computation for
the steel specimen in tension at room temperature.

331
 Fig. 3. General view of the Calculation page.

After opening of the file with experimental data and automatic tabulation of input values, a required column
should be selected (pos. 1 in Fig. 2). With this, the timing diagram of a selected magnitude with the assessment of its
extreme values is automatically displayed (pos. 4 in Fig. 2). Then, the output magnitude (stress, longitudinal or
transverse strain) from the corresponding table column of output values should be selected (pos. 3 in Fig. 2). If the
initial file already contains computed stress and strain data bodies, they should be transferred from the table column
of input data to the corresponding columns of output values without any transformations using the Transfer button
(pos. 6 in Fig. 2).
The program provides several presetting (optional) procedures in transforming a selected input value into a
selected output one. Among those procedures are stress and strain computations, linear transformation of data bodies,
averaging of the values of a given data body over sliding mean, assessment of extreme values of the data body,
rejection of noninformative initial and final members of experimental data bodies, etc. [6].
For the transformation of the input data body into the output data one with performing preset processing
procedures, the Transform button should be pressed (pos. 7 in Fig. 2); after that the timing diagram of the output
magnitude and its extreme values would be automatically displayed (pos. 5).
After the tabulation of output stress and strain data bodies, the program displays automatically the
deformation diagram of the specimen. For its looking-up, the Calculation page should be open, with it major part
taken by the deformation diagram of the specimen (Fig. 3). The left part of the page contains the panels for
displaying the numerical values of calculated mechanical parameters, sliders for setting the initial and final levels of
the linear section (sections) to compute the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio, as well as the panel for displaying
the statistical parameters rL2 , rT2 , VL , and VT both in the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) directions,
characterizing the agreement of calculated parameters and experimental data. The stresses s m and strains e Lm and
e Tm corresponding to a maximum stress value are computed simultaneously with displaying the deformation diagram
of the specimen.

332
 a

b
Fig. 4. Initial (a) and corrected (b) deformation diagrams.

Examine the case of loading of the steel specimen in tension to fracture with measuring its elongation in the
longitudinal direction by an external extensometer, followed by evaluating the elastic modulus. The deformation
diagram of this specimen is shown in Fig. 3. For ease of observation of the linear diagram section and the elastic
modulus computation, its scale along the axis of strains should be changed with the slider (pos. 1 in Fig. 3). The
onset of specimen loading is accompanied with a clear-cut nonlinear diagram section, which does not characterize
the elastic properties of the material and is caused by the initial mutual adjustment of the test specimen and loading
equipment elements (Fig. 4a).
Then, the initial s 1 (e 1 ) and final s 2 (e 2 ) stress (strain) levels should be set with corresponding sliders
(pos. 2 in Fig. 3) of the graphic interface, being optimal as regards the fit between the calculated elastic modulus Å
and experimental data. The setting is accompanied with the automatic computation and continuous display of current

333
 Fig. 5. Variation of the calculated elastic modulus E and statistical parameters VL and N in searching
the initial e 1 and final e 2 strain levels of a steel specimen.

values of the elastic modulus E and coefficients of determination rL2 and variation VL under on-line deformation in
the longitudinal direction.
Taking into account that the nonlinearity of the deformation diagram can occur both at the onset of loading
and at deformations over 0.25%, the above stress (strain) levels should first be set in the mid-portion of a supposed
linear section. Then, by searching their possible values, the range of elastic modulus computations should be
determined, optimal as regards the data metal. At the first stage, the final s 2 (e 2 ) level is proposed to be gradually
increased, with a following decrease in the coefficient of variation VL , stop it if the latter is growing. After that, the
second stage is initiated with a decrease in initial s 1 (e 1 ) level, which should also be stopped with an increase in VL .
With a change in the levels, the operator is oriented to getting a minimum value of the coefficient of variation VL at
a maximum number of experimental points N . The linear section of the deformation diagram established in such a
manner would be optimal as to the data match.
It is of importance that the program, in addition to the output of numerical results, automatically displays the
lines of the established section on the deformation diagram, computed by the least-squares method, as well as the
coefficients of variation VL (VT ) in the form of column diagrams (pos. 3 in Fig. 3), which makes the computations
much easier and faster.

334
 Fig. 6. Deformation diagram (initial section) of a ULTEM-9085 thermoplastic specimen.

The elastic modulus E computations with the program are illustrated with Fig. 5, where the number K of
successive computations is plotted on the abscissa with the data holding in the search of possible s 1 (e 1 ) and
s 2 (e 2 ) values. At the initial moment, the levels e 2 = 0.146% and e 1 = 0.137% were established in the mid-portion
of a supposed linear diagram section. Then e 2 was gradually increased with a monotonic decrease in the coefficient
of variation VL (area A in Fig. 5). Upon achieving e 2 = 0.226%, its further increase resulted in the growth of the
coefficient of variation VL . Therefore, the achieved e 2 level was fixed, after that e 1 was decreased, getting a further
VL reduction (area B in Fig. 5). It leads to a minimum of the coefficient of variation VL = 0.317% at e 2 = 0.226%
and e 1 = 0.071%, and E = 199.9 GPa, r 2 = 0.9990%, and N = 101.
After evaluating the elastic modulus E, the initial nonlinear deformation diagram section should be omitted
from examination by pressing the "To correct" button since it does not characterize the elastic properties of the
material (pos. 4 in Fig. 3). As a result, the section located below the initial e 1 level is transformed into the line with
the slope equal to the calculated elastic modulus, and the deformation diagram is shifted along the strain axis to the
origin of coordinates (Fig. 4b). After such a correction of the deformation diagram, the correct value of the yield limit
s 0. 2 is obtained that corresponds to actual elastic properties of an examined material.
Consider the elastic modulus E and Poisson’s ratio m computations for a ULTEM-9085 thermoplastic
specimen in tension. The specimen was loaded to stresses of 8–10% ultimate strength, and strains in the longitudinal
and transverse direction were measured with resistance strain gauges. The deformation diagrams obtained in this
stress range were practically linear (Fig. 6).
The agreement between calculated characteristics and experimental data is evaluated with the program
providing the computation of coefficients of determination and variation both in the longitudinal rL2 , VL and
transverse rT2 , VT directions. An optimum linear section of the deformation diagram of the specimen was
determined similarly to the above example: the e 2 and e 1 levels were established in the mid-portion of the
longitudinal diagram. A successive increase in the final e 2 level (area A in Fig. 7) is accompanied by a monotonic
decrease in VL and VT up to the computation of the total registered deformation diagram (Fig. 7), which in this case

335
 Fig. 7. Variation of the calculated characteristics Å and m and statistical parameters VL , VT , and N
in searching the initial e 1 and final e 2 strain levels of a ULTEM-9085 thermoplastic specimen.

would be its optimal section with getting the following magnitudes: E = 2.74 GPa, m = 0.375, e 2 = 0.147%,
e 1 = 0.001%, rL2 = 0.99993, rT2 = 0.99993, VL = 0.047%, VT = 0.048%, and N = 317. As is seen, calculated and
experimental data are in very good agreement.
Thus, the program offers a significant simplification of elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio computations
with continuous automatic visualization of current material values. Moreover, it provides the computation, digital
and graphic output of the parameters, characterizing the agreement between calculated and experimental data in
evaluating the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio. It considerably cuts time necessary for computing elastic
characteristics of the specimens with minimization of subjective errors and permits of accumulation and holding of
calculated parameters. For further modifying the program, it would be appropriate to perform its testing in other
research laboratories.

REFERENCES

1. ASTM E111-17. Standard Test Method for Young’s Modulus, Tangent Modulus, and Chord Modulus, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA (2017).

336
2. ASTM D638-14. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (2014).
3. ASTM D695-15. Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA (2015).
4. DSTU 4347:2004. Metals. Test Methods for Elastic Properties at Cryogenic, Subzero, and Room
Temperatures [in Ukrainian]. Valid since September 20, 2004.
5. ASTM E3080-17. Standard Practice for Regression Analysis, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA
(2017).
6. ASTM E132-17. Standard Test Method for Poisson’s Ratio at Room Temperature, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA (2017).
7. A. V. Drozdov, V. V. Kharchenko, A. M. Potapov, et al., “Computation software for strength and elastic
characteristics of polymer composites,” Strength Mater., 48, No. 6, 768–776 (2016).

337