Lab Report - Materials

Tensile Properties of Polypropylene Lab Report - Materials
Petroleum and Mechanical Engineering

University of Salford
Lab Title: Tensile Properties of Polypropylene

Module: Engineering Materials
BY: Mujtaba Ghulam

Student ID Number: @00456239
Date of Submission: 01/02/2018
1
Contents Page
1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..3

2.0 Theory ……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………..…..3
3.0 Apparatus ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..…..4,5
4.0 Methods …………………….…………………………………………………………………………….………..6
5.0 Results and Calculations ……..…………………………………………………………….…..…7,8,9,10
6.0 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………………..……….…11
7.0 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…12
8.0 Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
9.0 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
2
Tensile properties of Polypropylene
1.0 Introduction
The uses of polypropylene are vast, it is used all over the world. From packaging
textiles like clothing, to further stationary such as plastic parts and reusable
containers. The properties are also vast, first of all it is chemically resistant, this
means alkaline and aids will not react against polypropylene, this makes it good for
plastic containers such as disposable cups. Secondly it is very tough with high
elasticity, which means it’s good for producing rubber bands.
The purpose of this experiment was to work out tensile properties for three samples
of the thermoplastic polymers (also known as polypropene) this was done by using a
tensile testing machine known as the ‘Zwick/Roell Z 2.5’. An average length and
width were both measured for each of the three specimens using a ruler and a
digital Vernier Caliper respectively before beginning the experiment. Each of the
three samples were examined above the glass transition temperature. All three were
regulated to a tensile load up until it fractured. Each of the three specimens were
tested at different speeds. Results for load & extension and other outcomes were
produced by a specialised software program known as TestXpert.
The prediction is that; as the speed of the extension would decrease, the length of
extension should increase.
2.0 Theory
 The expression for the Nominal Yield is;

Load at high Yield
Nominal Yield = (N/mm2)
Original CSA
 The expression for the Young’s Modulus is;

Nominal Yield
Young’s Modulus = (N/mm2)
( Extention High Yeild/Giage Length)
 The expression for the Nominal Fracture Stress is;

Fracture Load
Nominal Fracture Stress = (N/mm2)
CSA at Fracture
 The expression for the True Fracture Stress is;

Fracture Load
True Fracture Stress = (N/mm2)
CSA at Fracture
 The expression for the Tensile Density is;

Extention at Break
Tensile Density =
Guage Length
3
These are the formulas for the outcomes that will be calculated for each of the three
specimens of polypropylene.
3.0 Apparatus
 Ruler - figure 3.1 shows an illustration of the ruler used.
(figure 3.1)
 Vernier Calliper - figure 3.2 shows an illustration of the Vernier Calliper used.
(figure 3.2)
 3 samples of Polypropylene - figure 3.3 shows an illustration of one of the

three samples used.
(×3)
(figure 3.3)
4
 Zwick Roell Z 2.5 Machine - figure 3.4 and 3.5 show an illustration of the
sample testing machine.
5
(figure 3.4)
(figure 3.5)
 Software program used on

Computer; ‘TestXpert’ - figure 3.6
shows an illustration of the software
program used.
6
(figure 3.6)
4.0 Method
 Before the test began a ruler was used to measure the length of each sample
three times allowing for an average length to be calculated. A Vernier Calliper
was used to measure the width of each sample three times allowing for an
average width to be calculated. Averages for length and width allowed us to
calculate an average cross-sectional area (CSA). Also before the test began
the gauge length for each of the three specimens was taken.
 After these measurements were taken, all three specimens were examined
on the machine ‘Zwick Roell’. First specimen was regulated at a speed of
100mm/min, second at 50mm/min, and the third at 12.5mm/min until the
specimen fractured.
 As the machine was connected to the software program; ‘TestXpert’, results

were able to be calculated in the form of a graph representing load against
extension. Using the graph, further calculations were made to find the
expressions stated in the theory section of the report (section 2.0)
 Once a graph was obtained for each of the three specimens, the gauge length
was once again calculated as well as the length and width for all three
specimens, this time however after fracture.
7
5.0 Results and Calculations
Av. CSA =
t0 × w0
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm²)
t 2.21 2.21 2.22 Av. t = 2.21
Spec. 1 10.39
Av. w= 4.7
w 4.69 4.71 4.71
t 2.12 2.13 2.12 Av. t = 2.12
Spec. 2 9.9
Av. w = 4.67
w 4.71 4.63 4.68
t 2.13 2.13 2.15 Av. t = 2.13

Spec. 3 9.8
Av. w= 4.6
w 4.64 4.68 4.68
(figure 5.1)
Above, please find figure 5.1, what can be seen is the Pre-test Specimen measurements.
Length and width were both measured for each of the three specimens using a ruler and a
Vernier Caliper respectively. These measurements were repeated three times before the
experiment and three times after the experiment, allowing for an average length reading
and an average width reading to be calculated for both before and after the experiment.
8
(the above table is specifically for before and not after the experiment).
Specimen 1
Gauge Length (mm) 33
Initial CSA (mm²) 10.39
Extension at High Yield (mm) 3.5
Fracture Length (mm) 43
Thickness at Fracture (mm) 1
Width at Fracture (mm) 3.41
CSA at Fracture (mm²) 3.41
Load at Yield (N) 278
Load at Fracture (N) 81
Nominal Yield Stress (N/mm²) 26.756
Young’s Modulus (N/mm²) 252.21
Nominal Fracture Stress (N/mm²) 7.79
True Fracture Stress (N/mm²) 23.75
Tensile Ductility 0.387
(figure 5.2)
9
(figure 5.3)
Nominal Yield stress = (278/10.39) = 26.756(N/mm²)

Young’s modules = (26.765/0.106) = 252.27 (N/mm²)
Nominal fracture stress = (81/10.39) = 7.79 (N/mm²)
True fracture stress = (81/3.41) = 23.75 (N/mm²)
Tensile Ductility = (12.8/33) = 0.381
Above please find figure 5.2 and figure 5.3 further explaining the results for specimen 1.
Specimen 2
Extension at High Yield (mm) 3.6
Thickness at Fracture (mm) 0.96
Nominal Fracture Stress (N/mm²) 16.57
(figure 5.4)
10
(figure 5.5)
Nominal Yield stress = (277/9.9) = 27.97 (N/mm²)

Nominal fracture stress = (164/9.9) = 16.56 (N/mm²)
Tensile Ductility = (25.5/33) = 0.77
Specimen 3
Extension at High Yield (mm) 4
Thickness at Fracture (mm) 0.96
Nominal Fracture Stress (N/mm²) 10
(figure 5.6)
11
(figure 5.7)
Nominal Yield stress = (256/9.8) = 26.12 (N/mm²)

Nominal fracture stress = (98/9.8) = 10 (N/mm²)
Tensile Ductility = (176/33) = 5.33
6.0 Discussion
As there was a difference in the speed at which the specimen was extended.
Specimen one at 100mm/minute, specimen 2 at 50mm/minute and specimen 3 at
12.5mm/minute. As the speed decreased the length of each specimen became
greater before it fractured. According to my results, Specimen 1 extended for 43mm
before fracturing. Specimen 2 extended for 57mm before fracturing and specimen 3
extended for a very long length of just over 200mm before fracturing. Specimen 3
was rather intriguing to watch as it took a long time before it fractured, and it looked
very different compared to the first two specimens
Below, please find figures 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3 displaying illustrations of specimen 1, 2, & 3
respectively, after fracture.
12
(figure 6.1) (figure 6.2) (figure 6.3)
The difference in fracture length ultimately means tensile ductility is different for
each specimen. The expression for tensile ductility as mentioned in the Theory
(section 2.0) clearly states that it is ‘extension at break ÷ Guage length’. Because the
extension at fracture (break) was different for each specimen, this means that the
tensile ductility would also different for each specimen too. This can be seen in the
Results segment (section 5) from figures 5.2, 5.4, & 5.6. The tensile ductility for
specimen three was really different from the first two. Tensile ductility for specimen
1 and 2 was calculated to be 0.387 & 0.77 respectively but specimen three however
was calculated to be much higher at 5.33
7.0 Conclusion
To conclude, this experimentation was completed to analyse polypropylene
regulated under three different speeds of extension. Predictions were made that as
the speed of extension would decrease, the length of the fracture would increase.
This is what happened and the predictions were proved accurate and correct.
8.0 Summary
After research was made, it was found out that polypropylene was a very useful
material, found in 1954, polypropylene very quickly became popular as it was the
perfect material for allot of purposes. The purpose of this report was to put these
properties to test.
Three specimens were tested at three different speeds using the specimen testing
machine. Predictions were made beforehand and results were calculated using the
graphs projected by the software program used.
9.0 References
 https://www.azom.com/. 2018. Zwick TestXpert II Materials Testing Software.
[ONLINE] Available at: https://www.azom.com/software-details.aspx?
SoftwareID=25. [Accessed 1 February 2018].
13
 Michael Creighton. 2018. Everything You Need To Know About Polypropylene (PP)
Plastic. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/all-about-
polypropylene-pp-plastic. [Accessed 1 February 2018].
14

Lab Report - Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lab Report - Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tensile Properties of Polypropylene Lab Report - Materials

Petroleum and Mechanical Engineering

Lab Title: Tensile Properties of Polypropylene

BY: Mujtaba Ghulam

Date of Submission: 01/02/2018

1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..3

Tensile properties of Polypropylene

 The expression for the Nominal Yield is;

 The expression for the Young’s Modulus is;

 The expression for the Nominal Fracture Stress is;

 The expression for the True Fracture Stress is;

 The expression for the Tensile Density is;

 Ruler - figure 3.1 shows an illustration of the ruler used.

 3 samples of Polypropylene - figure 3.3 shows an illustration of one of the

 Software program used on

 As the machine was connected to the software program; ‘TestXpert’, results

5.0 Results and Calculations

t 2.13 2.13 2.15 Av. t = 2.13

Nominal Yield stress = (278/10.39) = 26.756(N/mm²)

Nominal Yield stress = (277/9.9) = 27.97 (N/mm²)

Nominal Yield stress = (256/9.8) = 26.12 (N/mm²)

(figure 6.1) (figure 6.2) (figure 6.3)

You might also like