Figure 1: Vice configuration used in the tensile testing of the plastic samples (Powell,2012)

Tensile Strength and Deformation

Characteristics of Engineering
Materials
Chris Powell
Word Count: 2,741

Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1
METHOD .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
EXPERIMENTAL ERRORS ........................................................................................................................................... 4
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
METALS ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
PLASTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 7
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Figures
FIGURE 1: VICE CONFIGURATION USED IN THE TENSILE TESTING OF THE PLASTIC SAMPLES (POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 2: TABLE SHOWING AN EXAMPLE OF A TENSILE PROFILE SHOWING SOME OF ITS KEY FEATURES (INSTRON, N.D.)
FIGURE 3: NECKING OF POLYETHYLENE DURING TESTING (POWELL, 2012)
FIGURE 4: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MONSANTO TESOMETER(POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 5: PLASTIC SPECIMENS (POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 6: METAL SPECIMENS (POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 7: EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON ALONGSIDE THE SWITCH USED TO CONTROL THE CROSSHEAD (POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 8: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE TORN ENDS AFTER FAILURE OF POLYPROPYLENE (POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 9: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING POLYPROPYLENE AFTER FAILURE (POWELL,2012)
FIGURE 10: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING POLYSTYRENE AFTER FAILURE (POWELL,2012)

1
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
5

Abstract
The behaviour of certain materials vary greatly under tensile loads and it is important to
understand and predict these characteristics, particularly as the materials being tested are
regularly applied in engineering circumstances. The experiment being undertaken involved
placing the sample between two grips (Figure 1.), one of which moved vertically upwards
thereby applying a tensile load to the samples which eventually caused them to fail. Whilst
this was happening a computer logged the extension and load values which produced a graph
showing how the sample responded to the tensile forces.

Introduction
The experiments undertaken on the three polymer and three metal samples are commonly
known as tensile tests, and are widely renowned for being probably the most fundamental
type of mechanical test that can be carried out on a material (Instron,n.d.). Once the sample
is subjected to a tensile force it begins to deform producing an extension, this extension is
then logged against the load required to create it which produces a tensile profile
(Instron,n.d.) the area under which shows how much energy the material absorbs before
failing (Bingham,n.d.). These tensile profiles are important to engineers as it is important to
be able to produce structures which will not permanently deform under their standard loads
and also to be able to construct machinery which is capable of forming and manipulating
different materials into desired shapes (Ashby,Jones,2012).
All materials exhibit some form of elastic properties but this may happen for such a short
extension or load range it is difficult to measure or unnoticeable. On the load/extension
graphs this elastic region is identified as the linear portion that originates from the
intersection of the axis (where both load and extension are equal to zero). The area under this
straight section of the graph is the stored elastic energy, which means that once the load is
removed this energy is released and the material springs back to its original shape
(Ashby,Jones,2012). The straight line relationship between the extension produced and the
load applied to it means they are proportional and therefore obey Hookes Law. As Hookes
Law is being obeyed the ratio of stress to strain is constant (Instron,n.d.) and therefore the
slope of the line is equal to a constant know as the Modulus of Elasticity or Youngs
Modulus. This is derived from the relationship
where stress is equal to
and the strain is the ratio of the extension over the original length. For
both stress and strain to be equal to one another a constant must be introduced which then
gives
, where E is the Youngs Modulus and is a gauge of the materials stiffness
(Instron,n.d.). Stiffness is defined as the ability of a substance to resist deformation and as
expected this value varies greatly between different materials, for example a sample such as a
plastic that produces a larger extension for lighter load will give a shallower line on the
tensile profile and as a result give a lower Youngs Modulus.

Once the elastic region has been exceeded the sample behaves plastic or nonelastic which
means that further increases in extension is causing irreversible deformation. As the sample is
further being deformed the cross-sectional area decreases as mass and volume must be
conserved, this constant decrease in cross-sectional area causes it to become unstable and at a
point along its length it begins to neck. Necking begins to occur at the point of ultimate
tensile strength (Figure 3.) and continues to develop afterwards which weakens that portion
of sample until it can no longer withstand the load and it fails. A visual example of necking
can be seen in Figure 2. Necking is the localised plastic flowing of a specimen caused by

Figure 2: Table showing an example of a tensile profile showing

some of its key features (Instron, n.d.)

Figure 3: Necking of Polyethylene during testing

(Powell, 2012)

increased shear stresses at a certain location along its length (Ashby,Jones,2012).

Whilst the tensile load is being applied to the samples there are also shear stresses which are
being transmitted through the material at an angle from the direction of the tensile force. This
is particularly the case with the metals which have a crystal structure which is built up of a
number of lattices. It is these lattices which slip past one another on the nearest plane to 45
(Ashby,Jones,2012) as this is the angle at which the shear stresses are at their greatest, it is
these dislocations that are the cause of the increase in the materials length.
As well as the Youngs Modulus there are a number of other key characteristics which can be
obtained from tensile testing. The ones important to the experiment undertaken is the Yield
Strength and the Ultimate Tensile Strength. Yield strength is the stress (Load / Crosssectional area) at the point of transition from elastic to plastic flow. It is important to
recognise this value as in many applications it shouldnt be exceeded for purposes previously
stated. The ultimate tensile strength of a specimen is the maximum load it can take before
failure.

Method
1. For the plastic sections (Figure 5.) measure both the thickness and width along the
gauge section and then mark either side of a distance of 80mm along the samples
length. Then for the metal specimens (Figure 6.) adjust the slide on the Monsanto
Tensometer (Figure 4.) to either A or B and C depending upon the cross-sectional
area.
2. If using the plastic samples place the thick flat section inside one of the grips and
screw until closed, then repeat for the opposite side. For the metal specimens close the
thin section inside the two halves of the metal cup and fix to the top crosshead by
placing the bar through the aligning holes. Repeat for the bottom portion but when
fixing the cup to the bottom crosshead slowly bring the top one down using the
buttons (Figure 7.) whilst pushing the bar against the holes. At the instant the bar is
fully secure stop lowering the crosshead.
3. Once the sample has been secured in the crosshead both the load and extension need
to be reset on the monitor to the side of the machinery.
4. When the values have been reset the test can be started by clicking begin on the
monitor, the top crosshead will then move vertically upwards and whilst this is
happening the computer records the loads, extension and time elapsed. This continues
until the specimen fails.
5. Finally for the metal samples remove them from the cups and rebuild them in the
Monsanto Tensometer to obtain the elongation values.

Figure 7: Emergency stop button alongside the

switch used to control the crosshead (Powell,2012)

Figure 6: Metal specimens (Powell,2012)

3
Figure 4: Photograph of the Monsanto
Tesometer(Powell,2012)

Figure 5: Plastic specimens (Powell,2012)

Safety
As the crosshead is continuously being moved up and down there is a risk fingers or hands
may get trapped between that and the fixed one. To reduce the risk of this happening cut out
stops can be put into use to prevent the crosshead being moved lower than a specified height.
Some of the samples are prone to shattering upon tensile failure (particularly Polystyrene)
which means some of smaller parts could be expelled and cause harm to the experimenter,
therefore goggles must be worn at all times and in some circumstances it may be necessary to
place a polycarbonate screen in front of the workstation before testing (Magowan,n.d.).

Experimental Errors
Whilst undertaking the tensile test a number of experimental errors were encountered which
ranged from human error, to errors directly involving the behaviour of the materials under
testing. One issue found was the measuring of the polymer elongations had to be done
manually using rulers which meant values were only accurate to the nearest mm, then to
further decrease the validity of the results the line used to mark the 80mm section had to be
done by hand which meant accurate measuring of the extension was difficult. The polymers
were also made in-house which meant their dimensions would have varied slightly between
specimens making it difficult to compare results. Whilst testing Polystyrene it shattered at the
point of failure into multiple pieces (Figure 10.) which meant putting it back together
effectively was difficult and as a result the extension reading was possibly incorrect. Another
issue with reassembly was noticed with polypropylene which tore on failure (Figures 8.&9.).
The point where human where human error had a large effect on the results came when
testing the Mild Steel and Copper specimens. Whilst the Mild Steel was being fixed to the
crossheads the top one must have been moved upwards to the point where a tensile force in
excess 9400N was applied. This meant the yield point load had been exceed and a value had
to be estimated bearing in mind steel deforms plastically for a large portion of the graph.
When performing the test on Polyethylene it extended to the point where the crossheads
could no longer continue to separate and the specimen still hadnt failed. This meant it had to
be assumed the sample failed at the maximum possible extension to machinery was able to
produce. Such a large extension also meant measuring it was difficult and had to be done
with a thirty centimetre rule.

Figure 9: Photograph showing polypropylene after failure

(Powell,2012)

Figure 8: Photograph showing the torn ends after failure

of polypropylene (Powell,2012)

Figure 10: Photograph showing polystyrene after

failure (Powell,2012)

Results
Material
Copper
Brass
Mild Steel
Polystyrene

Gauge Length
Cross
Sectional
Original
Width Thickness
Area
Length
(mm)
(mm)
(mm2)
(mm)
20.00
20.00
10.00
80.00
10.00
3.95
39.50

Polypropylene

80.00

9.93

3.97

Polyethylene

80.00

9.74

3.90
37.99
676.214
945.707
505
Tensile
Hardness
Strength
Elongation (%)
(HV20)
-2
(Nmm )
367.515
19.0
111.9
455.582
26.0
136.1
1013.11
19.0
324.6
41.853
2.5
34.845
87.5
24.894
531.3

Material

Yield Strength
(Nmm-2)

Copper
Brass
Mild Steel
Polystyrene
Polypropylene
Polyethylene

340.086
254.745
700.000
40.208
18.687
17.800

Ranking (Highest to Lowest)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

39.42

Yield
Final
Point
Maximum
Length
Load
Load (N)
(mm)
(N)
6801.726 7350.302
5094.901 9111.645
7000.000 10131.100
1588.211 1653.191
82
736.651

1373.585

Strength

Ductility

Mild Steel
Alpha Brass
Copper
Polystyrene
Polypropylene
Polyethylene

Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Brass

150

Copper and Mild Steel

Polystyrene

Discussion
It can be seen from the shapes of the tensile profiles that all of the materials tested upon
behave differently under tension, particularly in the elastic region and all exhibited a lot of
5

plastic deformation before failing, excluding polystyrene.

From the results it can be easily seen that the metals are by far much stronger than any of the
plastics with a difference of at least three hundred Newtons per square millimetre. In terms of
ductility the majority of the plastics show much greater ductility than the metals with the
exception of Polystyrene which shows such little extension it is noticeably less ductile than
any of the specimens.
With the values obtained from the measurements recorded using the method a number of
calculations needed to be made to make their values comparable as the samples had varying
dimensions. The calculations used can be seen below.

(Magowan,n.d.)
Many of the values had to be taken from the graph which meant their values are very
subjective and would vary from person to person particularly the value for the Yield Point
Load. A potential means of overcoming this would be the utilisation of software which was
capable of distinguishing the transition point between linear and nonlinear portions of the
graph.

Metals
After performing the tensile tests it was noticed that as the hardness value of the material
increases so does its tensile strength, this is because hardness testing is occasionally used to
give a quantitative value for a specimens strength (VanAken,2001). The reason this is the
case is because whilst the indenter is being pressed into the material, shear stresses move
through the crystals so they slip past one another allowing the indenter to press into the
sample. These shear stresses are what cause the sample to elongate during tensile loads
therefore the greater they are the easier the indenter can be inserted and the more slip which
results from tensile testing, which finally results in a soft material which easily elongates.
Alpha Brass is an alloy of Copper and Zinc in the proportions 75% to 25% respectively.
Copper is widely known as being a very ductile metal which can easily be drawn into wires,
is a very good conductor of electricity but is not very strong in comparison to a lot of metals.
Zinc is a lustrous, brittle metal which is used largely in the galvanising of other metals to
prevent corrosion (Ophardt,2003). Once the two metals are alloyed they produce Brass which
is well known for being a strong, corrosion resistant, lustrous, ductile metal which can easily
be cold worked. These properties can modified by adding different proportions of Zinc and
Copper, for example the addition of greater amounts of Zinc means the Brass may need to hot
worked as it has become stronger and less ductile (Austral Wright,2008). It was difficult to
rate Copper or Brass in terms of strength as one has a greater yield strength and the other a
6

greater tensile strength. To overcome this an average was take of both values and Brass was
found to be marginally stronger which is to be expected with the addition of Zinc.
It should have been seen on the graph of Mild Steel that there is a large section of plastic
deformation before the point of ultimate tensile strength and necking begins. This would have
meant that Steel would be very suited for large amounts of moulding, rolling etc before
becoming unstable (Ashby,Jones,2012). Another metal that exhibits similar plastic properties
is that of Brass which can be seen to deform plastically around 5mm before reaching the
ultimate tensile strength and therefore would also be very suited for manipulation.

Plastics
Both Polyethylene and Polypropylene show very little relative elastic deformation and show a
very steep linear section as they only demonstrate elastic properties at very low strains. Then
once this fine elastic region is exceeded there is a small portion of the line which displays
plastic deformation before the point of ultimate tensile strength. This means that plastics are
quick to neck once their elastic strain has been exceeded. Polyethylene differs from the other
plastics being tested as it expresses a form of necking which does not lead to fracture as it
grows but instead work hardens so it remains stable for longer and can produce greater
extensions (Ashby,Jones,2012).
Polystyrene behaves very differently from the other two plastics being tested as it exhibits a
relatively large amount of elastic deformation which results in a shallow straight line section.
Once the yield point has been exceeded there is almost no plastic deformation before the
ultimate tensile strength point, then necking begins to occur but it is so unstable it last only
for a small strain before failure. This behaviour is very typical of brittle materials. Despite
this Polystyrene is capable of storing a large amount of elastic energy as the area under its
linear section is much larger than that of either Polyethylene or Polypropylene
(Bingham,n.d.).

Conclusions
-

Metals are far stronger than plastics with greater values of both Yield strength and
Tensile strength.
Plastics are much more ductile than the metals with the exception of Polystyrene.
Hardness is a form of quantifying strength and therefore as the hardness of the
materials increases so does their strength.
Brass and Steel deform over large strains in the plastic region before necking which
means they can be manipulated a lot before developing weaknesses.
Copper is quick to neck after passing the yield point.
Internal slippages caused by shear stresses are the cause of elongation.
The alloying of Copper and Zinc produces Brass which in different proportions
changes its properties.
The addition of Zinc to Copper makes it much stronger.
Brass is well known for being a strong, corrosion resistant, lustrous, ductile metal
which can easily be cold worked.

Polyethylene and Polypropylene show very little relative elastic deformation (over
small strains) but extend greatly during necking.
Polystyrene is a very brittle plastic and soon after the UTS point is passed it fractures.

1000

Tensile Profile Polyethylene

900
800

Load (N)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

80

90

Extension (mm)

1600

Tensile Profile for Polypropylene

1400

Load (N)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Extension (mm)

1800

Tensile Profile for Polystyrene

1600
1400
Load (N)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Extension (mm)

12000

Tensile Profile for Mild Steel

10000

Load (N)

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

3.5

Extension (mm)

8000

Tensile Profile for Copper

7000
6000
Load (N)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Extension (mm)

10000

Tensile Profile for Brass

9000
8000
Load (N)

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

Extension (mm)

10

References
Ashby, M.F., Jones, D.R.H.. 2012. Engineering Materials. Fourth Edition. An Introduction
to Properties, Applications, and Design.[Book]. Elsevier-Oxford.
Austral Wright. 2008. Metal Alloys - Properties and Applications of Brass and Brass
Alloys.[Website]. Austral Wright Metals. Date Accessed: 19/03/2012. Available from:
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=4387
Bingham, P. Not Dated. Mechanical Properties of Metals.[PowerPoint]. Sheffield Hallam
University. Date Accessed: 23/03/2012. Available from: shuspace.shu.ac.uk
Instron. Not Dated. Tensile Testing.[Website]. Instron- Materials Testing Solutions. Date
Accessed: 10/03/2012. Available from:
http://www.instron.us/wa/applications/test_types/tension/default.aspx
Magowan, S. 2012. Summary of Assessment of Risks Associated With Laboratory Practical
Work.[Hand-out]. Sheffield Hallam Faculty of ACES.
Ophardt, C.E.. 2003. Zinc, Zn.[Website]. Virtual Chembook- Elmhurst College. Accessed:
17/03/2012. Available from: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/102zinc.html
VanAken, D. 2001. ENGINEERING CONCEPTS: Relationship Between Hardness and
Strength.[Website]. Industrial Heating- The International Journal of Thermal Technology.
Accessed: 16/30/2012. Available from:
http://www.industrialheating.com/Articles/Column/62966f835cbb7010VgnVCM100000f932
a8c0____