xö

LAB REPORT-01
Tensile Testing of different materials (Copper Wire).

Student Name: Adnan Abdul Aziz

Student ID: 2112009
Department: Materials & Metallurgical Engineering (MME)
Level-Term: 2-2
Report No: 01
Group No: 02
Date of Allotment: 04/10/2024
Date of Submission: 11/11/2024
Submitted To: Wasif Abu Dujana Sir,
Md. Saif Hasan Sir.

Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)

Materials Testing Sessional [MSE-226]
 1. Objectives
The main purpose of the “Tensile Testing of different materials’’ experiment is to
perform a test on materials and analyze the stress versus strain curve that is attained
from the test in order to –
 Determine the mechanical properties of a copper wire sample, such as: Yield
Strength, Ultimate Tensile Strength, Elongation, and Young’s Modulus, by using a
Universal Testing Machine (UTM).
 Analyze the Stress-Strain behavior of the copper sample and evaluate its ductility
and Fracture Toughness, Stress (%) & Strain (%).

2. Introduction
Tensile testing is a basic technique for figuring out how a material will react to a tensile
(stretching) force. Uniaxial tensile test is a basic & universal engineering test to achieve
material parameters such as – ultimate strength, yield strength, % elongation, % area of
reduction & Young’s modulus.
These important parameters obtained from the standard tensile testing are useful for
the selection of engineering materials for various required applications.

Figure 2.1: A por on of tensile tes ng machine through Isometric View

The tensile testing is carried out by applying axial load at a speci ic extension rate
(mm/min) to a standard tensile specimen (Copper Wire) with known dimensions
(gauge length, L0 = 145mm & cross-sectional area, A0 = 0.28mm2) till the Copper sample
fractured. The applied tensile load (kN) & extension (mm) are recorded during the test
for the calculation of stress & strain.

Page | 1
 3. Experimental Setup
The apparatus / instruments related to the experiment are -

Universal Testing Machine (UTM):

UTM is used to test the tensile strength (pulling) and compressive strength
(pushing), lexural strength, bending, shear, hardness, and torsion testing, providing
valuable data for designing and ensuring the quality of materials.
There are mainly 2 types of UTM machines in the laboratory where the experiment was
conducted.
1. Electromechanical Testing System: Electromechanical UTMs use electric motors
and mechanical systems to apply a precise & controlled force. These are
preferred for their precision, speed, and ease of use, making them suitable for a
wide range of applications such as tensile, compression, and lexural testing of
mainly – polymer, brittle materials etc.

Figure 3.1: Electromechanical UTM (30kN) | TE Forcespeed Corpora on

The Electromechanical UTM that has been used to conduct this experiment
(Figure 3.1) has the load capacity of 30kN. The diameter/thickness of the sample
should be within 7mm (minimum) -14mm (maximum) to hold it between the
Tensile Jaws (either round jaw or lat jaw, depending on the sample type).

This testing machine adopts rigid load frame, high accurate load weighting
system, advanced PCIE measuring & control system and intuitive modular
application software.

Page | 2
 2. Hydraulic Testing System: Hydraulic UTMs are capable of generating higher
forces and are often used for testing high-strength materials such as metals and
alloys, where extreme force applications are required.
Oil or various hydraulic mediums are used to operate this machine. It has a
2000kN load carrying capacity alongside 2 cross heads – upper crosshead
(moveable) & lower crosshead (static; but manually movable).

Figure 3.2: Schema c Diagram of a Hydraulic UTM | Toronto Tech

The diameter or thickness of the sample should be within 8mm (minimum) -

40mm (maximum) to hold it between the Tensile Jaws (either round jaw or lat
jaw, depending on the sample type).
Hydraulic UTMs are favored for their ability to handle high-capacity testing and
their durability in demanding environments.

Copper Wire (Sample):

A single core copper wire was extracted from cables carefully without harming both the
wire & insulated layer.

Figure 3.3: Copper Wire extrac on from Electric Cables

Page | 3
Extensometer:
An Extensometer is a type of strain gauge that is used in conjunction with a Universal
Testing Machine in order to measure elongation at high accuracies. Although the
extensometer was not used in the experiment conducted (errors will be introduced*
pore likhbo). Extensometers can also be used to measure in the lateral direction in order
to observe and quantify changes to the material in either X/Y/Z reference plane.

Figure 3.4: Clip-On Extensometer

There are various types of extensometers available. Such as:

 Plast Extensometer
 Micron Extensometer
 Clip-On Extensometer
 Video & Laser Extensometer
Although this instrument was not used during experiment, a short note is added to
visualize the object for easier understanding purpose.

Stainless Steel Scale:

It is used for measuring the thickness/diameter (0.6mm) & the initial length (205mm)
of the sample. For the diameter the vernier caliper can be used for further accurate
measurements.

Figure 3.5: Stainless Steel Scale

Page | 4
 4. Experimental Methodology
An electric cable was carefully incised along one side to extract a single-core copper
wire sample. Precautions were taken to avoid any damage to both the Copper wire
(sample) and the insulating layer during the extraction process.
After extracting the copper wire –
1. The wire was cut by pliers to a suitable length; ensuring there was enough length
for placing it in the UTM jaws/grips.
2. Using a stainless-steel scale, sample’s initial length was measured (L = 205mm) &
diameter (d0 = 0.6mm).
3. To avoid bending stresses, the wire in the UTM grips were aligned correctly with
the uniaxial load direction while ensuring that the specified gauge length (L0 =
145mm) is centered.
4. The jaws were tightened enough to avoid slippage during testing process,
without deforming the wire.
5. Both the speed & displacement rate were selected at a constant rate of 5mm/min
at initial.
6. As the tensile load (kN) applied throughout the process, the sample started to
elongate.
7. The value of tensile load had been increased gradually.
8. After a certain period of time, the sample started to form necking, due to
continuous elongation.
9. The cross-sectional area decreased gradually as the sample elongated. (diameter,
d = 0.45mm after fracture)
10. Carefully observed the Copper sample for necking or other visible deformations,
which often indicate the material's transition from elastic to plastic deformation.
11. As the material underwent plastic deformation, the effects were shown in the
Load vs Displacement graph on the computer, that was connected to the
Electromechanical UTM.
12. Necessary data (Figure 4-1) were recorded in the software till the sample
fractured.
13. At last, the sample was retrieved from the UTM grips & further calculation were
done.

Figure 4.1: Interface of the UTM-So ware

Page | 5
 5. RESULTS (COMPARATIVE STUDY)
The provided software data recorded during tensile testing process was transferred into
an excel sheet to plot a Stress-Strain Curve (Figure 5.1).

The software recorded data are shown in Table 1:

Sample ID Cu sample A0 (mm²): Original cross-sectional area of the sample
Test Date 11-04-24 L0 (mm): Original gauge length of the sample (distance between two marks
Operator was for elongation measurement).

Type Circle Lu (mm): Final gauge length after fracture or elongation measurement.

Size(mm) 0.6 A (%): Percent elongation, which measures ductility by comparing initial
and inal gauge lengths.
Ao(mm2) 0.28
Au (mm²): Final cross-sectional area after fracture.
Lo(mm) 145
Lu(mm) Z (%): Percent reduction in area, indicating ductility by how much the area
narrows at fracture.
A(%) /
Fm (kN): Maximum force or load applied before the sample breaks.
Au(mm2)
Rm (MPa): Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), calculated as the maximum load
Z(%) / divided by the original cross-sectional area.
Fm(kN) 0.04 FeH (kN): Higher yield load, which is the maximum load where yielding
Rm (MPa) 140 begins (if there is an upper yield point).

FeH(kN) / UYS (MPa): Upper yield strength, the corresponding stress for FeH.

UYS(MPa) / FeL (kN): Lower yield load, typically a stable load after the upper yield point.
FeL(kN) / LYS (MPa): Lower yield strength, the corresponding stress for FeL.
LYS(MPa) / Fp (kN): Proportional limit load, where the material behaves elastically.
Fp(kN) / Rp (MPa): Proportional limit stress, related to the load at the elastic limit.
Rp(MPa) / Ft (kN): Fracture load, the load at which the sample ultimately breaks.
Ft(kN) /
Rt (MPa): Fracture stress, corresponding stress at Ft.
Rt(MPa) /
E (GPa): Modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus, indicating material
E(GPa) 460.71 stiffness.

Table 1: UTM-So ware provided data Table 2: Table 1’s corresponding terminologies
(excluding the me-to- me records)

Using these provided data (time to time records), we calculated the Stress & Strain by
the following formula’s –
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑(𝑘𝑁)
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝐺𝑃𝑎) =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎(𝑠𝑞. 𝑚𝑚)

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡(𝑚𝑚)
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝐺𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ(𝑚𝑚)

A Stress-Strain Curve (Figure 5.1) was plotted Load-Displacement Curve (Figure 5.2).

Page | 6
 Figure 5.1: Stress-Strain Curve

Figure 5.2: Load-Displacement Curve

Calculation:

The initial length of the wire, L = 205mm

Gauge Length, L0 = 145mm

Diameter, d0 = 0.6mm

Cross-Sectional Area, A0 = 0.28 mm2

Diameter after fracture, df = 0.45mm

.
Cross-Sectional Area after fracture, Af = 𝜋 = 0.159mm2

Displacement Rate = 5mm/min

Speed Rate = 5mm/min

Page | 7
The calculated values of Yield Strength, Ultimate Tensile Strength, Fracture Strength,
Stress (%) & Strain (%) (for both Yield & Ultimate Tensile Point) in a tabular format:
Yield Ultimate Tensile Fracture Stress % Strain % Stress % Strain %
Strength Strength Strength (Yield (Yield (UTS) (UTS)
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) Strength) Strength)
0.125 0.143 0.136 12.5 5.537931 14.28571 15.0269

Table 3: Calculated Values from Graph

( . . )
Ductility, %𝑅𝐴 = ∗ 100% = .
∗ 100% = 43.21% [%RA = Percentage of reduction in area]
.
Young’s Modulus, E = = .
= 3.37 GPa

Comparative Study (Calculations of 4 groups):

The result compared to the other 3 groups (provided data) are shown brie ly with the
corresponding groups Stress-Strain Curve & their calculated values of Yield Strength,
Ultimate Tensile Strength, Fracture Strength, Stress % & Strain %:

Group-01: Zip-Tie Sample (Polymer)

Figure 5.3: Group-1 Stress-Strain Curve

Calculated Values:
Yield Ultimate Tensile Fracture Stress % Strain % Ductility % Young’s
Strength Strength Strength (Yield (Yield Modulus
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) Strength) Strength) (GPa)
0.03 0.0376 0.0342 3.1 15.32 126.813 0.0218

Table 3: Group - 1 Calculated Values

Page | 8
Group-03: GI-Wire Sample (Metal)

Figure 5.4: Group-3 Stress-Strain Curve

Calculated Values:
Yield Ultimate Tensile Fracture Stress % Strain % Ductility % Young’s
Strength Strength Strength (Yield (Yield Modulus
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) Strength) Strength) (GPa)
0.1 0.185 0.185 10 0.265 13.08 112
Table 4: Group - 3 Calculated Values

Group-04: Insulating Material Sample (Polymer)

Figure 5.5: Group-4 Stress-Strain Curve

Calculated Values:
Yield Ultimate Tensile Fracture Stress % Strain % Ductility % Young’s
Strength Strength Strength (Yield (Yield Modulus
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) Strength) Strength)

0.0024439 0.013 0.01262 0.2443 12.42 188.95 0.0197

Table 5: Group - 4 Calculated Values

Page | 9
Comparing the calculated values (maximum-left to minimum-right) of all four groups
containing different materials:

Yield Strength 0.125 0.10 0.03 0.0024439

(GPa) (G-2) (G-3) (G-1) (G-4)

Ultimate 0.185 0.143 0.0376 0.013

Tensile
Strength (G-3) (G-2) (G-1) (G-4)

Fracture 0.185 0.136 0.0342 0.01262

Strength (G-3) (G-3) (G-1) (G-4)

Young's 112 3.37 0.0218 0.0197

Modulus (G-3) (G-2) (G-1) (G-4)

12.50 10 3.1 0.2443

Stress %
(G-2) (G-3) (G-1) (G-4)

15.32 12.42 5.538 0.265

Strain %
(G-1) (G-4) (G-2) (G-4)

6. DISCUSSION
There are 4 different materials for 4 different groups: Cu Wire, Insulated Layer, GI Wire
& Zip-Tie.

Zip-Tie:

Pros: Tougher than cable insulation and holds things together well.

Cons: Breaks without much stretching, especially in cold or under sudden force.

Reason: Made from nylon, which is stiffer than rubber but still a plastic, so it can hold
things in place but snaps if overstretched.

Copper Wire:

Pros: Can stretch and bend easily (high ductility), with decent strength.

Cons: Not as strong as steel, so it can’t take as much stress.

Reason: Copper atoms are arranged in a way that allows it to bend without breaking,
making it lexible but not super strong.

Page | 10
GI Wire:

Pros: Stronger than copper, can handle more stress before breaking.

Cons: Doesn’t bend as much as copper, so it’s less lexible.

Reason: Iron’s atomic structure is stiffer, and the zinc coating prevents rust but doesn’t
affect its strength much.

Insulated Layer:

Pros: Very lexible and stretchy.

Cons: Weak in terms of strength; breaks under much less force compared to metals.

Reason: Made from soft polymers (like rubber or PVC), which are elastic and can stretch
but aren’t meant to hold heavy loads.

The basic differences between 4 of these materials are given above. These differences
arise from each material's distinct microstructure, bonding types, and purpose-speci ic
properties. So, the values of Yield Stress, Ultimate Tensile Stress, Fracture Stress, Stress
%, Strain % & Ductility differs.

The graphical representation of Stress-Strain Curve of four of these groups also differs
due to these diverse properties of materials. Zip-Tie sample’s graph is quite steep at irst
& then elongates gradually as the strain increases. Copper Wire sample’s graph
increases slowly at irst and then elongates at a very fast rate. GI Wire sample’s curve is
very steep at the beginning. The insulated material’s sample increases at a stable rate &
ultimately fails at last.

7. CONCLUSION
The tensile testing of the copper wire sample successfully demonstrated key mechanical
properties, including yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, ductility etc. The stress-
strain curve obtained from the test exhibited a distinct elastic region, followed by a yield
point where plastic deformation began.

The copper wire sample was not completely straight during setup, which may have
introduced initial stresses or uneven load distribution, slightly affecting the accuracy of
the results. The graph may not be visualized properly due to these effects.

Overall, the results met the experiment's objectives, validating the tensile properties of
copper and con irming its suitability for applications requiring lexibility and good
tensile strength, such as electrical wiring. This experiment effectively highlighted the
importance of the stress-strain curve in visualizing and understanding a material's
response to stress.

Page | 11
 9. Q/A
Q1. Why the curves were stair/cascade shape in some area?
A1: During tensile testing, atoms in the material diffused towards linear defects called
dislocations that are generated due to applied stress. This diffusion of atoms
temporarily restricted the dislocation movement. As a result, strain hardening occurred.
The dislocation density in a metal increase with deformation / tensile load due to
formation of new dislocations. Consequently, the average distance of separation
between dislocations decreases. On the average, dislocation–dislocation strain
interactions are repulsive. As the dislocation density increases, this resistance to
dislocation motion by other dislocations also increases.
At certain stress levels, due to localized stress concentration (plastic deformation),
dislocations managed to break free, resulting in sudden bursts of deformation. This
process repeated at different stress levels, creating a cascade or stair shaped pattern in
the stress-strain curve.

Q2. Where did the Copper Wire Sample break & why?
A2: The sample did break/fracture closer to the lower UTM grip than to upper one. It
occurs mainly due to uneven distribution of stress. As the sample was not perfectly
straight, it may have interfered with grip alignment; causing the stress to be more
concentrated in one point than the other. Also, the bottom grip was most probably
tighter than the upper grip, increasing localized stress, which leaded to fracture.
Any fracture process involves two steps - crack formation and propagation in response
to an imposed stress. As the tensile test progressed, the sample stretched and
experienced increasing stress. Initially, it elastically deformed & then plastically. After
reaching the ultimate tensile strength, the material underwent necking; a localized
reduction in cross-sectional area. These necking concentrated stress in that speci ic
area.
Eventually, the concentrated stress exceeded the material's capacity to withstand
further load. So, micro-cracks formed & grown quickly, causing the sample to fracture.

Q3. Why length just before fracture & after fracture are different?
A3: Just before the fracture, the copper wire was under high tensile load. Thus, the
sample was stretched both elastically & plastically. Once the wire fractured, the tensile
load was retained & the elastic portion of the deformation stretches back. Elastic
recovery reduced the overall length slightly, as the elastic stretch disappeared.
Length before fracture > Length after fracture > Original Length
Just before fracture, the material underwent necking, where the sample stretched
signi icantly in a localized region. That necked area undergoes permanent plastic
deformation & didn’t return to its length (205mm).

Page | 12