Question 3 of 7: Tensile Test of a Magnesium-Alloy Bar — Full Mechanical-Property Workup
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
National Exam 04-BS-11, Properties of Materials — December 2018. 3 hours,
closed-book examination (approved Casio or Sharp calculator only). Notes on the paper state that
any five questions constitute a complete paper and only the first five questions appearing in the
answer book are marked, with all questions of equal value. All seven questions are solved below
for completeness.
Reference texts: Callister & Rethwisch, Materials Science and
Engineering: An Introduction, 9th ed. (crystal structure and density, polymers and
vulcanization, mechanical properties/tensile testing, phase transformations and heat treatment,
corrosion, ceramics and the Weibull distribution, diffusion).
Question 3: Tensile Test of a Magnesium-Alloy Bar — Full Mechanical-Property Workup (20 marks)
Given. Original diameter $d_0=12$ mm, original gauge length
$L_0=30.00$ mm ($A_0=\tfrac{\pi}{4}d_0^2=113.10$ mm$^2$). Load–gauge-length pairs:
Load (kN)
Gauge length (mm)
Note
0
30.00
5
30.0296
10
30.0592
15
30.0888
20
30.15
25
30.51
26.5
30.90
27
31.50
maximum load
26.5
32.10
25
32.79
fracture (under load)
After unloading the fractured halves: gauge length $32.61$ mm, diameter $11.74$ mm.
Find. (i) 0.2%-offset yield strength. (ii) Tensile strength (UTS).
(iii) Modulus of elasticity $E$. (iv) $\%$ elongation. (v) $\%$ reduction in area.
(vi) Engineering stress at fracture. (vii) True stress at fracture.
Approach
Convert every load/length pair to engineering stress $\sigma=P/A_0$ and engineering strain
$\varepsilon=(L-L_0)/L_0$, plot the curve, fit $E$ to the initial linear (elastic) points, then
apply the standard offset-yield construction, read UTS as the peak engineering stress, and use the
unloaded post-fracture gauge length/diameter (which reflects elastic springback) for
$\%$EL/$\%$RA, since the source gives that measurement separately from the under-load fracture-instant
row.
(iii) Modulus of elasticity. Converting the first three non-zero loads to
stress/strain:
$$\sigma(5\,\text{kN})=44.21\ \text{MPa},\ \varepsilon=0.000987;\quad
\sigma(10\,\text{kN})=88.42\ \text{MPa},\ \varepsilon=0.001973;\quad
\sigma(15\,\text{kN})=132.63\ \text{MPa},\ \varepsilon=0.002960$$
All three give the identical ratio $\sigma/\varepsilon\approx44{,}807$ MPa, confirming these
three points are elastic; at $20$ kN the ratio drops sharply (to $\approx35{,}368$ MPa),
showing the material has already begun to yield by that point:
$$\boxed{E\approx44.8\ \text{GPa}}$$
This is consistent with a magnesium alloy (handbook $E_{\text{Mg}}\approx45$ GPa), a useful
check on both the data and the material identification.
(i) 0.2%-offset yield strength. The offset line $\sigma=E(\varepsilon-0.002)$
is intersected against the measured curve, piecewise-linear between data points. It lies below the
curve at the $20$ kN point and above it by the $25$ kN point, so the crossing falls on
the $20$–$25$ kN segment; linear interpolation on that segment gives:
$$\boxed{\sigma_{0.2\%}\approx180.6\ \text{MPa (at 20.4 kN, }\varepsilon\approx0.00603\text{)}}$$
(ii) Tensile strength. The engineering stress is highest at the maximum
recorded load ($27$ kN, $L=31.50$ mm):
$$\sigma_{UTS}=\frac{P_{max}}{A_0}=\frac{27{,}000}{113.10}$$
$$\boxed{\sigma_{UTS}\approx238.7\ \text{MPa}}$$
The two data points beyond this (load falling back to $26.5$ then $25$ kN while the gauge
length keeps growing) are the post-necking descending branch of the engineering curve, not higher
stresses.
(iv) $\%$ Elongation. Using the unloaded post-fracture gauge length
(springback measurement, $32.61$ mm), not the under-load fracture-instant row ($32.79$ mm):
$$\%EL=\frac{L_f-L_0}{L_0}\times100=\frac{32.61-30.00}{30.00}\times100$$
$$\boxed{\%EL\approx8.70\%}$$
(v) $\%$ Reduction in area. Using the unloaded post-fracture diameter
($11.74$ mm), $A_f=\tfrac{\pi}{4}(11.74)^2=108.25$ mm$^2$:
$$\%RA=\frac{A_0-A_f}{A_0}\times100=\frac{113.10-108.25}{113.10}\times100$$
$$\boxed{\%RA\approx4.29\%}$$
The modest $\%$RA (compared with $\%$EL) is consistent with magnesium's limited room-temperature
ductility (few active slip systems in its HCP structure).
(vi) Engineering stress at fracture. The load at the instant of separation
was $25$ kN (table's "fracture" row), still divided by the original area $A_0$:
$$\sigma_{f,\text{eng}}=\frac{25{,}000}{113.10}$$
$$\boxed{\sigma_{f,\text{eng}}\approx221.0\ \text{MPa}}$$
(vii) True stress at fracture. True stress uses the actual (necked-down)
cross-section carrying the load at fracture. The best available measurement of that area is the
post-fracture diameter, $A_f=108.25$ mm$^2$ (the standard simplification used when only a
post-test diameter is reported, flagged below):
$$\sigma_{f,\text{true}}=\frac{P_f}{A_f}=\frac{25{,}000}{108.25}$$
$$\boxed{\sigma_{f,\text{true}}\approx231.0\ \text{MPa}}$$
Fig. Q3 — engineering stress–strain curve for the 12 mm Mg-alloy
bar, with the 0.2%-offset construction, the UTS peak, and the fracture point marked.
Quantity
Result
(iii) Modulus of elasticity, $E$
44.8 GPa
(i) 0.2%-offset yield strength
180.6 MPa
(ii) Tensile strength (UTS)
238.7 MPa
(iv) % Elongation
8.70%
(v) % Reduction in area
4.29%
(vi) Engineering stress at fracture
221.0 MPa
(vii) True stress at fracture
231.0 MPa
Check
True fracture stress (vii) uses the diameter measured after the specimen has fully
unloaded and sprung back elastically, since no separate under-load fracture-instant diameter is
given — the standard simplification for this class of problem; the true instantaneous area at
the moment of separation would be marginally smaller (true stress marginally higher).