NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

04-BS-11 · December 2018

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)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

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
030.00
530.0296
1030.0592
1530.0888
2030.15
2530.51
26.530.90
2731.50maximum load
26.532.10
2532.79fracture (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.

  1. (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.
  2. (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: $$\boxed{\sigma_{0.2\%}\approx180.6\ \text{MPa (at 20.4 kN, }\varepsilon\approx0.00603\text{)}}$$
  3. (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.
  4. (iv) $\%$ Elongation. Using the unloaded post-fracture gauge length (springback measurement, $32.61$ mm), not the under-load fracture-instant row ($32.79$ mm): $$\%EL=\frac{L_f-L_0}{L_0}\times100=\frac{32.61-30.00}{30.00}\times100$$ $$\boxed{\%EL\approx8.70\%}$$
  5. (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).
  6. (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 $A_0$: $$\sigma_{f,\text{eng}}=\frac{25{,}000}{113.10}$$ $$\boxed{\sigma_{f,\text{eng}}\approx221.0\ \text{MPa}}$$
  7. (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): $$\sigma_{f,\text{true}}=\frac{P_f}{A_f}=\frac{25{,}000}{108.25}$$ $$\boxed{\sigma_{f,\text{true}}\approx231.0\ \text{MPa}}$$
0246810050100150200250Engineering strain, %Engineering stress, MPaengineering curve0.2% offset lineTensile test: Mg-alloy bar (12 mm dia., L0 = 30 mm)yield 180.6 MPaUTS 238.7 MPafracture
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.
QuantityResult
(iii) Modulus of elasticity, $E$44.8 GPa
(i) 0.2%-offset yield strength180.6 MPa
(ii) Tensile strength (UTS)238.7 MPa
(iv) % Elongation8.70%
(v) % Reduction in area4.29%
(vi) Engineering stress at fracture221.0 MPa
(vii) True stress at fracture231.0 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).