See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/319773789
How do different specimen geometries affect tensile test results?
Article · July 2017
CITATIONS READS
3 10,779
1 author:
Deniz Yalcin
13 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Deniz Yalcin on 15 September 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Effect of Specimen Geometry
on Tensile Testing Results
How do different specimen geometries affect tensile test results?
Tensile test results include the ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, Young’s modulus,
ductility, and the strain hardening exponent. All these properties can be calculated us-
ing a universal testing machine equipped with the right controller, software, grips, and
accessories. Grip selection may vary depending on the material type, geometry, and
dimensions. In many cases, the specimen sizes and geometries are dictated by ASTM
standards.
This blog will discuss whether tensile properties are affected if the same standard mate-
rial is being tested in different geometries or dimensions. The short answer is that it de-
pends on the tensile property and the characteristics of the material being tested. For a
given cross-sectional area and for any gauge length, different specimen geometries have
no effect on the ultimate tensile strength and the yield strength of standard materials.
However, different gauge lengths and cross-sectional areas will have altering effects on
certain properties, described below.
1 - Effect of Different Gauge Lengths
Let’s compare two specimens, made of the same ma-
terial, with two different gauge lengths, seen in the
diagram to the right:
Specimen A gauge length > Specimen B gauge length
When the tension test is started and Specimen A or
Specimen B is pulled, the strain is uniform along the
gauge length up to the point at which the maximum
force is reached and the onset of necking occurs. The
stretch in each material is uniform up to this point.
The force will then start to drop, as shown in the
stress-strain curve below, and the reduction of area
will no longer be proportional to the amount of stretch
in the material. Figure 1. Two dogbone specimens of
different gauge length
Figure 2. The shape of a ductile specimen changes during tensile testing
The necking region will occupy a much larger portion of the 1-in gauge length of Speci-
men B compared to the portion occupied on the 2-in gauge length of Specimen A. When
the test is over and the two fractures of the specimens are fitted together, the measured
percent elongation of Specimen B with the smaller gauge length will be greater than the
percent elongation of Specimen A with the larger gauge length.
Equation 1:
Percentage Elongation = ∆L/L0 x 100
Where:
• L0 is the original gauge length
• ∆L is the change in length of the original gauge length. Measured after the specimen
fractures and the specimen are fitted together (see Figure 2)
As the gauge length increases, the percent elongation decreases.
2 - Effect of Different Cross-Sectional Areas
This time, Specimen A and Specimen B, made of the same material, have identical gauge
lengths; yet, the cross-sectional area of Specimen A is greater than the cross-sectional
area of Specimen B. Similar to the concept with the gauge length and the portion oc-
cupied by necking, the necking region will occupy a much larger portion of the smaller
cross-sectional area of Specimen B compared to the portion occupied on the larger
cross-sectional area of Specimen A.
The cross-sectional area of a specimen has a significant effect on elongation measure-
ments. Slimness ratio is measured by the gauge length divided by the square root of the
cross-sectional area, therefore is inversely proportional with the cross-sectional area.
Equation 2:
Slimness Ratio = L0/√A0
Where:
• L0 is the original gauge length.
• A0 is the original cross-sectional area of specimen
As the slimness ratio increases and the cross-sectional area decreases, the percent elon-
gation decreases.
Note: This article was written by Deniz Yalcin and originally appeared on ADMET’s blog on July 26, 2017.
View publication stats