Lab Report: Charpy Vee Notch
Introduction:
The objective of the lab was to determine the amount of energy absorbed by a material during fracture. Another goal of this lab was to learn how to use impact-testing equipment and procedures. The lab materials included a specimen, which consists of a bar of either 6061-T6 Aluminum or 2024 Aluminum having a notch that was machined and an apparatus made up of a pendulum to impact the notched specimen.
Procedure:
The apparatus’ dimensions and the mass of the pendulum were measured and recorded. The angles of the pendulum were recorded at the loaded and rest position. The specimen was then placed onto the apparatus with the notch side aligned so the pendulum will hit there. The apparatus’ pendulum was dropped from a known height …show more content…
Generally, the 6061-T6 specimens absorbed 34.14 (ft-lb) more energy than the 2024 specimens. This means that the 6061-T6 specimens are tougher than then the 2024 specimens because they can absorb more energy before fracturing. From the table it is clear that with the smaller degrees. Figure 1: Charpy Vee Notch Energy Graph …show more content…
The probability plot shows that the AA6061 clearly has a higher flexure strength than AA2024. In addition, the data points on the graph are relatively linear suggesting there wasn’t any real outliers in the data. This is also suggested by the relativity low standard deviation shown are the right side of the graph.
Examination of the specimens: The 6061-T6 specimens experienced a deformation just enough to pass. The 6061-T6 specimens did not completely break apart as shown in Figure 2. In addition, the 6061-T6 specimens ended up with a rough surface as shown in Figure 3. Also, there were some contractions in the Z direction as shown in 2 and Figure 3. Since the 6061-T6 specimens deformed without completely fracturing apart this aligns with the result section stating that it is tougher and can absorb more energy. On the other hand, the 2024 specimens completely broke into two as shown in Figure 2. The 2024 specimens had a relatively smooth surface as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, the 2024 specimens had no contraction in the Z direction as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Since the 2024 specimens completely fractured apart into two unlike the 6061-T6 specimens shows that it is less tough and can’t absorb as much energy.
Figure 2: 2024 Specimen (Left) and 6061-T6 Specimen (Right) Fracture
The objective of the lab was to determine the amount of energy absorbed by a material during fracture. Another goal of this lab was to learn how to use impact-testing equipment and procedures. The lab materials included a specimen, which consists of a bar of either 6061-T6 Aluminum or 2024 Aluminum having a notch that was machined and an apparatus made up of a pendulum to impact the notched specimen.
Procedure:
The apparatus’ dimensions and the mass of the pendulum were measured and recorded. The angles of the pendulum were recorded at the loaded and rest position. The specimen was then placed onto the apparatus with the notch side aligned so the pendulum will hit there. The apparatus’ pendulum was dropped from a known height …show more content…
Generally, the 6061-T6 specimens absorbed 34.14 (ft-lb) more energy than the 2024 specimens. This means that the 6061-T6 specimens are tougher than then the 2024 specimens because they can absorb more energy before fracturing. From the table it is clear that with the smaller degrees. Figure 1: Charpy Vee Notch Energy Graph …show more content…
The probability plot shows that the AA6061 clearly has a higher flexure strength than AA2024. In addition, the data points on the graph are relatively linear suggesting there wasn’t any real outliers in the data. This is also suggested by the relativity low standard deviation shown are the right side of the graph.
Examination of the specimens: The 6061-T6 specimens experienced a deformation just enough to pass. The 6061-T6 specimens did not completely break apart as shown in Figure 2. In addition, the 6061-T6 specimens ended up with a rough surface as shown in Figure 3. Also, there were some contractions in the Z direction as shown in 2 and Figure 3. Since the 6061-T6 specimens deformed without completely fracturing apart this aligns with the result section stating that it is tougher and can absorb more energy. On the other hand, the 2024 specimens completely broke into two as shown in Figure 2. The 2024 specimens had a relatively smooth surface as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, the 2024 specimens had no contraction in the Z direction as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Since the 2024 specimens completely fractured apart into two unlike the 6061-T6 specimens shows that it is less tough and can’t absorb as much energy.
Figure 2: 2024 Specimen (Left) and 6061-T6 Specimen (Right) Fracture