Metallurgy 1 Practicum Report

Module : Impact

GROUP :2
LECTURER/CLASS : Suwarno, S.T., M.Sc., Ph.D.
ASISSTANT : Talia Kamil
PRACTITIONER :
Jundi Abdillah Keliat 5007201233
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTARCT .......................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER I .......................................................................................................................... 5
I.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 5
I.2 Purpose..................................................................................................................... 5
I.3 Problem .................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................ 6
II.1 Toughness definition................................................................................................ 6
II.2 Impact Test definition .............................................................................................. 6
II.3 Charpy and Izod ....................................................................................................... 6
II.4 Notches .................................................................................................................... 7
II.5 Notch Toughness ..................................................................................................... 8
II.6 Ductile to brittle transition ....................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................................... 9
III.1 Tools and Materials ................................................................................................. 9
III.2 Testing Steps ............................................................................................................ 9
III.3 Flowchart ............................................................................................................... 10
.......................................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER IV ..................................................................................................................... 12
DATA ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................. 12
IV.1 Experiment Data .................................................................................................... 12
IV.2 Test Result ............................................................................................................. 12
IV.2.1 First Specimen ................................................................................................ 13
IV.2.2 Second Specimen ............................................................................................ 14
IV.2.3 Third Specimen .............................................................................................. 14
IV.3 Data Analysis and Calculation ............................................................................... 15
IV.4 Calculation Table and Comparison Graph ............................................................. 18
IV.5 Analysis Discussion ............................................................................................... 19
IV.5.1 Specimen I ...................................................................................................... 19
IV.5.2 Specimen II ..................................................................................................... 20
IV.5.3 Specimen III ................................................................................................... 20
IV.5.4 Graph .............................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER V ....................................................................................................................... 22
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER VI ..................................................................................................................... 23
EVALUATION AND SUGESSTION ............................................................................... 23
VI.1 Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 23
VI.2 Sugesstion .............................................................................................................. 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................... 24
 ABSTARCT

Mechanical properties are characteristics of materials that result from the material’s
reaction to mechanical loads. Mechanical qualities include strength, hardness, tenacity,
toughness, rigidity, and elasticity. Toughness or toughness is a material’s or material’s
capacity to take a specific amount of energy without being damaged. It may also be defined
as the amount of energy necessary to break a workpiece under specific conditions. Knowing
the level of toughness of the metal allows us to predict its capacity to receive the given impact
energy quickly enough to shatter a material. This test is critical in establishing a material’s
resistance to speed based on the energy exerted by a rapid impact or force at one. As a result,
this Praktikum Impact Test is performed to gain a better knowledge of the nature of materials,
namely hardness.

The goal of this practicum is to learn about a material's capacity to absorb shock load
energy as well as the effect of temperature on a material's ability to absorb shock load energy.
The charpy and Izod techniques will be employed in this practicum. The Charpy technique,
also known as the V-notch Charpy test, is a high-strain test that assesses how much energy
is absorbed by materials during a fracture. While the Izod technique has a square latitude or
circle cross-section with a notch V towards the clamped end, the impact test with this method
is normally done only at room temperature and is meant for materials designed to behave as
cantilevers.

KEYWORDS : Brittle, Ductile, Impact, Notch,

 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

I.1 Background
In the development of the industrial world, especially related to material
research and its use, then in the production process many things or criteria must be
met so that the material can be used in the industrial world. For use as a material, the
distinctive properties of a metal material must be known because the metal will be
used for various purposes and conditions. The properties of the metal include
mechanical properties, thermal properties, chemical properties, ability, dimensional
capabilities, and so on. As for this experiment that will be tested is the mechanical
properties of the metal, especially the toughness of it.

By knowing the level of toughness of the metal, then of course we can

estimate its ability to receive the given impact energy suddenly so that it can break a
material. For this reason, impact testing is carried out on materials that will later be
used in machine construction. This test is very important in determining the resistance
of a material to speed, based on the energy given by the sudden collision of a material.

I.2 Purpose
1. To know the ability of materials to absorb impact energy
2. To know how temperature affects the ability of materials to absorb impact energy

I.3 Problem
1. The conducted tests are based on JIS Z 2242
2. The conducted tests used the Charpy method.
3. The specimens used in the conducted tests are based on ASTM A131
4. Testing variables that are used on the conducted tests are temperature valued at -
20
5. Degrees Celsius, 25 degrees Celsius (ambient temperature), and 100 degrees
Celsius.
6. Testing apparatuses are considered to have been set up correctly and properly.
 CHAPTER II
BASIC THEORY

II.1 Toughness definition

Toughness is a fundamental material property measuring the ability of a
material to absorb energy and withstand shock up to fracture; that is, the ability to
absorb energy in the plastic range. In other words, toughness is the amount of energy
per unit volume that a material can absorb before rupturing and is represented by the
area under the (tensile) stress-strain curve In service, this loading often occurs in the
form of (sudden) impact.

II.2 Impact Test definition

Impact tests are used in studying the toughness of material. A material's
toughness is a factor of its ability to absorb energy during plastic deformation. Brittle
materials have low toughness as a result of the small amount of plastic deformation
that they can endure. The impact value of a material can also change with
temperature. Generally, at lower temperatures, the impact energy of a material is
decreased. The size of the specimen may also affect the value of the Izod impact test
because it may allow a different number of imperfections in the material, which can
act as stress risers and lower the impact energy.

II.3 Charpy and Izod

The Charpy and Izod tests were created and are currently used to evaluate the
impact energy (sometimes also termed notch toughness). In the United States, the
Charpy V-notch (CVN) approach is most widely utilized. The specimen for both
Charpy and Izod is a bar with a square cross section into which a V-notch is cut. The
load is delivered as an impact blow delivered by a weighted pendulum hammer
discharged from a cocked position at a preset height h. The specimen is situated at
the bottom. When the pendulum is released, a knife edge affixed on it impacts and
fractures the specimen at the notch, which serves as a stress concentration location
for this high-velocity impact blow. The pendulum swings on, reaching a maximum
height h that is less than h. The impact energy is measured by the energy absorption,
which is calculated as the difference between h and h. The fundamental distinction
between the Charpy and Izod procedures is in the manner in which specimens are
supported. Furthermore, because of the method in which the load is applied, these are
referred to as impact tests. The test findings are influenced by variables such as
specimen size and form, as well as notch arrangement and depth.
II.4 Notches
In the impact testing process, the test specimen is the most important thing
because it becomes the object being analyzed. In the test, the specimen in this impact
test has three types, namely Simple Beam V-Notched Charpy Type, Simple Beam
Key-hole Notched Charpy Type, and Cantilever Beam Izod (Avner, 1974). The shape
specifications can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 2.1. Types of Notch Impact Test (Avner, 1974)

 The shape of the notch that is different from each other also affects several things in
the impact testing process. It is the focus of the shock stress that causes the fracture.
The difference in the shape of the notch also causes differences in the focus of the
shock stress which will also cause differences in the fault pattern

II.5 Notch Toughness

Notch Toughness is a measure of the energy absorbed during the fracture of
specimens with standard dimensions and geometries when subjected to very fast
loading (impact). The Charpy and Izod impact tests are used to measure this
parameter, which is important in assessing the ductile-to-brittle transition behavior of
a material.

II.6 Ductile to brittle transition

Because the ductile-brittle transition affects the compression strength of ice,
it also affects the ice load on the marine engineering structures. In order to simulate
the mechanical properties of ice, a peridynamic model of ductile-brittle
transformation controlled by strain rate is proposed. The derivative of the bond stretch
with respect to time in the force function is used as the control quantity of the model
transformation of the control function. Similar to strain in classical mechanics, bond
stretch in peridynamics is also a parameter to measure the degree of material
deformation, so the bond stretch is approximately equal to strain. The rate of change
of bond stretch with time, namely the derivative of bond stretch with respect to time
, is called the rate of change of bond length,

…………………………………(2.1)
After determining the rate of change of bond length , it can be used as a cutoff point
for ductile-brittle transition. When s˙ is less than this value, the force function is the
ductile
model, and when s˙ reaches or exceeds this value, the force function is the elastic-
brittle model.
 CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

III.1 Tools and Materials

1. Frank 580 M Machine
2. 3 specimens
3. Calipers
4. Ruler
5. Hacksaw
6. Water
7. Dry Ice
8. Water Heater
9. Thermocouple

III.2 Testing Steps

1. Each of the specimen’s dimension (length, width, thickness) is measured three
times
and then averaged.
2. Specimen is placed and conditioned in an environment filled with dry ice
(preferably
an insulated box), and other one of the specimen is placed and conditioned in a pot
filled with boiling water. Both of which are rested in their respective environment
for about 5 to 10 minutes.
3. The pendulum is raised and placed on a +-30 degrees angle by turning the
handwheel,
after that, the lever to unlock the peg that connects the pendulum to the
handwheel’s arm is pulled, so that the pendulum would fall and move freely.
4. Immediately after the peg is unlocked, the handwheel is turned again indefinitely
but
just enough so that the arm would go further up and would not obstruct the
pendulum movement.
5. Let the pendulum do 50 revolutions of movement and note the time required for it
to
do so, then push the brake lever until the pendulum stop moving.
6. The handwheel’s arm is lowered by turning the handwheel, positioned the peg on
the
arm and the key slot on the pendulum correctly, and the lever is pulled to safely
lock both of the mechanism together. After that, placed the pendulum on its initial
and neutral position by turning the handwheel.
 7. The needle is repositioned on the machine’s scale so that it is pointing 0.
8. The pendulum is raised and placed using the handwheel to secure just enough area
to
place the specimen on the impact area. Do not let go the handwheel while the
specimen is being placed. Manually support the raised pendulum if necessary for
safety reason.
9. The specimen is placed properly using charpy method
10. Made sure that the testing area is safe
11. Made sure that the needle on the machine’s scale is pointing 0
12. The pendulum is further raised by turning the handwheel so that it is placed on a
156
degrees angle, and then the peg is unlocked by pulling the lever so that the
pendulum would fall and move freely.
13. The brake lever is pushed at least 2-3 seconds after impact.
14. The handwheel’s arm is lowered by turning the handwheel, positioned the peg on
the
arm and the key slot on the pendulum correctly, and the lever is pulled to safely
lock both of the mechanism together. After that, placed the pendulum on its initial
and neutral position by turning the handwheel.
15. The impact energy and after impact angle of the pendulum is noted from the
machine’s scale
16. The needle is repositioned on the machine’s scale so that it is pointing 0.
17. Step 8 to 16 is repeated to get second and third specimen’s test data.
18. The fracture’s pattern is drawn, and the leftover thickness of the three fractured
specimen is measured (if there was any).

III.3 Flowchart

Start

Frank 580 M machine, 3 specimen,

calipers, hacksaw, water heater,
ruler

Measure the dimensions of the specimen, stem

length and weight of the pendulum

Place the specimen has been

added notch on the anvil with
method Charpy
 Calculate the energy and impact strength,
measure the thickness of the fracture and the
rest of the fracture, draw the fracture

The final angle of the pendulum, the

thickness of the fault, the thickness of the
rest of the fracture, the energy to break the
specimen, draw the pattern

End
 CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS

IV.1 Experiment Data

(Attached)
IV.2 Test Result
Table 4. 1 Presentation of Test Results
SPECIMEN CODE I II I
I
I
Before Trial
Ingredients ASTM
A131
Testing Standard JIS Z 2242
Specimen Standard JIS Z 2242
Temperature (C) 100o -200 25o
Specimen Length (mm) (B) 59.6 60 61
Specimen Height (mm) (A) 9.2 9.3 9.2
Specimen Width (mm) (C) 10.7 11.0 10.6
At Trial
Time Period (T50) (s) 94 94 94
Period, T (s) 1.88 1.88 1.88
Pendulum Sleeve Length (m) 0.81 0.81 0.81
Pendulum Mass (kpm) 30 30 30
Focus Distance (P) (mm) 40 40 40
Starting Angle (α) 156 o 156 o 156 o
Final Angle (β) 78o 126 o 97 o
Energy to break 15 5.1 17.5
(Ekpm)
 After Trial
Fault Thickness (D) (mm) 9.5 11 9.6
Thickness of the Remaining 1.2 0 1
Fault (D’) (mm)
Theoretical Fracture Energy 27.251 7.916 19.238
(kpm/kgm)
Engine Impact Strength 0.172 0.05 0.198
(kgm/mm²)
Impact Strength Theoretical 0.312 0.077 0.218
(kgm/mm²)

IV.2.1 First Specimen

First specimen on impact testing had an initial dimension of 59.6 mm
x 10.7 mm x 9.2 mm given a temperature variable of 100 degrees Celsius.
Where, before the impact testing, the specimen is conditioned to follow the
ASTM A131 material standard and the specimen testing standard and JIS Z
2242 testing which is then given a notch on each test specimen. Specimens
are also conditioned at temperature by being placed on a pot of boiling water.
With boiling water, it is expected that the result of high heating is the
occurrence of increased tenacity. Thus, in specimen 1 will be the specimen
that has the highest ductility value compared to specimens 2 and 3.
After this test was done which was initially the initial angle of the
pendulum of 156o then it was known that the end angle of the pendulum
amounted to 78o. Then from the measurement process on the testing machine
it is known that the value of energy needed to break specimen 1 by 15 Kpm.
After being hit, the results of the fault produced in specimen 1 have a pattern
of fibers and the specimen is not broken entirely.
Based on the theory, the specimen experienced a complete ductile
fault pattern due to the pattern of fault in specimen 1 in the form of a pattern
of fiber fractures and experiencing plastic deformation before breaking so that
the specimen does not experience a perfect fracture. In the fault area it can
also be observed that there is a reduction of the cross-sectional area and the
specimen does not experience a perfect fracture, so that specimen 1 can be
expressed as a ductile material.
IV.2.2 Second Specimen
Second specimen on impact testing has an initial dimension of 60 mm
x 11 mm x 9.3 mm given a variable temperature of -20 degrees Celsius.
Where, before the impact testing, the specimen is conditioned to follow the
ASTM A131 material standard and the specimen testing standard and JIS Z
2242 testing which is then given a notch on each test specimen. Specimens
are also conditioned at temperature by being placed on a coolbox containing
dry ice until the temperature reaches -20 degrees Celsius.
Thus, in second specimen will be the specimen that has the highest
shock value compared to specimens 1 and 3. After this test was done which
was initially the initial angle of the pendulum of 156o, then it was known that
the end angle of the pendulum amounted to 126o. Then from the measurement
process on the testing machine it is known that the value of energy needed to
break specimen 2 is 5.1 Kpm.
After being hit, the results of the fault are produced in second
specimen has a grain pattern and the specimen is broken entirely. Based on
the theory, the specimen suffered a complete shake fault pattern due to the
pattern of fault in second specimen in the form of a grain fault pattern and did
not deform plasticly before it broke so that the specimen suffered a perfect
fracture.

IV.2.3 Third Specimen

The third specimen on impact testing had an initial dimension of 61
mm x 9,2 mm x 10,6 mm given a variable temperature of 25 degrees Celsius.
Where, before the impact testing, the specimen is conditioned to follow the
ASTM A131 material standard and the specimen testing standard and JIS Z
2242 testing which is then given a notch on each test specimen. Specimens
are also conditioned at temperature by being placed at room temperature.
After this test was done which was initially the initial angle of the
pendulum of 156o then it was known that the end angle of the pendulum was
97o. Then from the measurement process on the testing machine it is known
that the value of energy needed to break the third specimen is 15.8 Kpm.
After being hit, the results of the fault are produced in the third
specimen is uneven, has the remaining area that is not broken and has a pattern
of fibers. Based on the theory, the specimen experienced a pattern of tenacious
and bitter faults due to the pattern of faults in the third specimen in the form
of uneven fiber fault patterns, having the remaining area that is not broken. In
the area of the fault, it can also be observed that there is a reduction of the
 cross-sectional area and the specimen does not break perfectly, so that the
third specimen can be expressed as a material that is resilient and bitter.

IV.3 Data Analysis and Calculation

After testing, obtained the thickness of the remaining fracture and the final angle
of the pendulum. These two things can be used to determine the value of the specimen's
fracture energy and the impact strength of the specimen. This fracture energy is
obtained from the difference in the potential energy of the pendulum at the initial
position and the final position after colliding with the specimen. Meanwhile, the value
of the impact strength of the specimen is the fracture energy divided by the cross-
sectional area of the specimen. Here is the formula used:

● 𝐸 = 𝑊. 𝑙 (𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽 −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 )

𝐸
● 𝐼𝑆 = 𝐴

a. First Specimen
Known:
𝑙 = 0,81 𝑚
α = 156o
β = 78o
w = 30 kpm
A = 9.2 (10.7 – 1.2) = 87.4 mm2
Emechanical = 15 Ekpm
➢ Finding Theoretical Fracture Energy
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 𝑊. 𝑙 (𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽 −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 )
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 30 𝑘𝑝𝑚. 0,81𝑚(𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 78° −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 156° )
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 27,25141 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚

➢ Looking for Engine Impact Strength

 𝐸𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐴
15 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
87,4 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0,171625 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚/𝑚𝑚2

➢ Finding Theoretical Impact Strength

𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦𝑖
𝐼𝑆𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 =
𝐴
27,25141 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
87,4 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0,311801 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚/𝑚𝑚2

b. Second Specimen
Known:
𝑙 = 0,81 𝑚
α = 156°
β = 126°
w = 30 kpm
A = 9.3 (11 – 0) = 102.3 mm2
Emechanical = 5,1 Ekpm

➢ Finding Theoretical Fracture Energy

𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦𝑖 = 𝑊. 𝑙 (𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽 −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 )
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 30 𝑘𝑝𝑚. 0,81𝑚(𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 126° −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 156° )
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 7,91597 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚

➢ Looking for Engine Impact Strength

𝐸𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐴
 5,1 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
102,3 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0, 049853 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚/𝑚𝑚2

➢ Finding Theoretical Impact Strength

𝐸𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖
𝐼𝑆𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 =
𝐴
7,91597 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
102,3 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0,07738 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚/𝑚𝑚2

c. Third Specimen
Known:
𝑙 = 0,81 𝑚
α = 156o
β = 97o
w = 30 kpm
A = 9.2 (10.6 – 1) = 88.32 mm2
Emechanical = 17.5 Ekpm

➢ Finding Theoretical Fracture Energy

𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 𝑊. 𝑙 (𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽 −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 )
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 30 𝑘𝑝𝑚. 0,81𝑚(𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 97° −𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑠 156° )
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 19,23773 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚

➢ Looking for Engine Impact Strength

𝐸𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐴
 17,5 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
88,32 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0,198143 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚/𝑚𝑚2

➢ Finding Theoretical Impact Strength

𝐸𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖
𝐼𝑆𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 =
𝐴
19,23773 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
88,32 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0,217819 𝐸𝑘𝑝𝑚/𝑚𝑚2

IV.4 Calculation Table and Comparison Graph

Table 0.1 Impact Test Calculation Table
Spesimen Temperatur β l (m) A 𝑬𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝑬𝑴𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑰𝑺𝑴𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑰𝑺𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚
1 100° C 78 88,81 29,539 15 0,168 0,332
2 -20° C 126 0,878 121 8,581 5,1 0,042 0,071
3 25° C 97 91,16 20,852 17,5 0,191 0,228

The following is a graph of the results of the calculation of impact strength against
temperature, as follows:
 Figure 0.1 Impact Strength to Temperature Graph

IV.5 Analysis Discussion

IV.5.1 Specimen I
The tests carried out on the specimens were carried out at a temperature of
100℃. The results of these fractures have an uneven color, and are not shaped like
fibers. Based on these results, the material experienced ductile fracture.

In this test of specimen I, the initial position of the pendulum is at 156° and
the last position of the pendulum is at 78°. Based on this, it can be seen the value
of the fracture energy and also the impact strength of the material. The fracture
energy of the machine is 15 Ekpm, while the theoretical fracture energy is 27.251
Ekpm. The engine impact strength value is 0.172 Ekpm/mm2, while the theoretical
impact strength value is 0.312 Ekpm/mm2. The theoretical value tends to be
greater than the machine. This is because there are several factors that influence
the difference in the results. Some of them are the surface of the specimen that is
not good, the human factor is less precise, and several other factors.
IV.5.2 Specimen II
The tests carried out on the specimens were carried out at a temperature of -
20℃. Specimens produce fractures that are fibrous and have a bright color. Based
on this, the specimen experienced a brittle fracture.

In this test of specimen II, the initial position of the pendulum is at 156° and
the last position of the pendulum is at 126°. Based on this, it can be seen the value
of the fracture energy and also the impact strength of the material. The fracture
energy of the machine is 5.1 Ekpm, while the theoretical fracture energy is 7.916
Ekpm. The engine impact strength value is 0.05 Ekpm/mm2, while the theoretical
impact strength value is 0.077 Ekpm/mm2. The theoretical value tends to be
greater than the machine. This is because there are several factors that influence
the difference in the results. Some of them are the surface of the specimen that is
not good, the human factor is less precise, and several other factors.

IV.5.3 Specimen III

The tests carried out on the specimens were carried out at a temperature of
25℃. The specimens produced fibrous fractures but still had rough patches and
some were brightly colored. Based on these characteristics, the specimen fractured
between brittle and ductile.

In this test of specimen III, the initial position of the pendulum is at 156° and
the last position of the pendulum is at 97°. Based on this, it can be seen the value
of the fracture energy and also the impact strength of the material. The fracture
energy of the machine is 17.5 Ekpm, while the theoretical fracture energy is 19.238
Ekpm. The engine impact strength value is 0.198 Ekpm/mm2, while the theoretical
impact strength value is 0.218 Ekpm/mm2. The theoretical value tends to be
greater than the machine. This is because there are several factors that influence
 the difference in the results. Some of them are the surface of the specimen that is
not good, the human factor is less precise, and several other factors.

IV.5.4 Graph
Graph 4.1. shows the effect of temperature on the impact strength of the
engine and the theory. At a temperature of -20°C, the engine impact strength value
is 0.172 Ekpm/mm2, while the theoretical impact strength value is 0.312
Ekpm/mm2. At a temperature of 25°C, the engine impact strength value is 0.198
Ekpm/mm2, while the theoretical impact strength value is 0.218 Ekpm/mm2. At a
temperature of 100°C, the engine impact strength value is 0.172 Ekpm/mm2, while
the theoretical impact strength value is 0.312 Ekpm/mm2. Based on the graph line
which tends to rise, this indicates that when the temperature is high the value of
the impact strength also tends to be high.
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION

From the impact test practicum that has been carried out, the following conclusions
are obtained:
1. The energy received by the metal differs from the energy reported on the machine
in theory. When this happens, the ductile material absorbs more energy than the
brittle material. The substance that absorbs a lot of energy also has a lot of impact
strength.
2. Temperature has been shown to impact the mechanical properties of the
specimen; the greater the temperature, the more ductile the material, and vice
versa. The specimen tested at 100oC has a ductile characteristic, the specimen
tested at 25oC has a brittle-ductile transition, and the specimen tested at -25oC
has a brittle characteristic.
 CHAPTER VI
EVALUATION AND SUGESSTION

VI.1 Evaluation
This test may be evaluated so that it can be improved in the future. The
evaluation is displayed on a comparison chart. On the graph, it should be ascending,
not descending.

VI.2 Sugesstion
Practiciant should practice more concentration and thoroughness when the
impact testing process takes place especially when measuring the dimensions of
specimens, making notsch depth, and laying specimens on the test tool because this
will affect the data of calculation results and conclusions obtained.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Callister Jr, William D. 2009. Materials Science and Engineering an Introduction, 8th
Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Avner, S. H. (1974). INTRODUCTION TO PHYSICAL METALURGY SECOND
EDITION. Singapore: MvGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY.