DiGiannoMicro

docx

School

New Jersey Institute Of Technology *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

215

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CorporalSnow2799

Mechanical Engineering Laboratory New Jersey Institute of Technology Report Submitted by Michael F. DiGianno Experiment No. 1 Date Performed 11/14/23 Date Submitted 11/21/23 Course & Section ME215-101 Instructor Naruemon Suwattananont Microanalysis Experiment Title Performed by Group 101b With TA Md Sojib Kaisar Group Members Michael D Bauly S Yahia Elmanier Marta D Stephen M Jonathan G Braeden G

Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 3 Objectives 3 Background and importance 3 Procedure 3 Original Data Sheet 4 Results and Calculations 5 Discussion 9 Conclusion 9 Questions and Answers 10 Appendix A 10 2

Abstract This is experiment one also known as the microanalysis lab. This is the final experiment of the semester. The microanalysis lab tasks students with observing the microstructures of various samples provided to them. They are then to draw the microstructures, match them to a material, as well as analyze micrometer data. They used microscopes, and digital cameras to make observations of the microstructures of the samples Introduction The microstructure of a material is a large determining factor in many of the topics that we have discussed in class. They influence things such as the mechanical properties of material, but they may also be able to reveal defects. As we discuss these topics, students should have an understanding of the microstructure so that they can properly build upon said topics Objectives Students should leave this lab with a myriad of understandings. Some of which include the following: the purpose and process of etching a metal, the reason for and basic functions of both the microscope and digital camera. After studying pictures, students should match the data to the materials and understand how the microstructure affects the mechanical properties of the material. Background “The size, shape, and arrangement of multiple crystals, or the mixture of two or more different structures within a material, produce a higher level of structure, known as microstructure” (De Garmo 1997) This definition sets the basis for this lab and many of the topics that we speak about during this course. Procedure This lab as written asks students to etch the samples with an acid. This step is forgone in our version as it's quite time consuming, students instead will watch a short video on the topic. This lab consists mostly of observations. Students started by observing the samples under a microscope that streams to a computer screen. They drew a rough sketch of the microstructure and passed the sample to labmates operating a digital camera that captured higher quality images of said microstructure for use in the lab. After this is completed, students are to record data from a microanalysis machine. 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Original Data Sheet 4

Results and Calculations (All images ~1000x magnified) E8-Aluminum Bronze M6-Grey cast iron 5

M12-White cast iron N15-Hypereutectoid steel 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

N20-Hypoeutectoid steel NG1-Nodular cast iron 7

Material Specifications NG image analyser data 8

Discussion There is not too much to discuss in the way of results and observations. This is because the results of this lab are purely qualitative, with the exception of ng image generator. In terms of topics to discuss we can assess our image to material matching. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify the mechanical properties of the materials or accuracy of the ng analyser. There is also little way to verify the accuracy of the microscope We cannot necessarily accept or reject the findings of this lab, perhaps if we tested the mechanical properties of the samples we could compare to an asme handbook. That said, I believe all of the data collected is accurate and our assessments of the materials are also accurate. If any of our collections are inaccurate, we are blissfully unaware. Therefore I can only speculate on potential sources of error. Most of these are simply human errors. Perhaps we wrote the names of the materials on the wrong spot, or perhaps we misread the magnification of the digital camera. I am unable to verify the accuracy of the ng image generator, but it seems to be well calibrated and functioning. With all of that said, I believe that our results are reliable. We had the help of a professor when differentiating our main hiccup. That being the hypereutectoid and hypoeutectoid steels. They are very visually similar, and telling them apart with only the presentation slide was a challenge. We were eventually able to make a set of judgments that we were confident in with professors' help. Conclusion Once again, there isn't much for us to discuss here. All of our findings are presented above. I will say that observing the microstructures in this manner was interesting and could have been helpful to the lecture if the dates lined up better. All that said, what we did obtain supports the goals stated above. Operation of the microscope was finicky, and the digital camera was barely operational with a single person. We ended up using three people at one to get consistent results with the digital camera. The video on etching, I don't believe did a good job of explaining the intricacies of the etching process. It briefly explained the idea of etching, but didn’t really expand on how or why with respect to different metals. It also didn't touch on etching for athletic purposes. I feel that this aspect of the lab was lost. 9

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Questions and Answers 1. White, gray, ductile, and malleable 2. Nodular cast iron has a finer grain 3. Bronze is copper and tin, brass is copper and zinc. Bronze has higher strength, brass is more ductile 4. Sulfur, silicon, mobiliyum, nickel, and chromium. High hardenability and tensile strength 5. Steel with carbon content between 0.3-0.6% and manganese from 0.6-1.65% 6/7. 8. Yes, it can be welded 9. Yes, it also has light weight and corrosion resistance 10. Ductility, tensile strength, and hardness increase with decreasing grain size Appendix A. E. Paul De Garmo, J.T. Black, R.A. Kohser, Materials and Processes in Manufacturing, 8t Edition, Macmillan, NY, 1997 10