Talk:Ultimate tensile strength

message: LOL near-total irrelevancy I can't help but save from the sci.physics thread:
:>You will find that the sap is under negative pressure.
:Balls. How the hell do you think folks in Canada collect maple syrup?
I do love such earthy yet practical rebuttals =) -- Kwantus 15:32, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maple Syrup 

message: Possibly being picky here, but isn't the SI Unit usually used for tensile strength N/mm^2 (MPa) and not N/m^2 (Pa)?
::The word "unit" is used with various meanings.  In metrology publications such as the NIST guide, it sometimes includes megapascals and newtons per square millimeter, but at other times the word unit is limited to the base units and their combinations, and MPa and the like are referred to as multiples and submultiples of SI units.  Basically, what I'm pointing out is this:  there is no reason to interpret "units" being specified in newtons per square meter or in pascals as excluding combinations of those units with whatever prefix is appropriate for the context.  
::If someone can come up with a simple way to make that point clearer, okay.  However, I don't see any real need for such a clarification in hte article.  Gene Nygaard 19:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: for values(your units) ask pub area  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.50.165 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Isn't the UTS just the peak of the graph? It is not nessisarily the fracture point, but just the point at which no extra stress is nessisary to deform the object. After this point if the load is not released, it will continue deform until it ultimatly fractures. This is also the point at which necking beings...
It is just the peak of the graph as you said. It happens because of the way the graph is plotted. On y-axis, Force per original area is plotted i.e. engineering stress . Usually, the testing machine pulls the specimen and calculate the Force required to do so. After UTS, because of necking force required is not much because the actual area has decreased due to necking (but true stress will be more because of less area) and hence the Engineering stress starts decreasing.
Also Engineering strain is for the whole length of specimen but after UTS, true strain is in the very small region of necking.  BJKShah (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UTS 

message: Hi. I noticed that the Space elevator article describes "tensile strength" as being "the limit to which a material can be stretched without irreversibly deforming" but the Tensile strength article states that:
"The tensile strength of a material is the maximum amount of tensile stress that it can be subjected to before it breaks."
Upon further reading of the tensile strength article, it looks like tensile strength is divided into "yield" and "ultimate" (the former being the limit of tensile stress which  material can endure and retain its elasticity, and the latter being the limit of tensile stress before the material breaks).
Does anybody think that the elevator article should be updated to clarify this issue, and what is the best way to do so? Cheers TigerShark 10:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Space elevator article should be changed to specifically state yield or ultimate. I also believe that that discussion on which to use should take place inTalk:Space elevator. War (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space elevator 

message: Normally, I would get headaches citing things.
But the long list is subject to HUGE inaccuracies. For example, I had to correct the values for A36 steel in standard normalized condition. Those "in the know" would scroll across this page and laugh when they see A36 yielding at 400MPa (that's more like HSLA). 
A rather large embarrassment I would suppose.
To remedy this, we'll need to start citing sources. I suggest looking up values on MatWeb. I have ASM handbooks in my university library and other resources so if anyone is in doubt I can look those up. When I have time.
---
I completely agree, and have removed the ludicrous citation for piano wire as a result. I have also corrected the UTS of Zylon, which has 2 conflicting values from the same website, no current vendor, and its failure resulted in the deaths of US servicemen and police officers when used in bullet-resistant vests, so I am assuming the lower number is the more credible one. 
As a suggestion. Entries should be limited to materials that are commercially available, not lab experiments, which have not been verified, and cannot be repeated, at least not on a production basis. In addition, results should be limited to those performed by 3rd parties, not claimed by a (now defunct) company. 
Anyone who knows anything about materials knows this list is pure garbage - with more error than truth. Just total and complete rubbish. 
--Solidpoint (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Non-fictional materials do not have a clear distinct yield point. The sharp tip of point #2 in the "typical structural steel" stress-strain curve is grossly exagerated. There is never such a sharp peak stress. Furthermore, I just checked a bunch of stress-strain curves and accepted yield points in the MMPDS, and even for steels that follow this general curve shape the accepted yieldpoint is in the middle of the "bathtub" following the first stress peak. The 0.2% permanent strain threshold is the widely accepted yield point. References: --Yannick 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear distinct yield point 

message: Water is not, contrary to common knowledge, sucked up a tree held together by the tensile strength of the water!  The vapor pressure of water, at the temperatures tree water is normally at, limit the height of that action to about 32 feet.  Rather the water is pumped up the tree by the roots actively intaking water osmotically, and the fibers within the xylem transporting it to the leaves.  The surface tension of the water on the cellulosic xylem fibers is the main effect here leading to a capillary wicking of the water up the tree.  I see little in common with tensile strength.
The second paragraph of the Concept section reads, "Steel has a very linear stress-strain relationship up to its yield point, as shown in the figure. The yield point is not a sharply defined point, though; the figure is wrong. "
Figures are not "wrong," and are not even capable of being "wrong."  They may be in "error," and the people who make them and interpret them are either "wrong" or "right."
What can I say, "It's all about the details."
:Intricate reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=dm2ZBQ77pGIC&pg=PA222 Wizard191 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tensile strength of water in trees

message: Would somebody please sort these tables by, say, increasing strength of the material (or even alphabetically)?  I hate to ask, since I'm too lazy to do it myself... Sys Hax 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I found it odd that it has (by far) the highest tensile strength listed. Is that number accurate?
76.110.227.215 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  silicon 

message: The treatment in this article seems to reflect strictly "engineering" stresses and strains.  These result from an assumption that the material dimensions don't change significantly during the test.  Thus, when a measured load is divided by an area to get the stress, the divisor is the original area of the specimen, not the area it actually has (and as the tension is increased, that area is reduced.)  Similarly, when the extension is divided by a length to get the strain, the divisor is the original gage length of the specimen, not the new length (and as the tension is increased, that length increases).  The term generally used for the quantities that take these factors into account are the "true" stress and strain, and these are more appropriate for understanding what's going on in the material.  Engineering stress and strain are entirely appropriate for design, though, because they are based on the components as designed, not as deformed.  The article at covers this nicely, and I suggest it be added to the external links.  I think the article itself should mention that both views exist and that it's written to the "engineering" view.
Mweir2 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering vs. true strain 

message: For all "spanish" who want to change to the spanish translation: the link is wrong. Wikipedia shows the translation of the "yield strength" and not of the "tensile strength"!!
I don´t know how to inform Wikipedia...(no time).   fdo Frank T./Bilbo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.114.20 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Is "Wrong" II 

message: I am editing the stub for ultimate failure and I was looking for a place to create a link through this article without stepping on any toes.  I have noticed a few areas it could be included through the graphs at the very right or within the text.  Please send a response either below this message or on the talk page of ultimate failure, thank you.  Engl315ISU (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Failure 

message: A couple of images showing necking have just turned up on Wikicommons. 
Image:Al tensile test.jpg  and 
Image:Ductility.svg. 
I don't normally edit engineering articles so I will leave them here for anyone one who thinks they can be of use.--Aspro (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Necking 

message: I'm thinking I might impose myself here and do a major rewrite.  Here are the issues I see:
1. The article should stick to the single topic of tensile strength, and not broader topic of all measures of strength in tension.  These could be noted at the end in an "Also See" section with links to other wiki articles.
2. A separate article on yield strength could/should be written.  I'd be surprised if there wasn't already one here.  I haven't checked yet.  
3. The concept section covers the stress-strain curve in general.  This should be a separate article.  Let's focus on the conditions that produce a tensile strength.
4. I see a need for articles on tensile testing, compression testing, and others.
M610 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: Is anyone aware of a page on Wikipedia that covers A-basis vs B-basis vs S-basis for allowables?  Is that even worthy of a Wikipedia article, or is it more appropriate for something like Wiktionary?  Khakiandmauve (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nothing about those terms. A good way of thinking is this: if it is going to be only a definition, Wiktionary. If it is going to be more than that, Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material Property Basis 

message: I think this may be the name of the person who added the info about the material "Steel, API 5L X65" to the table in the tensile strength article.  Searching Google, I can't find any non-(wikipedia or copy and paste job) page that returns both API 5L X65 and Fikret Mert Veral.  I propose removing it from the table. Khakiandmauve (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Awickert (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fikret Mert Veral

message: Underwatercolor's tag strikes me as appropriate, and I tried to reword the intro in layman's terms.  How'd I do?  Ready to remove the tag? Khakiandmauve (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Tag

message: I went through the first few sections made some changes that I think make the article more consistent, particularly in how the various definitions of tensile strength are presented.  The figures could be reworked to better suit the article, and if anybody's interested, I'd appreciate the help.  It could all use references, and I'd like to clean up the tables a bit. Khakiandmauve (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of tensile strength

message: The table that says Proof or Yield stress should be changed. Proof strength is not the same as yield strength. Proof strength is always slightly lower and is used for bolt analysis. Example: Grade 8 bolts have an Sut = 150 ksi, Sy = 130 ksi, and (proof strength) Sp = 120 ksi. This is the way it always is. They're not the same. It could be misleading to anyone attempting to do bolt calculations and this page comes up in search results for proof strength.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually see proof stress. Wizard191 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an instance of overlapping terminology.  In the realm of material strengths, proof stress is just what the linked article describes - what is otherwise known as the offset yield point of a material that doesn't have a sharply defined yield point.  In the world of structures (in the broad sense of everything from a bolt to a pressure vessel to a spacecraft), a proof test might be used to screen out fractures or a bad batch of material.  In that sense, we often talk about a proof stress that has no relation to the offset yield point on a stress-strain curve - it actually has little to do with material properties in general, and more to do with actual structural requirements.  I'm not sure if this is a problem requiring a resolution, but it might make sense to change the table heading from Proof or Yield Stress to Yield or Offset Yield Stress. Khakiandmauve (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely is a case of dual meanings for the same term, but other than renaming the table to what you are suggesting, there isn't much else we can do. And I'm OK with that modification if others are. Wizard191 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof stress

message: sombody edit the tablet and make it all wrond fix at  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.126.34 (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  fix the values in the tablet 

message: but still the annealed valu tablet are wird..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.126.34 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:UNIT, the most common unit should be used, which is the MPa. Wizard191 (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The pascal is an SI unit. The pascal is the SI unit of pressure and of stress. One pascal is one newton per square metre. Typical stresses are measured in millions of pascals, so the unit in such cases is the megapascal, or MPa.123.211.218.67 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  i fix at in my self  

message: These two,   citations do not seem to point to anything. Does anyone know where it should point to?MW ℳ 08:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cites not pointing to anything 

message: The tensile strength table mixes conventions for denoting a decimal point. I think it should be modified to replace all numerical values of the form "2,2" with "2.2". If I weren't such a Wikipedia (Editing) Neophyte, I'd just make the changes as a minor edit.
The Wikipedia article on the International System of Units states that "The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that 'the symbol for the decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the line.' In practice, the decimal point is used in English-speaking countries, Latin America and most of Asia, and the comma in most continental European languages." A similar inconsistency arises in place markers at "thousands" positions, in this case with the usage of the "," and the "." symbols reversed, and with "’" and " " thrown in to provide additional variety. These are pointless (!) inconsistencies and should be eliminated, both in Wikipedia and in wider practice. The goal should be to facilitate rapid and error-free reading and writing of numerical expressions.
I think Wikipedia should adopt "." as the consistent symbol for a decimal point. While we're at it, the thousands separator should be standardized. I think the thousands separator should be a ",", and that it should be recommended on either side of the decimal point when the number of digits exceeds six. With these conventions, the following would be correct notations: 987654, 987654.123456, 9,876,543.2, and 0.123,456,78. This still has the effect of requiring some parsing when numbers are included in prose. Perhaps it's time for two completely new symbols? Oh, my. Wcmead3 (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering/science typographical conventions 

message: Reference 23: Mechanical Properties Data is a dead link - 2001:6B0:1:1041:D0AA:968C:265F:2B91 (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think it might have been an accident, but it says the material with the highest tensile strength is multiwalled carbon nanotubes of 11,000 - 63,000 MPa , but according to the chart it displays Graphene has a higher tensile thickness of 130,000 MPa. i was a little bit confused about this maybe explain why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.27.230 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article is wrong. I believe that when the measurement on multiwalled CNTs was performed (2000) it was the strongest. However, in 2008 monolayer graphene was measured to have an even higher intrinsic strength (130 GPa). I think one reason this hasn't been fixed is because of confusion between different types of strengths. The CNT paper says tensile strength but the graphene paper says intrinsic strength. However, the graphene paper says they are calling the tensile strength the intrinsic (breaking) strength.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A923:B101:9C51:B499:391C:D57D (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongest tensile thickiness 

message: Who the hell did stress testing on human skin? Gross.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.235.108 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human skin 

message: Metric is not universally used, Please add PSI (pounds per square inches) column98.110.21.123 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pounds and Inches 

message: In the typical tensile strengths table, the ultimate tensile strengths of Graphene and Limpet Patella vulgata teeth are sorted incorrectly. Specifically, graphene is treated as the lowest number because the initial "intrinsic" causes it to be treated as a word, and Limpet teeth are sorted as the highest number, likely because "49003000-6500" is treated as . This can be fixed with data-sort-value=..., but I'm not exactly sure how they should be sorted, i.e. should graphene be sorted as 130000, or 50000-60000, or 50000-130000, e.t.c.?  17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table sorting issues