Talk:Ultimate tensile strength

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ultimate tensile strength article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Gravifugal flying craft

Tensile strength of graphene is sufficient to built the ring of gravifugal flying craft. It material enables the ring to rotate at velocity 9100m/sec. up to 11200 m/sec. Velocity of satelization, or velocity of levitation of the ring is 7902 m/sec.Gravifugal flying craft is in fact replacement for space elevator.Petarbosnicpetrus (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2014

UTS Discrepancy

Both tables in the article list "Ultimate strength" for the same materials but they are very different, so at least one table must be in error. Can someone please correct this!

There is a problem with the annealed Cu and Al yield stresses. First: 15-20 MPa is too little for Al yield strength even when annealed IMHO. http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Matter/Copper_Alloys.html also states a zero-two stress of down to 50MPa for Cu whereas the wikipedia article says 33MPa for annealed 99.9 Cu.

Liquid Tensile Strength

The last paragraph of the article:

... Tensile strength can be measured for liquids as well as solids. For example, when a tree draws water from its roots to its upper leaves by transpiration, [...] ten metres, and trees can grow much higher than that. (See also cavitation, which can be thought of as the consequence of water being "pulled too hard".) ...

I think that the above except is about suction and so, not tension and neither tensile strength and doesn't belong to this article. Suction of liquids better relate to tensile stress, not strength (= the limit state). Stefanos 11:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

actually, WTF am I saying. I think it's that that 10 metres (~33') should be 70', but check it. Sorry --Kwantus 20:25, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Argh. I think the article's got me confusing the tensile strength of the water with its use as a barometer...that's what i gotta rewrite. how to explain and separate the two --k

I may also have gotten the depth from which a well pump can draw with a little air in the pipe (can i call that primable depth?) vs the depth with solid water. --k

Aha. Cavitation is a much better approach than trees, 'cause it avoids all the difficulty about do trees haev microvalves and pumps, osmotic pressures, capillarity, atmosphere ... me happy now =) -- Kwantus 15:41, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The entry here evidently constitutes original research. The entry here lacks any citations - and for good reason. It is completely bogus. Due to the way that tensile strength is measured, neither liquids nor gases can be said to have a tensile strength. Hence, anyone who thinks that a liquid or a gas has a measured tensile strength needs to provide a rock solid citation to support this scientifically extraordinary viewpoint.

When a liquid moves up a straw it does so because the liquid is pushed up the straw by the difference in pressure caused by the weight of the fluids outside the straw: that is, of the atmosphere and of the liquid in the glass or bottle above the bottom of the straw. If one removes the weight of the fluids pushing the liquid up the straw, then no amount of sucking will lift the liquid up the straw. The pressure difference moves the liquid up the straw to the point that the pressure of the column of liquid in the straw plus the pressure of the partial vacuum in the straw caused by "sucking", together balance the pressure of the fluids outside the straw. At this point, there is no pressure difference and the liquid cannot be "drawn" (actually pushed) any higher.

I am deleting this entire section because it is nonsense. It should not be restored without appropriate scientific citations in support.123.211.218.67 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)123.211.218.67 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a review of the "Cohesion-Tension" theory of the rise of sap in trees ( which can be over 100m high, far far higher than "atmospheric sucking" would support, is in "The Theory of the Rise of Sap in Trees: Some Historical and Conceptual Remarks" by Harvey R. Brown in Physics in Perspective September 2013, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 320-358 Yes, one could talk about this being an example of "tensile strength in liquids". The failure mechanism is different from solids, and there is a requirement that the column be small (tens of microns) but it is not nonsense. There is over 100 years of work on this topic-- hardly "original research" in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.90.221 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Syrup

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)

Units

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)[reply]

for values(your units) ask pub area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.50.165 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTS

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)[reply]

Space elevator

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible inaccuracies

The last three entries of the first table - the one with the ceramic materials boron, SiC, and Al2O3 all have values listed under the yield strength. Shouldn't they be under ultimate strength, since the elongation of ceramic fibers are taken to be negligible in the tensile testing process?

Proposed merger

There are several reasons for the merger:

The concepts of yield strength and UTS are already presented in the Strength of materials article. If necessary the other article can be expanded to cover additional points (it needs work anyway)
Tensile strength is a loose term that normally means UTS but is used interchangably by many people. This point can be clarified in the strength of materials article if necessary
The concepts section is a copy of the Stress-strain curve article. This can be replaced with a link.
There are multiple errors (such as cast iron having a negligible tensile strength). These do not seem worth correcting
The only information not covered elsewhere are the tables of properties. These could be put into their own article and expanded to cover other mechanical properties. This could then be referenced from the yield, strength, stress, plasticity, etc articles.

Comments welcome Slinky Puppet 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd like to see a lot of refactoring in the materials science/engineering related articles, maybe there should be a project. The table of properties seems pretty useless to me - a few entries for common materials is nice to give folks a sense of scale, but I don't see why it should be so inclusive.

The redundancy between the concepts section and the stress-strain curve article is mostly my fault. I couldn't think of a way to distinguish between yeild strength, UTS and breaking strength without it. I wouldn't be sad if someone else found a way to do that without the redundancy. Toiyabe 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the materials science/engineering stuff could really do with a brush up. The hardest part is trying to find where everything fits in. Possibly we could make the 'strength of materials' article a kind of overview with brief introductions and, where relevent, a link to a more detailed article. I've seen this kind of layout on a few really nice aricles and it seems to work well. I think I will try to make a mindmap of articles on my talk page. When it's up I'll leave a link here.Slinky Puppet 12:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging them is not a good idea. You will end up with lots of links to too general a topic to be useful to anybody. Gene Nygaard 03:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If I merge I will reduce the number of links. The current tensile strength article is really a stub (once the repeated stuff is taken out) and there is little to be gained by linking to it. I suspect it would be better replaced by an article on what happens at failure. Slinky Puppet 12:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't solve the problem of "tensile strength" being too ambiguous by linking the articles which use it to an even more ambiguous and general article.

If a link article is too general, people aren't going to bother to wade through it. The linking is then useless. They often want to be able to identify one specific concept, not learn a whole branch of science. Gene Nygaard 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'tensile strength' is not ambiguous. It is the maximum stress to which a material can be subjected. That is all it is. Everything else on this page is fluff to beef a stub into a proper article size (and 99% of the fluff is found elsewhere). It would be good to put all the things that keep getting repeated in other articles and in such a way that people can see how everything fits together before diving into the details. People can't look up a topic if they don't know it exists. There is currently an empty mechanical properties article that could probably be a useful starting place. Slinky Puppet 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that tensile strength "is the maximum stress to which a material can be subjected." Sounds nice, but it means nothing. Subjected to before failure? What is failure? Toiyabe 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be merged with Strength of Materials. "Tensile strength", if it had its own page, is really nothing more than a definition. Perhaps it needs a Wiktionary page, but not a Wikpedia page. - EndingPop 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the articles should be merged. Tensile strength is obviously a subset of the general strength of a material. However, the very first paragraph of the latter article contains a number of links such concepts, including tensile strength. Together, they seem a wide enough array of concepts to warrant their own pages. Certainly someone concerned with what the "tensile strength" of some material they were looking at means may not need to worry about its compressive or shear strength, if they were just interested in the term. Perhaps the article could be slimmed down with a few well placed links (or those even more refined subjects merged into it) but as a concept, it seems reasonable to have its own article. Almost any link leading to this article (and the vast number are from specific material pages) would be intersted in this specific property, and so the links would have to be directed to that subsection of the general strength article anyway to maintain their specificity, which would essentially render the merge useless. And that's from an otherwise dedicated mergist. 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded Materials

The list of tensile strength contains several materials with no listed strengths. Why?

St Gobain "R" glass

St Gobain "R" glass has a tensile strength of 4400 MPa listed in the table. I have searched St Gobain's website long and hard and have failed to find such a high strength glass anywhere. Is this is a typo by any chance?

-Also, this value is listed under "yield strength." Most glasses I know break instead of yielding, thus I suspect it should be listed under "tensile strength."

References

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)[reply]

Clear distinct yield point

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:[1] [2]--Yannick 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tensile strength of water in trees

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)[reply]

Request

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)[reply]

How would you calculate tensile strength? (other then referencing to the chart)--Gunnar Berlin 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table correction

Silicon is not strictly metallic; thus I have deleted the word "metallic"

Tensile strength of rope

The article quotes:

"In general, the tensile strength of a rope is always less than the tensile strength of its individual fibers."

Is this correct? Thanks.

silicon

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)[reply]

No,your wrong.tensile strength of each fiber is same to rope.but in rope the amount of applied load is shared with each one of fiber so it's required more load to tensile than each fiber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.143.150 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3/5/19 - This value is out by almost 2 orders of magnitude I suspect. Fused silica is on the order of 4 GPa for 400 micron thick fibres. Silicon on the other hand is on the order of 50-200 MPa from research conducted by myself and others (look for literature values related to Einstein Telescope/LIGO gravitational wave research for silica and silicon).

Engineering vs. true strain

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 [3]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) I just observed this topic is broached under "stress (physics), redirectired from engineering stress." A link to that might be helpful, but the key-to-steel article really gives some good graphical explanation also. Mweir2 21:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is "Wrong" II

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)[reply]

Right, es interwiki link fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Failure

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)[reply]

Just add the link at the first best place you can find or add to See also. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necking

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)[reply]

Rewrite?

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)[reply]

definition of terms

in common english usage outside of engineering "stress" and "strain" are more or less interchangeable, which renders this page highly unintelligible. I suggest that in the stress-strain diagram the word "stress" have "(force)" underneath it, and the work "strain" have "(elongation)" underneath it to make the diagram, and the web page, intelligible to those not already acquainted with the engineering-specific definitions of those terms...

Note, this is a general complaint I have with most all technical wiki pages: giving a definition of something only in terms of discipline specific terminology. Doing so is useful as a reference for someone already knowledgeable in a topic and needs a reminder/refresher, but is not so helpful for someone trying to learn something new.

Peterl95124 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC) peterl95124 7 March, 2009.[reply]

Stress, however, is not the same as force. Nor is strain the same as elongation.

In the SI system, the unit of force is the newton; the unit of stress is the newton per square metre; one newton per square metre is one pascal. The pascal, not the newton, is the SI unit of stress.

The unit of elongation, a change in length, is the metre. Strain is that change in length, or elongation, divided by the original length: thus strain has no units.

Furthermore, the purpose of an encyclopaedic entry is not to be a learning tool; nor should it be couched in language that, in trying to pander to the ignorance of its reader, renders it incorrect. The person who does not understand the difference between stress and strain needs to buy or borrow a basic text book of physics, or mechanics, or engineering principles, and starting from the beginning, slowly build up their understanding of basic concepts by working through examples and problems that have the given solutions. They won't learn how to do this from any encyclopaedic entry, no matter how informative, and certainly not from one that were to use the misleading and erroneous descriptions that you have proposed here.123.211.218.67 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "definition" section is not a definition. It is just a discussion about various related concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzer99 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material Property Basis

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fikret Mert Veral

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)[reply]

Done. Awickert (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Tag

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)[reply]

Definitions of tensile strength

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)[reply]

Proof stress

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)[reply]

Actually see proof stress. Wizard191 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

fix the values in the tablet

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)[reply]

i fix at in my self

but still the annealed valu tablet are wird.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.126.34 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Units

living in the technological age of international standards like we do, shouldn't we wikipedians be encouraging the use of SI units instead of the out of date pascal, shouldn't we be using newtons per square metre (N/M²)... i understand the americans are awkward and use imperial measurements, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world need live in the dark ages. 94.172.165.194 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNIT, the most common unit should be used, which is the MPa. Wizard191 (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I eliminated the commas from the numbers in the table to make it properly sortable (as the header suggests and performs sorting functionality). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.190.70.135 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can't be correct: Aramid (Kevlar or Twaron) yield=3620 ultimate=2757

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.152.211 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cites not pointing to anything

These two, [4] [5] citations do not seem to point to anything. Does anyone know where it should point to?MW ^ℳ 08:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering/science typographical conventions

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)[reply]

Tear resistance Merger

Surely even if we were to merge tear resistance, it would make more sense to merge it into tearing? However, I will try to expand on the article if possible in order to avoid a merger (I wasn't 100% sure if a new article was needed when I made tear resistance so I don't mind if others feel this article doesn't warrant its own page). Cliff12345 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am against merging of this article.

The article can stand of its own. There is no need to mention or provide a background about the ultimate tensile strength to understand tear resistance, though they are related subjects of same area.
Also, the article, tearing resistance, might be expanded shortly in such a manner that it becomes inconsistent or incompatible with this article, if we had merged it. That article have a lot to explain like the tests for measuring it, units and dimensions, etc. Note that the unit of tensile strength is N/m² (Pa) while that for tear resistance is N/m.
Tear resistance is a notable article. It will not be an orphan.^(verify) Why should we merge all the stubs? Vanischenu m^Talk 11:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to merging. No reason was given in support of merging, so I'm going to spare my fingers.--Yannick (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to think that it would be better if we didn't merge, since tear resistance seems to be large enough now to stand on its own. Cliff12345 (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Brittle or ductile failure vs. necking

The page at "Strength of materials" says that ultimate tensile strength is the maximum stress a material can withstand before experiencing ductile or brittle failure. This page, on the other hand, only says that it is the maximum stress before the material starts to show necking. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but in any case, one of the pages ought to be edited to be clearer. 67.161.80.122 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Someone made this wrong. The other one is correct. I'll fix it.

Thank you for noticing and commenting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

discussing about tensile material

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).If we provide steel+polytheen mixture meterial we get ultimate tensile strenth.how do U say about this?

Strongest tensile thickiness

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Human skin

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)[reply]

Pounds and Inches

Metric is not universally used, Please add PSI (pounds per square inches) column98.110.21.123 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC) ABSOLUTELY! The french measurement system can be in the "also" column after the normal PSI.[reply]

Table sorting issues

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 "4900<br/>3000-6500" is treated as "49003000-6500". 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.? {{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]