Beam Bending: ER Strain Gage

Nick Leach

Group 3A

MAE 244, Sec. 2, Dr. Feng

October 12, 2005

Schematic:

Schematic 1: Strain Gage Setup

 Analysis of Results:

• Data Reduction: The primary equations used in this laboratory experiment

are all derived from stress, strain and electrical equations for simple circuits.

For example, to find the theoretical bending stress we use the equation

Mc
σ= where M is the moment ( M = Px) , c is the height of the material,
I

and I is the calculated inertia. For this particular experiment we use a

1 3
rectangular beam, so I = bh where b is the length of the base and h is the
12

σ
thickness (2c). Young’s Modulus is calculated as usual, E = (if you didn’t
ε

∆L
know), where σ is the calculated stress and ε is the calculated strain … in
L

εT
case you were wondering. Poisson’s Ratio will be implemented as υ = −
εL

where εT is the transverse strain and εL is the longitudinal strain. Also, to

calculate the theoretical strain at the location of the longitudinal strain gage

3δcd
we use the tip-deflection data and calculate ε = at any distance d from
L3

the tip, where L is the length of the beam, c is half the thickness t, and δ is the

value of the measured tip-deflection from our data.

 • Comparisons: Graphs and tables requested from the report section, along

with comparisons with expected or other experimental results, are included in

this section.

ALUMINUM BEAM : 7075-T6

P x b t σ (= Mc/I=6Px/bt^2)
(lbs) (in) (in) (in) (psi)
0 6 0.981 .139 0
0.5 6 0.981 .139 949.6741046
1 6 0.981 .139 1899.348209
1.5 6 0.981 .139 2849.022314
2 6 0.981 .139 3798.696419
2.5 6 0.981 .139 4748.370523

Table 1: Calculated Theoretical Bending Stresses in Aluminum

COMPOSITE BEAM : AS4/3501-6 GRAPHITE EPOXY

P x b t σ (= Mc/I=6Px/bt^2)
(lbs) (in) (in) (in) (psi)
0 6 1.025 .097 0
0.5 6 1.025 .097 311.0689226
1 6 1.025 .097 622.1378452
1.5 6 1.025 .097 933.2067678
2 6 1.025 .097 1244.27569
2.5 6 1.025 .097 1555.344613

Table 2: Calculated Theoretical Bending Stresses in Composite Beam

 σ v. ε L (for Aluminum)

10000
y = 13.75x - 210.74
2
8000 R = 0.9935

6000
σ (ksi)

Experimental Data
4000
Young's Modulus (E)
2000

0
0 200 400 600 800
-2000
ε L (µε)

Graph 1:Theoretical Stress versus Longitudinal Strain for Aluminum

 σ v. ε L (for Composite Beam)

5000 y = 8.7026x - 34.984

2
R = 0.9999
4000

3000
σ (ksi)

Experimental Data
2000
Young's Modulus (E)
1000

0
0 200 400 600
-1000
ε L (µε)

Graph 2:Theoretical Stress versus Longitudinal Strain for Composite Beam

E calculated E given % Diff.

(msi) (msi) (%)
13.75 10.4 32.21154
Table 3: Percent Difference of Young’s Modulus for Aluminum

E calculated E given % Diff.

(msi) (msi) (%)
8.7026 16.71 47.91981
Table 4: Percent Difference of Young’s Modulus for Composite Beam
 Poisson's Ratio for Aluminum

200
y = 0.3265x - 0.873
180 2
R = 0.9993
160
140
120
ε T (µε)

100 Experimental Data

80 Poisson's Ratio
60
40
20
0
-20 0 200 400 600
ε L (µε)

Graph 3: Poisson’s Ratio for Aluminum

Poisson's Ratio for Composite Beam

70
60 y = 0.0869x - 0.3379
2
R = 0.9712
50
40
ε T (µε)

Experimental Data
30
Poisson's Ratio
20

10
0
0 200 400 600 800
-10
ε L (µε)

Graph 4: Poisson’s Ratio for Composite Beam

 ALUMINUM
υ calculated υ given % Diff.
(%)
0.3265 0.3 8.833333
Table 5: Percent Difference of Poisson’s Ratio for Aluminum

COMPOSITE BEAM
υ calculated υ given % Diff.
(%)
0.0869 0.0925 6.054054
Table 6: Percent Difference of Poisson’s Ratio for Composite Beam
ALUMINUM BEAM : 7075-T6
ε (
P εL εT δ Theoretical)
(lbs) (µε) (µε) (in) ε=3δcd/L^3
0 0 0 0 0
0.5 114 33 0.05 0.122167969
1 221 69 0.1 0.244335938
1.5 327 105 0.15 0.366503906
2 440 140 0.2 0.488671875
2.5 547 178 0.25 0.610839844
Table 7: Calculated Theoretical Strain for Aluminum

COMPOSITE BEAM : AS4/3501-6 GRAPHITE EPOXY

P εL εT δ ε ( Theoretical)
(lbs) (µε) (µε) (in) ε=3δcd/L^3
0 0 0 0 0
0.5 153 15 0.1 0.056835938
1 297 21 0.2 0.113671875
1.5 441 32 0.3 0.170507813
2 577 48 0.4 0.22734375
2.5 661 61 0.5 0.284179688
Table 8: Calculated Theoretical Strain for Graphite/Epoxy
Discussion:

• Conclusions:

As you can see, in Tables 3 and 4, the percent differences for Young’s

Modulus in Aluminum and the Composite Beam are very bad (i.e. much too

large). I do NOT know why this is and I’m tired of fooling with it so it will stay

large. It’s obviously an error on my part while computing with Microsoft Excel,

but I don’t want to fool with it any more.

In tables 5 and 6, the percent difference for Poisson’s Ratio was better than

for Young’s Modulus, but still each value is not less than five percent. I think the

calculations were correct though, because I double-checked the equation I used as

A− B
% Diff = ⋅ 100% , where A is the accepted value and B is the calculated
A

value.

Looking at tables 7 and 8 you can see that the theoretical strain doesn’t

match up at all to the measured values.

• Limitations and Experimental Error:

In order to remove the undesirable effects in the measurements of the

Wheatstone Bridge, first we must make sure that the bridge is balanced and

calibrated at E=0 when there is no load so that the resistors in series are directly

R2 R3
related and equal as their ratios ( = ) . Then the undesirables can be safely
R1 R4
eliminated by arranging the bridge circuit by alternating dummy and active

resistors to remove stress components or uni-axial deformations from the strain

measurement by directly affecting the output for different arrangements. The axial

and transverse strains will be eliminated, added and/or doubled to facilitate the

output analysis and give an accurate measurement.

Temperature is an undesirable also. Temperature can be compensated by

adding an unloaded “dummy” gage to the material in series with the active gage,

forcing temperature strain components to cause identical changes in resistance

through both gages, canceling each other through the equation

Vr  ∆R1 ∆R2 ∆R3 ∆R4 

∆E =  − + −  where ∆R2, ∆R3 and ∆R4 all equal zero,
(1 + r ) 2  R1 R2 R3 R4 

Vr ∆R1 
yielding a simplified form for a single active gage, ∆E =   but only
(1 + r ) 2  R1 

when ∆T=0.
Appendix:

All supplementary data referred to in the report (i.e. handouts, raw data,

sample calculations, miscellaneous clutter)