1.

Purpose
The purpose of the following five experiments was to become familiarized and to learn how to use strain gauges to properly analyze the stress and strain based on the different loading modes. The strain gauges were used to records strain on a cantilever beam, on a beam in pure bending, on a structural section, on a casted component, and on a pressurized vessel.

2. Cantilever Beam
2.1 Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to learn the proper use of strain gauges by using them to analyze an aluminum cantilever beam. Three strain gauges were placed along the cantilever beam at varying locations and a load was applied at the end of the cantilever beam. The strain at each location and the deflection of the beam were recorded. It was concluded that the strain was highest near the fixed wall support and decreased towards the location of the applied load.

2.2 Apparatus

Figure 2.2.1: Cantilever Apparatus [1]

Figure 2.2.2: Sectioned Free Body Diagram

2.3 Experimental Procedure [1]

1. 2. 3. 4. The beams cross sectional area and length were measured. The maximum allowable load was calculated before starting the experiment. The locations of the strain gauges were measured. The strain gauge wires were connected to the strain gauge indicator and each strain gauge channel was balanced. 5. Strain gauge and deflection recordings were taken for 6 load increments.

2.4 Experimental Results

Geometry:

Allowable Force:

Modulus of Elasticity:

Table 2.4.1: Experimental Strains and Deflections Total Load (lb) 3.4 4.3 5.6 6.6 8.2 9.2 Microstrain #1 306 349 464 585 725 796 Microstrain #2 203 253 328 388 480 539 Microstrain #3 108 131 158 188 234 262 Tip Deflection (in) 0.099 0.123 0.161 0.192 0.239 0.269

2.5 Calculations
Theoretical Deflection [2]: ( )

Bending Moment from Sectioning:

Stress:

Theoretical Strain:

Table 2.5.1: Theoretical Strains and Deflections

Total Load (lb) 3.4 4.3 5.6 6.6 8.2 9.2 Microstrain #1 274.62 347.31 452.31 533.08 662.31 743.08 Microstrain #2 144.37 228.23 297.23 350.31 435.23 488.31 Microstrain #3 86.31 109.15 142.15 167.54 208.15 233.54 Tip Deflection (in) 0.083693 0.10585 0.13785 0.16246 0.20185 0.22646

2.6 Graphs

Measured & Calculated Deflection vs. Load

0.3 0.275 0.25 0.225 0.2 0.175 0.15 0.125 0.1 0.075 0.05 0.025 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Load

Deflection (in)

Measured Deflection Calculated Deflection

Figure 2.6.1: Graph of Measured and Calculated Deflection vs. Load

Stress vs. Measured & Calculated Strain Gauge 1

9000 8000 7000 Stress (psi) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 Strain (10-6) Measured Strain Calculated Strain

Figure 2.6.2: Graph of Measured and Calculated Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 1

Stress vs. Measured & Calculated Strain Gauge 2

9000 8000 7000 Stress (psi) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 Strain (10-6) 400.0 500.0 600.0 Measured Strain Calculated Strain

Figure 2.6.3: Graph of Measured and Calculated Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 2

Stress vs. Measured & Calculated Strain Gauge 3

9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 Strain (10-6) 200.0 250.0 300.0

Stress (psi)

Measured Strain Calculated Strain

Figure 2.6.4: Graph of Measured and Calculated Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 3

2.7 Discussion
The errors encountered that were specific to the cantilever beam experiment were related to the apparatus of the cantilever. It was possible that the beam was not completely secured which could have resulted in horizontal movement, vertical movement, and torsional twisting of the cantilever beam, introducing error in the strain and deflection measurement. It was also assumed that the load was directed at the furthest possible location on the beam. Any movement of the load location due to bending and movement of the beam would have introduced error. All other sources of error that were generic to all five experiments will be discussed in Section 7.

3. Beam in Pure Bending

3.1 Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to gain experience using strain gauges by analyzing an aluminum beam in pure bending. Two strain gauges and two deflection gauges were placed on a beam rectangular beam at varying location between the two supports for the beam. A load was applied at both ends of the beam to subject the beam to a bending condition and the strain gauge readings and deflections readings were recorded for varying loads. It was concluded that the strain at both locations on the beam were the same because the bending moments were the same at both locations. The deflection was greatest for the gauge closest to the centre of the beam.

3.2 Apparatus

Figure 3.2.1: Beam in Pure Bending Apparatus [1]

Figure 3.2.2: Sectioned Free Body Diagram

3.3 Experimental Procedure [1]

1. The beams cross sectional area and length were measured. 2. The maximum allowable load was calculated before starting the experiment. 3. The locations of the strain gauges and deflection dial indicators were measured.
7

4. The strain gauge wires were connected to the strain gauge indicator and each strain gauge channel was balanced. 5. Strain gauge and deflection recordings were taken for 5 load increments.

3.4 Experimental Results

Geometry:

( Allowable Force:

Modulus of Elasticity:

Table 3.4.1: Experimental Strains and Deflections Average Total Load (lb) 4.15 7.75 12.15 16.75 21.4 Deflection #1 (in) 0.065 0.123 0.191 0.261 0.335 Deflection #2 (in) 0.095 0.177 0.275 0.377 0.482 Microstrain #1 185 367 582 813 1025 Microstrain #2 190 359 555 763 968

3.5 Calculations
Theoretical Deflection [2]: ( ) ( )

Bending Moment from Sectioning:

Stress:

Theoretical Strain:

Table 3.5.1: Theoretical Strains and Deflections Average Total Load (lb) 4.15 7.75 12.15 16.75 21.4 Deflection #1 (in) 0.064644 0.12072 0.18926 0.26091 0.33334 Deflection #2 (in) 0.066895 0.12492 0.19585 0.26700 0.34495 Microstrain #1 191.54 357.69 560.77 773.08 987.69 Microstrain #2 191.54 357.69 560.77 773.08 987.69

3.6 Graphs

Calculated Stress vs. Load

12000 10000 Stress (psi) 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Load (lb) 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

Figure 3.6.1: Graph of Calculated Stress vs. Load

Measured & Calculated Deflection vs. Load Gauge 1

0.350 0.325 0.300 0.275 0.250 0.225 0.200 0.175 0.150 0.125 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025 0.000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Load (lb)

Deflection (in)

Measured Deflection Calculated Deflection

Figure 3.6.2: Graph of Measured and Calculated Deflection vs. Load for Gauge 1

Measured & Calculated Deflection vs. Load Gauge 2

0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.011.012.0 Load (lb)

Deflection (in)

Measured Deflection Calculated Deflection

Figure 3.6.3: Graph of Measured and Calculated Deflection vs. Load for Gauge 2 10

Stress vs. Measured & Calculated Strain Gauge 1

11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Strain (10-6)

Stress (psi)

Measured Strain Calculated Strain

Figure 3.6.4: Graph of Measured and Calculated Strain vs. Load for Gauge 1

Stress vs. Measured & Calculated Strain Gauge 2

11000 10000 9000 8000 Stress (psi) 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Strain (10-6) Measured Strain Calculated Strain

Figure 3.6.5: Graph of Measured and Calculated Strain vs. Load for Gauge 1 11

1/R vs. M/EI

0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 M/EI (1/in)

1/R (1/lb)

Figure 3.6.6: Graph of Inverse Reaction Force Stress vs. ME/I

3.7 Discussion
The errors encountered that were specific to the beam in pure bending experiment were related to the apparatus used for the experiment. The locations of the two supports and the locations of the applied loads were taken as symmetrical about the centre of the beam. This allowed for a simple calculation of the reaction forces and bending moments. However, any small difference in position would have resulted in unsymmetric loading and introduced error in the experiment, as the supports would have had different reaction forces. The unsymmetric loading could also have caused lateral movement of the beam and torsional twisting which would have introduced more error in the experimental observations. All other sources of error that were generic to all five experiments will be discussed in Section 7.

12

4. Strain Distribution on a Structural Section

4.1 Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to learn how to use strain gauges by analyzing the stress and strain on a structural member. A structural member with a T shape was supported by two symmetrical supports and five strain gauges were attached at different positions on the structural member at the same relative distance from one of the supports. A load was applied at the centre of the aluminum beam and the strain was measured at each location, as well as the deflection at the centre of the beam. It was concluded that the strain was maximum at the bottom of the T section and smallest towards the centre of gravity of the member.

4.2 Apparatus

Figure 4.2.1: Strain Distribution on a Structural Section Apparatus and Cross Sectional Area [1]

Figure 4.2.2: Relative Strain Gauge Locations

13

Figure 4.2.3: Sectioned Free Body Diagram

4.3 Experimental Procedure [1]

1. 2. 3. 4. The beams cross sectional area and length were measured. The maximum allowable load was calculated before starting the experiment. The locations of the strain gauges were measured. The strain gauge wires were connected to the strain gauge indicator and each strain gauge channel was balanced. 5. Strain gauge recordings were taken for 6 load increments.

4.4 Experimental Results

Geometry:

( ( ( ) )

14

 ( Allowable Force: )

( )

Modulus of Elasticity:

Table 4.4.1: Experimental Strains and Deflections Total Load (lb) 98 193 300 415 510 551 Mid Point Deflection (in) 0.006 0.010 0.015 0.021 0.025 0.027 Microstrain Microstrain Microstrain Microstrain Microstrain #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 60 37 18 107 150 116 75 33 211 294 182 119 51 325 460 251 161 72 450 638 307 202 87 558 795 335 220 94 604 856

4.5 Calculations
Theoretical Deflection [2]: ( )

Bending Moment from Sectioning:

15

Stress: ( )

Theoretical Strain:

Table 4.5.1: Theoretical Strains and Deflections Total Load (lb) 98 193 300 415 510 551 Mid Point Deflection (in) 0.0036842 0.0072180 0.011278 0.015601 0.019173 0.020714 Microstrain #1 67.282 132.50 205.97 284.92 350.14 392.41 Microstrain #2 38.855 75.520 118.94 164.54 202.20 220.84 Microstrain #3 12.315 24.253 37.698 52.149 64.087 69.993 Microstrain #4 114.65 225.80 350.98 485.52 596.67 651.66 Microstrain #5 160.14 315.37 490.22 678.13 833.37 910.17

4.6 Graphs

Measured Deflection vs. Load

0.03 0.025 Deflection (in) 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 100 200 300 Load (lb) 400 500 600

Figure 4.6.1: Graph of Measured Deflection vs. Load

16

Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 1

4500 4000 3500 Stress (psi) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Microstrain Experimental Theoretical

Figure 4.6.2: Graph of Stress vs. Strain for Gauge 1

Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 2

2500 2000 Stress (psi) 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Microstrain Experimental Theoretical

Figure 4.6.3: Graph of Stress vs. Strain for Gauge 2

17

Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 3

800 700 600 Stress (psi) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Microstrain Experimental Theoretical

Figure 4.6.4: Graph of Stress vs. Strain for Gauge 3

Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 4

8000 7000 6000 Stress (psi) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 200 400 Microstrain 600 800 Experimental Theoretical

Figure 4.6.5: Graph of Stress vs. Strain for Gauge 4

18

Stress-Strain Curve for Gauge 5

10000 9000 8000 7000 Stress (psi) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Microstrain Experimental Theoretical

Figure 4.6.6: Graph of Stress vs. Strain for Gauge 5

Figure 4.6.7: Graph of Strain Distribution for Each Load on the Cross Sectional Area

19

Figure 4.6.8: Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams

Note: Max/Min Shear Force and Max Bending Moment will change depending on the loading condition

4.7 Discussion
The errors encountered that were specific to the strain on a structural section were related to the apparatus used for the experiment. The locations of the two supports were taken as symmetrical to simplify the reaction force and bending moment equations. Also, the load was assumed to be applied directly at the centre of the structural beam and could have slipped when the load was applied. As well, it could have caused slipping of the member on the two supports or torsional bending. Another important source of error from this experiment came from the filleted edges of the structural section. These fillets were ignored when the moment of inertia and the bending moments were calculated, introducing error in the experimental results. All other sources of error that were generic to all five experiments will be discussed in Section 7.

20

5. Strain Distribution on a Casted Component

5.1 Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the distributed strain of a casted component through the use of strain gauges. The gauges were placed on four positions along the centre of the component as shown in figure 5.5.1, where the maximum strain is expected. A load transducer placed into the jaw of the C-Clamp read load which was applied in increments, while the strain gauges measured strain at respective positions. The greatest amount of strain was measured by strain gauge 1 located at bottom of the component, which was initially expected as the bottom part acts in tension.

5.2 Apparatus

Figure 5.2.1: C-Clamp Diagram [1]

Figure 5.2.2: Cross Section A-A of Clamp Diagram [1]

21

5.3 Experimental Procedure [1]

1. 2. 3. 4. Maximum allowable stress was calculated. Strain gauge device was setup accordingly and the gauge positions were noted on the CClamp. Each strain channel was calibrated and the correct factor was set. Load transducer was placed into the clamp and tightened. The load readings were recorded for each increment along with strain readings from the gauges.

5.4 Experimental Results

Table 5.5.1: Experiment Strain Gauge Readings Load (lb) 111 222 337 438 543 654 Microstrain 1 -121 -234 -357 -462 -573 -690 Microstrain 2 -68 -129 -194 -252 -312 -377 Microstrain 3 33 63 96 123 152 181 Microstrain 4 88 176 269 351 436 528

Table 6.3.2: Strain Gauge Locations (in) (Reference from Bottom) Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 1.891 1.2 0.5 0

5.5 Calculations
Geometry:

22

( )(

)(

( ) (

)( )( ) (

) )(

)(

) )

Theoretical Allowable Force:

( ( ( ( (

)( )( )( )(

) ) ) ) )

Theoretical Stress Sample Calculation (Gauge 3, Load = 111 lb): ( )( )

23

Table 5.5.1: Theoretical Stress Load (lb) 111 222 337 438 543 654 Stress 1 (psi) -3145.15 -6290.3 -9548.79 -12410.6 -15385.7 -18530.9 Stress 2 (psi) -1342.33 -2684.66 -4075.37 -5296.77 -6566.54 -7908.87 Stress 3 (psi) 483.9698 967.9396 1469.35 1909.719 2367.528 2851.498 Stress 4 (psi) 1788.471 3576.941 5429.861 7057.209 8749.005 10537.48

Theoretical Strain Sample Calculation (Gauge 3, Load = 111 lb):

Table 5.5.2: Theoretical Strains Load (lb) 111 222 337 438 543 654 Microstrain 1 -112.73 -225.46 -342.25 -444.82 -551.46 -664.19 Microstrain 2 -48 -96 -150 -190 -240 -280 Microstrain 3 17.3 34.7 52.7 68.4 84.9 102 Microstrain 4 64.1 128 195 253 314 378

24

5.6 Graphs

Experimental Stress vs. Load

20000 15000 10000 5000 Stress (psi) 0 -5000 -10000 -15000 -20000 -25000 Load (lb) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4

Figure 5.6.1: Graph of Experimental Stress vs. Load

Strain Gauge 1 - Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress

0 -25000 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 -0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0003 Strain -0.0004 -0.0005 -0.0006 -0.0007 Stress (psi) -0.0008 Experimental Theoretical 0

Figure 5.6.2: Graph for Strain Gauge 1 Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress 25

Strain Gauge 2 - Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress

-12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 0 -2000 0 -0.00005 -0.0001 -0.00015 Strain -0.0002 -0.00025 -0.0003 -0.00035 Stress (psi) -0.0004 Experimental Theoretical

Figure 5.6.3: Graph for Strain Gauge 2 Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress

Strain Gauge 3 - Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress

0.0002 0.00018 0.00016 0.00014 Strain 0.00012 0.0001 0.00008 0.00006 0.00004 0.00002 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Stress (psi) 4000 5000 6000 Experimental Theoretical

Graph 5.6.4: Graph for Strain Gauge 3 Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress 26

Strain Gauge 4 - Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress

0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 Strain 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Stress (psi) Experimental Theoretical

Figure 5.6.5: Graph for Strain Gauge 4 Experimental and Theoretical Strain vs. Experimental Stress

Experimental Stress vs. Strain Gauge Location

20000 15000 10000 5000 Stress (psi) 0 -5000 -10000 -15000 -20000 -25000 Strain Gauge Location from Bottom (in) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Load = 111 lb Load = 222 lb Load = 337 lb Load = 438 lb Load = 543 lb Load = 654 lb

Figure 5.6.6: Graph of Experimental Stress vs. Strain Gauge Location 27

5.7 Discussion
The results of this experimentation were relatively accurate compared to calculated theoretical data. Strain from Gauge 1 was the most accurate compared to theoretical data from the four gauges placed onto different sections of the C-Clamp. Differences between experimental and theoretical data represent errors due to constraints such as accurately measuring the location of the strain gauges or correctly placing them onto the test section, and errors that derive from approximating the cross-section of the C-Clamp as is depicted in Figure 6.6.2. It must also be noted that theoretical calculations assume ideal circumstances such as constant density and uniform molecular layout throughout the material, which is not a perfect representation of practical circumstances. The C-Clamp could be redesigned for the purpose of improving its load carrying capacity by simply changing its cross-section geometry. Depending on the application and requirements, the C-Clamp could be designed in such manner that it would allow higher strain and lower load carrying capacity or vice-versa. Changing the cross-section geometry is an effective method of adjusting the moment of inertia, and therefore indirectly changing maximum allowable load and strain to meet requirements. If the goal is to increase load carrying capacity, the crosssection geometry would have to be designed in such manner that would increase the moment of inertia, as more there would be more material to take absorb the load. All other sources of error that were generic to all five experiments will be discussed in Section 7.

28

6. Pressure Vessel
6.1 Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to understand the use of the Rosette strain gauge by measuring the strain on a pressurized vessel. The Rosette strain gauge, which is three strain gauges in a particular configuration, was placed on a tank and the pressure in the tank was increased. For various pressure increments, the strain was recorded for each gauge. It was concluded that the Gauge 2, which was pointing directly towards the top of the pressure vessel had the largest strain. This implied that the hoop stress was larger than the longitudinal stress.

6.2 Apparatus
Pressure vessel Strain Indicator Hydraulic Pump Pressure gauge

Figure 6.2.1: Pressure Vessel [1]

29

6.3 Experimental Procedure [1]

1. Based on the maximum allowable stress of 9000 psi, the maximum allowable pressure was calculated as the hoops pressure. 2. The strain indicator was turned on and balanced on all three channels to read an initial zero value. 3. The hydraulic pump was turned on and the pressure relief valve was already set at a desired value. 4. The maximum pressure was applied at 5 increments and then relieved at 5 increments. 5. In both application and relief, the strain value from the strain indicator and respective pressure reading from the pressure gauge were recorder.

6.4 Experimental Results

Table 6.4.1: Experimental Strains Pressure (psi) 0 36 63 89 120 150 120 86 63 36 0 Microstrain #1 1 24 41 57 76 94 76 55 41 29 2 Microstrain #2 2 61 106 146 196 243 196 142 105 61 3 Microstrain #3 0 28 50 69 94 117 94 68 50 24 1

6.5 Calculations
Maximum allowable stress: 9000 [psi] Safety factor (A36 Steel):

30

Poisson's Ratio [1]: 0.29 Hoop and Axial stress per 50 [psi] increment: ( )

( ( Direction of the principle stresses and strains:

) )

( )

) ( )

( ( ) (

) )

6.6 Graphs
Table 6.6.1: Experimental Strains Revisited Pressure (psi) 0 36 63 89 120 150 120 86 63 36 0 0.000001 0.000024 0.000041 0.000057 0.000076 0.000094 0.000076 0.000055 0.000041 0.000029 0.000002 0.000002 0.000061 0.000106 0.000146 0.000196 0.000243 0.000196 0.000142 0.000105 0.000061 0.000003 0 0.000028 0.00005 0.000069 0.000094 0.000117 0.000094 0.000068 0.00005 0.000024 0.000001

31

Calculating shear stress: ( ) ( )

( ( Calculating experimental axial stress: ( ) ( (

( )

))

Table 6.6.1: Calculated Stress Values Shear strain 1.1547E-06 -4.619E-06 -1.039E-05 -1.386E-05 -2.078E-05 -2.656E-05 -2.078E-05 -1.501E-05 -1.039E-05 5.7735E-06 1.1547E-06 Shear Stress (psi) 13 -54 -121 -161 -242 -309 -242 -175 -121 67 13 Experimental Axial strain Axial Stress 0 1.43333E-05 2.53333E-05 3.53333E-05 0.000048 5.96667E-05 0.000048 3.46667E-05 2.56667E-05 0.000015 0.000001 19 1049 1837 2544 3434 4263 3434 2484 1838 1071 61 (psi) Axial Stress 0 835.2964 1461.769 2065.038 2784.321 3480.402 2784.321 1995.43 1461.769 835.2964 0 (psi) Theoretical Hoop Stress (psi) 0 1670.5927 2923.5373 4130.0765 5568.6424 6960.8031 5568.6424 3990.8604 2923.5373 1670.5927 0

Pressure (psi)

0 36 63 89 120 150 120 86 63 36 0

32

Hoop & Axial Stresses vs Pressure

8000 7000 6000 Stress (psi) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 50 100 Pressure (psi) 150 200 Hoop Axial (Theoretical) Axial (Experimental)

Figure 6.6.1: Graph of Hoop and Axial Stresses vs. Pressure

Shear Stress vs Pressure

100 50 0 Shear stress (psi) -50 0 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 Pressure (psi) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Figure 6.6.2: Graph of Shear Stress vs. Pressure

33

Sample Mohr's strain circle for maximum pressure: ( ) ( ( ( ) ) ( ( ( ) ) ( )( ) )( ) ( ) ( ) )

Figure 6.6.3: Mohr's Circle.

34

Principle strains and orientation: ( ( ( ) ) ) ( ( ( ) ) ) ( ( ( ) ) )

6.7 Discussion
Hydraulic oil was used as opposed to the pneumatic pressure due to the large amount of pressure that was being applied. Due to the compressibility of air, pneumatic systems can become jerky or spongy when large loads are being applied. Hydraulic oil systems apply large loads in a much smoother manner due to the incompressibility of the hydraulic oil. This also means that in order to apply large loads, a pneumatic system would use far more energy than a hydraulic system. By comparison, hydraulic oil was the best option in this case. This is a thin wall pressure vessel because the ratio of the thickness of the wall to the radius of the cylinder satisfies the thin wall criterion (r/t 10). With a radius of 4.854 inches and a thickness of 0.1046 inches, the ratio is equal to about 46, which more than satisfies the thin wall criterion. The strain gauge technique is a viable means of determining principle strain on a plane as long as more than two strain gauges are used, set at predetermined angles. The experimental axial stress results produced higher stress values than the theoretical axial stress results. This is mainly due to the fact that the theoretical stress doesn't account for the residual and machine stresses that were created when the pressure was manufactured to have multiple valves and end caps. The welding and cutting that was done to add a pressure valve, a release valve, a drain valve, and the end caps is not represented by the theoretical calculation that only accounts for a simple cylindrical shape with semi-spherical end caps. The manufactures are aware of this fact which is why the operational factor of safety of 4 is much higher than the design factor of safety.

35

7. Error Analysis
There were several errors that were applicable to all the experiments performed and were related to the use of strain gauges and the inherent properties of the materials tested. These errors were present in all five experiments, though they may have had different significance depending on the particular testing procedure and apparatus. The errors that were associated to the strain gauges could have come from the placement of the strain gauges on the material being tested. A proper procedure was required to ensure the strain gauge did not get damaged and the contact to the material was solid and error could have arisen from the procedure not being carefully followed. Any abrasions on the material surface could have resulted in poor contact and produce erroneous results. It should be noted that strain gauge placement is difficult and is often a significant source of error. As well, any angle from the strain gauge to the axis of measurement would have resulted in error because strain gauge can only measure strain in a straight direction. Therefore, strain readings could have been taken at small angles and were not true representations of the strain along the cross sectional axis. It was also important to consider excess heat that could have caused expansion of the strain gauges. Any vibration from the tables holding the apparatuses would have also contributed error to the experimental results. Furthermore, any errors associated with the electrical circuit used in the strain gauge including noise, hysteresis, creep, etc. would have contributed error in the experiments. The errors from the materials being used originated from their imperfections. The modulus of elasticity for each experiment was taken from a published value for that particular material. The true modulus of elasticity for each material could have been different from the published value and would have resulted in experimental error. This could have been possible because of imperfections in the material, as it was assumed to be homogenous. It was also assumed that the geometries of the cross sections, beams, and tanks were perfect and without any small variations. In reality, these materials did not have perfect geometries as a result of the tolerances used to manufacture them. These small variations would have introduced error in the observations. This was especially true for the C Clamp experiment because the cross sectional area was highly simplified for calculations. Though there were errors in this experiment, the overall results proved that strain gauges provide accurate strain data which can be used to determine stress, which cannot be directly measured.

36

8. References
[1] Ghaemi, H. AER 520 / MEC 430 Experimental Methods in Stress Analysis. Ryerson University Department of Aerospace Engineering. 5-26. 2012. [2] Beam Bending Deflection and Stress Formulas. Engineers Edge. November 2, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.engineersedge.com/beam_calc_menu.shtml

37