Cantilever Beam: Strain Measurement, Load,

Uncertainty
Ronen, Lirun
Section 704D 6/13/16

AbstractThis lab involves the massing objects using a strain

gauge mounted on a cantilever beam using two different
methods. The first method is a calibration method in which
objects with known masses are measured and used to create a
mass as a linear function of amplified voltage. The uncertainty of
this method is derived using a Monte Carlo Simulation. The
second method uses a set of mechanics of materials equations
computing the data collected by a Data Acquisition Board to
mass of the weighed object. The uncertainties of this method are
found using the Root Sum Square (RSS) method. The results and
their respective uncertainties are considered to determine which
method is appropriate to use.
Index TermsCantilever Beam, Strain Gauge, Wheatstone
Bridge.

I.

INTRODUCTION

HE main objective of this lab is to create a mechanism

that will measure an objects weight using a cantilever
beam and a strain gauge. A cantilever beam is fixed at
one end, and in this lab, has a force applied to it on the other
end. A strain gauge is attached to this beam and is wired to an
amplifier and a Wheatstone bridge. This circuit is then
connected to the DAQ that will record and store the data.
There are two ways of estimating weight that will be used
in this lab. The first approach is estimating the calibration
curve for the beam based off the weights measured from the
object. The second approach is by utilizing the acquired data
and known constants to compute the applied load, the weight
of the object, through a series of equations.

II. PROCEDURE
The procedure for this lab is a paraphrased and slightly
more detailed version from the Mechanics of Materials Lab 2
instructions guide [1].
Programming VI in LABVIEW
The VI in this lab must be able to dynamically acquire and
store supplied and amplified voltage data and compute weight
from these values. To compute mass the VI must first tare the
amplified voltage. With this tared amplified voltage the VI can
now calculate the gauges voltage. The VI will next calculate
and store the strain, which can be calculated from the supplied
and gauges voltages. The VI will then compute the values for

stress, moment, and force in order to find the mass of the

object. This value will be the mass calculated using the strain
gauge data.
Preparing Cantilever Beam and Strain Gauge
The first part of the lab is mounting the strain gauge to the
cantilever beam. The gauge will be mounted 4 inches from
one of the beams end; marks can be placed lightly for precise
placement. The strain gauge is mounted to the beam with glue
and wired to a voltage amplifier, which is wired to the DAQ.
The beam-and-gauge assembly is then mounted. At this point,
turn on the amplifier and make sure the DAQ is plugged into
the computer. Tare the amplified voltage so that the measure
voltage is 2.5V.
Calibrating Scale
Weight the weights on the commercial scale and make sure
they weigh 50g, 100g, and 200g if they do not weigh at the
stamped values use the measured value. Using the cantilever
beam, acquire voltage data for 50g, 100g, 200g, 300g,
and 350g weights. Arrange the acquired voltage data and
their respective measured weights into a spreadsheet and
derive a function that will linearly fit the data so weight is a
function of voltage.
Acquiring Soda Cans Decreasing Mass
To get a control full weight of the soda can measure the can
on the commercial scale. Now measure the full cans weight
on the cantilever. Repeat this step ten times to test the
reproducibility and precision of the objects placement.
While running the VI, take a gulp from the can then place it
back on the cantilever beam and record the data. Repeat this
process until the can is empty and measure the empty can on
the beam as well. Take the weight of the empty can on the
commercial scale as well to get a control empty weight.
Acquiring a Random Objects Mass
In this part of the lab, a random object is placed on the
cantilever beam while the VI is running. After taking about ten
data points, stop the program and weigh the object on a
commercial scale and record the data.

< Section 704D>

1
III. RESULTS

Fig. 1 displays the linear relationship between the amplified

voltage and the mass with the calibration weights. Eq. 1 shows
the trend line, which is the line of best fit for the given data
points. Table I displays the data and uncertainty for the
calibrated mass of a full can. Table II displays the 10
placements of the full can and their respective amplified
voltages, calibrated, and calculated masses.

II. Table IV shows the results from reducing the contents of

the can in mass and amplified voltage.
TABLE III
MEASURE AND CALCULATED DATA
COLLECTED FROM PLACING CAN
Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

mScale

390.1

mMean

469.3

2.74

5.38

Scale Measured
Mass
Mean Mass of Ten
Trials
Standard Deviation
of Ten Trials
Statistical
Uncertainty

Table III contains the scaled mass of the full can and calculated data from
placing the can ten times.

TABLE IV
MASS OF CAN AFTER NUMBER OF
GULPS
Fig. 1. Plot of five amplified voltages in V against their respective masses in
grams.
TABLE I
CALIBRATED MASS OF FULL CAN
Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Slope

g/V

-3091.3

984

Amplified Voltage

VAmp

2.33

4.2910-3

Calibrated Mass

mcali

469.4

2.2910

Table I contains the unknowns and their respective uncertainties in

calculating mass of the full can.

y=3091.3 x+7659.1

(1)

TABLE II
MASS OF PLACING CAN TEN TIMES
Trial
Number

Calibrated
Mass (g)

Calculated
Mass (g)

Amplified
Voltage (V)

471.0

470.8

2.325

473.9

473.8

2.324

470.9

470.6

2.325

466.6

466.5

2.327

467.7

467.6

2.326

468.4

468.2

2.326

470.2

470.1

2.326

470.9

470.8

470.5

10

464.2

Gulp
Number
0
(Full)

Calibrated
Mass (g)

Calculated
Mass (g)

Amplified
Voltage (V)

471.0

470.9

2.325

445.5

445.4

2.334

392.6

392.5

2.351

352.1

352.0

2.364

290.7

290.6

2.384

240.5

240.4

2.400

190.1

190.0

2.416

138.5

138.4

2.433

105.6

105.5

2.443

77.9

77.8

2.452

10
23.4
23.3
2.470
(Empty)
Table IV contains the amplified voltage as well as the calibrated and
calculated masses of the soda as the cans contents diminished.

Table V displays the data obtained from massing different

objects with different methods.
TABLE V
MASSES OF OBJECTS USING DIFFERENT
METHODS
Object

Scaled
Mass (g)

Calibrated
Mass (g)

Calculated
Mass (g)

Full Can

390.1

469.4

469.3

2.325

Empty Can

14.8

23.4

23.3

470.4

2.325

iPhone

143.7

174.6

174.5

464.1

2.327

Table II contains the calculated mass of the full can with its respective
amplified voltage and calibrated mass from the voltage.

Table III displays measured and calculated data from Table

Table V contains the masses of three objects using three different methods.

Table VI displays the controlled and measured constants

< Section 704D>

needed to find the mass of the can. Table VII records the
variables and their uncertainties as the mass of a full can is
being calculated using Eqs. 2-9. The data represented in this
section is meaningful data. This means outliers were
discarded, as they would detract from any trends.

=E

(4)

1
c= ( h)
2

(5)

TABLE VI
CONTROLLED CONSTANTS
Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Gauge Factor

Gf

N/A

2.1

1.0510-2

Gain Factor

Af

N/A

220

0.22

GPa

69

5.010-3

Youngs Modulus
for 6061 T6
Aluminum
Beam Height

3.0710-3

1.2710-6

Beams Base

2.5410-2

1.2710-6

Length

0.171

5.010-4

Initial Delta
Amplified Voltage

VAmp

0.0

4.2910-3

Supply Voltage

VS

5.0

5.1510-3

Table VI contains controlled constants and their respective uncertainty

measured before data acquisition.
TABLE VII
CALCULATIONS TO FIND MASS OF FULL CAN WITH
RESPECITVE UNCERTAINTIES
Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Gauge Voltage

VG

6.9210-4

1.9510-5

Strain

m/m

2.6610-4

7.5510-6

Applied Stress

MPa

18.4

0.52

Distance to
Applied Load

1.5410-3

6.3510-7

Moment of
Inertia

m4

6.1210-11

7.6110-14

Moment

N-m

0.732

2.0710-2

Weight

4.28

0.122

Calculated
mcalc
g
437
125
Mass
Table VII contains the unknowns and their respective uncertainties in
calculating mass of the full can.

V Amp
Af

(2)

4VG
V SGf

(3)

V G=

1
(b h 3)
12

(6)

M=

I
c

(7)

W=

M
l

(8)

I=

mcalc =

1000 W
9.8

(9)

IV. DISCUSSION
A. Maximum Mass before Plastic Deformation
The maximum mass before plastic deformation can be
found by combining Eqs. 2-9. Eq. 10 is the equation used to
find the mass that causes plastic deformation, using the yield
stress to be 240 MPa.
(10
1000 y b h2
mdeform=
)

6 ( 9.8 ) L

The maximum mass the beam can hold before plastically

deforming is 5714 g. The objects in lab are much smaller than
this mass and, therefore, there is no worry that the beam will
plastically deform using the objects in lab.
B. Calibrated and Calculated Masses
The calibrated mass was found from the relationship
between amplified voltage and mass through the calibration
weights. The relationship is represented in Eq. 1 and Fig. 1.
Using an amplified voltage while the full can was on the
beam, in this case 2.33 V, resulted in the calibrated weight of
the full can, 469.4 grams. Using a Monte Carlo simulation and
Eq. 19 from Table IX, the uncertainty for the calibrated mass
was found to be 2290 grams.
The calculated mass is found using the data acquired and
represented in Tables VI and VII then using Eqs. 2-9. The
calculated mass was found to be 437 grams. Using Eqs. 11-18
in Table IX, the uncertainty for the calculated mass was found
to be 125.
The masses were both relatively close to each other but both
not near the 390.1g the scale measured. The errors that caused
deviations were human error that is, miscalculating values,
wiring issues, and misplacing the strain gauge on the beam.
2

< Section 704D>

These errors were repeatable and made the results precise but
not accurate. The uncertainty found from the Monte Carlo
Simulation is significantly larger than the uncertainty found
from Eqs. 11-18. While both include the scaled measure, the
calculated mass is more accurate than that of the calibrated
mass as the uncertainty is smaller.
C.Statistical Analysis of Placing Can
As seen in Table III, the mean mass after placing the full
can 10 times in the same position was 469.3 g with a standard
deviation of 2.74 g. The method for finding the masses was
based on Eqs. 2-9. This method was chosen due to its lower
magnitude of uncertainty compared to that of the Monte Carlo
Simulation method. Also, calculating the mass with Eqs. 2-9
yielded a closer mass to the value measured on the scale.
Applying a Students t-test to the data within a 95%
confidence interval, the uncertainty of the can placement is
5.38 g. The uncertainty of placement is relatively small
compared to the mass of the can and its uncertainty. Therefore,
the placement of the can was relatively the same each time.
Saying misplacing the can caused an error in the calculations
may still exist but it would be a systematic error. The
calculated mass would not change significantly from the
placement of the can but as a whole group of data may deviate
from the scaled value.
D.Gulp Size
Table VIII contains the mass of each gulp found by
differencing the corresponding values from Table IV. The
mean mass consumed in each gulp is 44.8g. The gulps were
relatively close to each other with a standard deviation of 12.3
g. The method used to calculate the masses in these
calculations used the strain calculations from Eqs. 2-9. This
method was used due to its smaller uncertainty. This gives a
more precise value, as the values will not range by more than
125 grams compared to the Monte Carlo Simulations standard
deviation of 2290 g. Therefore, low accuracy and high
precision values like those found in the strain based
calculations are more valuable than low accuracy and low
precision values found in the Monte Carlo Simulation.
TABLE VIII
MASS CONSUMED AFTER EACH GULPS
Gulp Number

Mass Consumed (g)

25.5

52.9

40.5

61.4

50.2

50.4

51.6

32.9

27.7

10

54.5

Table VIII contains the values of the mass consumed during each gulp.

E. Variations in Mass
As can be seen in Table V, as the mass of an object
increases the greater the deviation the beams calculated mass
will have from the scaled mass. The beam recorded the empty
cans weight at 23.3 g. The scale recorded the same empty can
to weigh in at 14.8 g. There is only an 8.5 g difference
between the two scales for this measurement. This is relatively
small when comparing it to the 79.2 g deviation found by
subtracting the cans full calculated weight from its scaled
weight. The reason for this is attributed to the accumulation of
error. When a small value is calculated the error tends to be a
percentage of that value. So, when a larger value is calculated
the error will be larger. These errors can range from wiring
issues to miscalculating values with in the program.
F. Recommended Improvements
Since the experiment takes place in non-ideal conditions the
measurements will never be perfect. However, there are a
couple ways to decrease the uncertainty of the mass found
using the cantilever beam. One approach is to use more
accurate instruments for measuring controlled constants.
Another approach is to reduce the amount of external factors
may affect the strain gauge. This includes vibrations from the
table, changes in air currents, and sensitivities to heat that may
be stored in the gauge. To help mitigate these issues the lab
can be conducted in an isolated environment away from air
conditioning and with a sturdier table that reduces movements.
To reduce heat that may store in the gauge is to take each mass
measurements individually rather than running the program
throughout the course of ten or more measurements. The
method of measuring done in lab is more efficient but can
cause a build up of heat in the strain gauge and cause
deviations in the values.
The weight of the beam does not affect the calibration in
this lab due to the tare instituted at the beginning of the VI
program. The tare subtracted the value of the amplified
voltage from itself when there was no weight on the beam and
zeroed the cantilever beams measurements. Any
measurements taken after the tare was induced by the weight
of an object placed and did not include the weight of the beam.

V. CONCLUSION
Measuring mass can be found using two methods when
given an amplified voltage. The first method is the calibration
method. In this method known weights and their respective
amplified voltages are arranged into an equation used in
estimating mass with a given amplified voltage. To find the
uncertainty of this method a Monte Carlo Simulation was
used. The values obtained from the calibrated method were
almost equal to those of the mechanics of materials method.
However, the uncertainty using this method was large and
made the data not precise.
3

< Section 704D>

The second method is using a mechanics of materials

approach and using Eqs. 2-9 to calculate mass. All these
calculations are done within the VI and outputted through the
DAQ. The uncertainty in this method is lower that that found
using the calibration method, but it is still relatively high. The
reason for a high uncertainty is due to combination of multiple
uncertainties resulting in increasingly larger uncertainties.
The lab is subjected to human errors therefore neither
method is precise. The results were accurate as seen in Table
III and therefore repeatability of can placement does no effect
weight. The lab can be done in the most precise and accurate
manner, thereby reducing uncertainties, if done in a controlled
environment many times.

(14)

I 2
I 2
2
U b ) 2+
(
(U h )
b
h

(15)

U c=

TABLE IX
UNCERTAINTY EQUATIONS FOR
EXPERIMENT VALUES

U =

( )

VG

U=

(U V

(U V
2

Amp

VS

cali

2
(U V ) +
S

2
2
2
U
+
U E )2
(
(
)

(U A

( )

G f

(17)

mS 2
2
(U W )
w

mcali 2
m cali
U m )2 +
(
m
V Amp

(16)

(18)
2

)(

UV

Amp

(19)

Table IX contains all the equations used to find uncertainties in this lab.

( )

( )

VG
Af

Um =

Um =

APPENDIX

VG
V Amp

calc

UV =

( )
M
M
M
= (
U ) +(
U ) +(
(
(
)
)
W c W I ) (U )
U = (
M ) (U ) +( l ) (U )
UI =

UM

c 2
U h) 2
(
h

(11)
2

( ) (U

(12)
G

(13)

REFERENCES

[1]
[2]

University of Florida Canvas Site. EML 3301C Mechanics of

Materials Laboratory 2 Summer 2016; Cantilever Beam: Strain
Measurement, Load, Uncertainty. Gainesville, FL. Ridgeway, Shannon.
University of Florida Canvas Site. EML 3301C Strain Gage Mounting
Steps: 1/4 Bridge. Gainesville, FL. Ridgeway, Shannon.