STRUCTURAL MECHANICS T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

---------& DYNAMICS 3---------

MECHANICS
ABSTRACT ................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 2
2. THEORY ................................................................. 2
2.1 VERTICAL DEFLECTION ....................................... 2
2.2 HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION .................................. 2

Experiment 2: 3. APPARATUS .......................................................... 2

4. METHODOLOGY ................................................. 2
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP ....................................... 2
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE............................... 3
5. RESULTS ................................................................ 3

Calibration of 6. ANALYSIS .............................................................. 3

7. DISCUSSION .......................................................... 3

Proving
8. APPENDIX .............................................................. 4
8.1 RAW DATA .......................................................... 4
8.1.1 Deflections .................................................... 4
8.1.2 Dimensions ................................................... 4
8.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS ..................................... 4

Ring
8.2.1 Area Moment of Inertia ................................ 4
8.2.2 Theoretical Deflection .................................. 4
8.3 ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................... 4
8.4 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 4

A BSTRACT
0900 1200
TUESDAY 14TH NOVEMBER 2017

This report aims to investigate the calibration of a proving

ring, by comparing the horizontal and vertical deflections
of a steel proving ring under loading, with a proposed
theoretical formula to predict the deflection via
Group 22:
Castigilanos First Theorem. Jessica Li
Deflection data was generated by fixing the ring to an Ivan Chan
Avery Universal Tensile Test machine, while both
increasing and decreasing the load. The data was
Isla Du Boulay
tabulated and analysed with the aid of a MATLAB Emil Hansen
generated graph.

It was shown that the theoretical formula had successfully

predicted the linear nature of the pattern the relationship
between deflection and applied load. Some match in data
could be seen however further improved accuracy is
essential due to the precise requirements of a proving
ring. It is suggested that a correction scaling factor should
be applied for both deflections. J E S S I C A L I S 1605860
1
 1. I NTRODUCTION = position on structure

=>
= is combined with this by taking the partial derivative
=?@
A =? =?
Different materials form the fundamental building bricks of of 5 to give ( 5 ) = 2 , where = 1.
A?@ =?@ =?@
the physical world. It is then without a doubt that the
<
calculation of their strengths and the measurement of various 5 1
loads becomes crucial factors of consideration. They can be = = = $ 5
$ ; $ 2 2
determined precisely with a proving ring which consists of
(1) a steel ring with (2) and internal diameter measuring By considering the form of the resulting deformation, there is
system composed of screws and a vibrating plate. Uncertainty GH
no actual end rotation; so = 0, giving $ = . Here, the
should range from only 0.075% to 0.0125% [1] thus, the <
G
correct calibration of the ring itself (via loading) becomes very applied load = and Castiglianos 1st Theorem is applied.
5
important in order to be viable for its scientific and industrial
uses; as well as obtaining theoretical predictions of the <
<
5 2 5
deflections resulting from calibration. The latter component of I = 2 =2 =
; 2 ;
the proving ring is therefore omitted from the experimental set <
up, as only the steel ring itself is being investigated. 2 5
I = sin sin
; 2 2
Thus, the aim of this report is to compare the horizontal and
vertical deflections resulting from external loading during
= = .
calibration, with a theoretical prediction stemming from
Castiglianos Theorem in order to explore its suitability. The
mild steel ring used has an elastic modulus of 200GPa, and 2.2 Horizontal Deflection,
was loaded with an Avery Universal Tensile Test machine that There is no such external horizontal
is used for a range of tensile/compression tests on different force = at the point of interest.
materials and structures. Therefore, a fictitious horizontal force
that will later be set to 0 is applied as
below, via the fictitious load method.
2. T HEORY
This gives a new bending moment of
Figure 2: Free
body diagram with
As deflections at various points of a loaded structure is fictitious force [2] Z = sin $ + (1 cos )
2
measured, Castiglianos First Theorem is applied, which states
that, Following 2.1, it can be shown that the horizontal deflection is,

= , =
$ = = .

2.1 Vertical Deflection,
Due to symmetry, consider only half of the
ring, giving half the applied force F at F/2 at
3. A PPARATUS
each of the loading points. There will also be
an external moment, Mo, acting to ensure the
points of loading remain horizontal. The 1. Mild steel proving ring (without internal measuring
direct stresses due to axial force negligible system) that is being calibrated
in comparison. 2. Dial Gauge with link for securing the dial gauge onto the
proving ring. This gives a precise measurement of gap
This implies that the structure can be widths which is the resulting deflections in this
modelled as one that is deforming under a experiment
bending moment, M, which is a function of 3. A venire calliper and metre stick for taking various
, the position on the ring. measurements of the proving ring
Figure 1: Free 4. Avery Universal Tensile Test machine, where the proving
body diagram of
= sin $ ring will be fixed and loaded through a lever. The force
half the ring [3] 2 reading is given by a digital display.
M can be related to the strain energy by

:
5
<
5 5 4. M ETHODOLOGY
= =
; 2 ; 2

where = strain energy,

= bending moment of beam 4.1 Experimental Set-up
= Elastic modulus (200GPa for mild steel) The steel ring was fixed within the loading dimples of the
= Area Moment of Inertia of a cross section of the Avery machine. Then, the dial gauge was also fixed as in
beam, parallel to the direction of loading

2
Figure 3 to measure vertical deflection, and then moved
accordingly to measure the horizontal deflection.
Figure 3: Set-up of ring and
dial gauge within the Avery
test machine. [2] Here the
dial gauge is in line with the
axis of loading, for the
measurement of the vertical
deflection.
4.2 Experimental Procedure
1. The outer diameter of the steel ring was measured 3
times across different angles with the metre stick, to give
an average of 404mm
2. Similarly, the depth and thickness of the steel ring was
taken 3 times, at different points around the ring with
venire calipers
3. A light compression was applied to the ring initially to
ensure its secured position on the supports. The load
applied was zeroed in this position.
4. The load was increased to 0.50kN by pressing the lever
on the machine. A momentary pause to allow the applied
load to settle to 0.50 exactly was given, before noting
down the deflection reading from the dial gauge.
5. Step 4 was repeated for loads 0.50 to 5.00kN in 0.50kN
increments and 6kN, before load was decreased likewise
from 5.00kN to 0.50kN in the same 0.50kN increment.
The deflection from releasing the load was taken to ensure
that during the compression process, the yield point had
not been reached.
6. The dial gauge was then moved 90 to a horizontal
position, perpendicular to the axis of loading Step 4 and 5
were then repeated to generate horizontal measurements.
5. R ESULTS
Figure 4: MATLAB graph of measured horizontal and vertical
deflections, with their respective lines of best fit and their
theoretical counter parts. Data given in Section 8.1
The collected data was found to have an intercept of
deflections of 0.0222mm horizontally and 0.0231mm
vertically, as given by the MATLAB function polyfit().
The gradients of the lines of best fit were 0.0967 and 0.1069
respectively.
6. A NALYSIS
The data was analysed by comparing theoretical to measured
data visually, by plotting the results into a graph as in Figure
4. The plotted measured deflection data both horizontally and
vertically shows near complete overlap between the deflection
values of each force during increasing and decreasing load
suggesting that the ring was under elastic deformation during
the entire experiment. This can be seen also in the raw data, in
Section 8.1.
Lines of best fit were fitted for the 2 sets of measured data,
which allowed for analysis of correlation and precision, as
well as the detection of any systematic errors. The elastic
deformation was further supported by the linear correlation
and low dispersion from the linear line of best fit (in red and
blue). The tightly fitted data indicates that the results taken
were highly precise, showing that the experimental procedure
was very reliable.
7. D ISCUSSION
Figure 4 illustrates clearly that the measured deflections were
linear in correlation, matching the linear gradient of the
theoretical data. This shows that the core of the theory is
correct. However, most evidently, there is a poor match of the
actual gradients of the lines which results in the errors
becoming more and more prevalent with increasing applied
force. This shows that while measured results were precise and
of high quality, they are of low accuracy compared with the
theoretical expectations.
The theoretical vertical gradient can be shown to be G =
0.1239, compared to the fitted gradient of 0.1069; the
theoretical horizontal gradient is G = 0.1138, compared to the
fitted gradient of 0.0967. The difference in theoretical and
fitted is near identical at 0.0170 and 0.0171 respectively. This
suggests that the theoretical formulas are missing some
constant factor and require adjustment. The most probable
source of error here is the modelling of the ring as simply a
thin ring i.e., that of negligible thickness, with the radius
taken as the outer radius. The results suggest that for the
dimensions of the ring used for this experiment, the
approximation is inadequate, with the depth of the ring at
5c.;d
25.04mm which accounts for 5;5 = 12.40% of the radius.
Thus, the theoretical derivations should be modified to
account for an outer and inner radius, 5 and g . Alternatively,
a much less general approach would be to apply an empirically
obtained scaling factor, specific to the dimensions of this ring
to the theoretical deflection equations. Here, it was found that
using R = 194mm rather than the true 202mm gave the best fit,
ghd i
which implies a scaling factor of 5;5 = 0.8858 to both
equations to account for the thickness of the ring.
The precision of the results demonstrates the precise
measuring instruments, with very low reading and random
uncertainties, as in Section 8.1.2. Thus, very additional
3
sources of error could have occurred due to equipment. An as the calculated average value and corresponding random
intercept of 0.0222mm horizontally and 0.0231mm vertically uncertainty
;.;555
at 0kN is equivalent to a theoretical force of = 0.20kN
;.ggik
;.;555 Dimension Three points of Average Random Reading
horizontally and = 0.19kN vertically is present. This variables reading (mm) (mm) uncertainty Uncertainty
;.ggik
suggests a systematic error and as these values are similar 404
1mm;
again, that it was likely the same systematic error present in , Diameter 404 404 0
0.25%
both the horizontal and vertical measurements. A source of 404
error that impacted both orientations was likely a frictional 25.04
force present from the loading points. Another source is the , Depth of 25.04 to 0.003mm; 0.01mm;
25.04
orientation of the ring when fixed to the dial gauges to ring 2 d.p. 0.01% 0.04%
25.03
markings every 90. However, the slightest misalignment of 37.86
the ring at the 0 position would cause all the data to be out by , Thickness 37.83 to 0.017mm; 0.01mm;
37.83
a certain amount for both vertical and horizontal readings. of ring 2 d.p. 0.04% 0.03%
37.81
Data at same load values during increasing and decreasing of
load served as a repetition of the experiment to prove the good 8.2 Sample Calculations
reliability of the data. The experiment could benefit from
repetition with the ring flipped around or rotated, which would 8.2.1 AREA MOMENT OF INERTIA
improve the reliability of the 0 vertical starting position.
i 37.8325.04i
= =
12 12
8. A PPENDIX = 49494.63mmd

Figure 6: The cross sectional area

8.1 Raw Data perpendicular to the circular face of the
ring but parallel to the direction of F,
8.1.1 DEFLECTIONS
with its centroidal axis where I is taken
Resulting Deflections due to Applied Force (mm)
Applied Measured Z ,Theoretical Measured I , Theoretical
Force Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical 8.2.2 THEORETICAL DEFLECTION
(kN) Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection Taking applied force to be = 6.00kN, the theoretical
horizontal deflection can be calculated to be Z = 0.68mm.
0.50 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06
is 200GPa for mild steel, = 0.5 = 202mm and =
1.00 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12
49494.63mm4 as above. Note that 1GPa = 1kN/mm2.
1.50 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.19
2.00 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 i 6202i
2.50 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 Z = 0.13662 = 0.13662 = 0.68mm
20049494.63
3.00 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.37
3.50 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.43 8.3 Assumptions
4.00 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.50 A post-experiment evaluation of the appropriate-ness of both
4.50 0.46 0.51 0.50 0.56 assumptions have been discussed in Section 7.
5.00 0.50 0.57 0.55 0.62 1. The derivation of the theoretical formulas had the
6.00 0.59 0.68 0.65 0.74 underlying assumption that the ring could be
5.00 0.50 0.57 0.55 0.62 approximated as a thin ring of negligible depth dimension
4.50 0.46 0.51 0.50 0.56 d, with the radius is then taken as the outer radius of the
4.00 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.50 ring. This approximation was thought to be adequate due
3.50 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.43 to the reasonable size of the outer radius. The outer radius
3.00 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.37 was selected to be the approximate radius R, over the
r
2.50 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 middle line at because if the ring was split like so
5
2.00 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 on this middle line, then the outer half would have a
1.50 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 greater surface area to bear more stress than the inner half.
1.00 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 Thus, approximating R as the outer radius was chosen.
0.50 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 2. Friction at the loading points were assumed negligible as
Table 2: Raw data of measured deflections alongside their any resulting friction would be very small compared to
calculated theoretical counterparts, given in Section 8.2.2. the loads applied, which were in the kilo-newtons scale.
The highlighted cells are the sets with very minor discrepancy
in the same increasing and decreasing load. Reading 8.4 Bibliography
uncertainty is 0.01kN and 0.01mm. The citations used were in the IEEE style.
[1] "The Proving Ring Design", NIST. [Online]. Available:
8.1.2 Dimensions https://www.nist.gov/pml/quantum-measurement-
Figure 5: Diagram of steel ring division/mass-and-force/proving-ring-design. [Accessed: 26-
showing the dimensions to be Nov- 2017].
measured. Table 1: Tabulated [2] STRUCTURAL MECHANICS AND DYNAMICS 3 -
measurements that were taken 3 Structural Mechanics Laboratory Handbook. Edinburgh:
times at different points on the ring, School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, 2017, p. 12.
with its reading uncertainty as well [3] Lecture SM-15-16: Application of Energy Methods.
Edinburgh: School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh,
2017, pp. 14-15.
4