ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Strain gauge Rosette

Objective

(1) To become familiar with the use of a strain gauge rosette and hence determine the magnitude
and direction of the principal strains.
(2) To become familiar with the construction of Mohr’s strain circle, from which to determine the
magnitude and direction of the principal strains.
(3) To determine the elastic constants, E, v, for a given steel specimen.

Apparatus

 Oslen testing machine.

 Tensile specimen with 45o rosette oriented at an angle (15o) to the bar axis.
 Tinsley 10 channel strain gauge conditioning equipment.

Figure 1a: Oslen testing machine Tensile specimen with

Figure 2: Diagram of tensile specimen with 45 o rosette
45o rosette oriented at an angle (15o) to the bar axis)

Data:
Cross sectional dimensions of specimen: 50.7 mm x 6 mm
Conversion factor: 1 kN = 224.81 lbf

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Procedure:
(1) Ensure that the Tinsley 10 channel unit is set to 1
4 bridge volts, and the gauge factor set
to 2.1.
(2) Zero each gauge with no load using slotted potentiometers.
(3) Monitor each gauge in turn, and measure strain gauge reading for increments of load from
zero to 4000 lbf in increment of 400 lbf.
(4) Plot strain ( 1, 2, 3) for each gauge against load of the same set of axis’s.
(5) Select a load and pick off three strains from your graph.
(6) Using these strains and the gauge arrangement, construct Mohr’s strain circle.
Note: (Eq.(2.21, page 101 of the lecture notes)
Please refer to page 99-100 of the lecture notes for the construction of the Mohr’s strain circle.

(7) From your strain circle, determine

(a) The principal strains
(b) The direction of the maximum principal strain relative to gauge 1, and check with
the gauge alignment on the specimen.
(c) E: using the load selected and the bar cross-section, combined with the maximum
principal strain.
(d) Determine the Poisson’s ratio from the ratio of the principal strains.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Results

Load Stress Strain (x10-6) Mohr Circle Results

(N/m2) (only for the selected load)
Gauge A Gauge B Gauge C
lbf N On Off Mean On Off Mean On Off Mean Emax Emin E (GPa) v
(x10-6) (x10-6)
0 0 0 0 8 4 0 4 2 0 -14 -7

400 1779.29 5849080 36 49 42.5 25 32 28.5 -7 -22 -14.5

800 3558.58 11698159 69 81 75 48 52 50 -14 -30 -22

1200 5337.866 17547226 101 113 107 70 75 72.5 -22 -33 -27.5

1600 7117.155 23396302 133 142 137.5 91 93 92 -28 -36 -32

2000 8896.443 29245375 162 170 166 112 113 112.5 -35 -39 -37

2400 10675.73 35094444 193 199 196 132 132 132 -41 -42 -41.5

2800 12455.02 40943524 222 225 223.5 152 151 151.5 -48 -44 -46

3200 14234.31 46792604 248 250 249 171 168 169.5 -44 -49 -46.5

3600 16013.6 52641683 275 277 276 187 186 186.5 -51 -53 -52 310 -50 169.81 0.19

4000 17792.89 58490763 300 300 300 204 204 204 -58 -58 -58

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Gauge A
350
y = 0.0177x
300

250
Strain (x10-6)

200

150

100

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Load (N)

Figure 3: The relaitionship between strain and load using mean figures for gauge a

Gauge B
250

y = 0.012x
200
Strain (x10-6)

150

100

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Load (N)

Figure 4 The relationship between strain and load using mean figures for gauge b

Gauge C
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-10

-20
Strain (x10-6)

-30

-40

-50

-60
y = -0.0036x
-70
Load (N)

Figure 5 The relationship between strain and load using mean figures for gauge c

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

For 3600 lbf load,

A= εx = 276 × 10-6
B = εb = 186.5 × 10-6
C = εy = -52 × 10-6

𝜸𝒙𝒚 = 𝟐𝒆𝒙 − 𝒆𝒙 − 𝒆𝒚

𝛾𝑥𝑦 = (2 × 186.5) − 276 − (−52)

𝛾𝑥𝑦 = (2 × 186.5) − 276 + 54

𝜸𝒙𝒚 = 𝟏𝟒𝟗 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔

Maximum Shear Stress

𝜸𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝜺𝒙 − 𝜺𝒚 𝟐 𝜸𝒙𝒚 𝟐
= √( ) +( )
𝟐 𝟐 𝟐

2 2
𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥 276 × 10−6 + 52 × 10−6 ) 149 × 10−6
= √( ) +( )
2 2 2
𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥
= 180.13 × 10−6
2
𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (180.13 × 10−6 )2

𝜸𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟑𝟔𝟎. 𝟐𝟔 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔

Principle Strain

𝜺𝒙 + 𝜺𝒚 𝜺𝒙 − 𝜺𝒚 𝟐 𝜸𝒙𝒚 𝟐
𝜺𝟏,𝟐 = ± √( ) +( )
𝟐 𝟐 𝟐

2 2
276 × 10−6 + (−52 × 10−6 ) 276 × 10−6 − (−52 × 10−6 ) 149 × 10−6
𝜀1,2 = ± √( ) +( )
2 2 2

2 2
276 × 10−6 + 52 × 10−6 ) 276 × 10−6 + 52 × 10−6 ) 149 × 10−6
𝜀1,2 = ± √( ) +( )
2 2 2

𝜺𝟏 = 𝟑𝟒𝟒. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔

𝜺𝟐 = −𝟏𝟔. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Mohr’s Strain Circle (for 3600 lbf load)

Point A: (276, 74.5)

Point B: (-52, -74.5)

Figure 6: Mohr’s Circle

𝜸𝒙𝒚
𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝑨 = (𝜺𝒙 , )
𝟐
𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝑨 = (𝟐𝟕𝟔, 𝟕𝟒. 𝟓)

Then you need to work out point B:

𝜸𝒙𝒚
𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝑩 = (𝜺𝒚 , − )
𝟐
𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝑩 = (−𝟓𝟐, −𝟕𝟒. 𝟓)
𝜺𝒙 + 𝜺𝒚
𝑪𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒊𝒓𝒍𝒄𝒆, 𝑪 =
𝟐
276 + (−52)
𝐶=
2
𝑪 = 𝟏𝟏𝟐, (𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝟎, 𝟏𝟏𝟐)

 From the diagram, εmax and εmin are estimated at 310 and -50 respectively
 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥 is 320 x 10-6
 The angle I measured from the Mohr’s Circle was 𝟐𝟖𝒐 . Hence 𝟐𝜽 = 𝟐𝟖𝒐, 𝜽 = 𝟏𝟒°

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Calculating the Stress (𝝈):

𝑭
𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 =
𝑨
16013.6𝑁
=
304.2 × 10−6

𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 = 𝟓𝟐. 𝟔𝟒 × 𝟏𝟎𝟔 𝑵/𝒎𝟐

Calculating the Young’s Modulus:

𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔
𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈′ 𝒔 𝑴𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒍𝒖𝒔 (𝑬) =
𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏
𝜎
=
𝜀𝑚𝑎𝑥
52.64 × 106
=
310 × 10−6

= 𝟏𝟔𝟗. 𝟖𝟏 𝑮𝒑𝒂

Poisson’s Ratio:
𝝐𝒚 = −𝒗𝝐𝒙
𝜖𝑦
𝑣=−
𝜖𝑥
−52 × 10−6
𝑣=−
276 × 10−6
52 × 10−6
𝑣=
276 × 10−6
𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗

Determining the Poisson Ratio using the Principle Strains:

𝜺𝟏 = 𝟑𝟒𝟒. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔
𝜺𝟐 = −𝟏𝟔. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔
−(−𝟏𝟔. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔 )
𝒗 =
𝟑𝟒𝟒. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔
𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

 ENGD2007- Strength of Materials

Conclusion

The experimental values for 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥 is calculated as 𝟑𝟔𝟎. 𝟐𝟔 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔 . The 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥 value obtained from
Mohr’s circle is 320 x 10-6. This has resulted in a difference of 40.26, with a percentage error of
11.18%.

The Poisson’s ratio value obtained using the plane stress results is 0.19. Using principal strain the
Poisson’s ratio was calculated as 0.05. These results are different as one occurs under perpendicular
conditions and the other at an angle.

Another value to consider are the angles obtained from Mohr’s circle. The value of the angle is 28 o,
resulting to 𝜽 = 14o. This should be 45o, thus resulting in an error of 68.89%.

The errors above could be the cause of many results not matching the theoretical values. One of the
main errors could be the creation of the Mohr’s circle diagram. As this was drawn by hand, this
method could result in many errors to the end result if not drawn carefully. The problem could have
developed from many parts of the diagram like from the circle itself to the spacing of the axis and its
straightness. The circle could have been created using a computerised tool to model the circle with
more precision and reduce the errors caused by drawing it free hand. The results could have been
very different to the ones obtained by the diagram.

Apparatus error could have been caused by the manufacturer of the mechanisms used whilst
carrying out the experiment, as well as the person/people looking after the equipment. The tools
used could have been damaged or not to the specification required for the experiment to be carried
out successfully. The manufacturer could have certain tolerances to the parts of the Olsen testing
machine and therefore the weights within the mechanism could have been different to what the
machine displays to the user.

Random error could be caused by the user making a mistake whilst carrying out the experiment and
therefore could result in very large anomalies. A mistake could cause a missed result or not
balancing the device properly and therefore leading to an error in the results. To avoid this type of
error, the experiment could be repeated at least 3 times for each gauge, however this would lead to
a very long experiment which could increase the error occurrence.

Hysteresis error would occur if the apparatus was not maintained and was damaged due to this. The
Olsen testing machine could have internal damage to which could not be seen and accessed.
Another part of the machine could be the belt used to turn the device; the belt could have been
loosened/stretched by overall use in the past and therefore could be unsynchronised with the
weights to the display, and therefore the user would be unable to carry out an experiment with
correct values.

Parallax error is a big possibility to the large error occurrence as the experiment heavily depended
on the user reading the figures from the machine, and the figures were displayed to the person’s
eyes in different angles to where he/she was standing; reading values for the force applied could
have been an issue as the marks and text were small, yet was read at an angle causing the parallax.
Another huge parallax error could have been caused whilst levelling the device as per the
instructions. This was tricky and resulted in many twists of the lever. The person making sure the
device was level could have been obstructed from a clear view etc. All the errors mentioned above
could have had an adverse effect towards the results, causing the significant percentage error.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444