Ramit Gupta

MEE 322
Lab #2: Bending and Torsion of Cantilever Structures
Experiment Date: 10/18/2017
Due Date: 11/1/2017
Objectives:

This lab’s purpose was to conduct a simultaneous bending and torsion tests on a 2024-T3
Aluminum structure positioned in a cantilever configuration. Once the test is complete, strain
data along with known length and diameter are used to complete detailed mathematical analysis
about the properties of the material, the moduli, and graphical representation of variations in
stress due to bending. The goal of the experiment is to find E (Young’s Modulus) and G (Shear
Modulus). All findings, comparisons between theoretical and actual values, behaviors of
materials, and errors are discussed in this technical report to prove the success or failure in this
experiment.

Abstract:

This experiment is setup with a moment arm positioned far from the middle towards the
end of the circular cross section tube with an applied load somewhere on that arm itself. The
corresponding moduli of Aluminum 2024-T3 are found with minimal errors, only due to random
and systematic errors. The load P applied on the cantilever beam was designated so that both
moment and torsion could be measured and found to calculate E and G. After all mathematical
analysis concluded, a linear regression model proves the accuracy of the data with R2 and the
data is compared to accepted values. As the arm length where the load is applied increases,
torsion increases, which is true in reality. This meant that the experiment was a success and can
be used to satisfy the theory of bending and twisting forces to the modulus of Aluminum.

Data analysis:

Recorded Data: Max bending arm length: 0.1125 m

Max torsion arm length: 0.15 m
Strain Gauge 2: maximum shear strain due to torsion
Strain Gauge 3: maximum normal strain due to bending

Force (lbs.) Force (N) Micro-Strain Micro-Strain

Gauge 3 Gauge 2
5.586408 24.84958 13.464355 -19.967773
10.014436 44.54643 21.019531 -36.10791
15.074233 67.05353 31.546875 -54.27002
20.350374 90.52297 41.689453 -72.704102
25.598164 113.86631 51.144043 -92.383301
30.782888 136.929107 61.34668 -111.23877
35.622341 158.456067 70.655273 -129.578125
41.127216 182.942970 81.63623 -149.21582
46.538937 207.015505 95.679199 -169.598145
51.59758 229.51747 106.984863 -189.54834
Statics Calculations:

𝑀𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑇𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜎𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒3 = = 𝐸 ∗ 𝜀𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒3 ; 𝜏𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒2 = = 2𝐺 ∗ 𝜀𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒2
𝐼 𝐼𝑝
𝜋
𝐼 = 64 (27.54 − 12.54 ) = 26875.3434 𝑚𝑚4 = 2.6875 ∗ 10−8 𝑚4 𝑀 = 0.1125𝑃
𝜋
𝐼𝑝 = 32 (27.54 − 12.54 ) = 53750.6868 𝑚𝑚4 = 5.3751 ∗ 10−8 𝑚4 𝑇 = 0.15𝑃
𝑀𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 (0.1125)(𝑃)(0.01375)
𝐴𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝜎𝑥𝑥 = = = 𝑃(5.7558 ∗ 104 ) 𝑃𝑎
𝐼 2.6875∗10−8
𝑇𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑃)(0.15)(0.01375)
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝜎𝑥𝑦 = = 𝑃(3.8371 ∗ 104 ) 𝑃𝑎
𝐼𝑝 5.3751∗10−8

Plots Below Represent Stress vs. P and Strain vs. P for shear and axial conditions
Plots Below Show Regression Line with Stress vs. Strain line plotted on the same plot

Shear Stress vs. Strain Diagram

𝑅 2 : 0.9999
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑖𝑡: 𝑓(𝑥) = (−4.648 ∗ 1010 )𝑥 + (5.638 ∗ 104 );
4.648∗1010
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐺 = = 2.324 ∗ 1010 𝑃𝑎 = 𝟐𝟑. 𝟐𝟒 𝑮𝑷𝒂
2
Axial Stress vs. Strain Diagram
𝑅 2 : 0.9999
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑖𝑡: 𝑓(𝑥) = (6.603 ∗ 1010 )𝑥 − 1.045 ∗ 105 ;
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐸 = 6.603 ∗ 1010 = 𝟔𝟔. 𝟎𝟑 𝑮𝑷𝒂
Comparison to Literature Values:
𝐸: 73.1 𝐺𝑃𝑎 % Difference: 9.67%
𝐺: 28 𝐺𝑃𝑎 % Difference: 17%

3-D Sketch of the variation of Shear/Normal stress due to Torsion/Bending along the radius:
Conclusion:

In this experiment, the theory that developed revolved around load P and the elastic
properties Young’s modulus E and shear modulus G. In a cantilever orientation of 2024-T3
Aluminum, the shear and normal stresses were true as seen on the stress-strain diagrams for both
bending and twisting conditions. Although the values are not as accurate as accepted in the real
world, there was a considerable systematic and random error measured in this lab between
experimental and accepted values. The systematic error occurs with the equipment, mainly the
machine used to measure the arm length and gauge length as well as the applied load and strain
on the cantilever beam. The machine has undergone major changes and over time, reports stress
and strain at differing values, providing for a systematic error. This is a harder error to fix, and
the measurement can only become better by correcting the random error. Despite these errors, a
value of R2 of nearly 1 shows that the data was a perfect fit, minimizing the error further. The
random error was the error in measurement and is corrected by taking more than just 10 values
of strains for bending and normal conditions. The 3-d plot shows that as radius changes in the
cosine and sine directions, a single applied load has a large variation in both x and y direction for
bending and twisting conditions. With this visualization, a more precise corroboration of the
stress-strain relation with a given internal load can be applied to formulate theories and
mathematical models that are used in structural mechanics.