Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Nick Leach
Group 3A
are all derived from stress, strain and electrical equations for simple circuits.
For example, to find the theoretical bending stress we use the equation
Mc
σ= where M is the moment ( M = Px) , c is the height of the material,
I
1 3
rectangular beam, so I = bh where b is the length of the base and h is the
12
σ
thickness (2c). Young’s Modulus is calculated as usual, E = (if you didn’t
ε
∆L
know), where σ is the calculated stress and ε is the calculated strain … in
L
εT
case you were wondering. Poisson’s Ratio will be implemented as υ = −
εL
calculate the theoretical strain at the location of the longitudinal strain gage
3δcd
we use the tip-deflection data and calculate ε = at any distance d from
L3
the tip, where L is the length of the beam, c is half the thickness t, and δ is the
this section.
10000
y = 13.75x - 210.74
2
8000 R = 0.9935
6000
σ (ksi)
Experimental Data
4000
Young's Modulus (E)
2000
0
0 200 400 600 800
-2000
ε L (µε)
3000
σ (ksi)
Experimental Data
2000
Young's Modulus (E)
1000
0
0 200 400 600
-1000
ε L (µε)
200
y = 0.3265x - 0.873
180 2
R = 0.9993
160
140
120
ε T (µε)
70
60 y = 0.0869x - 0.3379
2
R = 0.9712
50
40
ε T (µε)
Experimental Data
30
Poisson's Ratio
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800
-10
ε L (µε)
COMPOSITE BEAM
υ calculated υ given % Diff.
(%)
0.0869 0.0925 6.054054
Table 6: Percent Difference of Poisson’s Ratio for Composite Beam
ALUMINUM BEAM : 7075-T6
ε (
P εL εT δ Theoretical)
(lbs) (µε) (µε) (in) ε=3δcd/L^3
0 0 0 0 0
0.5 114 33 0.05 0.122167969
1 221 69 0.1 0.244335938
1.5 327 105 0.15 0.366503906
2 440 140 0.2 0.488671875
2.5 547 178 0.25 0.610839844
Table 7: Calculated Theoretical Strain for Aluminum
• Conclusions:
As you can see, in Tables 3 and 4, the percent differences for Young’s
Modulus in Aluminum and the Composite Beam are very bad (i.e. much too
large). I do NOT know why this is and I’m tired of fooling with it so it will stay
large. It’s obviously an error on my part while computing with Microsoft Excel,
In tables 5 and 6, the percent difference for Poisson’s Ratio was better than
for Young’s Modulus, but still each value is not less than five percent. I think the
A− B
% Diff = ⋅ 100% , where A is the accepted value and B is the calculated
A
value.
Looking at tables 7 and 8 you can see that the theoretical strain doesn’t
Wheatstone Bridge, first we must make sure that the bridge is balanced and
calibrated at E=0 when there is no load so that the resistors in series are directly
R2 R3
related and equal as their ratios ( = ) . Then the undesirables can be safely
R1 R4
eliminated by arranging the bridge circuit by alternating dummy and active
measurement by directly affecting the output for different arrangements. The axial
and transverse strains will be eliminated, added and/or doubled to facilitate the
adding an unloaded “dummy” gage to the material in series with the active gage,
Vr ∆R1
yielding a simplified form for a single active gage, ∆E = but only
(1 + r ) 2 R1
when ∆T=0.
Appendix:
All supplementary data referred to in the report (i.e. handouts, raw data,