Final Draft 3.0

Construction of a Contact Pressure Sensor University of West Indies Mechanical Engineering Department
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
MENG 3019: FINAL YEAR PROJECT
TITLE: CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTACT PRESSURE SENSOR
SUPERVISOR: DR. J. BRIDGE
SECOND MARKER: PROF. E.I. EKWUE
THIRD MARKER: PROF. C.A.C. IMBERT
SUBMITTED BY : LOMAS PERSAD
ID# : 806000915
DATE SUBMITTED : 15/04/09
i|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to thank Prabhu Shri Ram for giving me the strength and determination
throughout the project, from beginning to end.
Secondly I would like to thank my parents and family for their resolute support and
understanding. They played a major role in the success of this project. Special thanks to my dad
Gyandeo Persad, my mom Judy Persad and my brother Artma Persad.
Thirdly, I would like to thank Dr. Bridge for affording me the opportunity of this project. She
played an important role in the successful completion of this project. Her door was always open
for advice and assistance. I sincerely thank her for that.
To my technicians Steve Ramoutar and Mr. Subransingh, I would like to thank for all their
guidance and expertise. Their time, insights and efforts made the completion of the project a
success.
Special mention must be made to Amit from the workshop who fabricated the parts needed for
the project. I thank him for the high quality work he did on the project. Also, to Sadira from
physics department who allowed me the use of their equipment whenever I needed it, I express
my deepest gratitude.
Finally, I would like to thank all my friends for their advice, warm wishes and support that I
needed to persevere through the completion of this project.
ii | P a g e
ABSTRACT
The aim of the project was to construct a pressure sensor to measure the contact pressure
between two flanges of a flange joint. The main objective was to determine the variation of
contact pressure when there is and increased pressure in the flange joint. This was done using a
voltage signal from a strain gauge and relating it to a decrease in contact pressure. The nature of
the project was such that it required a knowledge of strain gauges, instrumentation associated
with the strain gauges and a complete understanding of a bolted flange joint.
The project was design to accurately determine the variation of contact pressure of the flange
joint and predict the failure point of the joint under pressure. This was done by performing
physical test as well as modeling the joint using Solidworks, performing a finite element analysis
of the joint in Algor and comparing the results.
The objectives of the project were completed and a relationship between the voltage signal of the
sensor and the decrease in contact pressure was established. The success of this project proves
that the implementation of such a sensor to a flange joint has major benefits in understanding the
behavior of a flange joint when subjected to a buildup of pressure.
iii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... v
LIST OF GRAPHS ...................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
 1.1 RATIONALE .............................................................................................. 1
 1.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 2
 1.3 SCOPE ........................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 3

 2.1 What is Pressure .......................................................................................... 3
 2.2 Measurement Systems ................................................................................ 3
 2.3 Different technologies used in making pressure sensors ............................ 5
 2.4 Technologies for Tactile Sensing................................................................ 6
 2.5 The Flange Joint .......................................................................................... 9
 2.6 Design Factors .......................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ....................................................................................... 16

 3.1 Alternative 1.............................................................................................. 16
 3.2 Alternative 2.............................................................................................. 17
Chapter 4
FINAL DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 18

 4.1 Final design ............................................................................................... 18
 4.2 Limitations on design ................................................................................ 19
 4.3 Alternative due to Limitations .................................................................. 19
iv | P a g e
 4.4 ANALYSIS OF DESIGNS ....................................................................... 20

Chapter 5
FABRICATION .......................................................................................................... 21
 5.1 PROCESS PLAN ...................................................................................... 22
Chapter 6
INSTRUMENTATION USED ................................................................................... 26

 6.1 Strain indicator model P-350A ................................................................. 26
 6.2 Strain gauges ............................................................................................. 27
 6.3 Hounsfield tensometer connected to a computer ...................................... 28
 6.4 Plotter or Recorder .................................................................................... 29
Chapter 7
RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 30
 Test 1 ............................................................................................................... 30
 Test 2 ............................................................................................................... 34
 Test 3 ............................................................................................................... 39
 Test 4 ............................................................................................................... 41
 Test 5 ............................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 8
CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................... 45
 8.1 Bolt stiffness, Kb ....................................................................................... 45
 8.2 Joint Stiffness, Kj ...................................................................................... 47
 8.3 Preload on bolts, Fp ................................................................................... 48
 8.4 Calculation of Load Distribution using Bolt/Joint Stiffness ..................... 48
 Contact pressure-Voltage calibration curves .................................................. 51
Chapter 9
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE FLANGE JOINT .................................... 53

Chapter 10
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 56
v|Page
Chapter 11
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 59
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 60
Appendix A -Pictures .................................................................................................. 61
Appendix B –Drawings............................................................................................... 67
Appendix C - Results .................................................................................................. 75
Appendix D -Calculations........................................................................................... 87
vi | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Instrument model with amplifier, analog to digital converter, and computer output ....... 4
Figure 2 showing a typical Capacitive Sensor (Reprinted from Measurement, Instrumentation
and Sensors handbook) ................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 showing a Piezoelectric transducer (Reprinted from Measurement, Instrumentation and
Sensors handbook) .......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 application of strain gauge to flange joint ...................................................................... 10
Figure 5 showing a typical Bonded Foil Strain Gauge ................................................................ 12
Figure 6 showing the Wheatstone Bridge circuit (reprinted from sensors and Transducers) ...... 13
Figure 7 showing the application of a strain gauge with temperature compensation (reprinted
from National Instruments website).............................................................................................. 13
Figure 8 Illustrating Alternative design 1 (created in solidworks) .............................................. 16
Figure 9 Illustrating the alternative design 2 (created in solidworks) .......................................... 17
Figure 10 Illustrating the application of the strain gauge (created in solidworks) ....................... 18
Figure 11 The Strain indicators used ............................................................................................ 26
Figure 12A shows the strain gauge connected to the leads of the indicator Figure 11B shows
the equivalent circuit ..................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 13 shows the strain gauge connected in a quarter bridge configuration............................ 27
Figure 14 Shows the Hounsfield Tensometer ............................................................................... 28
Figure 15 shows the Plotter used to record the voltage signal ...................................................... 29
Figure 16 Showing the order in which the bolts were tightened .................................................. 34
Figure 17 shows the mesh of the CAD model in Algor ................................................................ 53
Figure 18 location of the fixed boundary condition...................................................................... 53
Figure 19 Location of the externally applied force ....................................................................... 54
Figure 20 shows the preload applied to the bolts .......................................................................... 55
Figure 21 shows the application of rigid boundary conditions to the flanges .............................. 55
vii | P a g e
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1 Force vs Extension .......................................................................................................... 31

Graph 2 Force vs Voltage ,V1 ....................................................................................................... 31
Graph 3 Force vs Voltage ,V2 ....................................................................................................... 32
Graph 4 Force vs Extension .......................................................................................................... 32
Graph 5 Force vs Voltage,V1 ........................................................................................................ 33
Graph 6 Force vs Voltage, V2 ....................................................................................................... 33
graph 7 Force vs Extension ........................................................................................................... 34
graph 8 Force vs Voltage, V1 ........................................................................................................ 35
graph 9 Force vs Voltage, V2 ........................................................................................................ 35
graph 10 Force vs Extension ......................................................................................................... 36
graph 11 Force vs Voltage, V1 ...................................................................................................... 36
graph 12 Force vs Voltage, V2 ...................................................................................................... 37
graph 13 Force vs Extension test 3 ............................................................................................... 40
graph 14 Force vs Extension test 3 ............................................................................................... 40
graph 15 Force vs Extension test 4.1 ............................................................................................ 42
graph 18 Force vs Voltage test 5.2................................................................................................ 44
graph 19 Shows the Contact pressure vs Voltage quadratic relationship .................................... 51
graph 20 shows the linear model of the contact pressure-voltage relationship ............................ 52
viii | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 showing the calculation for the weighting of each criterion ............................................ 20
Table 2 Illustrating the justification for choosing final design ..................................................... 20
Table 3 showing five main part groups of the design ................................................................... 21
Table 4 Process plan for the flanges ............................................................................................. 23
Table 5 Process Plan for the angle iron ........................................................................................ 24
Table 6 Process Plan for the Sensor Strip ..................................................................................... 25
Table 7 Showing calculated joint stiffness from test 1 and 2 ....................................................... 38
Table 8 Shows the comparison of K values from test 3 and 2 ...................................................... 40
Table 9 shows the voltage reading from test 3 ............................................................................. 41
Table 10 Shows the Voltage result from test 4 ............................................................................. 43
ix | P a g e
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 RATIONALE
Sensors are used extensively in industries because of the many advantages they offer.
Sensors offer the ability to sense a specified parameter and produce a signal that can be used for
processing in a control system. Pressure sensors are one of the most popular sensors in the
industry. They are used to monitor pressure thereby providing information on when the system
might fail. Because of the high pressures of fluids in an industry, failure can be devastating hence
better sensing systems needs to be implemented.
With advances in technology, it has become easy to apply sensors to a wide array of
applications. In this project, a pressure sensor is being designed for sensing the contact pressure
between two flanges, which can form the key component in a more efficient and better pressure
management system than existing methods. Conventionally, a technician would have to
periodically check the bolts holding the flanges together and ensure that there are no leaks but an
integrated sensor can provide real time information about the variation in pressure between the
flanges. This can provide a more efficient and reliable system to prevent failure, thereby saving
time wasted by the technician on “useless” maintenance checks among other things. The contact
pressure sensor would determine the contact pressure between two flanges using a transducer
which produces a signal. Using this signal a value is then displayed for monitoring.
Furthermore, this signal can also be integrated with other components to form a closed loop
control system which offers another advantage for using a sensor.
1|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
1.2 OBJECTIVES
 To investigate existing contact pressure sensors
 To design a user friendly sensor system to measure and output the value of the contact
pressure for the flange joint.
 To build and the test the workings of the sensor design
1.3 SCOPE
The pressure sensor would measure the contact pressure between two flat face flanges
which are operating in a typical industry. The sensors that would be considered for this
application are tactile sensors which include piezoelectric, piezoresistive and capacitive type
sensors. From these types of sensors, a suitable macro sensor would be chosen and implemented.
Also, the effects of temperature, fatigue or relaxation on the flange joint would not be
considered in this project.
2|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 What is Pressure
Pressure can be defined as the measure of force per-unit-area, acting perpendicularly to

any surface. The standard SI unit for pressure measurement is the Pascal (Pa) which is equivalent
to one Newton per square meter (N/m2). In the English system however, pressure is usually
expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
The pressure measured can be divided into three different categories: absolute pressure, gauge
pressure and differential pressure.
Absolute pressure refers to the absolute value of the force per-unit-area exerted on a
surface by a fluid. Gauge pressure is the measurement of the difference between the absolute
pressure and the local atmospheric pressure. So, the gage pressure value is measured with respect
to the atmospheric pressure. Differential pressure is simply the measurement of one unknown
pressure with reference to another unknown pressure. The pressure measured is the difference
between the two unknown pressures.
However, for purpose of this project, the pressure that is being measured would not be
any of these three categories since the pressure being measure is a contact pressure between two
solid bodies and not of a fluid.
2.2 Measurement Systems
Measurements are performed by physical devices called sensors or transducers, which

are capable of converting a physical quantity to a more readily manipulated electrical quantity
(Sinclair, 2001). Sensors, therefore, convert the change of a physical quantity (e.g. strain) to a
corresponding (usually proportional) change in an electrical quantity (e.g., voltage). Often, the
direct output of the sensor requires additional manipulation before the electrical output is
available in a useful form. For instance, there is a change in resistance resulting from a change in
the surface stresses of a material. The quantity measured by the resistance strain gauges must
3|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
first be converted to a change in voltage through a suitable circuit (the Wheatstone bridge) and
then amplified from the millivolt to the volt level. The manipulations needed to produce the
desired end result are referred to as signal conditioning. The wiring of the sensor to the signal
conditioning circuitry requires significant attention to grounding and shielding procedures, to
ensure that the resulting signal is as free from noise and interference as possible. Very often, the
conditioned sensor signal is then converted to digital form and recorded in a computer for
additional manipulation, or is displayed in some form. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the sensing
process.
Figure 1 Instrument model with amplifier, analog to digital converter, and computer output
(Reprinted from Measurement, Instrumentation and Sensors handbook)
A sensor is usually accompanied by a set of specifications that indicate its overall

effectiveness in measuring the desired physical variable. The following definitions will help in
understanding a sensor data sheet:
Accuracy: Conformity of the measurement to the true value, usually in percent of full-scale
reading.
Error: Difference between measurement and true value, usually in percent of full-scale reading
Precision: Number of significant figures of the measurement
Resolution: Smallest measurable increment
Span: Linear operating range
Range: The range of measurable values
Linearity: Conformity to an ideal linear calibration curve, usually in percent of reading or of
full-scale reading
4|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
2.3 Different technologies used in making pressure sensors

Fiber optic sensors
This technology uses the properties of fiber optics to affect light propagating in a fiber
such that it can be used to form sensors. Pressure sensors can be made by constructing
miniaturized fiber optic interferometers to sense nanometer scale displacement of membranes.
Pressure can also be made to induce loss into a fiber to form intensity based sensors.
Mechanical deflection
This technology uses the mechanical properties of a liquid to measure its pressure. Such
as, the effect of pressure on a spring system and the changes of compression of spring can be
used to measure pressure.
Strain gauge
This technology makes use of the changes in resistance that some materials experience
due to change in its stretch or strain. This technology makes use of the change of conductivity of
material when experiencing different pressures, calculates that difference and maps it to the
change of pressure.
Semiconductor piezoresistive
This technology uses the change in conductivity of semiconductors due to the change in
pressure to measure the pressure.
Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
This technology combines microelectronics with tiny mechanical systems such as valves,
gears, and any other mechanical systems all on one semiconductor chip using nanotechnology to
measure pressure.
Vibrating elements (silicon resonance, for example)
This technology uses the change in vibration on the molecular level of the different
materials elements due to change in pressure to calculate the pressure.
5|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
Variable capacitance
This technology uses the change of capacitance due to change of the distance between the
plates of a capacitor because of change in pressure to calculate the pressure.
2.4 Technologies for Tactile Sensing
For the application of a pressure sensor to measure the contact pressure between two
flanges, tactile sensors were found to be the most applicable sensors to use. The type of tactile
sensors to be considered includes;
Piezoresistive
Piezoresistive sensors (also known as strain-gage sensors) are the most common type of
pressure sensors in use today (Webster, 1999). Piezoresistive effect refers to a change in the
electric resistance of a material when stresses or strains are applied. Piezoresistive materials can
be used to make strain gages that, when incorporated into diaphragms, are well suited for sensing
the induced strains as the diaphragm is deflected by an applied pressure. The sensitivity of a
strain gage is expressed by its gage factor, which is defined as the fractional change in resistance,
(∆𝑅/𝑅)
Gauge Factor =
𝜀
Capacitive
Tactile sensors within this category are concerned with measuring capacitance or voltage,
which varies under applied load. The capacitance of a parallel-plate capacitor depends on the
separation of the plates and their areas. A sensor using an elastomeric separator between the
plates provides compliance such that the capacitance will vary according to the applied normal
load.
6|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
Figure 2 showing a typical Capacitive Sensor (Reprinted from Measurement, Instrumentation and Sensors
handbook)
When a load is applied to the transducer, the capacitor is deformed as shown in Figure 2.
The force will cause the distance between the parallel plates of the capacitor to decrease or
increase (according if the force is a compressive or tensile force), causing the capacitance to
change, also changing the voltage across the plates. The force will result in a change in h and the
voltage depends on h so, the voltage across the capacitor or the capacitance can be related to the
force applied.
𝜀𝐴 −𝑞(𝑡) ℎ 𝑞 𝑡 ℎ
C= E(t) = V(t) = − 𝐸 𝑡 𝑑ℎ =
ℎ 𝜀𝐴 0 𝜀𝐴
Where, E(t) is the instantaneous electric field

V(t) is the voltage across the plates
ε is the permittivity of the dielectric
Piezoelectric
A material is called piezoelectric, if, when subjected to a stress or deformation, it
produces electricity. Longitudinal piezoelectric effect occurs when the electricity is produced in
the same direction of the stress (Webster, 1999).
In Figure 3, a normal stress, σ ( F/A) is applied along the Direction 3 and the charges are
generated on the surfaces perpendicular to Direction 3. A transversal piezoelectric effect occurs
7|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
when the electricity is produced in the direction perpendicular to the stress. The voltage V
generated across the electrodes by the stress σ is given by:
Figure 3 showing a Piezoelectric transducer (Reprinted from Measurement, Instrumentation and Sensors
handbook)
ℎ
V= 𝑑 𝜎
𝜀
Where, d = Piezoelectric constant associated with the longitudinal piezoelectric effect

ε = Permittivity
h = Thickness of the piezoelectric material
σ =a normal stress (F/A)
Since piezoelectric materials are insulators, the transducer shown in Figure 3, can be considered
as a capacitor, from an electrical point of view. Consequently,
𝑄 𝑄
V= = ℎ
𝐶 𝜀𝐴
Where, Q = Charge induced by the stress

C = Capacitance of the parallel capacitor
A = Area of each electrode
h = Thickness of the piezoelectric material.
8|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
2.5 The Flange Joint
When assembled, a flange gasket seal or „joint” is subject to compressive pressure

between the faces of the flanges, usually achieved by bolts under load. The behavior of a flanged
joint in service depends on whether or not the tension created in the fasteners will clamp the joint
components together with a force great enough to resist failure of the seal, but small enough to
avoid damage to the fasteners, joint components, gasket etc. The clamping load on the joint is
created on assembly, as the nuts on the fasteners are tightened. This creates tension in the
fastener (preload). Although there may be some plastic deformation in the threads when a
fastener is tightened normally, especially on the first tightening, most of the joint components
respond elastically as the nuts are tightened. Effectively, the entire system operates as a spring,
with the fasteners being stretched and the other joint components being compressed.
The flange joint may fail due to the following: - Low bolting torques, over-tight bolt
loads, weak bolt materials, inadequate bolt, washer / nut lubrication, poor flange design or
materials, poor gasket cutting or storage, improper installation practices.
For the majority of materials in the flange system (including gaskets, fasteners, nuts, washers),
relaxation sets in after a fairly short time. For soft gasket materials, one of the major factors is
usually the creep relaxation of the gasket. These effects are accentuated at elevated temperatures,
with the net result that the compressive load on the gasket is reduced, or the contact pressure
between the flanges is reduced, thus increasing the possibility of a leak. Hence a system needs to
be implemented to monitor the contact pressure between the flanges. Conventional systems that
check the contact pressure sensor include periodically checking the flange joint and using
ultrasonics to determine the stresses on the fasteners.
The application of a strain gauge as part of the system would provide a great advantage in
that it would indicate real time changes in the contact pressure, which is vital in monitoring the
flange joint for failure. Figure 4 shows how the strain gauge is to be implemented.
9|Page
LOMAS PERSAD
Washers
Nut
Strip of
metal with
strain
gauge
attached
Flanges
Fastener
Gasket
Figure 4 application of strain gauge to
flange joint
So, when the flanges move apart, it would result in an elongation in the strip (that is held
using two pieces of angle iron) causing a strain, which the strain gauge would measure.
2.6 Design Factors
The strain gauge sensor was found to be the most suitable sensor for the application. This
was determined because of the fact that stress and strain of a material are easily related. Hence
once the strain of a material is determined, it can be related to a stress or pressure by applying
relevant formulae. In addition to this, a bonded foil strain gage has a number of desirable
characteristics needed to make a good pressure transducer such as;
 Small and predictable thermal effects allow accurate operation over a wide temperature
range. Compensation and correction techniques are straightforward.
 Strain gages can be creep corrected by the manufacturer to match the requirements of the
transducer designer.
 Small size and low mass allows operation over a wide frequency range and minimum
sensitivity to shock effect.
10 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
 Because the strain gage is fully bonded to the strip of metal, there are no mechanical
connections to compromise ruggedness and dynamic performance.
 It is essentially insensitive to supply voltage frequency so it can be used with AC or DC
systems.
 The cost of the strain gage is relatively low and readily available in a variety of shapes,
sizes and materials.
 Strain gages are very stable and transducers retain their calibration and performance over
extended periods of time.
 Strain gages have excellent repeatability and linearity over a wide range of strains.
The use of a capacitive sensor may not be advisable since this type of sensor would require
the plates of the capacitor to be on the face of the flange, with the gasket acting as a dielectric.
This is not ideal since any materials introduced between the flange joint other than a gasket can
greatly affect the integrity of the joint. Also the properties of the gasket material do not lend
themselves to act as a dielectric. Hence the option of a capacitive pressure sensor was not
practical.
Piezoelectric materials are very similar to the capacitive sensor in that due to the
Piezoelectric effect, the material has to be place between the application of the force as with the
Capacitive sensor in order to sense the pressure. So the same problems as mentioned above
would occur.
The Strain Gauge
When an axial force is applied to a material, it results in a change in length of the

material. Strain is defined by this change in length of the material divided by its original length.
Normal stress is found when the force is divided by the area perpendicular to the line of action of
the force. Stress and strain are related by a quantity known as Young‟s modulus of Elasticity (E)
and is given by the ratio of stress over strain.
11 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝜎
E = 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝜀
The metallic strain gauge consists of a very fine wire or, more commonly, metallic foil
arranged in a grid pattern. The grid pattern maximizes the amount of metallic wire or foil subject
to strain in the parallel direction. The cross sectional area of the grid is minimized to reduce the
effect of shear strain and Poisson Strain. The grid is bonded to a thin backing, called the carrier,
which is attached directly to the test specimen. Therefore, the strain experienced by the test
specimen is transferred directly to the strain gauge, which responds with a linear change in
electrical resistance (Sinclair, 2001).
Figure 5 showing a typical Bonded Foil Strain Gauge (reprinted from sensors and Transducers)
The strain gauge would be attached to a strip of metal which fasten to the joint by using
two pieces of angle iron on either side of the flange joint (refer to figure 8) . Therefore when the
flanges move apart the strip would elongate and the strain gauge would detect a strain
measurement. This strain measurement would be very small strain values. Therefore, to measure
the strain requires accurate measurement of very small changes in resistance.
To measure such small changes in resistance, the strain gauge is used in a bridge configuration
with a voltage excitation source. The general Wheatstone bridge, illustrated below in figure 6,
consists of four resistive arms with an excitation voltage, Vin, that is applied across the bridge.
12 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Figure 6 showing the Wheatstone Bridge circuit (reprinted from sensors and Transducers)
If the bridge output is zero then the bridge is said to be balanced, so when balanced, Vout
= 0V and for this to happen then R1R3=R2R4 must hold true.
Now if R4 is replaced by the strain gauge, then any changes in strain gauge resistance will
unbalance the bridge and produce a nonzero output voltage. This voltage signal is then
conditioned using an appropriate signal conditioning module and the result is displayed.
The Wheatstone bridge can be used to directly cancel the effect of thermal drift. If R1 is a
strain gage bonded to a specimen and R2 is a strain gage held onto a specimen with heat sink
compound (a thermally conductive grease available at any electronics store), then R1 will
respond to strain plus temperature, and R2 will only respond to temperature. Since the bridge
subtracts the output of R1 from that of R2, the temperature effect cancels.
Figure 7 showing the application of a strain gauge with temperature compensation (reprinted from National
Instruments website)
Also, by using two strain gauges in the bridge, the effect of temperature can be further
minimized. For example, Figure 7 illustrates a strain gauge configuration where one gauge is
13 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
active and a second gauge is placed transverse to the applied strain. Therefore, the strain has little
effect on the second gauge, called the dummy gauge. However, any changes in temperature will
affect both gauges in the same way. Because the temperature changes are identical in the two
gauges, the ratio of their resistance does not change, the voltage Vout does not change, and the
effects of the temperature change are minimized.
The Wheatstone bridge offer many advantages. In most cases complete temperature
compensation can be achieved over an extremely wide temperature range. By using the
computational characteristics of the bridge, electrical output can be increased by as much as four
times the output from a single gage. Also, by gage location and grid geometry the Wheatstone
bridge can cancel unwanted components involved in a measurement.
The electrical output signal from the bridge will be:
 A millivolt signal directly proportional to the applied voltage. Typically it will be 30
millivolts to a 10-volt excitation when rated pressure is applied to the transducer.
 Directly proportional to the sums and differences of the unit changes in resistances of the
four arms of the bridge.
 A linear signal with respect to the input pressure
 Directly proportional to the product of the applied voltage and the net unit change in the
resistance of all four arms.
Strain gauge measurement involves sensing extremely small changes in resistance.

Therefore, proper selection and use of the bridge, signal conditioning, wiring, and data
acquisition components are required for reliable measurements. To ensure accurate strain
measurements, it is important to consider the following:
Excitation – Strain gauge signal conditioners typically provide a constant voltage source to
power the bridge. While there is no standard voltage level that is recognized industry wide,
excitation voltage levels of around 3 and 10 V are common. While a higher excitation voltage
generates a proportionately higher output voltage, the higher voltage can also cause larger errors
because of self-heating.
Amplification – The output of strain gauges and bridges is relatively small. In practice, most
strain gauge bridges and strain-based transducers will output less than 10 mV/V (10 mV of
14 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
output per volt of excitation voltage). With 10 V excitation, the output signal will be 100 mV.
Therefore, strain gauge signal conditioners usually include amplifiers to boost the signal level to
increase measurement resolution and improve signal-to-noise ratios.
Filtering – Strain gauges are often located in electrically noisy environments. It is therefore
essential to be able to eliminate noise that can couple to strain gauges. Low pass filters, when
used in conjunction with strain gauges, can remove high-frequency noise prevalent in most
environmental settings.
Offset-Nulling Circuit – The second balancing method uses an adjustable resistance, a

potentiometer, to physically adjust the output of the bridge to zero. By varying the resistance of
potentiometer, you can control the level of the bridge output and set the initial output to zero
volts.
Shunt Calibration – The normal procedure to verify the output of a strain gauge measurement
system relative to some predetermined mechanical input or strain is called shunt calibration.
Shunt calibration involves simulating the input of strain by changing the resistance of an arm in
the bridge by some known amount. This is accomplished by shunting, or connecting, a large
resistor of known value across one arm of the bridge, creating a known change in resistance “due
to strain”. The output of the bridge can then be measured and compared to the expected voltage
value. The results are used to correct span errors in the entire measurement path, or to simply
verify general operation to gain confidence in the setup.
15 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
3.1 Alternative 1
One alternative is to use a capacitive type sensor to measure the contact pressure sensor.
A capacitive sensor measures the capacitance change due to the change in distance between the
two parallel capacitor plates. The application would be to modify the washer of the bolts holding
the flanges together so that it acts as a capacitor. When the bolts are tightened, it would result in
the compression of the washer. So if the bolts lose their tension due to creep or relaxation, the
compressive force acting on the washer would decrease and the two parallel faces of the washer
would move apart changing the voltage and capacitance of the capacitive washer. The voltage
across the washer can then be related to the compressive force or pressure acting on the washer.
Figure 8 Illustrating Alternative design 1 (created in solidworks)
Flanges Washer modified to act as a capacitor
16 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
3.2 Alternative 2
Another alternative is to use a strain gauge however the strain gauge would be on the bolt.
Since the contact pressure between the flanges is directly dependent on the compressive force
exerted by the bolts on the flanges, any strain on the bolt can be related to the contact pressure
between the flanges.
Figure 9 Illustrating the alternative design 2 (created in solidworks)
Strain gauge on body of bolt Flange Face
The problem with this design is that it may be cumbersome to attach the strain gauge to the
body of the bolt as shown when the bolts are in place since there are wires attached to the strain
gauge which carry the voltage signal.
17 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 4
FINAL DESIGN
4.1 Final design
The strain gauge would be bonded to a strip of metal that is fixed across the flange joint
using two pieces of angle iron as shown below. When the pressure in the pipes build up and
cause the flanges to move apart due to elongation of the bolts, it would result in an elongation of
the strip of metal. The strain gauge would then measure this elongation by outputting a change in
resistance. Using a Wheatstone Bridge circuit, this resistance is converted to a voltage signal.
After the voltage signal is amplified and condition, it is plotted or it can be digitized and the
value outputted to a screen. After calibration and calculation, this value can be related to the
pressure acting between the flanges.
There are two strips of metal attached to the flange around the circumference of the
flanges 180 degrees apart and they are attached to the flanges using the existing bolts for the
flange joint and the angle iron parts. So the angle iron are held in place using the existing bolts
for the flange joint while the strip of metal is bolted onto the two angle iron pieces as shown in
the figure 8. The operation of this pressure sensor design is then tested in the Strengths lab.
Figure 10 Illustrating the application of the strain gauge (created in solidworks)
Bolt Angle Iron Strip of metal with strain gauge attached
18 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
4.2 Limitations on design
There existed various external factors that applied constraints on the design and dictated
how the assembly would be designed.
Firstly, to simulate the effect of pressure build up causing the flanges move apart, the
Hounsfield Tensometer was used to pull the flanges apart. So the assembly was designed to fit in
the machine. This meant that the flanges had to be 6 inches in diameter and also a rod being
attached to each of the flanges. The purpose of the rod is used as the connecting member for the
assembly and the Tensometer and would be connected using a pin.Refer to Appendix A Picture 1
Although the flange is 6 inches in diameter, ASME B16[1].5 standards for such a Flange
size were adhered to. Refer to appendix B-drawing 2 for dimensions of the design.
Also, due to the limitation on the size of the assembly, only two strips of metal 180
degrees could be attached to the flange joint where ideally it should have been 3 such strips 120
degrees apart in order to have an accurate account of the variation of contact pressure around the
circumference of the flange joint.
4.3 Alternative due to Limitations
Initially it was thought that to overcome the problem of only 2 strips 180 degrees apart, a
flat was machined across the thickness of the flanges and holes were drilled on the thickness of
the flange to bolt the strip of metal on (refer to appendix A- picture 1), in order to have the ideal
orientation of 3 strips around the circumference. However, this design had many faults such as
the strip was too small for the strain gauge to fit also because of its small length, the tolerance
level for the hole and bolt would have to be very small for it to be sensitive enough.
So the use of the angle iron to fasten the strip of metal across the flange was considered. This
design was acceptable in that it allowed the strain gauge to fit on the strip of metal and could be
used with the existing holes and bolts of the flange joint. So the design offered an acceptable
compromise hence it was used.
19 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
4.4 ANALYSIS OF DESIGNS

PUGH MATRIX
Maintenance Cost Sensitivity Durability

Maintenance 1 0.5 2 3
Cost 2 1 3 2
Sensitivity 0.5 0.33 1 0.5
Durability 0.33 0.5 2 1
Total 3.83 2.33 8 6.5
Overall Total 20.66
Fractions 0.185 0.113 0.387 0.315
Table 1 showing the calculation for the weighting of each criterion
These criteria were chosen after analysis on the vital aspects that would make up the pressure
sensor.
 Maintenance implies how easily the sensors can be removed from the flange joint and
replaced if faulty.
 Cost takes into consideration all the components of the sensor system.
 Sensitivity is the measure of how efficient the sensor would measure the contact
pressure between the flanges.
 Durability is a measure of how long the design, once implemented, would last.
SELECTION MATRIX
Table 2 Illustrating the justification for choosing final design
Final design Alternative 1 Alternative 2

maintenance (x 0.185) 4 3 1
cost (x 0.113) 3 2 3
sensitivity (x 0.387) 3 3 4
durability ( x 0.315) 4 3 3
Total 3.5 2.89 3.01
Each design was rated against the four criterions on a scale of one to five, with one
representing a low score and five a high score in the respective criterion. From the result, it is
observed that the final design got the highest score with alternative design 2 having a close but
lower score. The reason why alternative 2 and final design were so closely rated was because
they both employ the use of a strain gauge but in a different application.
20 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 5
FABRICATION
The entire assembly consisted of 5 main part groups (refer to appendix B –Drawing 6) as shown
below.
Part Part Name Dimensions of Part Material Number of

Group Parts in the
Number Assembly
Flanges with rod  6 inches outer Mild steel
welded diameter for
flanges
 Bolt circle
diameter of 5
1 inches 2
 Bolt hole diameter
of 0.55 inches
 0.5 inch thickness
of flange
 rod length of 4
inches with an
outer diameter of 1
inch and internal
diameter of 0.6
inches at a depth of
1.2 inches.
Bolt with washer  5/8 inch Hex bolt Mild steel
and nut for the  2 inch bolt length A307 bolts
2 flange joint  11.16 inch Hex nut 4
 5/8 inch flat
washer
 0.25 inch thick Mild Steel
3 Angle Iron angle iron 4
 Width 1 inch
 Length 2 inches
 4.125 inches Mild Steel
4 Metal Strip Length 2
 0.125 inch width
Bolts with Lock  11 mm Bolt, lock Mild Steel

5 washers and Nuts washer and nut 4
for holding metal  2 inch bolt length
strip
Table 3 showing five main part groups of the design
21 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
The Fabrication process was applicable for part groups 1, 3 and 4 as the others groups required
no type of machining.
5.1 PROCESS PLAN
PART 1: THE FLANGES
Tools and Scriber, dividers, steel rule, odd leg caliper, hammer, punch, file, drill
Machinery press, vertical milling machine horizontal band saw.
Materials A half inch thick rectangular block of mild steel, one inch mild steel rod
Description  On the Rectangular block two circles of 6.3 inches was marked
off using a scriber.
 The hammer and punch were used to outline the two circles
 The circular pieces were then cut using a blow torch.
 After it was cooled, a hole of diameter 1 inch was drilled in the
center of the two circular plates using the vertical drill press.
 Two 1 inch rods were then cut to length 4.125 inches on the
horizontal band saw.
 The rod was then inserted into the hole in the circular plates and
was welded to it from the contact surface the circular plate or
flange.
 The weld was then grinded down to the surface of the flange.
22 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
 The entire flange was then mounted on the lathe and machined to
the required dimensions which included machining the contact
surface of the flange flat.
 Emery paper was then used to provide a smooth finish on the
flange contact surfaces.
 After this was done, the bolt circle of 5 inches was marked off
including the positions of the four bolt holes.
 The guide holes of 12mm were drilled in the flanges using the
vertical milling machine at each of the bolt hole position.
 Then the full diameter of 5/8” for the holes was drilled using the
drill press
 The flanges were then bolted together at which point, it was
mounted on the lathe and the internal diameter of 0.66” at a depth
of 2 inches was machined on both rods of the flange.
 The holes of diameter 5/16” were drilled on the each rod 2” away
from the end of the rod.
 Finally, all the sharp edges were filed smooth.
Table 4 Process plan for the flanges
PART 3: THE ANGLE IRON
23 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Tools and Scriber, steel rule, odd leg caliper, hammer, punch, file, drill press,
Machinery vertical band saw.
Materials Mild steel angle iron, 1/4” thick.
Description  Four one inch lengths were marked off on the angle iron.
 The angle iron was then cut to these lengths on the vertical band
saw.
 The hammer and punch were used to mark the center of two
holes on two of the faces at an angle of 90 degrees.
 The holes of diameter 0.55 inches were drilled on all four parts
using the drill press.
 Then the holes of diameter 0.24 inches were drilled on the other
face of the four parts.
 The edges were then made smooth using a file.
Table 5 Process Plan for the angle iron
PART 4: THE METAL STRIP/ SENSOR STRIP
Tools and Scriber, steel rule, odd leg caliper, hammer, punch, file, drill press,
Machinery horizontal band saw.
Materials 1/8” thick mild steel bar
Description  Two lengths of 4 1/8” were marked off on the steel bar.
 The strips of metal were then cut using on the horizontal band
saw.
 The center of the holes on each strip were measured and marked
24 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
off using the hammer and punch.

 The holes of diameter 0.24” were then drilled on the drill press
2.875” inches apart from each other.
 The edges of the strips were made smooth using a file.
 The surface of the strip was prepared by removing the scale and
using emery paper to provide a smooth finish.
 The strain gauges were then bonded to the strips of metal,
clamped in place and left overnight to dry.
Table 6 Process Plan for the Sensor Strip
25 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 6
INSTRUMENTATION USED
6.1 Strain indicator model P-350A

Manufacturer: VISHAY
Figure 11 The Strain indicators used
This strain indicator is designed primarily for use with the resistance type strain gauges
that are used in this project. The P-350A employs the null-balance principle. That is the operator
must center a null galvanometer prior to reading the output. The instrument uses a 1000 Hz
carrier; bridge excitation, rebalance circuitry and the null amplifier all operate at this carrier
frequency.
While the P-350A by itself will accept only one input (full, half or quarter bridge), it can
be used as the central indicator for a multiple channel static strain gauge data acquisition system.
For the purpose of this project, each strain gauge is connected to a strain indicator in a quarter
bridge configuration.
SPECIFICATIONS/FEATURES
Display: Direct reading inline digital display, including sign to +/- 49,999 με
Gain Factor Control: 0.10 to 10.0
Range: +/- 49,999 με
Power source: Internal battery or 115 volts AC.
26 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Dimensions: 9” W x 6-1/2” H x 7” D
Weight: 9 pounds
The gain factor was set to 2.1 and the circuit was connected as shown below.
Figure 12A shows the strain gauge connected to the leads of the indicator Figure 11B shows the equivalent circuit
Here E is the excitation voltage and E0 is the voltage reading.
6.2 Strain gauges

The property of the strain gauge is as follows.
Material Composition GF Resistivity Resistance /

(Ohm/mil-ft)
Constantan 45% NI, 55% 2.0 290 120
Cu
Figure 13 shows the strain gauge connected in a quarter bridge configuration
27 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
6.3 Hounsfield tensometer connected to a computer
Manufacturer: Tinius Olsen
Figure 14 Shows the Hounsfield Tensometer
This is a horizontal bench top testing machine for determining Tension, Compression,
Shear, Flexure and other mechanical and physical properties of materials. It has a limit of
20,000N and outputs Force-extension values to a computer.
28 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
6.4 Plotter or Recorder
Manufacturer: Kipp & Zonen
Figure 15 shows the Plotter used to record the voltage signal
The recorder has two inputs and is connected to each of the strain indicators. It is used to
plot the voltage signals from each of the quarter bridge circuits. The scale on the x axis was set to
2cm = 10mV while the speed of the movement of the graph paper was set to 0.5mm/s.
29 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 7
RESULTS
The testing was carried out using the equipment mentioned previously and five tests were
conducted.
The entire flange assembly with the sensors were mounted in the Tensometer and
secured. Then, both strain gauges were then connected to a strain indicator in a quarter bridge
configuration as shown in Figure 11A. The recorder was connected to each of the strain indicator
and the circuit was balanced using the strain indicator.
Each test that was done was repeated for two trials. For the Voltage signal graphs
obtained from the plotter, refer to appendix C.
Test 1
For the first test, the flange joint was tightened by hand without knowing any real
indication of the preloads on the bolts.
The force -extension readings were taken from the machine by starting and stopping the
machine at approximately equal intervals. As a result of the starting and stopping, the graph of
voltage from each strain gauge that was plotted from the recorder was a step graph (see appendix
C). Where each step represented when the tensometer was stopped so the voltage reading at the
step corresponded to the value of the force recorded at that time. Hence from this data, a
relationship between the applied force from the machine and the voltage reading from the strain
gauge can be found. This test was repeated for two trials.
From the results that were obtained shown in appendix C, graphs of force vs. extension
and force vs. voltage for each strain gauge were plotted as shown below.
30 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Trial 1
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 11347x
15000
Force/ N
Loading
10000 unloading
y = 10983x
5000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Extension, e / mm
Graph 1 Force vs Extension
Force vs Voltage, V1
25000
20000 y = 258.59x + 1463.7
15000
Force/ N
F vs V loading
10000 F vs V unloading
y = 253.87x + 1321.7
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Voltage/ mV
Graph 2 Force vs Voltage ,V1
31 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
25000
20000
y = 1007x + 3182.6
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000
y = 897.58x + 1502.2 Unloading
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Voltage/ mV
Graph 3 Force vs Voltage ,V2
Trial 2
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 11592x
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000
Unloading
y = 11447x
5000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Extension, e/ mm
Graph 4 Force vs Extension
32 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
25000
20000 y = 250.85x + 1866.7
15000
Force/N
10000 y = 252.27x + 1851.9 F vs V1 loading

F vs V1 unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Voltage/mV
Graph 5 Force vs Voltage,V1
25000
y = 994.07x + 3498
20000
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000 y = 989.19x + 1662.8
Unloading
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Voltage/mV
Graph 6 Force vs Voltage, V2
33 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Test 2
This test was performed the same as test 1. The only difference was that the bolts were
tightened using a torque wrench. The value of the torque applied to each of the bolts was 70
Pound-force foot (lbf-ft) which is equal to 94.42 Nm. When using the torque wrench, the head of
the bolt was fixed and the torque wrench was used to tighten the nut.
Figure 16 Showing the order in which the bolts were tightened
Trial 1
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
15000 y = 11936x
Force/N
10000 loading
unloading
5000 y = 12067x
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Extension, e/mm
graph 7 Force vs Extension
34 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
25000
y = 319.3x + 4403.3
20000
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000
y = 314.24x + 3633.6
Unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage/mV
graph 8 Force vs Voltage, V1
25000
20000
y = 345.89x + 5158.6
15000
Force/N
10000 y = 365.62x + 3502.2 Loading

Unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage/mV
35 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Trial 2
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 12027x
15000
Force/N
10000 Loading
Unloading
5000
y = 12058x
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Extension, e/mm
graph 10 Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 312.24x + 4607
15000
Force/N
10000 y = 289.98x + 5410.7 Loading

Unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage/mV
36 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
25000
20000 y = 348.15x + 5063.1
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000 y = 388.44x + 2909.7 Unloading
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Voltage/mV
Analysis of the graphs showed that a linear relationship between force and extension, and
a linear expression best modeled the Force-Voltage relationship. These relationships are showed
below. Test 1
F- e relationship
trial 1 trial2
Loading y = 11347x y = 11592x
Unloading y = 10983x y = 11447x
F- V1 relationship
trial 1 trial2
Loading y = 253.87x + 1321.7 y = 250.85x + 1866.7
Unloading y = 258.59x + 1463.7 y = 252.27x + 1851.9
F- V2 relationship
trial 1 trial2
Loading y = 1007x + 3182.6 y = 994.07x + 3498
Unloading y = 897.58x + 1502.2 y = 989.19x + 1662.8
37 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Test 2
F- e relationship
trial 1 trial2
Loading y = 11936x y = 12027x
Unloading y = 12067x y = 12058x
F- V1 relationship
trial 1 trial2
Loading y = 319.3x + 4403.3 y = 312.24x + 4607
Unloading y = 314.24x + 3633.6 y = 289.98x + 5410.7
F- V2 relationship
trial 1 trial2
Loading y = 345.89x + 5158.6 y = 348.15x + 5063.1
y = 365.62x + 3502.2
Unloading y = 388.44x + 2909.7
From test 2 the average Force-voltage relationships were found as the following
For V1 y= 308x +4515.65

For V2 y =362.02x + 4158.4
The relationship between force and extension was a very linear one which showed that hooke‟s
law was obeyed. So, F=k e
Therefore the stiffness ,K of the joint is given by the gradient of the F-e graph. This
overall joint stiffness included the resistance of the four bolts and that of the two strips of metal
across the flange.
An average value k for loading and The same K values were calculated for test 2 for
unloading for both trials in test 1 was found. both trials.
K ave. loading = (11347 + 11592)/2 = 11469.5 K ave. loading = (11936 + 12027)/2 = 11981.5
N/mm N/mm
K ave. unloading = (10983 + 11447)/2 = 11215 K ave. unloading = (12067 +12058)/2 = 12062.5
N/mm N/mm
Table 7 Showing calculated joint stiffness from test 1 and 2
38 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Voltage signal graphs for test 1 and test 2 (refer to appendix C)
From the relationship established for force vs. voltage, it is noticed that this relationship
was different both strain gauges in test 1 this meant that when tensile force was applied to the
flange joint, it resulted in uneven strain in the senor strips. This is due to the fact that since the
bolts were not tightened evenly, it resulted in an uneven preload on each of the bolt. Therefore
the contact pressure of the flange joint would vary throughout the entire joint, so the strain
gauges gave different readings.
In test 2 however, the Force-voltage relationship for each strain gauge was fairly similar
which showed that when each of the bolts were tightened using a 70 lbf-ft torque, it resulted in
an evenly distributed contact pressure between the flanges. So when a tensile force is applied to
the flanges, the strain on each strip would be similar.
All the tests subsequent to test 1 and 2 were conducted using the Hounsfield Tensometer
connected to a desktop computer which automatically recorded the force-extension values and
the preload of 70 Pound-force foot (lbf-ft) on the four bolts were maintained . Since it was a
continuous process of loading and unloading the flanges, the graph of the strain voltage are
continuous curves in this case.
Also, due to the fact that the tensometer gave over 500 force-extension readings, only the
F-e graphs would be included in the results.
Test 3
Test 3 was conducted in the same manner as test 2 except that instead of manually
recording the F-e values, the values were outputted from the Tensometer straight to a computer.
As the force-voltage relationship has already been established, this test was used to determine the
stiffness of the joint and compare the value to that obtained in test 2 when the force-extension
values were recorded manually.
39 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Trial 1
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
15000 y = 12426x
Force/N
y = 12694x loading
10000
unloading
5000
0
-5000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Extension, e/mm
graph 13 Force vs Extension test 3
Trial 2
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
Force/N
15000 y = 11921x
loading
10000 y = 12085x unloading
5000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Extension, e/mm
graph 14 Force vs Extension test 3
Values from test 3 Values from test 2
K ave. loading = (12426 +11921)= 12173.5 N/mm K ave. loading = 11981.5 N/mm
K ave. unloading = (12694+12085)= 12389.5 N/mm K ave. unloading = 12062.5 N/mm
Table 8 Shows the comparison of K values from test 3 and 2
So it can be concluded that with a high level of accuracy that the joint stiffness , k  12000
N/mm.
40 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Voltage signal graph for test 3 (refer to appendix C)
It should be noted that on the voltage graphs obtained from test 3, there was a large
difference in the magnitude of the signal for both strain gauges. This is was due to an error when
using the recorder. The scale for the red signal was set to 20mV per cm instead of 10mV per cm
as was used throughout, so both strain gauges gave approximately the same strain reading.
Also at the end of loading, it was observed that graph became vertical or flat. The
explanation for this is that after loading, there was a pause before unloading as the F-e results
were sent from the tensometer to the computer. So since there was no additional force to cause a
strain, both the signals had a constant voltage reading during the pause.
Trial 1 Trial 2
The force at the end of loading = 20100 N The force at the end of loading = 19953.33 N
Voltage reading at the end of loading for blue Voltage reading at the end of loading for blue
signal = 47mV signal = 45mV
Voltage at the end of loading for red signal Voltage at the end of loading for red signal
= 52mV = 50mV
Table 9 shows the voltage reading from test 3
The results show that both strain gauge recorded the same level of strain. The reason for
the small difference is due to the different sensitivity setting on each strain indicator since it
could not be determined accurately if the sensitivity were the same. So for bolts 180 apart, the
behavior is symmetric.
Test 4
In this test, one of the sensor strips was removed. The reason for doing this was to inspect
the level stiffness the two sensor strips added to the flange joint.
41 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Trial 1
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 11723x
Force/N
15000
loading
10000
y = 11830x unloading
5000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Extension, e/mm
graph 15 Force vs Extension test 4.1
Trial 2
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 12404x
Force/N
15000
y = 12509x loading
10000
unloading
5000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Extension ,e/mm
So,
K ave. loading = (11723+12404)= 12063.5 N/mm
K ave. unloading = (11803+12509)= 12156 N/mm
42 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Voltage signal graph for test 4 (refer to appendix C)
Since there was only one strain gauge connected, there would only be one signal. Also it
should be noted that the error of setting the scale to 20mV per cm instead of 10mV per cm was
corrected.
Trial 1 Trial 2
The force at the end of loading = 19867.33 N The force at the end of loading = 19930.67N
Voltage reading at the end of loading for blue Voltage reading at the end of loading for blue
signal = 41 mV signal = 41 mV
Table 10 Shows the Voltage result from test 4
Test 5
The remaining sensor strip was removed and the flange joint alone was tested.
Force vs Extension
25000
20000
y = 9188.2x
15000
Force/N
10000 y = 9178.2x loading

unloading
5000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Extension, e/mm
43 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Force vs Extension
20000
18000 y = 12245x
16000
14000
12000
Force/N
y = 12560x
10000
8000 loading
6000 unloading
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Extension, e/mm
graph 18 Force vs Voltage test 5.2
From the results obtained from test 4 and test 5, it can be concluded that the effect of the
two sensor strips on the entire joint stiffness can be considered as negligible since the stiffness
value did not change from the average value of 12,000 N/mm.
44 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 8
CALCULATIONS
For the test conducted, it was noticed that separation of the flanges did not occur so it can
be concluded that the maximum force applied to the flange joint was less than the initial
clamping force of the joint.
The purpose of the bolt is to clamp the two flanges together. Twisting the nut stretches
the bolt to produce the clamping force. This clamping force is called the pretension or bolt
preload. Since the members are being clamped together, the clamping force that produces
tension in the bolt induces compression in the members.
8.1 Bolt stiffness, Kb

The stiffness of the portion of a bolt or screw within the clamped zone will generally
consist of two parts, that of the unthreaded shank portion and that of the threaded portion. Thus
the stiffness constant of the bolt is equivalent to the stiffnesses of two springs in series.
For two springs in series, the spring rates of the threaded and unthreaded portions of the bolt in
the clamped zone are, respectively,
where At = tensile-stress area

lt = length of threaded portion of grip
Ad = major-diameter area of fastener
ld = length of unthreaded portion in grip
45 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
There were four bolts used to hold the flanges together. Each bolt size was 3/8 inch with
two being 1.5 inches in length and the other two of length 2.25 inches. The difference in length
was due to the fact that two bolts were used to hold the angle iron in place so they needed to be
longer.
For a 3/8 inch bolt
At = 0.0775 in2 = 5.0 x10-5 m2

E= 200 x 109N/m2
Ad = (π (0.375/2)2) = 0.1104 in2 = 7.12 x 10-5 m2
Threaded length, LT = 2d + 0.25 inches
= 2(0.375) +0.25
= 1 inch =0.0254 m
So for shorter bolts, lt= 0.0254 m and ld = (0.0381- 0.0254) = 0.0127 m

For longer bolts, lt= 0.0254 m and ld = (0.05715 - 0.0254) = 0.03175 m
For bolt 1 of 1.5 inch length
kt = (5.0 x10-5 x 200 x 109)/ 0.0254 = 393.7 x 106 N/m

kd = (7.12 x 10-5 x 200 x 109)/ (0.0127) = 1121.3 x 106 N/m
So total stiffness for this bolt is

Kb1 = ([1/393.7 x 106] + [1/1121.3 x 106])-1
= 291.4 x 106 N/m
For the bolt 2 of length 2.25 inches

kt = (5.0 x10-5 x 200 x 109)/ 0.0254 = 393.7 x 106 N/m
kd = (7.12 x 10-5 x 200 x 109)/ (0.03175) = 448.5 x 106 N/m
So total stiffness for this bolt is
Kb2 = ([1/393.7 x 106] + [1/ 448.5 x 106])-1
= 209.7 x 106 N/m
46 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
8.2 Joint Stiffness, Kj
The relationship E = stress /strain = σ /e is used to determine the stiffness of a section.
Where Area, A = area of the flange – area of the bolt holes = (π32) – (π0.2752)
= 28.04 in2 = 1.81x 10-2 m2
Young‟s modulus, E = 207 x 109 N/m2
L= 0.5 in = 1.27 x 10-2 m.
So, k1 = (1.81x 10-2 x 207 x 109)/ 1.27 x 10-2
= 2.95 x 1011 N/m
And k1 =k2
So Kj= [(1/2.95 x 1011) + (1/ 2.95 x 1011)]-1
= 1.47 x1011 N/m.
47 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
8.3 Preload on bolts, Fp

Fp = T / kd
Where, T = torque = 94.9 Nm
d= size of bolt shank = 9.52 x 10-3 m
k = torque coefficient = 0.2 for zinc plated bolts.
So preload Fp = 94.9 / (0.2 x 9.52 x 10-3) = 48,842.4 N
However this value does not represent the actual preload on the bolt since in using a
torque wrench to apply a preload on the bolts, there are inherent errors. So, the measured torque
can be attributed to losses and not the preload. These losses include under head friction of the
bolt and thread deformation. In fact in some cases, 85% of the measure torques can be attributed
to losses.
For this reason, since it is know that the joint did not separate during testing after a
maximum force of 20,000N was applied which showed that the preload must have been greater
than this value, the preload was estimated to be around 24,000N.
Also, assuming the flanges to be rigid, the preload value represents the initial contact
force and the value needed to separate the flange joint.
So initial contact pressure = F/A = 24000/1.81x 10-2 = 1.325 x 106 N/m2.
8.4 Calculation of Load Distribution using Bolt/Joint Stiffness
For the joint preloaded with a force Fp which is then subject to an externally applied load
Fe which tends to separate the join, the resulting deflection of the joint and bolt are the same
providing that Fe is less than the separation force.
Where, Fbe =force on bolts

Fje= force on joint
Fe= total externally applied force
48 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Fbe = (Kb/Kj)x Fje

But Fje = Fe - Fbe
So,
Fbe = (Kb/ Kj) x (Fe - Fbe)
Making Fbe the subject we get
Fbe = [Kb / (Kj + Kb)] x Fe
Similarly, Fje = [Kj / (Kj + Kb)] x Fe
And,
Combined bolt stiffness, Kb = (2 Kb1 + 2 Kb2)
= 1002.2 x 106 N/m.
And joint stiffness, Kj = 1.47 x1011 N/m.
Therefore,
Fbe = 0.00677Fe & Fje = 0.993Fe
These values show that majority of the external load is taken by the joint while the bolts “feels”
very little of this load. It should be noted that this is so only when the Fp > Fe.
Following the application of the external force,
Total force on the bolt, Fbt = Fp + Fbe

Total force on the joint, Fjt = Fp – Fje
= Fp – 0.993Fe
So the change in contact pressure = (Fp – 0.993Fe ) / A
= (Fp – 0.993Fe ) / 1.81 x 10-2
= (Fp/1.81 x 10-2) – (0.993Fe / 1.81 x 10-2)
= (24000/1.81 x 10-2) - (0.993Fe / 1.81 x 10-2)
= 1.325 x 106 – (0.993Fe / 1.81 x 10-2)……………….[1]
= initial contact pressure – change in contact pressure due to Fe
49 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Although the Force-voltage relationship was modeled as being linear, calculations were
performed using a quadratic force-voltage relationship and a linear force-voltage
relationship.
To see the quadratic relationship, refer to appendix C.
For Quadratic relationship
From the results for test 2,
An average relationship between force, F and Voltage was found.
So for V1, y = -2.51x2 +435.59x + 3666.15……………….[2]
for V2, y = -4.2x2 +552.12x + 2992.83…………………[3]
where, y = Force Fe in N, and x = voltage in mV
For V1
Substituting equation 2 into equation 1
Contact pressure = 1.325 x 106 – [0.993{-2.51x2 +435.59x + 3666.15} / 1.81 x 10-2]
= 1.325 x 106– [-137.6x2 + 23897.2x + 201104.9]
Let y = 1.325 x 106– [-137.6x2 + 23897.2x + 201104.9]………………..[4]
Where y = contact pressure in N/m2, x = to the voltage in mV
For V2
Substituting equation 3 into equation 1
Contact pressure = 1.325 x 106 – [0.993{-4.15x2 +544.9x + 2953.92} / 1.81 x 10-2]
= 1.325 x 106– [-227.67x2 + 29895x + 162057.46]
Let y = 1.325 x 106– [-227.67x2 + 29895x + 162057.46]………………..[5]
50 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Where y = contact pressure in N/m2, x = to the voltage in mV
Graphs for equations 4 and 5 were then plotted.
Contact pressure-Voltage calibration curves
1400000
Contact Pressure vs Voltage, V1
1200000
1000000
Contact pressure, N/m2
800000
y = 137.57x2 - 23897x + 1E+06 V1

600000
V2
400000
y = 227.67x2 - 29895x + 1E+06
200000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Voltage, V1 /mV
graph 19 Shows the Contact pressure vs Voltage quadratic relationship
The problem with this model was that it only catered for the contact pressure behavior in
only the operating Voltage range when the tests were conducted. That is values up to around 50
mV. So it could not predict the behavior of the contact pressure of the joint above this voltage
level for this. This is illustrated when the curves are extrapolated, the contact pressure begins to
increase after a certain value of voltage which is not expected to happen since as the voltage
increases, the contact pressure should gradually decrease to zero at which point the external force
is equal the clamp load and the joint is about to separate.
51 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
So this model was rejected and a linear model was investigated. The same calculations were
performed for the linear relationship and a similar graph was plotted.
Contact pressure vs Voltage

1200000
1000000
y = -16922x + 1E+06
800000
contact pressure, N/m2
600000
400000 V1
y = -19861x + 1E+06
V2
200000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-200000
-400000
Voltage, mV
graph 20 shows the linear model of the contact pressure-voltage relationship
This model shows that around 60-68mV the joint would separate. That is where the graph
cuts the x axis where the contact pressure is zero.
Using the average force-voltage relationship
For V1 as y= 308x +4515.65 and for V2 as y =362.02x + 4158.4
The forces were found that corresponded to a voltage range of 60 to 68mV
The corresponding forces were 25459.56N when V1 = 68mV
And 25879.6 N when V2 = 60 mV.
52 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 9
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE FLANGE JOINT

(Refer to appendix E for the entire FEA report)
After the model was created in Solidworks, it was imported into Algor where a finite element
analysis of the model was performed. Brick elements were used to mesh the parts. Figure 14 shows the
model after meshing.
Figure 17 shows the mesh of the CAD model in Algor
The boundary conditions were defined in the following way.

Firstly one the flanges were fixed at the same location were the pin would secure the flange to
the tensometer. Figure 15 shows this location.
Figure 18 location of the fixed boundary condition
53 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Then, the force pulling the flanges apart is added on the other flange. Figure 16 shows the application of
this force
Figure 19 Location of the externally applied force
The bolt preload was then added by applying a force of 24,000N to each of the major nuts of the
assembly as well as fixing the head of each of the four bolts. Figure 17 shows the application of the
preload.
Figure 20 shows the preload applied to the bolts
54 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Finally, rigid boundary conditions were applied to the flange surface as shown in figure 18.
Figure 21 shows the application of rigid boundary conditions to the flanges
Using these boundary conditions, the model was evaluated for different magnitudes of an
externally applied load and using the formula below, the strain at the sensor strips were
converted to a voltage and a force-voltage relationship was determined and compared with the
one obtained from the experiments.
For a quarter bridge configuration,
Vout =(G.F x ε x Vin)/4 (for derivation of this formula refer to appendix D.)
Where G.F = gauge factor =2.1,

ε= strain
Vin = excitation voltage
55 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 10
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the bolts are to clamp the two flanges together. When the bolts are
tightened, they behave like a spring element, that is they elongate when they are tightened so
they exhibit a certain stiffness value. So as they elongate and there is an internal axial force
created within the bolts. This force is known as the preload of the bolt and is a tensile force. The
more the bolt is tightened, the higher the preload value is. The resulting internal tensile force on
the bolts will cause a compressive force on the flange joint so, an axial preload imposes an
internal force on the bolt that imparts a compressive load on the bolted joint. This compressive
force is known as the clamping load. When there are no externally applied forces on the joint, the
preload on the bolts are equal to the clamping load. So preload is what causes the clamping load,
which is used to hold the flange joint together.
Figure 22 Shows a joint diagram
Figure 22 shows the joint diagram which illustrated the point that when preload is applied
to the bolts, it results in a clamping load on the joint as well as an elongation of the bolt and
compression of the joint. Where the red and green lines meet represents the point where the
preload is equal to the clamping load. When an external force is applied to the joint represented
by the blue line in figure 22, part of this external force is dealt with by the bolts while the
majority of it is dealt with by the clamping load, hence reducing the clamping load.
From the results of test 1 it is evident that the contact pressure is dependent on the
preload on the bolts. In this test, the bolts were tightened by hand so it is safe to assume that the
56 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
preload on each of the bolts would be different. This is reflected in the results where each strain
gauge gave very different voltage readings for the same applied force (refer to graph 1 & 2-
appendix C). So this behavior was expected. Also, the Force-voltage relationships obtained from
this test were very different for both strain gauges which were concurrent with what was
expected.
In the subsequent test, a torque wrench was used to control the amount of preload on the
bolts. The reason for using the torque wrench was to accurately determine the initial contact
pressure of the flange joint by knowing the preload on the bolts. However, the use of a torque
wrench has with it a great deal of inaccuracy. Studies have shown that there are large loses when
using the torque wrench, in fact up to 85% of the measured torque can be attributed to losses
which are mostly frictional losses. Also as the torque in the bolt increase so does these frictional
forces hence the errors the error increases also at higher torque values. For this reason the
calculated preload on the bolt, due to the 94.9 Nm torque, of 48,842.4 N was not used as the
actual value of the preload. The true preload could never be accurately known because of the
inherent errors of the torque wrench. So, approximately half this value was used in the
calculation. It should be noted however that the correct value of the preload is of no major
consequence since the sensor would be measuring the decrease in the contact pressure. So the
final equations that were obtained to relate contact pressure to the voltage can be manipulated to
cater for different initial contact pressures. Also the value of the preload used was assumed to be
the average force exerted between the flanges therefore, from this force, the average contact
pressure was found.
From the calculations, it was noticed that the stiffness of the joint was far greater than
that of the combined stiffness of the bolts. In fact Fbe = 0.00677Fe & Fje = 0.993Fe. This meant
that when an external force Fe is applied to the joint, 99.3 % of this force is taken up by the joint
while the remainder is taken up by the bolts.
For test conducted, the joint did not separate. This meant that the clamping load of the
joint was greater than 20,000N limit of the tensometer. Hence calculations were performed under
this condition.
57 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
After the quadratic contact pressure-voltage model was disproved, the linear contact
pressure-voltage model was analyzed. The forces that were calculated which corresponded to the
separation voltages of 60mV and 68mV were 25879.6N and 25459.56N respectively. This meant
that when the externally applied force Fe is near these values, the contact pressure would be zero.
Also the values that were calculated are within the range of the initial preload that was
assumed. This showed that only when the externally applied force is greater than the preload,
only then would the joint separate. The reason why these forces that were calculated were higher
than 24,000N preload was due to the fact that not all the externally applied force was taken up by
the joint. A small percentage (approximately 0.7%) of Fe was taken up by the bolts. So a larger
value than 24,000N would have to be applied to cause the joint to fail.
These results show that when the externally applied load is in the region of the clamp
load, the flange joint is on the brink of failure.
Test 4 and 5 was conducted to assess the level of stiffness or resistance that the strips
added to the joint. The results show that they were negligible when compared to the actual
stiffness of the joint. So the effect of their stiffnesses were neglected in the analysis if the flange
joint.
Some notes on the sensor design
Accuracy: the accuracy of the sensor could not be reliable determined since this required the use
of other techniques to determine the variation of contact pressure and compare the findings from
both experiments. The sensor can be assumed to be fairly accurate since a tensometer was used
control the force applied which produced a strain in the sensor strips. So the use of a precision
instrument such as the tensometer, in calibrating the sensor greatly contributed to the accuracy.
Error: there existed many errors while the tests were performed. Firstly, it was noticed that only
after the applied force surpassed 3,000N that the sensors began display readings. This meant that
the decrease in contact pressure when forces less than 3,000N could not be accounted for. This
error could be reduced by using a softer metal as the sensor strip. Another error was that
sensitivity of both strain indicators could not be accurately set since there calibration to govern
58 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
the level of sensitivity on each indicator. This meant that the two strain gauge result would not
be exactly equal to each other. And this was reflected in the results.
Sensitivity: the sensitivity of the sensor was dependent on the instrumentation used. By
increasing the sensitivity, small changes in strain could be accounted for however there is a down
side to this in that as the sensitivity was increased, it limited the highest value of the force that
could be applied since the voltage graph would go beyond the scale of the graph paper. So a
compromise was found after some trials and it was used. As mentioned previously, the
sensitivity could not be quantified.
Precision: the precision estimate for the sensor was found to be 1 significant figure. This was
dictated by the plotter as 1cm on the graph paper represented 5mV. So the smallest graduation on
the graph was 0.5 mV
Resolution: The smallest measureable value of voltage was 0.5mV. This corresponded to a
strain of 793 µε.
Linearity: from the results shown, the final relationship between contact-pressure and voltage
was a linear one. Where the relationship was found to be
y = -16922x +1e6
y= -19861x + 1e6 for V1 and V2 respectively.
Also from the results of voltage signal graphs for all the test, it showed that the graphs were
approximately the same for both trials which showed the repeatability and the linearity of the
sensors.
59 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
CHAPTER 11
CONCLUSION
The contact pressure-voltage relationship was found to be,
y = -16922x +1e6
y= -19861x + 1e6 for V1 and V2 respectively.
Where y represents the decrease in contact pressure in N/m2 and x represents the voltage reading
in mV.
The relationship was best represented as linear. As shown in graph 20.
Also, it was found that as the applied force reduces the clamp force existing within the joint an
additional strain is felt by the bolt which increases the force it sustains. The amount of the
additional force the bolt sustains is smaller than the applied force to the joint. The actual amount
of force the bolt sustains depends upon the ratio of stiffnesses of the bolt to the joint material.
The joint will only fail when the externally applied force overcomes the clamping load in the
joint.
Improvements and scope for future work
 The use of a pressure sensitive film instead of a torque wrench to accurately determine
the initial contact pressure
 The use of digital strain instrumentation that would afford the user more control of the
specifications of the sensor such as precision and sensitivity.
 To investigation of what dimensions and material type that would act as the ideal sensor
strip.
 To determine the practicality and use of such sensors in a control system for monitoring a
flange joint.
60 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
REFERENCES
 European Sealing Association (ESA), 1992. Guidelines for safe seal usage Flanges and
Gaskets.
 Aztec Bolting Services, Inc. Pipe Flange Bolting Guide
 Sinclair, Ian R. 2001. Sensor and Transducers, 3rd ed. Jorden hill, Oxford: Reed
Educational and Professional Publications Ltd.
 Webster, John G, Gene Fatton, Dennis Swyt., Peter H. Sydenham, Carsten Thomsen
Ramón Pallás-Areny, James E. Lenz ,Jacob Fraden. 1999. Measurement, instrumentation
and (ASME B16.5a, 1998) sensors handbook, CRC Press.
 Measuring Strain with strain gauges. http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3642
(8/11/08).
 Wheatstone bridge circuit. http://www.engineersedge.com/instrumentation (12/03/09).
 Algor tutorials.
http://www.algor.com/service_support/tutorials/online_tutorials/FEMPRO_Online_Tutor
ials.htm (20/02/09)
 ASME B16.5a. (1998). New York, NY 10016: ASME.
 Budynas−Nisbett. (2006). Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw−Hill.
 (2004). Embedment Strain Gauge. Slope Indicator Company.
 Walsh, R. A. (2000). ELECTROMECHANICAL DESIGN HANDBOOK. McGRAW-

HILL.
61 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Appendix A -Pictures
Picture 1 Shows the Flange joint mounted on the Tensometer
Pin used to connect the flanges to the

Tensometer
Flat Machined across the Flange joint
62 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Picture 2 Shows the strain gauge
63 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Picture 3 Flange joint during testing
64 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Picture 4 shows the size of the flange joint relative to the tensometer
65 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Picture 5 shows all the equipment used in testing
Plotter Strain indicator Hounsfield tensometer
Computer
66 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Picture 6 shows the steps involved in Fabrication of the Flange joint
67 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Appendix B –Drawings
All the models were created using solidworks.
Drawing 1 The Flanges
68 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 2 Shows the Dimensions of the Flange
69 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 3 Shows the Dimensions of the Angle iron
70 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 4 Shows the Dimensions of the Sensor Strip
71 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 5 the Flange joint Assembly
72 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 6 an exploded view of the Assembly showing the 5 main part groups
73 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 7 an exploded view of the assembly
74 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Drawing 8 shows a section view of the assembly
75 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Appendix C - Results
TEST 1
Trial 1
Loading unloading
Force, F/ N e/mm V1/mV V2/mV Force,F/
684 0.088 1 0 N e/mm V1/mV V2/mV
1286 0.161 3.5 1 18728.7 1.566 70 17.5
2228 0.259 7 2 17474 1.482 64 15
3600.7 0.388 10 2.5 16466 1.415 59.5 13
4624.7 0.478 12 3.5 15340 1.338 54 11
5618 0.562 15 4.5 13896 1.239 47.5 9.5
6591.3 0.642 18 5.5 12437.3 1.137 41.5 8.5
7762 0.739 23 6 11614.7 1.08 38 7.5
8730 0.816 26.5 7 10488.7 0.999 32.5 6.5
9688 0.894 30.5 8 9660.7 0.939 29 5.5
10790.3 0.981 35.5 10 8468.1 0.85 24 4.5
12102 1.084 41 11 7335.7 0.762 19.5 4
12971.7 1.152 45 12 6419.3 0.686 16 3
14034 1.233 50 13 5297.3 0.599 12 2.5
14998.9 1.308 54 15 4196.3 0.506 9.5 1.5
16160 1.398 59 17 2864.7 0.387 6 1
17534 1.503 65 20 2009.3 0.302 4 0.5
18701 1.591 70 1488.9 0.245 3.5
19992 1.689 76 996.3 0.184 2
586.3 0.126 1
64.3 0.041
76 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Trial 2
unloading
loading
Force, F/ N e/mm V1/mV V2/mV
20124 1.677 75.5 19
598 0.067 0 0
19620 1.603 73 17
1086 0.119 0.5 0.5
18574 1.534 68 16
1518.3 0.165 1.5 0.5
17592 1.468 63 14
2100.3 0.225 3 1
16496 1.395 58 12
2632.7 0.276 4.5 1.5
15328 1.315 53 11
3071.3 0.317 5.5 2
14333 1.247 48 10
3706.7 0.375 7 2.5
13164 1.166 43.5 8
4268.1 0.425 8.5 2.5
11505 1.05 36 7
4936.3 0.483 10.5 3
10360.7 0.968 31 5.5
5543.1 0.534 12.5 3.5
9153.3 0.88 26 5
6167.3 0.585 14.5 4
8086 0.8 21.5 4
7010 0.655 17.5 5
7039 0.718 17 3
8414 0.769 23.5 6
6064 0.641 14 2
8989 0.815 26 6.5
5013.2 0.556 10.5 1.5
10002 0.895 30 7.5
3994.3 0.47 7.5 1
11160.7 0.986 35 8.5
2859.3 0.367 4.5 0.5
12196 1.066 40 10
1896.7 0.272 2.5 0.5
13320 1.153 45 11
1447 0.218 1.5 0
14174 1.221 48.5 12
996.7 0.164 1
15448 1.32 54 14
603.3 0.108 0.5
16644 1.41 59.5 15
349.3 0.069
17362 1.465 62.5 16
18372 1.543 67 17.5
19160 1.602 71 18.5
20152 1.677 75.5 20
77 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Test 2
Trial 1
Loading
620 0.135 Unloading
1176 0.192 0.5 Force, F/ N e/mm V1/mV V2/mV
1746 0.242 0.5 20236 1.62 52.5 46.5
2382 0.293 0.5 1 19730 1.544 51 44.5
3196 0.357 1 2 18552 1.466 49.5 40
4081 0.424 2 3.5 17428 1.392 46 36
5126 0.504 3 5.5 16562 1.333 42 32.5
5684 0.545 4 6.5 15584 1.267 38.5 29
6338 0.593 5.5 8 14550 1.196 35 25.5
6958 0.639 7.5 9 13398.7 1.116 31 21
7760 0.698 8 10.5 12429.3 1.048 26.5 18
8492 0.752 10.5 12 11500 0.983 23 15
9162 0.802 12 13.5 10662 0.925 19.5 13
10142 0.875 15 15.5 9710 0.858 16.5 11
10832 0.926 17 17.5 8747 0.789 13.5 9
11786 0.996 20 20 7518 0.699 11 6.5
12706 1.064 23.5 23.5 6408 0.617 8 4.5
13652 1.134 27.5 26.5 5378 0.54 6 3
14820.2 1.221 32 30.5 4428 0.469 3.5 1.5
15706.1 1.287 35.5 33 3516 0.398 2 0.5
16680.3 1.358 39 37 2438 0.31 1.5
17910.3 1.447 44 40.5 1138 0.195
19226 1.544 48.5 45 578 0.139
20264 1.62 52.5 48 50.3 0.058
78 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Trial 2
Loading Unloading
Force, F/ N e/mm V1/mV V2/mV Force, F/ N e/mm V1/mV V2/mV
610 0.133 0 20030 1.606 51.5 45.5
1700 0.283 1 19365 1.521 49.5 43
2654 0.314 0.5 1.5 18504 1.464 46 39.5
3500 0.38 1 2.5 17450 1.393 42 35.5
4510.7 0.456 2 4.5 16502 1.329 38 32
5710 0.545 4 6.5 15094.7 1.233 32.5 27
6658 0.616 5.5 8.5 13524.7 1.125 25.5 21.5
7736 0.696 8 10.5 11513 0.985 18 15
8880 0.782 11 12.5 9780 0.864 13 10
9960 0.86 14 15 8375.7 0.764 9 8
10574 0.906 15.5 16 7500.7 0.7 7 6.5
11476 0.972 19 19 6632 0.636 5.5 5
12374 1.034 22 22 5704 0.566 2.5 3
13436 1.119 26.5 25.5 4512 0.476 0.5 1
14540.2 1.201 31 29 3468 0.394 0.5
15532 1.274 35 32.5 2512 0.317
16652 1.356 39 36 1495 0.23
17452 1.415 42 38.5 964.7 0.18
18621 1.501 46.5 42 276 0.104
19290 1.55 49 44 6 0.051
20052 1.606 51.5 47
79 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Voltage signal Graphs
For these graphs, the 90 mark indicates the starting point. Hence the voltage there is zero. Also
each increment of 10 away from this point on the x-axis represents an increase of 10mV.
Test 1
graph 1 voltage signal graph trial 1
graph 2 Voltage signal graph trial 2
80 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Test 2
81 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
82 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Test 3
graph 5 Voltage signal graph test 3
83 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Test 4
graph 6 Voltage signal graph test 4
84 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Equations for the quadratic force- voltage relationship from test 2
25000
y = -3.1411x2 + 473.05x + 3432.9
20000
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000
y = -1.7812x2 + 409.1x + 2910.5 Unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage/mV
graph 7 shows the quadratic relationship for force-voltage
25000
20000
y = -4.3252x2 + 542.54x + 3906.7
15000
Force/N
10000 Loading
y = -3.4883x2 + 529.28x + 2350.2
Unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage/mV
85 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
25000
20000
y = -3.0439x2 + 463.98x + 3616.6

15000
Force/N
10000 Loading
y = -2.0548x2 + 396.21x + 4704.6
Unloading
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage/mV
25000
20000
y = -4.3937x2 + 542.69x + 4022.9
15000
Force/N
Loading
10000 Unloading
y = -4.588x2 + 593.98x + 1691.5
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Voltage/mV
86 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Summary of results
F- V1 relationship
trial 1 trial2
y = -3.1411x2 + 473.05x + y = -3.0439x2 + 463.98x +
3432.9 3616.6
Loading
y = -1.7812x2 + 409.1x + y = -2.0548x2 + 396.21x +
2910.5 4704.6
Unloading
F- V2 relationship
trial 1 trial2
y = -4.3252x2 + 542.54x + y = -4.3937x2 + 542.69x +
3906.7 4022.9
Loading
y = -3.4883x2 + 529.28x +
2350.2 y = -4.588x2 + 593.98x + 1691.5
Unloading
87 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Appendix D -Calculations
Strain gauge
As mentioned previously, each strain gauge was connected to a strain indicator in a quarter
bridge configuration.
Figure 1 show this quarter bridge arrangement.

A
D B
C Figure 1 Quarter bridge
For a given voltage input Vin, the currents flowing through ABC and ADC depend on the
resistances, i.e
Vin = VABC = VADC So,
And, VABC = IABC (Rg+R3) VABC Vin

IABC = Rg+R3 = Rg+R3
VADC = IADC (R1+R2) VADC Vin

IADC = = R1+R2
R1+R2
Also, the voltage drops from A to B and from A to D are given by,
Vin Vin
VAB = IABC .Rg = Rg+R3 Rg VAD = IADC .R1 = R1+R2 R1
The voltage gage reading Vout can then be obtained from,
88 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD
Rg R1
Vout = VAB - VAD = Rg+R3 Vin − Vin
R1+R2
Rg R1
So, Vout = − R1+R2 Vin ……………….[1]
Rg+R3
Figure 2 Quarter bridge arrangement with balancing
For a strain gauge connected in a quarter bridge configuration all the resistances are the same
except for that of the strain gauge. So when balanced, equation 1 becomes
∆𝑅
Vout = 4𝑅 Vin
However gauge factor, G.F = (ΔR/R)/( ΔL/L)
= (ΔR/R)/ε
So, ΔR/R = G.F x ε
Therefore Vout = (G.F x ε x Vin)/4.
89 | P a g e
LOMAS PERSAD

Final Draft 3.0

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Draft 3.0

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Construction of a Contact Pressure Sensor University of West Indies Mechanical Engineering Department

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MENG 3019: FINAL YEAR PROJECT

TITLE: CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTACT PRESSURE SENSOR

SUPERVISOR: DR. J. BRIDGE

SECOND MARKER: PROF. E.I. EKWUE

THIRD MARKER: PROF. C.A.C. IMBERT

SUBMITTED BY : LOMAS PERSAD

DATE SUBMITTED : 15/04/09

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 3

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ....................................................................................... 16

FINAL DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 18

 4.4 ANALYSIS OF DESIGNS ....................................................................... 20

INSTRUMENTATION USED ................................................................................... 26

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE FLANGE JOINT .................................... 53

Graph 1 Force vs Extension .......................................................................................................... 31

better sensing systems needs to be implemented.

management system than existing methods. Conventionally, a technician would have to

control system which offers another advantage for using a sensor.

 To investigate existing contact pressure sensors

pressure for the flange joint.

 To build and the test the workings of the sensor design

considered in this project.

2.1 What is Pressure

Pressure can be defined as the measure of force per-unit-area, acting perpendicularly to

2.2 Measurement Systems

Measurements are performed by physical devices called sensors or transducers, which

(Reprinted from Measurement, Instrumentation and Sensors handbook)

A sensor is usually accompanied by a set of specifications that indicate its overall

2.3 Different technologies used in making pressure sensors

Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)

Vibrating elements (silicon resonance, for example)

2.4 Technologies for Tactile Sensing

Where, E(t) is the instantaneous electric field

ε is the permittivity of the dielectric

Where, d = Piezoelectric constant associated with the longitudinal piezoelectric effect

Where, Q = Charge induced by the stress

2.5 The Flange Joint

When assembled, a flange gasket seal or „joint” is subject to compressive pressure

2.6 Design Factors

The Strain Gauge

When an axial force is applied to a material, it results in a change in length of the

Strain gauge measurement involves sensing extremely small changes in resistance.

Offset-Nulling Circuit – The second balancing method uses an adjustable resistance, a

Figure 8 Illustrating Alternative design 1 (created in solidworks)

Flanges Washer modified to act as a capacitor

Figure 9 Illustrating the alternative design 2 (created in solidworks)

Strain gauge on body of bolt Flange Face

4.1 Final design

Figure 10 Illustrating the application of the strain gauge (created in solidworks)

Bolt Angle Iron Strip of metal with strain gauge attached

4.2 Limitations on design

4.3 Alternative due to Limitations

4.4 ANALYSIS OF DESIGNS

Maintenance Cost Sensitivity Durability

Final design Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Part Part Name Dimensions of Part Material Number of

Bolts with Lock  11 mm Bolt, lock Mild Steel

5.1 PROCESS PLAN

PART 1: THE FLANGES

PART 3: THE ANGLE IRON