Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Mechanical Engineering Department

Terre Haute, IN 47803

Identifying the elastic modulus

of a steel rod

ME 321
Measurement Systems
Professor Layton

Jake Toppen
Caleb Allen
Joe Moehrle

January 25, 2016

Introduction and Goals:

ArcelorMittal has hired our small engineering team to experimentally determine an
unknown physical parameter of a small diameter steel rod that they are producing.
The goal of this experiment is to find the shear modulus (G). This modulus will be found
experimentally by going into a lab setting and testing an apparatus. The test will be run multiple
times in order to get an experimental value of G with a calculated minimal uncertainty.
To verify that the experimental value is reasonable, it will be compared to a range of
values that are considered to be standard within industry.
System and Model
Our apparatus consisted of a large disk, welded to a long rod which is fixed on one end.
Different loads were applied by a string to the outer edge of the large disk, and each load created
a torque which made the rod displace angularly.
Using this data, the model for our system comes from the analysis of shear stress and
shear strain given by the equations
=

(1)

and

(2)

where J is the area moment of inertia of the rod. Our measurands are as follows: F is the applied
load, rdisk and rrod are the radii of the disk and rod respectively, is the measured angular
displacement of the disk, and L is the length of the rod. These values can be found in Appendix
3. Using the above equations, we are able to analyze the shear stress and strain that the rod
underwent for each specific load.
If we then take our data and plot shear stress as a function of shear strain, we are able use
a linear regression to find the slope. This slope is our resultant, the modulus of rigidity
=

(3)

Apparatus and Methods

For this experiment we used one system configuration: an apparatus designed specifically
to calculate the Shear modulus G of a rod. The important characteristics of the apparatus are one
end of the rod being fixed, the other end of the rod being supported (to prevent cantilever), a disk
at the end opposite of the weld, and a mass hanging from a string from the outside of the disk.
This setup is displayed in Figure 1. The system that we are studying is the rod of length L that
starts at the fixed end (at the toe of the weld) and ends at the closest face of the disk.

rdisk

rrod

Figure 1. Rod setup for calculating shear modulus G

We began the experiment by gathering masses ranging from 2.2 to 13.6 kg with steps of
2.2 kg, which corresponds to a torque range of 2.13 to 12.7 N-m. The highest value of 13.6 kg
was chosen after a maximum possible applied mass of 18.2 kg was determined for our apparatus.
Anything above 18.2 kg could plastically deform the rod. We elected to run 6 trials at each
torque and this resulted in a total of 36 trials, the order of which were randomized so that no 2
torques would be applied consecutively. This randomized sequence can be found in Appendix 4.
Before each torque was applied, we lifted the rod off of the unfixed support so that it would
rotate to its original position. We then zeroed the digital protractor, applied the torque, and
recorded the corresponding angular displacement located in Appendix 1.

Data and Analysis

The data collected was converted to units of shear stress () and strain () using equations
(1) and (2) defined earlier. Plotting versus resulted in the following graph.

Figure 2. Modulus of rigidity linear regression for experimental data

We applied a linear regression to the data and found the slope to be 8.03 1010 Pa, which
is where we attained our resultant, G, equal to 80.3 GPa.

Results and Discussion

We found the torsional shear modulus, G, of our steel rod to be 80.3 1.2 GPa
(uncertainty calculated in Appendix 2). This shear modulus confirms the shear moduli that were
researched using online resources prior to experimentation. The figure below is a number line
comparison of the expected values for the Modulus of Rigidity for 1020 cold rolled steel, and the
value that we determined experimentally.

Figure 3. Comparison of expected values vs experimental value of G

As the number line shows, our experimentally determined value of G is within the range
of expected G values.
Our range of masses used was chosen in order to protect the apparatus while still
obtaining credible data. We found that the smallest mass that caused a readout on the protractor
was 0.05 kg. This weight could not be used however because there was a 100% uncertainty with
this readout, so in order to avoid having a large uncertainty with our resultant we decided to
increase our minimum weight to 2.2 kg. Our maximum weight of 13.6 kg was chosen after
speaking with our lab technician, Jerry Leturgez, who suggested that anything more than 18.2 kg
could destroy the apparatus.

Conclusions
The goal of the experiment was to find the modulus of rigidity of a steel rod. We found
our G value to be 80.3 1.2 GPa. This number falls within the range of 72 80 GPa which is
industry standard according to Engineering Toolbox [1], Azo Materials [2], and Matweb [3]. Our
experimental value agrees with the industry standard. We can conclude that our experimental
procedure and methods were sound because of the relatively small uncertainty, 1.5% of our
resultant.

References
[1] Engineering Toolbox. (2016). Engineering Toolbox [Online]. Available:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/modulus-rigidity-d_946.html
[2] Azo Materials. (2016). AISI 1020 Low Carbon/Low Tensile Steel [Online]. Available:
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6114
[3] Matweb. (2016). AISI 1020 Steel, cold rolled [Online]. Available:
http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=10b74ebc27344380ab16b1b69f1cffbb
&ckck=1

Appendix 1:
Table 1 shows the data obtained from the 36 trial experiment. Data from the experiment
was statistically analyzed shown at the bottom of the table including the mean and standard
deviation.

m (kg)

Table 1. Experimental Data

m
m
deg (kg) deg (kg)

6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7

2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2

5.8
6.0
6.3
6.1
6.1
6.2

Average
Std.
Deviation

6.1

18.4

29.8

0.2

0.2

0.4

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

12.1
12.0
12.4
12.2
11.8
12.3

Average
Std.
Deviation

12.1

25.1

36.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3

18.3
18.8
18.2
18.4
18.4
18.4

25.2
25.1
25.0
25.1
24.9
25.4

10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9

(deg)

13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1

29.9
29.4
30.4
29.5
29.6
29.8

36.3
35.8
35.9
36.0
35.9
36.0

Appendix 2:
In order to determine the validity of our experimental resultant, the uncertainty was
calculated using the equation
2

( )2
[(

2
2 (,
)2 ]

2
+ ,
)+

1
2
(2
+ ,
)
( )2 ,

where
2
,

2 2
2 2
2 2
2
= ( ) (, + , ) + ( ) (, ) + (
) (, + 2 , )

and
2
,

2 2
2 2
2
= ( ) (, + , ) + (
) (, )

2 2
+(
) ( , + 2 , )

2
The force of each weight was only taken once, therefore ,
was assumed to be 0.
2
The value of , was computed by . due to the fact that the slope from our data could
only return one resultant for any number of trials run. The Standard Estimate of Errors (. ) for
our experiment assumes only variability in the x-direction () and is given by

(2 02 )
. =
2
with being each individual data point and 0 the value at the regression line.
The accuracy and readability for each measurand can be referenced in Appendix 3. The
partial derivative terms were evaluated using the average values of and P, and the measured
values of rdisk and rrod.
With the small relative uncertainties for each measurand, we were able to minimize our
overall uncertainty to 1.6% of our resultant (1.2 GPa).

Appendix 3:
These values were found using sensors, specification sheets, and calculations from
Appendix 2.

Parameter Sensor

L
rdisk
rrod
F

Digital Protractor
Ruler
Ruler
Micrometer
Scale

Measurands
Sensor
Readout
Accuracy
Readability
0.2
0.1
510-3 m
510-3 m
110-5 m
2.5410-6 m
0.131 kg
0.1 kg

Sensitivity
Coefficients

,systematic
2.0210-5
m/m

Value
0.61 m
9.8910-2 m
3.110-3 m
-

Value
-3.110-3 1/m
0.608 1/m
5.210-3 m/m
2.01106 1/m2
1.55109 Pa/m
-1.461011 Pa/m

Uncertainties
,random
,systematic
-5
4.8810 m/m 4.66106 Pa

,random
0 Pa

G,total
1.14109 Pa

Appendix 4:
This randomized test sequence was made using a random number generator.
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Mass (kg)
6.7
10.9
9.3
10.9
4.4
10.9
9.3
2.2
6.7
2.2
13.1
6.7
9.3
2.2
10.9
4.4
9.3
10.9
13.1
9.3
13.1
2.2
4.4
2.2
13.1
4.4
10.9
4.4
13.1
6.7
2.2
4.4
9.3
6.7
13.1
6.7

Displacement (deg)
18.3
29.9
25.2
29.4
12.1
30.4
25.1
5.8
18.8
6
36.3
18.2
25
6.3
29.5
12
25.1
29.6
35.8
24.9
35.9
6.1
12.4
6.1
36
12.2
29.8
11.8
35.9
18.4
6.2
12.3
25.4
18.4
36
18.4