ME2114-2 Combined Bending & Torsion

ME2114 Mechanics of Materials II
ME2114-2 Combined Bending & Torsion (D2)

Formal Report
Matriculation Number: A0101934

Name
: Ong Wei Quan
Subgroup
: 2K1
Objectives
To analyse the stresses at the surface of shaft subjected to combined bending and twisting
using strain gauge technique.
To compare the experimental results with theoretical results.
Introduction
Shafts subjected to both bending and twisting are frequently encountered in engineering,
applications. By applying St. Venant's principle and the principle of superposition, the stresses at the
surface of the shaft may be analysed. The main purpose of this experiment is to analyse problems of
this kind using, the strain gauge technique and to compare the experimental results with theoretical
results. As the strain gauge technique enables only the determination of states of strain at about a
point. Hooke's law equations are used to calculate the stress components. In this experiment, the
elastic constants of the test material are first determined.
Experimental Procedures
Determination of elastic constants
1. Measure the diameter of the tensile test piece and mount it on the tensometer.
2. Use a quarter bridge configuration and for each tensile load applied to the testpiece, record
the longitudinal and transverse strains in order to evaluate the Young's modulus and
Poisson's ratio.
A. Combined bending and torsion test
1. Measure the dimensions of a and b.
2. Connect the strain gauges to the strain-meter using, a quarter bridge configuration and
balance all the gauges.
3. For each loading, on the shaft record the strain readings.
4. From the strain readings compute the stresses.
5. Using, a full bridge configuration in a manner illustrated in Figures (3a) & (3b) record the
strain-meter reading for each applied load.
Sample Calculations
Table 1 (Using load of 200N)
Tensile load
200
Direct Stress
2.88MPa
Cross Sectional Area 6.940 10 5
Table 3 (Using load of 0.5kg for Quarter Bridge Configuration)
a ( 1 4 ) ( 2 3 ) (24 12) (10 25) 71 10 6

b ( 1 2 ) ( 3 4 ) (24 10) (25 12) 27 10 6
Table 4 (Using load of 0.5kg)
32bP 32(0.9945)(0.5 9.81)
Theoretical x
1.26MPa
D 3
(0.0158) 3
E ( 1 4 ) 50.7 109 (24 12) 10 6
0.892MPa
1
1 0.3182
16aP 16(0.15)(0.5 9.81)
0.952MPa
D 3
(0.0159) 3
Experimental x
Theoretical xy
Experimental xy
E ( 1 2 ) 50.7 109 [(24 (10)] 10 6
0.654MPa
2(1 )
2(1 0.3182)
Results
A. Determination of elastic constants
D1
9.37
Cross Sectional Area (mm2)
Diameter of Tensile Test Piece (mm)

D2
Daverage
9.42
9.40
69.4
D1 D2 9.37 9.42
9.40mm
N
2
2
2
Cross Sectional Area d (0.0094 ) 6.940 10 5 m 2
Daverage
Table 1
Load (N)
Direct Stress, x (MPa)
Longitudinal Strain, x (106

)
Transverse Strain, y (10-6)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2.88
5.76
8.65
11.53
14.41
17.29
61
120
177
232
282
334
-19
-37
-55
-73
-91
-107
Youngs modulus
E x
x
Direct Stress (MPa)
Graph 1: Direct Stress vs Longitudinal

Strain
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
= Gradient of Graph 1
50.7GPa
y = 0.0507x
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Longitudinal Strain (x10-6)
Graph 2: Transverse Strain vs Longitudinal

Strain
Poissons ratio
Transverse Strain (x10-6)
0
-20
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-40
y
x
= Gradient of Graph 2
(0.3182 ) 0.3182
-60
-80
y = -0.3182x
-100
-120
Longitudinal Strain (x10-6)
B. Combined Bending and Torsion Test

Table 2
Load P (kg)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Strain (10-6) [Quarter Bridge Configuration]

2
3
24
-10
-25
12
45
-20
-48
26
68
-30
-73
38
88
-40
-98
50
111
-50
-122
62
132
-60
-147
75
Table 3: Comparing Quarter Bridge Configuration with Full Bridge Configuration

Load P (kg)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Quarter Bridge Configuration

a (10-6)
b (10-6)
0
0
71
27
139
47
209
73
276
96
345
121
414
144
Full Bridge Configuration

a (10-6)
b (10-6)
0
0
69
24
138
48
205
72
274
95
340
120
410
142
Graph 3: Load vs a
3
y = 0.0072x
Load (kg)
2.5
y = 0.0073x
2
1.5
Quarter Bridge
Full Bridge
1
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
a(x10-6)
Graph 4: Load vs b
3
y = 0.0207x
Load (kg)
2.5
y = 0.021x
2
1.5
Quarter Bridge
Full Bridge
1
0.5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
b(x10-6)
a
0.150m
b
0.995m
D (diameter of the shaft)

0.0158m
Table 4
Bending Stress, x (MPa)
Theoretical
Experimental
0.00
0.000
1.23
0.918
2.47
1.938
3.70
3.162
4.93
4.284
6.17
5.406
7.40
6.324
Load P (kg)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Shear Stress, xy (MPa)

Theoretical
Experimental
0.00
0.000
0.93
0.796
1.85
1.546
2.78
2.319
3.70
3.138
4.63
3.958
5.55
4.731
Graph 5: Bending Stress vs Load

8
7
y = 2.5194x
Bending Stress (MPa)
6
5
4
Theoretical
Experimental
y = 1.4366x
2
1
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Load (kg)
Graph 6: Shear Stress vs Load

6
y = 1.904x
Shear Stress (MPa)
5
4
Theoretical
3
y = 1.2371x
Experimental
2
1
Load (kg)
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Discussion
1. Compare the theoretical stresses with the experimental values. Discuss possible reasons for
the deviation if any, in the results obtained.
The experimental results are much smaller than the theoretical results. This may be due to
the following:
The metal used in the tensile test piece may have different properties (youngs
modulus) to the one used in the hanger causing the theoretical and experimental
graphs to deviate for example in graphs 5 and 6.
The orientation of each rosette is such that the axis of any one gauge makes an angle
of 45 with the axis of the shaft. The angle may not be exactly 45 degrees as the strain
gauges are taped using scotch tape and the orientation of the gauges may change
over time.
When the hanger is loaded, there is some oscillation which contributes to the
inaccuracy of the readings.
2. From the results of step (B5), deduce the type of strain the strain-meter readings represent.
xy
3 4
sin 2
34
cos 2
2
2
2
Where the subscripts 3 and 4 refer to the direction of the gauge numbers 3 and 4 respectively.
The shear strain, xy, by transformation of axes, is given by

o
Since = -45 ,
xy 4 3 1 2
Hence, a ( 1 4 ) ( 2 3 ) ( 1 2 ) ( 4 3 ) 2 xy
by transformation of axes, at point B, 4
xB yB
2
xy
2
or Bx
2 4 xy
1
Where the superscript B refers to the point B.

Thus, the bending strain at point A is then given by x
( xA xB ) 1 4
2
1
So, 1 4 x (1 ) and similarly, 2 3 x (1 )

Hence, b ( 1 2 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 1 4 ) ( 2 3 ) 2 x (1 )
Therefore, configuration b measures the product of strain in x-direction with the term 2(1-).
3. Apart from the uniaxial tension method used in this experiment, how can the elastic
constants be determined.
E
2(1 v )
To determine Young's modulus, E, a cantilever beam with weights hung from the beam at a
wL3
few locations along the beam. The resulting deflections v
caused by the weights can be
3EI
measured using a dial-gauge, where I is the second moment of area. By varying v with L, a
graph of v against L3 could be plotted and the gradient obtained. The value of the youngs
modulus can be obtained from the gradient.
Poisson's Ratio, can be determined by using the expression G
To determine Shear modulus, G, the torsion test could be used. The angle of twist is given by
TL
. By varying the torque T with the angle , a graph of against T could be plotted and
GI
the gradient obtained. Since L and I are known by measuring the dimensions of the bar, G can
be obtained.
4. Instead of using Equations (3) and (8) for strains, develop alternative equations to enable
the determination of strains from the four gauges readings.
Since the full bridge configuration is quite similar to the Wheatstone bridge, 2 expressions can
be derived
a ( 1 4 ) ( 2 3 ) ( 1 2 ) ( 4 3 ) 2 xy
b ( 1 2 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 1 4 ) ( 2 3 ) 2 x (1 )
where 1, 2, 3 4, are the four gauge readings and a, b are the resulting strains.
5. Develop stress equations for combined bending, and twisting, of hollow shafts with K as the
ratio of inside to outside diameter.
M xy y
Iz
I z = Second moment of area =
64
xy
D
bP
2
D4 1 K 4
D
64
d4
d4 4
D 4 1 4
D 1 K 4
64
D 64
32bP
whereb distance from one point to whereP is applied
D 1 K 4
3
Txx r
Jx
J x = Polar second moment of area =
xy
32
D
aP
2
D4 1 K 4
D
32
d4
d4 4
D 4 1 4
D 1 K 4
32 D 32
16aP
where a length of the torsion arm
D 3 1 K 4
D = outer diameter of shaft; d = inner diameter of shaft; K
d
D
6. In certain installations shafts may be subjected to an axial load F in addition to torsional

and bending loads. Would the strain gauge arrangement for this experiment be acceptable
to the determination of stresses?
Give reasons for your answer. For simplicity, a solid shaft may be considered.
The shaft will experience a higher axial strain and axial stress when an additional axial load F
is applied. This additional strain caused by the load can still be measured by the strain gauge
and the readings show the resultant axial and shear strain due to the combined bending and
torsion and axial load (principle of superposition). Therefore, the strain gauge arrangement
for this experiment is acceptable for the determination of both the axial and shear strain.
Conclusion
The stresses and strains due bending and twisting were determined using the strain gauge
technique.
10
The deviation of experimental results to theory may be due to the different elastic properties
of the test piece and the experimental setup.
The Youngs modulus, E and the Poissons ratio, were determined to be 50.7GPa and 0.32
respectively.
11

ME2114-2 Combined Bending &amp; Torsion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ME2114-2 Combined Bending &amp; Torsion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ME2114 Mechanics of Materials II