UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MESB333 MEASUREMENT LAB

EXP. TITLE : EXPERIMENT 1: STRAIN MEASUREMENT

AUTHOR

: REDZA RABANI BIN MD ROSLI (ME093300)

..Individual Report..

SECTION

: 05B

GROUP NUMBER : 03
GROUP MEMBER :

INSTRUCTOR
PERFORMED DATE

: FEVILIA NURNADIA BINTI ADRIA SYAIFOEL

DUE DATE*
26/08/2015

SUBMITTED DATE
26/08/2015

*Late submission penalty: Late 1 day: 20%, Late 2 days: 40%, Late 3 days: 60%, More than 3 days: not accepted

TABLE CONTENT
No TOPIC
.

PAGE

1.0 Summary

2.0 Objective

3.0 Theory

5-13

4.0 Equipment

14-19

5.0 Procedure

19-22

6.0 Data, Observation And Result

23-34

7.0 Analysis And Discussion

35-36

8.0 Conclusion

37

SUMMARY:
Strain Gauge experiment was divided into four different parts, which are
bending system, torsion system, tension system and optional tension system
specimen. The experiments were carried out using Strain Gauge Trainer SM1009 with
the aid of Digital Strain Display and Versatile Data Acquisition System (VDAS)
Hardware and Software.
The first bending experiment was objectively to show how to measure strains
in bended object and compare the results with theory. The graph of Calculated Stress,
vs Displayed Strain, is plotted to gain the value of theoretical Youngs Modulus
of the mild steel beam. Next, the torsion experiment has two different procedures in
order to show how to connect and use shear and torque (torsional) strain gauges to
measure strains in twisted object as well to show how to compare displayed strains
with theory for a torsion beam.
Furthermore, the main purpose of conducting the tension experiment which
had been done with three different procedures was to demonstrate how to connect and
use strain gauges to measure strains in two dimensions. And, this experiment mainly
objective to demonstrate how to compare the displayed tensile strains in two
dimensions with theory and prove Poissons ratio. Finally, the optional tension system
specimen experiment was performed in order to test and find the tensile properties of
different test specimens apart from mild steel.
In this experiment conducted with different procedures has the same error
which is human error. There are improper use of equipment and error while setting up
the equipment. The errors can be avoided to increasing the accuracy of data obtained
from the experiment.

OBJECTIVES:

To show how to measure strains in bended object and compare the results with

theory.
To show how to connect and use shear and torque (torsional) strain gauges to

measure strains in twisted object.

To show how to compare displayed strains with theory for a torsion beam.
To show how to connect and use strain gauges to measure strains in two

dimensions.
To show how to compare the displayed tensile strains in two dimensions with

theory and prove Poissons ratio.

To use the strain gauge trainer to test and find the tensile properties of
different test specimens.

THEORY:

10

11

12

EQUIPMENTS:
-

Strain Gauge Trainer SM1009, Digital Strain Display, Versatile Data

Acquisition System (VDAS) Hardware and Software.

Figure 1: The Strain Gauge Trainer

Figure 2: The Digital Strain Display

13

Figure 3 The VDAS Hardware and Software

14

15

16

TECHNICAL DETAILS

17

PROCEDURES:
Experiment 1: The Bending System
1. The Bending System Experiment is selected using VDAS software. A blank
result table is created.
2. The specimen dimension is read and recorded from the software.
3. The bending system strain gauges are connected to the strain display as a full
bridge.
4. The knife-edge hanger is carefully slide onto the beam to the 420 mm position.
5. The equipment is left to stabilize for approximately one minute. The zero
button is then pressed and hold until the display readings become 0 (zero).
6. The Record Data Values button is clicked to record the strain readings.
7. The small weight hanger is hooked to the knife-edge hanger.

18

8. The weights are then added to the weight hanger according to the set values in
the table and the mass value is adjusted respectively using the software.
Experiment 2: The Torsion System
Procedure 1 (using shear and torque strain gauges)
1. The Torsion System Experiment is selected using VDAS software. A blank
result table is created.
2. The blue strain gauge is connected to the strain display as a quarter bridge.
The Strain Display is adjusted to show the correct gauge factor and ACT=1.
3. The torque arm is screwed into the threaded hole at the end of the torsion
system.
4. The equipment is left to stabilize for approximately one minute. The zero
button is then pressed and hold until the display readings become 0 (zero).
5. A small weight hanger is added to the end of the torque arm.
6. 500 g load (49 weights) is added to the weight hanger. The mass value is
adjusted to 500 g using the software and the Record Data Values button is
clicked.
7. The strain reading and its polarity are recorded.
8. Next, the weights are removed and the experiment is repeated using red,
yellow, and green gauges sequentially.
Procedure 2 (comparing strains)
1. A new data series is started using VDAS software and a blank result table is
created.
2. The specimen dimension is read and recorded from the software.
3. The torsion system red and green gauges tensile twist is connected as
opposites. The blue and yellow gauges compressive twist is connected as
opposites to complete a full bridge.
4. The equipment is left to stabilize for approximately one minute. The zero
button is then pressed and hold until the display readings become 0 (zero).
5. The Record Data Values button is clicked. The strain reading is recorded in
the table.
6. A small weight hanger is added to the end of the torque arm. 24 weights are
firstly added to the weight hanger and the mass value is adjusted to 250 g
using the software. The Record Data Values button is then pressed.
7. More weights are added until it reaches 500 g. The mass is again adjusted to
500 g, and then the Record Data Values button is pressed.

19

Experiment 3: The Tension System

Procedure 1 (tensile strains only-red and yellow gauges)
1. The Tension System Experiment is selected using VDAS software. A blank
result table is created.
2. The specimen dimension is read and recorded from the software.
3. The red and yellow gauges of the Tension System are connected to the Strain
Display as a half bridge (opposite). ACT is set to be equal to 2.
4. The equipment is left to stabilize for approximately one minute. The zero
button is then pressed and hold until the display readings become 0 (zero). The
Record Data Values button is clicked.
5. The large weight hanger is fitted to the bottom of the Tension System
specimen. 0.5 kg is added to the weight hanger to give a total load of 1 kg. The
mass value is then adjusted to 1 kg using the software.
6. The Record Data Values button is clicked to obtain the strain reading.
7. More weights are added to the weight hanger in 1 kg increment, until it
eventually reaches 10kg. The mass value is then adjusted accordingly using
the software. The Record Data Values button is again clicked to obtain the
strain reading.
Procedure 2 (compressive strain only-blue and green gauges)
1. A new data series is started using VDAS software and a blank result table is
created.
2. Procedure 1 (Tensile Strain Only-Red and Yellow Gauges) is repeated, but
using different gauges - the blue and the green gauges.
Procedure 3 (full bridge tensile and compressive strain)
1. A new data series is started using VDAS software and a blank result table is
created.
2. Procedure 1 (Tensile Strain Only-Red and Yellow Gauges) is repeated, but all
four gauges are connected as a full bridge. The configuration control is set so
that ACT=N.
Experiment 4: The Optional Tension System Specimens
1. The Tension System Experiment is selected using VDAS software. A blank
result table is created.
2. The locating pin is slide out. The standard Tension Specimen and its connector
assembly are removed from the Strain Gauge Trainer.
3. Aluminium Tension specimen is fitted to the Strain Gauge Trainer.
20

4. The specimen details are entered into the software (i.e Material: Aluminum)
and the dimensions are read from there.
5. Table 10 is checked and the correction number for that particular material is
entered.
6. The Tension System gauges are connected to the Strain Display as a full
bridge and the Strain display is set for Act=1 (not Act=N).
7. The equipment is left to stabilize for approximately one minute. The zero
button is then pressed and hold until the display readings become 0 (zero). The
Record Data Values button is then clicked.
8. The large weight hanger is fitted to the bottom of the Tension System
specimen. 0.5 kg is added to the weight hanger to give a total load of 1 kg. The
mass value is then adjusted to 1 kg using the software. The Record Data
Values button is clicked.
9. More weights are added to the weight hanger in 1 kg increment, until it
eventually reaches 10kg. The mass value is then adjusted accordingly using
the software. The Record Data Values button is again clicked to obtain the
strain reading.
10. The aforementioned steps (1-9) are repeated, but using brass and copper
tension specimens sequentially.

DATA, OBSERVATIONS, AND RESULTS:

EXPERIMENT 1: The Bending System
Beams dimension: 20mm x
5mm
Youngs Modulus for the
beam: 207 GN/m2

Bridge Connection : Full

Load Position: 420mm

Second Moment of Area:

208.33 mm4
Load (g)

Force (N) =
Load (g) x
9.81 m/s2

Strain
Reading
()

Output
Voltage
(V)

Bending
Moment

Calculated
Stress

Calculate
d Strain

(Nm)

(MN/m2)

()

0.00

0.00

21

50

0.49

15

164

0.20

2.40

11.6

100

0.98

28

305

0.40

4.80

23.2

150

1.47

42

447

0.60

7.20

34.8

200

1.96

55

589

0.79

9.48

45.8

250

2.45

69

732

0.99

11.88

57.4

300

2.94

83

876

1.19

14.28

69

350

3.43

96

1018

1.39

16.68

80.6

400

3.92

110

1167

1.59

19.08

92.2

450

4.41

124

1310

1.79

21.48

103.8

500

4.90

137

1453

1.98

23.76

114.8

Table 1: Result for Experiment 1 (The Bending System)

Calculated Stress () vs Displayed

Strain () Graph

y= -0.101698 +
0.174122(x)

Graph 1: Result for Experiment 1

EXPERIMENT 2: The Torsion System
Gauge Factor : 2.05
Strain Gauge

Strain Reading
()

Polarity (+/-)

Type of Strain
(Compressive/Tensile)

Green

-23

Compressive

Red

21

Tensile
22

Yellow

-24

Compressive

Blue

22

Tensile

Table 2: Result for Experiment 2 Procedure 1 (The Torsion System: Using Shear and
Torque Strain Gauges)
Gauge Factor : 2.05

Shear Modulus for the beam : 79.6 GN/m2

Beam Diameter : 10 mm

Bridge Connection : Full

Beam Radius : 5 mm

Torque Arm Length : 0.15 m

Polar Moment of Inertia : 981.75 mm4

Load (g)

Force (N)
(Load x
9.81)

Torque
(Nm)

Output
Voltage

Strain
Reading

Calculated
shear stress

Direct
Strain

()

()

(MN/m2)

()

0.00

0.00

0.0

0.0

250

2.45

0.37

117

11

23.6

11.8

500

4.90

0.74

247

24

47.4

23.7

Table 3: Result for Experiment 2 Procedure 2 (The Torsion System: Comparing

Strains)

EXPERIMENT 3: The Tension System

Gauge Factor : 2.11
Specimen Dimensions (width and thickness) : 10mm & 2mm
Specimen cross-section: 20 mm2
Youngs Modulus: 207 GN/m2
Bridge Connection : Full
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Displayed
Tensile Strain

Calculated
Tensile Stress

Calculated
Tensile Strain
23

()

(N/m2)

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

2.4

19.61

0.98

4.7

29.42

1.47

7.1

39.23

10

1.96

9.5

49.03

12

2.45

11.8

58.84

15

2.94

14.2

68.65

18

3.43

16.6

78.45

20

3.92

18.9

88.26

23

4.41

21.3

10

98.07

25

4.90

23.7

Table 4: Result for Experiment 3 Procedure 1 (Tension System: Tensile Strains)

Gauge Factor : 2.11
Specimen Dimensions (width and thickness) : 10mm & 2mm
Specimen cross-section: 20 mm2
Youngs Modulus: 207 GN/m2
Bridge Connection : Half
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Displayed
Tensile Strain

Calculated
Tensile Stress

()

(N/m2)

Calculated
Tensile Strain

0.00

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

0.0

19.61

-1

0.98

-0.4

29.42

-2

1.47

-0.8

39.23

-3

1.96

-1.2

49.03

-3

2.45

-1.2

58.84

-4

2.94

-1.5

68.65

-5

3.43

-1.9
24

78.45

-6

3.92

-2.3

88.26

-6

4.41

-2.3

10

98.07

-7

4.90

-2.7

Table 5: Result for Experiment 3 Procedure 2 (Tension System: Compressive Strains)

Compressive Strain () vs Tensile Strain ()

0
10 15
-1 0 f(x) 5= - 0.29x
-2
-3
-4
Compressive Strain ()
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9

20

25

30

Tensile strain ()

Graph 2: Result for Experiment 3 (Procedure 1 and 2)

Gauge Factor : 2.11

Specimen Dimensions (width and thickness) : 10mm & 2mm
Specimen cross-section: 20 mm2
Youngs Modulus: 207 GN/m2
Bridge Connection : Quarter
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Displayed
Tensile Strain

Calculated
Tensile Stress

Calculated
Tensile Strain

()

(N/m2)

()

0.00

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

2.4

19.61

0.98

4.7
25

29.42

1.47

7.1

39.23

10

1.96

9.5

49.03

12

2.45

11.8

58.84

15

2.94

14.2

68.65

18

3.43

16.6

78.45

20

3.92

18.9

88.26

23

4.41

21.3

10

98.07

25

4.90

23.7

Table 6: Result for Experiment 3 Procedure 3 (Tension System: Full Bridge

Tensile and Compressive Strains)

EXPERIMENT 4: The Optional System (Aluminium, Brass, Copper)

Bridge Connection : Full
Material : Aluminium
Active Arms : 4.0
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Stress

Displayed Strain
()

Theoretical
Strain ()

0.00

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

7.1

19.61

0.98

10

14.2

29.42

1.47

16

21.3

39.23

1.96

21

28.4

49.03

2.45

26

35.6

58.84

2.94

30

42.7

68.65

3.43

34

49.8

78.45

3.92

38

56.9

88.26

4.41

42

64.0

10

98.07

4.90

45

71.1

Table 7: Result for Experiment 4 (Optional Tension System: Aluminium)

26

Calculated Stress,
(MN/m2) vs Corrected
Strain () for Aluminium
y= -0.38957 +
0.106661(x)

Graph 3: Result for Experiment 4 (Aluminium)

Bridge Connection : Neutral

Material : Aluminium
Active Arms : 2.6
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Stress

Displayed Strain
()

Theoretical
Strain ()

0.00

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

7.1

19.61

0.98

14.2

29.42

1.47

21.3

39.23

1.96

28.4

49.03

2.45

12

35.6
27

58.84

2.94

14

42.7

68.65

3.43

17

49.8

78.45

3.92

19

56.9

88.26

4.41

22

64.0

10

98.07

4.90

25

71.1

Table 8: Result for Experiment 4 (Optional Tension System: Aluminium

Neutral Bridge)

Calculated Stress,
(MN/m2) vs Corrected
Strain () for Aluminium
y= 0.120592 +
0.195599(x)

Graph 4: Result for Experiment 4 (Aluminium Neutral Bridge)

Bridge Connection : Full

Material : Brass
Active Arms : 4.0
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Stress
(MN/m2)

Displayed Strain
()

Theoretical
Strain ()

0.00

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

13

4.7

19.61

0.98

27

9.3

29.42

1.47

41

14.0

39.23

1.96

55

18.7

49.03

2.45

67

23.3
28

58.84

2.94

82

28.0

68.65

3.43

96

32.7

78.45

3.92

108

37.3

88.26

4.41

121

42.0

10

98.07

4.90

136

46.7

Table 9: Result for Experiment 4 (Optional Tension System: Brass)

Graph 5: Result for Experiment 4 (Brass)

Bridge Connection : Full

Material : Copper
Active Arms : 4.0
Load (kg)

Force (N)

Stress
(MN/m2)

Displayed Strain
()

Theoretical
Strain ()

0.00

0.00

0.0

9.81

0.49

3.8

19.61

0.98

16

7.5

29.42

1.47

27

11.3
29

39.23

1.96

38

15.1

49.03

2.45

49

18.8

58.84

2.94

60

22.6

68.65

3.43

71

26.4

78.45

3.92

81

30.2

88.26

4.41

93

33.9

10

98.07

4.90

103

37.7

Table 10: Result for Experiment 4 (Optional Tension System: Copper)

Graph 6: Result for Experiment 4 (Copper)

30

DISCUSSIONS:
The strain reading and the calculated strain reading was combined in one table
(Table 1) is because to make and check for the percentage difference. The calculated
and actual strain results in Experiment 1 are not very deviated. This difference is due
to rounding off the values which make an error of percentage differences to 15.88%.
The error caused deviation of Youngs Modulus, E from its theoretical value.
In Experiment 2 Procedure 1 and 2, there are four gauges on the rod and the
polarity was differentiated. The values obtained are very similar to all gauges
measured. The only differences are the negative and positive sign in front of the
values which indicate whether it is compressive or tensile twisting strain. The strain
readings shown by compressive strain gauge set are small and slightly different with
below than 5% of error. Clearly observed from the data in experiment 2 (Table 3), the
values of calculated strains recorded to be similar to the strain readings which have
proved the theory.
In Table 4 and Table 5, shows that the calculated tensile strains are very
similar to the displayed tensile strains. Proofed in Graph 2 that the relationship
between the tensile and compressive strains is 0.2938 which close to its theoretical
value of Poissons ratio for mild steel which is 0.3 which below than 5% of error. By
using all four gauges would bring more precise values of reading. And for
applications where strain values are small, a chart of the micro-volt output voltage can
give slightly better accuracy due to its high resolution. Table 6 shows the results for a
full bridge connection of the tensile and compressive strains.

31

The ACT=N setting is 2.6. Normally, ACT is set equal to 4 for four which
indicating the full bridge of equal magnitude strain reading. Following with ACT is
equal to two which indicating the half bridge gauges of equal magnitude strain
reading.
The Poissons ratio can be applied to most common metals but it varies
slightly according to the type of material itself. This concludes that, ACT=N setting is
not ideal for all material. From the experiment of bending system (Experiment 1),
torsion system (Experiment 2), and tension systems (Experiment 3) clearly seen that
the bending system and a full bridge configuration giving the best sensitivity among
these three systems.

The results of tension system for different materials (aluminium, brass and
copper) are shown in Table 7, 8, 9, 10 and Graph 3, 4, 5, 6. The plotted graphs show
gradient of 0.01066, and 0.0036, 0.00462 for aluminium (Full), brass and copper
which correspond to Youngs Modulus values of 195.66 GN/m 2, 36.11 GN/m2 and
42.63 GN/m2 respectively. The error was very large and this results affected in
64.73% error for aluminium, 65.61% error for brass and 67.21% error for copper
based on the comparisons of their experimental Youngs Modulus with the theoretical
values.
The error especially for experiment 4, the values of experimental Youngs
Modulus with the theoretical are quick varied. These errors may due to the human
error and technical error where the students may take the readings before allowing the
digital strain display to be stabilized. These errors, if controlled, can reduce the errors
taking place in this experiment, thus increasing the accuracy of data obtained from it.
Finally, the Youngs Modulus of material plays a vital role for the usage as a
force sensor, as it determines how much the material strains for a given amount of
stress. A higher strain for stress ratio (low Youngs Modulus) will produce better
sensitivity.

32

CONCLUSION:
Basically, all objectives of the Strain Gauge experiment have been achieved.
The errors for experiment 1, 2 and 3 are still within acceptable range of less than 20%.
Observed that, in experimental 4 the errors was varied when compared with values of
the theoretical of Young Modulus. The major error is a human error where the
reading might round off too big in a whole figure which will produces varied values
compared to the theoretical one. Minor error is that miscellaneous type of gross error
such as the improper use of the equipment and also systematic error while setting up
the equipment.
The relationship between the tensile and compressive strains from the tension
experiment is 0.2938 which is close enough to its theoretical value of Poissons ratio
for mild steel (0.3). From all the data recorded and graph shown in an analysis part, it
can be said that the aforementioned objectives highlighted for each experiment had
been successfully achieved.
Safety precautions need to be highlighted seriously while doing the experiment.
In a nutshell, it is noticed that the bending system and a full bridge configuration
produces the best sensitivity compared to the torsion and tension systems. It is also
proven that a quarter bridge is acceptable for most strain measurements.

REFERENCES:

33

1. MESB333: Engineering Measurement and Lab Lab Manual (Strain

Measurement).

Department

of

Mechanical

Engineering

College

of

Engineering. Universiti Tenaga Nasional.2014.pp 1-53.

34