Lab Report

Lab Report
on
Strain Gauging
by
Vinit Sonawane
MIS : 121624014
Department of Mechanical Engineering

College of Engineering, Pune
November 10, 2016

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Theory
2.1 Strain gages
2.2 Wheatstone Bridge Circuit
2.3 Cantilever Beam Bending
3. Experimental Setup
3.1 Effect of Geometric Non-linearity
3.2 Observations
3.3 Observation Table
3.4 Experimental Procedure
4. Results & Discussion
5. Conclusion
2
3
1 Introduction
In engineering design, it is very often necessary to test
hardware for stress and strain capabilities. Accurate measurement of
strain is crucial in the design and testing phase. This lab focuses on the
measurement of stress and strain through the use of strain gages.
Through the use of strain gages and strain measuring
instrument SCAD, strain and stress in the cantilever beam of
rectangular cross-section which is loaded at free end will be measured.
Finally, Theoretical and experimental results will be
compared with each other in a stress-strain plot.
2 Theory
2.1 Strain Gages

In this experiment, the strain gages utilized were foil-type electrical
resistance strain gages. These gages are based on the principle that wire
resistances change when the wires are subjected to mechanical strain.
A pair of electrical resistance strain gages can be seen in Figure 1.
Fig.1 Electrical Resistance Foil Strain Gages
1
These gages are bonded to the surface of the specimen to be measured.
As the specimen elongates or deforms, the wires in the strain gage also
elongate. This in turn causes a change in resistance and thus a change
in voltage over the gage. The change in resistance is directly related to
the strain by means of the gage factor, Sg
∆𝑅/𝑅
∈=
𝑆𝑔
Therefore, a given resistance variance indicates the strain on the surface
to which the gage is bonded.
2.2 Wheatstone Bridge Circuits

The resistive Wheatstone bridge circuit is frequently used in
measurement systems. A bridge circuit can be seen in Figure 2. The
boxes 1-4 are either resistors or resistive transducers, depending on the
bridge setup. For a quarter-bridge, box 1 is an active strain gage, and
all other boxes are fixed resistance resistors. In a half-bridge, boxes 1
and 4 are strain gages, and the others are resistors.
b
R2
a c E
R3
d
Figure 2: Wheatstone Bridge with Balance Potentiometer
2
By applying Kirchhoff’s current and voltage laws, the output of the
Wheatstone bridge circuit pictured in Figure 2 is given by
∆𝑅1 ∆𝑅2 ∆𝑅3 ∆𝑅4

∆E = C [ − + − ]
𝑅1 𝑅2 𝑅3 𝑅4
In our experiment,
∆𝑅1 ∆𝑅4
∆E = C [ − ]
𝑅1 𝑅4
2.3 Cantilever Beam Bending

When subjected to a point load at its tip, a cantilever beam has a linear
variance in stress and strain through the cross-section in the direction
parallel to the load. The stress and strain at the center of the beam is
zero. Therefore, the strain on the top and bottom of the beam are equal,
opposite, and maximum. So for the setup in Figure 4, strain gage G1
should read an equal and opposite strain to that of G2. To calculate the
stress,
𝑀𝑦
σ=
𝐼
I is the moment of inertia and for a rectangular cross section, I = bt3/12
where b is the base and t is the thickness. At the base of the beam, the
moment is M =WL.
At the surface, y = t/2. The stress on the surface at the base of the beam
is
6WL
σ=
bt 2
Because the bottom gage will have a negative strain opposite to that
of gage 1, The surface strain can then be found by dividing the output
strain in half.
3
3 Experimental Setup
The experimental setup Consist of a cantilever beam of rectangular
cross-section made of High Carbon Steel E=207GPa. It is subjected to
load at the free end as shown in figure 3. Loads are applied with the
help of loading pan attached to beam at the end.
Two strain gages are connected to beam on top side and bottom side at
distance L1 from fixed end.
L1
Figure 3 Experimental Setup
3.1 Effect of geometric non-linearity

6WL
σ=
bt 2
From above equation we can say that, σ L. but, as load in the pan
increases, effective length of beam decreases as shown in figure 4 and
we have to consider this effect while calculating stress. Thus, if we
consider instantaneous length(L’) of beam while calculating bending
stress, it will become.
6WL′
σ=
bt 2
4
W1
W2
W3
L3’
L2’
L1’
Figure 4 Effect of geometric Non-linearity
3.2 Observations
 Gage factor = 2.15
 Bridge factor for half bridge = 1.33
 Resistance of strain gage in ohm = 350
 Width of beam (mm) = 11.90
 Thickness (mm) = 0.552
 Total length of cantilever (mm) = 293
 Total moment arm length (mm) = 273
 Modulus of elasticity(GPa) = 207
5
3.3 Observation Table
Table 1. Observation Table

Sr. No. Load (gm) Actual Moment Strain
arm length L’ SCAD reading
(mm) (µm/m)
1 00 273 0
2 39 258 1430
3 50.5 246 1819
4 62 240 2160
5 73.5 239 2481
6 85 237 2775
7 96.5 233 3055
8 108 227 3297
9 136.5 213 3837
3.4 Experimental Procedure

i. Measure the dimensions of beam using Vernier calliper and
Micrometer.
ii. Attach strain gages to the beam as shown in figure 3, and connect
strain gages to SCAD strain measuring instrument.
iii. Fix one end of the beam and attach loading pan on the other end.
Take strain reading and also measure effective length L’ of beam.
iv. Add weight of 11.5 gm successively in pan and simultaneously
take readings for strain and effective length
v. Take all reading carefully for each load.
6
4 Results & Discussion
4.1 Calculations
a) Theoretical stress without considering Non-linearity
6WL
σ=
bt2
6 × W × 9.81 × 10−3 × 273

σ=
11.90 × 0.5522
σ = 4.432 × W MPa
For 2nd reading, W = 39 gm
σ = 172.62 MPa
b) Theoretical stress with considering Non-linearity

6W𝐿′
σ=
bt2
6×W×9.81×10−3 ×L′
σ=
11.90×0.5522
σ = 0.0162 × W × 𝐿′ MPa
For 2nd reading, W = 39 gm , L’ = 258 mm
σ = 163.135 MPa
7
c) Experimental Stress
Strain SCAD reading
σ= × 𝐸
2
For 2nd reading,

1430
σ= × 10−6 × 207 × 103
2
σ = 148.005 MPa
Table 2. Results Table

Sr. Load Strain Experimental Theoretical Theoretical
No. (gm) (µm/m) Stress stress Corrected
(MPa) (MPa) Stress
(MPa)
1 00 0 0 0 0
2 39 715 148.005 172.620 163.135
3 50.5 909.5 188.267 223.520 201.413
4 62 1080 223.560 274.420 241.249
5 73.5 1240.5 256.784 325.321 284.805
6 85 1387.5 287.213 376.221 326.610
7 96.5 1527.5 316.193 427.122 364.540
8 108 1648.5 341.240 478.022 397.476
9 136.5 1918.5 397.130 604.167 471.383
8
STRESS VS STRAIN
Experimental Stress (MPa) Theoretical stress (MPa)
Theoretical Corrected Stress (MPa)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 5 Stress vs Strain plot
5 Conclusion
 Experimental stress and corrected theoretical stress have small

difference because of manual errors.
 There is considerable difference between theoretical stress and
corrected theoretical stress because of geometric non-linearity.
9
6 References
I. “The Strain Gage”

URL:http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume3/str
ain.html
10

Lab Report - Strain Gauging

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lab Report - Strain Gauging

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Lab Report - Strain Gauging

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Mechanical Engineering

November 10, 2016

2.1 Strain Gages

Fig.1 Electrical Resistance Foil Strain Gages

2.2 Wheatstone Bridge Circuits

Figure 2: Wheatstone Bridge with Balance Potentiometer

∆𝑅1 ∆𝑅2 ∆𝑅3 ∆𝑅4

2.3 Cantilever Beam Bending

3.1 Effect of geometric non-linearity

Figure 4 Effect of geometric Non-linearity

Table 1. Observation Table

3.4 Experimental Procedure

6 × W × 9.81 × 10−3 × 273

b) Theoretical stress with considering Non-linearity

For 2nd reading,

Table 2. Results Table

Figure 5 Stress vs Strain plot

 Experimental stress and corrected theoretical stress have small

I. “The Strain Gage”

You might also like