Uniaxial Stress-Strain Laboratory

Report

by

Nittikorn Chian
(20113897)

Department of Mechanical, Materials & Manufacturing

Engineering

The University of Nottingham

Statics and Dynamics

 Part 1: Calibration Experiment
Summary
This part of the experiment will be carried out to obtain the value of the Calibration
Factor (C.F.), which will be used in further calculations. A uniaxially loaded specimen
will be used to determine the calibration factor by establishing the relationship
between the strain and load applied.

Introduction
Uniaxial stress and strain is a form of loading in which axial component of stress and
strain is nonzero, while all other components of stress and strain on the specimen
are zero. This means that the stress and strain resulting from the load acts through
the specimen along one direction only. In this experiment, a strain measuring device
known as the “Demec gauge” which measures the change in distance between two
fixed points on the specimen when the specimen is under load will be used.

Theory
The Demec Gauge has its own Demec factor, which can be calculated using the
following equation:

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑐 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐷
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑐 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝐾 = 𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = (1)
∆𝐿 ⁄𝐿

The Demec factor, K used in this experiment is 2.481 × 105 .

In order to obtain the Calibration Factor, the relationship of uniaxial stress and
strain can be derived using Young’s Modulus, E:

𝜎 𝐹/𝐴
𝐸= = ∆𝐿/𝐿 (2)
𝜀

By substituting equation (1) into (2), the following relationship can be obtained:

𝐹/𝐴
𝐸=
𝐷/𝐾
𝐷 𝐹
=
𝐾 𝐸𝐴
𝐾
𝐷=( )𝐹 (3)
𝐸𝐴
2
A graph of Demec reading, K against Force, F will be plotted based on equation (3),
where (K/EA) represents the gradient of the graph. The Calibration Factor, C.F., can
then be obtained by inversing the gradient of the graph as follows:

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝐴 1
𝐶. 𝐹. = = = (4)
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑐 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐾 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡

Experimental results and calculations

Obtained from Statics and Dynamics lab handout.

Dimensions of the loading frame were measured as:

𝐿1 = 0.135m
𝐿2 = 0.552m
𝐿3 = 0.048m
𝐿4 = 0.228m

The weight, W can be obtained from the following equation:

𝑊 = 𝑚𝑔 (5)

where m represents the mass of the load and g the gravitational acceleration
(9.81m/s). Force of the specimen can then be calculated as follows:

(𝐿1 + 𝐿2 )𝐿4
𝐹𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛 = 𝑊 (6)
𝐿1 𝐿3
The results and data are tabulated in Table 1 and the graph of average Demec
reading against Force is shown in Figure 1.

3
 Table 1: Calibration experiment data
Demec reading, D
Load (kg) W (N) 𝐅𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧
Loading Unloading Average
0 0 0 -21 -19 -20
2 19.62 474.26 -16 -8 -12
4 39.24 948.52 -7 6 -0.5
6 58.86 1422.78 7 22 14.5
8 78.48 1897.04 21 36 28.5
10 98.10 2371.30 37 49 43
12 117.72 2845.55 49 55 52
14 137.34 3319.81 59 59 59

Figure 1: Graph of Demec reading, D against Force, F

Graph of D against F
70

60

50

40 y = 0.0255x - 21.833
Demec reading, D

30

20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-10

-20

-30
Force, F (N)

The gradient of the graph is shown as 0.0255 Demec readings per Newtons. From
equation (4), we know that inversing it gives us the Calibration Factor, which is:

1
𝐶. 𝐹. =
0.0255
= 𝟑𝟗. 𝟐𝟐 𝑵/𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒄 𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔
4
Discussion
Based on the graph illustrate in Figure 1, it can be seen that the average Demec
division increases along with the force applied on the specimen. The actual value of
the Calibration Factor was still in the theoretical range of 30-40 Newtons per Demec
divisions, although nearing the higher end of the range. Thus, several experimental
errors has to be taken into consideration.

The largest possible source of error would be parallax error, which might have
occurred when taking measurements. The possible presence of zero error would’ve
affected the accuracy of the measurements as well. As the readings and
measurements were taken in larger decimal divisions, rounding error might have
occurred along with other calibration errors.

However, the effects of such errors can be minimized by repeating the experiment
to obtain average values of each reading using measuring tools of greater precision.

Conclusion:
The calibration factor of 39.22 Newtons per Demec divisions was obtained from the
experiment.

5
 Part 2: Elastic Modulus Experiment
Summary
The following part of the experiment was carried out to obtain the value of Young’s
Modulus of aluminium and brass. The effects of different cross-sections on the value
of Young’s Modulus of a particular specimen will also be observed.

Introduction
Young’s Modulus, E, is a mechanical property which often represents the stiffness of
different materials. In this part of the experiment, a stepped aluminium bar, uniform
aluminium bar and a compound bar consisting of brass and aluminium will be
subjected to various levels of tensile force. The strain will be evaluated based on the
Demec gauge reading as per the first part of the experiment.

Theory
For a uniform bar, equation (3) can be used to determine the value of Young’s
Modulus, E:
𝐾
𝐷=( )𝐹
𝐸𝐴
𝐹 𝐾
𝐸 = ( )( ) (7)
𝐷 𝐴

As can be seen from the equation above, the Demec division is directly proportional
to the force applied.

For a stepped bar with four different cross-sections across its span, the axial force
applied across each cross-section will be the same. The total change in length of the
bar is the sum of the change in length of each cross-section:

∆𝐿 = ∆𝐿1 + ∆𝐿2 + ∆𝐿3 + ∆𝐿4 (8)

6
By manipulating equation (2) and substituting equation (8), we then get:

𝐹/𝐴
𝐸=
∆𝐿/𝐿
𝐹 𝐿
∆𝐿 = ( ) (9)
𝐸 𝐴
𝐹 𝐿1 𝐿2 𝐿3 𝐿4
∆𝐿 = ( + + + ) (10)
𝐸 𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐴3 𝐴4

Substituting equation (1) into ∆𝐿 above then gives us:

𝐷𝐿 𝐹 𝐿1 𝐿2 𝐿3 𝐿4
= ( + + + )
𝐾 𝐸 𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐴3 𝐴4
𝐿1 𝐿2 𝐿3 𝐿4
𝐾( + + + )
𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐴3 𝐴4
𝐷= 𝐹 (11)
𝐸𝐿

The Demec division is found to be directly proportional to the force. The value of the
Young’s Modulus, E can then be calculated based on the gradient of the graph.

For a compound bar where an aluminium bar is perfectly welded to a brass bar, the
total force applied across its span is the sum of both aluminium and brass bars:

𝐹 = 𝐹𝑎 + 𝐹𝑏 (12)

where 𝐹𝑎 represents the force across the aluminium bar and 𝐹𝑏 the brass bar. As
both bars form a compound bar, the change in length across both bars will be the
same. Therefore, from equation (2), the total force applied can be derived as
follows:

∆𝐿
𝐹 = 𝐴𝐸 (13)
𝐿
∆𝐿
𝐹= (𝐴𝑎 𝐸𝑎 + 𝐴𝑏 𝐸𝑏 ) (14)
𝐿
7
Substituting equation (1) then gives us:

𝐾 (15)
𝐷= 𝐹
(𝐴𝑎 𝐸𝑎 + 𝐴𝑏 𝐸𝑏 )

The brass’s bar Young’s Modulus, E can then be calculated using the gradient of the
straight-line graph.

Experimental results and calculations

Dimensions of specimen A (uniform aluminium bar):

𝑊 = 25mm

𝐿 = 0.2m

Thickness = 3.34mm

Cross-sectional area, A can then be calculated:

𝐴 = 𝑊 × Thickness

= 8.35 × 10−5

Using equation (4) and the C.F. value calculated earlier, Force, F can then be
calculated:

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝐶. 𝐹. =
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑐 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝐹 = 𝐶. 𝐹.× 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑐 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 (16)

The results for specimen A are tabulated in Table 2.1 and graph of D against F
plotted in Figure 2.1.

8
 Table 2.1
Demec reading, D
Demec division Force, F (N)
Loading Unloading Average
0 0 39 45 42
20 784.4 71 74 72.5
40 1568.8 101 109 105
60 2353.2 139 142 140.5
80 3137.6 185 185 185

Figure 2.1

Graph of D against F
50

45

40

35 y = 0.0451x + 38.2
Demec reading, D

30

25

20

15

10

0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Force, F (N)

The gradient of the graph is shown as 0.0451 Demec readings per Newtons. Using
equation (7), Young’s Modulus of aluminium can then be calculated:

𝐹 𝐾
𝐸 = (𝐷) 𝐴

1 2.481×105
= (0.0451)(8.35×10−5 )

= 𝟔𝟓. 𝟗 𝑮𝑵/𝒎𝟐

9
Dimensions of specimen B (stepped aluminium bar):

Obtained from Statics and Dynamics lab handout.

Total length = 0.2m

Thickness = 2.94 × 10−3 m
𝐿1 = 0.025𝑚, 𝑊1 = 0.01420𝑚, 𝐴1 = 4.17 × 105 𝑚2
𝐿2 = 0.05𝑚, 𝑊2 = 0.02001𝑚, 𝐴1 = 5.88 × 105 𝑚2
𝐿3 = 0.05𝑚, 𝑊3 = 0.02432𝑚, 𝐴1 = 7.15 × 105 𝑚2
𝐿4 = 0.075𝑚, 𝑊4 = 0.01420𝑚, 𝐴1 = 4.17 × 105 𝑚2

Force, F applied on the specimen can be obtained from equation (16). The results
for specimen B are tabulated in Table 2.2 and a graph of D against F is plotted in
Figure 2.2.

𝐹 = 𝐶. 𝐹.× 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑐 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

10
 Table 2.2
Demec reading, D
Demec division Force, F (N)
Loading Unloading Average
-6 -235.52 72 64 68
14 549.08 114 120 117
34 1333.48 180 178 179
54 2117.88 219 222 220.5
74 2902.28 280 280 280

Figure 2.2

Graph of D against F
50
45
40
Demec reading, D

35 y = 0.0106x + 16.063

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Force, F (N)

The gradient of the graph is shown as 0.0672 Demec readings per Newtons. Using
equation (11), Young’s Modulus of the stepped aluminium bar can then be
calculated:

𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝐾( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ) 𝐹
𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐴3 𝐴4
𝐸= ( )
𝐿 𝐷
0.025 0.05 0.05 0.075
(2.481 × 105 ) ( −5 + −5 + −5 + −5 ) 1
= 4.17 × 10 5.88 × 10 7.15 × 10 4.17 × 10 ( )
0.2 0.0672

= 𝟕𝟐. 𝟗 𝑮𝑵/𝒎𝟐

11
Dimensions of specimen C (compound aluminium-brass bar):

Obtained from Statics and Dynamics lab handout.

Length = 0.2m
W = 25mm
Thickness = 2.86mm
Cross-sectional area, 𝐴 = 𝑊 × Thickness = 7.15 × 10−5 𝑚2

Force, F applied on the specimen can be obtained from equation (16). The results
for specimen C are tabulated in Table 2.3 and a graph of D against F is plotted in
Figure 2.3.

Table 2.3

Demec Demec reading, D

Force, F (N)
division Loading Unloading Average
-15 -588.3 12 11 11.5
5 196.1 20 18 19
25 980.5 25 22 23.5
45 1764.9 35 28 31.5
65 2549.3 47 47 47

12
 Figure 2.3

Graph of D against F
50

45

40 y = 0.0106x + 16.063
Demec reading, D

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Force, F (N)

The gradient of the graph is shown as 0.0106 Demec readings per Newtons. Using
equation (15), Young’s Modulus of brass can then be calculated, subtracting
specimen A’s value of Young’s Modulus:

𝐾
𝐷 = (𝐴 𝐹
𝑎 𝐸𝑎 +𝐴𝑏 𝐸𝑏 )

𝐾
𝐷 = 𝐴(𝐸 𝐹
𝑎 +𝐸𝑏 )

𝐾 𝐹
𝐸𝑏 = ( ) − 𝐸𝑎
𝐴 𝐷

(2.481×105 ) 1
= (
(7.15×10−5 ) 0.0106
) − 6.59 × 1010

= 𝟐𝟔𝟏. 𝟒𝟓 𝑮𝑵/𝒎𝟐

13
Discussion
Based on Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, the clear difference between the values of
Young’s Modulus can be seen with specimens of different characteristics. First off,
the Young’s Modulus of the stepped bar appears to be larger than that of a uniform
bar of the same material, whilst the brass bar was found to have a much higher
value of Young’s Modulus compared to that of an aluminium bar. This signifies that
a stepped bar is stiffer than a uniform bar of the same material, whilst brass is stiffer
than aluminium. However, the values of Young’s Modulus for each bar appears to
differ significantly from the theoretical values of 𝐸 = 69𝐺𝑁/𝑚2 for aluminium and
𝐸 = 103𝐺𝑁/𝑚2 for brass. A much larger difference can be seen for the Young’s
Modulus of the brass bar, with a percentage difference of roughly 153%. A series of
experimental errors that might have occurred were likely the cause of such error
margins.

The first experimental error would be parallax error which might have occurred in
the process of taking measurements. Although its effects would be negligible on this
scale, decimal error during calculations are to be blamed as well. Besides the
measurement errors mentioned, as the bars and measuring tools used in the
experiment have been reused for multiple experiments, some sort of defection
might have occurred within the bars and the tools, causing the experimental values
to differ slightly from the theoretical values.

However, such errors can be minimized by taking multiple measurements across

each step to obtain a much accurate value. Bars and measuring tools that are in
better conditions can also be used to obtain more accurate values.

Conclusion
The stepped bar was found to have a larger Young’s Modulus than that of a uniform
bar of the same material. The Young’s Modulus of brass was found to be
261.45 𝐺𝑁/𝑚2 and aluminium 65.9 𝐺𝑁/𝑚2 .

References
• Brannon, R. (2019). Distinction between uniaxial stress and uniaxial strain. [online]
University of Utah CSM Group. Available at:
<https://csmbrannon.net/2012/08/02/distinction-between-uniaxial-stress-and-
uniaxial-strain/> [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• MMME1036 Uniaxial Stress and Strain Lab Handout
14