Circular Beam Under Combined Loading

Nick Leach

Group 3a

MAE 244, Sec. 2, Dr. Feng

November 9, 2005
Table of Contents:

Introduction.......................................................................................................3-4

Schematics.........................................................................................................5-6

Analysis of Results............................................................................................7

Discussion..........................................................................................................8-11

References..........................................................................................................12

Appendix............................................................................................................13-17

2
Introduction:

The combined loading experiment is pertinent for engineering applications in

strain gages. Strain gages are used in a variety of industrial applications for experimental

stress and failure analysis and diagnosis on machinery such as impact, dental and medical

sensors, web tension and tension sensors, force measurements in machine tools such as

hydraulic and pneumatic presses, aerospace, automotive, and biometrics. Experiments are

routinely performed in the laboratories in order to determine factors like residual stress,

proof testing, and also measurements of vibration, torque, bending, deflection,

compression and tension, and strain.

In many engineering situations, components frequently have to withstand more

than one type of load. Shafts often have to withstand torque and bending moments. To

solve this type of design problem the components are assumed to behave in a linear

manner and superposition is used (Yielding cannot occur). The stresses due to each type

of loading are determined in turn and then combined using appropriate equations or

Mohr's circle.

Mohr’s circle is used in this lab to display the graphical approach to the solutions

of the stress and strain values and also the angle. Introduced by Otto Mohr in 1882,

Mohr's Circle illustrates principal stresses and stress transformations via a graphical

format. The normal stesses equal the principal stresses when the stress element is aligned

with the principal directions, and the shear stress equals the maximum shear stress when

the stress element is rotated 45° away from the principal directions. The 2D plane stress

diagram (in Figure 2) is used to draw Mohr's Circle.

3
 Under combined loading for a circular beam, each applied load is analyzed based

on measured strains and principal directions, stresses and strains are determined at the

location of the rosette using calculations and Mohr's circle. To obtain the calculations, the

correct procedure should be followed and ensured. The location of each rosette and the

directions of all the individual gages should be recorded. The gages should be connected

to separate channels of the switch and balance unit (beside the strain indicator in the

schematic), which in turn should be connected to the strain indicator. Then calibration is

obtained when each gage circuit is balanced with no load. After this preliminary setup,

the loads are applied and the strain readouts are recorded from the strain indicator.

Experimental results are then calculated and comparisons are made with analytical values

for error analysis.

4
Schematic:

Figure 1: Circular Shaft with Fixed Support

5
Figure 2: 2D Plane Stress Diagram (Ref. 4)

Figure 3: Mohr's Circle Diagram (Ref. 4)

6
Analysis of Results:

εx + εy
εp =
2
±
1
4
( )
(ε x + ε y ) 2 + ε xy 2
εp = principal strain
εx = x Cartesian strain component
εy = y Cartesian strain component
εxy = ½ Cartesian coordinate of engineering shear strain

1 ε xy
θ= tan −1
2 εx −εy
θ = principal strain direction

σx +σy
σp = ±
1
(σ x + σ y ) 2 + σ xy 2
2 4
σp = principal stress
σx = x Cartesian stress component
σy = y Cartesian stress component
σxy = Cartesian shear stress component

R=
1
(σ x + σ y ) 2 + σ xy 2
4

R = radius of circle

7
 • Comparisons:

LOAD εX εY εZ γXY εXY εmax εmin θP

400 -67 227 246 332 166 301.73182 -141.73182 -24.236878
800 -134 452 492 666 333 602.5515754 -284.5515754 -24.32805086

Table 1: Calculated Experimental Results for Strain

LOAD σX σY σXY σmax σmin

400 -37.04552899 6572.256797 3718.4 8252.2744 -1717.06319
6
800 -92.45550824 13081.1879 7459.2 16465.680 -3476.94829
7

Table 2: Calculated Experimental Results for Stress

LOAD E G υ M T
0 29000000 11200000 0.29 0 0
400 29000000 11200000 0.29 2600 2200
800 29000000 11200000 0.29 5200 4400

Table 3: Calculated and Given Values for Data Analysis

LOAD σX σY σXY σmax σmin θP εmax εmin

400 0 7601.095981 3215.8483 8779.0864 -1177.99 -20.11817 314.5070242 -128.4112
6
800 0 15202.19196 6431.6966 17558.172 -2355.98 -20.11817 629.0140484 -256.8224
9

Table 4: Calculated Analytical Results for Stress and Principal Strains

LOAD σmax σmin θP εmax εmin

400 6.000761 45.76205964 20.472523 4.0619773 10.3733874
9
800 6.222129 47.57964274 20.925709 4.2069764 10.79700121
4 8

Table 5: Percent Difference for Experimental/Theoretical Values

8
Discussion:

• Conclusions:

There are several ways to determine the principal stresses/strains, principal

direction, and maximum shear stress at locations of a structure or part under

combined loadings using the three-element rosette strain gage. For the graphical

approach, Mohr’s circle is an obvious choice of method. First you calculate the

stresses and tau, then you can measure the angle and maximum and minimum values

from the illustration. You don’t need to calculate these beforehand. Other than Mohr’s

circle, using the calculations provided in the analysis of results can give direct values

for the maximum and minimum stresses/strains and the angle too.

Figure 1: Mohr’s Circle for 400 lbs

9
Figure 2: Mohr’s Circle for 800 lbs

10
 • Limitations and Experimental Error:

Limitations to the experiment are mainly in the calculations. The moment equations used

are a little off and effect the sigma values directly, thus increasing percent difference as a

result of inaccurate analytical calculations. Since the strain measurements were in

microstrain, then the error from the strain indicator is minimal due to the fact that the

values are so high. Obviously, the percent difference table reflects some major problems

in the comparisons and those problems mainly originate in the value conversions of units.

As you can see, the applet values of theta are about .025% deviating from the values

calculated by the data on Excel. As for the analytical calculations of the minimum

principal stress, the error is completely in the calculations using the torque and moment. I

believe it was an error on behalf of the moment of inertia (I) and the polar moment of

inertia (J). Other than these errors, the experiment was smooth and I think it can be

duplicated with similar experimental values.

11
References:

1. Handout material supplied by instructor

2. www.engin.umich.edu/students/ support/mepo/ELRC/me211/mohr.html

3. Mechanics of Materials 6th Edition, R.C. Hibbler

4. www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/mat_mechanics/mohr_circle.cfm

5. www.aoe.vt.edu/~jing/MohrCircle.html

6. www.blh.de/products/straingage.htm

12
 Appendix:

Circular Shaft Dimensions

Distance from Arm to Strain Gage: Y=6.5”
Moment Arm Length: L=5.5”
Shaft Diameter: D=1.516”
Shaft Radius: R=0.758”

Strain Gage
R=350±0.2% Ω
Sg=2.045±0.5%

Applied Load (lbs) Strain Gage at A Strain Gage at B Strain Gage at C

0 1 0 1
(0) (0)
400.0 -66 227 247
(-67) (246)
800.0 -133 452 493
(-134) (492)

Appendix Table 1: Original Recorded Data from Experiment

13