Laboratory 1 Electrical Resistance Strain Gages –

Applications to Beam Bending

David Walton

Group Number: 1

Section 1

Instructor- Nianqiang Wu

1-24-07
 Introduction

This laboratory illustrates the use of electrical resistance strain gages and their

applications. Electrical resistance strain gages allow for the calculation of a material’s

elastic deformation properties, one of which is strain. The strain induced on a beam or

other such object can be determined by means of three varying methods. The method

used in this laboratory, as obviously stated, is electrical. The electrical resistance of a

conducting wire changes when the length of the conductor changes through elastic

deformation. Using this knowledge the strain can be calculated by first obtaining

resistance changes in a strain gage which has undergone a load. Another means of

obtaining the strain is to directly measure the change in gage length through

extensometers. This is a mechanical method. The final method is optical, in which

changes caused by loading in certain optical patterns provide an indirect measurement of

the corresponding strains. The objectives of this laboratory are as follows: calculate the

theoretical bending stress for each load increase, plot the theoretical stress vs. measured

longitudinal strain and contrast the modulus and Poisson’s ratio, use the tip deflection

method to compute the theoretical strain and plot vs. theoretical stress, plot the tip

deflection vs. the applied load on the beam. In order to complete this laboratory a

Wheatstone bridge will measure changes in resistance as the load on the beam increases.
 Data was collected by attaching the strain gages and wiring them into the

Wheatstone bridge. Measurements were taken for each increment of half a pound. For

each increment, values for beam tip deflection, axial gage loading, and transverse gage

loading were taken. After all of the required data was collected it was computed to obtain

the strain of the beam during each weight increase

h
12 M ( )
Mc Mc 2 = 12Mh = 12( Pd )h = 6 Pd
σ= = 3 = 3
I bh bh 2bh3 2bh3 bh 2
12

P = Applied Force

h = Height of bar

b = Width of bar

d = distance from applied force to where the maximum stress are determined

The results found from the above formula can be seen in Appendix A, Tables 1

and 2. The comparison of longitudinal strain v. theoretical stress can also be found in

Appendix A.

In the following equation “v” is Poisson’s Ratio and “E” is the strain.

− Etrans
v=
Elong

The following equation is used to calculate the theoretical strain using the measured tip-

deflection

3δcd
ε=
L3
δ = Tip – deflection

c = height / 2

d = distance from applied force to where the maximum stress are determined

L = total length of the beam

The slope of the stress strain curve will produce the Young’s Modulus of the material.

y2 − y1
Slope Young’s Modulus =
x2 − x1

Y = Longitudinal Strain

X = Theoretical Stress

Calculated − Given
Percentage Difference = *100
Given

After all calculations were made and the two materials were compared it was very

obvious that the composite beam is stronger and can withstand greater forces. This lab

helps to analyze strengths and weaknesses of varying materials, and makes it a very

straight forward process.

Appendix A

Table 1 (Aluminum Beam)

Applied Loading P Longitudinal Strain Transverse Strain (

Stress ( σ )
(Lbs) ( µε ) µε )

0 -4 5 0

.5 103 39 1051.67

1.0 205 74 2097.236

1.5 316 112 3152.594

2.0 423 149 4198.609

2.5 532 183 5238.830

Longitudinal Strain v. Stress

(Aluminum Beam)

600
Longitudinal Strain

500
400
300
Longitudinal Strain
200
100
0
-100 0 2000 4000 6000
Stress

Table 2 (Aluminum Beam)

Applied Load (Lbs.) Given Poisson’s Calculated Poisson’s Percentage

Ratio Ratio Difference

0 0.3 -2.5 -733%
.5 0.3 -.32 6.67%
1.0 0.3 -.32 6.67%
1.5 0.3 -.33 1.00%
2.0 0.3 -.33 1.00%
2.5 0.3 -.33 1.00%

Table 3 (Aluminum Beam)

Applied Loading Slope Young’s Book Value Young’s Percentage

(Lbs.) Modulus Modulus Difference

0-0.5 10.75 10.4 5.32%
0.5-1.0 10.29 10.4 .67%
1.0-1.5 10.26 10.4 .54%
1.5-2.0 10.41 10.4 .21%
2.0-2.5 10.32 10.4 .43%

Longitudinal Strain v. Transverse Strain

(Aluminum Beam)
600
500
Longitudinal Strain

400 Stress v Strain (Aluminum Beam)

300 Longitudinal Strain
600
200 500
100 400
0 300 Longitudinal Strain
Strain

-100 0
-100 200 100 200 Theoretical Strain
Transverse
100 Strain
0
-100 0 2000 4000 6000

Stress
 Table 4 (Aluminum Beam)

Applied Load (Lbs.) Tip Deflection (in.) Theoretical Stress Theoretical Strain
0 0 0 0
0.5 0.05 1051.32 1.469
1.0 0.05 2087.632 1.990
1.5 0.05 3160.326 3.567
2.0 0.05 4206.053 5.203
2.5 0.05 5276.369 5.893

Table 5 (Aluminum Beam)

Applied Load (Lbs.) Given Poisson’s Calculated Poisson’s Percentage

Ratio Ratio Difference

0 0.3 -2.3 -68.9%
.5 0.3 -.42 5.67%
1.0 0.3 -.45 6.58%
1.5 0.3 -.44 2.05%
2.0 0.3 -.45 2.06%
2.5 0.3 -.42 2.01%

Table 6 (Composite Beam)

Applied Loading Slope Young’s Book Value Young’s Percentage

(Lbs.) Modulus Modulus Difference

0-0.5 7.98 16.71 -54.72%
0.5-1.0 7.65 16.71 -55.32%
1.0-1.5 7.54 16.71 -51.70%
1.5-2.0 7.34 16.71 -61.52%
2.0-2.5 7.12 16.71 -54.98%
 Table 7 (Composite Beam)

Applied Loading P Longitudinal Strain Transverse Strain (

Stress ( σ )
(Lbs) ( µε ) µε )

0 -6 -19 0

.5 139 -7 1643.698

1.0 285 13 3785.029

1.5 447 23 5489.326

2.0 573 38 7498.902

2.5 678 error 8126.897

Table 8 (Composite Beam)

Applied Load (Lbs.) Given Poisson’s Calculated Poisson’s Percentage

Ratio Ratio Difference

0 0.0925 7.16 7423%
.5 0.0925 0.0358 51.06%
1.0 0.0925 0.0646 14.69%
1.5 0.0925 0.0801 13.99%
2.0 0.0925 0.0904 3.74%
2.5 0.0925 0.0923 1.69%

Table 9 (Composite Beam)

Applied Load (Lbs.) Tip Deflection (in.) Theoretical Stress Theoretical Strain
0 0 0 0
 0.5 0.1 1956.643 1.452
1.0 0.15 3548.642 2.068
1.5 0.05 5641.021 4.366
2.0 0.15 7268.369 6.702
2.5 0.20 9189.695 8.962

Longitudinal Strain v. Stress

(Composite Beam)

800
Longitudinal Strain

600

400 Longitudinal Strain

200

0
0 5000 10000
Stress
 Longitudinal Strain v. Transverse Strain (Composite
Beam)

800
Longitudinal Strain

600

400 Longitudinal Strain

200

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Transverse Strain

Stress v Strain (Composite Beam)

800
700
600
500
Strain

Longitudinal Strain
400
Theoretical Strain
300
200
100
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Stress
 Mdoulus to Weight Ratio

Composite
Beam

Series1

Aluminum
Beam

0 100 200 300 400 500

Ratio

Weight*Tip Deflection v Load

0.035
Weight*Tip Deflection

0.03
0.025
0.02 Aluminum Beam
0.015 Composite Beam
0.01
0.005
0
0 1 2 3
Load