Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David Clark
Group C:
9/15/2006
Abstract
A cantilever beam, a beam supported at one point, has been used many times in
countless designs and structures. It is important to understand the behavior of this setup
to avoid any type of failure that might occur if this design is improperly used or executed.
The following experiment utilizes a cantilever test fixture, strain gages, and basic
principles of Statics to determine both theoretical and actual stress along a cantilever
beam. For the 2024-T6 aluminum beam tested, the measured strain was found to be 903,
601, and 293 microstrain along a 1, 4, and 7 inch spacing respectively. The calculated
strain was 1205, 751, and 297 microstrain along the same interval. This deviance in
measured and calculated values demonstrates the need to test all conditions and better
understand the limitations of calculations.
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction & Background............................................................4
1.1. General background...............................................................4
1.2. Calculating stress using Statics..............................................4
1.3. Load Estimate by Strain Relations and Hooke's Law............5
1.4. Load Estimation by Deflection................................................6
2. Equipment and Procedure............................................................7
2.1. Equipment and Setup.............................................................7
2.2. Test procedure for measuring the difference of two strain gages 8
2.3. Test procedure for measuring individual strain gages............9
3. Data, Analysis & Calculations.....................................................10
3.1. Known information................................................................10
3.2. Results..................................................................................10
3.3. Load calculations..................................................................11
3.4. Stress calculations................................................................11
4. Results........................................................................................13
4.1. Graphical Results.................................................................13
4.2. Comparison of Results.........................................................13
5. Conclusions.................................................................................14
6. References..................................................................................15
7. Raw Notes...................................................................................16
3
1. Introduction & Background
1.1.General background
A cantilever beam refers to any beam that is supported at only one point. This
type of design has been used many times in countless designs and structures. It is
important to understand the behavior of this setup to avoid any type of failure that might
occur if this design is improperly used or executed.
The stress is found using the elastic flexure formula where terms M, y, and I are
explained below.
M⋅y
σ =−
I
Equation 1
M = − P( L − x )
Equation 2
where P is the applied load, L is the length between the supporting and loading point, and
x is the distance between the clamp and the strain gage.
y is the distance measured from the neutral axis to the point under consideration.
For a simple cantilever setup, this is expressed as:
t
y=
2
4
Equation 3
Finally, I, is the centroidal moment of inertia for the beam. This is expressed as:
I=
1
12
b t3( )
Equation 4
[ − P( L − x ) ] t
σx = 2 = 6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x)
1
12
( )
b t3 b ⋅t3
Equation 5
Equation 5 returns units of pounds per square inch (psi) when P is in pounds and
L, x, b, and t are in units of inches.
σ x = E ⋅ε x
Equation 6
6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x)
εx =
E ⋅b ⋅t2
Equation 7
5
with respect to distance, x, can be expressed as in Equation 8. Simple algebraic
manipulation can be used to solve for the applied force, P, as in Equation 9.
∆ε x 6⋅ P
=−
∆x E ⋅b ⋅t2
Equation 8
E ⋅ b ⋅ t 2 ∆ε x
P=−
6 ∆x
Equation 9
This difference of two strain gages can then be used to find the force, P.
E ⋅ b ⋅ t 2 ( ε1 − ε 2 ) E ⋅ b ⋅ t 2 (ε 2 − ε 3 )
P1, 2 = − and P2,3 = −
6 ( x1 − x2 ) 6 ( x 2 − x3 )
Equation 10
The load can also be calculated in terms of deflection. This is derived from the
expression,
d 2 y M ( x)
=
dx 2 E⋅I
Equation 11
P
y= (x3 − 3 ⋅ L ⋅ x 2 )
6⋅ E ⋅ I
Equation 12
6
The deflection in the following experiment is easily known. Therefore,
substituting δend for the difference in deflection and solving for P,
3 ⋅ δ end ⋅ E ⋅ I
P=
L3
Equation 13
2. Metal beam: In this experiment, 2024-T6 aluminum was tested. The beam
should be fairly rectangular, thin, and long. Specific dimensions are
dependant to the size of the cantilever flexure frame and available weights.
The specimen should be secured in the flexure frame such that an applied force
can be placed opposite of the securing end of the fixture. Three strain gages should be
mounted such that the long metal traces run parallel to the length of the beam. The center
of the three gages should be mounted one inch, four inches, and seven inches from the
end of the clamp in the fixture.
7
Figure 1
Whenever taking a reading from a strain gage, consult the strain gage
measurement device for optimal setup. The instructions below explain the setup used in
using the P-3500 strain indicator.
The first setup creates a half-bridge setup to find the difference between two strain
gages.
Figure 2
As shown in the diagram, the direction of stress is opposite of the other to read
positive strain. This returns the difference of the two strains.
8
With a known initial deflection, the strain indicator was balanced to read zero
strain. Without adjusting the balance, the difference in strain for gage 2 to 3 was
measured and recorded.
Figure 3
9
3. Data, Analysis & Calculations
3.1.Known information
The gage factor for the strain gage used was 2.085 and the transverse sensitivity
was 1.0. Both these factors are dependant upon the strain gage used and are generally
given by the manufacturer.
Table 1
3.2.Results
Table 2
Table 3
The difference in deflection between the initial and final position was 0.291
inches.
10
3.3.Load calculations
The first load estimate is calculated using Equation 10 and the differences in
strain gages, as recorded in table 1. An example calculation is shown below.
The strain gradient is determined by finding the slope of the strain versus position
graph. For these results, see section 4.
A second load estimate was calculated using Equation 9 and the slope of the strain
versus position graph.
Equation 15
3 ⋅ δ end ⋅ E ⋅ I
P= = 16.387 lb
L3
Equation 16
The comparison of the three load estimates is listed in the results section.
3.4.Stress calculations
Three estimates for stress can be determined. The first stress estimate is found
using the calculated force from the differential strain gage measurement setup. This is
expressed using Equation 5. Equation 17 is a sample calculation for the determination of
the stress at gage 1.
6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x ) 6 ⋅11.014 ⋅ ( 8.969 − 1)
σx = = = 8425 psi
b ⋅t 2 1 ⋅ 0.25 2
Equation 17
11
A second stress estimate can be determined using the calculated point load found
in Equation 16.
6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x ) 6 ⋅16.387 ⋅ ( 8.969 − 1)
σx = = = 12535 psi
b ⋅t 2 1 ⋅ 0.25 2
Equation 18
The third stress estimate uses Hooke's Law to correlate strain to stress. Using
Equation 6, the stress can be found as follows:
Equation 19
12
4. Results
4.1.Graphical Results
Strain vs Position
1000
900
800
y = -101.67x + 1005.7
700
600
Strain (με)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
Position
4.2.Comparison of Results
Figure 4
The table below lists the three load estimates using all three methods.
Table 4
Table 5 contains the first and second stress estimate using both calculated load points.
σ x (psi) σ x (psi)
Station (L - x) (P = 11.014) (P = 16.387)
1 7.96875 8426 12536
2 4.96875 5254 7816
3 1.96875 2082 3097
13
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7 summarizes and compares the different stress values generated throughout
the experiment.
Table 7
ε1 ε2 ε3
Calculated 1205 752 298
Measured 903 601 293
Error 25.08% 20.04% 1.61%
Table 8
5. Conclusions
Due to the large margin of error from the measured and calculated results, the
experimental results are not acceptable for practical application. Any design utilizing a
cantilever setup that experiences stresses close to the yield point of the material need to
be more rigorously tested. At maximum deflection, strain gage 1 exhibited a 25% error
from the calculated value. One cause for this error occurs because the equations used are
accurate in small deflections and loads easily handled by the material tested. Also,
Hooke's law is only valid for a portion of the elastic range for some materials, including
aluminum (Wikipedia). Although the net deflection in this experiment was small, the
14
stress put upon the material in testing was theoretically 12,536 psi, nearly 84% of the
yield stress. Strain gage three experienced approximately 2% error, whereas the stress
that that point was theoretically 3,097 psi, or 21% of the yield stress. Therefore,
whenever a cantilever setup is used in high stress or deflection applications, thorough
testing and a suitable safety factor must be considered.
6. References
Gilbert, J. A and C. L. Carmen. "Chapter 8 – Cantilever Flexure Test." MAE/CE 370 –
Mechanics of Materials Laboratory Manual. June 2000.
15
7. Raw Notes
16
17
18
19