- Permiablity
- Mechanics of Materials - Poisson's Ratio
- Stress Concentrations - Lab Report
- hightec inc.
- BUCKLING OF STRUTS
- 8 Stress Concentration
- Experiment 4
- Peterson s Stress Concentration Factors 2nd Ind
- Peterson's Stress Concentration Factors
- Cantilever Beam
- Stress Concentration factor
- Stress Concentration Factors
- Strain Gage Report
- Mechanics of Materials - Principal Stresses and Strains
- Mechanics of Materials - Cantilever Flexure Test
- Borden and boys
- ASTM E466 Uji Fatik Logam
- Pressure Measurement Bench.pdf
- Mechanics of Materials - Beam Deflection Test
- LAB 1-Beam Deflection
- Beam Deflection Lab
- Tutorial 01.pdf
- Ansys Report-
- Stress Analysis of Truck Chassis Using FEA - BE Project - ALL
- Ansys Final
- Mechanics of Materials - Modulus of Elasticity Flexure Test
- Stress Strain& Stress Concentration Factor
- Lab 6 Water Saturation
- Lab Report-Sand Replacement Method
- Homework 2 Solution on Digital Image Processing
- Nature and Property of Materials - Summer 03 Midterm 1
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Midterm 1
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Midterm 1b
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 6
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 1
- Nature and Property of Materials - Summer 04 Midterm 1
- Aerodynamics Lab 3 - Direct Measurements of Airfoil Lift and Drag
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 5
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 2
- Aerodynamics Lab 1 - Cylinder Lift and Drag
- Aerodynamics Lab 2 - Airfoil Pressure Measurements
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 7
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 04 Midterm 2
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Midterm 2
- Structures Lab 1 - Cantilever Flexure Beam
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 3
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 6
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 1
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 5
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 8
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quizzes
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Midterm 1
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 2
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 6
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 7
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 7
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Midterm 2
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 4
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 4
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 5

Group C:

David Clark Jacob Parton Zachary Tyler Andrew Smith

10/17/2006

Abstract

Stress risers, geometric irregularities that break the uniformity of a material, cause a predictable increase in stress. The stress concentration, expressed as the maximum stress under loading divided by the nominal stress, can mathematically calculate the maximum stress for different loadings. The following exercise explores the effect of a hole in an otherwise uniform rectangular aluminum cantilever beam. When a load is applied to the unsupported end of the beam, the stress adjacent to the hole increases dramatically more than the area closest to the edge of the beam. This resulting stress profile was measured, as well as theoretically determined with Statics. As a second opinion, ANSYS® was used to verify and visually render the stress concentrations over the surface of the beam. The stress concentration factor for Aluminum 2024-T6 was ultimately found to be approximately 1.485 by Statics and 1.6979 by ANSYS®.

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction & Background............................................................4 1.1. General Background..............................................................4 1.2. Mathematical Derivation for Equations Used.........................4 2. Equipment and Procedure............................................................7 2.1. Equipment..............................................................................7 2.2. Experiment Setup...................................................................7 2.3. Initial Calibration.....................................................................8 2.4. Procedure...............................................................................8 3. Data, Analysis & Calculations.......................................................8 3.1. Known information..................................................................8 3.2. Location for Reference Gage.................................................8 4. Results..........................................................................................9 5. Verification and Recalculation by ANSYS® ...............................13 6. Conclusions.................................................................................20 7. References..................................................................................20 8. Raw Notes...................................................................................21

3

1. Introduction & Background

1.1.General Background

Geometric irregularities on loaded members can dramatically change stresses in the structure. A simple irregularity, a drilled hole, is studied within this experiment such that the effects of this feature can be analyzed and explored. Extensive research into the effects of these discontinuities, called "stress-risers" has been conducted previously. A standard means of computing the maximum theoretical stress around an irregularity is found by the stress concentration factor, K t. The stress concentration factor is a ratio of two stresses, as shown below. Kt =

σ max imum σ no min al

Equation 1 For a hole, the maximum stress is always found at the closest position to the discontinuity. The nominal stress refers to the ideal stress based on the net area of the section.

**1.2.Mathematical Derivation for Equations Used
**

As proven in previous experiments, the value for stress can be calculated with the following formula.

σx =

6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x) b ⋅t 2

Equation 2 • • • P is the magnitude of the force applied L is the longitudinal length from the clamp to the load x is the longitudinal distance from the clamp to the cross sectional area being inspected

4

• •

b is the base dimension of the beam t is the thickness of the beam The nominal stress for a cross sectional area with a hole can be expressed as:

σ no min al =

6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x) (b − d ) ⋅ t 2

Equation 3 where d is the diameter of the hole. This expression is the same as Equation 2, however the loss of area due to the hole is accounted for. It should be noted that Equations 2 and 3 are only valid for a rectangular beam with a point load. A convenient way of determining the nominal stress at the area adjacent to a hole is done by computing the stress at another location on the beam where there is no discontinuity. To do this, an initial position for this reference location can be found by setting Equation 2 and 3 equal. After cancelling like terms, the mathematical setup reduces to: L − xhole b−d = L − xreference b Equation 4 To find the maximum stress at the hole, Equation 1 and 3 can be combined to form Kt =

σ max 6 ⋅ P ⋅ ( L − x) (b − d ) ⋅ t 2

Equation 5 Using the technique proven with Equation 4, we can substitute the nominal stress with the stress from a reference gage at point A. This method is convenient since it utilizes a physical occurrence that is easily measured. Therefore, the easiest expression in this setup to use is

5

Kt =

ε max imum εA

Equation 6 The maximum stress at the hole cannot be easily measured due to the physical limitations of the strain gage. Three gages were placed at known distances away from the hole such that the maximum stress could be calculated using numerical methods. The formula used to approximate the distribution adjacent from the hole was expressed by the form R R ε = A + B + C Z Z Equation 7 Where A, B, and C are constant coefficients, Z is the distance from the center of the hole to the center of the gage, and R is the radius of the hole. With three gages, the equations can be expressed as, R R ε1 = A + B + C Z1 Z1 2 4 R R ε 2 = A + B + C Z2 Z2 R R ε 3 = A + B + C Z3 Z3 Equation 8 The coefficients A, B, and C must be found by solving the three equations above simultaneously. The maximum stress occurs at the edge of the hole, when R/Z = 1, therefore

2 4 2 4 2 2

ε max imum = A + B[1] 2 + C [1] 4 = A + B + C

Equation 9

6

**2. Equipment and Procedure
**

2.1.Equipment

1. Cantilever flexure frame: A simple apparatus to hold a rectangular beam at one end while allowing flexing of the specimen upon the addition of a downward force. 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. 3. P-3500 strain indicator: Any equivalent device that accurately translates to the output of strain gages into units of strain. 4. Four strain gages: 5. Micrometers and calipers:

2.2.Experiment Setup

The specimen was secured in the flexure frame such that an applied force can be placed perpendicular and opposite of the securing end of the fixture. Three strain gages were mounted laterally adjacent to the hole such that the long metal traces run parallel to the length of the beam. The distance from the center of the hole to the gages was as follows: • • • Z1 = 0.145 in (3.68 mm) Z2 = 0.185 in (4.70 mm) Z3 = 0.325 in (8.26 mm)

A reference strain gage was mounted 1.00 inches from the clamp. For the derivation of this value, see Section 3.2.

7

2.3.Initial Calibration

Record the dimensions of the beam, as well as the gage factor for each strain gage. Strain gage specifications are usually provided by the manufacturer. Before any deflection is added on the beam, the strain indicator should be calibrated using the gage factor the gage 1, the gage located nearest to the hole. Since there is no forced deflection, the indicator should also be balanced such that a zero readout is achieved.

2.4.Procedure

Utilizing a quarter bridge configuration, measure and record each of the individual strain gage readings. Do not adjust the gage factor for each gage. The effect of different gage factors can be calculated later. After the reference gage is measured, a force, P, was added such that an 800 με increase was experienced on gage 4. In reverse order, measure and record the increased strain readings on each of the remaining gages.

**3. Data, Analysis & Calculations
**

3.1.Known information

Beam Dimensions (inches) b= 1.000 t= 0.250 d= 0.250 x= 3.282 L= 10.000 Gage Factors ( (ΔR/R) / Strain ) Sg1 = 2.08 Sg2 = 2.08 Sg3 = 2.08 Sg4 = 2.095

Table 1

**3.2.Location for Reference Gage
**

The location for the reference gage can be calculated using Equation 4. Inputting the known dimensions expressed above, the output of the gage returns the nominal stress along the region with the hole when

8

L − xhole b−d 10 − 3.25 1.000 − 0.250 = ⇒ = L − xreference b 10 − xreference 1.000 Equation 10 Solving for xreference, the distance from the clamp where the gage should be mounted is 1.00 inches. The table below displays the initial (undeflected) and final (deflected until gage 4 was increased by 800 με) strain readings.

Gage 1 2 3 4 Initial Reading (με) 0 740 -196 394 Final Reading (με) 961 1551 564 1194

Table 2

4. Results

To find the strain induced by the deflection, the net strain was found by,

ε n = ε n , final − ε n ,initial

Equation 11 The table below catalogs the net strains by each gage. Note that gage 4, the reference gage, experienced an 800 με increase, as per the experiment setup.

Gage 1 2 3 4 Net Strain (με) 961 811 760 800

Table 3 Strain gage 4 was larger and had a gage factor that was different from the other gages. To correct for this, the following equation was used:

9

ε 4,corrected = ε measured ⋅

S g ,1 S g ,4

= 800

2.080 = 794.2 µε 2.095

Equation 12 The maximum strain is calculated from Equation 8. As expressed in Equation 9, the maximum strain can be expressed as the sum of the coefficients A, B, and C. R R 0.125 0.125 ε 1 = A + B + C ⇒ 961 = A + B ⋅ + C ⋅ 0.145 0.145 Z1 Z1 2 4 2 4 R R 0.125 0.125 ε 2 = A + B + C ⇒ 811 = A + B ⋅ +C ⋅ 0.185 0.185 Z2 Z2 R R 0.125 0.125 ε 3 = A + B + C ⇒ 760 = A + B ⋅ + C ⋅ 0.325 0.325 Z3 Z3 Equation 13 Solving for A, B, and C simultaneously, A = 601.56 B = −198.37 C = 776.33 Equation 14 Therefore, using Equation 9, the value for εmaximum laterally adjacent to the discontinuity is equal to,

2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4

**ε max imum = A + B + C = (601.56) + (−198.37) + (776.33) = 1179.52 µε
**

Equation 15 The stress concentration factor, as expressed in Equation 1, can now be found. Kt =

**ε max imum 1179.52 = = 1.485 ε 4,corrected 794.20
**

Equation 16

The following chart displays the stress versus distance from the hole.

10

**Estimated Strain vs Location
**

1400 1200 1000 Strain (με) 800 600 400 200 0

0. 00 00 0. 06 25 0. 12 50 0. 18 75 0. 25 00 0. 31 25 -0 .3 75 0 -0 .3 12 5 -0 .2 50 0 -0 .0 62 5 -0 .1 87 5 -0 .1 25 0 0. 37 50

Lateral Distance from the Center of the Hole (inches)

Figure 1 A theoretical stress concentration factor can be calculated with data from a chart, such as Peterson's "Stress concentration factors for bending of a finite-width plate with a circular hole."

11

Figure 2 The chart defines the necessary terms needed to characterize the physical characteristics of the material being tested. Since the hole diameter divided by the thickness is equal to 1, the d/h=1 line was traced until it intersected the d/H value of 0.25. This corresponds to 1.8 on the y-axis, therefore Kt, theoretical = 1.8. The comparison of the theoretical and measured values for Kt can be expressed in percent error as K t ,theory − K t ,exp eriment K t ,theory × 100 = 17.5% error

Equation 17

12

**5. Verification and Recalculation by ANSYS®
**

ANSYS® is a general purpose, finite element modeling package for numerically solving a wide variety of mechanical problems. These problems include: static/dynamic structural analysis (both linear and non-linear), heat transfer and fluid problems, as well as acoustic and electro-magnetic problems. First the geometry of the test specimen must be modeled. The geometry is recreated in Dassault Systems Catia V5 B14. The point at which the load is applied must be modeled as a small cylindrical pad. If the point were to be applied to a point with an infinitely small area, the stress at that point would be displayed as infinitely large. With a small pad for an applied area, the stress along the part remains relatively close to realworld behavior. The model is then loaded into ANSYS® Workbench 10. There, the model is divided into different elements to form a "mesh" of the product. This process alone establishes the name for the software technique. The mesh below models the beam by creating over 54,000 pieces, or a finite number of elements.

Figure 3

13

Figure 4 Running the simulation requires initial conditions to constrain the model and control the mathematical engine. A fixed constraint on the end face, a gravitational load across the entire part, and a load on the small pad is added to the model. The gravity was calculated as a function of altitude and latitude for Huntsville. This is determined by the formula g = 9.780318 1 + 0.0053024 sin 2 φ − 0.0000058 sin 2 2φ − 3.086 ×10 −6 h Equation 18 where φ is the latitude in degrees and h is the height in meters above sea level. With a latitude of 38.017º and an altitude of 3,841 meters, the acceleration due to gravity is approximately 9.77351 meters per second squared or 384.7839 inches per second squared.

(

)

14

Figure 5 Next, locations for measuring strain were placed along the beam at the same locations as the actual beam.

15

The force was determined by an iterative process of applying a load and reading the resulting strain at the reference gage location. According to ANSYS®, the load applied to create 800 με at the reference gage was 9.915 pounds. Below is the stress gradient over the beam. Note the stress pattern experienced adjacent to the hole.

Figure 6 Although the stress is valuable in determining failure modes for a material, the laboratory focuses on strain. The strain model, as shown below, it the same as the stress model scaled by the Young's Modulus.

16

Figure 7 Upon closer inspection of the hole, the neutral axis becomes visible. Also note the gradient from outside the hole to the edge of the beam.

17

Figure 8 ANSYS® Workbench 10 utilizes strain probes to return normal, shear, equivalent (von-Mises), maximum principal, middle principal, minimum principal, and strain intensity. Below is a table with these values for each of the gages, along with the experimental strain as measured within the experiment.

18

Returned Data from ANSYS Reference Gage Gage 1 X Coordinate 1 3.25 Y Coordinate 0.5 0.645 Z Coordinate 0.25 0.25 Normal - X Axis 8.05E-04 9.89E-04 Normal - Y Axis -2.45E-04 -2.05E-04 Normal - Z Axis -2.78E-04 -3.87E-04 XY Shear 2.50E-06 6.68E-06 YZ Shear 8.93E-07 3.98E-06 XZ Shear -1.15E-05 1.33E-06 Equivalent (von-Mises) 8.01E-04 9.74E-04 Maximum Principal 8.05E-04 9.89E-04 Middle Principal -2.45E-04 -2.05E-04 Minimum Principal -2.75E-04 -3.87E-04 Intensity 1.08E-03 1.38E-03 Experimental Strain Percent Error

Gage 2 3.25 0.685 0.25 8.14E-04 -1.47E-04 -3.28E-04 1.09E-05 -3.21E-07 1.29E-07 7.58E-04 7.72E-04 -1.36E-04 -3.13E-04 1.08E-03

Gage 3 3.25 0.825 0.25 7.38E-04 -2.20E-04 -2.55E-04 1.07E-05 -6.97E-06 -1.05E-06 7.34E-04 7.38E-04 -2.19E-04 -2.55E-04 9.93E-04

8.00E-04 9.61E-04 8.11E-04 7.60E-04 0.63% 2.85% 0.37% 3.02%

The results from ANSYS® provide some insight into possible errors within the laboratory experiment. The largest cause, the maximum computed strain, has the highest error. The value for maximum strain as calculated mathematically was 1179.52 με, whereas the maximum equivalent strain determined by ANSYS® was 1365.3 με. The error from this discrepancy can be expressed as

error = 1179.52 − 1365.30 ×100% = 13.61% error 1365.30

Equation 19 With this improved calculation for maximum strain, the stress concentration factor can be found. To determine Kt, the anticipated inputs and outputs must be clearly defined. Different stress concentration factors can exist for the same setup. For example, the stress concentration factor derived from principal strain readings can be different from the same setup with inputs of equivalent strains. The remainder of the analysis determines a stress concentration factor for a beam with a rectangular cross section composed of an isotropic material that is a function of nominal stress at a region, represented by the maximum principal strain at a reference location, and maximum equivalent stress due to a hole. This was chosen because the input will closely match the

19

value for the strain gage readings. For most cases, the equivalent strain would be the most critical parameter. Using previous methods, the stress concentration factor is expressed as

K t , ANSYS =

1365.3 = 1.6959 805.07

Equation 20 The stress concentration factor found by ANSYS® varies only slightly from the accepted value.

error = 1.6959 − 1.8 ×100% = 5.8% error 1 .8

Equation 21

6. Conclusions

Due to the large margin of error from the measured and calculated results, 17.5% error, the experimental results are acceptable only as a starting point for design guidelines. Designs that utilize geometric irregularities and stress risers must be designed with an acceptable margin of safety, as well as be rigorously tested to ensure sufficient quality. To better estimate the maximum stress or strain around a hole, a finite element analysis program such as ANSYS® can be used. The error in the stress concentration factor from ANSYS® when compared to the accepted value is approximately 5.8%. ANSYS® proved to be a much more accurate solution than strain gages and can provide results without physically having to test.

7. References

Gilbert, J. A and C. L. Carmen. "Chapter 8 – Cantilever Flexure Test." MAE/CE 370 – Mechanics of Materials Laboratory Manual. June 2000.

20

Kuphaldt, Tony R. (2003). "Chapter 9 – Electrical Instrumentation Signals." AllAboutCircuits.com. Retrieved September 19, 2006, from Internet: "http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_9/7.html

8. Raw Notes

Figure 9

21

Figure 10

22

Figure 11

23

Figure 12

24

- PermiablityUploaded byTinaaTiny
- Mechanics of Materials - Poisson's RatioUploaded byDavid Clark
- Stress Concentrations - Lab ReportUploaded byArunodha Hettiarachchi
- hightec inc.Uploaded byanurag4u10
- BUCKLING OF STRUTSUploaded byEngr. Ikhwan Z.
- 8 Stress ConcentrationUploaded byPRASAD326
- Experiment 4Uploaded by0728617
- Peterson s Stress Concentration Factors 2nd IndUploaded bycsb531
- Peterson's Stress Concentration FactorsUploaded byMIRCEA1305
- Cantilever BeamUploaded byStephen Mirdo
- Stress Concentration factorUploaded byDapsy1
- Stress Concentration FactorsUploaded bydegolier
- Strain Gage ReportUploaded byapi-3730129
- Mechanics of Materials - Principal Stresses and StrainsUploaded byDavid Clark
- Mechanics of Materials - Cantilever Flexure TestUploaded byDavid Clark
- Borden and boysUploaded byBantheng Rusu Rai
- ASTM E466 Uji Fatik LogamUploaded byMad Is
- Pressure Measurement Bench.pdfUploaded byMohammed Cardoza
- Mechanics of Materials - Beam Deflection TestUploaded byDavid Clark
- LAB 1-Beam DeflectionUploaded byNur Astuty
- Beam Deflection LabUploaded byLeah Pérez
- Tutorial 01.pdfUploaded bybishry ahamed
- Ansys Report-Uploaded bypravi2010
- Stress Analysis of Truck Chassis Using FEA - BE Project - ALLUploaded bymalevolent
- Ansys FinalUploaded byAravind Kumar
- Mechanics of Materials - Modulus of Elasticity Flexure TestUploaded byDavid Clark
- Stress Strain& Stress Concentration FactorUploaded by2gangadhara
- Lab 6 Water SaturationUploaded byFadh At-Tarf
- Lab Report-Sand Replacement MethodUploaded byOchini Chandrasena
- Homework 2 Solution on Digital Image ProcessingUploaded bylinais_

- Nature and Property of Materials - Summer 03 Midterm 1Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Midterm 1Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Midterm 1bUploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 6Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 1Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Summer 04 Midterm 1Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Aerodynamics Lab 3 - Direct Measurements of Airfoil Lift and DragUploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 5Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 2Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Aerodynamics Lab 1 - Cylinder Lift and DragUploaded byDavid Clark
- Aerodynamics Lab 2 - Airfoil Pressure MeasurementsUploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Quiz 7Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 04 Midterm 2Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Spring 05 Midterm 2Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Structures Lab 1 - Cantilever Flexure BeamUploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 3Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 6Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 1Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 5Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 8Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 QuizzesUploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Midterm 1Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 2Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 6Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 7Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 7Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Midterm 2Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 4Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Analysis of Engineering Systems - Homework 4Uploaded byDavid Clark
- Nature and Property of Materials - Fall 05 Quiz 5Uploaded byDavid Clark