Scribd
Upload
119 views2 pages

Experimental Errors in Young's Modulus Measurement

The calculated results for gauge factor and Poisson's ratio from the experiment matched the theoretical values well, but the calculated Young's modulus of 176.2 GPa was much higher than the theoretical 70 GPa, representing a large 60% error. There were several potential sources of error in the experiment, including thermal drift, inadequate equipment neutralization time, material properties, strain gauge attachment, loose wires, and misalignment. The large error in Young's modulus could be explained if the material properties changed with direction, but otherwise would require the material to be totally different.

Uploaded by

Behnam Shahrestani
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
119 views2 pages

Experimental Errors in Young's Modulus Measurement

The calculated results for gauge factor and Poisson's ratio from the experiment matched the theoretical values well, but the calculated Young's modulus of 176.2 GPa was much higher than the theoretical 70 GPa, representing a large 60% error. There were several potential sources of error in the experiment, including thermal drift, inadequate equipment neutralization time, material properties, strain gauge attachment, loose wires, and misalignment. The large error in Young's modulus could be explained if the material properties changed with direction, but otherwise would require the material to be totally different.

Uploaded by

Behnam Shahrestani
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Discussion:

Calculated Theoretical
Results Results
Gauge Factor 1.533 1.5-1.7
Young Modulus 176.2 Gpa 70 Gpa
Poisson's ratio 0.279 0.32-0.4

The graphs plotted to find the above results all show a linear relationship, however there were
some anomalies in the graph used to calculate the Young’s modulus. There are several areas
where errors could have been occurred. One of the sources of error in the experiment is the
thermal drift due to temperature and time variation, despite the dummy strain gauge used for
temperature compensation. Moreover, the experiments were carried on without waiting for an
hour for the equipment to neutralize.
Another source of error is the material properties like stability, as well as the strain gauge
connected to the specimen. The material extracts and contacts which might affect the
readings. The adhesive that bonds the gauge to the surface can also affect the readings.
Another source of error is the wires that connect the strain gauge to the measurement
device via the Wheatstone bridge. Loose wires can create variations between the results.
The alignment of the plate may also create variations between the measured and
calculated strain.

The calculated value of Young’s modulus resulted to be 176.2 GPa, while the theoretical
value is 70 GPa. This gives a percentage error of 60%. This error is fairly large and would
mean the experiment was not accurate. However, the condition of isotropy of the material
involves the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio [5], therefore, if the elastic properties of the
material change with direction, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio will be affected. In any
case, this may not have processed such an increase in error. This would only happen if the
material was totally different.

Another inaccuracy was in reading the gauge as it is human error not to get an accurate
reading. The result of this would be that the calculation of the load would have an inaccuracy.

From the Mohr’s circle, it can be seen that the longitudinal strain gauge doesn’t accurately
record the maximum principal strain.

The maximum principal strain are:

ε 1 = 17.9301 * 10−5

ε 2 = 66.2631 * 10−5

While the longitudinal strain gauge are

ε x = 17.8637* 10−5
ε y = 66.2314 * 10−5

The Mohr’s circle was drawn using Autocad, therefore the values are very accurate. The
longitudinal strain measured with the gauge at 0° don’t lie on the horizontal axes, therefore
the values are smaller from the maximum principal strains. However there’s a very small
difference.

You might also like