192 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Decker
6
solutions, produced b y the deviation of Ca3(PO& from t h e
molccular formula AZO4. T h e lower C a : O ratio a n d t h e
lower negative charge on t h e XOa ions (POq3-) favor a higher
coordination around calcium, such as exists i n the a a n d a’
structures. Thus, both t h e transitions a $ a’ a n d a’ y FeO6) is stronger than t h e opposing influence of the higher
a r e actually greatly lowered by t h e presence of calcium ortho-
phosphate.
I n order t o explain the finding b y Agrel113(a’that the a’
phase (a (ortho) phase i n his nomenclature) has a peritectic
relation t o the a phase (his a (hex) phase) i n t h e slags ex-
amined by the present author, i t was s ~ g g e s t e d 1 ~that
( ~ ) the
presence of magnesium oxide (or MnO, FeO) may have
Note Regarding the Sonic Determination of Modulus
of Elasticity Using Round-Section Bars
by ALFRED R. DECKER
Research Laboratories, Champion Spark Plug Company, Ceramic Division, Detroit, Michigan
simplicity, convenience, and accuracy of the sonic method
T
IIE
has led t o its widespread use.’ It is important, therefore,
t o call attention to a n error of considerable magnitude in the
mcthod for computing the modulus for bars of round cross sec-
tion given ill the frequently listed paper by Powers.’(”)
The sonic method depends on the relationship, for a given bar-
shaped specimen, between natural frequency of vibration, density,
dimensions, and modulus of elasticity. The last is computed
from measured values of the preceding factors.
A frequently quoted basic equation is Mason’s2 (shown here
for gravitational units) :
E = - 4rr214f2D
gm4k2
E = modulus of elasticity (lb./sq. in.).
2 = length of bar (in.).
j = natural frequency of vibration (cycles/sec.).
D = :ipparcnt density of bar (lb./cu. in.).
g = :iccclcration due to gravity (386 in./sec./sec.).
n? = factor depending on ratio of depth (thickness or diameter)
to Icngth; for very long, thin bars, m = 4.73.
k = radius of gyration of cross section; for rectangular section
of thickness, t, k 2 = t2/12; for round section of diameter, d,
k 2 = d2/16.
Received August 22, 1949. This discussion of the paper by
Mr. Powers (see footnote l(a)) was published in A S T M Bull.,
KO. 159, July 1949, pp. 49-50. It is reproduced herein because
this papcr is so frequently cited, Mr. Powers’ comments, which
appcared in the same Bulletin, are also included.
Mr. Decker is physicist, Ceramic Division, Champion Spark
Plug Company.
(u) T C. Powers, “Measuring Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
bv Means of Sonic Vibrations.” A m . Soc Testine Materials.
Froc., 38 [Part 111 460-69 (19385.
( b ) G. Grime, “Determination of Young’s Modulus for Build-
ing Materials by a Vibration Method,” Phil. Mag., 20, 304-10
(August 1935); Ceram. Abstracts, 15 [5] 150 (1936).
(c) G. Grime and J. E. Eaton, “Determination of Young’s
Modulus by Flexural Vibrations,” Phil. Mag., 23 [152] 96-98
(1937); Ceram. Abstracts, 16 [7] 223 (1937).
( d ) Leonard Obert, “Sonic Method of Determining Modulus
of Elasticity of Building Materials Under Pressure,” A m . Soc.
Testing Materials, Proc., 39, 987-95 (December 1939); also
F. B. Hornibrook discussion on application of sonic method to
freezing and thawing studies of concrete, ibid., pp. 996-97.
( e ) Allen King, “New Method of Measuring Young’s Modulus,”
Rev. Sci. Instruments, 11 [7] 114-16 (1940).
(f) S. V. Forgue and G. A. Loomis, “Modulus of ,:lasticity of
Dinnerware Bodies by a Sonic-Vibration Method, Bull. Am.
Ceram. Soc., 20 [12] 425-30 (1941).
(8) Gerald Pickett, “Equations for Computing Elastic Con-
stants from Flexural and Torsional Resonant Frequencies of
Vibration of Prisms and Cylinders,” Am. Soc. Testing Materials,
Proc., 45, 846-65 (1945).
( h ) K. A. Baab and H. M. Kraner, “Sonic Method for Deter-
mining Young’s Modulus of Elasticity,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 3 1
[ 11] 3-18-20 (1948).
2 W. P. Mason. “Motion of Bar Vibrating in Flexure, Includ-
ing Effects of Rotary and Lateral Inertia,”-J. Acoust. SOC.Am.,
6, 2 4 6 4 9 (April 1935).
Vol. 33, No.
changed t h e relationship of these two phases from that found
in the pure Ca2Si04-Ca2(P04)2system t o t h e relationship
found in the CazSi04-MgSiOt system. This would indicate
t h a t the influence of the lower coordination MgO6 (or MnOa,
calcium coordination and “defect” structure of t h e calcium
orthophosphate solid solution, which appears t o be quite
reasonable.
l3 (a) S. 0. Agrell, “Mineralogical Observations on Some
Basic Open-Hearth Slags,’’ J . Iron Steel Inst. (London), 152 [a]
19-55P (1945); Ceram. Abstracts, 1947, May, p. 103d; ( b ) Bredig
discussion, J. Iron Steel Inst. (London), 153 [ I ] 357P (1946).
Mason shows a curve giving the value of m for any given ratio
of dcpth t o length of bar. This factor corrects for rotary inertia.
An expression depending on Poisson’s ratio, p, is given for modi-
fying the ratio, r, t o correct also for lateral inertia (r’ = r(1
p)’/2). Specific reference is made only to bars of rectangular
+
cross section.
For bars of round cross section, Powers’(“) adopts Mason’s
equation and reproduces his chart of values for m but adds t o the
chart a statement that for round bars the indicated value of m
is multiplied by the factor 1.07. Herein lies the error t h a t gives
rise t o values for E 24y0 too low since m occurs to the fourth power
in the denominator.
This error was discovered experimentally when it was ob-
served that tests of rectangular and round bars of the same mate-
rial were not in agreement except when Masou’s values for m
were used in both cases. The correctness of this procedure has
been confirmed on a theoretical basis by Mason.* In applying
his equation to round bars the only changes are in the radius of
gyration, k , and the substitution of diameter for thickness in
determining the depth-to-length ratio.
Experimental results for vitrified ceramic specimens show
good agreement between values for E determined from various
shapes of bar. A maximum deviation from the average value
for E of only 2% was obtained from tests of specimens of one com-
position with the following different dimensions and shapes:
in. thick by 41/2 in. long, in. thick by 6 in. long, l / 4 in.
round by 41/a in. long, in. round by 5 in. long, and ‘/2 in.
round by 10 in. long.
The deDth-to-length ratio varies from 0.043 t o 0.058. An
extension -of this comparison t o bars of greater ratio would be
interesting because of Pickett’sl(0) question as t o the validity of
Mason’s fundamental differential equation.t With vitrified
ceramic specimens of the size range given in the preceding para-
graph, however, the practical upper limit for the ratio is 0.067
when the method depends on the tone emitted by the vibrating
bar. The measurement of frequency becomes increasingly diffi-
cult as the ratio increases owing to lowered volume and much
more rapid attenuation of the tone.
Within this practical limit (ratio less than 0.067), values for
E calculated after Mason$ and after Pickett differ by less than
1%, so i t makes little difference which is followed. Indeed, for
round bars with ratios up to 0.200, Mason’s and Pickett’s results
differ by less than 1%; for similar rectangular bars, Mason’s
values gradually become less, reaching 5.8% below Pickett’s.
NOTE BY MR. POWERS:Mr. Decker is quite correct. The
note that appears in Fig. 1 of my paper should be deleted. On
checking the old records, I find that the note, based on an er-
roneous definition of m, was added as an afterthought, just
before sending the manuscript to the printer. The note was
not adequately verified. Having worked almost entirely with
rectangular specimens and having adopted the equations given
by Pickett, we did not discover the error. Mr. Decker is t o be
thanked for calling attention to this error.
* Personal communication dated October 28, 1948.
t Both obtain the same equation for E; the difference lies in
the values assigned to m as the ratio of depth to length changes.
$ The procedure used included the correction for both rotary
and lateral inertia.