Objectives ‘The motive ofthis lab isto conduct and study the behaviour of floxural stress distribution on a cross-section of aluminum and steel beams in the elestic range. The flexural stresses and normal ‘szains willbe experimented on the two beams with the use of electrical resistance strain gauges, ‘ooke’s law and flenure formula. After calculating the stresses and strains, the average percent ‘sor will be computed betreea the theoretical and experimental values for each level of load. ‘szain (¢). Using the flexure formula as discussed before will be used to compare the ‘sxpermenal emul sree and he heereical era reste. Tis sen equation 2 below where the theoretical lexural stress at distance “y" from the neutral szis is equal tp the negative bending moment (M) mulkiplied by the distance irom the neutral axis (y) which all be divided by the moment of marta ofthe cross-section sbout the axis of bending that passa: through the centroid ofthe cross-section (1) Experimental flerural suest: ¢= E* ¢ a ‘Theoretical flexural stress: = {M*y)1 @ Procedures ‘The instrumentation required for this Lab areas follows: 1. MTS Universal Testing Machine 2. Datascan Analoz Measurement Processor 3. Dalite Datscan Configurstor 4. Stain Gauge: 5. Scales 6. Weights ‘The specimens for the lerural stress lab will include non-ferrous material aluminum and ferrous saterial stl. A ferrous material is defined as a material that contains iron. While sted is Cconsiderad toe an alloy created by adding iron to carbon in order to harden the iron fanbermore, other materials can be diffused such as chromium and nickel to toughen the ‘sucture of steel Am alloy isto be considered az ste] ifs composed of lest than 2.1 w.96 carbon. This category can be split into two sub-categories including low alloy such as ovr carbon steel (<0_25 wt % carbon) and hich alloy such as stainless steel [2]. Aluminum is considered to besa non-ferrous metal a it doesn't contain a percentage of ion and is used in the industry for being a lighnweighr metal (3 times Lighter than steel) 2‘The setup of this lab is divided into three different sections. The students will be gathering around the desk station to record and watch the live experiment of the flexure test on the two ‘beams. The second station is for the machine operator(s) who will be at the MTS Universal ‘Testing Machine who will safely apply loads on the beams and run the Dalite Datascan Configurator. The final station will be where the strain values for all six strain gauges will be ‘outputted on to a monitor at each load (from 5-25 KN for the steel L-beam and 10-50 Ibs for the aluminum box beam). This will be recorded and used later on for further calculations to see any discrepancies between the theoretical stresses and strains using the flexure formula compared to the experimental stresses and strains using Hooke’s law. Below is a drawing ofeach setup in order during the flexure test lab in figure 1. Figure 1: Lab Setup The experimental testing procedure is as follows: 1. Before beginaing the lab, take each beam and verify the measurements of the span length, locations of the strain gauge line, and the distance of each gauge on the gauge line from the bottom of the beam. The positioning and distances required for measurements carried out later on can be seen through figures 2-5 below for steel and aluminum beams [3]. locaton of Sran Saupe aleng the length athe bean Figure 2: Simply supported steel |-beam Aluminum 80x sear Acpled toad F seation of tran Gauges along the length ofthe beam) Figure 3: Cantilever aluminum box beamGommctoneCeanmbor bam maeatonett mugea(et See) Cromaecionaf wel eam alates os ees: Figure 4: Cross-section of aluminum box-beam, —_ Figure 5: Cross-section of steel |-beam, and ang location of strain gauges (not in scale) location of strain gauges (notin scale) Starting with the steel I-beam, the moment of inertia of the cross section is given as I= 22.4 in‘ (9.3236 x 10° mm‘). Open the Dalite Datascan Configurator at the DB2L18.0VL file and click on the monitor every second window. Initially, check that the load is zero and secord the initial strains values for all six strain gauges. It-will be noticed that although the strain values should be equal to zero for all six gauges, the values seen will be different due to external forces. Now, load the steel I-beam steadily up to 5 KN. Using a table as shown in table 1 record the strain for all six strain gauges. Finally, increase the load increments by 5 KIN until 25 kN has been reached. Record the strains for all six strain gauges at each level of load For the aluminum box beam, open the Dalite Datascan Configurator once again with the DBIL1A.OVL file and click on every monitor every second window as was done earlier for the steel beam. As before, check to see that the load is at zero and record the initial strain values for all six strain gauges. This will be equal to zero throughout all gauges Add 10 Ib (44.48'N) of weights to the end of the aluminum cantilever beam safely and steadily using a hook that is attached to the end of the beam. Record the strain values for all six strain gauges in the table as shown in table 2 Increase the load in increments of 10 Ib or 44.48N up to a total of a maximum load of 50 Ib and record the experimental strain valves for all six strain gauges at each level of load.Results After conducting the lab, results were collected and inputted into a Microsoft Excel sheet. The results in the Excel sheet were the experimental strains for all six strain gauges. As mentioned ‘earlier, the loads applied to each beam would increase in increments, Below in tables 1 and 2 show the live readings of the strains for each specimen at each gauge and load while conducting ‘the flexure test. Ta Steel I Beam ble 1: Ste al L Be am Str ain Ga ug es for Lo ad s x 25 xN x Strain Guage Load (kN) | 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 -22.9984 | -23.1675_| -10.8474 3.687 | 12.5486 [25.0044 10 42.3981 | -40.145 | -19.7361 7.7314 | 26.2891 | 47.6409 15 ~61.7977 | -56.3079 | -31.0544 10.960 [40.8445 [71.3923 9 20 -82.0047 | -73.2852 | -41.5654 15.001 | 52.9702 | 94.5215 5 25 -101.4043 | -90.2627 | -52.0691 19.042 | 66.7104 | 117.9636 Table ALBox beamAlumi sum Box Beam Strain Gauges for Loads 10-50 ths Strain Guage Load (6) [1 2 3 a 3 é 10 25.1064 | 14.434 [8.0728 | -7.182__| -18.5616 | -323078 20 52,5872 | 33.8335 | 16.1541 | -17.6854 | 31.4948 | -57.3661 30 ‘784534 | 49.1964 26.6572 | -28.1964 | -46.05 83.2323 40 104319 | 63.7441 | 363611 | 35.7416 | 63.835 | 1074836 6 30 130.185 | 774846 | 47.6793 | 42.7443 [82.4207 | -131.735 8 From the live experimental results above, the values for experimental stresses using the Hooke’s law ‘were calculated. Since the values for the modulus of elasticity were provided to the lab students where ‘the modulus of elasticity for steel is 200000 MPa and for aluminum is 72000 MPa, the experimental ‘stresses can be calculated using equation 1 from above. As steel is more elastic than aluminum, it will be able to handle more stress per unit of strain elongation. Following the experimental values, lab students ‘would be required to compute the values for the theoretical stresses and strains. As mentioned earlier, ‘the flexure formula would be used to calculate the theoretical stresses as given in equation 2 above. In ‘order to do So, the values for bending moment (M), moment of inertia of the cross-section (I), and the distance from the neutral axis (y) would need to be required. The moment can be calculated by multiplying each load by the distance between the applied force and the location of the strain gauges along the length of the beam. This can be clearly seen in figures 2 and 3 for steel and aluminum, respectively, The distance for the steel |-beam is given as 0.1m and for the aluminum box-beam is given a 0.65m as the total length of the beam is 0.75 m and the location of the strain gauges is offset 0.13m from the fixed surface. It must be kept in mind that the loads for aluminum are given as Ibs which must be converted to newtons. This can be completed by multiplying each load in pounds by 0.00444822 kilonewtons. As for the moment of inertia of the cross-section (I), the value for steel was given as |= 22.4 in*(9.3236 x 10° mm’). For the aluminum box-beam, this will need to be calculated using the dimensions ‘of the inner and outer lengths of given in figure 5. To calculate this, formula 3 below will be utilized [1]I= [Go-H2)/12] - [BH 12] 8) For the box beam, the moment of inertia using formula 3 above can be calculated to be the following: I 12] - [(BxH#)/12] = [(50*75*)/12] — [(44*69*y/12] = 553279.5 mm*. (BH Hence the moment of inertia of the cross-section about the axis of bending that passes through the centroid of the cross-section is given the value of 553279.5 mm’. Finally, the next step would be to calculate the values for the distances from the neutral axis to each strain gauge in each specimen. The distances (y) for each material are given below in table 3 Table 3: Distances(y) from the neutral axis to each strain gauge in each specimen ‘Steel ‘Aluminum Strain Gauge 1= 74mm Strain Gauge 1 = 37.5 mm Strain Gauge 2 =49 mm Strain Gauge 2 = 25 mm Strain Gauge 3 = 23.5 mm Strain Gauge Strain Gauge 4 = -23.5mm Strain Gauge Strain Gauge 5 Strain Gauge 5 Strain Gauge 6 Strain Gauge After these values have been calculated, the theoretical stress can be computed using equation 2 above. As for the theoretical strain, this will be similar to calculating the experimental stress where Hooke’s law will be used. In this case, for the theoretical strain, the formula will be strain is equal to the theoretical stress divided by the modulus of elasticity. All throughout these calculations, the units of MPa will be used to cancel out the units for stress and modulus of elasticity in order to have a unitless strain value. Finally, as for the percentage error in stresses. and strains when comparing between the theoretical and experimental, it will be seen that for each load, the percentage errors for the stress and strain are equal due to being equally proportional during the calculations in figures 6 and 7. In order to calculate the percentage error, this will be equal to the absolute value summation of the difference between the experimental and theoretical which all gets divided by the theoretical value for each load. The summations will then be divided by the aumber of strain gauges which is equal to 6 foreach specimen. To get the value as a percentage, multiply the final quotient by 100%. For further ease, formula 4 can be shown as the following: %Esror = 1/n*(© (Experimental -Theoretical)/Experimental) * 100% 4) The formula above will be used for both the average percentage error in strains and stresses.Figures 6 and 7 below showcases the experimental and theoretical strains and strains, along with the percentage errors for each specimen. SIMPLY SUPPORTED STEEL LREAM = Eamon oF manne Faasial [ox lenel—o Te T= [» | «| « [o [oJ 2 ee “ssi aswewce esses ees Luann Lowsine] asnes Laseacee|asoeas [tee esa ental, Theoretical and Percentage Errors of Flexure Stresses and Strains zante Lae Figure 6: Steel I-Beam Experi ‘CANTILEVER ALUMINUM 5OX-BE8M NS STAFigure 7: Aluminum Box Beam Experimental, Theoretical and Percentage Errors of Flexure Stresses and Fitthinsing the calculations, plotting graphs were an excellent way to show the distribution of the flexural stresses at various distances (from the bottom of the beam for the two beams). Those stresses with a positive value would be under tension, while those with a negative value would be under compressions. The following four graphs plotted were the following Steel I-beam: distance from bottom of the beam vs. experimental flexural stresses ‘Steel I-beam: distance from bottom of the beam vs. theoretical flexural stresses Aluminum box-beam: distance from bottom of the beam vs. experimental flexural stresses Aluminum box-beam: distance from bottom of the beam vs. theoretical flexural stresses o 9000Distance from bottom of Steel I-beam vs. experimental flexural stresses 160 ao Linear (204 Gand) near (2540 Goad i elu lala 3 © wins : ashe cena © inant i ces £ i near ZOLM Land) near 5b Lac ° + ee oe 4 4s 4 OG $+ b> & om » 20, ‘Styess (MPa) Figure 8.a: Distance from bottom of Steel I-Beam vs. Experimental Flexural StressesDistance from bottom of Steel beam vs. theoretical flexural stresses Distance from bottom of Beam { mm) s \s -20 ‘Stress (MPa) SRNL oat load 1510 iad po toad 251" wad Absear Be Loa} ar (240 Lond) hoear 54% Lond) near (24 ona) Linear 5 an coat Figure 8.b: Distance from bottom of Steel |-Beam vs. Theoretical Flexural Stresses Distance from bottom of Aluminum box beam vs. experimental flexural stressesDistance from bottom of Aluminum box beam vs. experimental flexural stresses ry » wl teree © sointaad © nomen © pointe © saintaad © sointant a lnmar ( tnat rear JO 8 ta ‘ruse 8 Lt sea | © Laat Dtstence tra bottom of bean fren) Figure 9.a: Distance from bottom of Aluminum Box-Beam vs. Experimental Flexural StressesSaal | 2 | i «| © sont 3 + some : © conten i * smtont 4 si go sna H a oe Sat si (0 Lott anes! te pon tae} o_o 2.0 4+ 8 2 3 ° : ” s seen) Figure 9.b: Distance from bottom of Aluminum Box-Beam vs. Theoretical Flexural StressesDiscussions ‘The purpose of flexural testing is to measure force required to bend a beam of a specific material in order to determine the resistance to flexing or stiffness. As shown from the finalized table above of the experimental and theoretical stresses and strains for both steel and aluminum specimens, steel is able to endure much more stress (MPa) than aluminum at each strain gauge even after the load applied onto aluminum is much less than the loads applied for steel. For an example, the first load applied on steel was 5 kilo-Newtons, whereas for aluminum it was approximately 0.0444 kilo-Newtons; more than 100 times difference. As the stresses for steel at each load and strain gauge is higher than for aluminum, this relates back to the modulus of elasticity values given since the higher the modulus of elasticity, the greater the rigidity. In other words, a higher force must be applied per unit area to produce a given deformation or strain. From the graphs, it is quite evident at what locations of strain gauges where the beam was 10 compressed and under tension. For the aluminum specimen, the first three strain gauges had a negative stress value which indicate compression. The last three strain gauges had a positive stress value to indicate a tensile force at those specific locations. In other words, this produced a downward linear trend. As for the steel specimen, this was the exact opposite where the first three strain gauges had negative flexure stress values to indicate compression and the last three strain gauges had positive stress values to indicate tension. The neutral axis was located in similar locations in terms of where the intersection points of all 6 lines met up together along the y-axis of the graphs. It was seem that the difference in neutral axis locations between the experimental and theoretical were approximately 4 mm for steel and 0.5 mm for aluminum, In the end, it can be said that the experimental values compare to the theoretical values for stresses, and strains are similar overall with a maximum percentage error of 9.14% in aluminum and 7.33 % in steel Although the average vercentage errors did not exceed 10% throughout the duration of this labAlthough the average percentage errors did not exceed 10% throughout the duration of this lab when comparing the experimental and theoretical values, there are reasonings for why an error still had occurred. An example of an error is wedging stress where the distribution quantifies axial wedging stresses on the bottom side of the contact points. It will be compressive under the loading point but shift to tensile on both sides. Any unbalances can cause some deviations to the experimental results of the strains and stresses. Another source of error is any dislocations. For example, when applying the loads on the hanger off the beam, there could be a chance the load was not set properly in place. Another dislocation could be that the location of the strain gauges along the beams were not exactly at the locations as shown in the diagrams in figures 4 and 5. In the end, any dislocations could cause an effect to the total load actually applied than what was given prior to the loading such as loads of increments of 5 KN or 10 Ibs. Another source of error could be that the modulus of elasticity given prior to the lab of 200 GPa for steel and 72 GPa for aluminum is not entirely exact. The modulus of elasticity was used while calculating for the experimental stresses and theoretical strains. It is possible that the modulus may be incorrect to the actual steel end aluminum modulus values due to the effect of temperature and effect of impurities. When it comes to temperatures, as temperature increases, the modulus of elasticity of the materials decreases. As well, any addition of impurities to the metal and alloy may increase or decrease the elasticity. Adding impurities with a lower modulus compared to steel and aluminum will only decrease the overall modulus of elasticity, and vice versa for an impurity with a higher modulus. Conclusion In the end, it is up to engineers to understand the aspects of the material's behaviour, not only by uniaxial tension or compression, but also bending. When the materials were subjected to bending, it consisted of a combination of tensions, compression, and shear forces. Flexural tests are useful for everyday objects that are to be used to support structure and retum to its original shape after any bending occurs. From the flexure testing within this lab, it cam be said that steel would be more predominant compared to aluminum when it comes to a material that is unlikely oanIn the end, it is-up to engineers to understand the aspects of the material's behaviour, not only by uniaxial tension or compression, but also bending. When the materials were subjected to bending, it consisted of 2 combination of tensions, compression, and shear forces. Flexural tests are useful for everyday objects that are to be used to support structure and return to its original shape after any bending occurs. From the flexure testing within this lab, it can be said that steel would be more predominant compared to aluminum when it comes to a material that is unlikely a to bend, warp or deform overall as it is approximately 3 times denser than aluminum [4]. It was seen that for a higher load applied to steel, the experimental flexure stress was still higher to cause a smaller elongation difference (strain) than aluminum. The experimental values for the materials’ flexure stresses and strains were close to the theoretical value and any errors may be subject to misalignment of the loads and/or strain gauges, impurities to cause the modulus of elasticity for the materials to be different from the provided values, and also any unbalances of added tension or compression from the wedging stresses