Table 1A - Graph of Torsio al !"iff ess for !oli# !

haf"s
Tor$%e (&') (.s. A )le of T*is" (ra#)
12

10 f(x) = 280.38x - 0.38 8

Tor$%e (&')

f(x) = 198.89x - 0.11 6 f(x) = 187.04x - 0.21 f(x) = 158.08x - 0.13 4 f(x) = 97.87x - 0.04 2

7.93 '' +i ear (7.93 '') 8.94 '' +i ear (8.94 '') 9.74 '' +i ear (9.74 '') 10.39 '' +i ear (10.39 '') 12.0 '' +i ear (12.0 '')

0 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04

A )le of T*is" (ra#)

Table 1, - Graph of Torsio al !"iff ess for -ollo* !haf"s

Tor$%e (&') (.s. A )le of T*is" (ra#)
12

10

f(x) = 284.19x - 0.28 f(x) = 283.01x - 0.40 12.9 '' +i ear (12.9 '') 12.8 '' +i ear (12.8 '') 12.7 '' +i ear (12.7 '') 12.6 '' +i ear (12.6 '')

8
Tor$%e (&')

f(x) = 274.65x - 0.61 6 f(x) = 203.53x - 0.25 4

0 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04

A )le of T*is" (ra#)

ME2113-2 TORSION OF CIRCULAR SHAFTS (EA-02-21) (INFORMAL REPORT)

NAME: He Quanjie !"e# MATRICULATION NUM!ER: A00$%&02L CLASS: 2F1 'ATE: 1( O)*"+e, 2013

SEMESTER 3 2013-201%

'EPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL EN.INEERIN. NATIONAL UNI/ERSIT0 OF SIN.APORE

O+je)*i1e2 To study the torsion of solid and hollow circular shafts evaluate the torsional stiffness and strengths of circular shafts(solid against hollow) having the same outer diameter or having the same volume. Table 1: Experimental data for solid and hollow shafts
Deg. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0p

Radians 7.93 mm 8.94 mm 9.74 mm 10.39 mm 12.0 mm 12/9 mm 12/8 mm 12/7 mm 12/6 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003491 0.31 0.64 0.5 0.52 0.81 0.56 0.75 0.6 0.84 0.006981 0.63 1.26 1 1.08 1.59 1.15 1.54 1.23 1.69 0.010472 0.98 1.92 1.5 1.65 2.4 1.78 2.38 2.01 2.56 0.013963 1.3 2.6 2 2.3 3.27 2.46 3.3 2.87 3.52 0.017453 1.66 3.3 2.5 2.94 4.2 3.13 4.26 3.75 4.49 0.020944 2 4 3 3.6 5.19 3.84 5.36 4.85 5.48 0.024435 2.35 4.7 3.66 4.3 6.29 4.61 6.39 5.87 6.53 0.027925 2.69 5.46 4.3 5.01 7.45 5.42 7.5 7 7.62 0.031416 3.05 6.18 4.92 5.74 8.63 6.26 8.64 8.25 8.76 0.034907 3.4 6.93 5.56 6.51 9.82 7.1 9.83 9.57 9.95 388.23 627.12 883.56 1144.09 2035.75 1391.63 1633.63 1800.03 1908.52 (''4) (&'.ra#) 97.87 198.89 158.08 187.04 280.38 203.53 283.01 274.65 284.19

Table 2: trength and stiffness of hollow and solid shafts having the same outer diameter olid haft !s " 12 mm #s " 11$%&.'$ mm( )s " 2*%.$* +m,rad - " 1%% mm . change in torsional stiffness
K = K h K s 100 % Ks (experimental)

. change in volume
V = V h V s 100 % Vs

Theoretical . change in maximum shear stress = h s 100 % s 1 D3 s

#h" /-(!h01dh0) , 2 =

K =(

dh ) 100 % Ds (theoretical) Theoretical 14.26.

Dh
4 h 4 h

D d 1 D3 s

100 %

3ollow hafts 1. 12,4 mm dh,!h " 1,2 2. 12,' mm dh,!h " ',12 $. 12,* mm dh,!h " 2,$ 2. 12,& mm dh,!h " $,2

Experimental 1.$4.5

126.%%.

4.4'.

12.%2. %.&2.5 12'.21.

111.6*. 11&.'6. 1$1.42.

1$2.%$. 122.22. 164.26.

1$.1%. 22.42. 24.2&.

5!eviations from theoretical values due to experimental errors(explained below)

Table 2 - Graph of !"re )"h a # !"iff ess of -ollo* a # !oli# !haf"s *i"h "he !a'e 1%"er 2ia'e"er
3 4ha )e (.s. #h.2h
0.6 0.4 0.2
3 4ha )e

0 0.45 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

#h.2h

5/ (6xperi'e "al) +o)ari"h'i7 (5/ (Theore"i7al)) 59

+o)ari"h'i7 (5/ (6xperi'e "al)) 58 6xpo e "ial (59)

5/ (Theore"i7al) +o)ari"h'i7 (58)

ample 7alculation #s " " " /-!s2 , 2 /(1%%)(12)2 , 2 11$%&.'$ mm

Experimental . change in torsional stiffness8 )

K = K h K s 100 % Ks " (2*2.1& 9 2*%.$*) , 2*%.$* x 1%% " 1.$4.

Theoretical . change in torsional stiffness8 )

K =( dh ) 100 % Ds " 9 (1,2)2 x 1%% " 94.26%.
4

. change in volume8 #
V = V h V s 100 % Vs " :(/-(!h01dh0) , 2) 9 11$%&.'$; , 11$%&.'$ x 1%% " :*2*2.$ 9 11$%&.'$; , 11$%&.'$ x 1%% " 926.%%.

Theoretical . change in maximum shear stress = h s 100 % s 1 D3 s

Dh =
4 h 4 h

D d 100 % 1 D3 s " :<12 , (122 9 42)= 9 1,12$; , (1,12$) x 1%% " 4.4'.

Table $: trength and stiffness of hollow and solid shafts having the same volume Theoretical . change in maximum shear stress = h s 100 % s Dh =
4 h 4 h

. change in torsional stiffness

D d 1 D3 s

1 D3 s

100 %

Experimental K K s K = h 100 % Ks

K =

Theoretical 2 D 2( 1( s ) ) Dh Ds 2 ( ) Dh 26'.&*.

100 %

1. solid8 '.&$ mm dia. hollow8 12,& mm !s,!h " %.441 2. solid8 *.&2 mm dia. hollow8 12,* mm !s,!h " %.'26 $. solid8 &.'2 mm dia. hollow8 12,' mm !s,!h " %.*12 2. solid8 1%.$& mm dia. hollow8 12,4 mm !s,!h " %.*44

)s" &'.*'+m,rad )h" 2%$.6$+m,rad >) " 1%'.&4. )s" 1&*.*&+m,rad )h" 2*$.%1+m,rad >) " 22.2&. )s" 16*.%*+m,rad )h" 2'2.46+m,rad >) " '$.'2. )s" 1*'.%2+m,rad )h" 2*2.1&+m,rad >) " 61.&2.

16'.'*.

14%.$2.

12*.2'.

1%$.6*.

1$&.62.

44.'*.

1$%.'4.

Table 3 - Graph of !"re )"h a # !"iff ess of -ollo* a # !oli# !haf"s of "he !a'e 8ol%'e
3 4ha )e (.s. 2s.2h
3 2.5 2
3 4ha )e

1.5 1 0.5 0 0.65 -0.5 -1

2s.2h

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

5/ (6xperi'e "al) 5/ (Theore"i7al) 59(:ax !hear !"ress)

6xpo e "ial (5/ (6xperi'e "al)) 6xpo e "ial (5/ (Theore"i7al)) +o)ari"h'i7 (59(:ax !hear !"ress))

ample 7alculation Experimental . change in torsional stiffness8 )

K = K h K s 100 % Ks " (2%$.6$ 9 &'.*') , &'.*' x 1%% " 1%'.&4.

Theoretical . change in torsional stiffness8 ) 2( 1( K = Ds 2 )) Dh

D 2 ( s) Dh

100 %

" 2 x (11 %.4412) , %.4412 x 1%% " 26'.&*.

Theoretical . change in maximum shear stress = h s 100 % s 1 D3 s

Dh =
4 h 4 h

D d 100 % 1 D3 s " :12 , (122 1 &2) 9 1,'.&$$; , (1,'.&$$) x 1%% " 16'.'*. 'i2)u22i"n Re3e,in4 *" Ta+5e 2()"67a,in4 28a3*2 9i*8 2a6e "u*e, :ia6e*e,) 1) trength 7omparison of solid and hollow shafts having the same outer diameter olid shafts with the same outer diameter are stronger. This is because8 solid shafts possesses more surface area to distribute the load resulting in less stress to support. 3owever the ma?ority of the load is handled by the exterior of the shaft and hence8 the strength differences between solid shaft and hollow shaft is not very significant. 2) Torsional stiffness comparison of solid and hollow shafts having the same outer diameters @rom graph $8 it can be seen that the >) (theoretical) curves are negative. 2 of the experimental values deviate from the theoretical values due to experimental errors. 3owever the rest of experimental values agree with the theory that hollow shafts have lower torsional stiffness as compared to solid shafts of the same outer diameter. As )h is lesser than )s this results in negative values according to the eBuation >) " ()hC)s) , )s D1%%. . As the central hole of the hollow shaft gets larger (larger inner diameter8 larger d h,!h value)8 the >) decreases8 this means that the torsional stiffness of the hollow shaft becomes lower as the solid shaft remains unchanged. Therefore for hollow and solid shafts of the same outer diameter8 solid shafts are stiffer and more rigid than hollow shafts.

Re3e,in4 *" Ta+5e 3()"67a,in4 28a3*2 9i*8 2a6e 1"5u6e) $) trength 7omparison of solid and hollow shafts having the same volume Assuming8 density is uniform and same for all the shafts8 comparing shafts with same volume is eBuivalent to comparing shafts of the same mass and material. 3ollow shafts with the same volume(and hence mass in this case)8 are stronger as the outer diameter is larger. As most of the load is handled by the exterior of the shaft8 this implies that the hollow shaft of eBual volume would be stronger than that of the solid shaft. En this experiment8 the hollow shafts all had an outer diameter of 12mm and its respective solid shaft of eBuivalent volume all had outer diameters of less than 12mm. 2) Torsional tiffness 7omparison of solid and hollow shafts having the same volume @rom graph 28 it can be seen that both the >) (experimental) and >) (theoretical) curves are positive. This means that the experimental values agrees with the theoretical values that hollow shafts have higher torsional stiffness as compared to solid shafts of the same volume. As )h is larger than )s8 resulting in positive values according to the eBuation >) " () hC)s) , )s D1%%. .As !s,!h increases8 the >) value decreases8 meaning the torsional stiffness of the hollow shaft becomes lower and closer to the torsional stiffness of the solid shaft as the diameter of the solid shaft approaches the diameter of the hollow shaft. 3ence for hollow and solid shafts of the same volume8 hollow shafts are stiffer and more rigid than solid shafts. 6) 7omparison of theoretical and experimental results for solid and hollow shafts having the same outer diameter (Ta+5e 2) !espite deviating values8 the best fit logarithm curve of experimental results is very similar to the theoretical curve. The deviations could be accounted by the experimental errors and errors in the apparatus and the shaft. 4) 7omparison of the theoretical and experimental results for solid and hollow shaft of the same volume (Ta+5e 3) The curve of experimental results differs from the theoretical curve. 3owever8 both graphs still show a general downward trend. The difference could be attributed to experimental errors and,or errors in the apparatus and shaft.

') Fossible sources of errors Error exists in the shaft itself haft may have undergone deformation after repeated usages hear modulus8 G8 may not be constant for all shaft due to production inaccuracies ystematic errors such as 7alibration errors of the measuring instrument 3uman errors such as Farallax errors !ifficulties in taHing readings as the eBuipment is sensitive and readings fluctuate due to external reactions(e.g. vibration of table or hands) Electrical interferences

Thus8 for the discussion of data8 we looH at the general trend of the data and overlooH the discrepancies. C"n)5u2i"n En conclusion8 we determine theoretically and verify experimentally8 that for the same material 1) Iith same outer diameter : a hollow shaft will be much lighter and slightly weaHer than a solid shaft. 3ence8 it would be more economical in such a case to utilise a hollow shaft8 especially in scenarios where weight of the structure is important(e.g. #ehicles). 2) And the same final weight(same amount of material): a hollow shaft is stronger than a solid shaft as it has a larger outer diameter8 hence selection of shaft would be dependent on cost against strength reBuired8 as solid shafts are often less expensive than thicH tubed shafts. @or a given amount of material8 would you fabricate it to a hollow or solid shaftJ As mentioned in 2)8 a hollow shaft of the same weight is stronger and since8 the amount of material is a given and cost is no longer a factor8 E would fabricate it to a hollow shaft for added strength.