Cantilever Beam: Strain Measurement, Load,

Uncertainty
Murciano, Aaron
4764 10/3/16
AbstractThis lab involved taking the mass of various weights
using a strain gauge that is mounted to an Aluminum beam using
two methods. The voltage from the strain gage will be amplified
through a strain gage amplifier to increase the signal to get better
results.
Known weights will be used to calibrate the beam scale and
their voltage values will be graphed and be linear. The slope and
uncertainty will be estimated using the Monte Carlo simulation.
The second method will use theories learned in Mechanics of
Materials and the properties of the beam to calculate the load at
the end of the beam. This will only involve calculation based on
the strain gage and not calibrating it.
Index TermsCantilever Beam, Monte Carlo, Strain Gage,
Uncertainty.

I.

INTRODUCTION

HE following lab meant to show that a strain gage can

be used as a transducer to measure different weights
placed at the end of an aluminum beam. By knowing
the properties of the aluminum beam and making precise
measurements, the strain can be used to find the forces acting
on the beam. Also, by calibrating the beam using know
weights, mass can be calculated using the slope of the Monte
Carlo simulation.
A Laptop with LabVIEW will be needed to run a VI that
reads shows the average voltages of the channels. A Multifunction DAQ and a strain gage amplifier with a Wheatstone
bridge will be needed to obtain voltage values from the strain
gage on the beam. A can of soda will be used as the main
object in this lab. The average gulp size will be calculated
using one of the two methods that will be explained further in
the procedures.
Uncertainty will play a huge role in determining which
method is better for which scenario. Uncertainty will be
propagated throughout all the measurements and calculations
made. This will demonstrate the difference between precision
and accuracy.
II. PROCEDURE
The following procedure is paraphrased from the Mechanics
of Materials Lab 2 Instructions manual [1].
Program VI using LabVIEW
Construct a program that inputs Voltage data from the
Multi-function DAQ and outputs the time and required values
needed to complete each part using the subVI. Include the

ability to change acquisition time and the sample rate. Some of

the values will need to be graphed on a dynamically updating
X-Y scatter plot and all the values need to be exported to a
spreadsheet.

4VG
GF V s
V Amp
V G=
Af
=

(1)
(2)

Program the VI to obtain data from the channel averages on

the right side of the subVI. Use Channels 0 and 1 to measure
V s , and the amplified voltage,
the supplied voltage,

V amp , respectively. The VI must have some controls that

offset and condense the amplified voltage to the original gauge
voltage, V G . The strain at the location of the strain gauge
must be calculated with the given gage factor and calculated
voltage values using (1), and plotted on a dynamically
updating plot. The VI must export a spreadsheet of all the data
collected: time (seconds), supplied voltage (V), gauge voltage
(V).
A. Calculating Load Applied using Strain Gauge
Data
Calculate, display and log the load using the strain gage
data, width and thickness of the beam, distance of the strain
gage to center of weight, and the given constants.
B. Calculating Load Applied using Calibration
Constant
Calculate, display and log the load using the calibration
constant calculated later on in the Lab and the V G values.
Mounting Bridge Strain Gage
Apply the strain gauge to the beam around 8 inches from
one of the ends according to the Quarter Bridge Strain Gage
Mounting Steps manual [2]. Place marks on the beam
indicating the center of the strain gauge and the center of
where the masses will be placed. Then clamp the beam to the
cantilever fixture using the Allen driver.
Wiring Strain Gage
Referring to the Lab 2 manual [1], wire the strain gage to
the terminal block accordingly, then to the strain gage

<Section4764_Lab1>

amplifier. Connect wires from the strain gauge amplifier to the

DAQ to channels 0 and 1. Make sure to tare the amplifier
using the zero screws and set is to around 2.5 VDC.
Calibrating the Scale
Weight the calibration weights on a commercial scale. Take
data for 50g, 100g, 200g, 300g, and 350g using
LabVIEW. Make sure to place weights on slowly to minimize
vibration of the beam. Using the MonteCarloSim excel
spreadsheet [3], plot the V G values and the measure
weights and find the slope of the trendline created. This will
be the calibration constant used in calculating the weight of
objects later on.
Weighing Cans mass
Run the VI and weigh the unopened can with the beam
scale 10 times to be able to examine repeatability of
placement. Make sure to place it on the centerline marked
earlier. Then weigh the can on the commercial scale to
compare later on.
Weighing Cans Decreasing Mass due to Gulp
Run the VI and weigh the can with the beam scale while
taking a gulp each time and then placing it back on the scale.
Do this until all the liquid is gone. Take a minimum of 5 data
points for each gulp. Weigh the empty can on the beam scale
and commercial scale. Then find an object that is small and
weigh it on the beam scale and on the commercial scale.
Record weights using strain and calibration methods.

III. RESULTS
The following data includes ranges that are meaningful.
TABLE I
RAW NOISE STANDARD DEVIATION (MV) FOR CHANNEL 0-3
Gain
Window (V)
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
0.3125

Channel 0

Channel 1

Channel 2

Channel 3

6.7053
5.7586
5.4126
4.5905
4.2873
4.2063

4.8065
4.0154
3.7465
3.0715
2.8049
2.7372

6.1780
5.3635
5.0281
4.2576
3.9521
3.8908

6.8317
5.8631
5.5634
4.7628
4.4442
4.3252

Fig. 1. Plot of gage voltage (V) against their respective known mass (g) with
trendline.

TABLE II
MEASURED VALUES USED FOR CALCULATIONS
Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Gage Factor

Gf

2.1

.005

Amplification
Factor

Af

220

Youngs
Modulus

GPa

69

Yield Point

MPa

240

Width Beam

2.5410-2

2.5410-6

2.946410-3

2.5410-6

0.185

0.0005

m/s2

9.81

Thickness
Beam
Distance gage
to point of
mass
Gravity

Fig. 2. Plot of time (s) against gage voltage (V) of full can 10 times.
TABLE III
MASS OF FULL CAN 10 TIMES CCM VS MOM METHODS
Trial

Mean Mass
CCM (g)

Mean Mass
MOM (g)

364.1289

349.9760

367.6294

353.3443

363.5848

349.4607

<Section4764_Lab1>

364.4751

350.3084

363.1825

349.0794

361.1184

347.0884

362.0204

347.9521

364.3115

350.1632

363.3504

349.2374

10

364.5125

350.3488

TI-84 Calc

284.3

295.8

290.8

IV. DISCUSSION
Only data that was significant was kept. This insignificant
data was due to the rapid changed in voltage as well as human
error during placement of object on the scale.

mdeform=

1000 y b h2
6 ( 9.8 ) L

(10)

Maximum Weight
The maximum weight that can be applied to the beam is
calculated using (10) and the values found in Table II. It is
calculated to be 486.0g.

TABLE IV
MASS OF FULL CAN
Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Slope of Trendline

slope

g/V

560,240

22,500

COTS mass

mCOTS

373.3

0.1

Mean voltage

VG

6.49410-4

1.82510-5

Mean mass MOM

mmom

349.7

9.925

Mean mass CCM

mccm

363.8

17.74

1.55

1.62

1.0

Standard Deviation
(MOM)
Standard Deviation
(CCM)
Statistical
Uncertainty

Fig. 3. Plot of time (s) against the gage voltage (V) of the can after each gulp.
TABLE VII
MASS OF OBJECTS USING MOM, CCM, AND COMMERCIAL SCALE
Object

Mass
MOM (g)

Mass
CCM (g)

Mass Scale
(g)

Full Can

349.7

363.8

373.3

Empty Can

14.3

14.9

13.1

Weight of Full Can

The mass of the full can was calculated to be 363.8g using
the proportional relationship of the gage voltage and the
calibration weights. The mass of the calibration weights was
calculated using the commercial scale instead of the values
stamped because there are minor imperfection in the weights
and the tolerance of the commercial scale is much higher. The
mass of the full can was calculated with the slope of Fig. 1.
Using the Monte Carlo simulation and the mean of all the
voltages of the full can from Fig. 2.
The mass of the can was also calculated to be 349.7g using
(1)-(8) which uses the information about the beam and its
stress.
Both of these values are not too far off from each other and
close to the measured value of 373.3g.
Uncertainty
Using (9)-(15), the uncertainty for the CCM was calculated
to be 17.74 and for the MOM method it was 9.925. The
MOM method proved to be the more precise method but the
CCM method was more accurate. Meaning that the MOM
method is very good for calculating differences in voltages but
not accurate it the true voltage.
For calculating the average gulp size the MOM method is
preferred because it looks at changes in mass. For calculating
mass of objects, CCM method is preferred because it gives a
closer accuracy of the true value.
Repeatability of Can Placement
According to Fig. 2. Repeatability of placement may look
like an issue but, this is because it is zoomed in. Table IV
shows that the standard deviations for both MOM and CCM
methods where around 1.6g which is very small compared to
the weight of the objects. Therefore it is not an issue, and this
standard deviation can be minimized by placing the mass more
accurately and consistently on the beam. Also, the statistical
uncertainty of the weight was calculated to be 1 using the
Students t-distribution with a 95% confidence interval.
TABLE V
MASS OF GULP SIZE USING MOM METHOD

<Section4764_Lab1>

Gulp #

Mean Mass
MOM (g)

38.0373

22.7170

33.5987

36.9872

26.7501

34.2650

30.4400

35.7701

30.6584
28.3408

10

Mass=

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Mean Mass MOM

mgulp

31.7564

Standard Deviation
(MOM)

4.876

Gulp Size
According to Table V and VI, the average gulp size was
31.8g with a standard deviation of 4.876. As discussed before
the MOM method was more appropriate for calculating
differences in masses since it had a lower uncertainty. Last
gulp size was not used in the calculations since there was only
a small amount of liquid left.
Weight Empty Can
According to Table VII, both of the masses for the 2
methods were greater than the measured scale mass and this
may have been due to the relatively low weight compared to
the weight of the beam. It wouldve been better to place a
weight under the empty can to increase the total weight being
applied on the beam and the commercial scale. By doing this,
the uncertainty becomes smaller compared to the mass.
The weight of the beam does not affect the calibration
because the beam is deforming elastically and by taring the
gauge voltage before starting, it reduced any initial weight of
the beam. Also, in the calibration of the beam scale, the mass
calculated should be relative to the known calibration weights
which are much heavier than the beam itself, so this reduces
any further error with the initial weight of the beam.

=E
b h3
I=
12

(3)

y=h / 2

(5)

I
y

(6)

M=

W =M /L

(8)

TABLE VIII
CALCULATED VALUES TO FIND MASS OF FULL CAN

TABLE VI
MASS OF AVERAGE GULP SIZE
Term

W
g

(4)

Term

Symbol

Unit

Value

Uncertainty

Strain

2.50210-4

7.06510-6

Stress

Pa

1.727107

487494.3

Moment of
Inertia

m4

5.41410-11

4.710-14

1.4710-3

1.2710-6

Moment at
Gage

Nm

6.3410-1

1.79310-2

Weight

3.43

9.73710-2

Mass MOM

mmom

349.68

Gauge Voltage

VG

6.49410

9.926
-4

1.82510-5

V. CONCLUSION
The Calibration Curve method for calculating the mass of
an object proved to be more accurate according to Table IV
where the actual mass was 373.3g and the calculated was
363.8g with an uncertainty of 17.74. Looking at Fig. 1. This
method also proved to be very consistent. To improve the
uncertainty, more calibration weights should be used to
calculate the slope as well as a stronger gage amplifier.
The mean size of a gulp was 31.8g with a standard
deviation of 4.876. The MOM method was used since it had a
lower uncertainty of 9.925. To reduce the standard deviation,
more data points should be taken to decrease the variations in
each gulp. Also a more accurate way to position the objects on
the beam would greatly reduce uncertainty for both the MOM
and CCM methods while placing them at a farther distance
with a longer beam. Increasing the length of the beam will
increase sensitivity which is better but, the longer it is the
more it will vibrate which did happen during this lab.
It is also apparent in Table VII that there is a larger variation
in mass as the mass increases. For the empty can, there is only
about a 1-2g difference, and for the full can there is a 10-20g
difference. This is because the full can mass is closer to the
max weight before plastic deformation.

(7)
3

<Section4764_Lab1>

4
APPENDIX

UW=

TABLE IX
UNCERTAINTY EQUATIONS

U =

( )

VG

(
(

(U V

2
(U V ) +
S

G f

( )(

2
2
2
U
+
U )2
(
(
E)
E

(9)
UG

) ( )
I
I
U =
U ) +( ) ( U )
(
)
b
h
y
U = ( ) (U )
h

M
M
M
= (
U ) +(
U ) +(
(
(
)
)
I y ) (U )
U=
I

(12

U mass

U mass(CCM )=

( )
mass
= (
W ) (U )

(14)

(14)

mass(ccm)
VG

(U V

mass(15)
(ccm) 2
2
( U slope )
slope

(11)

(10)

UM

VS

( )

W 2
W 2
2
UM) +
U L )2
(
(
M
L

(13)
y

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

University of Florida Canvas Site. EML 3301C Mechanics of

Materials Laboratory 2 Fall 2016; Cantilever Beam: Strain
Measurement, Load, Uncertainty. Gainesville, FL. Ridgeway, Shannon.
University of Florida Canvas Site. EML 3301C Quarter Bridge Strain
Gage Mounting Steps. Gainesville, FL. Ridgeway, Shannon.
University of Florida Canvas Site. EML 3301C MonteCarloSim.
Gainesville, FL. Ridgeway, Shannon.