Strain Gauge Lab and Young’s Modulus Measurement

Engineering Mechanics 2: 16232

Jeswin Mathew
200901475
Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….2

The Strain Gauge Experiment………………………………………………………………….....2

Theoretical Background………………………………………………………………………2

Surface Preparation and Bonding of the Strain Gauge……………………………………3

Results………………………………………………………………………………………….4

The Young’s Modulus Experiment…………………………………………………………………5

Theoretical Background………………………………………………………………………5

Experimental Procedure and Apparatus…………………………………………………....7

Results and Analysis…………………………………………………………………………8

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………...…11

References………………………………………………………………………………………..…11

1. Introduction

Page | 1
 The laboratory was divided into two sessions: During the first session a strain gauge was bonded onto a
solid beam with elastic properties by first cleansing the surface using surface preparation techniques[2] and then
bonding the strain gauge on to the ‘cleansed spot’ (The reasons for this will be discussed later) using a
permanent adhesive. The second session entailed the measurement of the Young’s Modulus of a solid beam
by applying a load on both ends of the bar and measuring the increments in strain (ε) and the central deflection
(δ) caused due to increments in the load. The Young’s modulus was approximated from the gradient of the
graph of the load against strain and central deflection. Both these experiments and the relevant theories that
apply to them will be discussed throughout the report.

2. The Strain Gauge Experiment

2.1 Theoretical Background

2.11 Introduction

The primary component using in the manufacturing of a strain gauge is the strain-sensitive alloy, used in the
manufacture of the foil grid (Refer to Figure1), the foil grid safely is mounted on an encapsulation or backing
material and solder dots renders a conductive surface for soldering lead connections. If a deformation was
introduced into the solid beam, this will subsequently deform the alloy in the foil grid, causing its electrical
impedance to increase when the bonded surface is in tension, and decrease if the surface is in compression as
shown in figure 1, and is usually measured using a wheat stone bridge; this resistance is related to the strain by
a quality factor known as the gauge factor [1]:

dR
ε= x Gauge Factor , [1] Equation 1
RO

Where dR is the change in resistance due to deformation,

Ro is the resistance when unstressed.

Foil Grid

Backing Material or
encapsulation
Solder Tabs
Decrease

Figure 1: Bonded Strain Gauge

2.12 Types of strain sensitive alloys

Page | 2
 There are three types of strain sensitive alloys [2]: the Constantan alloy, Isoelastic alloy and the Karma
alloy, the Constantan alloy is the most widely used.

 Constantan Alloy:
I. This alloy possesses a very high strain sensitivity (Gauge Factor)
II. It is characterised by a good fatigue life and can handle relatively high elongations.
III. It is suitable for the measurement of very large strains (5%).
IV. Annealed Constantan is a grid material normally used; Constantan in this form is very ductile and can
handle higher strains (20%).

 Isoelastic Alloy: Isoelastic alloy (D alloy) has a very high superior fatigue life and also a high gauge
factor which makes it very suitable for dynamic strain measurements [2].
 Karma Alloy: This alloy is characterised by good fatigue life and excellent stability and is the primary
choice for static strain measurements for long periods of time, usually months [2].

2.2 Surface Preparation and Bonding of the Strain Gauge

2.21 Surface Preparation

Prior to the bonding of the strain gauge to the object, the surface had to be prepared using certain
techniques. The purpose of surface preparation was to obtain a chemically clean surface, a surface whose
roughness and surface alkalinity was similar to that of the strain gauge. The surface was prepared through the
five procedures outline below in order [2]:

 Degreasing the surface using a solvent

 Surface Abrading
 Marking the gauge layout lines
 Surface Conditioning
 Neutralising

 Surface Degreasing: This was performed to remove contaminants, greases and soluble chemical
residues; during the experiment Acetone was used for the degreasing process. Also, careful methods
were used while cleaning and drying it to eliminate any further contamination.

 Surface Abrading and marking out the

layout lines: The surface abrading
procedure was performed using a silicon
carbide paper and metal conditioner
solution, and was done to remove an
loosely bonded adherents such as scale,
rust coatings and also to develop a surface
texture suitable for bonding as shown in
figure 2. The surface was wetted using
the metal conditioner and was cleansed by
Figure 2: Surface Abrading
rubbing the paper against the surface. .
After drying, the layout where the strain
gauge was to be bonded was marked using a ball point pen with a pair of crossed, perpendicular
reference lines.

Page | 3
  Surface Conditioning and Neutralising: After the layout lines where market the metal conditioner that
was used before was used to clean the surface again but this time with gauze using a single stroke and
finally a neutraliser was used to provide maximum alkalinity for the strain gauge adhesives.
Again when drying the surface was wiped with one single stroke to avoid dragging back on the
contaminants from the previous stroke.

2.22 Strain Gauge Bonding

 The first priority was given into proper handling of the gauge due to the delicacy of the foil grid;
manual tools were used to withdraw the gauge from its envelope, and then it was placed on a glass
slab which was also degreased using acetone to remove contaminants.
 A length of cellophane tape (About 10cm) was stuck carefully on top of the gauge, the ends of the
tape was stuck to the glass slab.
 The tape was then peeled off very carefully; the main purpose of this was to temporarily bond the
gauge to the tape so that it can be transported to the prepared surface for permanent bonding as
shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Strain Gauge removed from glass slab.

 The strain gauge was then positioned on the prepared surface as shown in the figure, first, before applying
a Catalyst on the bottom of the strain
gauge, which facilitates the bonding.
Once this was done a strong adhesive
was applied on the surface as shown in
the figure 4 and the tape holding the
gauge was rolled onto the surface.

Figure 4: Application of Adhesive

 After a minute, the tape was removed of leaving the strain gauge bonded on the surface, thus completing
the process. The final step was to
solder the leads onto the solder tabs (See Figure 1) for electrical connection.

2.3 Results
The strain gauge was tested for both compressive and tensile stress and the resistances were found to vary
accordingly for the scenarios as expected; when the beam was unstressed, the resistance was observed to be
roughly 121Ω which can be taken to be RO . It was also observed that there were only obscure differences in
the electrical resistances when the beam was stressed.

3. The Measurement of the Young’s Modulus

Page | 4
 3.1 Theoretical Background

M M

The Distance
‘y’ from Neutral
Axis; +y for Radius of Curvature of the Neutral Axis, ‘R’
above the axis
and –y for
below

Figure 5: Bending of Beams [3]

3.11 The Elastic Beam Theory

If a beam, portraying elastic properties, of symmetrical cross-section is subject to a bending moment M, then
stresses will occur along the surface and also the beam will bend into a simple arc as shown in figure 5. It can be
noted from the figure that the upper fibres of the beam are in tension due to the increase in their length and the
bottom fibres will be in compression due to the converse occurring. For a beam subject to bending moments
as seen in the figure, the stress and the Young’s modulus can be related using equation [4] 2:

σ
E= Equation 2
ε

Where, E is the Young’s modulus of the material in N/m2,

σ is the stress and is given by the equation Force/ Area, its units are N/m2,

ε is the strain and is given by Elongation/Original Length.

Another relation that encapsulates, the Young’s modulus, stress and strain is shown in equation 3:

σ M E Equation 3
= =
y I R

Where M is the moment in Nm,

I is the second moment of inertia across the cross section of the beam

Page | 5
R is the radius of curvature of the neutral layer of the beam due to the bending moment M,

y is the distance from the neutral axis to any point on the thickness (cross section) of the material.

3.12 Neutral Axis and Radius of curvature

Neutral axis is a line through the thickness cross-sectional area of the beam where the length stays the same
during tensile or compressive stress[4], and also the σ andε experienced by the beam – caused by bending
moments as shown in figure 5 - increases linearly as y increases i.e. the maximum strain is observed at the top
surface of the beam which has the greatest distance from the neutral axis. The strain increases linearly and is
related to y by the radius of curvature (R) for the neutral layer using the equation below [4]:

±y Equation 4
ε=
R

Also the stress at distance y from the neutral axis can also be calculated from the above formula by using
the relationship portrayed in equation 2:

±Ey Equation 5
σ=
R

The ± notation beside y indicates that y is positive for distances above the neutral axis and negative for
below the neutral axis as shown in figure 5. The neutral axis for a beam of uniform cross-section passes right
through the centroid of its cross-section. The radius of curvature is a quantity that is practically impossible to
obtain an absolute value and therefore can only be approximated; when the beam is unstressed, the radius of
curvature is undefined.

3.13 Shearing Force and Bending Moment

The shearing force in a beam at any section is the force transverse tending to cause it to shear across the
section; the shear force will remain uniform on an unloaded part and will change abruptly at a concentrate load.
The shearing force and the bending moment are related using the relationship below:

dM
=V
dx
Equation 6
M =∫ V dx

Where V is the shearing force and M is the bending moment.

Page | 6
 3.2 Experimental Apparatus and Procedure

Dial
3.21 Apparatus Gauge

A B C D
a l l a
b
t
E

RX Knife Edge RY
Fixings

W
W

Figure 6: The Setup of Apparatus

Configuration

The beam used for the experiment was set up into a four point loading frame; Loads of weights W were hung
at both sides of the beam. There were reactions due to fixings that were placed a distance of ‘a’ from the Loads,
such that they were equidistant from the loads; the fixings were also equidistant from the dial gauge by a
magnitude of ‘l’ as shown in figure 6. Therefore the loading frame was setup so that AB = CD, BE = EF and also
the loads at A & D are both equal in magnitude.

Measurements Taken

AB =a =CD =0.167m; BE = l =EC = 0.125m, t (Thickness) = 0.0032m; b (Width) =0.025m

3.22 Procedure

 Firstly, all the necessary dimensions of the solid beam were taken. This is highlighted in figure 6
 The Load W, on both ends of the beam was increased by 1Lb per reading, and the measurements were
taken for each of the columns of table 1..
 Once the first five readings were taken, the Load W was now decreased by 1Lb.
 The dial gauge was used to measure the central defection between b and c; a strain gauge bonded onto
the solid beam facilitated the measurement of the strain between b and c.
 Finally the Young’s modulus was calculated using the gradient of the Graphs 1&2.

Page | 7
 3.3 Results and Analysis

Results
3.31 Table of Results

The results obtained for the different quantities are shown in table 1. The quantities were measured in Lb
and mm and were then converted to N and m using the conversions shown below:
1Lb = 4.448 N;
1mm = 1 x 10-3 m Table 1: Empirical Results
Actual Recorded Results Results after Unit Conversions Difference Columns
No Of Weight Central Strain Weight (N) Strain Central Difference Difference Difference in
Reading (Lb) Deflection X 10
-6 Deflection (m) in Weight in Strain Deflection(m)
s X 10-2 mm (N)
1 1 46 100 4.448 0.0001 0.00046 0 0 0
2 2 96 200 8.896 0.0002 0.00096 4.448 0.1 0.0005
3 3 142.5 295 13.344 0.000295 0.001425 8.896 0.195 0.000965
4 4 190 390 17.792 0.00039 0.0019 13.344 0.29 0.00144
5 5 236 480 22.24 0.00048 0.00236 17.792 0.38 0.0019
6 4 191 390 17.792 0.00039 0.00191 13.344 0.29 0.00145
7 3 143 300 13.344 0.0003 0.00143 8.896 0.2 0.00097
8 2 97 200 8.896 0.0002 0.00097 4.448 0.1 0.00051
9 1 46 100 4.448 0.0001 0.00046 0 0 0
3.32 Graphs of Load against Strain and Central Deflection

The graphs were plotted from the difference columns to eliminate initial condition errors. After the graph
was plotted; the ‘line of best fit’ and its algebraic function was obtained using the tools provided by Microsoft
Excel.

20

18
Load vs Strain
f(x) = 46548.03 x − 0.13
16

14

12

10
Load (N)
8

0
0 0 0 0 Strain
0 0 0 0 0

Graph 1: Load vs Strain

Page | 8
The equation of the ‘line of best fit’ for graph 1 was found to be y = 46548x - 0.1349

Graph 2: Load vs Central Deflection

20 Load vs Central Deflection

18
f(x) = 9348.12 x − 0.13
16

14

12

10
Load (N)
8

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Deflection (m), h

The equation of the ‘line of best fit’ was found to be y = 9348.1x - 0.1266

Analysis
3.33 Calculation of Shearing Force and Bending Moment

Moment A = Moment B = 0Nm [Free End] and the beam is in static equilibrium

∑ Fy=0
Rx + Ry – 2W =0
Ry = 2W – Rx >>> Rx = 2W-Ry ………………………………………………. 1

Assuming the moment at A is equal to 0 and using 1:

−W ( 2 a+2 l )+ R y ( 2 l+ a ) + R x ( a )=0 ;
−2 wa+2 wl+ 2 R yl + R y a+ ( 2W −R y ) a=0
Ry = W,
Hence Rx = W can be deduced from 1.

A diagram of shear force against length of beam is shown figure 7.

Page | 9
 CD

W BC
Figure 7: Shearing Diagram
AB

The bending moment between b& c doesn’t change as V = 0N.

3.34 The Young’s Modulus Calculation

The Young’s Modulus could not be directly calculated from the slopes of the graphs: the relationships seen in
equations 2 and 3 had to be employed.

From equation 3;

My
σ=
I

The bending moment between B and C (See section 3.33) is constant;

therefore M between B and C = Wa.
y= t/2, for a beam of uniform cross section.
1 3
I= bt
12

Using the information above and equation 2 the relation shown in equation was obtained in the manner below;

M 6a W
E= =
I ε b t2 ε( )
But ( Wε ) =Gradient of graph 1
E=46548 X
( 0.0256 XX0.167
0.0032 ) 2

E ≅ 183 GPa

In order to verify the above value, the Young’s modulus was recalculated using the gradient of graph 2 in the
following manner;
l2
R≅ , where h is the central deflection
2h
t 2h t
From equation 4, ε =± ( )( ) ( )
2 l2
≡ 2 h hhhh
l
Using equation 2&3 and substituting in for ε ∧σ the equation below can be obtained:

Page | 10
 6 al 2 W
E= x( )
bt3 h
6 X 0.167 x 0.1252
E=9348.1 X ( 0.025 X 0.00322 )
E ≅ 179 GPa
The values obtained from both the calculations maintained their accuracy. The theoretical result is 200GPa

3.35 Uncertainties in the measurement

 When the different measurements of the solid beam were taken, the measurements did not comply with
the specification to meet the conditions described in section 3.33. AB & CD were not equal, their
values diverged by a value of ± 4mm. But if this is the case the shearing and bending moments not be
the same as shown in section 3.33.
 Also when the algebraic equation of the graphs 1&2 the following were observed:
When Load = 0N, Strain = -0.1349 & Central Deflection = -0.1266m
 These factors were not theoretically possible for a beam - in the elastic region – and were considered to
be experimental uncertainties. These factors will directly affect the gradient of the lines.

4. Conclusion

The laboratory session helped to facilitate a thorough understanding of the elastic beam theory and the
difference in the calculations of stress and strain when an axial force is applied and when a force perpendicular
to the beam is applied. Unavoidable mistakes, measuring uncertainties and small faults in the apparatus may
have contributed to the discrepancy in the calculated values; but they were not far from the theoretical value.

5. References
1. http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/sensors/strain_gages/strain_gage_sensitivity.cfm, Date
Accessed 13/2/2011
2. Laboratory Booklet, Gauge Selection Parameters. 2011
3. Bird, J. Ross, C., 2002, Mechanical Engineering Principles, 1st Edition, Oxford
4. Hannah, J. Hiller, M.J., Applied Mechanics, 2nd edition, 1967, London
5. http://www.circuitstoday.com/strain-gauge, Accessed on 131/11

Page | 11
Page | 12