David Browne S0900461 NT090461M

Applied Mechanics ME4211 Lab Report

Objectives

The objectives of these experiments are to investigate wave propagation. The first experiment will investigate
wave velocity, the relationship between wave velocity and impact force and the behavior of wave reflection as
it reaches a free end boundary. The second experiment will investigate the stress wave that occurs due to an
impact between bars. The third experiment will investigate the behavior of a wave passing through an
impedance change boundary.

Equipment & Method

The first experiment will be conducted by creating a compressive impulse wave on a thin rod with two free
ends by hitting one end with a hammer.

The second experiment will be conducted by projecting one rod into a second rod. The initial velocity of the
first rod will be recorded by recording the time it takes to pass 2 laser beams across its path.

The third experiment will use a ‘striker bar’ to impact the end of a second bar made up of 2 parts with different
impedances. For the experiment is desirable to observe each stage of the stress wave’s propagation
individually. For this reason the strain gage is placed in the middle of each section of the bar. The striker bar is
then required to be less than half the length of each section of the bar so that the length of each stress wave is
shorter than double the distance between the strain gage and a boundary. This allows the strain gage to record
the whole incident wave before it records the reflected wave.

In each experiment the stress/strain with respect to time will be recorded at a set of specific locations along the
rods. The strain will be calculated by placing a Strain Gage at each location which will send a voltage versus
time signal to an Oscilloscope as it experiences a strain.
Results

Experiment 1
L=57.5cm
Free end 1 Free end 2
Impact Diagram 1 – Apparatus for experiment 1

Gage Gage
A B

T2= Strain signal Graph 1 – Strain vs Time result for

120
2.00E-04 from Gage A
experiment 1
Strain signal
1.50E-04 from Gage B

1.00E-04

5.00E-05
T1= T3=
110 110
Strain

0.00E+00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
-5.00E-05

-1.00E-04

-1.50E-04

-2.00E-04
Time (Micro second)

Analysis of Experiment 1

The Strain vs Time graph shows a compressive sinusoidal wave caused by the initial impulse passing through
Gage A at around 200μs and then passing through Gage B at around 310μs. Once the compressive wave has
passed Gage B it reaches ‘free end 2’ of the rod. The free end of the rod can be considered to have zero
impedance and therefore the wave reflects back as a tensile sinusoidal wave. This tensile wave is then seen to
pass Gage B at 550μs and then Gage A at around 670μs. Finally, after the wave passes Gage A it reaches ‘free
end 1’ of the rod again, where as previously before, it is reflected back with an opposite sign as a compressive
sinusoidal wave. The compressive wave is then seen to pass Gage A at around 750μs and then Gage B at around
860μs.

The experimental wave velocity (C) can be calculated using the time (T) taken for the wave to pass through a
distance (L) between Gage A and Gage B;

= … (1)

T is calculated from the average of the time taken for the wave to pass between Gage A and Gage B on the 3
separate occasions in the experiment as described previously
 

= = 113.3
110+120+110
= … (2)
 3

.∗
 = .∗ = 5075  … (3)

The theoretical wave velocity in a rod can be calculated through its relationship to the rod material elastic
modulus (E) and density (ρ) (Appendix 1);


∗!
= = = 5063.7 −1 … (4)
"
Experiment 2
V=5.084−1
Diagram 2 – Apparatus for
Rod 1 Rod 2 experiment 2
Gage
L1=40cm A

Graph 2 – Stress vs Time result

Calculated for experiment 2
80.0 stress at
Gage A
60.0
40.0

T1 =145 T2=305
Stress (Mpa)

20.0
0.0
-20.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-40.0
-60.0
-GH = 60
-80.0

Time (Micro second)

Analysis of experiment 2

The Stress vs Time graph shows a compressive square stress (%

) wave of magnitude -60MPa, caused by the
impact of Rod 1 into Rod 2, beginning to passing Gage A at around 150μs until around 300μs.

The impedance of each Rod can be calculated from its cross sectional area (A) and its materials density (ρ) and
elastic modulus (E);

& = '( = ()'* … (5)


+∗,
.∗- .
& = ∗ √2700 ∗ 69 ∗ 103 = 1729.03 … (6)
/


+∗,.3∗- .
&
= /
∗ √7800 ∗ 200 ∗ 103 = 4392.85 … (7)

The theoretical stress in Rod 2 (%

) can be calculated by considering the impedance of Rod 1 and Rod 2
together with the difference in initial velocity of Rod 1 (6 ) and Rod 2 (6
) (Appendix 2);

8 8 (;;9 )
%
= 8 9 8 = −56.72@AB
1729.03∗4392.85 (0−5.084)
<
= 1729.03+4392.85 ∗ 2 … (8)
9  =11.9∗10−3 >
+∗
4

The experimental duration of the stress wave can be read off the stress-time graph;

 = 2 − 1 = 305 − 145 = 160 … (9)

The theoretical duration of the stress wave can be calculated by considering how long the two bars are in
contact during their impact;

9
9
= =
2∗40∗10−2
= = 150 … (10)
C9 D
E9 69∗10
9
9 2700
Experiment 3 Rod 2a/2b
V boundary
Diagram 3 – Apparatus for experiment 3
Rod 1 Rod 2a Rod 2b
Gage Gage
A B

Graph 3 – Stress vs Time result for

Calculated Stress at Gage experiment 3
30.0 A
20.0 Calculated Stress at Gage
B
10.0
0.0
Stress (Mpa)

-10.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

-20.0 % T = -20

% R=-27.5
-30.0
-40.0
-50.0
% I = -55
-60.0
-70.0
Time (Micro second)

Analysis of Experiment 3

The Stress vs Time graph shows the incident compressive square stress wave (%8 ) of magnitude -55MPa
passing through Gage A at around 200μs. The wave then continues to the Rod 2a/2b boundary. For help in
reading the rest of the Stress vs Time graph it is first useful to compute the expected sign of the reflected stress
wave (%I ) that occurs at the rod 2a/2b boundary;
8 8
%I =  9 %8 ∴ if &
> & the reflected stress wave will be same sign as the incident wave … (11)
8 8  9

From (5); & = 4392.8 & &

= 16886.9 (Appendix 3)

&
> & ∴ Reflected stress wave will be compressive.

It can then be seen that a compressive stress wave of magnitude -27.5MPa is reflected at the Rod 2a/2b
boundary back towards Gage A. At the same time a compressive stress wave of magnitude -20MPa is
transmitted through the Rod 2a/2b boundary towards Gage B.

%8 = −55@AB

%I = −27.5@AB = 0.5 %8

% = −20@AB = 0.36 %8

The theoretical incident, reflected and transmitted stress can be calculated using the equations;

<9  M
% = %8 = 0.34%8 … (12)
8 89

8 89
%I = %
8 89 8
= 0.59%8 … (13)
Evaluation

In all 3 experiments the experimental results had some differences with the expected theoretical result. One
reason for this is the experimental ‘noise’ on the stress/strain vs time graphs. This noise means that the exact
instant when a stress/strain wave passes a gage is distorted, making it difficult to precisely read the duration of
a wave from the graph.

Experiment 1 yielded an experimental value for wave speed very similar to the theoretical value;

∗(N.)
∗ 100 = 0.22% difference … (14)
 N.

Experiment 2 also yielded an experimental value close to the theoretical value for the magnitude of stress;

∗(NN.
)
∗ 100 = 5.62% difference … (15)
N N.

Experiment 3 gave the largest difference between experimental and theoretical values. This could be due to the
greater potential for human error in reading the graphs as the reflected stress wave had an appearance closer
to a quarter sinusoidal cycle as opposed to the square incident stress wave. This made it more difficult to
choose a definite magnitude to the wave.
0.59−0.5
2 ∗ 0.59+0.5 ∗ 100 = 16.5% difference … (16)

Appendix 1

Steel bar: Modulus 200 GPa

Density= 7800 Kg/m3
Diameter 11.90 mm
Distance between gage A and gauge B: 57.5 cm
Appendix 2

BAR 2: Steel Modulus 200 Gpa

Density 7800 Kg/m3
Diameter 11.9 mm

BAR 1: Aluminum Modulus 69 Gpa

Density 2700 Kg/m3
Diameter 12.7 mm
Length 40 cm
Velocity 5.084746 m/s
Appendix 3

BAR 1 : Steel Modulus 200 Gpa

Density 7800 Kg/m3
Diameter 11.9 mm
Distance between gage A and steel/copper bars
interface 67.5 Cm
Length of striker bar 60.5 Cm

BAR 2 : Copper Modulus 120 Gpa

Density 8900 Kg/m3
Diameter 25.65 mm
Distance between gage B and steel/copper bar
interface 64 Cm