Date: 04/22/2015

To: Weili Cui

From: Tyler Mehlman, 3_1_79
Subject: Strain Measurement

Introduction
In 1938, Edward E Simmons and Arthur C. Ruge invented the first example of the most common strain
gage used today. The gage consisted of a thin flexible film backing with a metallic wire pattern set on top
of it. The gage would then be secured to the article in which measurement is desired using a strong
adhesive. As the object deforms, so does the metallic wire, and in turn the electrical resistance. By
applying a voltage across the wire pattern. This change in resistance can be used to calculate the strain of
the object of interest.
Strain measurement is used in a wide range of engineering applications. In civil engineering, strain
measurement is used to measure the movement of buildings, foundations, bridges, and other structures. In
biological studies, strain measurement is often used to interpret blood flow and tissue swelling for which
a different type of strain gage would be utilized.
The purpose of the experiment was to become familiar with strain gage measurement techniques and the
use of the Wheatstone bridge. Additionally, the use of strain measurement on a cantilever beam in order
to calculate the beam deflection, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio for the beam material.
The equation for the strain measured by a resistive strain gage is as follows:
1

(1)

Where is the strain, GF is the gage factor, R is the change in resistance of the strain gage, and R is the
resting resistance of the strain gage.
Experimental Procedure
Before starting the experiment, it was first necessary to gather the necessary equipment. The equipment
list was as follows:

(1) Cantilever beam apparatus

(1) Vishay P3 Strain Gauge Box
(1) Caliper
(1) Oscilloscope
(1) Dial Indicator
(1) Flat beam (Al 6061-T6)
(1) Set of weights
(1) Ruler
(1) BNC Cable
(4) Strain gages (attached to beam as shown in figure 1)
(2) Jumper wires
(1) Scale
(1) USB Cable

Figure 1: Strain gage placement on cantilever beam. Gages 1,2, and 3 are axial gages, and gage 4 is a transverse strain gage.

Once the necessary equipment had been collected, the first step in the procedure was to measure the
dimensions of the beam using the ruler and caliper. Next, the locations of each strain gage were measured
with respect to the beam length, and the distance from the free end of the beam to the threaded rod was
measured. Following initial measurements, the dial indicator probe was positioned underneath the center
line of the threaded rod. Next, the strain gages were connected to the P3 system. Gages 1 and 2 were
connected as a half bridge circuit, gage 3 was connected as an axial half bridge, and gage 4 was connected
as a transverse quarter bridge. Once the strain gages were connected to the P3 it was then necessary to
input the strain gage parameters into the device, these included the active channels, type of Wheatstone
bridge circuits being utilized, and the proper gage factor. The bridges were then balanced prior to use.
Before loading the beam, the weights were first weighed on the scale and their weights recorded. Next the
beam was loaded with varying weights and the deflection and values of strain were recorded. Once
finished, the weights were removed and the dial indicator moved out of reach of the beam. The beam was
then displaced, released, and allowed to oscillate while the P3 recorded strain data. Next, the channel one
input on the P3 device was set up to output data to the oscilloscope. Using the oscilloscope, the frequency
of oscillation was recorded.
Results
The dimensions of the beam used during experimentation are as follows:
Beam Dimensions (in)
Length
Width
Height
Free end to threaded rod

12
2
0.125
1.02

Table 1: Beam dimensions in inches

The position of the strain gages from the cantilever end of the beam are shown below:
Strain Gage Position (in)
Gage 1
Gage 2
Gage 3
Gage 4

1.125
1.125
2.5
2.75

Table 2: Strain gage positions with respect to the cantilever

The experimental data for strain and deflection under various loadings can be seen below:
Mass (g)

Channel 1
(half
bridge)
(ue)

Channel 3
(axial
quarter
bridge) (ue)

Channel 4
(transverse
quarter
bridge) (ue)

Deflection
(in)

100
205
215
305
410
420
520
625

47
97
99
145
193
196
244
294

43
88
91
132
176
180
224
269

13
28
28
41
55
56
70
84

0.045
0.09
0.093
0.135
0.179
0.183
0.228
0.273

Table 3: Experimental strain and deflection results under varying load

The experimental resonant frequency recorded from the oscilloscope can be seen below:
Resonant Frequency
(Hz)
15.62
Table 4: Experimental resonant frequency from oscilloscope

Analysis
The theoretical deflection of a cantilever beam with a load at the free end can be determined using the
following equation:
3

= 3 (2)
Where is the vertical deflection of the beam, P is the magnitude of the load being applied, L is the
length of the beam, I is the moment of inertia of the beam, and E is the modulus of elasticity of the beam
material.
A sample calculation of theoretical beam deflection under a loading of 100 grams at the load position is as
follows:
=

3
3

= 100
= 12
= 10 107
1
1
(2 )(. 125 )3 = 3.26 104 4
=
3 =
12
12

(12)3
]
=
= 0.039
3(10 106 )(3.26 104 4 )
(100 ) [. 0022056

A table of the theoretical deflection of the beam under the experimental loadings can be seen below:
Mass (g)

Theoretical
Deflection
(in)

100
205
215
305
410
420
520
625

0.04
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.20
0.24

Table 5: Theoretical Deflection of the beam under load

A plot of the experimental and theoretical deflection of the beam under loading can be seen below:
0.3

Experimental vs Theoretical Deflection

Under Load

0.25

deflection (in)

0.2

0.15

Experimental Deflection
Theoretical Deflection

0.1

0.05

0
100

205

215

305
410
Load (g)

420

520

625

Figure 2: Experimental and theoretical beam deflection under load

Although the two plots are fairly consistent, one possible source of error is that the beam was actually
loaded approximately an inch from the free end not at the free end. Additionally, the dial gage used
during experimentation had a large zero drift requiring balancing after each use which may have caused
some bias errors.

The theoretical axial strain of a cantilever beam with a load at the free end can be calculated using the
following equation:
=

()

(3)

Where A is the axial strain at the position of interest, P is the magnitude of the applied load, c is half the
beam thickness, L is the length of the beam, x is the position of interest with respect to the cantilever, E is
the modulus of elasticity of the beam material, and I is the moment of inertia of the beam.
A sample calculation of the axial strain at the position of strain gages 1 & 2 under a load of 100 grams can
be seen below:
=

( )

= 100
= 1
= 12
= 1.125
= 10 106
= 3.26 104 4

(1
] )(12 1.125 )
(10 106 )(3.26 104 4 )

(100 ) [. 0022056

= 46.03
The theoretical axial strain of the beam under varying loads is tabulated below:
Mass (g)

Theoretical
Axial Strain
(ue)

100
205
215
305
410
420
520
625

46.03
94.37
98.97
140.40
188.73
193.34
239.37
287.70

Table 6: Theoretical axial strain of the beam under load

A plot of the theoretical and experimental axial strain under load can be seen below:
350

Experimental vs Theoretical Axial Strain

Under Load

300

Axial Strain (ue)

250

200

Experimental Axial Strain

150

Theoretical Axial Strain

100

50

0
100

205

215

305
410
Load (g)

420

520

625

Figure 3: Experimental and theoretical axial strain under load

It can be seen that the plots for the experimental and theoretical axial strains are nearly identical. One
potential source of small deviations is sensitivity drift in the strain gages and P3 device.

The theoretical transverse strain can be calculated using the following equation:
=

(4)

Where T is transverse strain, is Poisson's ratio for the beam material, and A is axial strain.
A sample calculation for the transverse shear under 100 g loading is shown below:
=
= (0.33)(46.03 )
= 15.19

The theoretical transverse strain of the beam under varying loads is tabulated below:

Mass (g)

Theoretical
Transverse Strain
(ue)

100
205
215
305
410
420
520
625

15.19
31.14
32.66
46.33
62.28
63.80
78.99
94.94

Table 6: Theoretical transverse strain of the beam under load

A plot of the theoretical and experimental transverse strain under load can be seen below:
100

Experimental vs Theoretical Transverse

Strain Under Load

90

Transverse Strain (ue)

80
70
60
50

Experimental Transverse
Strain

40

Theoretical Transverse
Strain

30
20
10
0
100

205

215

305
410
Load (g)

420

520

625

Figure 4: Experimental and theoretical transverse strain under load

It can be seen that the theoretical and experimental values for transverse strain were also near identical.
One source of potential deviation was zero drift in the strain gage and P3 device.

In order to determine Young's modulus of the beam, first the theoretical axial stress due to bending was
calculated using the following formula:
=

()

(5)

Where is the axial stress in the beam due to bending, P is the force applied to the beam, L is the length
of the beam, x is the position of the point of interest with respect to the cantilever, c is half the thickness
of the beam, and I is the moment of inertia of the beam.
The theoretical axial stress in the beam under varying loads is tabulated below:
Mass (g)

Theoretical
Bending
Stress (psi)

100
205
215
305
410
420
520
625

677.26
1388.38
1456.11
2065.64
2776.76
2844.49
3521.75
4232.87

Table 7: Theoretical axial stress in the beam under varying loads

A plot of the theoretical axial stress vs experimental axial strain is shown below:

Stress vs Strain Data

4500.00

y = 1E+07x + 2.9441
R = 0.9998

4000.00
3500.00

Stress (psi)

3000.00
2500.00

Stress vs Strain
Data

2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015
0.0002
Strain

0.00025

Figure 5: Stress vs strain data for cantilever beam under varying load

0.0003

0.00035

Using linear regression, it is noted that the slope of the graph is equal to Young's modulus of the material.
In the preceding plot, the slope of the graph is 1*107 psi which is consistent with Young's modulus for Al
6061-T6.
In order to determine Poisson's ratio of the beam, the strain ratio must be taken as follows:

(6)

A plot of the transverse strain vs axial strain in the beam is shown below:

Strain Ratio
y = 0.2873x - 4E-07
R = 0.9999

0.00009
0.00008

Transverse Strain

0.00007
0.00006
0.00005
Strain Ratio

0.00004

Linear (Strain Ratio)

0.00003
0.00002
0.00001
0
0

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015
0.0002
Axial Strain

0.00025

0.0003

0.00035

Figure 6: Strain ratio for cantilever beam under varying loads

Based on a slope/intercept analysis of the strain ratio plot, Poisson's ratio for the beam material was found
to be 0.287. The published value of Poisson's ratio for Al 6061-T6 is 0.3 and so the experimental result is
fairly consistent with accepted standards. Possible sources of error include sensitivity drift in the strain
gages and in the P3 device.

A plot of the axial strain vs time for a cantilever beam allowed to oscillate freely after deflection is shown
below:

Strain vs Time
1000

800

Strain (ue)

600

400
Strain vs Time
200

0
1

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

-200

-400

Time (s)
Figure 7: Axial strain vs time data for cantilever beam allowed to oscillate after initial deflection

Due to the low sampling rate of one second per data sample used by the P3 compared with the frequency
of oscillation of the beam, the preceding plot is not very accurate. In order to gain more accurate data, the
sampling rate would have had to be higher than the frequency of beam oscillation.
The first mode natural frequency of vibration for a cantilever beam is given by:

1 = 3.526
4

(7)

Where 1 is the mode one natural frequency of the beam, E is Young's modulus for the material, I is the
moment of inertia of the beam,
is the mass per unit length of the beam, and L is the length of the beam.
The mass per unit length for the aluminum beam can be calculated using the following equation:

(8)

Where
is the mass per unit length of the beam, Al is the density of Aluminum, g is the acceleration due
to gravity, and A is the cross sectional area of the beam.

The calculation for the mode one natural frequency of the beam is shown below:

1 = 3.526 4

= 10 106
= 3.26 104 4

(0.098 3 )

= =
=
(2 .125 ) = 7.61 104

32.2 2

= 12
1 = 3.526

(10 106 )(3.26 104 4 )

1
[
]

2
4
4
(12
(7.61 10
)
)
1 = 8.06

During experimentation, the mode one natural frequency of the beam was recorded to be 15.62 Hz which
disagrees somewhat with the theoretical value. Possible discrepancies include the effect of gravity on the
beam, sensitivity drift in the strain gages and P3, and the nature of the very low sampling rate utilized by
the P3. At a 1 second sampling rate, it is difficult to capture something oscillating multiple times each
second.
Conclusion
Overall, the experiment was very successful. The recorded values for deflection, axial strain, and
transverse strain all agreed with the theoretical values. The only measurement taken that deviated largely
from the theoretical model was for the mode one natural frequency. The most likely reason for the
frequency discrepancy is due to the sampling rate utilized by the P3 device. For a future experiment I
would consider using a device with a greater sampling rate in order to better capture the oscillatory
behavior of the beam.
References
[1] Beckwith, Mechanical Measurements, 6th ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007
[2] Strain Gauge [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_gauge