You are on page 1of 28

McGill University

Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics

Solid Mechanics
CIVE - 207
Torsion Coupons Experiment
Laboratory Write-Up Report
Number of Pages: 28

Group Number: 08
Names: Surname,

First Names

McGill ID #

th

February 19 , 2015

Table of Contents:
Page Number
1) List of Figures and Diagrams 3
2) Graphs and Data
A) Aluminum Square Rod....4
B) Softwood Hollow Circular Rod.....6
C) Torsional Characteristics and Sectional Properties. 9
D) Experimental Versus Predicted Values. 10
3) Element principle of stress and strain 12
4) Photos
E) Initial Setup.13
F) Softwood Hollow Circular Rod. 14
G) Aluminum Square Rod. .15
5) Sample Calculations .16
6) Discussion .. 22

7) Sources of error and Improvements 23


8) Conclusion ..25
9) Appendix 26
10) DVD (included)

List of Tables And Figures:


Page
Graphs:
1) Aluminum Square Rod
A) Elastic Region 4
B) Torque (N.m) versus Twist (0) 4
C) Torque (N.m) versus Twist (rad) 5

2) Softwood Hollow Circular Rod


A) Torque Versus Twist. 6
B) Torsional Shear Stress Versus Shear Stress. 8
Tables:
1) Torsional Characteristics and Sectional Properties 9
2) Experimental Maximum Elemental Stresses and Strains10

3) Experimental Versus Predicted Values.. 10


Figures:
1) Aluminum Circular Rod .. 15
2) Softwood Hollow Circular Rod ..14

Aluminium-Alloy- Sold Square Bar


Torque(N.m) vs Twist()
20.00

Ultimate strength
(720, 17.60N.m)

(3)

18.00

(4)

16.00
Failure fracture
(1080, 17.40N.m)
14.00

(2)

Yield point
(45, 14.15N.m)

Torque(N.m)

12.00
Proportionality
Limit
(24, 12.75N.m)

10.00

8.00

(1)
6.00

(1) Linear Elastic


(2) Yielding
(3) Strain Hardening
(4) Strain Sofening

4.00

G = 15.7 GPa

2.00

0.00
0

200

400

600

Twist()

800

1000

1200

Aluminium-Alloy- Sold Square Bar


Torque(N.m) vs Twist(radian)
20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

Torque(N.m)

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

Applied Twist(radian)

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

Softwood- Hollow Circular Rod


Torque(N.m) vs Twist()
9.000

Torsional Failure Longitudinal Shear 0


Brittle Behaviour

Proportionality limit
& Ultimate load
(20, 8.550N.m)

8.000

7.000

Torque (Nm)

6.000

5.000

(1)

4.000
Failure
fracture
90, 1.900N.m

3.000

2.000

G= 0.361 GPa

1.000

(1) Linear Elastic


0.000
0

10

20

30

40

50

Twist ()

60

70

80

90

100

Softwood- Hollow Circular Rod


Torque(N.m) vs Twist(radian)
9.000

8.000

7.000

Torque(N.m)

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0.000
0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

Twist(radian)

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

Softwood- Hollow Circular Rod


Shear Stress vs Shear Strain
12

10

Shear Stress(Mpa)

0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Shear strain(radian)

0.025

0.03

0.035

Torsional Characteristics and Sectional Properties for Aluminium and


Softwood Hollow Specimens

Aluminium Alloy - Solid Square Bar


Dimensions (mm)

Average(mm)

Width(d)

6.44

6.45

6.43

6.44

Depth(t)

6.43

6.45

6.44

6.44

Length(mm)

124.46

124.39

Ratio(b/a)

0.208

0.1406

124.43
241.84

J(mm )
G(Gpa)

15.7

Softwood - Hollow Circular Rod


Dimensions

Average(mm)

Neck Outlet(mm)

16.49

16.48

Neck Inlet(mm)

8.28

8.05

8.17

Neck Length(mm)

85.17

85.4

85.29

16.5

16.49

J (mm )

6821.68

G(Gpa)

0.3613

Note: See Appendix and Sample Calculation for reference

Experimental Versus Predicted Values


Aluminum Solid Square Bar

Softwood Hollow Circular


Rod

Experimental Predicted
Value
Value

Experimental Predicted
Value
Value

Linear Elastic Region, Proportional Limit, and Yield Point


Proportional Limit Torque (Tpl)

12.75Nm

15.3Nm

8.550Nm

8.73Nm

Proportional Limit Angle of Twist (pl)

24

17.4

20

10.4

Yield Torque (Ty)

14.15Nm

15.3Nm

8.550Nm

8.73Nm

Yield Angle of Twist (y)

45

17.4

20

10.4

Shear Modulus (G)

15.7GPa

26GPa

0.361GPa

0.602GPa

Prop. Limit Torsion Shear Stress (pl)

230MPa

276MPa

10.33MPa

10.6MPa

Prop. Limit Torsion Shear Strain (pl)

0.0147

0.011

0.0286

0.0175

Yield Torsional Shear Stress (y)

255MPa

276MPa

10.33MPa

10.6MPa

Yield Torsional Shear Strain (y)

0.0163

0.011

0.0286

0.0175

Maximum Normal Tensile and Compressive Stresses and Strains at 45


Maximum/Minimum Normal Stress ()

10.33MPa

10.6MPa

Maximum/Minimum Normal Strain ()

0.0143

0.00876

Yielding Plastic Region Plateau


Plastic Torque (Tp)

17.60Nm

24.6Nm

8.550Nm

12.4Nm

Angle of Twist (p)

720

27.9

20

14.7

Ratio of Plastic Torque to Yield Torque

1.24

1.60

1.42

Ultimate Load and Fracture Load Levels


Ultimate Torque (Tult)

17.60Nm

17.2Nm

8.550Nm

6.91Nm

Ultimate Angle of Twist (ult)

720

19.5

20

8.22

10

Ultimate Torsional Shear Stress (ult)

317MPa

310MPa

10.33MPa

8.35MPa

Ultimate Torsional Shear Strain (yult)

0.0202

0.012

0.0286

0.0139

Fracture Torque (Tfrac)

17.40Nm

1.900Nm

Fracture Angle of Twist (frac)

1080

90

Ductility Ratio (ult/y)

16

Failure Type and Angle

Ductile,1080

1.12

11

1
Brittle, 90

0.791

Element principle of stress and strain


An element that experiences equal shear stress on all sides is called pure shear. The element below is
experiencing pure shear at 0 degrees. The shear is parallel to all edges and meets at the corners of the
element. The effect of pure shear causes a shift in the plane of the element as seen below.

If the element is ductile, the plane at which it fractures is 90 degrees to due failure under shear stress.
Whereas if an element is brittle, the plane at which it fails under shear stress will be at 0 degrees.

An element that experiences shear at a plane of 45 degrees behaves differently because the shear is
orthogonal to all the faces of the element. This results in compression and two opposite sides and
tension on the other two opposite sides.

If the element is brittle and at 45 degrees, under pure shear force the element will fail at 45 degrees.

12

Section 2: Photographs
Figure.2.1 Initial Setup

13

Softwood Hollow Circular Rod

Initial setup of specimen

First fracture at 22.5 applied twist

Second fracture at 24

Failure

14

Aluminium Rod

Initial setup

Wrapping

Failure

15

Sample Calculation

16

17

18

19

20

21

Discussion
This lab was conducted to observe torsional behavior of brittle and ductile, square and
circular cross-sectional specimens. A wooden shaft with a hollow circular cross-section,
and an aluminum shaft with a square cross-section were used. During the lab, data
points for degree of twist and the corresponding torque were recorded to produce
stress-strain curves. From these curves, we can determine experimental shear
modulus, proportionality limit, yield limit, strain hardening, ultimate strength, and fracture
point.
Ductile and brittle materials differ visually by their fracture degrees. Ductile materials will
fracture at 90 degree angles because the maximum torsional stress occurs
perpendicular to the shaft. Brittle materials will fracture at 45 degree angles because
maximum torsional stress is on a helix line along the shaft.
Experimental Results
As the norm with ductile materials, the aluminum shaft fractured at the normal plane.
With an experimental shear modulus of 15.7 GPa, this is lower than the average range
of 26-28 GPa for aluminum alloys. However the experimental yield torsional strength of
255MPa is relatively close to the average of 276MPa for aluminum alloys. The ultimate
strength of this aluminum alloy shaft is 317MPa at 720 degree of twist. The final fracture
point happened at 1080 degree angle of twist with 313MPa of shear stress.
Deviational behaviour was observed in the softwood shaft. The degree of twist was at
22.5 degrees for the first fracture. This initial fracture did happen diagonally at around
45 degrees as seen on the specimen. However, contrary to the expectation of a final 45
degree fraction angle, the shaft fractured in a 90 degree fashion when it finally split into
two at 90 degree angle of twist. This behaviour can be explained by a fundamental
property of wood. At closer inspection, the wooden shaft looked to be pieced together
with interlacing wooden fibres at the fracture point. Wood is anisotropic, meaning it is
constructed unidirectional with layers and fibres. When anisotropic materials fracture,
they will fail through splintering or delamination across the layers or fibres. This is what
happened to the wood hollow shaft.
The experimental shear modulus for the softwood shaft is 0.361GPa with a yield
torsional strength of 10.33MPa. These values fall comfortably into the range of 0.0231.18 GPa for the shear modulus and 5.2-15.9MPa for the yield torsional strength.

22

SOURCES OF ERROR
There were numerous sources of error that have occurred during this
experiment, these errors cause the fluctuations between our experimental values in
comparison with the theoretical. Some of these errors were human mistakes, others
were technical. Human errors occur while recording the torque at different intervals,
especially in materials such as Aluminum which required a large number of rotations.
Thus, the twisting of the wheel cannot be perfectly rotated and stopped at our desired
value; furthermore, we were unable to stop the rotation at the instant the material fails.
.The errors incurred in this experiment can be divided into two broad types:
Random
Errors:

These
could have included:

1. Human errors: occur while recording the torque at different intervals, especially
in materials such as Aluminum which required a large number of rotations. Thus,
the twisting of the wheel cannot be perfectly rotated and stopped at our desired
value; furthermore, we were unable to stop the rotation at the instant the material
fails.
2. Equipment/Machine/sample error: The errors mentioned here involve the
machinery used in the experimental process as well as errors present in the test
sample itself. Due to the natures and shapes of the specimens provided, some
did not fit perfectly into the jaws and jigs of the apparatus. Because of this, the
specimens remained slightly loose within the jaws and were not completely
fixed at all times. As a result, accuracy of the measurements provided was
compromised. This was especially true in the cases of the plastic acrylic square
tube. Furthermore, there could be a chance that some of the samples
themselves could have been defective. The impurities and flaws of the materials
may affect our results
3. Adjustment errors: not noting down the readings quickly at the proper torque
would result in a lower torque as the material is adjusting itself at a lower torque,
introducing more errors.
4. Backlash: When stronger twists were applied to the specimens, they tended to
attempt to revert to their original states and untwist very quickly in order to
reduce the strain put on them. As a result of this, it became difficult to read the
true values on the torsion meter before they artificially went down as the
specimens attempted to untwist themselves.
The impurities and flaws of the materials may affect our results

23

Systematic
Errors:

These
could have included:

1. Zero errors: The measurement devices may not have been set properly to 0
before using them for measurement
2. Calibration errors: The measurement devices may have an inherent error
induced during its calibration. Therefore, the torque given by the torsiometer
and the given angle may not be correct.
Improvements :
A few suggestions to improve and give more accurate results for the experiment are:
1. Increase the number of samples size for each material. This would give more
data to use in the average.
2. With more number of data points we can apply principle of statistics and do a
statistical analysis for greater accuracy. This would reduce the deviation in the
system significantly.
3. Making sure that the readings are only taken once the specimen is properly
positioned in the apparatus.
4. Avoid a time lag by trying to take quickly take readings or have a computer
record data directly

24

Conclusion
1. Aluminum Square Bar

The Aluminum rod fails under shear by fracturing along a 90 degree vertical
plane; which is consistent with failure due to torsion of a ductile material.

The location of the fracture of the aluminum rod should also be noted as the
failure occurred closed to its end
consistent with the theory.

The shear modulus of elasticity,


yield torsional shear stress and
ultimate torsional shear stress and
strain are within the predicted value range.

Ductile materials can support a much greater torque than brittle materials,
leading to a larger distortion prior to failure.

2. Hollow Circular Softwood Rod

Contrary to the expectation of a final 45 degree fraction angle, the shaft


fractured in a 90 degree fashion when it finally split into two at 90 degree
angle of twist. This behaviour can be
explained by a fundamental property of
wood (anisotropic) as mentioned on the
discussion.

The discrepancy in theoretical and


experimental shear modulus of elasticity
values can be attributed to random and
systematic error.

25

Appendix

26

27

28

You might also like