Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
4.00
G = 15.7 GPa
2.00
0.00
0
200
400
600
Twist()
800
1000
1200
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
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
10
20
30
40
50
Twist ()
60
70
80
90
100
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
10
Shear Stress(Mpa)
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Shear strain(radian)
0.025
0.03
0.035
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
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
Experimental Predicted
Value
Value
Experimental Predicted
Value
Value
12.75Nm
15.3Nm
8.550Nm
8.73Nm
24
17.4
20
10.4
14.15Nm
15.3Nm
8.550Nm
8.73Nm
45
17.4
20
10.4
15.7GPa
26GPa
0.361GPa
0.602GPa
230MPa
276MPa
10.33MPa
10.6MPa
0.0147
0.011
0.0286
0.0175
255MPa
276MPa
10.33MPa
10.6MPa
0.0163
0.011
0.0286
0.0175
10.33MPa
10.6MPa
0.0143
0.00876
17.60Nm
24.6Nm
8.550Nm
12.4Nm
720
27.9
20
14.7
1.24
1.60
1.42
17.60Nm
17.2Nm
8.550Nm
6.91Nm
720
19.5
20
8.22
10
317MPa
310MPa
10.33MPa
8.35MPa
0.0202
0.012
0.0286
0.0139
17.40Nm
1.900Nm
1080
90
16
Ductile,1080
1.12
11
1
Brittle, 90
0.791
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
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.
Ductile materials can support a much greater torque than brittle materials,
leading to a larger distortion prior to failure.
25
Appendix
26
27
28