MMAE 372

Aerospace Materials
Lab Report #1
Introduction to the Measurements of Properties in Bending
Sardor Nazarov (A20388683)

Abstract
The main idea of the laboratory session is to determine the Young’s Modulus as well as the
Poisson’s Ratio by means of strain gauge. Data for five various materials was collected to
perform an evaluation of the main material properties and to make a comparison.

Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Experimental Setup 2
Data analysis 4
Discussion 17
Conclusion 18
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Introduction
Young’s modulus or the modulus of elasticity is the measure of the stiffness of the material and
is proportional to the stress applied and inversely proportional to the strain produced. The
method of displacement can be used to express the Young’s modulus.

𝑃∗𝐿3𝑖
𝐸 = = 𝛽 (1)
𝑐∗𝐼

𝜎
𝐸=𝜀 (2)
𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔

where 𝜎 = stress (Pa), 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 =longitudinal strain (), P = load (lbs), Li = the distance from the
load point to the centerline (in), I = moment of inertia for a rectangular cross section (in4),  =
displacement (in), E = Young’s Modulus (Pa), c= distance from a neutral plane, equal to 3 for
the shapes of the specimens.

∴  = 𝐸 (3)
𝛽

The moment of inertia which is defined a tendency of a substance to resist an angular

acceleration, is expressed as

𝑏×ℎ3
𝐼= (4)
12
where b=width (in), h=height (in).

Stress can also be defined as the tension exerted on the surface of a material.
𝑃𝐿𝑖 𝑐
𝜎= (5)
𝐼

Poisson’s ratio is the relationship between the transverse and axial strains and defined as
𝜀
 = − 𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 (6)
𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔
where 𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 = transverse strain (), 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 =longitudinal strain ().

Experimental Setup
The following equipment were used during the lab:
 Ruler;
 Wrench;
 Strain Indicator and Recorder;
 5 various materials: Fiberglass, Steel, Polycarbonate, Carbon Fiber;
 Micrometer;
 Load Indicator.

2
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Figure 1: Load Indicator Figure 2: Strain indicator

Figure 3: Front view of a setup Figure 4: Top view of a setup

3
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Center Line

Transverse gages Longitudinal gages Load Point

Figure 5: Specimen diagram for Bending samples (Figure is used from lab 1 notes on Blackboard)

Figure 1 represents the load indicator which shows the amplitude of a force acting on the point of
contact. Strain indicator in figure 2 shows the magnitude of the strain for 4 channels (Top
longitudinal, Top transverse, Bottom longitudinal, Bottom transverse), all in micro strains. Figure 3
shows the level of displacement measured in inches.
All dimensions of the specimens as well as the distances from the wall to centerline, centerline to
load point and overall length were measured first. Afterwards the offset values of the strain
indicator were recorded for each specimen. Then the load was placed on the contact point and
the various amount of force was exerted on it to record the displacement and strain.

Data analysis
Offset data
Sample Steel Aluminum Carbon Fiber GFRP Polycarbonate
Long-Top () -1 0 0 -1 0
Tran-Top () 0 0 0 0 -1
Long-Bot () 0 0 0 0 -1
Tran-Bot () 0 1 0 0 0
Table 1: Offset values of the strain indicator for all specimens
Measurements
Sample Steel Aluminum Carbon Fiber GFRP Polycarbonate
Thickness (in) 0.189 0.51 0.255 0.2537 0.4078
Width (in) 1 1 1.2 1 1
Length (in) 14 12 12 13 14
LP to CL (in) 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75
CL to SW top (in) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
CL to SW bot (in) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Table 2: Measurement values

4
 MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Polycarbonate
Load (lbs) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement (in) 0.034 0.063 0.097 0.139 0.182 0.215 0.252 0.291 0.328 0.366
0.034 0.076 0.108 0.157 0.279 0.222 0.251 0.293 0.328 0.359
Long-Top () -144 -269 -413 -586 -766 -902 -1056 -1218 -1371 -1529
-155 -310 -470 -646 -768 -924 -1064 -1222 -1386 -1514
Tran-Top () 49 94 146 210 274 325 380 439 497 554
57 106 172 229 281 330 392 442 510 559
Long-Bot () 140 263 406 577 751 887 1037 1197 1348 1505
153 298 464 630 758 905 1053 1201 1371 1498
Tran-Bot () -49 -92 -142 -203 -267 -315 -369 -426 -480 -535
-55 -112 -165 -229 -268 -325 -373 -429 -485 -531

Table 3: Polycarbonate data

𝜀trans vs 𝜀long
Top Bottom 800 Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )

600

400
𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠

y = -0.3675x - 5.5326 200

R² = 0.9993
0
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-200
y = -0.3515x - 4.2874
R² = 0.9991
-400

-600
𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔

Figure 6: Transverse vs longitudinal strain graph for Polycarbonate

5
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Stress vs Strain
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Bottom)

900
800
700
600
500
𝜎

400
300
y = -544121x + 13.034 y = 551479x + 14.575
R² = 0.9982 200 R² = 0.9983
100
0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
𝜀

Figure 7: Stress versus Strain and the equation for Polycarbonate

E (Top& Bottom calculated) E (top from graph) E (Bottom from graph)

562837.4742 -588792.3757 605615.015
607507.115 -630379.9413 644761.2327
591849.7152 -615879.6763 626498.2914
550689.9028 -578744.7243 587771.9383
525727.3111 -553434.0868 564488.03
534041.1383 -563987.3754 573524.9297
531568.7257 -562029.0859 572326.6294
526088.6357 -556887.3701 566657.324
525086.1802 -556582.7272 566079.3167
522854.4843 -554519.9614 563362.8047
525086.1802 -550559.1046 556582.7272
522497.587 -555064.4982 564770.039
533686.5293 -557803.3033 563630.3084
517202.0033 -550559.1046 562117.804
457810.3857 -551992.8522 559275.0798
487553.4809 -524991.3443 538324.4578
531568.7257 -541187.8858 548186.005
503591.4243 -547007.1103 569034.2423
562837.4742 -547007.1103 554157.5301

Table 4: Young’s Modulus from the graph and the displacement method for Polycarbonate

6
 MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Beta vs Displacement
250000

200000 y = 521333x - 1550.4

R² = 0.907
150000

100000
Β

50000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
-50000

Figure 8: Beta vs Displacement for Polycarbonate

Aluminum
Load (lbs) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Displacement
(in) 0.026 0.053 0.08 0.107 0.134 0.161 0.187 0.216 0.244 0.274
0.028 0.052 0.08 0.108 0.134 0.161 0.188 0.216 0.244
Long-Top () -113 -230 -347 -462 -579 -699 -815 -933 -1054 -1180
-108 -219 -338 -457 -574 -691 -809 -928 -1050
Tran-Top () 35 70 106 141 177 213 249 286 323 363
38 72 108 145 180 216 251 287 323
Long-Bot () 112 227 342 455 570 688 802 919 1039 1164
114 223 340 456 570 685 801 917 1036
Tran-Bot () -33 -68 -104 -138 -173 -208 -243 -279 -315 -354
-30 -65 -101 -137 -172 -208 -242 -278 -315

Table 5: Aluminum data

7
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 vs 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔
400
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )
300

200
𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠

y = -0.3048x + 2.7437 100

R² = 0.9995
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-100 y = -0.3061x + 2.3391
R² = 0.9999
-200

-300

-400
𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔

Figure 9: Transverse versus longitudinal strain for Aluminum

Stress vs Strain
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )

12000

10000

8000

6000
𝜎

y = -9E+06x + 113.07
4000 y = 9E+06x + 80.165
R² = 0.9998
R² = 0.9999
2000

0
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
𝜀

Figure 10: Stress vs Strain and the equation for Aluminum

8
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

E (Top& Bottom calculated) E (top from graph) E (Bottom from graph)

7525748.595 -9594675.976 9680342.725
7383753.339 -9427812.046 9552408.68
7337604.88 -9373473.071 9510512.151
7314746.298 -9386999.006 9531414.376
7301099.384 -9362680.356 9510512.151
7292029.695 -9306423.908 9455218.476
7324525.371 -9312133.37 9463078.175
7247017.166 -9296449.177 9438070.818
7217316.276 -9257860.975 9391516.33
7141221.295 -9188121.909 9314419.117
7217316.276 -9293129.016 9418711.841
7247017.166 -9346537.804 9458655.487
7285565.13 -9381197.4 9474892.255
7292029.695 -9414168.323 9496628.192
7301099.384 -9444236.805 9510512.151
7247017.166 -9489701.403 9510512.151
7337604.88 -9623062.591 9566456.34
7525748.595 -9901355.116 9723752.334
6988195.124 -10038873.94 9510512.151

Table 5: Young’s Modulus from the graph and the displacement method for Aluminum

Beta vs Displacement
2500000
y = 7E+06x + 16670
2000000
R² = 0.9998
1500000
Β

1000000

500000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3


Figure 11: Beta vs Displacement for Aluminum

9
 MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Steel
Load (lbs) 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8 9.6 11.2 12.8 14.4 16
Displacement
(in) 0.011 0.074 0.133 0.198 0.262 0.323 0.387 0.455 0.516 0.565
0.012 0.074 0.134 0.199 0.257 0.322 0.381 0.457 0.521
Long-Top () -92 -196 -297 -404 -503 -606 -716 -822 -919 -1005
-91 -194 -299 -404 -504 -606 -711 -820 -917
Tran-Top () 20 44 67 92 116 139 164 188 210 229
22 44 67 87 111 141 164 190 219
Long-Bot () 91 196 298 406 512 610 721 827 925 1013
93 201 296 402 512 611 728 827 926
Tran-Bot () -21 -46 -70 -95 -121 -144 -169 -194 -216 -235
-20 -47 -70 -93 -115 -144 -160 -194 -210
Table 6: Data for Steel

𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 vs 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔
300
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )

200

y = -0.2316x - 1.2409 100

𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠

R² = 0.9987

0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-100
y = -0.2312x - 0.3349
-200 R² = 0.9986

-300
𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔

Figure 12: Transverse versus longitudinal strain for Steel

10
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Stress vs Strain
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Bottom)

35000

30000

25000

20000
𝜎

15000 y = 3E+07x + 363.26

R² = 0.9996
y = -3E+07x + 289.1
10000
R² = 0.9997

5000

0
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
𝜀

Figure 13: Stress vs Strain and the equation for Steel

E(Top& Bottom calculated) E(top from graph) E(Bottom from graph)

139802673.3 -34323981.87 34701168.49
41562956.93 -32222513.6 32222513.6
34687881.35 -31897033.66 31789996.63
31067260.74 -31265409.23 31111392.44
29347889.44 -31389724.97 30837952.46
28566490.52 -31265409.23 31060390.15
27816035.78 -30872408.28 30658313.91
27038758.8 -30732908.34 30547098.74
26822605.93 -30925198.03 30724602.15
27218219.59 -31420958.53 31172816.71
26565191.28 -30992646.66 30691422.24
26920427.25 -30807866.66 30547098.74
28254083.59 -31089513.82 30363522.43
28655206.33 -31265409.23 31009554.82
29918860.05 -31327443.77 30837952.46
30911143.85 -31265409.23 31420958.53
34429016.57 -31683675.58 32004793.91
41562956.93 -32554704.46 31420958.53
128152450.5 -34701168.49 33954906.8
Table 7: Young’s Modulus from the graph and the displacement method for Steel

11
 MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Beta vs Displacement
18000000
16000000 y = 3E+07x + 937108
14000000 R² = 0.994
12000000
10000000
Β

8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0 0.1 0.2  0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 14: Beta vs Displacement for Steel

Carbon Fiber
Load (lbs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement
(in) 0.053 0.1 0.154 0.204 0.265 0.315 0.365 0.425 0.467 0.523
0.053 0.14 0.154 0.2 0.266 0.314 0.366 0.42 0.467
Long-Top () -119 -225 -345 -458 -592 -705 -814 -946 -1042 -1167
-118 -223 -346 455 -590 -705 -813 -940 1044
Tran-Top () 7 13 19 24 31 37 43 49 54 61
7 12 18 22 31 38 43 48 53
Long-Bot () 123 234 348 475 614 729 843 978 1079 1206
120 234 359 475 616 730 840 977 1078
Tran-Bot () -10 -20 -31 -41 -52 -62 -70 -83 -91 -102
-8 -17 -28 -38 -52 -64 -71 -83 -91

Table 8: Data for Carbon Fiber

12
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠
100
vs 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )
50
y = -0.051x + 0.8282
R² = 0.9981
𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠

0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 + 1.1355 1500
y = -0.0859x
-50 R² = 0.9982

-100

-150
𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔

Figure 15: Transverse versus longitudinal strain for Carbon Fiber

Stress vs Strain
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Bottom)

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
𝜎

4000
y = -8E+06x + 34.255
R² = 0.9996 3000 y = 7E+06x + 32.375
2000 R² = 0.9995
1000
0
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
𝜀

Figure 16: Stress vs Strain and the equation for Carbon Fiber

13
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

E (Top& Bottom calculated) E (top from graph) E (Bottom from graph)

6153127.782 -7592425.667 7345517.515
6522315.449 -8031099.15 7722210.721
6352904.658 -7856510.038 7788781.503
6394426.911 -7890817.942 7608409.721
6153127.782 -7630900.797 7357480.899
6211728.999 -7689350.25 7436202.917
6254275.088 -7769644.448 7502361.306
6138649.835 -7640580.587 7390582.04
6284886.407 -7803731.18 7536133.354
61531277.82 -7742062.162 7491696.968
6284886.407 -7788781.503 7543124.202
6211728.999 -7689350.25 7398146.607
6237186.905 -7779201.206 7529155.453
6231511.576 -7689350.25 7426016.337
6129995.723 -7656768.257 7333592.974
6522315.449 -7942845.313 7608409.721
6352904.658 -7833803.362 7550128.031
4658796.75 -8103126.945 7722210.721
6153127.782 -7656768.257 7529155.453
Table 9: Young’s Modulus from the graph and the displacement method for Carbon Fiber

Beta vs Displacement
3500000

3000000 y = 5E+06x + 540456

R² = 0.5191
2500000

2000000
Β

1500000

1000000

500000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5


Figure 17: Beta vs Displacement for Carbon Fiber

14
 MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

GFRP
Load (lbs) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement
(in) 0.056 0.13 0.207 0.271 0.348 0.401 0.574 0.639 0.706 0.75
0.056 0.132 0.21 0.271 0.349 0.399 0.572 0.639 0.71
Long-Top () -133 -299 -475 -622 -793 -915 -1080 -1223 -1374 -1475
-134 -290 -470 -628 -790 -917 -1077 -1222 -1370
Tran-Top () 15 35 56 74 94 109 129 146 164 176
15 27 49 70 90 107 120 144 160
Long-Bot () 130 294 468 615 784 905 1068 1210 1361 1463
131 288 458 610 777 910 1066 1212 1360
Tran-Bot () -16 -37 -59 -77 -99 -114 -134 -152 -171 -183
-16 -34 -59 -78 -91 -121 -138 -154 -171

Table 10: Data for GFRP

𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 vs 𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔
200

Top Bottom 100 Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )

y = -0.1205x - 3.2496
R² = 0.9971
𝜀𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠

0
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
y = -0.1266x + 0.4448
-100 R² = 0.9978

-200

-300
𝜀𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔

Figure 18: Transverse versus longitudinal strain for GFRP

15
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

Stress vs Strain
Top Bottom Linear (Top ) Linear (Top )

6000
5000
4000
3000
𝜎

y = -4E+06x - 32.322
R² = 0.998 2000 y = 4E+06x - 14.45
1000 R² = 0.9983

0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
𝜀

Figure 19: Stress vs Strain and the equation for GFRP

E(Top& Bottom calculated) E(top from graph) E(Bottom from graph)

3548086.236 -4117812.294 4212838.732
3056812.757 -3663338.028 3725639.695
2879606.221 -3458962.327 3510698.943
2932735.487 -3521987.364 3562075.025
2854782.029 -3453146.501 3492787.214
2972960.038 -3591272.362 3630954.929
2423083.283 -3549706.709 3589591.054
2487547.158 -3582463.026 3620952.298
2532911.421 -3587351.759 3621617.426
2649237.723 -3713010.408 3743465.722
2518641.497 -3597825.778 3624280.38
2487547.158 -3585394.665 3614977.13
2431555.602 -3559594.472 3596325.747
2987862.094 -3583439.706 3611004.627
2846602.138 -3466259.716 3524253.765
2932735.487 -3488337.803 3591272.362
2838468.989 -3495759.799 3587351.759
3010497.413 -3777027.829 3803257.188
3548086.236 -4087082.352 4180679.658
Table 11: Young’s Modulus from the graph and the displacement method for GFRP

16
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

2000000
Beta vs Displacement
y = 7E+06x + 12602
1500000 R² = 0.9994

1000000
Β

500000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25


Figure 20: Beta vs Displacement for GFRP

Discussion

The below equation is used to calculate the percent error of the experimental data:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ×100% (7)
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Experimental Poison Ratio Theoretical Poison Ratio Percent Error

Polycarbonate 0.357 0.349 2.301

Aluminum 0.31 0.33 6.06
Steel 0.23 0.27 14.81
Carbon Fiber 0.07 0.3 75.66
GFRP 0.12 0.21 42.82
Table 12: Experimental and Actual Poison Ratio and Percent Error.

Experimental E, psi Theoretical E, psi Percent Error

Polycarbonate 532636.0249 1350000 60.1
Aluminum 7290876.617 7000000 4.14
Steel 39465005.44 29000000 36.05
Carbon Fiber 9093640.789 14790000 38.5
GFRP 2838934.682 1232820 70.27
Table 13: Experimental and Actual Young’s Modulus and Percent Error.

17
MMAE 372 Lab Report #1 Sardor Nazarov

All the plotted graphs had a similar linear trend, which basically means that the relationship
between the acquired values is linear as well. The value of R was significantly large, around 0.99
which confirms that the results are accurate.
When the modulus of elasticity from the Stress vs Strain graph is compared to the value acquired
from Displacement method, it can be noted that the percentage error range of 10-20% is on a
heavy side which makes the results not as precise. The assumption that both top and bottom gages
were equally distanced might have made its own contribution to the errors. Moreover, the
Cartesian coordinates must have been taken into account. There are also some human errors
involved in measurements as well as the fact that the specimens were worn out by an excessive
usage.
It is obvious from the graphs that the magnitude of Young’s Modulus is equal for both upper and
lower surfaces. As predicted, steel has the highest modulus, whilst polycarbonate has the lowest of
all. The second highest modulus is of the Carbon Fiber specimen followed by Aluminum and Fiber
glass.
It has been discussed previously that polycarbonate is able to get stretched significantly before
reaching its breaking limit, which was confirmed in the experiment.
Looking at the data for Poisson’s ratio, one can see that polycarbonate has the highest ratio and
carbon fiber has the smallest one.
One last point to make is that the state of the materials plays a key role in the comparison with
the theoretical values. Some materials without an entropy change tend to follow the Hooke’s laws,
since for that type of state the properties are similar in every direction.

Conclusion
New equipment was introduced that will most probably be utilized in future. The theoretical
knowledge was applied in the real-life problem, where the relationship between the Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio was confirmed. Since polycarbonate has a high elasticity, it can be
used for rubber band manufacturing or related products that require high elasticity. According to
the data for Poisson’s Ratio, Steel is the hardest material to deform in the list and can be used in
the construction of buildings and warehouses. All in all, those properties are the most important in
making the right decision for choosing a proper material in engineering.

18