UDC: 53.088, 617.

317

Random errors caused by temperature in magnitude of principal strains

evaluated with 3-element strain gauge rosettes
by P. Cappa, Departmentof Mechanics and Aeronautics, UniversityofRome, "La Sapienza" Via Eudossiana 18, 00184
Rome, /tal

The effects of the uncertainties associated with the lntroductlon

apparent strain and gauge factor data, given by the
manufacturer, in the evaluation of principal strains are
examined. Principal strains are obtained by a reduction
of the strains measured with electrical resistance strain
gauge rectangular or delta rosettes. The theoretica/
ana/ysis points out the relevance of the effects caused.
Key words: Electric resistance strain gauge rosettes,
principal strains, random errors, thermal
effects.
In any measurement system one of the important steps is,
as is well known, the criticai examination of each
component stage which processes the physical
phenomenon monitored into a usable signal. This
examination, obviously, has to be carried out in order to
determine tlie uncertainty of the system, from transducer
through to recording unit.
This necessary exarnination has caused extensive analyses 1-5
of all the possible causes of errors, also of the unusual
ones '• both systematic and random that are present in
systems based on electrical resistance strain gauges.

Notati on Generally it is possible to reduce to negligible values the

intervals of uncertainty associated with the metrological
characteristics by analysing the gauge chosen with
F = gauge factor relative to the gauges at the test preliminary tests. A number of evaluation test methods
temperature have been described in the literature. In fact, for example,
Bergqvist 7,8 suggested a system that is capable of
F* = gauge factor relative to the gauges at the room determining the gauge factor with an uncertainty equal to
temperature ±1-2 . 10 -5; Shelton' devised a method for measuring the
transverse sensitivity coefficient without using a testing
T = test area temperature machine; Scottto determined the effect caused by
temperature (20.5° - 40°C) on the specific gauge by
T*= room temperature (24°C) clamping it tightly between plates; and, finally, Egawa u
utilised a "reversible" gauge that allowed an uncertainty to
e = strain measured be obtained equa! to 0.7 (1-lm/m) °C-l in the ranges of0° to
250 °C.
e'= strain corrected for the effect ofthe temperature
However, it is more common that a user decides to utilise
oF = interval of uncertainty of the gauge factor at the test the manufacturer's data that bave noticeable intervals of
temperature uncertainty. Then an examination of the effects caused by
the random errors is necessary in order to evaluate the
6F* = interval of uncertainty of the gauge factor at the uncertainty intervals associated with the values corrected
room temperature for any systematic error.

Ùe = interval of uncertainty associated with the strain value In previous papers u,B the effect caused by the uncertainty
measured associated with the gauge factor in the evaluation of
principal strains and stresses carried out by means of three
oe' = interval of uncertainty associated with the strain element rosettes, at room temperature, were examined.
corrected for the effect ofthe temperature The theoretical examinations point out the non-
negligibility of the effects caused by gauge factor
~ = principal angle uncertainty. This cause of error in strain pattern
determination has to be examined together with other
sources of error like misalignment 14 and strain gradient 15.

The objective of the current work is to examine the effects

Subscript caused by variations of the temperature of the rosette
installations when a quarter bridge arrangement is chosen.
l ,2 = principal directions
a,b,c = gauges of the rosette Theoretical procedure
app = temperature induced apparent strains
R = rectangular rosette The principal strains & 1 and & 2 , for a three element
D = delta rosette rectangular rosette are given by the following familiar

'Strain ', November 1989 139

relationship: an A-alloy and K-alloy, respectively 16. lt follows that it is
necessary to estimate the magnitude of the uncertainty in
each corrected strain and in the calculated principal strains.
l l o. 5
e 1,2 = 2(eaR +e at) ± 2['1'] (l) The values of 8E 1 and 8e2 , the intervals of uncertainty
associated with the principal strains, are obtained
developing equations (l), (2), (3) and (4) by the
where uncertainty propagation method 11.

2 2 Fora rectangular rosette 8e 1 and 8& 2 are given by:

'l' = (e aR -e <R) + ( 2e bR - e aR - E <R)

F*
aR, bR, dt
where the first subscripts a, b and c indicate the gauges OE taR, bR, dt = E aR, bR ,d!.
(G)
F aR, bR, dt
placed at the O, 45 and 90 degree positions relative to the
reference axis.

The e 1 and e2 fora three element delta rosette are obtained

F~.bR,cR I(OE
F* n + F*
oF* ~.bR. cR oF
F~.bR.cR J
by the following equations +&app. +
~.bR,cR IEappl ~.bR,cR ~.bR,cR
h 0.5
E l, 2 = _l(
3
EID + e bO + E d)
) ±-3 (<l>] (5)
where

where G oe ~.~.<R oF* ~.~.<R OF -~.bR.~

-
=le~. bR, cRI+ F* ~.bR,cR + F ~.bR.cR

where the first subscripts a, b and c indicate the gauges

placed at the O, 120 and 240 degree positions relative to the
(6)
reference axis; the second subscript D represents a delta
rosette. where
0.5
However, if the gauge installation is subjected to
temperature changes, and if it were chosen as a quarter
A= (se·~+ oe'~) le'~- e' cRI+
bridge arrangement, the corrections of the effects caused
by this extraneous stimulation must be determined. The O. 5
best estimates of the true values can be calculated as
l2e' bR -e' ~ -e' cR l
2 2 2 )
+ ( 4oe' bR + oe' ~ + oe' cR
follows 16;

F* aR, bR ,d!.
E aR, bR, dt -[E
1
- aR,bR. dt
- &
app
]1-=---
F B =(E' ~ -E' cR ) + ( 2&' bR -
2
&' -E' cR )
2
aR, bR, dt (3) ~

and for a delta rosette can be expressed by:

F* ID, bO, d)
&' ID, bD, d) =[& ID,bD. d)
-& app J F (4) F*
ID,bD, d)
OE 1

a>,bD ,d)
E
a>, bD. d) F
a>, bO ,<D

a>,bD,d)
(M) + lE app : • a>. bD . <D
a>, bO ,d)
l
(N)

where E' is the corrected strain, E the strain measured,e.PP (7)

the temperature induced apparent strain, F* the gauge wh ere
factor. at room temperature T*, and finally, F is the gauge
factor at the test temperature T. ~.bo.
M= oe lil,bD,dJ + oF* ~ dJ
+ OF lil,bD,dJ
However, the manufacturer's data have intervals of le l!D, bo, <DI F* l!D,bo. dJ F l!D, bo ,dJ
uncertainty 8&•PP' 8F*, 8F that cannot be ignored. In fact,
for example, the variation of 8&app• is approximately linear
with the deviation from the room temperature, in the
N =
oe app + oF* l!D .bo . dJ oF l!D bo dJ
+ ___ :.___
temperature range from ooc to l75°C, and equal, for
example, to ± 0.27 (J.Lm/m) °C-I and ± 0.45(1J.rnlm) °C·I for le app l F* l!D. bo, dJ F l!D. bo, dJ

140 'Strain ', November 1989

 (8)

where
o. 5

Y= (o e' .O
2+ oe, 2)
bD
E'
.O
-E'
bD
l+
'
o. 5

l+
2
( OE' bD \ OE' dJ )
l E'
bD
-E'
dJ

o. 5 ~~0--------~~~00~----~~B~0--------~~~0----_j
2 IP!IIeg,.. .l
(oe'dl\oe' 10 ) le' d)-e' 10
1

Fig. 1: ~ercentage of the ~nterval of uncertainty in calculated maximum principal strain vs

the pnllCipal angle. Solld Ione nactangular rosette, dotted fine detta rosette.
(e 1 =IOOOJ1D11m, e2 =750 J1D!Im, T=75'C).
2 2 2
Z =(E' .O -E' bD ) +(t' bO -E' d> ) +(E' d> -E' ID)

In order to evaluate the relevance of the effect caused by

OEapp> oF* and oF a program was developed. This program
simulates variations of either the temperature of the rosette
installation or the principal strain values, or, finally the
principal angle <j>.

It was chosen for the strain gauge performance

characteristics using the values shown, as an example, in
the Intemationa1 Recommendation No. 62 published by the
Organisation Intemationale de Métrologie Légale 11; these
values are summarised in Tab. l. In this table the thermal
output versus T is expressed numerically by a polynomial
in the test area temperature value and the associated
interval of uncertainty is given as a function of the
deviation from T*.
1t was assumed, for convenience, that the performance
characteristics are equal for all the gauges of the rosettes.
1t was also hypothesised that the intervals of uncertainty
associated with the measured strain determine an
unnoticeable effect in comparison to those caused by
OEapp• oF* and oF.
8
o~--------~s=o~--------~.o~o--------~.~so~--~
TeiiP•,.•ture [ °C)
Fig. 2. Variatlon of maxlmum and mlnlmum value of 6e/e 1 = t(+) as a tunction of the
temperature of straln gauge rosette lnstallatlon (O deg ,; + ,; 360 deg). Solid lines
rectangular rosette, dotted llnes detta rosette. (e, =IOOOJ1D!Im, e, =750 ~m/m, r =75'C).
The effects caused by OEapp are more significant than those
determined by oF* and oF; in fact, variations of Ez/E 1, that
cause different values of Ea,b,c=f(<j>), by keeping constant T,
produce irrelevant changes in the OdE 1 range of variation,
see Tab. 2.

Fig. l illustrates the variations of odE 1 with changes of
principal angle fora test area temperature constant (75°C)
obtained for the following values of the principal strain:
E1 = lOOOJ.Lmlm and E2 =750 J.Lm/m.From the examination
ofthis figure it appears that OEIE 1 =f(<j>) is periodic, and this
period is equal to 180 degrees and 60 degrees for a
rectangular and a delta rosette, respectively. A
comparative examination of the lines shows that the
difference in value between the highest and the lowest
value of OEIE 1 is greater for a rectangular than a delta
rosette.
The previous observation is more clearly illustrated in Fig.
2; in fact this figure depicts the influence of test area
temperature on the maximum and the minimum value of
OEIEI =f{<j>).
The previous observations confirm the difficulty of
achieving accurate experimental analysis through strain
measurements. In fact, regardless of the remarkable
sensitivity and precision offered by the modero strain
gauge systems, and the ability to accurately replicate the
idealised stress state required by the mechanics
relationship, there are numerous potential causes of error
in the use of rosettes which, often, contribute significantly
to the observed differences between theory and
experiment.
Conclusions
It has been shown that the effects caused by a variation of
the temperature of a three element rosette installation can
determine relevant intervals of uncertainty in strain pattern

'Strain', November 1989 141

evaluation if the manufacturer's data are utilised and a
quarter bridge arrangement is chosen. This observation
can provide indications by which an investigator can more
accurately organise the experimental set up for a strain
pattern determination.
errors", Measurement Techniques, 23, (1978), 640-649.
(4) Pop1e J. "Errors and uncertainties in strain
measurement", Strain Gauge Technology, Applied Science
Publishers, London, (1983) 209-264.

(5) Perry C.C. 'The resistance strain gauge revisited"

TABLE l Experimental Mechanics, 24 (3), (1984), 286-299.

Strain gauge performance characteristics (6) McFarland K. "Unusual strain gage errors",
(95 per cent confidence leve!) Proceedings of Western Regional Strain Gage Committee,
Fall Meeting, (1966), 35.
Gauge factor at 24°C and 2.05 ± 1% (7) Berquist B.M. "Equipment for highly accurate and
50% RH repeatab1e strain gauge factor determination" Strain, 8, 4,
(1972), 170-176.
Temperature coefficient of (0.9 ± 0.2)% /100°C
gauge factor (8) Berquist B.M. "Accurate determination of gauge
factors and their variations. Examp1es of results obtained
Thermal output in j.tm/m -45.1+3.32T-6.76x10-2T2 with cemented resistance strain gauges in the F.F.A. strain
versus test area temperature +3.20x10-4T3 -2.86x10-7 laboratory", V International Conference on Experimental
in°C T4 j.tm/m StressAnalysis, Udine, ITALY, (1974), 1.137-1.146.
Interval of uncertainty ±0.22 j.tm/m .°C·l (9) Shelton A. "An experimental investigation of the
associated with the thermal cross sensitivity of resistance strain gauges" Journal of
output in j.tm/m versus the Strain Analysis, 3, 2, (1968), 115-121.
deviation from the room
temperature in °C. (10) Scott l.G. "Pre-attachment matching of resistance
strain gauges" Journal of Strain Analysis, 4, 4, ( 1969),
285-286.

(11) Koichi Egawa "Reversible strain gage" Experimental

TABLE 2 Mechanics, 22, (May 1982), 161-165.

Minimum and maximum value of 8~:/~: 1 (12) Cappa P. "Determinazione del campo di incertezza
(O deg :5: 4> :5: 360 deg, E 1 = 1000 j.tm/m, T= 75°C) associato alle tensioni principali calcolate mediate rosette
estensimetriche" (Evaluation of the intervals of uncertainty
!;2 8E/~:t associated to the principa1 stresses calculated by strain
gauge rosette), XV Convegno Nazionale A.I.A.S., (1987),
[!-!m/m] [per cent] 185-193. (In Italian).

Rectangular Delta (13) Cappa P. "Uncertainty associated with the gage

factor in three element strain gage rosette measurements"
-750 4.14; 5.49 4.04; 4.30 Experimental Mechanics, 27, 4, (1987), 429-431.
-500 3,90; 5.30 3.76; 4.08
-250 3.72; 5.23 3.56; 3.94 (14) Manson S.S., Morgan W.C. "Effect of misalignment
250 3.73; 5.90 3.72; 4.31 of strain gauge components of strain rosettes" NACA
500 4.00; 6.27 4.14; 4.68 Technical Note, (1947), No. 1133.
750 4.34; 6.66 4.59; 5.10
(15) Rosetto S., Levi R. "Analisi di alcune classe di errori
nella determinazione speriomentale di stati di
sollecitazione mediate rosette estensimetriche" (Analysis
References of some sources of error in the experimental evaluation of
the state of stress by means of electrical resistance rosette),
(l) Biladeau G.L., Quinn P.A. "ls your 0.1% data 10% II Convegno Nazionale A.I,A,S., (1973), 90-95. (In
uncertain? Tl).e technique of uncertainty analysis", ltalian).
Proceedings of Western Regional Strain Gage Committee,
Fall Meeting, (1975), 11-18. (16) Measurement Group Technical Note "Temperature
induced apparent strain and gage factor variation in strain
(2) Dally J.W., Riley W.F. "Experimenta1 stress analysis", gages" TN-504, Measurement Group, Ra1eigh, USA, ( 1983).
McGraw-Hill, New York, (1978).
(17) Tay1or J.R. "An introduction to error analysis. The
(3) Klokow N.P. "Metrological characteristics ofresistance study of uncertainties in physical measurements",
strain gauges and evaluation of deformation measurement University Scienèe Books, Mili Valley, ( 1981 ).

142 'Strain', November 1989