Experimental Testing for Aerospace Structures

Laboratory Activity n1
Student: Andrea Citeroni
Mat: 1381071

The report details the experimental analysis performed upon a cantilever beam
loaded with a calibration weight at its free end. Strain was estimated at the
strain gauges location with the zero and deflection methods using a strain
measuring system. Once the geometrical and elastic properties of the beam
were evaluated, recorded data were compared to the resulting distribution of
strain from the Euler-Bernoulli theory.
1. Theoretical background
In aeronautical and spatial application field, the EulerBernoulli linear theory of the beam can be considered
an acceptable approximation of the behaviour of a
cantilever beam with a lumped load. The investigation
aims to validate this assumption, comparing the
experimental and the analytical results.

=
=

=
=

( )

( )

( )

( )

2. Measuring instruments
Shown below the
measurements.
o

o
Figure 1: beam geometry

From the hypothesis of the Euler-Bernoulli theory, the

bending moment distribution is linear along the beam
( )
( )
=

instruments

used

for

the

A Vernier Scale (Nonius 1/20), to which was

associated an uncertainty of ,
.
A Tape Measure, to which was associated an
uncertainty of ,
.
Four linear Strain Gauges (with one
measurement grid), fastened to the beam in
order to evaluate the strain. Two models from
different manufacturers were used:
three Typ3/120LY41 models from
HBM industries with a gauge factor of
= 1,99 0,01

where =x/L is the dimensionless span position.

Stress and strain distributions by the following

equations (2) and (3).

a CEA-13-250UW-120 model produced

by MM Division, characterized by a gauge
factor of
= 2,11 0,005

Figure 2: HBM strain gauge data-sheet

Figure 5: quarter bridge sketch

Figure 3: MM strain gauge data-sheet

o
o

A Tester measured the resistance of the

gauges.
A Strain Gauge Measuring System, based
on Wheatstone Bridge working principles.

Figure 6: connections layout

The gauges in red (numbered 1, 2 a 3) are the HBM

models; the green one (numbered 4) is the MM model
instead. Has to be noticed that gauges 2 and 3 are
placed symmetrically on the upper and lower surface
of the beam: the measured strain has to be circa equal
in absolute value, but with opposite sign in the
channels. This configuration allows to double the
sensitivity of the bridge when gauges are on the same
bridge.
The thermocouple was placed near the measuring
system, preventing the cable to get in touch with the
equipment.

Figure 4: measuring system used in the activity

o

A K-type Thermocouple measured the

operative temperatures.

3. Test setup layout

The beam was constrained between two plates to
avoid displacements or sliding. Strain gauges were
applied along his span with a two-component glue on
both upper and lower surfaces. Each gauge was then
connected to one of the five channels of the
measuring system, according to a particular Quarter
Wheatstone Bridge configuration.

Figure 7: view of the calibration weight

The calibration weight ( =

) was applied
at the beam free end using adhesive tape, acting
(approximatively) like a lumped one.

4.3. Gauges position

The span position of each gauge was measured with
regard to his centre.
Channel
4

2,3
1

Distance [mm]

40 0.5
167 0.5
288 0.5

span ()

0.104 0.001
0.436 0.001
0.752 0.001

Table 3: gauges position

4.4. Estimation of the axial strain

Data acquisition was achieved with an iterative
process:

Figure 8: global view of the test setup

4. Measurement chain
4.1. Resistance of the strain gauges
The digital tester evaluated the resistance of each
strain gauge disconnected from the measuring
system.
S.G.

120.8

121.2

121.6

121.1

Table 1: strain gauges resistance in []

Figure 9: calibration knobs and output display

4.2. Beam geometry

1st Step.

The length of the beam was measured with the tape

taking into account the flexibility of the instrument and
the uncertainty of the scale of measurement.
=

2nd Step.
3rd Step.

Section was characterized with the Vernier scale,

paying attention at the orthogonality between the
instrument and the beam. Due to imperfections,
damages and glue leftovers on the surface,
measurements were performed at different points
along the beam span.
Point

4th Step.

5th Step.
6th Step.

root

14.90 0.025

2.95 0.025

half span

14.95 0.025

2.95 0.025

tip

15.05 0.025

2.95 0.025

Table 2: beam section in [mm]

7th Step.
8th Step.

9th Step.

Choose the active channel on the upper

left knob;
Adjust the gauge factor on the lower left
knob;
Adjust the sensitivity (setting a likely order
of magnitude for the strain) on the upper
right knob;
Balance the Wheatstone Bridge using the
four lowest knobs (from left to right) until
the arrow on the display is on the 0, then
collect the obtained sensitivity;
Apply the load and wait a few seconds to
avoid unsteady motions;
Collect the temperature on the
thermocouple;
Read the value given by the position of
the arrow on the graduated lines;
Use the lowest knobs to balance again
the Wheatstone Bridge, then collect the
obtained sensitivity;
Remove the load.

At every iteration, output information were:

sensitivity at the free-load configuration;
strain;
sensitivity at the loaded configuration.

4.5.2.

Set:

= ,

=
Measure

In order to reduce random errors and statistically

characterize the recorded data, steps from 4th to 9th
were repeated 10 times for each channel.
4.5. Recorded data

st

The choice of the proper graduated scale on the

system output display, depended on the set sensitivity
of the channel:

2nd
3rd

for the 1st one with =

, it was used the lower
scale where each interval was worth ;
for the 2nd and the 3rd ones with =
, it was
used the upper scale where each interval was
worth
;
for the 4th one with =
, it was used the
lower scale where each interval was worth
.

4th

The uncertainty associated to the measure was

considered to be a quarter of the interval.

10th

4.5.1.

5th
6th
7th
8th
9th

First channel

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th

Deflection Method

Zero Method

Sensitivity

Strain

Sensitivity

Strain

23.4

49541

152

49685

144

23.2

49539

152

49684

145

23.3
23.3
23.2
23.3
23.4
23.3
23.4

Strain

Sensitivity

Strain

23.4

49172

+320

49493

321

23.4

49171

+320

49491

320

[C]

23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.3

S [V]

[s]

49170

+320

49169

+320

49168

+320

49167

+320

49166

+320

49167

+320

49168

+320

49167

+320

S [V]

49494
49490
49490
49490
49491
49493
49492
49492

[s]

324
321
323
322
323
326
325
326

Third channel

Set:

= ,

[C]

23.2

Zero Method

Sensitivity

4.5.3.

Set:

= ,

=
T

Deflection Method

Table 4b: data acquired from the strain gauge n2

S [V]

49540
49539
49539
49540
49540
49539
49540
49539

[s]

152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152

[V]

49684
49684
49684
49685
49684
49684
49684
49684

Measure

Measure

Second channel

[s]

1st

144

2nd

145

4th

3rd

145

5th

145

6th

144

7th

145

8th

144

9th

145

10th

Deflection Method

Zero Method

Sensitivity

Strain

Sensitivity

Strain

23.8

50760

-320

50431

-329

23.4

50758

-320

50435

-323

23.4

50759

23.4

50755

23.4

50753

[C]

23.6

S [V]

50759

23.4

50759

23.5

50758

23.4

50754

23.3

50754

[s]

-320
-320
-320
-320
-320
-320
-320
-320

S [V]

50436
50434
50436
50431
50353
50432
50431
50433

[s]

-323
-325
-323
-327
-320
-322
-322
-321

Table 4c: data acquired from the strain gauge n3

Table 4a: data acquired from the strain gauge n4

4.5.4.

Fourth channel

Measure

Set:

= ,

st

2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8

th

9th
10th

Deflection Method

Zero Method

Sensitivity

Strain

Sensitivity

Strain

23.6

48947

-560

48418

-529

23.6

48941

-520

48421

-520

23.4

48946

23.4

48941

23.6

48947

[C]

23.6

S [V]

48960

23.3

48938

23.3

48942

23.5

48944

23.6

48947

[s]

S [V]

-560

48417

-520

48419

-560

48419

-520

48420

-520

48353

-560

48423

-560

48417

-560

48414

[s]

Figure 11: thermal compensation for the MM gauge

-543

For HBM gauge (

-519

-522

and for MM gauge (

-527
-588
-530
-533

,
,
/

+ ,

For example, when

In the Zero method, the strain was evaluated as

= ,
= ,

for the 2nd channel;

for the 1st channel.

Since the
were smaller than the uncertainties
associated to the graduated scales of the measuring
system, thermal compensation was neglected.

5. Thermal Compensation
The deformation of the gauge due to thermal effects
induced by the currents was evaluated as

) was used the relation

= 3,32 10 + 2,72 6,38 10

+ 3,55 10
3,99 10
0,27 /

-521

Table 4d: data acquired from the strain gauge n1

, +

6. Results

6.1. Introduction to the statistical approach

The mean value for each set of measures was
evaluated as

( )

where was the value of the i-th measurement. Then

the deviation from the mean value of each
was
evaluated as

In order to estimate the uncertainty associated to

the Standard Deviation was taken into account.

Figure 10: thermal compensation for the HBM gauge

( )
,

 =1

( )

Deflection
Method

The Sum of Squared Residuals approach was also

considered in the evaluation on uncertainties: for a
defined variable = ( , , ), function of direct
measures with their uncertainties
, the total
uncertainty can be measured as

Zero

Method

Deflection
Method
Zero

Method

2nd

3rd

320.00

-320.00

-544.00

144.60

323.10

-323.50

-527.11

1st channel

2nd channel

3 channel
rd

4th channel

2nd channel

3rd channel

Deflection Method

4th channel

24.00

-16.00

-2.10

0.40

-3.10

0.40

-0.10

-0.60

0.40
0.40

-0.60

0.40

-0.60

0.40

0.90

-16.00
-5.50

-15.89

-2.10

-1.50

8.11

-1.10

-3.50

2.90

1.50

-0.10

1.90
2.90

0.50

1.50
2.50

Table 6: deviations

2.13

2.76

7.74

Zero Method

61.00

60.41

56.47

59.36

61.00

60.34

57.00

58.83

Table 8: Young modulus in [GPa]

Deflection Method

Zero Method

2.47

0.77

59.73

( )

( )
( )

=
=

0.11
\

Deflection Method

7.11

0.50
3.50

0.52

-1.89

0.50

20.66

-16.00

-0.60

given the partial differential expressions:

24.00
24.00

Zero Method

-16.00

The SSR formula (eq. (7)) was applied to

-16.00
24.00

channel

Table 9: standard deviation of the Young Modulus in [GPa]

-16.00

channel

58.87

Table 5: mean value of strain in [s]

1st channel

channel

The Young modulus of the beam was then evaluated

with eq. (2) at each gauges position using the mean
strain value of the relative channel.

4th

152.00

4th

channel

From Table 2 it was obtained

Eq. (4), (5) and (6) were used. The 7th measure of
Zero method in Table 4d, much higher than the others,
was not considered.
1st

3rd

6.3. Evaluation of the Young modulus

6.2. Strain

Channel

2nd

Table 7: standard deviation associated to the strain in [s]

( )

1st

5.11
6.11

-2.89
-5.89

( )
( )

1st channel

2nd channel

3 channel
rd

4th channel

( )

Deflection Method

Zero Method

1.90

3.78

3.00

3.33

1.90

10.90

4.11

Table 10: RSS uncertainties

3.36

7. Discussion of the results

Table 7 shows that for the Deflection method was
obtained a constant measure in each of the first three
channels. For the Zero method instead, the strain was
the difference of two measures (i.e. the sensitivities of
the system), each one affected by a certain error,
inducing fluctuations of data.
4th

As concerned the
channel, a too high value for the
deviation was obtained because the set of measures
wasnt a normal distribution. Nevertheless, being
approximatively equals to a quarter of interval on the
graduated scale it was considered an acceptable
result. The Zero Method instead, gave smaller
deviations because the strain depended on
sensitivities and not on the uncertainty associated to
the scale.

8.3 %

17,6 %

6.6 %

Table 11: error on Young Modulus esteem

Probable reasons could have been:

The span position of the gauges, which were

considered non-dimensional;

The hysteresis of the measuring system, because

of the recurring balances;

Bad electrical connections;

Fluctuations of the tension in the Wheatestone

Bridges;

Environmental disturbances, such as the thermal

one measured by the thermocouple or the
movement of the system during the acquisition of
data;

The fact that

was calculated with the
approximated formula given by the EulerBernoulli theory (in which, for example,
was
approximated too);

The propagation of errors associated to the

measures, being function of six parameters with
their uncertainties.

The gravity on the beam wasnt considered because

the balance of the Wheatestone Bridge at each
measurement was performed with the structure
constrained. To consider its effects, the structure
should have been weighed separately from the
measuring system.

15.9 %

The quality of the fastening between gauges and

structure;

The parallax error in the measures acquisition;

For HBM gauges (calibrated with steel)

= , %
and, since

, the error was about

. For MM gauges instead, the calibration material
was exactly an aluminium alloy.

Zero Method

Since typical values are from

up to
, the
strain measurements led to a quite large error in the
Young modulus esteem.

The presence of eventual pre- or residual

stresses on the beam which could have altered
the measured strain;

The error associated to the use of materials different

from the calibration one was neglected.

From Table 9, the constitutive material of the beam

was supposed to be Aluminium.

Deflection Method

8. Comparison with analytical results

For the Young modules given by Table 9, the strain
distribution was evaluated with eq. (3) and plotted on
a ( ) plane.
7

, % in the 4th channel;

And with regard to the Zero method was about:

, % in the 1st channel;

% in the 3rd channels;

, % in the 2nd channel;

,

% in the 4th channel.

Since the errors were quite small, the Euler-Bernoulli

theory can be considered a good approximation for
the behaviour of the cantilever beam analysed in the
activity.

Figure 12a: strain distribution (Deflection method)

9. Concluding Considerations
It was noticed that in the definition of the global
uncertainty , the only quantity which wasnt directly
measured was the calibration weight. in the
laboratory, an electronic scale with the uncertainty of

gave
=

that is an increase of about the 10% compared to the

nominal one of
. Since the Young modulus
relation is proportional to the weight itself, the same
increase of was expected. In fact, for the deflection
method the new Young Modulus was

Figure 12b: strain distribution (Zero method)

1 channel

Deflection Method

Euler-Bernoulli

320.00

333.92

544.00

526.74

Zero Method

Euler-Bernoulli

152.00

st

2nd channel
3rd channel

4th channel

1 channel

2nd channel
3rd channel

4th channel

144.60
323.1
323.5

527.11

145.8

143.70
326.80
519.20

Table 12: comparison of strain values

The error of approximation committed in the Euler-

Bernoulli theory, with regard to the displacement

method, was about:

, % in the 1st channel;

, % in the 2nd and 3rd channels;

which is quite similar to an Aluminium alloys one.

Table 11: comparison of strain values

st