ENGR 202 Evaluation and Presentation of Experimental Data II Beam Calibration and Performance

ENGR 201 section:

Section 066

Date: August 5, 2010

Submitted to:

Christopher Lester

TEAM MEMBERS

Thomas Fone

Amanda Guertin

Matthew Morabito

Abstract:

To begin this lab, a beam was designed that could be used in a scale that will later be constructed. The beam design was created in ProEngineer and constructed using a 3D printer. After the beam was created it went through several different tests. The beam deflection was tested by adding weights to the beam in increments of 40 grams. The eflection was measured using a dial gauge that was placed on the beam. Next the beams deflection was measured using a strain gauge instead of a dial gauge. The same mass was added to the beam but this time the deflection was measured using a method with an amplifier output voltage versus applied mass. This was then compared to the beam model so that a deviation graph could be constructed to analyze experimental uncertainty, accuracy, hysteresis, and repeatability.

Table of Contents: Introduction Analysis Experimental Program Results and Discussion Conclusion and Recommendations References Appendix 4-5 5 5-6 6-12 13 13 14-17

Introduction: The purpose of this lab was to construct a beam that we could use to compare the results of experiments such as deflection, stress, and strain. To begin the process of designing the beam, a computer model was created to find the best possible dimensions for the beam. The computer model gave us important information on our beam including stress, strain and deflection based on a set of given dimensions. After we had decided on dimensions, we began designing the beam. This procedure began by first designing the beam in ProEngineer and printing it using a 3D printer. After the beam was constructed it went through a number of different tests. The deflection of the beam was measured by hanging weights from the beam and recording the deflection using a dial gauge[1] as weight was added and subtracted.

Figure 1: A dial gauge This data was than analyzed against the beam models expected results that were calculated using each true weight. A second experiment was then completed to measure deflection with amplifier output voltage versus an applied mass. This was done by attaching a string gauge to a Wheatstone bridge amplifier[2].

Figure 2: Circuit diagram of a Wheatstone bridge 4

We again added and subtracted weight and recorded the readings of voltage versus applied mass in an Excel spreadsheet. The results were also compared to the results from the deflection of the beam experiment. This data can be seen later in the report. Analysis: In week 4, the beam we created was tested by using a dial gauge to measure the amount of deflection then weight was added and removed in fixed increments. Deflection can be described as the distance that the beam bends in response to a load. To analyze the data, the recorded deflections at each weight were compared to predicted deflections. The predicted deflections were calculated using Equation (1) listed below: (1)

Where is the deflection, P is the applied load, L is the length of the beam, E is the Youngs modulus, and Iis the moment of inertia. After the theoretical deflections were calculated, the deviations between the measured and theoretical were found. Equation (2) was used to find these values: Deviation = Measured Value Calculated Value (2) In week 5, the respective voltages recorded by the strain gauge at different weight inputs were analyzed. As a comparison, a set of predicted voltages at the given weight were calculated. Equation (3) was used for these computations: (3)

Where E0is the voltage, P is the applied load, L is the beam length, b is the beam width, h is the beam height, GF is the gauge factorEiis the input voltage, and Emis Youngs modulus Experimental Program: For the first lab, a mechanical approach was used, which involved an instrument known as the dial gauge. A piece of string with two plastic holders attached was tied to thebeam. The beam was placed in a set of wooden holders, in which the top piece had a circular hole in it. The dial gauge was placed in this opening and laid on the center of the ABSPlus Beam. Weight was then added to the two latches attached to the string in 100g 5

increments up to 500g. The weights were then removed in the same 100g increments until there was no weight left. This process was then repeated three times until there was a sufficient amount of data. From there, the average deflection was found and the deviations were calculated from the data. Finally, the average deviation was calculated from the data as well. These newly found calculations were then used to make three graphs. The first of these graphs charted the deflection of the beam in each trial vs. the actual weight attached to the beam. The second graph was of the deviation for each trial vs. the predicted deflection, which was found using equation 1. For the second lab, an electrical approach was taken. In order to take measurements, a system of a 5V power supply, a Wheatstone Bridge, and a digital multimeter was created. In order to utilize this system, a strain gauge was mounted to the beam using an adhesive. Once the strain gauge was mounted, the beam was placed in the wooden supports and the string with thetwo latches was attached to the beam. The 5V power supply was then wired to the Wheatstone bridge, and the strain gauge was wired as well. The output of the Wheatstone Bridge was then wired to the digital multimeter. The system was set up in such a fashion that it was identical to the following image:

Figure 3: Diagram of wheatstone bridge setup After the system pictured above was set up, measurements were recorded in the same method they were for the mechanical process, however the graphs that were extrapolated from the data changed slightly. The first graph charted the voltage recorded vs. the applied mass as opposed to deflection vs. applied mass. As for the second graph, the actual voltage vs. the predicted voltage was charted rather than the deviation vs. the predicted deflection. The constructs of the third and final graph remained the same; the average deviation vs. the percent input. Results and Discussion: 6

The first portion of this lab was to experiment with the beam deflection due to and increasing and decreasing amount of weight being hung off the beam. With the use of a dial gauge the deflection of the beam could be measured with the varying weights added. Figure 1 shows this relationship between weight and deflection.

Figure 1. Graph of Weight vs. Deflection This relationship is very close to linear with a relationship of 0.107 thousands of an inch deflection per 1.0 gram added to the beam. The second portion of this lab was to experiment with the voltage output from the Wheat Stone Bridge as more weight was added to the beam. Figure 2 shows the relationship between weight and voltage.

Figure 2. Graph of Weight vs. Voltage Output This relationship also had a linear correlation and shows that for every 1.0 gram added to the beam, the voltage will increase by 0.001 V. For both Figure 1 and Figure 2, the weight added to the beam was loaded 20 grams at a time, increasing from 0 to 200 grams then decreasing from 200 to 0 grams. Using this procedure a hysteresis should form in the data, which is why the data sets cannot be said to be completely linear. But from the graphs it can be seen that the hysteresis between the data collected in one direction compared to the other direction is not that large.

The next portion of the lab was to check on the accuracy and repeatability of the measurements taken. This can be done by calculating the deviation of the recorded data from the calculated data using the equations to solve for deflection and voltage output.

Figure 3. Graph of Predicted Deflection vs. Deviation From Figure 3, the amount of deviation from a predicted deflection can be seen. This is helpful in recognizing trends to find the accuracy of the measurement. This graph shows that as the amount of weight increases, the predicted deflection increase, and the deviation from the measured deflection also increases. However, with the higher values of the predicted deflection, the deviation seems to level off a bit. This can show that at smaller measurements, the dial gauge is more accurate and thus has a smaller deviation from the true value. But as the deflection increases, the deviation from the true value also increases.

Figure 4. Graph of Predicted Voltage vs. Voltage Output Figure 4 represents the accuracy of the predicted voltage found with equation 3 compared to the voltage output measured from the Wheat Stone Bridge set up with the strain gauge. From this graph, a near perfect 1 to 1 relationship is present, showing that the predicted voltage is very similar to the measured voltage. It can then be determined that the accuracy of this procedure is of measuring voltage is quiet accurate, which in turn means that this procedure is accurate when measuring weights, which is the overall goal of the lab. In this lab it is clear that there is some uncertainty. This can be seen in the visual data representation shown by the graphs. For this lab, 5 volts was set on the power source, yet on the graph representing predicted voltage vs. voltage output, it can be seen that there is some variance. To have no uncertainty, the slope of the graph would be 1.0 exactly. The uncertainty in this lab is reliant on the ability of the HP E3631A DC power supply to give an output of a consistent voltage, the Wheat Stone Bridge to supply a steady resistance, the strain gauge to be accurate, the digital multimeter to correct read voltage, and the dimensions used to calculate deflection and voltage to be on point. The specifications for the HP E3631A DC power supply state that in an analog input range of +6 volts, at 25 C 5 C, the programming accuracy is (0.1% of the output + 5mV). The specifications for the gauge factor of the stain gauge is that the factor will be 2.09 1.0% at 25 C. The third possibility of uncertainty is in the USB-6009 DAQ. The input voltage is interpreted by the DAQ is translated to a form that can be 10

read by the computer, and eventually LabVIEW. As shown in Table 3, the DAQ has an uncertainty of 4.28mV per reading at a 5 volt output. The specifications for the rest of the devices or instruments are not exact but can contribute to the uncertainty in the results obtained in the experiment. Table 1 shows the data collected for the average deflection versus the predicted values. Table 1. Deflection, Average vs. Predicted Deflection Real Input

Average

Prediction

g 115 155 195 235 275 315

0.001 in 8.0 10.8 14.8 20.1 24.1 29.0

mm 0.18 0.25 0.31 0.38 0.44 0.51

0.001 in 7.3 9.8 12.3 14.8 17.4 19.9

11

Table 2 shows the predicted voltage versus the measured voltage using the second set up with the Wheat Stone Bridge. Table 2. Voltage Output, Average vs. Predicted Output Voltage Average V 0.437 0.485 0.533 0.582 0.631 0.681 Prediction V 0.445 0.492 0.539 0.586 0.633 0.680

After looking at Table 1 and 2, it is evident that the use of voltage to measure beam deflection is much more accurate than the dial gauge. The results from the deflection measurements taken with the dial gauge were much less precise than the measurements taken with the voltmeter. The measurements with the dial gauge fit closer with the theoretical values. The equation used to calculate the voltage output was not as good for predicting the actual output but measuring the voltage is a more accurate way of determining how much weight is being hung from the beam. After concluding that the Wheatstone bridge set up was the more accurate experimental design, a scale prototype was developed. With the use of the LabVIEW VI, the beam and strain gauge setup, hooked up to the USB-6009 DAQ and the Wheatstone bridge, weight could be added to the beam, and mass would be displayed and could be stored for later data analysis. When looking at the moving average of data that represented the amount of weight on the beam displayed on the LabVIEW VI, there was some noise in the data due to uncertainty in error in the experimental design. All the 12

uncertainties for the equipment stated before contributed to some of the noise in data. Figure 5. shows the graph of mass being added to the beam over time.

Figure 5. Mass vs. Time, Beam Data Collection When collecting this data, weight was added and taken off in intervals of 40 grams. It is clear to see the uncertainty in the measurement display of desired data. This uncertainty could also come from the miscalculations when determining the beam calibration curves. A hysteresis effect can also be seen in the graph. The deviation from the theoretical value went from being below value when the weight was increasing, to above the theoretical value when the weight was decreasing. Because of the depth of this project, there were many areas where small errors could have been made that would contribute to this noise. To test the set up in another way, an unknown mass was added to the beam.

Figure 6. Unknown Mass vs. Time, Beam Data Collection From this test, after analyzing the collected data, it could be assumed that the unknown mass was about 220.0 grams. Analyzing the linear equation found when fitting the data with a line of best fit can conclude this. The unknown mass was then placed on a scale to get a true value. The unknown mass was measured to be 210.4 grams. This results complies with our previous test because out measurement was about 10.0 grams off of the true measurement, which has consistently occurred throughout the experimentation. Using the percent error equation,

(4) with the experimental value equal to the value found from the graph, and the theoretical value equal to the value from the scale. The percent error is equal to about 5.08%

Conclusion and Recommendations: 13

During week 4 and 5 we were able to effectively conduct two experiments. In week four we were able to determine the deflection on our beam with a dial gauge while in week five we used a strain gauge on our beam. In week five we were able to determine the mass from the change in voltage that the strain gauge provided. In week four and five we had similar results when graphing the data. We determined that we could have had better results if we had a digital dial gauge. The dial gauge would also need a better fixture to hold it in place properly so it does not move laterally when weight is added. This would allow us the ultimate precision in collecting data. When using the strain gauge and voltmeter it would have been important to know that the instruments were properly calibrated. Also having a system that would place and remove weight more evenly would have give better results. In the proceeding weeks the experiment was able to expand upon the setup with the use of higher technology. With this, aprototype of a scale was created to try and accurately measure weight added to the beam setup. This setup turned out to be accurate to a degree. On average, the percent error of any measurement was about 5.0%. This was due to numerous factors because of the depth of this experimentation. Looking back on the involvement of all the technologies and instruments, this was not the most effective way to design a scale. There were too many areas where error could have originated from, and it became difficult to troubleshoot any problems that came up. Redesigning the Wheatstone bridge may help in the efficiency of the project, as many of them failed throughout the course and caused problems for weeks throughout the term. LabVIEW was an appropriate software to use for this project because of its simplicity and easy adaptation to slight changes of additions, such as a tear button.

References: [1] BMI Measuring Instruments - Canada. Web. 04 Aug. 2010. <http://www.bmicanada.ca/>. [2] Theory and Design for Mechanical Measurements, 4th ed., R.S. Figliola and D.E.Beasley, Wiley 2006

14

Appendix: Calibration Data

Beam Dimensi ons

Length (mm) 123.1 Width (mm) Young's Modulous

7.00 230 0

Height (mm) 5

Scale Capacity (g) Dial Gauge Spring (g)

300 115

Figure 4: Know variables Input Real Input % 0 20 40 60 80 100 g 115 155 195 235 275 315 Deflection Up Down Up Down Up Down Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 0.001 in XX XX 9.5 20 23 29.0 0.001 in 8 10.5 16 21.5 25 XX 0.001 in XX 10.0 14.5 19.5 24.0 29.0 0.001 in 8 11.5 16 20 25 XX 0.001 in XX 11 15.5 19 23.5 29 0.001 in 8.0 11.5 16.0 20.5 24.0 XX Up Actual 0.001 in XX 10.0 14.5 XX XX XX

g 0 40 80 120 160 200

Figure 5: Calibration data from dial gauge test

15

Deflection Real Input g 115 155 195 235 275 315 Up Average 0.001 in XX 10.3 13.5 19.5 23.5 29.0 Down Average 0.001 in 8.0 11.2 16.0 20.7 24.7 XX Average 0.001 in 8.0 10.8 14.8 20.1 24.1 29.0 Prediction mm 0.1 8 0.2 5 0.3 1 0.3 8 0.4 4 0.5 1 0.001 in 7.3 9.8 12.3 14.8 17.4 19.9

Figure 6: Calibration data from dial gauge test (cont.)

Figure 7: Plot of Average Deviation Data from dial gauge test Input g 0 40 80 120 % 0 20 40 60 Real Input g 5.8 45.8 85.8 125.8 Output voltage Up Actual V XX XX 0.506 0.562 Down Actual V 0.432 0.478 0.525 0.576 Up Actual V XX 0.479 0.528 0.578 Down Actual V 0.44 0.489 0.538 0.587 Up Actual V XX 0.486 0.535 0.583 Down Actual V 0.440 0.489 0.538 0.587 Up Actual V XX 0.487 0.535 XX All Data Average V 0.437 0.485 0.529 0.579

16

160 200

80 100

165.8 205.8

0.615 0.666

0.623 XX

0.630 0.681

0.634 XX

0.632 0.681

0.635 XX

XX XX

0.628 0.676

no han ger (V)

0.43 8

input + hanger + spring Figure 8: Data from strain gauge test Output Voltage (zero corrected) Real Input g 0 40 80 120 160 200 Up Average V xx 0.484 0.533 0.581 0.631 0.681 Down Average V 0.437 0.485 0.534 0.583 0.631 XX Average V 0.437 0.485 0.533 0.582 0.631 0.681 Prediction V 0.445 0.492 0.539 0.586 0.633 0.680

Figure 9: Data from strain gauge test (cont.)

Figure 10: Plot of Average Deviation Data from strain gauge test

Table 3.Specifications of voltage for the USB-6009 DAQ (differential input channel).
USB-6009 DAQ Specifications

Range (V)

Typical at 25C (mV)

17

20 10 5 4 2.5

14.7 7.73 4.28 3.59

2.56

18