To: Grand Valley Department of Engineering

From: Tucker DeGraaf TWDG

Date: October 20, 2022
Subject: EGR310 Combined Loading

This experiment was conducted to test the theories of combined loading and practice its
implementation in the real world with measurements that were obtained by strain rosettes on an L-shaped
beam structure that was subjected to a weight of 200.17 newtons. The experiment consisted of two cases,
the first was when the weight was placed directly at the end of the beam, and the second case was when
the weight was placed along a lever arm. When the lever arm was subjected to the 200.17 N force the
reactions were a shear force, a bending moment, and torque. For the first case the theoretical forces found
in the y-direction were a shear of 200.17 N +/- 2.002 N, and an axial force of 125.2 N-m +/- 1.262 N-m in
the z-direction. The normal stress at the top of the beam was calculated to be 17.749 MPa +/- 8.470 MPa.
The resulting strain at the top of the beam was 257.26 µ +/- 123.4 µ. At the side of the beam where the
strain rosette was placed, a shear of -1.035 MPa +/- 0.67814 MPa resulted in a shear strain of 43.13 µ +/-
28.33 µ. For the second case, the theoretical forces found were a shear force of 200.17 N of +/- 2.002 N, a
torsional force of 110.902 N-m +/- 1.1203 N-m, and a normal force of 125.2 N-m +/- 1.2621 N-m. The
resultant stress for where the top strain rosette was present was normal stress of 17.75 MPa +/- 8.470 MPa
and torsional stress of 7.861 MPa +/- 3.751 MPa. These stresses resulted in strain values of 257.26 µ +/-
123.4 µ and a strain value of 327.55 +/- 157.16 µ. The resultant stress for the second case for the side was
-8.896 MPa +/- 42.11 MPa which resulted in a shear strain of -370.67 µ +/- 1.755 µ.

The raw data was then gathered from the strain rosettes for each case of the loading. A strain
rosette was placed on the side of the L-beam and another rosette was placed on the top of the beam. The
readings were then converted to principal stresses and strains so that they could be compared to the
principal stresses and strains that were found in the theoretical calculations and FEA analysis. When
comparing the percent discrepancy for both the FEA analysis and the theoretical calculations the
discrepancy was under 15% for both the stresses and strains which was the result of the uncertainty from
the calculations. The percent discrepancy for the experimental data was unreliable as it ranged from 9% to
over 100,000%. The theoretical calculations for case 2 at the top for the maximum principal strain were
322.99 µ +/- 118.2 µ, the middle principal strain was -84.89 µ +/- 53.4 µ, and the minimum principal
strain was -150.65 µ +/- 65.9 µ. The FEA analysis found that the maximum principal strain was 309.89 µ,
the middle principal strain was -82.561 µ, and the minimum principal strain was -141.86 µ. The
experiment values found for the maximum principal strain were 226.31 µ, a middle principal strain of -
24.628 µ, and a minimum principal strain of -176.308 µ. The theoretical calculations for case 1 at the top
for the maximum principal strain were 257.2 µ +/- 123.4 µ, the middle principal strain was -84.89 µ +/-
592.5 µ, and the minimum principal strain was -84.899 µ +/- 236.1 µ. The FEA analysis found that the
maximum principal strain was 251.73 µ, the middle principal strain was -82.676 µ, and the minimum
principal strain was -83.557 µ. The experimental values found were 176.021 µ for the maximum principal
strain, a middle principal strain of -24.1343 µ, and a minimum principal strain of -127.021 µ. The
theoretical calculations for case 1 at the top for the maximum principal stress were 1.1187 MPa +/- 123.5
MPa and minimum principal stress of -1.1187 MPa +/- 123.5 MPa. The ANSYS found the maximum
principal stress to be 1.0793 MPa and the minimum principal stress of -0.9625 MPa. The experimental
maximum principal stress was 5.2676 MPa and the minimum principal stress of -2.662244 MPa. The
principal strains found were relatively comparable across all three methods used, however, the
experimental principal strains are definitely skewed more than that of the FEA analysis and the theoretical
calculations.

The calculated principal strains that were found were used with Hooke’s law to find the
theoretical principal stresses. The theoretical calculations for case 2 on the side of the beam found that the
maximum principal stress was 9.615 MPa +/- 56.43 MPa and the minimum principal stress of -9.62 MPa
+/- 56.42 MPa. The ANSYS found the maximum principal stress to be 9.0331 MPa and the minimum
principal stress of -8.8825 MPa. The experimental maximum principal stress was 12.0858 MPa and the
minimum principal stress of -2.81713 MPa. The theoretical calculations for case 1 at the side found the
maximum principal stress to be 1.118786 MPa +/- 1.474 MPa and the minimum Principal stress to be
-1.118786 MPa +/- 1.16796 MPa. The FEA analysis found the maximum principal stress to be 1.0793
MPa and the minimum principal stress to be -0.96205 MPa. The experimental stress that was observed
contained maximum principal stress of 5.2676 MPa and minimum Principal stress of 2.66224 MPa.
During this combined loading analysis of the stress in the beam, the values were fairly consistent but
contained large discrepancies for the experimental portion of the lab. However, the theoretical results
were comparable to that of the simulated FEA analysis.

To eliminate the discrepancies of the experiment compared to the theoretical calculations and the
FEA analysis in ANSYS the L-beam would have to be properly and rigidly fixed. During the experiment,
the table was lifted off the ground from the weight, and the support block and channel piece both twisted,
bent, and lifted off the table. Therefore, both the table that the L-beam was placed on and the support of
the L-beam should be reinforced so that the assumptions of rigidity from the theoretical calculations and
FEA analysis were correct. If the table was reinforced so that the legs didn’t lift off the ground, and if the
weighted block stretched further across the channel piece, then the beam would be able to adequately
handle the force applied without affecting the rigidity of the fixed end. However, since the end was not
rigidly fixed all the results were skewed and unpredictable due to an incorrect assumption. The source of
error in this experiment was due to the end of the beam not being rigidly fixed which resulted in the strain
readings being accurate to what was happening but not to what it would be if the end was fixed. The error
in this experiment occurred due to rounding errors in the calculations, and measurements. Furthermore,
the equipment used for the experiment was old and worn. The strain gages were used for prior
experiments which would result in the rosettes being worn out over time. When the L-beam was removed
from being fixed by a wrench the strain rosette on the side would be hit by the wrench impacting the
interior structure of the rosette. This is why in the experiment the top rosette had more accurate strain
readings when compared to the FEA analysis or the theoretical calculations.
Appendix A:

Table A-1. Strain at the top of the beam at Point A

Strains at point A on the pipe

  Case 1 Case 2
  Measurement Uncertainty Measurement Uncertainty
ɛ_45 22.00 0.22 151.00 1.51
ɛ_0 176.00 1.76 182.00 1.82
ɛ_45 27.00 0.27 -101.00 -1.01

Table A-2. Strain at the side of the beam at Point B

Strains at point B on the pipe

  Case 1 Case 2
  Measurement Uncertainty Measurement Uncertainty
ɛ_4
53.00 0.53
5 185.00 1.85
ɛ_0 59.00 0.59 63.00 0.63
ɛ_4
24.00 0.24
5 -100.00 -1.00
Table A-3. Raw data from measurements of the beam and combined loading results

Raw Data
  Measured Uncertainty Units
d_out 0.0762 0.0000 m
d_in 0.072898 0.001 m
t 0.001651 0.000 m
l_pipe 0.625475 0.00079 m
l_bar 0.5540375 0.00079 m
F 200.1699727 2.002 N
E 69000000000 3450000000.000 Pa
G 24000000000 1200000000.000 Pa
v 0.33 0.017 -
I 2.687E-07 1.0765E-07 m^4
J 5.375E-07 2.1529E-07 m^4
Q 4.589E-06 1.8796E-06 m^3
M_z 125.2013137 1.2621 Nm
M_x 110.9016712 1.1203 Nm
V_y -200.1699727 2.002 N
c 0.0381 3.8100E-05 m
y 0.0381 3.8100E-05 m
σ_A1 17749596.330 8469963.700 Pa
τ_A1 0.000 0.000 Pa
σ_B1 0.000 0.000 Pa
τ_B1 -1035018.706 678140.237 Pa
σ_A2 17749596.330 8469963.700 Pa
τ_A2 7861179.085 3751294.671 Pa
σ_B2 0 0.000 Pa
τ_B2 -8896197.791 42108915.18 Pa
Appendix B:

Figure B-1. Hand Calculations for the Combined Loading of the L-beam

Figure B-2. Hand Calculations for the combined loading of the L-beam continued.
Figure B-3. Hand Calculations for the combined loading of the L-beam continued.

Figure B-4. Hand Calculations for the Principal Stresses and strains in the lever arm
Figure B-5. Hand Calculations for the Principal Stresses and strains in the end

Figure B-6. Hand Calculations for conversion of Strain readings to principal strains
Figure B-7. Hand Calculations for experimental principal stresses and strains
Appendix C:

Figure C-1. Location of lever arm force

Figure C-2. Location of end force

Figure C-3. Location of fixed support

Figure C-4. Location of strain probe on the top of beam

Figure C-5. Location of Strain probe on the side of the beam

Figure C-6. Location of Stress probe on the top of the beam

Figure C-7. Location of the stress probe on the side