Lab 4 - Photoelasticity
Lab 4 - Photoelasticity
Lab 4 - Photoelasticity
CET 3135-001
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................3
Theoretical Background.......................................................................................................3
List of Equipment................................................................................................................4
List of Materials...................................................................................................................5
Test Procedures....................................................................................................................5
Summary of Data.................................................................................................................5
Results..................................................................................................................................6
Conclusions..........................................................................................................................8
Safety...................................................................................................................................9
References............................................................................................................................9
Signature Page...................................................................................................................10
Page 2 of 10
CET 3135-001
Abstract
The primary goal of this experiment is to learn and implement the basic principles and
procedures of photoelasticity. It will demonstrate the ability of photoelasticity to depict
visually stress distributions over significantly large areas of a test specimen. The
technique is applied also to illustrate the experimental analysis of stress concentrations in
in two different cases. One Plexiglas (Bayer Makrolon GP Polycarbonate) sample
underwent forces applied by the Instron 5569. Contour maps and lines were seen with
help from the polarized lenses. These lines showed the stress concentration of the
specimen. The second case involved a cantilever beam of the same material with one end
clamped to the table while the other end was loaded with the weight of 21.8 Newtons.
Theoretical Background
Photoelasticity is a nondestructive, optical technique for experimental stress analysis that
is particularly useful for structural components with complex geometric configurations,
or subjected to complex loading conditions. Analytical methods of stress analysis are
very cumbersome, and often unavailable for such cases, thus amplifying the importance
and the need for a suitable experimental approach. Photoelasticity has been used widely,
over an extended period of time, for problems in which stress distributions have to be
investigated over large sections, or regions, of the structure. It provides quantitative
information on highly stressed areas and the associated peak stresses. Equally important
is the capability offered by photoelasticity to discern areas of low stress levels, where
structural materials are utilized inefficiently. The method of photoelasticity can be applied
in various forms to a wide variety of problems ranging from stress wave propagation to
fracture mechanics, to three-dimensional studies. The applications illustrated and
practiced in the following experiments are restricted, however, to two-dimensional static
problems
The photoelasticity experiment showed how the material reacted under different axial
loads. The principle applied to this test is the stress concentration which follows the
formulas below (Hibbeler, 2011):
When the geometrical shape of the material is not uniform, stress concentration is not
uniform. Thus, maximum stress is important to determine where failure will occur.
Page 3 of 10
CET 3135-001
The principles of this lab include material properties, calculations and laws used, and
procedures introduced.
Material Properties:
Determine the value of the stress fringe value for the material provided.
o N/m2 / m / fringe or N/m
o and lb/in2 / in / fringe or lb/in
Experimentally determine the stresses acting in a beam and compare measured
and calculated results
o Calculate results using an analytical, continuum, beam model
o Discuss differences in terms of the measured stress fringe value
Experimentally determine the stress state in the model supplied and compare
measured and calculated results developed using either numerically or analytical
models
Calculations and laws used:
N = n + r :where n = lowest fringe order that moves to the test point, r = fraction
read from the COMPENSATOR scale
x= [ E / (1 +) ] * f * Nx= [ E / (1 +) ] * f *(n + r) : x and y= principal
stresses in test part surface, E = elastic modulus of test part, = Poissons ratio
of test part
Kt =x /nom: where nom was calculated to be 93.1 psi.
List of Equipment
CET 3135-001
List of Materials
The specimens that were used in the photoelasticity lab were made of Bayer Makrolon
GP Polyicarbonate (Plexiglas). One was a solid rectangle shape, the other, had a hole.
Test Procedures
Results
Results from the experiment are shown in the drawings and pictures below.
Page 6 of 10
CET 3135-001
Page 7 of 10
CET 3135-001
CET 3135-001
Conclusions
The results from the experiment were expected according to our theoretical information.
Contour maps of the holed-specimen showed the stress concentration in both ends of the
test object as well as the middle section, which experienced the most normal stress. The
uniform area of the specimen reflected little or no stress concentration. With heavier axial
load, the contour map became clearer at where the normal stress would focus.
The contour maps of the cantilever consisted wave forms which concentrated at the right
end of the specimen where the axial load applied. The light wave spread out to the
regions with less stress. Overall, the contour maps of the cantilever test object gave more
distinct photoelastic fringe patterns.
Since this experiments outcomes were graphic demonstration. Possible errors came from
set up process and dimension measurements of the specimen. Light interference also
contributed to quality of the contour maps.
From the results from the experiments, geometry of products should be considered when
designing engineering tool to prevent potential undesired failures.
Using white light the color chosen for observing of dark fringes was red. At low stress the
darkest fringes were nor primarily red. Light-material interactions, residual stress in the
specimen and specimen twist in the fixture can account for this variation in color. At the
three highest loads the uniform color indicates the close to ideal situation of uniform
stress. The Polariscope is set up for a light field and so with zero stress in an ideally clear
specimen the specimen will appear light. As the stress in the specimen increases a relative
retardation between the light waves develops.
There are several obvious difficulties and problems with the material calibration
procedure described above. For example,
- A series of measurements is needed and so problems in obtaining load measurements at
exactly similar fringe conditions are expected,
- The cross section area of the tensile specimen changes with different loads and so
problems with specifying the stress at different loads are expected.
A way around many material calibration problems is to use a procedure in which several
fringes of different order are available from one specimen at one load. The idea is to use a
specimen in which stress varies over the specimen and for which the stress state is
known.
Page 8 of 10
CET 3135-001
Safety
Safety while performing the test was the highest priority in the experiment. The test was
conducted according lab manual procedures. Students performing the test kept a safe
distance away from the Instron machine in order to prevent injuries from the moving
parts. While the test was running, all group members observed the equipment so that any
signs of malfunction would be immediately noticed. We further increased our safety by
having the lab coordinator present to observe our experiment.
References
Harris, D.W. and Mattivi, M (2005). Manual for Engineering Materials Laboratory.
University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, CO.
Hibbeler, R.C. (2011). Mechanics of Materials (9th Edition), Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Steinhauser, Edward. "Mechanics of Materials Laboratory Notes." Steel Tensile Test.
Civil Engineering Technology, 2014. 1-9. Print.
Steinhauser, Edward. Example Lab Report 01. Denver, CO: Metropolitan State
University Denver, 2013. Print.
Page 9 of 10
CET 3135-001
Signature Page
Mechanics of Materials Testing Laboratory- CET 3135- Section 001
Laboratory No. 4- Photo-Elastic Demonstration
Group No. 4 James Pettus, Marquis Smith, and Haroon Rashidi
James Pettus
Date
Marquis Smith
Date
Haroon Rashidi
Date
Page 10 of 10