Paper ID #10861

Strength of Materials Through Economical Activities

Prof. Nancy L. Denton PE, CVA3, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Nancy L. Denton, PE, CVA3, is a professor in Purdue University’s School of Engineering Technology,
where she serves as associate head for MET. She serves on the Vibration Institute’s Board of Directors,
chairing the Academic Committee and serving on the Certification Scheme Committee. She is a Fellow
of ASEE and a member of ASME.

Page 24.1107.1

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2014
 Strength of Materials Through Economical Activities

Abstract

The content of a typical strength of materials course offers many challenges to students.
Understanding requires retention of core knowledge from multiple previous courses, quick
acquisition of new concepts and vocabulary, and synthesis of old and new content to address
relatively practical, often realistic problems. Several simple, low-cost activities were developed
to promote mechanics concept comprehension, and link these concepts to practical applications
and prior knowledge. Through activities incorporating various types of loading such as axial
forces, direct shear forces and torque, students are encouraged to think about fundamental
stresses, deformations, and their relationship to product design of common items.

The low-cost strength of materials activities described in this paper were implemented in a
laboratory setting with mechanical engineering technology students in a sophomore-level course.
The activities could be conducted by groups of students in a recitation or studio setting, or
adapted to be a combination of demonstration and student group work in a larger lecture setting
or flipped classroom. Activity success at improving understanding and application of strength of
materials topics, engaging students, and incorporating design thinking is being assessed directly
through student surveys and indirectly through regular examinations. Evaluation of assessment
data and corresponding improvement efforts will be reported.

Background

Strength of materials consists of stress, strain, and stability, and how material properties and
geometry affect them. This sector of mechanics serves as the foundation for several disciplines.
As a result, strength of materials knowledge is required for accreditation in several engineering
technology disciplines, and is often included in a variety of affiliated programs, as listed in Table
1.1 Engineering technology’s foundational focus is on practical application of engineering
principles and sets it apart from engineering.2,3 Traditionally, this focus on application has relied
on the existence of well-equipped industrial-type laboratories. As equipment costs increase,
corporate donations dwindle, and university revenues are directed elsewhere, programs are
challenged to have multiples of one piece of any high-cost test equipment. Students subsequently
have more demonstration-style laboratory sessions, spend too much of a laboratory session
waiting for their turn on the sole piece of necessary test equipment, or otherwise have less
opportunity for experiential learning of their discipline.
Page 24.1107.2
 Table 1: Programs with Strength of Materials content

ETAC Program Accreditation Requirement Often included but not an ETAC Requirement
Aeronautical Architectural
Civil Automotive
Electromechanical Construction
Marine Industrial
Mechanical Manufacturing

In parallel, the drives for online learning for place-bound students and active learning in the
lecture setting for in situ students provide motivation for trying other less laboratory-oriented
approaches to experiential learning of engineering principles and their application. 4, 5 An
additional potential benefit to alternative ways of practical learning is the chance to connect these
engineering principles to more consumer-oriented products, showing their usefulness to a broad
spectrum of society and complementing the choices of women and under-represented
engineering (and engineering technology) students.6 Mott’s fifth edition of Applied Strength of
Materials pioneers this approach through its inclusion of hands-on concept-developing
introductory activities that can be done in class or at home for each chapter.7,8

The following activities were developed and implemented within a scheduled laboratory setting
to ensure students would connect strength of materials concepts and practices to common
consumer products.

Page 24.1107.3

Figure 1: Axial deformation activity items

Axial deformation activity

This activity incorporates short tubular foam pool noodle sections, known masses, and dial
calipers, as shown in Figure 1. The primary objectives are to gain practice with calculating axial
stress and with use of the standard equation for axial deformation, especially to recognize that
geometry and material stiffness affect how components respond to axial loading. Secondary
objectives are to review mass to weight conversions including changing systems of units, to
ensure confidence with use of dial calipers for dimensional measurements; to see why significant
figures are important; and to recognize manufacturing concerns limit the applicability of
theoretical equations. The basic procedure is to measure the length and diameters of the noodle,
then add a known compressive mass centered at the axis of the noodle and re-measure the
noodle’s length. Activity results are calculations of applied force in metric and U.S. customary
units, axial stress in the tube, and approximate modulus of elasticity of the foam. The relevant
equations for axial stress, axial deformation, and conversion from mass to weight are listed in
Table 2.

Table 2: Axial Deformation Activity Equations

Cross-sectional area [ ] Where: D = outer diameter; d = inner diameter
Axial stress Where: F = force (weight); A = cross-sectional area

Axial deformation = Where: F = force (weight); L = length; A = cross-sectional

area, and E = modulus of elasticity
Force (Weight) Where: m = mass (known); g = gravitational constant (with
appropriate conversion factors applied, as needed)

Three-person student teams completed the axial deformation activity during the first laboratory
session of the semester. It served as an ice-breaker, providing students a non-threatening time for
getting acquainted and returning to the expectations of a rigorous engineering technology course
after their summer break. The extent of need for review of very basic engineering practices was
greater than anticipated. Multiple teams requested faculty confirmation regarding how to convert
mass into weight and how to calculate the cross-sectional area of a hollow circle. (It should be
noted that the spring semester students’ need for review of basic engineering practices following
the winter break was much lower).

Use of pool noodle sections contributed several benefits. Noodles are a common gender-neutral
consumer product that nearly every student knows, illustrating the relevance of strength of
materials to normal life. Noodles are extruded in a way that makes their central axis an arc rather
than a straight line and causes some variation in their diameters, while cutting them into short
sections results in cross-sections that are not fully perpendicular to the axis. These manufacturing
constraints become obvious when applying an axial compressive load and making the length and
Page 24.1107.4

diameter measurements, forcing students to think about differences between the assumptions
inherent to the axial stress and deformation equations and the real objects to which they are
applied. For mechanical engineering technology students at Purdue University, the foam noodles
also link their strength of materials course to a freshmen-level material processing course where
foams and extrusion were introduced, contributing to student understanding of the breadth of
their discipline. Cost of the noodles is a final perk, with late summer clearance prices of one or
two dollars per 5-foot long noodle, a quantity that provides sufficient tubing for about twelve
student teams.

Implementing the axial deformation activity in other settings would require some adaptation. For
active learning in a large-lecture setting, the measurements portion may have to be done as a
demonstration (preferably with student volunteers to provide some of the insights that come
during the measuring experience). No modifications should be needed for the related
calculations. For distance students, developing a short video of the measurements portion would
suffice. Calculations could be done individually, but working in small teams via the Internet or
otherwise is suggested to facilitate student interactions. In all settings, one implementation
challenge comes from the slight arc of the noodle’s longitudinal axis. When adding the
compressive mass, a mechanism for ensuring the mass stays on the noodle may be required.
When hollow-disk masses are used, a short section of dowel rod, long pencil, or similar item will
suffice. When the masses are solid, enclosing the whole unit within clear tubing may be
necessary (making deformed length measurement more difficult) or simply having a student
prepared to steady the unit may resolve the issue.

Simple or direct shear stress activity

Determining the relevant shear area is often a point of confusion for strength of materials
students when considering direct shear loading. This activity was developed to clearly show the
difference between single and double shear areas and how the loading and shear area interact,
with secondary objectives of reviewing analog micrometer use and considering ultimate shear
strength. Small craft sticks were joined by applying a dot of standard white school glue to one
overlapping end of the sticks to create either single or double shear specimens. The adhesive was
assumed to form a circular area equal in diameter to the width of a craft stick. Enough sets of
sticks were bonded to have at least one single and one double shear specimen per three-student
team. Representative components are shown in figure 2. Teams used micrometers to measure the
width of the sticks at multiple locations, averaging their width values to establish a shear
(adhesive) area diameter and calculate their single and double shear areas. Student pairs then
pulled on the craft sticks until shear failures occurred. Forces were not measured. Instead, based
on given forces of F for single shear and approximately 2F for double shear, simple shear
stresses were calculated using the teams’ shear areas. Related equations are given in Table 3.
Linking the resulting stress to material properties was encouraged. Manufacturing concerns were
Page 24.1107.5

again noted to connect application of theoretical equations to practice. In this case, the nature of
the craft stick wood was sometimes a big factor, with bent and twisted sticks making the
application of forces parallel to the adhesive area challenging. The gluing process resulted in
additional variations that were occasionally far from ideal, with angles in both the longitudinal
and lateral planes of the specimens. Reading analog micrometers nearly always requires some
student review. This can, of course, be omitted if the instructor chooses to provide dimensions or
has digital micrometers. Having the students obtain the width measurements helps them
recognize that material rigidity affects the dimensional reading shown, so including students
when making these measurements is recommended whenever practical.

Figure 2: Simple (direct) shear stress items

Table 3: Direct Shear Stress Equations

Direct shear stress Where: F = given shear force; As = shear area

(area that resists sliding and is parallel to the
force)
Single shear area As = ( ) Where: D = diameter (and stick width)
Double shear area As= ( )( )

Costs involved in the simple shear activity are fairly low, but involve much more repeated
preparation time than the axial loading activity. A gross of craft sticks can be purchased for
about $10, and school glue bottles are generally under $3 apiece. Depending on how many sets
Page 24.1107.6

of specimens are needed, gluing may take an hour split over two sessions (one bond at a time for
double-shear specimens). If average widths are pre-determined, no other adaptation is required to
implement this activity in a lecture setting. Distance learning students may have to prepare their
own craft stick specimens and find a friend to help pull specimens to shear failure. A short movie
of the activity could be posted as a backup method of incorporating this into a distance learning
mode for those students who prefer to skip preparation of specimens.

Torsional shear stress and design activity

Small plastic water bottles are used to consider torsional loading and the contrasting design
needs of cap connections intended for quick failure and water bottles which require unscathed
survival upon opening. Representative components are shown in figure 3. Activity objectives are
to gain experience with calculations related to torsion and to improve understanding of design
constraints for common consumer items. Three-person teams work together to measure geometry
of bottle cap connections and water bottle, then calculate polar area moments of inertia, the cap
connector’s breaking torque, the maximum torsional shear stress at a given location on the bottle,
and the actual design factor for the bottle based on a known material strength.9

Figure 3: Items for the torsional shear stress and design activity (plastic strip omitted)

Working from the highly accessible action of opening a water bottle, students measure the cap
diameter and dimensions of the approximately rectangular connections. They also measure the
bottle’s outer diameter slightly below the neck (where it is purely circular in cross-section, if
possible) and thickness from a pre-cut sample of another bottle. Calculations of polar area
moment of inertia for the cap connections and the bottle are made. The given breaking strength
Page 24.1107.7

for the cap connections are used with polar area moment of inertia in the standard torsional shear
stress equation to determine the approximate torque to open the bottle cap. (The thread angle is
assumed to be small enough to neglect the axial loading present in the connections. This could be
revisited when considering principal stresses, maximum shear stress, and related theories of
failure). The approximate torque is subsequently incorporated into the calculation of torsional
shear stress in the bottle. Finally, the bottle’s design factor is found from the bottle material’s
tensile strength and its torsional shear stress. The equations used for the bottle activity are
provided in Table 4.

Table 4: Torsion Equations

Polar area moment of inertia for connections Where: n = number of connections; Rc

(for the cap), ∑ = radius of the connections; Ac = shear area of
the connections
Polar area moment of inertia for hollow circles Where: D = outer diameter, d = inner diameter
(for bottle cross-section), [ ]
Torque from torsional shear stress in the cap, Where: τ = ultimate shear strength of the
plastic = Sus; J is for connections, and Rc is the
connection radius
Torsional shear stress in the bottle, Where: T = torque from the cap; c = 0.5D; J is
for hollow circles
Design factor, N = Where: Sus is ultimate shear strength and τ is
the torsional shear stress in the bottle

A number of benefits occurred through completion of the torsional stress activity. At the most
basic level, students were reminded that inner and outer diameters differ by two wall thicknesses
rather than one. The polar area moment of inertia calculations reinforced the link between this
quantity and its calculus base through the cap portion. The design factor for the bottle turns out
to be much larger than the typical recommended published values, leading students to consider
what other constraints might be important to the bottle’s design.7

Several implementation surprises arose with this activity. First, even though the water bottles
appeared to be the same, there were variations in the size and number of cap connections.
Second, students tended to clamp down when measuring the cap connections, permanently
deforming them when the least expensive water bottles are used. For the initial implementation,
it was not possible to reuse the caps, an unfortunate fact to discover when multiple consecutive
laboratory sessions were underway. With more sturdy (and expensive) water bottles, this
problem was alleviated. Implementation cost is primarily the water bottles: this could be
negligible if the instructor plans ahead and saves bottles from a single manufacturer. Otherwise,
Page 24.1107.8

cost should be on the order of five dollars, depending on class size. If this activity were done in a
large lecture setting, having students bring in their own water bottles and simply pre-measuring
and checking material properties for several brands and types might be best. Otherwise, a
student-assisted demonstration of the measuring and counting of connections, followed by small
group calculations should work well. Similarly, for distance students, preparing a video of the
demonstration as backup for those students who lack appropriate measuring instruments would
be helpful. Most distance students should be able to do the complete activity at home alone or in
a small team if appropriate instructions are provided, e.g., “use caution when using box cutter to
cut water bottle”, and so on. An online chat to delve into design considerations could enhance the
activity, as well.

A couple additional possible activities:

Two more strength of materials activities were considered that were determined to too closely
duplicate existing traditional experiments in the course at Purdue University that may be
appropriate elsewhere. The first of these is related to beam deflection and flexural stress, and
would probably work best as a demonstration in a lecture setting (with corresponding video
posted for distance students). One or more small plastic bars (or other material of known
modulus of elasticity) are mounted as simply-supported and cantilever beams. Fixturing can be
done in an incidental fashion (textbooks hold the beam in place at the edge of a table for the
cantilever; narrow chair backs or other items provide support at two “points”) or via instructor
construction. The length, width, and thickness of the beam or beams are measured, as well as the
distance from the beam center or end to the surface below it. Known load can be added at the
center of simple supports or the free end of a cantilever beam, as pictured in figure 4. The

Page 24.1107.9

Figure 4: Sample beam deflection activity

 Figure 5: column buckling activity components

distance to the surface is measured again to determine the deflection of the beam. The beam’s
rectangular area moment of inertia and beam tables are then used to estimate the beam’s modulus
of elasticity, which can be compared to published values. 7,8 For a beam of rectangular cross-
section, the corresponding equations are shown in Table 5. The activity could be repeated after
rotating the beam 90° about its longitudinal axis to observe the effect of changing its geometric
stiffness. Flexural normal stress calculations and linking to design constraints for stress and
deflection are other ways to increase the substance of this activity. To implement, the most
expensive element is the beam or beams, which can be constructed from the plastic sheeting
available from many hardware stores at a cost of $15-$25 for a sheet with a large dimension of
24 inches, since necessary measuring devices are assumed to be accessible for engineering
technology instructors. It is worthwhile to note that a simple beam will not provide the desired
link to real consumer products at the level of previously discussed activities, so more instructor
effort to focus on meaningful applications will make the beam deflection activity more
accessible.

Column buckling is another strength of materials concept that is often much more
understandable with simple visual aids. In lecture, a steel rule works well for demonstrating a
column with pinned ends that has a weak direction and can be used to show the effects of adding
lateral supports (with a little assistance from student volunteers). If the cross-sectional
dimensions are measured in class and steel’s modulus of elasticity is determined in advance,
Page 24.1107.10

calculations of slenderness ratio and critical buckling load can be done by small student teams.
 Table 5: Bending Activity Equations

Rectangular area moment of inertia (for a Where: b = the dimension parallel to the
rectangular cross-section), bending axis; h = the dimension perpendicular
to the bending axis
Modulus of elasticity from the cantilever beam Where: y = maximum beam deflection; I =
deflection formula for force at the free end, inertia; F = force at the free end; L = length of
the beam from support to force
Modulus of elasticity from the simply Where: y = maximum beam deflection; I =
supported beam deflection formula for a single inertia; F = force at the center of the supports;
force at its center, L = length of the beam from support to support

Other end conditions require a bit more preparation, but should clarify the need for end-fixity
factors. To produce a fixed base end under vertical loading (for pinned-fixed ends), the instructor
can either purchase modeling clay for a lump on the base surface (at a cost of about $4) or cut a
slit of appropriate width into a wood block (e.g., piece of 2x4, hopefully from scrap so cost is
negligible). Two such blocks could be used to show buckling with two fixed ends. Application of
the buckling load can be controlled if clear, relatively large tubing is first placed around the
column (cost of about $10). For a small group activity, if the engineering technology laboratory
does not have a sufficient number of steel rules, equivalent activities can be built around drinking
straws and/or chenille strips, both of which can be purchased for a class of 30+ students at a cost
of two or three dollars. Mass of the items added to apply a compressive buckling load can be
predetermined or measured during the activity. While engineering technology students are
certainly aware of steel rules, straws and chenille strips offer better linkage to consumer products
for those who have not been involved in constructive hobbies, and are shown in figure 5. The
lengths of straws, chenille strips, or other columns should be selected to ensure there is a good
match between column formula and slenderness ratio. The corresponding equations for long
columns are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Column Buckling Activity Equations (for long columns)

Where: Ism = smaller rectangular area moment

Radius of gyration, √ of inertia; A = area
Slenderness ratio, Where: k = end fixity factor; L = column
length; Rsm = smaller radius of gyration
Critical buckling load, Where: E = modulus of elasticity; A = cross-
( ) sectional area; SR = slenderness ratio
Page 24.1107.11
Assessment of implemented activities

Assessment of the first offering of the axial, simple shear, and torsional shear activities was done
at a very basic level. Using a 5-point Likert scale, students were surveyed to obtain their
perception of the activities in terms of being very helpful, helpful, neutral, not helpful, or
harmful for specific purposes. Table 7 shows the relevant section of the survey instrument. None
of the activities were identified as harmful, and most students indicated they found the activities
either helpful or very helpful, as illustrated in Figure 6. Based on student responses and
instructor observations, the activities will continue. Assessment of related course learning
outcomes is ongoing and appears to support incorporation of the activities. Due to a number of
additional course modifications to improve student success, however, learning improvements
cannot be tied directly to these laboratory activities. Examination results indicate that student
understanding of direct shear, especially distinguishing single and double shear, improved
approximately 15% over two previous course offerings. Student comfort level when using
micrometers, awareness of the effects of manufacturing variations, and understanding of design
concerns appeared to benefit from implementing these activities, as did the group interactions
and classroom climate.

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 6: Percentage of students who found the activities to be helpful or very helpful in
response to survey items 1 through 10.
Page 24.1107.12
Table 7: Listing of survey items 1 through 10 for student survey assessing perception of aspects
of low-cost, hands-on laboratory activities

The hands-on lab activity was (student response blank) for (numbered item)
1 reviewing mass to weight calculations
2 reviewing micrometer and dial caliper use
3 calculating axial (direct normal) stress
4 relating geometry and axial deformation to modulus of elasticity
5 recognizing single shear and double shear
6 calculating shear area for direct shear stress
7 calculating polar area moment of inertia
8 using ultimate shear strength to find loading for failure
9 calculating torsional shear stress
10 determining the actual design factor

Bibliography

1. http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/C
urrent/2013_-_2014/etac-criteria-2013-2014.pdf, retrieved January 4, 2014.
2. Kirkpatrick, Allan T., Danielson, Scott, Warrington, Robert O. (2011). Vision 2030 Creating the future of
mechanical engineering education. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference, American Society for
Engineering Education, paper AC 2011-2804, 12 msp.
3. http://www.abet.org/engineering-vs-engineering-technology/, retrieved January 4, 2014.
4. http://www.engr.utexas.edu/features/embeddedsystems-mooc. Engineering Faculty Take Lab-Based
Approach to Online Course, January 23, 2014 posting, retrieved February 11, 2014
5. Valle, Christine, Rosser, Sue, Newstetter, Wendy C., Leonard II, John D., Jacobs, Lawrence J. (2011)
INTEL: Presenting online 3D exercises in a statics class. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference,
American Society for Education, paper AC 2011-860, 14 msp.
6. Ellis, Glenn, Mikic, Borjana, Moriarty, Mary, Riley, Donna, Sarwar, Nasheeta. (2008). A woman’s right to
choose. . Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference, American Society for Engineering Education, paper
AC 2008-2028, 2 msp.
7. Mott, Robert L. 2008. Applied Strength of Materials, 5th edition, ISBN-13 978-0-13-236849-0-92467-9 or
ISBN-10 0-13-2368490-0
8. Karplus, Alan K. (1996). Craft Stick Beams, Proceedings of the Annual Conference, American Society for
Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 6 msp.
9. http://www.matweb.com/search/MaterialGroupSearch.aspx, retrieved October 6, 2013
Page 24.1107.13