Torsion Testing Machine

Lab Report
DUE:09/07/2018
Team Members:
Long Van Tran: s3602051
Sava Sibic: s3604912
Eileen Yang: s3539296
Nick Tran: s3599423

2018
AD026-Associate Degree in Engineering Technology
(Mechanical)
Contents

Introduction 3
Aim of experiment 3
Procedure 4
Results 5
Discussion 5
Question 8
Conclusion: 8
Appendix: 9
Reference: 15
Introduction

In solid mechanic, torsion can be defined as twisting an object with an axial load also known as applied
torque producing a rotation along the longitudinal axis of object. Shear stress and deformation develop
when applied torque was acted on a member at a 45 o. When designing axles or shaft for uses such as
transmission or power generation.

Torsional testing machine are used to simulate real life service condition and check the quality of the
component such as screws, medical devices, drill bit tips fasteners and wires.  Usually, torsion would be
of interest when structures with circular section are involved. As for application that involves non-
circular sections, torsion properties are only involved for special condition.

We conduct this experiment to demonstrate how the applied torque will be applied to few materials,
namely steel, brass and aluminum.

Aim of experiment

1. To compare the experimental shear modulus (modulus of rigidity) with tabulated value
2. To compare the ratio of maximum torque during testing with the ratio of tensile strengths of the
material supplied
Procedure
1. Measure and recorded in table 1, the type of material uses in this experiment, the diameter and
the gauge length with the Vernier supplied.
2. Draw a line along the center of the specimen diameter using a pen/marker. This will illustrate
the amount of twist that will affect the material
3. Connect the speed sensor, motor and safety switch to the rear of the control box then connect
to the power plug
4. Turn on the power that connect onto the interface, after the software finish loading then choose
the option LOCAL by pressing the bottom green button. This will display the torque and the
angle of twist.
5. Fit the safety guard before used. This will act like a switch to activate the power to the motor
6. Turn on the control box and turn the potentiometer to ensure that everything functions.
7. Set the potentiometer to 0.5 rpm then turn off the control box
8. Take off the safety guard, the specimen was mounted between the torsion head and measuring
head and was then tighten down fully.
9. When the specimen was fitted, fit the safety guard.
10. To calibrate the system the pulley was used on the angle sensor by rotating anticlockwise until
the display on the interface show close to zero angle.
11. Using the same pulley and rotate until the reading reach 5 degrees on the interface screen. This
will then become a default start angle.
12. On the interface screen look for the option logging process and select it.
13. Turn on the control unit
14. Let the experiment run until the specimen fracture then stop the logging process.
15. Turn off the control box, remove guard and specimen
Results:
Table 1

Torsion Test (practical test)

Specimen Details

Material Aluminum
Diameter, mm 6.1

Gauge Length, mm 92.5

Test Speed (reference only), rpm 0.5 rpm

CALCULATION

T 180
=0.0149 × =0.8537 Nm /rad
θ π

π D 4 π × 0.00614 −10 4
J= = =1.3593 ×10 m
32 32

L T 0.0925 × 0.8537
G= × = =0.58094 GPa
J θ 1.3593 ×10−10
Discussion:
As shown in the calculations section, there was an experimental error which has affected the accuracy of
the results obtained.
The material used for the experiment was a steel bar which had a calculated shear modulus of 0.58094
GPa, whilst the value of the shear modulus of steel conducted in another experiment without a large
source of error is 67.1589 GPa. The source of this problem would be from the applied torque during the
experiment. The actual value of applied torque was 0.0149 Nm, whilst the more accurate experimental
value is 1.518 Nm. This error in the measurement of applied torque could have possibly been due to a
faulty sensor which was measuring this value.
The angle at which the material is twisted until fracture is 587.4 ˚ with an applied torque of 2Nm.
Starting with the parameters zeroed, the angle of twist increased steadily but once the torque reached 2
Nm, it ultimately remained the same with only one spike to 3 Nm as seen in the results section.
Due to the large sources of error throughout the experiment conducted, another set of results were
adopted and are used for the comparison. These results are displayed as of table 2 onwards in the
results section.
The shear modulus calculated in table 2 of experimental data is 67.16 GPa, whilst the tabulated value for
steel is 77 GPa. This result shows that there is a 13% percentage of error, which is within expended
range. Aluminium was also within expended range with an experimental value of 29.41 GPa and a
theoretical value of 26 GPa, which is also a 13% percentage of error. However, the value of brass was
out of the expended range with an experimental value of 19.33 GPa, a theoretical value of 37 GPa and a
48% percentage of error. The source of these errors could be due to defects in the materials used in the
experiment which may have contributed to quicker fracture. These defects could have possibly been
micro cracks in the material. Another source of error could be due to the elastic limit being determined
by eye, which always provides slightly inaccurate results.
As seen in the graphed results, steel is seen to have the highest elastic region, followed by brass and
then aluminium. The elastic region of a material describes the greatest amount of stress the material
can endure without taking on permanent changes. Hence, a material with a higher elastic limit can
endure more stress. Also, the point of fracture for each material was roughly in the same location along
the length of the specimen; being the area closer to the side which torque was applied.
According to the data obtained, the maximum torque all the materials could endure was 19Nm. The
data does not seem to be quite accurate as each material is of different composition with varying
stiffness.
Comparing the theoretical values of tensile strength and shear modulus provides a ratio of typical tensile
strength, which provides the theoretical values of the maximum torque for each material.
The ratio of typical tensile strengths are as follows;
● Brass to aluminium: 1.09
● Steel to brass: 1.16
● Steel to aluminium: 1.26
These ratios are applied to the maximum torque to obtain theoretical values of maximum torque for
each material. These values are as follows;
● If aluminium has a maximum torque of 19Nm, brass should have a maximum torque of 20.71
● If brass has a maximum torque of 19Nm, steel should have a maximum torque of 22.04
● If aluminium has a maximum torque of 19Nm, steel should have a maximum torque of 23.94
As seen above, it is evident that having all materials with a maximum torque of 19Nm is inaccurate as it
does not correlate with the theory that the ratio of typical tensile strength can be applied to obtain the
value of the maximum torque for each material. Obviously, there is another source of error within the
experiments conducted being the errors already mentioned in this section of the report.
With the significant values and percentages of error, it is evident that machine sensors may require
calibration. This is mostly shown in the steel experiment show in table 1 of the results section.

Questions:
1) How did the material affect the elastic, plastic and fracture point?

At the elastic region the material returns to its original shape where the deformation is reversible
whereas the plastic region undergoes a permanent deformation illustrating that it will no long
return to its original shape. When the material reaches at the fracture point meaning that the
material undergoes failure. The torque-angle graph can demonstrate whether the specimen is
ductile or brittle.

2) How did the material affect the number of times the specimen rotated?

The strength of the material affected the number of rotations that the specimen would go
through, as different materials have certain yield points. this would dictate the number of times
that the specimen would rotate.

As the material rotates, the stress was applied on the surface increased surface fatigue until failure.

3) Did the specimens facture at the same point along its length for each material?

Due to only testing one specimen for this practical, we can not observe the points of fracture for
each material. But with results, we can assume the point of fracture for each material was
roughly in the same location along the length of the specimen; being the area closer to the side
which torque was applied.

Conclusion:
Calculated modulus of rigidity compared with its tabulated values varied. The calculated values for steel
and aluminum is within the expected range. Brass however was very off mark.
The experiment should be repeated with equipment calibrated and proper techniques to measure
materials to ensure accurate results for the whole practical which can be referred to the given
resources.
Appendix:
Test 1
Test material Details

Material Steel – EN1A (BS970)

Diameter (mm) 6

Gauge Length (mm) 98.25

Test speed (rpm) 0.5

Max. torque (Nm) 19

Max. angle of twist (degrees) 828.4

Torque (Nm) Angle of Twist (degrees)

0 0

5 0
6 0.4

8 1.8
10 3.2

12 4.6
13 6.0

14 7.4
15 10.4

16 15.8
17 20.0

18 43.6
19 100.0

19 210.6
19 330.6

19 471.4
19 621.8

19 755.0
19 828.2

T 180
=1.518 × =86.97499 Nm/rad
θ π

π D 4 π × 0.0064 −10 4
J= = =1.2724 × 10 m
32 32

L T 0.09825 × 86.97499
G= × = =67.1589GPa
J θ 1.2724 ×10−10
 Test 2

Test material Details

Material Brass – CZ121 (BS 2874)

Diameter (mm) 6
Gauge Length (mm) 99.97

Test speed (rpm) 0.5

Max. torque (Nm) 19

Max. angle of twist (degrees) 1062.9

Torque (Nm) Angle of Twist (degrees)

0 0
0 0.6

1 8.2
2 8.6

3 11.5
4 12.1

5 14.9
6 15.6

7 17.5
8 18.5
9 21.9
10 25

11 28.8
12 43

12 194.6
14 300

14 448.6
15 552

15 753.6
19 755.77

19 1000.8
19 1062.9
T 180
=0.4295 × =24.6085 Nm/rad
θ π

π D 4 π × 0.0064 −10 4
J= = =1.2724 × 10 m
32 32

L T 0.09997 × 24.6085
G= × = =19.334 GPa
J θ 1.2724 ×10−10
 Test 3

Test material Details

Material Aluminum- EN (AW2011-T3)

Diameter (mm) 6
Gauge Length (mm) 99.8

Test speed (rpm) 0.5

Max. torque (Nm) 19

Max. angle of twist (degrees) 945.6

Torque (Nm) Angle of Twist (degrees)

0 0
5 3.4

6 7.8
7 8

7 8.5
8 8.6

9 13.2
10 19.7

10 27.3
11 33.9

11 42.7
12 60.2

12 71.5
13 102.6

13 187.4
14 270.9

15 370.1
15 510
15 636

T 180
=0.6544 × =37.4944 Nm /rad
θ π

π D 4 π × 0.0064 −10 4
J= = =1.2724 × 10 m
32 32

L T 0.0998 × 37.4944
G= × = =29.409 GPa
J θ 1.2724 ×10−10
Reference:
Douglas P. Holmes,mechanics of Materials, Boston University

http://www.bu.edu/moss/mechanics-of-materials-torsion/

http://www.codecogs.com/library/engineering/materials/torsion.php
Ferdinand. L. Singer, William A. Nash, 1957,Engineering Fundamental

http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_engineering_basics/fatigue_in_metals.htm