Scribd
Upload
27 views5 pages

ME 318 Lab Report #2

Uploaded by

thegamingbread
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views5 pages

ME 318 Lab Report #2

Uploaded by

thegamingbread
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

ME 318 Load Cell Lab Laurent Chang

The Objective of this lab is to experimentally find the calibration constant of a load cell and
compare it to the published value. Additionally the load cell for linearity and a flat frequency
response.

To begin the lab, I began by setting the driving frequency of 90 Hz on the oscilloscope. I
varied the amplitude of the wave and measured the voltage response.

Figure 1.1 90 Hz Driving Frequency, voltage and force from the load cell measured as the
voltage peak to peak and voltage rms was increased.

Next I increased the driving frequency to 900 Hz and again recorded the response voltage as
I increased the sine wave amplitude.
Figure 1.2 900 Hz Driving Frequency, voltage and force from the load cell measured as the
voltage peak to peak and voltage rms was increased.

Questions:

1. Do your experimentally determined calibration constants match the published value?


(Quantify)

Yes, comparing my experimental calibration constant to the published calibration constant, I


found the percent error to range from 2-17%. The percent error is in my case if caused from
equipment resistance, and slight variations with the trials. I had to repeat the trial from the
Vpp to the Vrms, so since the data was collected in 2 different trials, the Vrms data deviated
slightly. The percent error is low enough that I can conclude that the experimental data
matches the published value.
Percent Errors:

90 Hz:
Vpp: 2.6%
Vrms: 17.1%

900 Hz:
Vpp: 2.6%
Vrms:17.6%

Figure 2.1 Hand Calculation of Percent Error

2. Is the load cell linear? (Quantify). Does the calibration constant change with amplitude?
Why do we care?

The load cell is linear. By plotting the y-axis as the mV and the x-axis as the lbfpp I found that
as a result of both axes datasets being linear, the resulting slope of our graphs were all
positive integers. These slopes matched our published calibration constants, thus
experimentally verifying the data I measured.

Calibration Constant:
Force Transducer: 492.2 mV/lbf

90Hz Slopes:
505.21 mV/lbf
408.21 mV/lbf

900Hz Slopes:
479.46 mV/lbf
405.8 mV/lbf

3. Does the calibration constant change with frequency? Why do we care?

The calibration constant changes slightly with frequency. As the frequency gets louder, it
overrides the noise frequency present in the room, thus blocking out data interference and
producing more accurate results. We care because we want our data to be accurate, and the
less margin of error there is, the more we can trust our data.
4. Explain how you can determine the amplitude of vibration (that is the amplitude of the
displacement) from acceleration. Show a sample calculation.

The amplitude of vibration can be solved by differentiating the position of motion equation
twice to find the acceleration of motion equation. We know that the amplitude is at the max
of a sine wave, so by manipulating the equation you can solve for amplitude as shown below.

Figure 2.2 Amplitude from acceleration equation.

5. Does it matter whether you use peak-to-peak values or RMS values when finding the
calibration constant? Also: 5a. Explain how peak-to-peak and RMS are related

It should not matter if we use peak to peak values or RMS values when finding the
calibration constant. Vrms, and Vpp are related by…
𝑉𝑟𝑚𝑠 = 2 * 𝑉𝑝𝑝

When finding the calibration constant the sqrt 2 will cancel out, as shown below.

Figure 2.3 Vrms and Vpp load cell relation.

In my case RMS and peak to peak calibration constants were different by human error, from
running 2 different trials. The oscilloscope introduced error, reading a difference between the
2 data sets.

You might also like