What is the difference in the applied stress-strain response of the specimens with and without a hole?

1. What is the difference in the applied stress-strain response of the specimens with and without a hole? Is this what you would expect?
2. Do the strains developed in the specimen without a hole match those predicted by theory? Why or why not? How does this relate to the noise of the measurement technique?
3. Compare the strains developed in the specimens with and without a hole. Do the far field strains match? If not, why might they be different?
4. For the specimen with a hole, what is the location of the minimum and maximum strains? Does this location match up with where they should be theoretically?
5. For the specimen with a hole, what are the values of the maximum and minimum strains in the specimen? What are the predicted values? How much are these values off by (what is the error)? How and why does this error change at higher applied strains? (Hint: think about the boundary conditions and finite/infinitesimal strain assumptions that were made in the theoretical model.)
6. For the specimen with a hole, do the strain distributions qualitatively match the theoretical strain contour plot? How do they differ? Why might this be the case? Is the error within the noise?
7. How much error is there between the theoretical strain and the virtual strain gauges? Does this error get worse at higher applied strains? Why might this be the case?
8. What are the sources of error present in the experiment? What is the dominant source of error? How could this error be minimized?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *