1

School of Engineering

Nicholas Myers
119477054
Civil Eng. 2
Lab Group 12
CE2001 – Torsion of Circular Sections
2

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Apparatus ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Experiment 1: Torsional Deflection of solid Rods for Two Material Types............................................. 5
Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 5
Experimental results ........................................................................................................................... 6
Deflection vs Torsion Steel Rod ...................................................................................................... 6
Deflection vs Torsion Brass Rod ...................................................................................................... 6
Calculations ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Steel Shaft ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Brass Shaft....................................................................................................................................... 7
Graphs ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Angular Deflection vs Torsion ......................................................................................................... 8
TL vs JѲ ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 9
Graphical Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 9
Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Experiment 2: The effect of Rod Length on Torsional Deflection......................................................... 10
Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Background ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Procedure.......................................................................................................................................... 10
Experimental results ......................................................................................................................... 10
Results for Brass rod ..................................................................................................................... 10
Graph ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 11
Graph analysis ............................................................................................................................... 11
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 11
Experiment 3: Comparison of Solid Rod and Tubular Rod.................................................................... 12
Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Background ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Procedure.......................................................................................................................................... 12
Experimental results ......................................................................................................................... 12
3

Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 13
J Calculations ................................................................................................................................. 13
Mass per unit Length .................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 13
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 13
4

Introduction
These three experiments are designed to demonstrate some of the principles of topic 4 of the
CE2001 course. These principles deal with torsion in circular shafts. The effects of torsional forces
illustrated in these experiments are shear stresses and angles of twist. The three separate
experiments illustrate how the effect of changing shaft material, sample length and sample
geometry on how the sample changes due to the torsion effect of the applied torque

Apparatus
All three experiments use the same apparatus as depicted in diagram 1 below. The test kit s
comprised mainly of a backboard with chucks for gripping the sample test specimen. During the
experiment, the load is varied by adjusting a thumbwheel introducing torque into the specimen. The
apparatus has a load cell which measures the magnitude of the load applied by the thumbwheel and
displays the digital force. A protractor on the left most chuck measures the rotation in the specimen.
The movement of the chucks determine the length of the specimen.
5

Experiment 1: Torsional Deflection of solid Rods for Two Material

Types

Objectives
• Examine the relationship between torque and angular deflection of a circular section of
brass and steal
• Understand how the properties of the material affect the angle of twist for a given load

Background
𝑇 𝐺𝜃
The relationship between torque and angular deflation is determined by the equation = . With
𝐿 𝐿
this formula it is shown that the angle of deflection will differ between the two materials due to
their different modulus of rigidity. It is also assumed that the shafts are homogeneous and have a
constant cross section area that will remain planar under shear stress.

Procedure
1. Set the length of the test shaft to 500mm.
2. Zero out the force meter, thumbwheel and ensure the angle reading is zero
3. Turn the thumbwheel until the meter reads 1N, take the angular deflection reading
immediately.
4. Repeat increasing in increments of 1N up to 5N. Multiply by the torque arm length (0.05m)
to get the torque
5. Repeat for the brass rod
6. Measure the diameter of each shaft at multiple intervals to get an average diameter
6

Experimental results
Deflection vs Torsion Steel Rod
Steel rod length = 500mm

Force N Torque Nm Angular Defelction deg

0 0 0
1 0.05 1.5
2 0.1 3
3 0.15 6
4 0.2 8
5 0.25 10

Diameter = 3.14mm

Deflection vs Torsion Brass Rod

Brass rod length = 500mm

Force N Torque Nm Angular Defelction deg

0 0 0
1 0.05 4
2 0.1 8.5
3 0.15 13
4 0.2 17.5
5 0.25 22

Diameter = 3.19mm
7

Calculations
Steel Shaft
Diameter = 3.14mm

Polar moment of inertia = 9.54

Length = .5m

Force N Torque Nm Angular Defelction deg Angular Defelction rad TL JѲ

0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000
1 0.05 1.5 0.026 0.025 0.250
2 0.1 3 0.052 0.05 0.500
3 0.15 6 0.105 0.075 0.999
4 0.2 8 0.140 0.1 1.332
5 0.25 10 0.175 0.125 1.665

Brass Shaft
Diameter = 3.19mm

Polar moment of inertia = 10.17

Length = .5m

Force N Torque Nm Angular Defelction deg Angular Defelction rad TL JѲ

0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000
1 0.05 4 0.070 0.025 0.710
2 0.1 8.5 0.148 0.05 1.509
3 0.15 13 0.227 0.075 2.307
4 0.2 17.5 0.305 0.1 3.106
5 0.25 22 0.384 0.125 3.905
8

Graphs
Angular Deflection vs Torsion

TL vs JѲ
9

Discussion and Conclusions

Graphical Analysis
From the first graph, angular deflection vs torsion, it is clear to see that the angular deflection
experienced by both the brass and steel rods is proportional to the torque applied to the shafts. This
tells us that with an increase in the applied torque the angle of deflection will increase as well.

When examining the gradient from the second graph the angle of deflection is due to torsion
1
applied. The gradient when calculate from the formula would be shown to be equal to 𝐺

the modulus of rigidity of the shaft. And since the polar moment of inertia is deemed to be constant
due to a constant interior radius, the angel of deflection must be based on the torque applied. This
also shows a strong positive relationship yet again between angle of deflection and applied torque.

Discussion
Torsion deflection is generally undesirable as it puts extra strain on the body upon which it is
occurring. Three such examples would be in the drive shaft of an automobile; the supports of a
suspension bridge and the rotational shaft od any power tools. However, the torsional deflection is
desirable in and instance where it is found in a spring.

The relative stiffness of a rod is dependent on the inertia, the angular deflection, the length, and the
applied torque. Now if all of those were to remain constant and only the diameter of said rod would
increase, then the relative stiffness would be decrease due to an increase in the inertia of the shaft
𝑇𝑙
𝐺=
𝐽𝜃
𝜋 4
𝐽= 𝑐
2
At 3mm 𝐽 = 2.53125𝜋

Whereas at 4mm 𝐽 = 8𝜋

Conclusion
In conclusion it is clearly shown that angular deflection has a positive relationship with applied
torque. As well it is demonstrated that the relative stiffness of a material is proportional to the
torque applied and its length, while inversely proportional to its angular displacement and moment
of inertia.
10

Experiment 2: The effect of Rod Length on Torsional Deflection

Objectives
• Examine the relationship between length and torsional deflection

Background
𝑇𝐿
The relationship torsional deflection to length is given by the following equation 𝜃 = 𝐽𝐺 .

With the assumption that the radius remains constant throughout the shaft and the torsion kept
constant at 3N, the only variable affecting torsional deflection is the length of the rod.

Procedure
1. Mark off 300mm, 350, 400, 450 and 500 mm on the brass rod
2. Zero out the thumbwheel, angular displacement, and force meter
3. Set the length with the chunks to 500mm
4. Set the force meter to read 3N by turning the thumbwheel.
5. Record the angular displacement
6. Repeat for the different lengths

Experimental results
Results for Brass rod
Diameter = 3.19mm

Torque = 0.15Nm

Length m Angular Defelction deg

0.3 8
0.35 9.5
0.4 11.5
0.45 12.5
0.5 14.5

Graph
11

Discussion and Conclusion

Graph analysis
From the graph it I evident that there is a positive relationship between length and deflection.
Meaning that as the length of the rod increases as does the amount of angular deflection.

Discussion
When driving the force felt on the drive shaft is put out by the gearbox. Since the force is equal but
since the driveshaft lengths are different this results in unequal torque output because torque is
equal to the force by the torque arm length is the driveshaft length.

One way to eliminate this effect would be to change the diameter of the shorter shaft. By increasing
the diameter of the longer drive shaft therefore reducing the torque experienced.

Conclusions
From this experiment there are two conclusions that can be made. Firstly, it is obvious that angular
displacement and rod length have a positive correlation. And secondly, the longer the torque arm
the greater the torque.
12

Experiment 3: Comparison of Solid Rod and Tubular Rod

Objectives
• Comparison the effect a solid rod has vs a tubular on the torsional deflection with similar
outer diameters

Background
The difference between a solid versus a hollow rod lies in the change in inertia. The inertia of a
𝜋 𝜋
hollow rod is 𝐽 = 2 (𝑐𝑜4 − 𝑐𝑖4 ) and the inertia for a solid rod being 𝐽 = 2 𝑐 4 . This will cause there to be
a lesser inertia for the hollow tube decrease in the angle of deflection.

Procedure
1. Set the length of the test shaft to 500mm.
2. Zero out the force meter, thumbwheel and ensure the angle reading is zero
3. Turn the thumbwheel until the meter reads 1N, take the angular deflection reading
immediately.
4. Repeat increasing in increments of 1N up to 5N. Multiply by the torque arm length (0.05m)
to get the torque
5. Repeat for the hollow rod

Experimental results
Force N Torque Nm Rod Angular Defelction deg Tube Angular Defelction deg
0 0 0 0
1 0.05 4 3
2 0.1 8.5 7
3 0.15 13 11
4 0.2 17.5 13.5
5 0.25 22 15
13

Calculations
J Calculations
Hollow
𝜋 4
𝐽= (𝑐 − 𝑐𝑖4 )
2 𝑜
𝐽 = 146.314 kg𝑚2
Solid
𝜋 4
𝐽= 𝑐
2
𝐽 = 164.716 kg𝑚2

Mass per unit Length

Hollow
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠
= 𝜌 ∗ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠
= 8450 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ (0.003232 − 0.001852 ) = 0.186 𝑘𝑔/𝑚
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
Rod
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠
= 𝜌 ∗ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠
= 8450 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 0.003182 = 0.268 𝑘𝑔/𝑚
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion
From the J calculations it is evident that the missing material from the hollow tube gives the solid
tube a greater moment of inertia in comparison to the hollow tube.

As well from the mass per unit length calculations, it I shown that the hollow tube has the best mass
per unit length in comparison to the solid rod therefore making I the most efficient to design
torsional members out of.

Conclusion
In conclusion lack of material in the hollow tube gives it a greater lower mass per unit length but a
lower inertia and causes less angular deformation.