Grip Mechanics Problem: Designing for Rubber at 1kN Force

  • Thread starter Thread starter ljaeggi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mechanics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around designing a grip for a tensile testing machine that applies 1kN of force to rubber samples. The grip consists of two flat plates, one stationary and one moving, with considerations for the rubber's properties, including a coefficient of friction of 0.5. The design aims to minimize stress concentration at the edges of the plates to prevent issues like necking, which can affect test results. The user emphasizes the need to calculate the force required for various test pieces, as rubber can elongate significantly during testing. Overall, the goal is to maintain equilibrium in the system while ensuring minimal stress on the rubber samples.
ljaeggi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a small dilemma with a statics problem that isn't really static...

I have been asked to design a grip for a tensile testing machine specifically for rubber that will supply up 1kN of force through the rubber
I have chosen aluminium to make the main body of the grip and will be driven pneumatically.

I have gone for a grip design of two flat plates that will hold the rubber in place.
One grip would be stationary at the bottom of the test piece and the other would be moving at about 1cm/s gripping the top of the test piece.

The test piece is in a dumbbell format according to standards and the test piece will weigh no more than 10 grams.

Therefore, assuming a 0.5 coefficient between rubber and aluminium, is it a simple static problem and the force required to keep the rubber in place would be 2kN?
Or do I have to treat the two systems independent of each other?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Have you thought about how you will shape the edges of the flat plates in order to avoid (or at least reduce) stress concentration at the edges where the plates grip the rubber sample? This can have a profound effect on your results, I would think. It should relate also to the profile of the rubber sample.
 
OldEngr63 said:
Have you thought about how you will shape the edges of the flat plates in order to avoid (or at least reduce) stress concentration at the edges where the plates grip the rubber sample? This can have a profound effect on your results, I would think. It should relate also to the profile of the rubber sample.

I have shaped the plates to account for the phenomena known as necking where by too much pressure to the rubber makes the rubber spill over the plates. A simple round and adjustable pressure accounts for this. this has been previously documented

However, multiple test pieces will be used ranging in material and overall size. This also is why I want to calculate the force required. (μ=0.5 for the lowest coefficient of rubber on test btw)

But while the rubber is approaching its ultimate tensile strength (the point of rupture) including a factor of safety, at the 1kN max, I am assuming the dimensions of the rubber would not change however during the test its elongation is about 400% (very roughly). I want to be very close to the equilibrium point of the system to ensure the least stress to the test piece.
 
How did you find PF?: Via Google search Hi, I have a vessel I 3D printed to investigate single bubble rise. The vessel has a 4 mm gap separated by acrylic panels. This is essentially my viewing chamber where I can record the bubble motion. The vessel is open to atmosphere. The bubble generation mechanism is composed of a syringe pump and glass capillary tube (Internal Diameter of 0.45 mm). I connect a 1/4” air line hose from the syringe to the capillary The bubble is formed at the tip...
Thread 'What type of toilet do I have?'
I was enrolled in an online plumbing course at Stratford University. My plumbing textbook lists four types of residential toilets: 1# upflush toilets 2# pressure assisted toilets 3# gravity-fed, rim jet toilets and 4# gravity-fed, siphon-jet toilets. I know my toilet is not an upflush toilet because my toilet is not below the sewage line, and my toilet does not have a grinder and a pump next to it to propel waste upwards. I am about 99% sure that my toilet is not a pressure assisted...
After over 25 years of engineering, designing and analyzing bolted joints, I just learned this little fact. According to ASME B1.2, Gages and Gaging for Unified Inch Screw Threads: "The no-go gage should not pass over more than three complete turns when inserted into the internal thread of the product. " 3 turns seems like way to much. I have some really critical nuts that are of standard geometry (5/8"-11 UNC 3B) and have about 4.5 threads when you account for the chamfers on either...
Back
Top