You are on page 1of 23

UNIVERSITY COLLAGE OF TECHNOLOGY SARAWAK

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

EEM3961
ENGINEERING LABORATORY 2
LABORATORY REPORT

LAB CODE:

EEM 3961

LAB NAME:

DEFLECTION OF A BEAM

NAME :

JAYLE FRANCIS (BME15090005)

DATE OF EXPERIMENT:

28TH MARCH 2016

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

7TH APRIL 2016

LECTURER/INSTRUCTOR:

MS. TAHARAH

PREPARED BY:

JAYLE FRANCIS

TABLE OF CONTENT:
CONTENT

PAGE

Lab Code and Experiment Title

DM 1(A) : Deflection VS Load

1-6

DM 1(B) : Deflection VS Span

7-12

DM 1(C) : Deflection VS Depth

13-21

Reference

22

1.0 LAB CODE AND TITLE OF EXPERIMENT:


Lab Code

: DM1.

Title of Experiment : Deflection of a Beam.

A. Deflection vs Load.
Objective:
To establish the relationship between deflection and applied load to determine the
elastic modulus of the beam specimen from the deflection data.

Theory:

The mid-span deflection of a simply supported beam loaded with a load W at mid-span is
given by;

WL3
48EI

Rewriting,
E

L3 W

48 I

Or,
E

L3 * Slope of the load


deflection curve
48 I

The deflection distance of a member under a load is directly related to the slope of the
deflected shape of the member under that load.

Apparatus:
1. A support frame.
2. A pair of pinned support.
3. A load hangar.
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy to measuring deflection.
5. Beam specimen with constant depth and with of the beam specimen.
6. A caliper to measure the depth and width of the beam specimen.
7. A meter ruler or tape measurer to measure the span of the beam.
8. A set of weights.

Procedure:
1. The two knife edge supports is bolted to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports is equal to
the span of beam used.
2. The width and the depth of the beam is measured and the readings is recorded.
3. The beam specimen is placed on the knife edge supports.
4. The load hangar is fixed at the mid-span of the beam.
5. The dial gauge is positioned at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting
deflection.
6. The dial gauge reading is set to zero.
7. A suitable load is placed on the load hangar.
8. The resulting of the dial gauge reading is recorded.
9. The load is increased on the load hangar.
10. Step 8 and 9 is repeated for a few more load increments.
11. The above experiment is repeated to obtain another set of reading.

Result:
Span of tested beam, L

= 600 mm

Width of beam specimen, b

= 25.09 mm

Depth of beam specimen, d

= 3.03 mm

Moment of inertia of beam specimen = 58.16 mm 4


Dial gauge reading, 1 div

= 0.01 mm

Table 1:1
Applied Load

Deflection (mm)
Experimental

(N)

Theoretical

div

mm

0.32

0.01

0.77

0.774

1.06

1.161

1.46

1.547

0.01

1.86

1.934

Graph 1:

0.387

Sample Calculation:
Modulus of Elasticity

0.774 0.387
2 1

= 0.387

Percentage error

0.32 0.387
100%
0.387

= 17.3%

Discussion:

Based on the experiment data, a graph of load versus the experimental deflection is
plotted. From the graph, it is observed that as the amount of applied load is increased, the
resulting displacement or value of deflection also increases proportionally.
The value of the slope of the graph represents the value of the beams Modulus of
elasticity, which is the mechanical property of linear elastic solid materials. It defines the
relationship between stress and strain in a material. For this experiment, the load position
is fixed at the middle of the span because different load position will affect the modulus
value. Other than that, it is because the deflection value is max at the middle of the beam
span.
When comparing the experimental and theoretical data for the deflection of the
beam, there is a slight difference. The percentage error is ranging from 5% to 6%. This is
possibly caused by the errors when conducting the experiment. One of the errors is the
human error. For example, a slight error in taking the reading or the apparatus set-up will
affect the data obtained.

Conclusion:
At the end of the experiment, the relationship between the deflection and applied
load is identified and the value of the elastic modulus of the beam specimen calculated
from the deflection data is able to be determined. The experiments objective is achieved.

B. Deflection vs Span.

Objective:
To find the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen.

Theory:

From theory, The mid span deflection is given by the equation:

WL3
48EI

In order to study the effect of span upon deflection , the power 3 for the span is replaced
by n. Thus, the deflection equation can be written as:

WL3

Ln
W 48EI

C Ln
W

or:

Where the constant C =

1
48 EI

The deflection equation can be written in log from as below;


n Log L Log c
W

Log

This represents the equation of a straight line. The slope of the graph represents the power
of the span and the vertical intercept represents the constant.

Apparatus:
1. A support frame.
2. A pair of knife-edged support.
3. A load hangar.
4. A dial gauge (with 0.01 mm accuracy).
5. Beam specimen.
6. A micrometer.
7. A meter ruler.
8. A set of weights.

Procedure:

1. Two knife-edged supports is bolted to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports is equal to the
span of the beam to be tested.
2. The width and depth of the beam specimen is measured and the readings are
recorded. Measurement is taken at 3 different locations and the average reading is
recorded.
3. The beam specimen is placed on the knife-edged supports.
4. The load hangar is fixed at the mid-span of the beam.
5. The dial gauge is positioned at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting
deflection.
6. The dial gauge reading is set to zero.
7. A suitable load is placed on the load hangar.
8. The resulting dial gauge reading is recorded.
9. The load on the load hangar is increased.
10. Step 8 and 9 is repeated for a few more load increments.
11. The test is repeated with different span.

Result:
Beam specimen dimension:
Width, b

= 25.09 mm

Depth, d

= 3.03 mm

Moment of inertia, I

= 58.16 mm 4

Dial gauge reading, 1div = 0.01 mm

Table 1:
Load

Experimental mid-span deflection


Span, L1=700 mm

Span, L2=800 mm

Span, L3=900 mm

div

mm

div

mm

div

mm

0.51

0.01

0.86

1.15

0.01

1.08

1.75

2.49

1.64

0.01

2.71

3.87

2.23

3.65

5.13

0.01

2.83

4.65

6.40

Graph 1:

10

Table 2:
Span, L

Log (L)

700

2.845

0.598

-0.223

800

2.903

0.883

-0.054

900

2.954

1.279

0.107

Slope,

Graph 2:

11

Log (

)
W

From Graph 2;
Power for the span

= Gradient of the slope


=

2.954 2.903
0.107 0.023

= 0.317

Conclusion:
By the end of the experiment, the relationship between deflection and span of the
beam specimen is identified, even though the data obtained is not so accurate due to error.
The experiments objective is achieved.

12

C. Deflection vs Depth.
Objective:
To establish the relationship between deflection and depth and hence determine the
elastic modulus for the beam specimen.

Theory:

From theory,
The mid-span deflection is given by the equation:

WL3
48EI

The section modulus


I

bt 3
12

The deflection equation can be rewritten as follows:


WL3 12

48 EI bt 3

In order to study the effect of thickness, t, upon deflection, , the power 3 for the thickness
is replaced by n.

13

WL3 12

48 EI bt n

Or,

WL3

t (n)
W 48bE
Or,

C t ( n)
W
Where C is a constant
The above equation can be written in the log form as follows;
Log (

) Log (C ) nLog (t )
W

This represents the equation of a straight line


Y mx c

14

Apparatus:
1. A support frame.
2. A pair of knife-edged support.
3. A load hangar.
4. A dial gauge (with 0.01 mm accuracy).
5. 3 Beam specimens with same width but different depth.
6. A micrometer.
7. A meter ruler.
8. A set of weights.

Procedure:

15

1. Two knife-edged supports is bolted to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports is equal to the
span of the beam to be tested.
2. The width and depth of the beam specimen is measured and the readings is
recorded. Measurement is taken at 3 different locations and the average reading is
recorded.
3. The beam specimen is placed on the knife-edged supports.
4. The load hangar is fixed at the mid-span of the beam.
5. The dial gauge is positioned at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting
deflection.
6. The dial gauge reading is set to zero.
7. A suitable load is placed on the load hangar.
8. The resulting dial gauge reading is recorded.
9. The load on the load hangar is increased.
10. Step 8 and 9 is repeated for a few more load increments.
11. The test is repeated other beams. The span of the beam tested is similar to the first
beam.

16

Results:
Span of beam

= 500 mm

Width of beam

= 25 mm

Dial gauge reading, 1 div

= 0.01 mm

Table 1:
Load

Experimental mid-span deflection


Thickness = 2.5 mm

Thickness = 3.0 mm

Thickness = 4.0 mm

div

mm

div

mm

div

mm

0.38

0.17

0.08

0.75

0.39

0.01

0.18

1.11

0.62

0.27

0.01

1.50

0.85

0.37

1.88

1.06

0.46

2.25

1.28

0.56

Graph 1 (t=2.5 mm):

17

Graph 2 (t=3.0 mm):

Graph 3 (t=4.0 mm):

18

Table 2:
Thickness, t(mm)

Log (t)

2.5

0.398

0.375

-0.426

3.0

0.477

0.224

-0.650

4.0

0.602

0.095

-1.022

Graph 4 (Log (

Slope,

) VS Log t):
W

19

Log (

)
W

Discussion:
Power for the thickness

= Slope of the graph


=

(1.0220 (0.65)
0.602 0.477

= -2.976

Discussion:

20

From the experiment conducted, it is observed that the thickness of the beam is
inversely proportional to the deflection of beam at mid-point. When the thickness
increases, the deflection decreases.
The result of the experiment is not accurate due to the errors that might happen
during conducting the experiment. Few errors that possibly lead to this difference in
value is such as the sensitivity of the dial gauge to the surrounding environment, slight
error in apparatus set up, or the typical human error when conducting the experiment.

Conclusion:
At the end of the experiment, the relationship between deflection and depth and
hence determine the elastic modulus for the beam specimen is able to be determined. The
experiments objective is achieved.

Reference:
1. Gere, J. M., & Goodno, B. J. (2013). Mechanics of materials 8th Edition. Stamford CT:
Cengage Learning.
2. Beer, F. P. (n.d.). Mechanics of materials 7th Edition. McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn
Plaza, New York.

21