39 views

Uploaded by Khalil Barakzai

Lab Report for Mechanics of Materials Course

save

You are on page 1of 10

CVG 2140 – DR. MARTIN - PEREZ

SIMPLY SUPPORTED

BEAMS

KHALIL BARAKZAI - 7460696

Table of Contents

Introduction and Background..................................................................................... 4

Objective.................................................................................................................... 4

Apparatus................................................................................................................... 4

Procedure................................................................................................................... 4

Presentation of Collected Data................................................................................... 4

Case 1..................................................................................................................... 4

Case 2..................................................................................................................... 5

Case 3..................................................................................................................... 6

Results and Calculations............................................................................................. 7

Discussion.................................................................................................................. 8

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 8

References.................................................................................................................. 8

1

List of Tables

Table 1: Experimental Readings for Case 1

………………………………………………………………………………………….....5

Table 2: Theoretical Values for Case 1 with True Error

……………………………………………………………………………5

Table 3: Experimental Readings for Case 2……………..

………………………………………………………………………………6

Table 2: Theoretical Values for Case 2 with True Error ….

………………………………………………..………………………6

Table 2: Experimental Readings for Case 3……………..

………………………………………………………………………………6

Table 2: Theoretical Values for Case 3 with True Error

……………………………………………………………………………6

2

List of Figures

Figure 1: Diagram of load P (23.80 N) applied at various distances from

RA…………………………………..…………4

Figure 2: Diagram of load P (23.80 N) applied at various distances from both

supports…………………………..5

Figure 3: Diagram of P (23.80N) applied as

shown…………………………………………………………………………………..6

3

**Introduction and Background
**

Using experimental and theoretical processes, the reactions at the supports

of a beam are measured under various loading conditions. In the experimental

procedure, a gauge is used to calculate the reactions on each support with loads

being applied at various distances from the supports. These values for the reactions

of the beam are than compared with theoretical values which are obtained using

simple beam mechanics equations.

Objective

To determine the reactions at the supports of a simply supported beam for

various loading conditions.

Apparatus

**Aluminum beam of 1,220-mm length
**

Two supporting frames

Weight to apply external load

Two spring balances located at the supports

Procedure

We start off by taking the initial reading of each spring balance, or the

reactions of the simply supported beam due to the weight of the beam. We than

apply a single concentrated load of 5.35 lb (23.80 N) at various distances, a, from

the left support A and read both reactions Ra and Rb as shown in figure of the Lab

Manual. We than repeat the measurement with two simultaneous loads of 2.35 lb

(10.5 N) and 5.35 lb (23.80 N) at various distances, a, from both supports, A and B.

We finish off by applying a load to the beam with an overhang outside the support

at B applied at a distance of 6 in (0.152 m).

**Presentation of Collected Data
**

Case 1

4

Figure 1: Diagram of load P (23.80 N) applied at various distances from R A

**Table 1: Experimental Readings for Case 1
**

Distance, a

inche meters

s

6

0.152

12

18

24

0.305

0.457

0.61

30

36

42

0.762

0.914

1.067

RA(N)

RB (N)

20.91

5

17.8

15.13

12.01

5

8.9

6.675

3.115

2.67

6.23

9.345

12.01

5

15.13

17.8

20.91

5

**Table 2: Theoretical Values for Case 1 with the True Error
**

Distance, a

inche meters

s

6

0.152

12

0.305

18

0.457

24

0.61

30

0.762

36

0.914

42

1.067

Ra(N)

Rb (N)

True Error (Ra)

(%)

True Error (Rb)

(%)

20.84

17.86

14.89

11.90

8.94

5.97

2.99

2.97

5.95

8.92

11.90

14.87

17.84

20.82

0.35

0.31

1.62

0.93

0.42

11.78

4.33

9.99

4.67

4.79

0.93

1.75

0.20

0.45

5

Case 2

**Figure 2: Diagram of load P (23.80 N) applied at various distances from both
**

supports

Note that the downward arrows represent load P

**Figure 3: Diagram of P (23.80N) applied as shown
**

Table 3: Experimental Readings for Case 2

Distance, a

inches

meters

6

0.152

12

0.305

18

0.457

RA(N)

RB (N)

12.24

13.57

15.58

22.25

20.47

18.69

**Table 4: Theoretical Values for Case 2 with the true error
**

Distance, a

Ra(N)

Rb (N)

True Error (Ra)

True Error (Rb)

6

inche

s

6

12

18

meters

0.152

0.305

0.457

11.83

13.22

14.60

22.43

21.05

19.67

(%)

(%)

3.41

2.67

6.70

0.81

2.73

4.98

Case 3

Table 5: Experimental readings for Case 3

Distance, a

inches

meters

6.00

0.15

RA(N)

RB (N)

-1.78

12.24

**Table 6: Theoretical values calculated for case 3 with the error calculations
**

Distance, a

inche meters

s

6.00

0.15

Ra(N)

Rb (N)

True Error (Ra)

(%)

True Error (Rb)

(%)

-2.09

12.55

14.89

2.48

**Note that the negative value of RA indicates that it is pointing downwards rather
**

than upwards as the diagram seems to suggest.

**Results and Calculations
**

For case 1, the theoretical values were calculated by first taking the sum of

moments around point A which would give us the reaction at B, and then taking the

sum of forces in the y-direction:

Please refer to figure 1 for clarification

∑MA=0:

-P*a + RB (1.22) =0 where P =5.35 N

RB =

5.35

a

1.22

where a is the distance from RA

∑Fy=0:

RA + RB = P

RA = P - R B

7

**For case 2, the theoretical values were calculated with the same approach as for case 1.
**

Please refer to figure 2

∑MA=0:

– P1*(a) - P2*(1.22 - a) + RB*(1.22) = 0

Where P1 = 10.46 N and P2 = 23.81 N

RB =

**10.46∗a+ 23.81∗(1.22−a)
**

1.22

∑Fy=0:

RA + RB = P1 + P2

RA = 34.265 - RB

**Case 3 calculations, please refer to figure 3
**

∑MA=0:

RB * (0.76) – P*(0.912)

RB =

where P = 10.46 N

**10.46∗0.912
**

=12.55 N

0.76

∑Fy=0:

RA+RB = P

RA = -2.0915

True Error Calculations

True Error=

**Theoretical Value−Experimental Value
**

∗100

Theoretical Value

Discussion

The results of this experiment are acceptable as there is a relatively small

error between the theoretical values and the experimental values in each case.

Case 1 had an average error of only 2.82% at R A and 3.25% for RB, case 2 had an

average of 1.83% and 1.22% for RA and RB respectively and case 3 had a true error

of 14.89% and 2.48 % for RA and RB respectively. Case three is the only one with an

error over 5 % which is tells us that our experiment, for the most part, is acceptable.

Possible error sources include not measuring the distance a correctly, or not

applying the weight exactly at the specified distance a. Another source of error

8

could have come from the fact that the spring scales may not have been properly

calibrated and therefore reported false readings. The final source of error could have

come from the fact that it is really hard to read the values on the spring scale with

the human eye as it is not digital and rounding errors could therefore have occurred.

Conclusion

In conclusion the experiment presented good results with little error, this

experiment is suitable in testing reactions at the supports of a simply-supported

beam.

References

1. Lab Manual, CVG2140, Mechanics of Materials, W2015

9

- 1-2-3Uploaded bybochka14
- Analysis and Design of a Continuous R. C. Raker Beam using Eurocode 2Uploaded byUbani Obinna Ranks
- som labUploaded byJay S Ja'Na
- INTRODUCTION TO SIMPLE RCUploaded bymatthewgraham
- Planning, Design & Estimaion of A G+2 Residential Apartment within A Complex at Pipulpati More, HooghlyUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Torsion 9Uploaded byamachmouchi
- M05 - SEC 5 Solution[131331] for FB PostingUploaded byRimar Liguan
- Frames INERD Connect Eurost05Uploaded byamirsh78
- RC12_BondUploaded byatac101
- 4c Tensile Membrane ActionUploaded byUzair Maqbool Khan
- CFD-ACI-318-05Uploaded byahmedidrees1992
- Torsion 9Uploaded bymsiddiq1
- CFD-ACI-318-08Uploaded bysalgatran
- Composite BeamUploaded bysaif.mulla
- CFD-ACI-318-05Uploaded byRoberto Enrique Sanchez Aleman
- Gu 3412511258Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Analysis and Design of Multi-Storeyed Building by Steel Concrete Composite StructureUploaded byIJIRST
- 13187_1.pdfUploaded bypepito
- 309314491 Composite Beam Design ExampleUploaded byAlphyl Balasabas
- volume 14- Issue 1 -studies -13.pdfUploaded byAnonymous wsOwcraM
- Rev 1 Structrl Report Izki Roof Bm Cracks 26 July 2017Uploaded byWilfredoEnghoy
- BEAMTAB-BeamEndConnectionUsingBeamTabUploaded byKiboy
- c 0343011020Uploaded byinventionjournals
- 220648790-Experimental-Investigation-on-Behavior-of-Bamboo-Reinforced-Concrete-Member.pdfUploaded byJoji Ann Uayan
- Doubly Reinforced SectionsUploaded byvvn123963
- Comparative Analysis of Reinforcement &Prestressed Concrete BeamsUploaded byTFC
- 6-composite-beams-en.pdfUploaded byKandarp Rajyaguru
- Engr. Suñega - 2wayslab-DdmUploaded byJustin
- Ce 6104 -ArcdUploaded byadi
- BSNL Summer trainingUploaded byTarun Sama