Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ME2211 A
Statics Laboratory
Group A1
The Deflection of Beams
Date of Experiment: 9/26/13
Date of Lab Report Submission: 10/10/13
This lab report submission is approved by:
Grading:
William Peng
Signature:_________
John Giammarino
Signature:_________
Avitosh Totaram
Signature:_________
Jerome Scelza
Signature:_________
Objectives:
Introduction:
Theory:
Observations:
Discussion:
Conclusions:
References:
Total:
/5
/15
/10
/10
/45
/10
/5
/100
1. Objective
The objective of this lab is for the researchers to observe the deflection behavior of beams and
cantilevers throughout a series of experiments. These experiments use different materials,
positions and weights to see how different beams resist bending.
2. Introduction
2.1 The Importance of the Experiment
The purpose of this lab was to educate the experimenter with the occurrence of the Deflection of
Beams. In engineering, deflection is the degree to which a structural element is displaced under
a load. [1] More specifically this lab was carried out by testing the deflection of beams; under a
range of loads, at different fixture points and with three different materials (brass, aluminum and
steel). The importance of a solid understanding of deflection is a very important tool in every
engineers toolbox. At the most basic level, deflection will allow the engineer to test and analyze
the strength and rigidity of a structure. At the more advanced level, deflection can be used to
understand the reaction of a material on the atomic level and be used by an engineer to develop
new alloys of materials that can suit the necessary criteria for specific projects. An example of
some modern day engineering projects relevant to deflection can be seen below.
Because the characteristic of a material a determinant of properties such as the crystalline and
atomic structure and it patterns, by testing objects on a small scale an engineers gains insight
into how the material will act on a much larger scale. For example, a major component of the
properties of any material is; its Elastic and Youngs Modulus. You will soon realize that it is
relatively easy to test for these qualities on a small scale. And by doing so an engineer can
determine how a material or beam 20 times its size will react under the load of a one hundred
story building.
Image 2.1 The above image is a CAD model of the wing deflection of a small aircraft
3. Theory [4]
3.1 Deflection of a Cantilever
Deflection is the resistance of a structure to deform with an applied load. The deformation could
be measured in terms of an angle, or by the distance displaced.
Note: W - Load (N), L - Distance from support to position of load (m), E Youngs modulus
for cantilever material (
), I Second moment of area of the cantilever (
3.2 Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam & The Shape of a Deflection Beam
Note: W - Load (N), R Radius of curvature (m), E Youngs modulus for cantilever material
(
), I Second moment of area of the cantilever (
Note: R Radius of curvature (m), C Chord (m), h Height of the chord (m).
3.4.4 Experiment 4
For the Circular Bending, students are to place the movable knife edges 400 mm apart from each
other in the center of the scale. Then the movable digital dial test indicator is then placed in the
middle of the movable knife edges. At the edges of the material, students are to place equal
amounts of mass while recording the results from the movable digital dial test indicator.
4. Observations
4.1 Experiment 1
Table 1: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Brass Beam
105
18.55
3.11
4.6510-11
Mass (g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Load (N)
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
3.92
4.90
The actual deflection is the deflection measured, which is the sum of the deflection of the beam
under its own weight and the deflection due to external loading.
Mass (g)
Load (N)
Deviation (mm)
0
100
200
0
0.98
1.96
3.02
3.15
3.23
300
400
500
2.94
3.92
4.90
3.34
3.53
3.59
0.32
0.51
0.57
The deviation accounting for initial deflection is simply the difference between the deviation and
the deflection of the beam under only its own weight, without an external load.
207
19.30
3.13
4.9310-11
Mass (g)
0
100
200
300
Load (N)
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
400
500
3.92
4.90
3.63
3.90
1.02
1.28
Mass (g)
Load (N)
Deviation (mm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
3.92
4.90
2.47
2.474
2.528
2.562
2.61
2.62
69
18.99
3.08
4.6210-11
7
Table 8: Load and Deflection of a Cantilevered Aluminum Beam
Mass (g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Load (N)
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
3.92
4.90
Mass (g)
Load (N)
Deviation (mm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
3.92
4.90
3.48
3.52
3.50
3.56
3.64
3.59
8
7
6
y = 0.0065x + 3.0148
Brass
Steel
Aluminum
4
y = 0.0029x + 2.459
Linear (Brass)
Linear (Steel)
Linear (Aluminum)
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
4.2 Experiment 2
Table 10: Mechanical Properties of a Simply Supported Aluminum Beam
69
18.99
3.08
4.6210-11
Mass (g)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Load (N)
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
3.92
4.90
9
Table 12: Deviation of Measurements from Theoretical Deflection
Mass (g)
Load (N)
Deviation (mm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
0.98
1.96
2.94
3.92
4.90
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.03
10
2.5
y = 0.0042x + 0.011
1.5
1
0.5
100
200
300
400
500
Length (mm)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Load used for this part of Experiment 2 was 500g placed at the center.
600
11
4.5
y = 2.89E-08x3 + 2.38E-06x2 - 7.39E-04x + 1.03E-01
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
100
200
300
400
Length between Supports (mm)
500
600
4.3 Experiment 3
Table 14: Shape of a Deflected Simply Supported Beam
Deflection (mm)
-1.44
-0.9
-0.37
0.19
12
80
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0.46
0.63
0.77
0.60
0.17
0.80
0.69
0.61
0.60
0.72
0.57
0.35
-0.27
-0.59
-1.57
-2.48
-3.18
-3.46
-3.80
-3.36
-1.98
-0.53
0.63
1.57
0.73
1.22
2.34
3.08
3.35
4.26
4.49
3.97
2.58
1.25
-0.06
-1.22
2
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-1
Series1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Position (mm)
4.4 Experiment 4
Table 15: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Aluminum Beam
69
18.99
3.08
4.6210-11
13
Table 16: Circular Bending of an Aluminum Beam
Mass at
Deflection,
each end (g)
h (mm)
0
0.00
100
0.52
200
1.09
300
1.71
400
2.29
500
2.88
Applied Moment,
M (Nm)
0.00
0.098
0.196
0.294
0.392
0.490
)
)
Radius of Curvature, R
(m)
Infinity (division by 0)
38.5
18.3
11.7
8.73
6.95
1/R
M/I (109)
0.00
0.0260
0.0546
0.0855
0.115
0.144
0.00
2.12
4.24
6.36
8.48
10.6
14
207
19.30
3.13
4.9310-11
Mass at
Deflection Applied Moment M (Nm)
each end (g)
h (mm)
0
0.01
0.00
100
0.21
0.098
200
0.40
0.196
300
0.59
0.294
400
0.78
0.392
500
0.95
0.490
Radius of
Curvature R (m)
2109
95.2
50
33.9
25.6
21.1
1/R
M/I (107)
510-10
0.0105
0.02
0.0295
0.0391
0.0474
0.00
1.99
3.98
5.96
7.95
9.94
105
18.55
3.11
4.6510-11
15
Table 20: Circular Bending of a Brass Beam
Mass at
Deflection
each end (g)
h (mm)
0
0.02
100
0.46
200
0.88
300
1.31
400
1.74
500
2.16
Applied Moment
M (Nm)
0.00
0.098
0.196
0.294
0.392
0.490
Radius of Curvature
R (m)
1000
43.5
22.7
15.3
11.5
9.26
1/R
M/I (107)
0.001
0.0230
0.0441
0.0654
0.0870
0.108
0.00
2.11
4.22
6.32
8.43
10.5
16
y = 98.301x - 0.1186
y = 72.854x + 0.1383
10
M/I (N/m3)
8
Aluminum
Steel
Brass
Linear (Aluminum)
Linear (Steel)
Linear (Brass)
0.02
-2
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
1/R (1/m)
Metal
Steel
Brass
Aluminum
Experimental Elastic
Modulus, (GPa)
209
98
73
The experimental elastic moduli were taken as the slopes of the graph of M/I vs 1/R.
17
5. Discussion
5.1 Experiment 1
It can be clearly seen in experiment 1 that as the mass hanging on the beam increases, the
deflection of the beam also increases. It can also be seen that aluminum beam deflected the most,
the brass beam deflected slightly less than the aluminum beam, and the steel beam deflected the
least. Since the placement of the mass and the mass itself were the same for each beam, the
differences in the deflection must then be a result of differences in the properties of the materials.
Specifically, the property that determines the deflection is the modulus of elasticity or Youngs
modulus. This value is a measure of stiffness of a material. The deflection seen in this
experiment makes sense when this property is taken into account. The higher the modulus is, the
greater the stiffness of the material will be and therefore the less the material will deflect. Steel
has a very high elastic modulus of 207GPa, brass has a modulus of 105GPa, and aluminum has a
relatively low modulus of 69GPa. The values we measured for beam deflection deviated slightly
from the expected values based on theory. The highest deviation was recorded for brass at
9.09%. Steel deviated by 3.86% and aluminum deviated by 2.31%.
One of the biggest reasons for discrepancy between the actual and theoretical values of
deflection for the first experiment was the deflection of the beam under its own weight. The
theoretical deflection assumes the beam to be massless. As a result, the beam would not deflect if
no external load were applied. The beam, however, is not massless. It applies a load to itself and
deflects slightly under the conditions of the experiment, even with no external load. The
measured deflection therefore is the sum of the deflection under the beams weight and the
deflection due to external loading. It can be seen in Tables 3, 6, and 9 that this has a more
pronounced effect on materials with a lower elastic modulus.
5.2 Experiment 2
Experiment 2 demonstrates the relationship that exists between the separation of supports in a
simply supported beam and the deflection in the beam for a constant mass. It is clear that as this
distance increases, the beam deflection also increases. In context of our knowledge of levers and
torques, this makes sense. It is known that a force acting on a lever system is dependent on the
distance between the point of application and the fulcrum. A force applied at a greater distance
from the fulcrum will produce a greater torque on the system than an equivalent force applied at
a lesser distance from the fulcrum. A simply supported beam is nothing more than a lever system
supported by two fulcrums. As the distance between these fulcrums increases, the distance
between the force and the fulcrums increases and thus the torque on the system increases,
deflecting the beam more. Based on Figure 3, it can be seen that this relationship follows a cubic
function.
18
6. Conclusion
This lab successfully concluded that the deflection of beams could be tested using the apparatus;
and an understanding of the principles and theory could be obtained. The objective of this lab
was to analyze the deflection of the beams and to compare them against the theoretical data. The
following results show that aside from the distortion of the beams from repeatedly being used for
this experiment the relative error was within the scope of the experiment.
Table 6.1 -
Brass
9.09%.
Aluminum
2.31%.
19
Table 6.2 -
Brass
6.67%
Aluminum
5.80%
This lab report has conveyed the importance for an engineer to understand the deflection of
beams under specific loads and different fixture types. With this understanding the engineer can
begin to implement his/her knowledge into more advanced systems of analysis such as;
dynamics, aerodynamics and mechanics of materials.
20
References
1. Beer FP, Johnston ER, Mazurek DF, Cornell PJ, and Eisenberg, ER. (2009) Vector
Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dymanics. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill. p 158.
2. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07, engineering, accessed 6 May 2008
3. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005579/Information/ForcesEqui.htm
4. Hi-Tech Education, HST 1/1 Equilibrium of Forces
5. Meriam, James L., and L. Glenn Kraige. Engineering Mechanics (6th ed.) Hoboken, N.J.:
John Wiley & Sons, 2007; p. 23
6. Gere, James M.; Goodno, Barry J. Mechanics of Materials (Eighth ed.). p. 1083-1087.