UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, JAMAICA

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Name and ID: Ricke’y McIntosh (1702021)

Programme: Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering
Module and module code: Engineering Mechanics Lab 1- MEE2018
Lecturer: Tara- Sue Rhoden
Laboratory Instructor: Jovan Ledgister
Laboratory Session: Tuesday 8:00am-11:00am
Laboratory Title: Polygon of Forces
Laboratory #: 2
Laboratory date: September 25,2018
Due date: October 26, 2018
RESULTS

Table 1: Part 1 Raw Data and Calculations

Strain Reading (µɛ) and Bending Force (N)

LOA W1 W2 W3
D (N) Strain Bending Strain Bending Strain Bending
Reading (µɛ) Force Reading (µɛ) Force Reading (µɛ) Force
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0161 3.58 0542 12.05 0157 3.49
20 0360 8.00 1073 23.85 0564 12.54
BENDING MOMENT (N∙mm)
Experimenta Theoretica Experimenta Theoretica Experimenta Theoretica
l l l l l l
10 537 667 1807.3 2000 523.5 1000
% Difference = 19.37 % Difference = 9.64 % Difference = 47.65
20 1200.4 1333.3 3577.9 4000 1880.6 2000
% Difference = 9.67 % Difference = 10.55 % Difference = 5.97

Table 2: Part 2 Raw and Calculated Values

Experimenta Theoretical
LOADING (N) Strain Bending l Bending Bending %
Reading Force (N) Moment Moment Difference
(µɛ) (N∙mm) (N∙mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
W2 = 5 0265 5.89 883.6 1000 11.64
W1=10, W2=5, W3=10 0749 16.65 2497.5 2666.7 6.34
W2 = 15 0770 17.12 2687.4 3000 10.42
W1=5, W3=2, W2=5
Span(mm): W1= 100, 0388 8.63 1293.8 1533.3 15.62
W3=600
W2 = 12 0622 13.83 2074.0 2400 13.58
W1=2, W3=5, W2=10
Span(mm): W1= 150, 0677 15.05 2257.4 2533.3 10.89
W3=700

Table 3: Part 3 Data and Calculations

LOADING (N) Strain Experimenta Theoretical
Reading Bending l Bending Bending %
(µɛ) Force (N) Moment Moment Difference
(N∙mm) (N∙mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
W1=5, W3=12 0493 10.96 1643.9 1933.3 14.97
W1=5, W2=10, W3=2 0687 15.27 2290.8 2600 11.89
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Calculating second moment area (I)

b d3
Second moment of area (I) ¿
12

9.56× 3.143
¿
12
= 24.66mm
Calculating bending force for W1
E∙ε ∙I
Bending force ¿
L∙ y
 −6
70,000 ×161 ×10 ×24.66
¿
49.46× 1.57
= 3.58 N
Calculating bending moment for W1 = 10N
Bending Moment = bending force x 150
= 3.58N x 150mm
= 537 N∙mm
Calculating theoretical bending moment for W1 = 10N
Taking Moments at RA
(RB * 900) + (-10 * 100) = 0 ∑F = 0
900RB = 1000 RA + RB – 10 = 0
RB = (1000 / 900) RA + 1.11 – 10 = 0
RB = 1.111N RA = 8.89N
Mx = RA * a –P1 (a-l1)
= 8.89 * 300 – 10(300 -100)
= 2667 – 2000
= 667 N∙mm (Theoretical Bending Moment)

666−537
% Difference ¿ ×100
666
= 19.37%

Part 2
Calculating bending force for W2 = 5N
E∙ε ∙I
Bending force ¿
L∙ y
−6
70,000 ×265 × 10 × 24.66
¿
49.46× 1.57
= 5.89 N
Calculating bending moment for W2 = 5N
Bending Moment = bending force x 150
= 5.89N x 150mm
= 883.6 N∙mm
Calculating theoretical bending moment for W2 = 5N
Taking Moments at RA
(RB * 900) + (-5 * 300) = 0 ∑F = 0
900RB = 1500 RA + R B – 5 = 0
RB = (1500 / 900) RA + 1.67 – 5 = 0
RB = 1.67N RA = 3.33N
Mx = RA * a –P1 (a-l1)
= 3.33 * 300 – 10(300 -300)
= 3.33 * 300 - 0
= 1000 N∙mm (Theoretical Bending Moment)
1000−883.6
% Difference ¿ × 100
1000
= 11.64%

For Part 3
Calculating bending force for W1 = 5N, W2 = 12N
E∙ε ∙I
Bending force ¿
L∙ y

70,000 × 493 ×10−6 ×24.66

¿
49.46 ×1.57
= 10.96 N
Calculating bending moment for W1 = 5N, W2 = 12N
Bending Moment = bending force x 150
= 10.96N x 150mm
= 1643.9 N∙mm
Calculating theoretical bending moment for W1 = 5N, W2 = 12N
Taking Moments at RA
(RB * 900) + (-5 * 300) + (-12*500) = 0 ∑F = 0
900RB = 6500 RA + RB – 5 - 12 = 0
RB = (6500 / 900) RA + 7.22 – 5 - 12 = 0
RB = 7.22N RA = 9.78N
Mx = RA * a –P1 (a-l1)
= 9.78 * 300 – 5(300 -100)
= 2933.3 - 1000
= 1933.3 N∙mm (Theoretical Bending Moment)
1933.3−1643.9
% Difference ¿ ×100
1933.3
= 14.97%

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

In the field of engineering, structures have to be formulated for various reasons and there

is often need for a structural element that is capable of withstanding load primarily by resisting

bending. This structural element is called a beam. A bending moment is the measure of the

bending effect on a member due to forces acting perpendicular to the length of the member. In
the case of a beam, the bending moment is a force about a fixed point that tends to deform or try

to bend the beam in a particular direction(clockwise or anti-clockwise). At a given section of a

beam, the bending moment is equal to the algebraic sum of the moments of all the forces to

either side of the section. However in many cases, simple supports give reactions to these

loadings, hence removing or minimizing the effect of the moments. The bending moment about a

fixed point is given by:

M = F.d ,

∑M = (F1.d1) + (F2.d2) + (F3.d3) + ..... = 0

where M= bending moment, F= force, d= perpendicular distance

When calculating the bending moment of a point in a beam, the support reactions have to

be determined first by taking moments. Once the supporting reactions are known the moments of

the point can be determined by cutting the beam at that point and using either side to determine

the bending moment. The bending moment is determined by equating the sum of the moments

given by each force acting on the beam from the respective distances from the point to zero,

while maintaining the sign conventions relative to direction.

In this Bending Moment in a Beam experiment various weights were added to various

points on the Bending Moment Apparatus and the obtained strain energy readings recorded. In

part 1 of this experiment the first thing observed was that when the load was zero the strain

energy was zero. Then a 10N load was applied to W1, W2 and then to W3 various readings were

obtained. It was observed that the strain energy obtained at W2 was larger than the one at W1 and

W3 this is because it is located directly at the section where the strain was being measured, and

the bending moment on the beam lessened as the load approached the supports at both A and B.
Another observation was that as the load increased the bending force increased, likewise the

bending moment. This can be seen when the load applied changed from 10N to 20N the bending

force and bending moment seemed to have been doubled maybe not exactly for the experimental

values because for some readings it was marginally below or above the doubled value, but the

theoretical values were doubled exactly. This proved that errors present affected the values

obtained in the experiment. Errors may have been the reason why a 47.65% difference was

obtained for the 10N weight on W3 in part 1 of the experiment. This is because there the

percentage difference should not have been that high when compared to the other percentage

differences that all falls in a range below 20%.

In part two of the experiment the loads were changed but span for W1, W3 and W2 was

kept in the same position and later changed to different positions and the loads were added to

more than one hanger at a time. There was a 5N load added to W2 which was observed to be

about half of the strain energy and experimental bending moment but exactly half of the

theoretical bending moment of the 10N weight added to W2 in part 1 of the experiment. The

percentage difference also falls in a range less than 20% and the theoretical bending moment

values were greater than the experimental bending moment values similar to part 1 of the

experiment. In part 3 a different load arrangement were done which was different from the

positions used in part 1 and 2, and similar to part 2 in which more than one loads were added at a

time and the position with the greater load had the greater strain. The theoretical values were also

larger than the experimental bending moment values and the percentage errors also falls in a

range that was less than 20% So after all 3 parts of this experiment was complete and readings

recorded, based on the result it can be observed that the bending moment at the “cut” is equal to

the algebraic sum of the moment of forces acting to the left or right of the cut. This is due to the
fact that the bending moment can be calculated based on the data’s distance. This can be proven

in the experiment that distance does affect the bending moment of a beam

Furthermore, errors could have been generated on behalf of the experimenter, whereby in

the interpretation of the data or the use of the equipment, the recorded values may have been

affected in some way.

Other possible sources of error and uncertainty which may have affected the results

obtained from this experiment include:

a) Parallax error from leveling the beam using the spirit level which proved to be quite

inaccurate.

b) Fluctuation of the strain readings displayed on the digital scale.

c) The weight hangers were free to slide along the beam and could have shifted during

loading or by environmental error (ex: wind).

These errors could be minimized by:

a) Using an Engineers Level and placing it across both sides of the beam to ensure they

are both leveled.

b) Gently placing weights onto the hangers and allowing them to become steady, at

which point there should be no fluctuation before taking strain readings.

c) Utilizing a beam with grooves to restrict movement of the weight hangers and/or

slowly adding weights and checking to ensure the hanger is still in position after

weights have been added.

In this experiment the results obtained experimentally seemed to be precise while on

the on other hand the result that were obtained theoretically prove to be accurate and the
closeness of these two values proved that the experiment was in agreement with the

theory.