You are on page 1of 6

ENGD2007

Analysis of beams
Objectives:
(1) To compute beam deflection using formulae.
(2) To verify computation results by experiments.

Apparatus:
-2 Knife edge supports
-Rigid support
-Dial Gauges
-Weights
-Weight carrier
-Mild steel bar (b=25.4mm, h=4.76mm)
-Brass bar (b=25.4mm, h=6.35mm)
I value calculations:

The direct integration method is used to derive formula:

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2007

Case 1
L = 400 mm=0.4m W
a = b = L/2=200mm=0.2m L
W = 600 gram = 5.88 N
E = 206 GN/m2 a b
1.

d
d1

2.
Experimental
2.31+2.15
δ= =2.23
2
0.77+0.70
𝛿1 = =0.735
2

3.
Percentage errors:
2.67−2.23
δ: 𝑥 100 = 19.73%
2.23
0.835 − 0.735
𝛿1 : 𝑥 100 = 13.61%
0.735
The error percentages displayed above are reasonably large and this may be due to many
reasons. Such as parallax error that may have occurred during the experiment when the
measurements were being read off the dial gauge.
The equipment used such as the dial gauges and weights may have a tolerance value (+/-
1%) which implies the value provided by the gauge itself may not be completely accurate,
and the values stated on the weights may also slightly differ from the actual value of the
weights.
Hysteresis error may have occurred as the apparatus has been used for experiments in the
past. This would have led the experiment to undergo general ware and tare damage; this
would affect the needle of the gauge resulting in an inaccurate reading.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2007

Case 2
1. W
L = 400 mm=0.4m a b
a = b = L/2=200mm=0.2m
W = 1100 gram = 10.78 N
E = 206 GN/m2
d2 d
d1

2.
0.45+0.54+0.465
𝛿1 = =0.485
2
mm
0.91+1.17+0.96
𝛿= =1.01mm
2

𝛿=0.485+1.01=1.495mm

3.
Percentage errors:
0.612−0.485
𝛿1 : 0.485 𝑥 100 = 26.19%
1.53 − 1.01
𝛿: 𝑥 100 = 51.49%
1.01

The error percentages are very high for case 2 of the experiment; this may be due to the
reasons stated below:
This case has share the same errors as case 1, such as parallax error and hysteresis error.
Another error that could show the high percentage error could be due to random error. This
error could have occurred as when the weight was added to the middle of the beam, it was
added using the naked eye, which could have been misread.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2007

Case 3
1.
W1 W2
L = 400 mm=0.4m a b
a = b = L/2=200mm=0.2m
W1= 1100 gram = 10.78 N
W2=600g gram =5.88N d
E = 206 GN/m2
d1

2.
1.55+1.5+1.5
𝛿1 = =1.52mm
3

𝛿=𝛿1 +𝛿2
4.5+4.05+4.13
𝛿= =4.23mm
3

3.
Percentage errors:
1.53−1.52
𝛿1 : 𝑥 100 = 0.66%
1.52

4.23 − 4.2
δ: 𝑥 100 = 0.71%
4.2

The error percentages for this case are very low in comparison to those in cases 1 & 2 (19.73
& 26.19). This may be because a different method was used to calculate the divergence-
Superposition method. This proves that the sum of the two sub-deflection values to obtain a
final deflection value is a more accurate method, and provides results that are more
reliable.
This part of the experiment includes similar errors as both case 1 and case 2, the same
errors could’ve occurred such as parallax error, hysteresis error and random error.
However, the values above were calculated using the superposition method and therefore
this evidently decreased the error within the experiment making the results gained from the
experiment valid.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2007

Case 4
W
How the direct integration method is used to derive formula:
L/2 L/2

1.
L = 800 mm=0.8m
W= 1100 gram = 10.78 N
E = 110 GN/m2

2.
1.98+1.99+2.01
𝛿= =1.99mm
3

3.
Percentage errors:
1.99 − 1.93
δ: 𝑥 100 = 3.11%
1.93
The error percentages displayed above are reasonably large and this may be due to many
reasons such as parallax error that may have occurred during the experiment when the
measurements were being read off the dial gauge.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2007

Case 5 10 kN
5kN/m
10 kN/m

A B C D

2m 2m 2m

Reaction forces:

Shear force diagram:

Bending Moment diagram:

Maximum bending moment at C,


therefore distance from A-C=4m
The point of contraflexure is when
the curvature of the beam changes
sign, this is the same point at which
the bending moment becomes
negative, which is 1m.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

You might also like