Lincoln University College Malaysia

Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)

Civil Engineering Technology

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ i

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................ii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iii

1. EXPERIMENT 4 DEFLECTION TEST ON CANTILEVER BEAM................ 1

1.1 AIM: ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 APARRATUS: ................................................................................................. 1

1.3 THEORY:......................................................................................................... 1

1.4 PROCEDURE: ................................................................................................. 3

1.5 OBSERVATIONS: .......................................................................................... 4

1.5.1 Test Set up Number 1 ................................................................................. 4

1.5.2 Test Set up Number 2 ................................................................................. 5

1.5.3 Test Set up Number 3 ................................................................................. 7

1.5.4 Test Set up Number 4 ................................................................................. 8

1.6 SAMPLE CALCULATION ............................................................................. 9

1.7 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 10

1.8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12

i
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Experiment Set up for the Cantilever Beam ---------------------------------------------- 1

Figure 2: Slop and Deflection of Cantilever Beam with Point Load ------------------------------ 2
Figure 3: Load Deflection Curve ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Figure 4: Test Set up Number 1 with Case I and Case II ------------------------------------------- 4
Figure 5: Test Set up Number 4 with Case I and Case II ------------------------------------------- 6
Figure 6: Test Set up Number 4 with Case I and Case II ------------------------------------------- 7
Figure 7: Test Set up Number 4 with Case I and Case II ------------------------------------------- 8
Figure 8: Load Deflection Curve for Test Set up 1, Case I ----------------------------------------10
Figure 9: Young Modulus Verses Cantilever Beam Span Relationship -------------------------11

ii
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 1, Case I ----------------------------------- 5

Table 2: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 1, Case II ---------------------------------- 5
Table 3: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 2, Case I ----------------------------------- 6
Table 4: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 2, Case II ---------------------------------- 6
Table 5: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 3, Case I ----------------------------------- 7
Table 6: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 3, Case I ----------------------------------- 8
Table 7: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 4, Case I ----------------------------------- 9
Table 8: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 4, Case II ---------------------------------- 9
Table 9: Summary for Average Deflection and Young Modulus Value for All Tests Set Up - 9

iii
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

1. EXPERIMENT 4
DEFLECTION TEST ON CANTILEVER BEAM

1.1 AIM:
To find the value of flexural rigidity (EI) for a given beam and compare it with
theoretical value. - Elastic Properties of Deflected Beam Apparatus.
1.2 APARRATUS:
Dial gauge with magnetic base, Vernier callipers, scale and slotted weights.

Figure 1: Experiment Set up for the Cantilever Beam

1.3 THEORY:
It can be shown analytically by double integration method that the deflection at B due to load
C as shown in Figure 1, is given
d2y
The general BM equation at cut section x is M x  Wl  Wx  EI  Wl  Wx
dx 2
dy Wx 2
First integration  EI  Wlx   C1 ,
dx 2
Wlx 2 Wx3
Second integration  EIy    C1 x  C2
2 6
The boundary conditions: at x  0, y  0
dy
at x  0, 0
dx
Subsitute these values in both equtions as follow:
W  0
2
dy Wx 2
EI  Wlx   C1  EI  0   Wl  0    C1  C1  0
dx 2 2
Wl  0  W  0 
2 3
Wlx 2 Wx3
EIy    C1 x  C2  EI  0     C1  0   C2  C2  0
2 6 2 6

1
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

dy Wx 2 Wlx 2 Wx 3
Slop equation : EI  Wlx  and Deflection equation: EIy  
dx 2 2 6
Substituting x by l ,
dy Wl 2 Wl 2 Wl 2
EI  
at B  Wl 2
  thus , theslop at B =
dx 2 2 2 EI
3 3 3
Wl Wl Wl Wl 3
EIy    thus , the deflection at B =
2 6 3 3EI
The deflected shape of the cantilever beam with point load located at free end or at some
distance from the fixed end can be seen clearly in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Slop and Deflection of Cantilever Beam with Point Load

Wa 2 Wa 3 Wa 2
C = , yC = and  C =  B  Thus, yB  yC   C  l  a 
2 EI 3EI 2 EI
Wa 3 Wa 2 Wa 3 Wla 2 Wa 3 Wa 2
yB    l  a   yB     yB   3l  a 
3EI 2 EI 3EI 2 EI 2 EI 6 EI
Thus :
Young Modulus of a cantilever Beam with point load can be obtained as follows:
CaseI: If the point load applied at Point C, and the dial gauge reading at point ' B' (Free End)
a 2  3l  a  W
E  .....................(1)
6I yB
where; E :Young Modulus, W :Point Load at C, a :Distance from Fixed End
I :Second Moment of Inertia , and yB :Beam Deflection at point ' B'.

2
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

CaseII: If the point load applied at Point C, and the dial gauge reading at point 'C '.
a 2  3l  a  W
E  .....................(2)
6I yC
where;
yC :Beam Deflection at point 'C '.

1.4 PROCEDURE:
1. Decide the points of load application and deflection measurement and measure ‘L’ and
‘a’ with the scale.
2. Measure the cross-sectional dimensions, b and d of the beam with Vernier callipers.
3. Set up the dial gauge ‘D’ at the deflection measure point and set it to zero reading.
4. Apply the load and note the corresponding dial gauge reading.
5. Increase the load in suitable steps and note the corresponding dial gauge reading at each
step (at least six load increments).
6. Note the dial gauge reading in the descending order of the loads as well and tabulate
the observations as shown in Figure 3.
7. Plot the graph between the applied load ‘W’ on the Y – axis and deflection δ on the X
– axis as shown in Figure 3.
8. The slope of the straight-line W/ δ yields the average value. Calculate the value of E by
substituting W/ δ in equation (2)
9. Repeat the experiment for various value of ‘L’ and ‘a’ and changing the point of load
application and deflection measurement. Tabulate the results in the Table 2.

Figure 3: Load Deflection Curve

Notice that the graph is a straight line passing through the origin (note the error, otherwise,
apply the correction).

3
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

1.5 OBSERVATIONS:

1.5.1 Test Set up Number 1

In this test setup for cantilever beam, some dimensions and parameters are needed to be
defined prior to the experiment execution which are as follows:
Breadth of the beam, b = 2 mm
Depth of the beam, d = 2 mm
Span, L = 640 mm
a = 420 mm

bh3  2  2 
3

Moment of inertia, I   1.33 mm4

12 12
Moreover, in this test set up, two cases are performed. the first case dial gauge is located at
point ‘B’ (Free end). The Second case is when the dial gauge was moved to point ‘C’. Figure
4 shows the test set up for both cases. The readings of the deflection associated with applied
loading were taken for each case individually.

Figure 4: Test Set up Number 1 with Case I and Case II

Table 1 contains the deflection readings for case I where dial gauge at free end. Table 2
shows the deflection readings for the cantilever recorded at point ‘C’.

4
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

Table 1: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 1, Case I

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)
1 2.0 10.0 11.0 10.5 0.105
2 4.0 20.0 22.0 21.0 0.210
3 6.0 30.0 32.0 31.0 0.310
4 8.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 0.420
5 10.0 51.0 53.0 52.0 0.520
6 12.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 0.610
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

Table 2: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 1, Case II

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)

1 2.0 10.0 11.0 10.5 0.105

2 4.0 20.0 21.0 20.5 0.205
3 6.0 31.0 32.0 31.5 0.315
4 8.0 42.0 44.0 43.0 0.430
5 10.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 0.540
6 12.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 0.640
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

1.5.2 Test Set up Number 2

In this test setup for cantilever beam, some dimensions and parameters are needed to be
defined prior to the experiment execution which are as follows:
Breadth of the beam, b = 2 mm
Depth of the beam, d = 2 mm
Span, L = 640 mm
a = 420 mm

bh3  2  2 
3

Moment of inertia, I   1.33 mm4

12 12
Figure 5 shows the test set up number 2 for case I and Case II. Table 3 and 4 contain the
deflection readings for case I and case II.

5
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

Figure 5: Test Set up Number 4 with Case I and Case II

Table 3: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 2, Case I

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)
1 2.0 10.0 11.0 10.5 0.105
2 4.0 21.0 22.0 21.5 0.215
3 6.0 32.0 33.0 32.5 0.325
4 8.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 0.440
5 10.0 53.0 55.0 54.0 0.540
6 12.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 0.670
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

Table 4: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 2, Case II

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. (N) Loading Unloading Average (mm)

1 2.0 12.0 13.0 12.5 0.125

2 4.0 23.0 24.0 23.5 0.235
3 6.0 35.0 36.0 35.5 0.355
4 8.0 47.0 48.0 47.5 0.475
5 10.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 0.590
6 12.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 0.700
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

6
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

1.5.3 Test Set up Number 3

In this test setup for cantilever beam, the beam length increased to 700 mm while the other
parameters remain the same:
Breadth of the beam, b = 2 mm
Depth of the beam, d = 2 mm
Span, L = 700 mm
a = 420 mm

bh3  2  2 
3

Moment of inertia, I   1.33 mm4

12 12
Figure 6 shows the test set up number 3 for case I and Case II. Table 5 and 6 contain the
deflection readings for case I and case II.

Figure 6: Test Set up Number 4 with Case I and Case II

Table 5: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 3, Case I

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection
S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)
1 2.0 10.0 14.0 12.0 0.120
2 4.0 21.0 25.0 23.0 0.230
3 6.0 36.0 34.0 35.0 0.350
4 8.0 46.0 51.0 48.5 0.485
5 10.0 60.0 63.0 61.5 0.615
6 12.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 0.730
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

7
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

Table 6: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 3, Case I

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)

1 2.0 12.0 13.0 12.5 0.125

2 4.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.250
3 6.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 0.380
4 8.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 0.510
5 10.0 62.0 64.0 63.0 0.630
6 12.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 0.750
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

1.5.4 Test Set up Number 4

The beam length increased to 740 mm while the other parameters remain the same:
Breadth of the beam, b = 2 mm
Depth of the beam, d = 2 mm
Span, L = 740 mm
a = 420 mm

bh3  2  2 
3

Moment of inertia, I   1.33 mm4

12 12
Figure 7 shows the test set up number 3 for case I and Case II. Table 7 and 8 contain the
deflection readings for case I and case II.

Figure 7: Test Set up Number 4 with Case I and Case II

8
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

Table 7: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 4, Case I

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)
1 2.0 12.0 15.0 13.5 0.135
2 4.0 24.0 28.0 26.0 0.260
3 6.0 37.0 42.0 39.5 0.395
4 8.0 51.0 52.0 51.5 0.515
5 10.0 64.0 68.0 66.0 0.660
6 12.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 0.760
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

Table 8: Deflection Readings for Test Set up Number 4, Case II

Load Dial gauge readings Deflection

S.No. Average
(N) Loading Unloading (mm)

1 2.0 10.2 10.3 10.25 0.1025

2 4.0 20.5 20.5 20.5 0.2050
3 6.0 40.0 41.0 40.5 0.4050
4 8.0 50.3 50.4 50.35 0.5035
5 10.0 60.6 60.6 60.6 0.6060
6 12.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 0.8000
Note: Least count of dial gauges = 0.01mm

Table 9 shows the summary for the average deflection reading and the computed young
modulus for each test set up.
Table 9: Summary for Average Deflection and Young Modulus Value for All Tests Set Up

Location dial gauge for Young’s

Span, L
S.No. a (mm) value of E (MN/mm2) Average Modulus, E
(mm)
(MN/mm2)
at point B at point C
1 640 420 648.98 609.80 629.39 629.39
2 680 420 638.17 615.74 626.96 626.96
3 700 420 596.92 589.84 593.38 593.38
4 740 420 624.13 573.40 598.76 598.76
1.6 SAMPLE CALCULATION

9
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

The sample calculation is made for test set up I, case I and Case II as follows:
The dimensions and the parameters are defined as mentioned earlier,
Breadth of the beam, b = 2 mm
Depth of the beam, d = 2 mm
Span, L = 640 mm
a = 420 mm

bh3  2  2 
3

Moment of inertia, I   1.33 mm4

12 12
CaseI: The load applied at Point C, and the dial gauge reading at point ' B '.
a 2  3l  a  W  420    3  640  420  19.622 106  649.15 MN
2

E  E
6I yB 6 1.333
CaseII: The load applied at Point C, and the dial gauge reading at point 'C '
a 2  3l  a  W  420    3  640  420  18.437 106  609.9 MN
2

E  E
6I yC 6 1.333
649.15  609.9
Average E   629.525 MN
2

1.7 DISCUSSION
From the experiment, a linear graph by plotting the load versus the deflection obtained for all
the four test sets ups as shown in Figure 8 The slope of the straight-line W/δ yields will give
the value of Modulus of Elasticity in which indicates that slope is main factor in determining
the modulus of elasticity.

Load Deflection Curve

14
12 y = 19.622x - 0.1128
10
Load (N)

8
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Deflection (mm)

Figure 8: Load Deflection Curve for Test Set up 1, Case I

10
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

The curve shows a linear relationship between the load and the deflection of the cantilever
beam. From Table 2, two location at point B and C that considered to find the value of Young’s
Modulus for each span, L. Furthermore, it can be seen from Figure 9 that as the beam length
increases, the young modulus decreases and that is due to the induced increase in defection of
the beam which will reduce it stiffness.

640.00
Young Modulu E,(MN/mm2)

620.00

600.00

580.00
620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
Beam Span (mm)

Figure 9: Young Modulus Verses Cantilever Beam Span Relationship

Furthermore, theoretically, modulus of elasticity is supposed to be equal in both cases in each

test set up. However, in this case, the variation between modulus of elasticity calculated for
test set up 1 with dial gauge located at B and C was 6%. Similarly, the variation of modulus of
elasticity for test set up 2,3 and 4 are 4%, 1% and 8 respectively. These variations may result
from some errors such as:
1. Error in measuring equipment like scale, dial gauges with magnetic base and
Vernier calliper.
2. Dial gauge is sensitive measuring equipment. It is sensitive with touching by
human hand, vibration and environment surrounding. So, it is will give effect
reading of the dial gauges corresponding with increasing load W.
3. Every differentiation span, L not measure with exactly and position of the two dial
gauges not refer to the Figure 1.
4. Not understand right procedure, method and precaution before doing this
experiment that will waste time to do next experiment.

11
Lincoln University College Malaysia
Faculty of Engineering Structural Analysis -I (BCE 2123)
Civil Engineering Technology

5. Moving or vibration that may give effect the reading of the dial gauges when
increasing the load in suitable step by step.

1.8 CONCLUSION
The average value of Young’s Modulus (Modulus of Elasticity) of the material of the given
beam by conducting deflection test on cantilever beam from this experiment is 612 MN/mm2

12