RESULTS

Type of Length, L (mm)

Specimen 1 2 3 Average
Beam 1350 1350 1350 1350

Experiment (1):

b (mm) 450 400 350 300 250 200

W (N) h h h h h h

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.23 0.25

10 0.16 0.25 0.33 0.4 0.45 0.48

15 0.25 0.37 0.49 0.59 0.67 0.71

20 0.34 0.5 0.65 0.78 0.88 0.93

25 0.43 0.63 0.81 0.98 1.1 1.18

h=deflection (mm)

Experiment (2):

Set Theoretical Deflection Experimental Deflection % Difference

Set 1 0.408 0.420 2.940
Set 2 0.558 0.560 0.360
Set 3 0.484 0.500 3.310
Set 4 0.646 0.650 0.620
Set 5 0.968 0.960 0.830
 CALCULATION

1350+1350+1350
Average beam length = 3

= 1350mm
Experiment (1):
k = deflection 5N load
(ℎ𝑤=5 − ℎ𝑤=0 ) (ℎ𝑤=10 − ℎ𝑤=5 ) (ℎ𝑤=15 − ℎ𝑤=10 ) (ℎ𝑤=20 − ℎ𝑤=15 )
𝑘= + + +
5 5 5 5
(ℎ𝑤=25 − ℎ𝑤=20 )
+
5
h = deflection (mm)

Example of calculation for b=300mm:

0.20 − 0 0.40 − 0.20 0.59 − 0.40 0.78 − 0.59 0.98 − 0.78

𝑘= + + + +
5 5 5 5 5
𝑘 = 0.196

Experiment (2):

Set (1):
10N applied at b = 450mm
5N applied at b = 200mm
Deflection due to 10N = 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚
Deflection due to 5N = 𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚
Total Deflection = 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚 + 𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚
= 2(0.086) + 0.236
= 0.408mm
Set (2):
5N applied at b = 450mm
10N applied at b = 350mm
Deflection due to 10N = 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚
Deflection due to 5N = 𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚
Total Deflection = 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚 + 𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚
= 2(0.236) + 0.086
= 0.558mm
Set (3):
5N applied at b = 200mm ; b=350m; b=450mm
Deflection due to 5N = 𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚 ; 𝑘𝑎𝑡 350𝑚𝑚 ; 𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚
Total Deflection = 𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚 + 𝑘𝑎𝑡 350𝑚𝑚 + 𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚
= 0.086 + 0.162 + 0.236
= 0.484mm
Set (4):
5N applied at b = 200mm; b=450mm
10N applied at b = 350mm
Deflection due to 5N= 𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚 ; 𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚
Total Deflection = 𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚 + 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 350𝑚𝑚 + 𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚
= 0.086 + 2(0.162) + 0.236
= 0.646mm
Set (5):
10N applied at b = 200mm ; b=350m; b=450mm
Deflection due to 10N = 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚 ; 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 350𝑚𝑚 ; 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚
Total Deflection = 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 450𝑚𝑚 + 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 350𝑚𝑚 + 2𝑘𝑎𝑡 200𝑚𝑚
= 2(0.086) + 2(0.162) + 2(0.236)
= 0.968mm
Example of calculation % difference between theoretical deflection and experimental
deflection:
Set (1):
| 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛|
% Difference = ∗ 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

|0.408−0.420|
= ∗ 100%
0.408

= 2.940%
 Graph of deflection (h) against distance from load to deflection point (b)
1.4

1.2
1.18

1.1

1
0.98
0.93
0.88
Deflection (h)/mm

0.8 0.81
0.78 5N
0.71 10N
0.67
0.65
0.63 15N
0.6 0.59
20n
0.49 0.5 25N
0.48
0.45
0.43
0.4 0.4
0.37
0.33 0.34

0.25 0.25 0.25

0.23
0.2 0.2
0.16 0.16
0.12
0.08

0
200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance of load to deflection point (b)/mm
 DISCUSSION
This experiment is to find the influence line for beam and to compare them with
value predicted from theory. An influence line is important in determine the deflection
in a point when a moving load travel across the structure. Influence line for the
deflection of a point on a beam is a line showing the relationship between the deflection
of that point and the position of application of a unit load acting on the beam. The
deflection of the point due to the application of any load to the beam is obtained by
applying the principle of superposition after multiplying the ordinate of the influence
line by the magnitude of the load.
Influence line test consists of two experiment. For experiment 1, we considered
a point load that concentrated on a beam. The point load is placed at different location
with increasing weight. The dial gauge readings are recorded accordingly with the vary
value of weight (W) for chosen value a and b and tabulated in table form. The mean
deflection per increment for each set of readings is calculated and recorded as ‘k’
value. The value of ‘k’ can be calculated as follows:
𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
k=
5𝑁 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑

The ‘k’ value for each set of readings is then used to calculate the theoretical deflection
in experiment 2. According to data sheet 3, our experimental deflection value is quite
close with the theoretical deflection. The highest percentage difference is 3.31% for
set 3 reading which is still in the allowable range that less than 20%.
The difference between the theoretical and experimental deflection value may
due to several factor. Firstly, the experimental result may due to the sensitivity of dial
gauge. We already set the dial gauge reading to zero before we started both
experiment. After we removed the weights to proceed with another set, the dial gauge
reading supposed to return to zero, but it still indicated 0.01 or 0.02 reading instead.
This showed there are errors related the dial gauge sensitivity. The solutions for this
issue are we set again the dial gauge reading to zero each time before proceed to
another set of readings and we can replace the dial gauge with digital dial gauge.
Secondly, the imperfection of the beam specimen. The beam specimen has
been used for numerous time before this. The beam believed to be deformed slightly
in term of its dimension. It may lose its elasticity characteristic. The best way to
overcome this problem is to replace the old beam with a new one before started the
experiment.
Thirdly, the experiment deflection value may be slightly differ from theoritical
value due to load hanger issue. The hanger swung, vibrated and not stayed stationary.
This cause the dial gauge reading fluctuated throughout the experiment. One of the
effort that can be done is to make sure the load hanger is firmly stationary before taking
the reading.
Although there are slightly difference between the theoretical and experimental
deflection value, our results are still acceptable because the percentage difference
value within the allowable range. From the graph of deflection, h against distance, b
for different load, W, all lines are showing the same trend for different load. Hence,
this result is verified.

CONCLUSION
In this experiment, we are required to find influence line for 1350mm steel beam
and then used the results to compare the experimental value with theoretical.
Our experiment consists of two experiments. In experiment 1, we are required
to locate the influence by find ‘k’ value at distance of 450mm, 400mm, 350mm, 300mm,
250mm, and 200m. The results that we obtained are 0.086, 0.126, 0.162, 0.196, 0.22
and 0.236 respectively which are increasing near the gauge.
In experiment 2, we used the result of k value from experiment 1 to calculate
the theoretical deflection value for each set of readings. After that, we compare both
results. The percentage difference are 2.94% for set 1, 0.36% for set 2, 3.31% for set
3, 0.62% for set 4, and 0.83% for set 5. The percentage difference for all set are
acceptable as the value is less then 20%. Therefore, the results are verified and
objective of this experiment has been achieved.