A Simple Beam Test Motivating High School Teachers To Develop Pre Engineering Curricula

Session 2326
A Simple Beam Test: Motivating High School Teachers

to Develop Pre-Engineering Curricula
Eric E. Matsumoto, John R. Johnston, E. Edward Dammel, S.K. Ramesh
California State University, Sacramento
Abstract
The College of Engineering and Computer Science at California State University, Sacramento
has developed a daylong workshop for high school teachers interested in developing and
teaching pre-engineering curricula. Recent workshop participants from nine high schools
performed “hands-on” laboratory experiments that can be implemented at the high school level
to introduce basic engineering principles and technology and to inspire students to study
engineering. This paper describes one experiment that introduces fundamental structural
engineering concepts through a simple beam test. A load is applied at the center of a beam using
weights, and the resulting midspan deflection is measured. The elastic stiffness of the beam is
determined and compared to published values for various beam materials and cross sectional
shapes. Beams can also be tested to failure. This simple and inexpensive experiment provides a
useful springboard for discussion of important engineering topics such as elastic and inelastic
behavior, influence of materials and structural shapes, stiffness, strength, and failure modes.
Background engineering concepts are also introduced to help high school teachers understand
and implement the experiment. Participants rated the workshop highly and several teachers have
already implemented workshop experiments in pre-engineering curricula.
I. Introduction
The College of Engineering and Computer Science at California State University, Sacramento
has developed an active outreach program to attract students to the College and promote
engineering education. In partnership with the Sacramento Engineering and Technology
Regional Consortium1 (SETRC), the College has developed a daylong workshop for high school
teachers interested in developing and teaching pre-engineering curricula. With the guidance of
faculty and students, recent workshop participants from nine local high schools performed
“hands-on” laboratory experiments and received a workshop manual containing handouts and
ideas for lesson plans, as well as other literature. The highly-interactive workshop format
allowed teachers to explore ideas which can be easily implemented at the high school level to
motivate students to study engineering.
This paper describes one experiment that can be used to introduce fundamental structural
engineering concepts to students through a simple beam test. In addition to explaining
experimental procedures, the following sections review basic structural engineering concepts
necessary for high school teachers to successfully implement the experiment. The approach
Page 6.98.1
Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Engineering Education
taken in this paper is to present basic engineering concepts and experimental procedures in a
manner similar to that used in the actual workshop.
II. Overview of Experiment
In this experiment, a load is applied at the center of a simply-supported beam and the resulting
deflection at midspan is measured. Figure 1 shows the test setup, including the specimen,
supports, loading device, and dial gage. The specimen shown in the figure is a steel beam of
rectangular cross section that rests on a wide flange stubs. The simple supports at each end
prevent vertical displacement but not rotation. Load is applied using a bucket filled with steel
weights or any other convenient material. Figure 2 shows a cable loop that is placed around the
beam at midspan to apply load. The dial gage is used to measure the deflection corresponding to
the applied load. Figure 3 shows workshop participants recording data during a beam test. Load
versus deflection response is then plotted using test data. From this plot, the elastic stiffness of
the beam is determined and compared to published values for various beam materials and shapes.
Beams can also be tested to failure to observe the failure mode and to compare elastic and
inelastic response.
III. Basic Concepts
The beam test provides an effective means to illustrate several important structural engineering
concepts. The plot of load vs. deflection provides a direct means to experimentally determine
the structural stiffness, K, of the beam as well as the material stiffness, referred to as the modulus
of elasticity, E. While the parameters themselves have important practical significance, this
experiment provides a springboard for discussion of additional topics of significance in
engineering practice, such as elastic and inelastic behavior, influence of materials and structural
shapes, stiffness, strength, and failure modes. To help students develop an understanding of
these concepts, several underlying principles are briefly introduced.
A. Elastic Behavior and Hooke’s Law
To understand how a beam responds to load, it is first necessary to understand material behavior.
Many engineering materials exhibit what is referred to as elastic behavior—the property by
which a material returns to its original dimensions during unloading. For example, if you pull on
both ends of a rubber band, it will stretch. When you release the load (or force), the rubber band
will return to its original shape. This similar to how a steel bar stretches, although the change in
length for the stiffer steel bar would be much smaller, even imperceptible, in many cases. Elastic
behavior for many materials is the same whether the material is pulled upon (i.e., subjected to
tension) or pushed upon (i.e., subjected to compression), assuming buckling of the specimen is
prevented in compression. When a load acts along the length, or axis, of a specimen as described
above, the load is referred to as an axial force. This is in contrast to bending, shearing, or
twisting of a structural member.
When a material acts elastically, the change in length due to an axial force is directly
proportional to the force. The change in length per unit length is known as the strain, ε:
Page 6.98.2
ε = ∆L / L (1)
where
ε = axial strain, in/in (mm/mm)
∆L = change in length due to load, in (mm)
L = original unloaded length, in (mm)
The force per unit cross-sectional area is known as the axial stress, σ:
σ=F/A (2)
where
σ = axial stress, psi (Pa)
F = applied axial force, lbs (N)
A = cross-sectional area of the specimen, in2 (mm2)
When the axial stress is plotted against axial strain, many materials display a linear relationship
between stress and strain within a certain range. This linear relationship is shown for steel,
aluminum, and wood in Figure 5. The elasticity of the material is evident by the fact that when a
specimen is loaded and then unloaded, the stress and strain both return to a zero value. Thus, in
the case of linear elastic material behavior, axial stress and strain are directly proportional and
are related by a proportionality constant, E, defined as follows:
σ=Eε (3)
where
σ = axial stress, psi (Pa)
ε = axial strain, in/in (mm/mm)
E = modulus of elasticity, psi (Pa)
The equation σ = E ε is known as Hooke’s law. E is known as the modulus of elasticity and is
simply the slope of the stress-strain diagram. As shown in Figure 5, E varies for different
materials and represents the material stiffness. Based on Figure 5, the wood would be expected
stretch about 15 times as much as a steel rod of the same cross sectional area when subjected to
the same axial load. Published values for E are available for many common materials2. If the
stress exceeds the elastic limit, the slope of the stress-strain plot becomes nonlinear, as discussed
in Section V.
B. Bending, Moment of Inertia, and Deflection
The foregoing discussion provides a basis to understand beam behavior. When a beam is
subjected to a transverse load such as that shown in Figure 1, the beam bends and deflects in a
curved shape. For a beam with linear elastic material properties, the load produces a linearly
varying strain through the depth of the beam, resulting in compression on the top surface and
tension on the bottom surface. Based on Hooke’s law, stresses also vary in the same manner.
The magnitude of the elastic deflection of a beam depends on how stiff the beam is. The stiffer
the beam, the smaller the deflection will be for a given loading. Bending stiffness of a cross
Page 6.98.3
section is defined by the quantity EI. The modulus of elasticity, E, represents the material
stiffness; the moment of inertia, I, represents the contribution of the cross sectional geometry to
bending stiffness. I is defined as follows:
I x = ∫ y dA
2
(4)
where
Ix = moment of inertia with respect to the neutral axis (i.e., x axis in Figure 4), in4 (mm4)
y = distance from the neutral axis to a differential area dA of the cross section, in (mm)
The moment of inertia is a geometric property, based on the second moment of the area about the
neutral axis (i.e., the axis where the strain equals zero). This quantity is more fully understood
using calculus. However, for many shapes the moment of inertia can be easily calculated from
simple formulas found in any mechanics of materials text2. For the common case of a
rectangular beam with a width, b, and height, h, I = bh3/12. It is important to note that the
definition of b and h depends on which axis of the cross section the beam bends about.
It is also shown in mechanics of materials texts that the deflection of a beam due to bending is a
function of the magnitude of the load, span length, support conditions, and flexural rigidity. For
the loading and support conditions shown in Figures 1 and 4, the vertical elastic deflection at the
midspan of the beam can be determined from the following equation:
PL3
y= (5)
48EI
where
y = elastic beam deflection at midspan, in (mm)
P = applied load, lbs (N)
L = span length of beam, in (mm)
E = modulus of elasticity, psi (Pa)
I = moment of inertia, in4 (mm4)
The physical meaning of the equation should be emphasized to students: namely, that the
deflection is directly proportional to the load, proportional to the cube of the span length, and
inversely proportional to the flexural rigidity, EI.
IV. Experimental Procedure
All steps of the experiment including the test setup, loading, and data reduction can easily be
performed by students. Many variations to the test objectives and procedures are possible.
A. Preparing the Test Setup
As shown in Figure 1, a very simple test setup is intentionally used to facilitate hands-on
participation and repeatability as well as to accommodate a low budget. Materials required for
test specimens, supports, and loading are easily obtained. Local hardware stores or hobby shops
normally have a stock of wood, steel, aluminum, brass, and plastic rods of various cross sectional
Page 6.98.4
shapes that can be used for testing. Figure 6 shows a small wooden test frame that was easily
built for testing a balsa wood beam. Simple support conditions such as those shown in Figures 1
and 6 are recommended for initial testing since such supports, by definition, do not restrict
rotation at the ends of the beam and are thus most easily and accurately modeled.
Loading devices do not need to be elaborate (Figures 1 and 6). Any material of known weight
can be used for loading. A bucket with metal weights is shown in Figure 1, whereas small bags
of rice weighed out on a food scale are shown in Figure 6. For testing of stiffer beams, heavier
weights are more convenient. Teachers should perform sample calculations ahead of time to
determine a desirable magnitude of beam deflection for the assumed test specimen and setup.
A ruler or tape should be used to accurately place the load on the beam (e.g., at the beam
midspan for Equation 5). Because deflection equations are based on beam lengths, the distance
between supports (distance, L, in Figure 4) not the total beam length, should be used in
calculations. The moment of inertia for the beam cross section can be calculated from measured
beam dimensions and appropriate equations from a mechanics of materials text.
Instrumentation for measuring deflections can range from a hand-held ruler to a dial gage.
Incremental beam deflections less than approximately 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) will likely require the use
of a dial gage (Figure 2), which can accurately measure deflections of 0.001 in. (0.025 mm) or
less and total deflections of 1 in. (25 mm) or more. Such dial gages can be purchased for
approximately $30-$60. Students who use a dial gage are often impressed that structures do in
fact deflect when subjected to even the smallest load and that accurate measurements are easy to
make. On the other hand, students also benefit greatly from seeing the effect of load upon a
structure and appreciate the significance of the deflection formula more by visualizing structural
behavior. With proper planning, tests can be designed to allow students to experience both
aspects. For example, deflections as large as 1 in. were measured for the wooden beam shown in
Figure 6 and with an accuracy of approximately 0.025 in. (0.64 mm) using a small ruler with an
engineering scale.
B. Loading the Specimen
After preparing the test setup, students can conduct the test in teams of three to four persons.
Prior to testing, teachers should establish the maximum load that will be used to achieve the
desired deflection. Some judgment is necessary to ensure the elastic limit of the material is not
exceeded so that the beam remains elastic during testing. The maximum applied load may be
divided into five or more increments. For example, if the maximum applied load is 10 lbs, then
the load stages might be: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 lbs.
If a team consists of four persons, one member of the team can be responsible for applying the
load, another for measuring the deflection, a third for recording data, and a fourth for plotting the
data (load vs. deflection) as the test proceeds. At each load stage, all members should observe
the beam response to load and the third member should record any observations made.
Teammates should also check each other’s accuracy in applying the load and measuring the
deflection. Because of the simplicity of the test procedures, each experiment can easily be
conducted twice to obtain a level of confidence in the accuracy of testing. Teachers may ask
Page 6.98.5
students before (of after) loading how much additional deflection is expected when, for example,
the load is doubled. This will help students better grasp the significance of the terms in the
deflection equation.
C. Plotting, Analyzing and Interpreting Test Data
Students should plot load-deflection response of the beam as the test proceeds. The
interpretation of this plot is readily understood if Equation 5 is rearranged and solved for P as
follows:
 48 EI 
P =  3 y (6)
 L 
Students should be able to recognize this formula as the equation of a line with a slope of
48EI/L3 and a y-intercept of zero. The slope represents the stiffness of a structure for the
particular case of a simply-supported beam subjected to a concentrated load at midspan.
By plotting load-deflection test data, students can: 1) visualize the linearity of the system,
2) determine the beam stiffness, and 3) calculate the actual modulus of elasticity of the material.
Test data for the steel beam shown in Figure 1 are plotted in Figure 7. If a computer is available,
these results can be conveniently plotted during testing using spreadsheet software. This plot
provides a valuable means to quantify beam response and to correlate such response with
physical observations. Load-deflection response should be monitored to ensure the beam is not
loaded beyond the elastic limit, indicated by a reduction in the slope. After the maximum load is
applied, students can also collect data as the beam is unloaded to verify linear elastic behavior
and measure any residual displacement.
Figure 7 shows a linear regression line plotted through test data, with the y-intercept set to zero.
The slope of this line represents the experimental beam stiffness. Tables 1 and 2 show
calculations for moment of inertia and experimental modulus of elasticity based on test results.
These calculations show an experimental modulus of elasticity within one percent of the
commonly published value. The r2 term is shown to be very nearly 1.0, confirming the linearity
of the system. A hand-drawn line will also work.
V. Additional Experiments
The beam experiment provides students an excellent opportunity to make many interesting
comparisons that have practical engineering significance. The following sections highlight
several useful experiments beyond that illustrated in the previous section.
A. Modulus of Elasticity
An important aspect of the structural design process is the comparison of alternative structural
systems, including systems using different materials. Concrete, steel, masonry, wood, and
combinations of these materials as well as others are commonly considered. One simple way for
students to appreciate differences in material behavior is to test beams of different materials.
Page 6.98.6
The effect of different moduli of elasticity on elastic behavior of beams can be demonstrated by
conducting beam tests using different materials for the same beam cross section, length, and
support conditions. Figure 8 compares load-deflection response for beam specimens of steel,
aluminum, and wood. (Actual test data are shown for the steel beam, but “hypothetical data”,
consistent with realistic values of E, are shown for the aluminum and balsa wood beams.) All
beams exhibit linear elastic response, but the slopes of the regression lines differ greatly,
indicating a significant difference in beam stiffness related different values of E. For a given
load, the aluminum beam deflects about 3 times more than the steel beam, and the balsa wood
beam deflects an enormous 61 times more. From this experiment, students can: 1) gain a
physical feeling for different material stiffnesses, 2) recognize that material stiffness (modulus of
elasticity, E) is the sole factor changing the beam stiffness (48EI/L3), and 3) compare
experimental moduli of elasticity for the different beams.
B. Moment of Inertia
Structural engineers often limit deflections and bending stresses by using beams with
advantageously-shaped cross sections. A wide flange beam (sometimes called an I-beam) is a
good example of this principle. The vertical web of the beam increases the distance between the
horizontal flanges and the neutral axis, thereby significantly increasing the moment of inertia.
This particular shape has a relatively large moment of inertia for the amount of material used. In
addition, the shape resists bending stresses efficiently because the large flange areas are located
in the most highly stressed region of the cross section. Equation 6 shows that the beam stiffness,
48EI/L3, is directly proportional to the moment of inertia, I.
Students can easily observe the influence of different moments of inertia by testing a beam with
a rectangular cross section. Figure 9 compares the deflection of a ½ in. x 1 in. (13 mm x 25 mm)
steel beam for two cases. When the beam is oriented with the long side vertical, the moment of
inertia, Ix, is calculated as follows:
Ix = bh3/12
Ix = (0.5)(1.0)3/12 = 1/24
But when the beam is laid flat, the moment of inertia is:
Iy = bh3/12
Iy = (1.0)(0.5)3/12 = 1/96
It is evident that Ix is four times larger than Iy. Students can easily conduct both experiments and
compare the predicted and experimental deflections based on a change in geometry alone.
Students should also try bending the beam specimens about both axes by hand to “get a feel” for
the difference in stiffness related to the moment of inertia.
C. Elastic vs. Inelastic Behavior and Failure Modes
A particularly important aspect of material and structural behavior occurs when the applied loads
are large enough to produce inelastic response and failure. Demonstrating elastic behavior of a
Page 6.98.7
beam is clearly a simple and appropriate first step in conveying basic structural engineering
principles to students. However, inelastic behavior and structural failure should eventually be
presented, as these concepts are often more meaningful in the design of structures. In addition,
students are usually more excited to test structures to failure.
Inelastic behavior can be introduced to students in a fairly simple manner by using a paper clip,
as illustrated in the following sample student exercise.
Open up a paper clip so that it is a straight wire. Hold one end of the wire down at
the edge of a table so that the other end extends out into the air. This represents a
cantilever beam. With your finger, gently push down on the free end just a little and
then let it go. Notice that the wire quickly returns to its original shape. This is an
example of elastic behavior. Now, push the wire down harder so that it bends down
permanently. This illustrates inelastic behavior. The “beam” was stretched so much
that a permanent deflection resulted after the load was removed. Finally, bend the
wire back and forth until it breaks. This is an example of beam failure following
inelastic response. In principle, this is what would happen to a structure that does not
have enough capacity for deformability in the event of an overload or earthquake.
This approach is preferable to the presentation of complicated formulas.
Structures are typically designed with sufficient reserve to avoid inelastic behavior under day-to-
day loads. However, many structures are designed to undergo a certain level of permanent
deformation and damage under severe overloading or unusual events such as earthquakes. This
deformability of structures in the inelastic range is often referred to as ductility. Some materials,
such an unreinforced masonry or plain concrete, exhibit very little ductility. A large factor of
safety is thus required to prevent a sudden, brittle failure in the event of overload. A certain
degree of ductile behavior, however, is usually more desirable because a greater warning of
impending failure is provided and more energy can be absorbed by the system prior to failure.
Although permanent damage may result, structures should be designed to prevent collapse and
ensure life safety.
Figure 10 compares load-deflection response for a beam with a brittle vs. ductile failure mode.
The ductile beam initially exhibits elastic behavior, but is followed by a significant amount of
inelastic behavior and deflection. This response is achieved because of a ductile material stress-
strain response. In contrast, the brittle beam exhibits only linear elastic behavior prior to a
sudden failure.
After students complete beam testing in the elastic range, specimens can be loaded to failure to
observe the full range of elastic and inelastic response as well as the failure mode. Students
usually enjoy this part of testing the most! Tests can be conducted in a manner similar to the
elastic beam testing, with the following important differences: 1) smaller load increments should
be used, especially beyond the expected elastic range, to ensure nonlinearities in beam response
are adequately captured prior to failure; 2) load-deflection response should be plotted using a
spreadsheet and carefully monitored at each load increment to determine the onset of inelastic
behavior, as inelasticities will be noticed from the load-deflection plot before visible signs on the
Page 6.98.8
specimen, 3) the specimen should be inspected for stretching, cracking, or other signs of damage
during loading, and 4) instrumentation such as dial gages should be monitored and removed if
sudden failure or excessively large deflections threaten to damage instrumentation. Students
should also beware of the possible development of unexpected failure modes during testing, such
as lateral buckling of the beam due to compressive stresses on the compression side of the beam.
Students should attempt to identify the failure mode and major differences between elastic and
inelastic response. An approach to predict the failure load is not presented herein, but can be
found in Reference 2.
D. Variations of the Beam Experiment
Only a few of the many variations of the beam experiment have been mentioned. Students and
teachers alike can propose and conduct alternatives that investigate other useful aspects of
structural behavior. For example, by inspecting the parameters of the deflection equation
(Equation 5) it is evident that beams with different span lengths can easily be investigated, as can
deflections at other points along the beam. Support conditions can also be modified. Clamps or
vise grips can be used to model fixed-end conditions (i.e., supports which completely prevent
rotation). In this way, a cantilever beam or beams with one or both ends fixed can be tested. In
addition, multiple concentrated loads can be investigated. Reference 2 provides deflection
equations for these and other conditions.
A variety of beam cross sectional shapes can also be tested. Round, square, and rectangular
shapes are readily available, although other possibilities may be investigated with a little
creativity. For example, two channels can be placed back-to-back to represent strong axis (x-
axis) bending of a wide flange beam. Simple approaches to calculate the moment of inertia for
weak axis (y-axis) bending are available in the event that channels are not welded or bolted
together2.
Supplementary exercises may also be developed to illustrate important principles. For example,
students can also be challenged to develop the most economical cross sectional shape for a beam,
based on a limited amount of material and subjected to certain constraints such as height and
width.
VI. Summary and Conclusions
A simple beam test that can be used to introduce fundamental structural engineering concepts to
high school students is described. Background engineering concepts are also introduced to help
high school teachers understand and implement the experiment. Based on a simple and
inexpensive test setup, an experiment can be performed that not only provides students an
opportunity to discover structural behavior in a hands-on format, but also provides a useful
springboard for discussion of many important engineering topics such as elastic and inelastic
behavior, influence of materials and structural shapes, stiffness, strength, and failure modes.
Many variations of the experiment are possible.
Page 6.98.9
Bibliography
1. URL: http://gis.sierra.cc.ca.us/setrc/index.html; Sacramento Engineering and Technology Regional Consortium
home page.
2. Gere, J.M., and Timoshenko, S.P., Mechanics of Materials, 2nd Ed., PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston,
1984.
ERIC E. MATSUMOTO
Eric Matsumoto is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at California State University, Sacramento. His areas
of interest include precast/ prestressed concrete systems and structural dynamics. He previously worked as a
structural engineer in the government and private sectors, and is a registered civil engineer in California. He
received a Ph.D. in structural engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, and B.S. and M.Eng. degrees in
civil engineering from Cornell University.
JOHN R. JOHNSTON
John Johnston is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at California State University, Sacramento. Prior to
coming to CSUS, he held civil and environmental engineering positions in both the public and private sectors, and
was a member of the CE faculty at CSU Fresno. He is a registered civil engineer in California, with a Ph.D. from
the University of California, Davis, and B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engineering from Stanford University.
Currently, Dr. Johnston splits his time between teaching and researching storm water quality issues for the
California Department of Transportation.
E. EDWARD DAMMEL
Ed Dammel is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at California State University, Sacramento. Prior to
coming to CSUS, he worked with the University of California, Davis helping develop a research program in storm
water quality management for the California Department of Transportation. He holds a Ph.D. and M.S. from the
University of California, Davis and a B.S. from the California State University, Chico.
S. K. RAMESH
Dr. S. K. Ramesh is a Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at California State University, Sacramento
and has been the Department Chair since 1994. His research interests are in the area of Optical Communication
Systems. He teaches courses in Optical Engineering, Fiber Optic Communications and Analog IC Design. He is a
Senior Member of the IEEE and is presently the Central Area Chair of IEEE Region 6. Dr. Ramesh graduated with a
B.E. (Honors) degree (’81) in Electronics and Communication Engineering from the University of Madras, India,
and received his MSEE (’83) and PhD (’86) degrees from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Page 6.98.10
FIGURES
A. B.
Figure 1: A) Test Setup; B) Support Conditions for Simply-Supported Beam
Figure 2: Cable Loop Used for Loading Beam and Dial Gage
Page 6.98.11
Figure 3: SETRC Workshop Participants Recording Beam Test Data
y
vertical deflection, y
applied load, P
span length, L
Elevation Cross Section
Figure 4: Schematic of Beam Elevation and Cross Section
Page 6.98.12
3000
Steel
2500 Aluminum
Douglas Fir Wood
2000 Esteel=29x10 psi
6
1500
6
1000 Ealum=10x10 psi
500
6
Ewood=2x10 psi
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-6
Strain (in/in x 10 )
Figure 5: Idealized Stress-Strain Behavior for Steel, Aluminum, and Wood
in the Linear Elastic Range
Figure 6: Wooden Test Frame for Testing of Balsa Wood Beam

Page 6.98.13
25
Steel
20 P = (1.342)y
2
R = 0.998
6
EEXP=28.8 x10 psi
15
10
5 Steel Beam Data
Linear Regression
0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection, y (in x 0.01)
Figure 7: Load-Deflection Response for Steel Beam Tested during SETRC Workshop
25
Steel (actual data)
20
Aluminum
(hypothetical data)
15 Balsa Wood
(hypothetical data)
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 8: Comparison of Load-Deflection Response for Steel, Aluminum, and Wood Beams
Page 6.98.14
25
Ix (strong axis)
20 P = (1.342)y
2
R = 0.998 Iy (weak axis)
15 P = (0.336)y
2
R = 0.998
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75
Figure 9: Comparison of Load-Deflection Response for Strong and Weak Axis Bending
25
20
15
Ductile Response
10
Brittle Response
5 Failure
0
0 15 30 45 60
Deflection, y
Figure 10: Brittle vs. Ductile Load-Deflection Response Page 6.98.15
TABLES
Section shape: Rectangular

Width, b 0.5 in
Height, h 1.0 in
Moment of Inertia, I = bh /12 0.04167 in4
3
Table 1: Calculation of Moment of Inertia for Rectangular Beam
Span Length, L 35.0 in

Moment of Inertia, I 0.04167 in4
Beam Stiffness, K (Experimental Slope) 1.342 lbs/in
Experimental Modulus of Elasticity,
E = K/(48I/L3) 28.77 x 106 psi
Published Value for Modulus of
Elasticity, E 29 x 106 psi
Table 2: Calculation of Experimental Modulus of Elasticity
Page 6.98.16

A Simple Beam Test Motivating High School Teachers To Develop Pre Engineering Curricula

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Simple Beam Test Motivating High School Teachers To Develop Pre Engineering Curricula

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Session 2326

A Simple Beam Test: Motivating High School Teachers

II. Overview of Experiment

III. Basic Concepts

A. Elastic Behavior and Hooke’s Law

B. Bending, Moment of Inertia, and Deflection

IV. Experimental Procedure

A. Preparing the Test Setup

B. Loading the Specimen

C. Plotting, Analyzing and Interpreting Test Data

C. Elastic vs. Inelastic Behavior and Failure Modes

This approach is preferable to the presentation of complicated formulas.

D. Variations of the Beam Experiment

VI. Summary and Conclusions

Figure 1: A) Test Setup; B) Support Conditions for Simply-Supported Beam

Elevation Cross Section

Figure 4: Schematic of Beam Elevation and Cross Section

Figure 6: Wooden Test Frame for Testing of Balsa Wood Beam

5 Steel Beam Data

Section shape: Rectangular

Table 1: Calculation of Moment of Inertia for Rectangular Beam

Span Length, L 35.0 in

You might also like