MEC60204

Engineering Solid Mechanics

Lab Report

Deflection of tie bar

Module Coordinator: Dr. Chou Pui May
NAME ID SIGNATURE

Muhammad Iqbal Zulhazeeq 0330806

Chew Eushayne 0334882

Khishan A/L Paramasivam 0339323

Chin Zhen Feng 0340012

Due Date: 18th November 2020

Date of Submission: 18th November 2020
Return of student marked assessment tasks. Please check (√ ) the necessary column.

Electronically to the individual student via the University learning management

system
Collect during class, only by the student
Collection from the school or a staff member upon presentation of their student ID
card
Collection from module coordinator, lecturer or tutor by prior arrangement

* For online assessment such as forum, quiz, test, survey and etc., return of students marked
assessment tasks are published in TIMES.

1
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................3
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................3

1.1 Objective.............................................................................................................................3

1.2 Theory.................................................................................................................................4

1.3 Calculation ..........................................................................................................................5

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ..................................................................................................6

2.1 Apparatus ............................................................................................................................6

2.2 Variable ..............................................................................................................................6

2.3 Method ................................................................................................................................7

2.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................................7

3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................8

3.1 Results ...............................................................................................................................8

2.2 Sample Calculation ...........................................................................................................12

2.3 Discussion.........................................................................................................................13

4.0 ERROR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION ..........................................................14

5.0 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................16

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................16

Turnitin Report ...........................................................................................................................17

2
ABSTRACT
The aim of this laboratory experiment is to measure the values of the transverse bending deflection
of the tie bar. The experimental results are then compared to the theoretical results which can be
acquired from the given formula or theory behind the experiment. In this experiment, the travel
dial gauge is the primary device used to obtain the reading of the deflection of the tie bar. In this
experiment, the eccentricity used were 75 mm, 55 mm and 35 mm whilst the loads used were 5 N,
10 N, 15 N, 20 N and 25 N. For each load, three readings were taken to get results with high
precision. After all the data recorded were obtained, the data were tabulated and multiple graphs
were plotted.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Deflection is the degree of deviation of a beam from its original position when it is subjected to an
external load or the weight of the structure itself or the force of gravity acting on the member [1].
It can be measured in terms of angle or distance where the figure obtained will define the distance
where the beam have deflected from its original position. Figure 1.0.1 show the deflection, f, of a
cantilever beam with length, L, when an external force, F, acted on it ends.

Figure1.0.1 Deflection of cantilever beam its ends is loaded with F [1]

The degree of deflection of the beam depends on the loads and its supports. Apart from these
variables, its displacement also affected by the effective length, its material, and the geometry [1].

1.1 Objective
The first objective in this experiment is to measure the transverse bending deflection of the
aluminum alloy (HE30TF) tie bar with different eccentricity when different load which align with
the axis of eccentricity is subjected to it. The second objective in this experiment is to compare the
experimental result of the deflection value with the theoretical result.

3
1.2 Theory
Eccentricity

When a column is subjected to a load that is offset from the centroid of the beam, bending moment
and axial force are developed in it and this type of loading is named as eccentric loading [2]. From
Figure 1.0.2, the distance between the eccentric loading, F and the centroid of the cross section of
the beam is termed as eccentricity which is symbolized by an alphabet “e”. The bold dotted line
indicated the deflection of the beam when it has subjected to load F. Since moment is the function
of the eccentric load and its perpendicular distance from the support, the bar will experience the
maximum bending moment at the middle of the beam and hence its deflection, d, is also the
greatest as reflected in figure below.

F F
e
d

𝐿 𝐿
2 2

Figure 1.0.2 Eccentric loading and transverse deflection and its corresponded moment
distribution of the column
Bending deformation
The structural element when subjected to an external force which applied perpendicularly to the
longitudinal axis of the element will undergoes deformation, this deformation is known as bending
deformation. When a symmetry beam is deflected, the member will bend uniformly as the element
will remain symmetric to form a circular arc as illustrated in Figure 1.0.3. Neutral plane is a line
where its length remained the same when the cantilever is loaded by a bending force as it is not
experience compression or tension force. The neutral plane divides the region where the beam
experience tension from compression. Region of fiber that is near the concave side is under
compression and the deformation on the convex side of the element is experiencing tension force.

4
 Concave side

Convex side

Figure 1.0.3 The bending of a symmetric beam [3]

1.3 Calculation
(I) Second moment of inertia, I
1
𝐼= 𝑏(ℎ3 ) Eq. 1
12
Where,
b = base of the specimen’s cross-sectional area
h = height of the tie bar’s cross-sectional area

(ii) Internal bending moment in the beam, M

𝑀 =𝐹×𝑑 Eq.2
Where,
F = Force
d = Perpendicular distance from the support

(iii) Deflection, D
𝑀𝐿2
𝐷= Eq. 3
8𝐸𝐼

Where,
M = Internal bending moment in the beam
L = Effective length of the tie bar
E = Modulus of elasticity
I = Second Moment of Inertia

5
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Figure 2.0.1 Eccentricity Loaded Tie Bar Apparatus Setup

Figure 2.0.2 From left to right: 5 N, 10 N, 20 N, and 50 N weights

2.1 Apparatus
1. Load Hanger
2. Weight set (5N, 10N, 20N, 50N)
3. Eccentrically Loaded Tie Bar Apparatus

2.2 Variables
Manipulated variable: The eccentricity and amount of load applied to it.

Controlled variable: The length of the tie bar.

Responding variable: The deflection of the tie bar.

6
2.3 Method

The laboratory experiment was mainly conducted using the eccentrically loaded tie bar apparatus.
The experiment was started off using the eccentricity of 75 mm, and right before the experiment
was started, the travel dial gauge was set to zero. 5 N of load was added onto the load hanger. After
that, the reading of the dial gauge was observed and recorded. This step was repeated three times
to get a more precise result. Then the experiment was repeated with 10 N, 15 N, 20 N and 25 N of
load. After each set of loads were repeated three times, the whole experiment was repeated with
eccentricity of 55 mm and 35 mm. After everything was concluded, all the data obtained were then
tabulated.

2.4 Procedure

1. As the tie bar was already set up at eccentricity of 75mm, the experiment was started with
that eccentricity.
2. The travel dial gauge was set to zero by aligning the scale with the center of the tie bar.
3. 5 N of load was placed onto the load hanger to start the experiment.
4. Then, the reading on the dial gauge was observed and recorded.
5. Steps 2-4 were then repeated with loads of 10 N, 15 N, 20 N, and 25 N.
6. For each set of loads, the steps were repeated for three times to get a more precise result.
7. After that, the whole experiment was repeated from steps 2-6 by changing the eccentricity
to 55mm and 35mm.
8. All the data recorded were then tabulated.

7
3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Results
Table 3.1.1 The deflection of the aluminum alloy tie bar with eccentricity at 75mm
D, Deflection (mm)
Load (N)
1st reading 2nd reading 3rd reading Average
5 0.365 0.310 0.270 0.315
10 0.840 0.860 0.830 0.843
15 1.330 1.470 1.290 1.363
20 2.040 1.880 1.900 1.940
25 2.460 2.440 2.400 2.433

Table 3.1.2 The deflection of the aluminum alloy tie bar with eccentricity at 55mm
D, Deflection (mm)
Load (N)
1st reading 2nd reading 3rd reading Average
5 0.180 0.180 0.185 0.182
10 0.575 0.520 0.530 0.542
15 0.965 0.950 0.955 0.957
20 1.365 1.360 1.360 1.362
25 1.775 1.805 1.790 1.790

Table 3.1.3 The deflection of the aluminum alloy tie bar with eccentricity at 35mm
D, Deflection (mm)
Load (N)
1st reading 2nd reading 3rd reading Average
5 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130
10 0.385 0.340 0.345 0.357
15 0.580 0.570 0.590 0.580
20 0.820 0.815 0.815 0.817
25 1.110 1.080 1.080 1.090

8
Table 3.1.4 Comparison between theoretical and experimental deflection value with
eccentricity at 75mm

Second moment Moment, M Deflection, D (mm)

Load (N)
of inertia, I (m4) (Nm) Experimental Theoretical
5 0.375 0.315 0.641
10 0.75 0.843 1.281
15 6.78755E-10 1.125 1.363 1.922
20 1.500 1.940 2.562
25 1.875 2.433 3.203

Table 3.1.5 Comparison between theoretical and experimental deflection value with
eccentricity at 55mm

Second moment Moment, M Deflection, D (mm)

Load (N)
of inertia, I (m4) (Nm) Experimental Theoretical
5 0.275 0.182 0.470
10 0.550 0.542 0.939
15 6.78755E-10 0.825 0.957 1.409
20 1.100 1.362 1.879
25 1.375 1.790 2.349

Table 3.1.6 Comparison between theoretical and experimental deflection value with
eccentricity at 35mm

Second moment Moment, M Deflection, D (mm)

Load (N)
of inertia, I (m4) (Nm) Experimental Theoretical
5 0.175 0.130 0.299
10 0.350 0.357 0.598
15 6.78755E-10 0.525 0.580 0.897
20 0.700 0.817 1.196
25 0.875 1.090 1.495

9
 Deflection vs Load
3.000

2.500
Deflection, D (mm)
2.000

1.500 Eccentricity=75 mm

1.000 Eccentricity=55 mm
Eccentricity=35 mm
0.500

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.500
Load (N)

Figure 3.1.1 The graph compares the point of the eccentricity and its deflection when
different load is applied

Eccentricity = 75 mm
Deflection vs Load
4.000
3.500
3.000
Deflection, D (mm)

2.500
2.000
1.500 Experimental
1.000 Theoretical
0.500
0.000
0 10 20 30
-0.500
Load (N)

Figure 3.1.2 The graph compares the experimental and theoretical of deflection value when
different load is applied with eccentricity at 75 mm

10
 Eccentricity = 55 mm
Deflection vs Load
3.000

Deflection, D (mm) 2.500

2.000

1.500
Experimental
1.000
Theoretical
0.500

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.500
Load (N)

Figure 3.1.3 The graph compares the experimental and theoretical of deflection value when
different load is applied with eccentricity at 55 mm

Eccentricity = 35 mm
Deflection vs Load
1.800
1.600
1.400
Deflection, D (mm)

1.200
1.000
0.800 Experimental
0.600 Theoretical
0.400
0.200
0.000
-0.200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load (N)

Figure 3.1.4 The graph compares the experimental and theoretical of deflection value when
different load is applied with eccentricity at 35 mm

11
3.2 Sample Calculation

For eccentricity at 75 mm with 5 N load subjected to it:

(i) Second moment of inertia, I
1
𝐼 = 12 𝑏(ℎ3 )
Eq.1
1
𝐼= 0.0095(0.00953 )
12
𝐼 = 6.788 × 10−10 m4
Eq.4

(ii) Moment, M
𝑀 =𝐹×𝑑 Eq.2

𝑀 = 5 × 0.075
𝑀 = 0.375 Nm Eq.5

(iii) Deflection, D
𝑀𝐿2
𝐷= Eq.3
8𝐸𝐼
Substitute Eq.4 & Eq.5 into Eq.3
0.375(0.8)2
𝐷=
8(69 × 109 )(6.788 × 10−10 )
𝐷 = 6.405 × 10−4 m
𝐷 = 0.641 mm

Where,
b & h = 0.0095 m
F=5 N
d =0.075 m
E = 69 GPa

12
3.3 Discussion

In Figure 3.1.1, the overall deflection with the eccentricity of 75 millimetres is the highest. The
reason behind the higher deflection is because of the moment created at the end of the bar. The
amount of load also affects the moment. It explains why the deflection also increases when the
load increases.

As for the comparison between theoretical and experimental data, the values are not the same. In
Figure 3.1.2, Figure 3.1.3, and Figure 3.1.4, all of the theoretical values are higher than the
theoretical values. The experimental deflection is lower because of the defects in the tie bar.

13
4.0 ERROR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Percentage error is calculated based on the formula as shown below:

|𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100% Eq. 6
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Table 4.0.1 Percentage error between theoretical and experimental deflection value with
eccentricity at 75mm
Deflection (mm) Avg.
Difference Percentage
Percentage
Experimental Theoretical (mm) error (%)
Error (%)
0.315 0.641 0.326 50.86
0.843 1.281 0.438 34.19
1.363 1.922 0.559 29.08 32.49
1.94 2.562 0.622 24.28
2.433 3.203 0.77 24.04

Table 4.0.2Percentage error between theoretical and experimental deflection value with
eccentricity at 55mm
Deflection (mm) Avg.
Difference Percentage
Percentage
Experimental Theoretical (mm) error (%)
Error (%)
0.182 0.470 0.288 61.28
0.542 0.939 0.397 42.28
0.957 1.409 0.452 32.08 37.39
1.362 1.879 0.517 27.51
1.790 2.349 0.559 23.80

14
 Table 4.0.3 Percentage error between theoretical and experimental deflection value with
eccentricity at 35mm

Deflection(mm) Avg.
Percentage
Difference(mm) Percentage
Experimental Theoretical Error (%)
Error (%)
0.130 0.299 0.169 56.52
0.357 0.598 0.241 40.30
0.580 0.897 0.317 35.34 38.19
0.817 1.196 0.379 31.69
1.090 1.495 0.405 27.09

Remark:
Avg.= Average

From the error analysis we can see that the range of the average percentage error is above 32 and
below 38.5 percent. A trend that shows is that when moment increases the percentage error
decreases. This can be seen in all three table. This shows that it would less likely be a random error
and more likely to be a systematic error. A reason of this error could be that the Elastic Modulus
is not the same value in the theoretical calculation. The aluminum alloy might have lost its structure
integrity due to aluminum rusting, which is type corrosion that happens to aluminum when it
oxidizes due to being exposed to water, and or due to creeping which is the internal degradation at
the subsurface of the material due continuous expansion and contraction over an extended period
usually from thermal expansion and contraction. The error can be corrected by finding the proper
elastic modulus for that aluminum alloy. To ensure that the this is only a systematic error, the
experiment should be repeated 2 to 3 more times to identify whether the error might be random or
human. The data of this experiment should also be compared to other groups who have done the
same experiments to analyze the error further.

15
5.0 CONCLUSION

Two conclusions can be made from this experiment, the deflection is proportional to eccentricity
and the load which applied. This does make sense as of eccentricity and or the load is proportional
to the moment and this intern is proportional to eccentricity which represented in equation 2. This
claim is supported by the data we collected that shows this relationship in Figure 3.1.1. Though
there is significant percentage error 36 %, we can see there is similar trend when comparing the
theoretical and experiment data seen Figure 3.1.2 till Figure 3.1.3 which, as well, supports the
claim. The objectives have been met and we have shown the relationship of transverse bending
deflection of the aluminum alloy (HE30TF) tie bar with different eccentricity when different loads
are applied by comparing the experimental and theoretical data.

REFERENCES

1. M. B. T. W. A. Abolfathi, "Large deflection of simply supported beam," University of

Southampton, Southampton, 2010.
2. “International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research.”, n.d.
3. R. J. S. Arthur P. Boresi, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 6th Edition, Laramie: Wiley,
2002.

16
Turnitin Report

17