Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

University of Birmingham

School of Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering

Professional Laboratory Report

LI Mechanics 2
Surname Cox

First Name(s) Charlie

ID number CXC1129

Module Coordinator Dr. Aziza Mahomed

Lab Coordinator Dr. Carol Kong

Lab Code & Title AM 2.2 Unsymmetrical Beam Bending

Experiment Date & 30th November 2021 15:00

Time

Lab Mech Group 19B

Personal Tutor Costas Constantinou

Report Date 07/01/2022

Lab Report Title An Investigation Into The Bending Of An Unsymmetrically

Loaded Beam And How This Can Be Used To Find Principal

Second Moments of Area.

 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

PREFACE

Reflecting on the feedback that I have received on previous lab reports, the following
issues/topic has been identified as an area for improvement:

• Making sentences too long and complicated.

• Section containing references should be entitled ‘bibliography’, not ‘references’.
• Ensure figures are suitably scaled.

In this assignment, I have attempted to act on previous feedback in the following way:

• Try to make my points clear and concise with minimal waffle.

• My references section is under the heading ‘bibliography’.
• All figures are easy to read and interpret.

Feedback on the following aspects of this assignment (i.e. content/style/approach) would be

particularly helpful to me:

• Did I go into sufficient depth in my discussion?

• Should I avoid using equipment diagrams from the lab manual?
• Is it okay to format my report headings like this? Or should each section begin on a new
page?
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

ENGD1106 – Unsymmetrical Beam Bending

ABSTRACT

The experiment analyses the bending of an L-shaped beam when subject to varying unsymmetrical
loads. Deflection data was gathered using an unsymmetrical cantilever apparatus. This was used to
determine the beams principal second moments of area using a Mohr’s circle. These findings were
compared with theoretical values, producing error percentages of of 6.1% (Ix) and 9.16% (Iy), thus
satisfying the aims of the experiment. Following error calculation, a number of areas were also
identified for future error reduction to improve the accuracy of results. Chief among these was the
recommendation of a larger sample size, allowing for more reliable calculations.

INTRODUCTION
The second moment of area is a geometric property of a shape, describing how its points are
distributed with regard to an arbitrary axis. This property measures the ‘efficiency’ of a cross-
sectional shape to resist bending caused by a load [1] and is inversely proportional to deflection as
given by the bending formula:
3
FL
δ=
3 EI
One basic assumption of this formula, however, is that the applied force operates within one of the
beam’s principal planes. In the real world, structures are subjected to much more complex forces,
occurring outside of the principal planes. This experiment will investigate the behaviour of a beam
under these conditions i.e. unsymmetrical loading. Under such forces, deflection occurs both in the
direction of pull, and perpendicular to it, as given by:
3 3 3
FL 1 1 FL 1 1 FL 1 1
U = ( + ) + cos 2 θ ( + ) V= sin2 θ ( + ) where
6 E Ix Iy 6 E Ix Iy 6E Ix Iy

U is the deflection in the direction of the pulling V is the deflection perpendicular to the pulling
force force
Iy and Ix are the principal second moments of 𝜃 is the angle of pull in relation to the beam’s
area plane of symmetry
E is the Young's modulus of the material (Nm-2) L is the length of the specimen (m)
F is the applied force (N)
As these equations show, it is possible to deduce the principal second moments of area (I x and Iy)
using deflection data gathered when varying the force (F) applied to the beam, and varying the
angle (𝜃) at which this force is applied.
Aims and Objectives:
• To determine the principal second moments of area through experiment.
◦ To gather deflection data from the unsymmetrical cantilever apparatus, characterising the
bending behaviour of the beam.
◦ To produce theoretical calculations of the beams second moment of area using a Mohr’s
circle.
◦ To determine the experimental principal second moments of area using a Mohr’s circle.
◦ To calculate the experimental error and identify areas where experimental error can be
reduced.
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

METHOD

Figure 1: A diagram showing the Unsymmetrical Cantilever

Apparatus used. (TecQuipment's SM1003 Apparatus)

1. Loosen the two rearward facing thumbscrews on the digital indicator clamps and turn them
inwards. Upon contacting the inner two datum pegs, the indicators should be set 90° apart.
Secure the thumb screws again.
2. Ensure the aluminium beam is fitted securely into the top and bottom chucks (see fig. 1).
3. Attach the bottom chuck extension piece and hook the cord into the groove before passing it
over the pulley.
4. Tap the frame to ensure the apparatus is secure and reduce the effects of friction.
5. Unscrew the top chuck and rotate the beam to the required position - initially 0°.
6. Zero the displacement indicators and ensure they have sufficient forward and rearward
travel.
7. Add mass to the load in 100 g increments, up to a maximum of 500 g. At each increment, it
is important to ensure the cord remains parallel to the lines on the plate. Record the readings
from both indicators in the results table.
8. Remove the load and rotate the beam clockwise 22.5° before securing the hand screws
again.
9. Re-attach the load hanger and zero the indicators, repeating the loading procedure and
recording the results in the table.
10. Continue taking results at 22.5° intervals until the cantilever has rotated 180°.
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

RESULTS
Theoretical Calculations:
First the theoretical principal second moments of area of
the beam were calculated. This provided for later
comparison with experimental results. The first stage in
this calculation is to determine the location of the centroid
in relation to the arbitrary geometric axes A and B (see
figure 2). Due to the symmetry of the beam, x̄ and ȳ are
equal as shown below:
2
b2 +ht (12) +(10.25)(1.75)
x̄ = ȳ = = = 3.64 mm
2(b+h) 2((12)+(10.25))

Figure 2

The second moment of area relative to the arbitrary

geometric axes A and B were then determined. Once again,
these are equal due to the diagonal symmetry of the cross-
section.
3 3
bh hb 54.93 3024 4
I B = I A= + = + = 1026.31 mm
3 3 3 3
2 2 2
t ×(2 b −t )
I AB= =218.16 mm 4
4
Using parallel axis theorem, this value can then be
Figure 3 transformed to reflect the second moment of area with
respect to a set of centroidal axes (A’ and B’ - see figure 3).
2 4
I A '=I A− Ay =1026.31−515.94=510.37 mm
I B '=I B −Ax 2=1026.31−515.94=510.37 mm4
I A ' B ' =I AB −A totalxy
2 4
I A ' B ' =218.16−38.94 (3.64) =−297.47 mm

Finally these values can be plotted on a Mohr’s

circle, providing the second moment of area
values for the axes as they rotate around the
centroid. In the case of principal axes, the product
moment of area is equal to zero[2]. This occurs at
the x-intercepts of the Mohr’s circle. As shown in
figure 4, x-intercepts occur at I = 212.90mm 4 and
I = 807.84mm4. Therefore:
−10
I x =2.13×10 m
4
and I y =8.08×10−10 m 4 .
Figure 4
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

Experimental Results:

The experiment was conducted and the left and right dial data was recorded in tables (see figure 5).
Using trigonometry it is possible to convert the recorded deflections into their component parts. i.e.
deflection in the direction of load (U) and direction perpendicular to the direction of load (V).
U = cos (45)(Left Dial + Right Dial) V = sin(45)(Left Dial - Right Dial)
Left Dial + Right Dial Left Dial - Right Dial
U = V =
√2 √2

Figure 5
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

Graphs were produced, plotting U and V (in mm) against the pulling mass in grams (see figure 6)

Beam Deflection at Angle 0 o Beam Deflection at Angle 22.5 o Beam Deflection at Angle 45 o

9 dU = 0.014 U 9 dU = 0.017 U 9 dU = 0.019 U

V V V
7 dV = -0.007 7 dV = -0.004 7 dV = 0.000
Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)
5 5 5

3 3 3

1 1 1

-1 -1 -1

-3 -3 -3

-5 -5 -5
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (g) Load (g) Load (g)

Beam Deflection at Angle 67.5 o Beam Deflection at Angle 90 o Beam Deflection at Angle 112.5 o

9 dU = 0.018 U 9 dU = 0.016 U 9 dU = 0.009 U

V V V
7 dV = 0.004 7 dV = 0.009 7 dV = 0.005
Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)
5 5 5

3 3 3

1 1 1

-1 -1 -1

-3 -3 -3

-5 -5 -5
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (g) Load (g) Load (g)

Beam Deflection at Angle 135 o Beam Deflection at Angle 157.5 o Beam Deflection at Angle 180 o

9 dU = 0.006 U 9 dU = 0.009 U 9 dU = 0.018 U

V V V
7 dV = 0.000 7 dV = -0.005 7 dV = -0.008
Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

5 5 5

3 3 3

1 1 1

-1 -1 -1

-3 -3 -3

-5 -5 -5
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (g) Load (g) Load (g)

Figure 6 showing plots of the beam’s deflection against load.

The gradients of these graphs were calculated and recorded in the table below alongside their values
in mN-1.

Loading Angle dU/dP dV/dP dU/dF dV/dF

(°) (mmg ) -1
(×10 mN ) -7 -1

0 0.0144 0.0072 1.409 0.7103

22.5 0.0170 -0.0044 1.667 -0.4274
45 0.0188 0.0000 1.842 -0.0099
67.5 0.0179 0.0041 1.754 0.4024
90 0.0159 0.0089 1.561 0.8765
112.5 0.0087 0.0053 0.8694 0.5187
135 0.0062 0.0000 0.6092 -0.01684
157.5 0.0092 -0.0051 0.9015 -0.5013
180 0.0175 -0.0083 1.720 -0.8169
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

The tabulated data was then plotted with dV/dF as the vertical axis, and dU/dF as the horizontal axis
(see figure 7). This produced an approximately circular graph. By means of least squares regression,
an appropriate circle was fitted to the data and the x-intercepts were determined. Using these x-
crossings, it is possible to find the experimental second moments of area for the beam.

Figure 7
3 3
L L
Substituting dU into I = −1
gives I = . The relevant dU values can be found at
3 E UF 3 E dU
the zero-crossings of the graph (see fig). This is because when the beam bends along it’s principal
axes, the rate of deflection perpendicular to the applied force (dV/dF) is zero. Substituting these
values and solving for Ix and Iy gives:
3
L3 (0.45)
Ix = → Ix = = 2×10−10 m4
3 E (dU max ) 9
3( 69×10 )(0.0022)
3
L3 (0.45)
Iy = → Ix = = 7.34×10−10 m4
3 E(dU min ) 9
3(69×10 )(0.0006)
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

DISCUSSION
This experiment demonstrated the process of finding the second moment of area of a beam through
experiment. Theoretical and experimental values were determined and compared as shown in figure
8. The similarity between these results confirms the validity of the equations and process used in
3
L
finding the theoretical Ix and Iy values. Successful use of the equation I = −1
in
3 E UF
processing the experimental data also verifies the assumption that deflection is inversely
proportional to the second moment of area.
Theoretical Second Moment of Experimental Second Moment of Error (%)
Area (×10-10 m4) Area (×10-10 m4)
Ix 2.13 2.00 6.10
Iy 8.08 7.34 9.16
Figure 8
As figure 8 shows, comparing theoretical calculations with the experimental results give error
percentages of 6.1% (Ix) and 9.16% (Iy). Despite the success of this investigation, these are
significant degrees of error which reducing confidence in the validity of the results. To improve
accuracy in subsequent experiments, the following measures could be taken:

• Use a larger dataset encompassing a wider range of loads and load angles. As the
experimental second moment of area values are determined by the roots of the Mohr’s
circle, the accuracy of this graph is very important. With a larger number of points plotted, a
more accurate circle could be fitted to the data, producing more accurate results.
• Ensure the head and dial angles are properly calibrated. When the head angle was set to 0°,
deflection was observed in the perpendicular direction. This suggests that either the
orientation of the specimen or dials was inaccurate.
• Ensure that the applied load isn’t moving when the reading is taken. The restoring force
provided by the aluminium beam may cause the weight to exhibit harmonic oscillation when
released. To avoid this problem, the apparatus should be left to equilibrate before taking
readings.
• Some error will have been introduced to the theoretical calculations by assuming the
accuracy of the beam’s dimensions and Young’s modulus. Impurities in the material and
manufacturing defects will have led to some inaccuracy in these values.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this investigation was successful in determining the principal second moments of
area of the L-shaped cantilever beam. These values were determined both experimentally and
theoretically, producing sufficiently low errors as to render the findings valid. The experiment
yielded values of Ix = 200mm4 and Iy = 734mm4, while theoretical calculations yielded Ix = 213mm4
and Iy = 808mm4 through use of Mohr’s circles. Finally comparing the results gave experimental
errors of 6.1% (Ix) and 9.16% (Iy), leading to the identification of potential error sources. Among
these was the suggestion of a larger sample size which would make experimental results more
accurate.
 Charlie Cox 2022 (CXC1129)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Dlsweb.rmit.edu.au. 2022. Second moment of area (I). [online] Available at:
<https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/Toolbox/buildright/content/bcgbc4010a/03_properties/
02_section_properties/page_003.htm> [Accessed 1 January 2022].
2. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.civilengineeringterms.com/mechanics-of-solids-
2/definition-of-principal-stresses-principal-plane-principal-axis/> [Accessed 1 January
2022].