A REPORT

STRENGTH OF MATERIALS PRACTICAL (GET 234)

DETERMINATION OF DEFLECTION AND SLOPE OF

A CANTILEVER

EXPERIMENT NUMBER: 02
Table of Content:
Aim: 3
Objective: 3
Standard: 3
Theory: 3
Equipments/Apparatus: 3
Procedure: 4
Result: 5
Graph: 6
Discussion/Analysis: 6
Precautions: 6
Conclusion: 7
Reference: 8
Aim:
To determine the deflection and slope at end of cantilever for Point load and uniform
distributed load (UDL)
Objective:
The objective of this experiment is to verify the use of the basic differential equation
for calculating beam slopes and deflections.
Standard:
HST13 Beam & Cantilever Instruction Manual
Theory:
.A cantilever is a beam whose one end is fixed and the other is free. When determining
the deflection of a cantilever beam, the two most frequent load types are point load (PL)
and uniform distributed load (UDL). A point load is a force given to a concentrated point
on the support, whereas a uniform distributed load is a force applied equally across the
entire length of the support. This weight is dispersed along the whole length of the
support to achieve the least amount of deflection possible.The slope of a deflected
beam at any point is defined as the angle in radians formed by the tangent at that point
with the beam's original axis. It is the angle formed by the initial and deflected positions.
The methods used to derive the deflection and slope of the beam include: Double
integration method, Macaulay’s method and Moment area method. Using the mentioned
methods it can be derived that:
For a point loaded cantilever:
3
𝑊𝐿
Downward deflection y = 3𝐼𝐸
2
𝑊𝐿
Slope θ = 2𝐸𝐼
For a uniform load distribution:
2
𝑤𝑥 2 2
Downward deflection y = 24𝐸𝐼 (6𝐿 − 4𝐿𝑥 + 𝑥 )
3
𝑤𝐿
Slope θ= 6𝐸𝐼

Equipments/Apparatus:
1. HST 1 Universal Frame
2. Dial Gauge
3. Movable Bracket
4. Weights
5. Hanger and Clamp
6. 25 x 3mm Beam
 Point load setup(Part 1)

Uniformly distributed load setup(Part 2)

Procedure:
Part 1: Deflection and Slope at Loaded End of a Cantilever
Step 1: One of the movable brackets was set up 210mm from the left hand inner side of
the test frame and the 25 x 3 mm beam was clamped on top with 520 mm protruding to
the right to form the cantilever. The beam protruded through the frame gap. This is fine.
Step 2: A hanger clamp was fixedon the cantilever so that its centre is 300 mm from the
face of the end support bracket, where the beam protrudes.
Step 3: The load hanger was suspended from the hanger clamp and chain so that the
hanger suspends underneath the lower horizontal members of the HST1 frame.
Step 4: One dial gauge was positioned on top of the hanger clamp to measure the
downward deflection of the hanger clamp.
Step 5: A second dial gauge was set up to measure the downward movement of the
extension of the cantilever 100 mm to the right of the first dial gauge. This dial gauge
will showed any rotation at the load point of the cantilever. Made sure the dial gauges
were set so that they can measure up to 12mm of beam travel when the beam travels
downwards, i.e. dial gauge spindle needs to be at its innermost position.
Step 6: The dial gauge displays were zeroed. These readings of the two dial gauges
were noted and recorded in Table 1.
Step 7: 10 N load in increments of 2 N was added, and both dial gauges were read for
each new 2N load. All dial gauge readings were recorded in Table 1.
Part 2: Deflection and slope at end of cantilever for a UDL
Step 1: The apparatus was left as the set up as in Part 1 above, same test beam and the
hanger was unloaded. The dial gauge readings were zeroed. The ‘no load’ dial gauge
readings were noted and recorded in Table 2.
Step 2: Six 1N weights were placed on top of the beam (with slot facing onto
beam face) at approximately 40 mm spacing (20 mm at each end).
Step 3: Once all weights had been positioned the readings of the dial gauges were
recorded. The six 1N weights were replaced with six 2N weights to double the
distributed load. Again the dial gauge readings were recorded.
Result:
Deflection Gauge Slope Gauge
Load (N)
Reading Deflection,y Reading Deflection Slope,θ
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (0.01 Rads)

0(No load) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 1.89 1.89 2.76 2.76 0.02

4 3.60 3.60 5.26 5.26 0.05

6 5.68 5.68 8.31 8.31 0.07

8 7.37 7.37 10.77 10.77 0.09

10 8.42 8.42 10.78 10.78 0.12

Table 1

Deflection Gauge Slope Gauge

Load (N)
Reading Deflection,y Reading Deflection Slope,θ
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (0.01 Rads)

0(No load) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000

6 × 1N 2.02 2.02 2.80 2.80 0.0078

6 × 2N 4.03 4.03 5.60 5.60 0.0157

Table 2
Graph:

Graph of Table 1

Graph of Table 2

Discussion/Analysis:
The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the deflection and slope of a cantilever
beam under two different load conditions (point load and uniformly distributed force).
The findings show that the estimated and measured values disagree, but the measured
values agree perfectly, indicating that there is a trend in the deflection. One probable
cause of mistake is that we assume the beam is linear, elastic, and so on, which may
not be true in practise.
Precautions:
1. Parallax error was avoided when taking readings from the measuring tape
2. Zero error was avoided by noting the initial reading of the dial gauge
3. The apparatus was placed on a balanced surface
4. Weights were placed gently to prevent oscillation and possible incorrect readings
5. All connections were made to be tight.
Conclusion:
From the experiment and graphs it can be concluded that the slope and deflection are
proportional to the loaded and to each other.
Reference:
1. “Point Load vs. Uniform Distributed Load | Federal Brace,”
www.federalbrace.com.https://www.federalbrace.com/content/306-point-load-vs-
uniform-distributed-load
2. ‌“SCHOOL OF BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING UNIT -I -SLOPE AND DEFLECTION OF BEAMS -SCIA1401.”
Available:
https://sist.sathyabama.ac.in/sist_coursematerial/uploads/SCIA1401.pdf