GROUP MEMBER

Name of group member Matric number

Muhamad Fariz bin Tajuddin AD170172
Mohammad Bukhari bin Mohamed @ Mohd Idrus AD150172
MOHAMMAD SAFWAN BIN MD RONI CD170059
MUAMMAR SYAMIM HAMIZAN BIN MOHD HISHAM AD160035
MUHAMAD AL-FATAH BIN AHMAD AD170289
OBSERVATION
Test 1
• 5.1N load placed at the centre.
• RA and RB both are 2.4N which is equilibrium.

Test 2
• Two distributed load of 2.6N are placed with a distance of 150mm from end of the beam.
• RA and RB both are on same reading which is 2.5N.

Test 3
• Similar arrangement to Test 2 but 5.1N extra load was added at the centre of the beam.
• RA and RB show 4.9N and 4.95 respectively that almost to equilibrium.

Test 4
• Two concentrated loads of 2.1N were place on left of the beam 50mm from end and 100mm from first one
and 5.1N load placed 100mm beside second load.
• RA get 5.65N that gives a higher value of RB that get 3.3N.
Test 5
• A distributed load placed 50mm and another one 150mm from end of the beam.
• The beam leaned more toward the RA because it gives 3.05N and RB 1.9N which is lesser.

Test 6
• The beam is leaned towards RB when another two loads weight 2.1N were hooked in the beam without
removing Test 5 set up.
• RB has a higher value which is 4.75N than RA 4.4N.

Test 7
• As set-up in Test 6, only the position of RB was changed.
• The beam leaned towards the right after the equilibrium achieved.
• RA gives 2.3N while RB gives 6.85N.

Test 8
• The position of RA is also changed for Test 8 without changing RB as set-up in Test 7.
• The beam leaned toward RA that gives 6.3N while RB 5.75N.
RESULT
Experimental results Theoritical results Comparison

TEST Ra Rb Ra + Rb Ra Ra Ra + Rb Same / Not

(N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) same

TEST 1 2.4 2.4 4.8 2.55 2.55 5.10 Not same

TEST 2 2.55 2.5 5.05 2.61 2.61 5.22 Not same
TEST 3 4.9 4.95 9.85 5.16 5.16 10.32 Not same
TEST 4 5.65 3.3 8.95 5.91 3.39 9.30 Not same
TEST 5 3.05 1.9 4.95 3.13 2.09 5.22 Not same
TEST 6 4.4 4.75 9.15 4.39 5.03 9.42 Not same
TEST 7 2.3 6.85 9.15 3.13 6.29 9.42 Not same
TEST 8 6.3 5.75 12.05 6.06 6.36 12.42 Not same
CALCULATION
M  0
2.61(75e  3)  (2.61  5.1)(150e  3)  RB (250e  3)
 2.1(300e  3)  0
RB  6.36 N

 F 0
 2.61  RA  2.61  5.1  6.36  2.1  0
RA  6.06 N
RA  RB  6.06  6.36  12.42 N
DISCUSSION
•
FROM THE EXPERIMENT, THE VALUE OF RA, RB, AND (RA+RB) IS
if we compare the experimental and theoretical value, we could see that
it is not same because there are some slightly different between the
OBTAINED.FIRSTLY, FOR TEST 1 UNTIL TEST 3, THE VALUE OF RA IS THE values. We found that this error was happened due to the accuracy of
SAME AS THE RB AS TE LOADS ARE SUPPORTED ARE EQUAL TO THE spring balance where the smallest scale division of the spring balance
REACTION OF FORCES THROUGH RA AND RB. THE TOTAL OF RA+RB IS THE is error. Thus, the different in decimal places for experimental and
TOTAL LOADS APPLIED ON TEBEAM UPPORTED BY RA AND RB FOR THE HALF theoretical value due to the error on spring balance resulting the
different for the both values respectively.
OF THE LOADS RESPECTIVELY. FOR TEST 4,5, AND 8, THE VALUE OF RA IS
HIGHER THAN RB AS THE WEIGHT OF LOADS ARE MORE CONCENTRATED ON
RA SITE. FOR TEST 8 , THE VALUE OF RA SHOULD BE MORE HIGHER THAN RB
AS TE WEIGHT OF TE LOADS ARE MORE CONCENTRATED ON RB SITE. FOR
TEST 6, THE VALUE OF RB IS OBVIOUSLY SHOULD BE MORE HIGHER THAN
RA AND THE VALUE RB IN TEST 7 WILL BE TWICE FROM RA. IN THIS
EXPERIMENT, WE COULD SEE THAT THE VALUE FOR TOTAL FOR OF (RA+RB)
IS INCREASE SINCE FROM TEST 1 UNTIL TEST 8 BUT THERE SOMETHING
HAPPEN TO THE VALUE AT TEST 4 ND 5 WHERE THE VALUE IS DECREASING.
QUESTIONS
CONCLUSION
• IN CONCLUSION, WE UNDERSTAND THAT TOTAL OF DISTRIBUTED LOADS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS
EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATED LOAD ACTING ON THE BEAM
• WE ABLE TO CALCULATE THE REACTIONS AT SUPPORT BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF MOMENT
• SOME FEW PROBLEM THAT WE HAVED TO FACED
 LIMITATION OF ADJUSTABLE HOOK
 LIMITATION OF SPRING
 ZERO ERROR OF SPRING BALANCE
REFERENCES
• HIBBELER , R.C., 2013, “ ENGINEERING MECHANICS : STATICS “ , 13TH EDITION, PEARSON. CALL NUMBER : TA 351. H52 2013
• BEDFORD, ANTHONY, 2008, “ ENGINEERING MECHANICS : STATICS “, 5TH EDITION, PEARSON. CALL NUMBER : TA 351 B42
2008.
• PYTEL, ANDREW, 2001, “ ENGINEERING MECHANICS : STATICS”, 2ND EDITION, THOMPSON. CALL NUMBER : TA 351. P97 2001
• SHAMES, IRVING H., 1997, “ENGINEERING MECHANICS : “ ENGINEERING MECHANICS : STATICS”, PRENTICE – HALL . CALL
NUMBER : TA 351. S43 1997
• MC GILL, DAVID J., 1994, “ENGINEERING MECHANICS : STATICS”, 3RD EDITION. PWS. CALL NUMBER : TA 350. M38 1994NI