MCHE 3450

Mechanical Engineering Laboratory

Beam Bending
Experiment Performed 03/25/15
Report Submitted 04/08/15
Group 2
By:
Damon Dunwody
And team

I certify that all the writing here is our own and not acquired from
external sources. We have cited sources appropriately and
paraphrased correctly. We have not shared our writing with students
outside our group, nor have we acquired any written portion of this
document from past or present students.

Abstract
In this lab, students used two beams to better visualize the concepts of beam deflection in
a system. The first part of the lab used a small carbon steel beam, with a moment of inertia of .
041 4 . A force of 170.4lb was applied at the midpoint between two supports separated 48in.
The deflection was found at 12in to be .275in and at 16in to be .342in using the dial indicator. An
equation was formed from all the values of the experiment and using the double integration
method. The values found from the double integration method were .219in at 12in and .272in at
16in. For the second part of the lab a larger carbon steel beam was used with a moment of inertia
of .17 4 . As in part 1 of the experiment, the same 170.4lb force was applied at the midpoint
between two supports separated 84in apart. The deflection was found, using the dial indicator, at
12in, from the right support, to be .211in and at 24in to be .372in. A deflection equation was also
formed for the second beam using values from the experiment and the double integration method.
The equation found the deflection at 12in to be .172in and at 24in to be.315in. The experimental
and analytical data were found to be a little different. Some possible reasons for error are
incorrect measurement when using the dial indicator, possible rounding issues when deriving the
equation, or not being able to apply the force to the exact midpoint of the beam due to the
students foot width.

Introduction
For this lab, applying a force to a beam and measuring the bending of the beam
introduced the concepts of deflection. The first part of the lab used a smaller carbon steel beam
placed on two supports 48 inches apart. A force was applied at the midpoint between the supports,
and the deflection was measured, using a dial indicator, at two different distances from the right
support. The moment of inertia of the smaller beam was found by measuring the cross section of
the beam. The second part of the lab used a larger carbon steel beam set on supports 84 inches

apart. Just as in the first part, a force was applied at the midpoint between the supports and the
deflection was measured at two distances from the right support. The moment of inertia was also
found for the larger beam by measuring the geometry of the cross section. With all the values
measured, a deflection equation was obtained, through double integration, and used to compare
calculated values with the measured values of deflection of the system.

Technical Background
Statics teaches how all forces have reaction forces, and when an object is not in motion,
those forces, when summed up, equal zero as seen in (1-1).

F=0

(1-1)

Statics is the foundation for strength of materials, where it is made possible to calculate the
deflection of a beam due to bending using the beams modulus of elasticity, E , and the beams
moment of inertia, I, as seen in (1-2). For this specific experiment, the cross section is a square,
so (1-2) can be simplified.
3

I=

(1-2)

bh
h
, I sq=
12
12

It is the moment of inertia of a beam that makes one beam, made of the same material as another,
bend less due to its structure. And the modulus of elasticity of a beam that can make one beam,
made with the same structure as another, bend less due to the material the beam was made out of.
To find the deflection due to bending, using double integration method, start by finding the
equation for the moment, M(x), and integrate it once to find the equation for slope,

(x ) , then

integrate once more to find the equation for deflection, y(x) shown in (1-3),(1-4),(1-5).

M d2 y
=
EI dx 2
M
dy
EI == dx
M
EI = = y =f (x )

(1-3)
(1-4)
(1-5)

Experimental Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.

Select the group member who will provide the point load.
Record the weight of this group member.
Measure the cross-sectional dimensions of the smaller beam and the larger beam.
Record the outside dimensions and the wall thickness for each beam
Smaller Beam
i)
Put beam supports 48 inches apart.
ii)
Select a deflection measurement location. The location must not be at midiii)
iv)

span. Record the location as a distance from the left beam support.
Zero the dial indicator
Slowly apply the point load at the mid-span location.
a. Point load member must keep feet as close together as possible.
b. Another group member should steady the point load so he/she does not
fall.
c. Do not bounce.
d. Third group member should record the deflection reading on the dial

v)
vi)

indicator.
Remove the point load.
Select another measurement location. Record the location as a distance from

vii)

the left beam support.

Repeat the instruction given above for point load application and deflection
measurement.

Larger Beam
i)
ii)

Put the beam supports 84 inches apart.

Repeat the instructions given above for the smaller beam.

Analytical Procedure
1. Look up the modulus of elasticity, E, of the beam.
2. Find the moment of inertia, I, of the beam using (1-2).
3. With the length of the beam being denoted as l, and the force due to the weight of the
point load as P, and knowing that each support holds half the weight of the point load the
equation for momentum, M(x), is (1-6).

M ( x )=

Px
2

(1-6)

4. Take the integral of (1-6) to obtain the equation for slope, ( x ) , (1-7).

( x) =

P x2
+C 1
4

(1-7)

5. Take the integral of (1-7) to obtain the equation for deflection, y(x), (1-8).

y ( x )=
6. Use boundary conditions,

P x3
+C 1 x+ C2
12

( 2l )=0

to find

(1-8)

C1 and

y (0)=0

to find

C2 to

then find the specific equation for the deflection due to bending of the beam, (1-9).

y ( x )=

Px x 2 l 2

EI 12 16

(1-9)

Results
Beams
Outer Dimensions [in]
Wall Thickness [in]

Smaller
1.023
0.07

Larger
1.512
0.088

Moment of Inertia [in4]

Span Distance [in]
Measurement Location #1 [in]
Measurement Location #2 [in]
Table 1- Physical information for beams

0.041
48
16
12

0.17
84
24
12

y ab=
Deflection Equations for Entire Beam

Px x 2 l 2

EI 12 16

)
2

P(l x) (lx ) l 2
y bc =

EI
12
16

Table 2 Deflection Equation for entire beam found by the integration method equation.

Beams

Smaller (in)

Larger(in)

x1=16

x1=24

x2=12

x2=12

Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Deflection Equation 1
Deflection Equation 2
Beam Table Method Beam Defection 1
Beam Table Method Beam Defection 2
Table 3 The deflection data in inches for both beams.

0.342

0.372

0.275
0.272
0.219
0.272
0.219

0.211
0.315
0.172
0.315
0.172

Deflection Curves for Smaller Beam

Beam Deflection from the Double Integration Method

Beam Difflection from the Beam Table Method

Figure 1- Graph of the beam deflection from the double integration method and the beam
deflection from the beam table method for the smaller beam.

Deflection Curves for Larger Beam

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Span Distance [inches]

Beam Deflection from the Double Integration Method
Beam Difflection from the Beam Table Method

Figure 2 - A graph of the beam deflection from the double integration method and the beam
deflection from the beam table method for the larger beam.

Discussion
The information in Table 1 was found using calipers or a measuring tape, while
measuring in inches. The moment of inertia was obtained by using (1-2). The equation in Table
2 was found by using the double integration method. This was done by first finding the value of
the right and left reactions and the moment equations. The equations were integrated twice, and
the constants were solved for. The deflection equaling zero when x was zero and the slope being
zero at the midpoint (l/2) were the two boundary conditions used for the first equation to solve for
the constants. The slope at the midpoint being zero and the deflection being zero when x=l, were
the boundary conditions used for the second equation when solving for the constants. Once the
constants were obtained, they were plugged into the deflection equations to get the specific
deflection equations.

The curves in Figure 1 and Figure 2 were obtained by graphing the beam deflection from
the double integration method and the beam deflection from the beam table method on the same
set of axes. For both equations the first equation only represented the first half of the beam and
the second equation represented the second half of the beam. This means that the first half of each
curve uses (x) in all places in the equation that have (x). The second half of each curve uses (l-x)
in all places in the equation that have (x). The two curves are identical because the double
integration method beam deflection was derived and did not use experimental values.
The experimental beam deflection, double integration method beam deflection, and beam
table method beam deflection data can be seen in Table 3. The experimental data was collected in
inches using a 170.4lb weight. The double integration method beam deflection can be seen in
Table 2. The data was calculated using the force (P) as 170.4 lbs, the span distance (l), the
moment of inertia (I), the modulus of elasticity (E) as

3010 6 psi, and the measurement

location (x). The beam table method beam deflection equation was found on elc. As seen below:

y ab=

Px
( 4 x 23 l2 )
EI ( 48 )

(1-10)

The data was calculated using the force (P) as 170.4 lbs, the span distance (l), the
moment of inertia (I), the modulus of elasticity (E) as

3010 6 psi, and the measurement

location (x). This was found for both the smaller and larger beam at two different measurement
locations. For the second half of the graph, x was replaced with (l-x) to adapt (1-10) to represent
the second half of the beam ( y bc ).
The experimental data was found to be larger than that of the analytical data. The
experimental data was approximately .06 inches larger for majority of the measurements. This
difference in the experimental data and the analytical data could be from inaccurate readings
when measuring the deflection. The person causing the force on the beam could have caused
inaccurate readings if he/she was bouncing up and down. Since a person was used as the load, it
is not possible that it was a perfect single point load and this could cause inaccurate readings as

well. Also the load might not have been in the exact middle causing more discrepancies in the
data. The difference in the experimental data and the analytical data could also be from the dial
indicator being zeroed incorrectly.

Conclusion
This lab teaches how to use the double integration method to find the deflection in a
beam. The experimental beam deflection was measured and compared to the analytical data. In
this experiment there was about a 23% error on average for the experimental data. The
experimental could not be summed up accurately in the analytical data because of the lab
conditions. The experiment also did not contain a perfect single point load, which is assumed in
the double integration method used to find the analytical data. This makes the analytical equation
less useful in this specific experiment. Though finding the analytical equation can be very useful
when studying beam deflection, this lab was not accurate enough to see how exact an analytical
equation can get to the experimental values. The applied force should be better consolidated to a
point load for this lab to be truly beneficial.