S1: THE BENDING OF

BEAMS
School
of Computing,
Science & REPORT
STRUCTURES
LABORATORY
Engineering

A.Kadi
r

ZEESHAN ALI SAFDAR

@00386395

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
MENG

Page | 1

Summary
The structures laboratory consisted of three tests which were used to determine the
relationship between the bending moment and the radius of curvature. The first experiment
was used to observe the uniform deflection in the beam. The second and third experiments
were carried out to see the effects of the bending moment when the formation of loading on
the beam is varied. A simply-supported beam was used and the deflection was measured.
Graphs were plotted and the gradients were used to calculate the youngs modulus of the mild
steel used for the beam.
The relationship between the bending moment and radius of curvature was found to be
inversely proportional; an increase in the bending moment, meant a decrease in the radius.

Page | 2

Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................3

Theory..............................................................................................4

Apparatus..........................................................................................5

Method..............................................................................................6

Calculations and Analysis..........................................................................8

Relationship between M and R..................................................................13

Discussion.........................................................................................14

Conclusion........................................................................................15

References........................................................................................16

Appendix..........................................................................................17

Page | 3

Introduction
Beams are structural members which have many uses in engineering, such as buildings and
bridges. A simply supported beam is one which is supported from both ends and is free to
rotate. Beams typically are utilised to support vertical loads, which cause bending moment.
Therefore there is deflection in loaded beams due to different forms of bending moment. As a
beam is loaded, it deflects (as shown in figure 1), if the path of deflection was to carry on, a
circular arc path would be formed.

The experiments which were performed in the structures laboratory were used to determine
the effects which different types of bending moment has on deflection in the beam.
There were four main aims:
1. To show a loaded beam which has a uniform cross section, tends to bend in a circular
arc due to the bending moment.
2. To prove that radius of the curvature along the length of the beam, R, changes when
the bending moment, M, changes.
3. To identify the specific link between R and M.
4. To calculate the Youngs Modulus of elasticity, E, for the material which the beam is
constructed with.

Theory
The bending equation shows that at any point on a beam

Page | 4

M E
=
I R
And therefore,
R=

EI
M

Where R is the radius of curvature, E is the Youngs Modulus, I is the second moment of area
relative to a transverse axis thought a neutral axis and M is the bending moment.
This formula works for any transverse section of the beam.
For a bridge gauge, if the bending over bridge gauge length, l, is circular, then:
2

l
= (2 R )
4
And therefore,
l 2=8 R 4 ( 2)
However in beams, the value of

is small and therefore

2
means the equation above can be simplified to l =8 R

find the radius of curvature,

2

R=

l
8

The illustration of this equation can be seen in figure 2.

Apparatus

Beam (simply-supported)
Knife-edged supports

can be neglected. This

and further more rearranged to

Page | 5

Weight plates (0.5 Kg and 5 Kg)

Weight hangers
Bridge Strain Gauge (Mitutoyo 1013F) Each division = 0.002 mm
Separate dial test gauges to measure deflection (Digital and analogue)

A beam with a set length of 1300mm was used and was supported from both ends by knife
edged supports. Load hangers were attached to the beam at specific positions and the required
weight plates were placed upon them. A dial test gauge was used to measure the deflection
present in the beam. It was slid across the beam by small intervals towards the centre to see
how deflection varies as it gets closer to the centre. The number of increments measured on
the bridge gauge was multiplied by 0.002 to get the measurement in terms of mm. The bridge
gauge is shown in figure 5.

Method
For all the experiments a mild steel beam was used, which had a cross section of 31.75mm
width (B) and 6.35mm depth (D). The loads were chosen so the bending moment did not
surpass a value of 11.0Nm. The setup for experiments 1 and 2 is shown in figure 3. However

Page | 6

for for experiment 2 the bridge gauge was removed and instead a dial gauge was placed at the
centre of the beam.

Experiment 1
1. The bridge gauge was fixed onto the beam.
2. The weights were removed, leaving just the weight hangers, and then the bridge
gauge was calibrated to read zero.
3. The weights (3.5kg on each side) were then added and the reading on the gauge was
recorded.
4. The weights were removed and the position of bridge gauge was varied by 59mm
increments towards the centre. Only half the beam was tested to remove any duplicate
readings.
5. The results were tabulated with columns of x, the length from the support to the centre
of bridge gauge and 1, the bridge gauge reading caused by the addition of weights.
Values obtained shown in Calculations and Analysis section of report (Table 1).

Experiment 2
1. The weights were removed, as well as the bridge gauge.
2. A separate dial test gauge (digital) was set up in the middle of the entire length of the
beam, which could measure the central deflection in the beam.
3. Weights were added at increments of 0.5kg, up to a maximum of 3.5kg and therefore
seven readings were made (excluding the initial reading where no weights were
attached). The readings for central deflection were recorded.
4. The weights were then unloaded, again in increments of 0.5kg until there were no
more weights attached. This was to get a second reading of central deflection of each
weight.
5. The results were tabulated with columns for W, Load and 2, the central deflection.
Values obtained shown in Calculations and Analysis section of report (Table 2).

Experiment 3
For experiment 3, a different set up was used as shown in figure 4.
1. The bridge gauge was placed on the beam as well as an analogue dial gauge.
2. The loading were removed and the bridge gauge was calibrated to show zero.

Page | 7

3. A weight of 5kg was placed onto the weight hanger and the reading on the dial gauge
was recorded.
4. The weight was removed and the readings on the dial gauge was checked to show
zero. If otherwise, the measurement would have needed to be repeated due to a
calibration
error.
5. The bridge gauge was then shifted towards the centre, and for each position 3, the
gauge reading for deflection was recorded. The reading was then multiplied by a
thousand to make it easier to plot on a graph.
Values obtained shown in Calculations and Analysis section of report (Table 3).

Calculations and Analysis

Experiment 1

Page | 8

As

R=

EI
M

, if E, I, and M, are all constant, then the equation shows that the beam will

bend with a path of a circular arc.

X (mm)
45
104
163
222
281
340

1
No. increments
27
27
27
27
27
27

(mm) (x 0.002)
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.054

Table 1

Table 1 shows as the length from the support to the centre of bridge gauge is varied, the
number of increments does not change. Therefore it can be stated that the beam was bending
upwards, and the same amount of deflection occurred in all sections of the beam.
Experiment 1 was held out to simply observe the fact that the deflection will occur at a
constant magnitude, along all sections of the beam.

Experiment 2

Page | 9

Moment = Wa at all points on the beam between the supports, where a = 300mm.
R=

L2
82

Where L is the span of the beam between the supports and the value of L was 700mm. As a
value of 2 was obtained, it was possible to calculate the radius of curvature for the beam
when each weight was added.
E=

MR
I If M = Wa and

R=

L2
82

are subbed into this equation, it is transformed into:

aL W
E=
8I 2
Where
BD
I=
12

W
2

is the gradient of the graph 2.

As B = 31.75 and D = 6.35,

I=

31.75 x 6.353
=677.46 mm4
12

Load (W)
(kg)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5

(N)
( kg x 10 )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

2
Loading
(mm)
0
0.69
1.36
2.03
2.72
3.38
4.07
4.73

2
unloading
(mm)
0
0.69
1.38
2.08
2.76
3.45
4.13
4.73

2
Average
(mm)
----0.69
1.37
2.06
2.74
3.42
4.10
4.73

Moment
(N.mm)
(M=Wa)
----1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
9000
10500

R
(mm)
(R=L/82)
----88768.12
44708.03
29733.01
22354.01
17909.36
14939.02
12949.26

Table 2

Table 2 shows that as the load is increased, the deflection in the centre of the beam, 2 is also
increased.
A theoretical value of E can be calculated by using the following method:
E=

MR
I

Where the values of M and R can be taken from any row in table 2. The value of I, the second
4
moment of area was calculated before at 677.46 mm and so,

P a g e | 10

E=

10500 x 12949.26
=200701.5 N /mm2
677.46

This is the expected value of Youngs Modulus obtained before graph 2 was plotted for
experiment 2. Looking at graph 2, it can be seen that as the load increases, so does the
average deflection in the beam. The best line of fit proves the relationship is directly
proportional, and a gradient of W/2 can be easily obtained.
Gradient =

W 27.751.25
4
=
=7.53 mm
2
3.70.18

This gradient can be used to check if the obtained Youngs Modulus from the experiment is
accurate.
E=

a L2 W 300 x 7002
x =
x 7.53=204239 N /m m2
8 I 2 8 x 677.46

Percentage of error=

ExperimentalTheoretical
x 100
Theoretical

Percentage of error=

204239200701.5
x 100
200701.5

Percentage of error=1.76

This shows the experimental value is 1.76% bigger than the expected value.
Experiment 2 was done to show how deflection is affected when the loads are placed on the
ends of a simply-supported beam.

P a g e | 11

Experiment 3
The beam is symmetrical in this experiment and therefore the weight is distributed on each
support by W/2. The mass used was 5 kg which means it had a weight of 50 N.
Therefore:
Moment =

Wx
2

Where x is the distance between the support and the centre of the bridge gauge.
The radius of curvature is:
2

R=

l
83

Where l is the span of the bridge gauge.

These two equations can be substituted into

E=

MR
I

which care therefore be transformed

into:
2

E=

Wl x
16 I 3

Where

x
3

is the gradient of Graph 3.

3

X
(mm)
45
104
163
222
281

No. increments
2
6
10
13
17

(mm)(x 0.002)
0.004
0.012
0.020
0.026
0.034

x 1000
4
12
20
26
34

Moment
(N.mm)

R
(mm)

1125
2600
4075
5556
7025

175781.25
58593.75
36156.25
27043.27
20680.15

Table 3

The value of I is constant and the values of M and R could be attained from Table 3, and so
the theoretical Youngs modulus value could be found:
E=

7025 x 20680.15
=214445 N /mm2
677.46

P a g e | 12

After Graph 3 was plotted, the gradient could be used to get the experimental value of
Youngs Modulus:
Gradient=

26822
=7935.5
332

Hence,
E=

Wl 2 x
50 x 752
x =
x 7935.5=205903 N /m m2
16 I 3 16 x 677.46

Percentage of error=

ExperimentalTheoretical
x 100
Theoretical

Percentage of error=

205903214445
x 100
214445

Percentage of error=3.98
This means the experimental value of Youngs Modulus of the mild steel was 3.98% smaller
than the expected value.
Experiment 3 gave results which helped determine the effects on beam deflection by adding a
load to the centre of a simply-supported beam.

P a g e | 13

Relationship between M and R

The experiments carried out show that there is a close link between bending moment and
radius of curvature. Specifically, the relationship is of a negative correlation. If the bending
moment is increased, then the radius of curvature decreases. This can be seen in the tables of
results in experiment 1 and experiment 2 (See Table 1 and Table 2).
However, the connection can be understood with more clarity with the aid of Graph 4. The
graph has both the data from experiment 2, and experiment 3. The two lines share a very
similar path, and at points are almost relatively, identical.
When the bending moment is equal to 7000 Nmm, the radius of curvature for the beam in
experiment 3 is approximately equal to 21,000 mm. For the beam used in experiment 2, at the
same value of bending moment, the radius is roughly 19,000 mm.
The gradient of the curves rapidly decrease initially, which suggests the large amount of
bending moment was deflecting the beam more, which resulted in a smaller radius of
curvature.
As the bending moment reaches the range between 2600-3000 Nmm, the gradient of the
graph appears decrease at a constant rate.
For these reasons it is possible to say there is a direct impact on the radius of curvature, R,
when the bending moment, M, is varied.

P a g e | 14

Discussion
Load and deflection are directly proportional as shown on the graph 2 by a straight line of
best fit. The Youngs Modulus of mild steel, has an expected range of 200,000-210,000
N/mm2. It can also be stated that the experimental value is smaller than the expected value for
Youngs Modulus of the mild steel used for the beam in experiment 2, however bigger than
the expected value in experiment 3. This can be due to the errors which may have occurred
during the practicals as well as the effect of limiting factors, such as inaccuracy of readings
on the digital dial gauge for more than two decimal places.
The percentage error for the second experiment is higher than the error for the third
experiment, and it proves that experiment 2 was less accurate, which could be due to the use
of an analogue dial gauge for the third experiment. Another reason why experiment 2 may
have a bigger error, is due to the weight of the bridge gauge. This is because it would mean
there is an additional load which is not being accounted for when measuring the deflection in
the simply-supported beam.
The errors could be caused by defects in the apparatus or precision of the measuring
instruments used.
A cantilever beam (figure 6), which is subject to a concentrated load on the end which is not
supported, will deflect. A bridge gauge can also be used to measure the deflection.

P a g e | 15

Conclusion
The experiments were successful and allowed a number of different values to be calculated,
for example the Youngs Modulus and the radius of curvature. The resulting conclusion is that
the bending moment and radius of curvature are inversely proportional. Also it has been
found that as load placed on the beam increases, the deflection in the beam also increases.
The errors could have been reduced by increasing the precision of the bridge gauge, as well
as taking into account the weight of the gauge. More readings could have been taken to have
more accuracy.
All the aims of the experiments were achieved.

P a g e | 16

References

Safdar, Z. (2015). Figure 1 [image]

Safdar, Z. (2015). Figure 2 [image]

Safdar, Z. (2015). Figure 5 [image]

Figure 6 - Clyne, B. (2015). DoITPoMS - TLP Library Thermal expansion and the bimaterial strip. [Online] Doitpoms.ac.uk. Available at:
http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/thermal-expansion/printall.php [Accessed 4 Feb. 2015].

Safdar, Z. (2015). Graph 1 Experiment 1 1 (mm) against x (mm). [Graph]

Safdar, Z. (2015). Graph 2 Experiment 2 Load (N) against 2 (mm). [Graph]

Safdar, Z. (2015). Graph 3 Experiment 3 X (mm) against 3 (x10 -3 mm). [Graph]

Safdar, Z. (2015). Graph 4 Relationship between M and R. [Graph]

P a g e | 17

Appendix

Figure 1 - (Safdar.Z 2015)

Figure 2 (Safdar.Z
2015)

Figure 3

P a g e | 18

Figure 4

Figure 5 (Safdar.Z 2015)

Figure 6 (Clyne, 2005)

P a g e | 19

Graph 1 Experiment 1 1 (mm) against x (mm) (Safdar.Z, 2015)

P a g e | 20

P a g e | 21

Graph 2 Experiment 2 Load (N) against 2 (mm) - (Safdar.Z, 2015)

Graph 3 Experiment 3 X (mm) against 3 (x10 -3 mm) - (Safdar.Z, 2015)

P a g e | 22

M (N.mm)

P a g e | 23

Graph 4 - Relationship between M and R (Safdar.Z, 2015)

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000

Experiment 2

Experiment 3

4000
3000
2000
1000
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

R (mm)

120000

140000

160000

18000