Group 12- M1

INTRODUCTION:
To practicing engineers, the amount a beam bends (known as deflection) is a major consideration
in the design of buildings, bridges and soon on. A beam which deflects too much may cause
cracking in floor tile, squeaking as one walks through a building, and although a beam maybe of
sufficient strength, too much deflection may cause structure’s occupants uneasiness. Therefore, it
is necessary for the designer to anticipate the amount a beam will deflect while the structure is in
use and limit it accordingly.

“Deflection” of a beam is the displacement of a point on the neutral surface of a beam from its
original position under the action of applied loads. Before the proportional limit of the material,
the deflection, w of the beam can be calculated using the moment of inertia I, modulus of
elasticity along with other section properties that will depend on the given situation imposed on
the beam. The position of the load, the type of load applied on the beam, and the length of beam
are examples of section properties that depend on the situation.

Figure 1: Experiment set-up

From theory,
The mid-span deflection of simply supported beam loaded with a load W at mid-span is given
by:

𝑊𝐿3
𝛿= (1)
48𝐸𝐼

L - Length of the full beam

E - Young’s modulus

1
Group 12- M1

I -Area moment of inertia of the beam's cross section

W-load acting on full beam
δ -Deflection of the beam

Since ,

b- Width of beam specimen

t- Depth of beam specimen

The deflection equation can be rewritten as follows:

𝐿3 𝑊
𝐸= ×
48𝐼 δ (2)

In order to study the effect of span, upon deflection, 𝛿 the power 3 for the span is replaced by n.
Thus, the deflection equation can be written as

δ 1
= × 𝐿𝑛
𝑊 48𝐸𝐼 (3)

Or
δ
= 𝐶 × 𝐿𝑛
𝑊 (4)

Where C is a constant
The above equation can be written in the log form as follows;

𝐿𝑜𝑔 (𝛿⁄𝑊) = 𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑔 (𝑡) + 𝐿𝑜𝑔 (𝐶) (5)

This represents the equation of a straight line (𝑌 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑐). The slope of the graph represents
the power of the span and the vertical intercept represent the constant.

2
Group 12- M1

OBJECTIVE:

1) To establish the relationship between deflection and applied load.

2) determine the elastic modulus of the beam specimen from the deflection data.
3) To find the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen.

APPARATUS:
1. A support frame
2. A pair of pinned support
3. A load hanger
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy to measuring deflection
5. A beam specimen
6. A vernier caliper to measure the depth and width of a beam specimen
7. A meter ruler measure to measure the span of the beam
8. A set of weights

3
Group 12- M1

PROCEDURE:

PART 1: Deflection vs Load

1. The two knife edge supports are bolted to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports is measured to for 1m
and the bolt is tightened.
2. The width and depth of specimen at different three locations are measured and the
readings are recorded.
3. The beam specimen is placed between the clamping plates and the load hanger is fixed at
the mid-span of the beam.
4. The dial gauge placed at the mid-span of the beam and the dial gauge reading is set to be
zero.
5. A 1N load is placed on the load hanger and the resulting dial gauge reading is recorded.
The load on the load hanger is increased by 1N until 6N and all the results are recorded in
the table.

PART 2: Deflection vs span

1. Part 1 is repeated with the distance of 0.8m and 0.6m between the two supports so that the
span of the beam is shorter.

PRECAUTIONS:
1. Make sure the load is completely positioned at the centre
2. Make sure before loading, the reading is zero.
3. When applying load, try not to make it swing because it will gives different reading.
4. Do not exceed the maximum load that can be applied to the beam and the sensor.
5. Put on the load slowly

4
Group 12- M1

RESULT:

1)

Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width,b(±0.01mm) 25.66 25.46 25.50 25.54
Depth, t(±0.01mm) 4.72 4.72 4.82 4.75
Table 1: Dimensions of the beam
Moment of inertia of beam specimen (bt3/12) = 2.28 × 10−10 𝑚

a) Span of tested beam, L = 1000±0.01 mm

Load,W Experimental Deflection, δ (±0.01mm)

(N) Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
0 0 0 0 0
1.0 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.40
2.0 0.85 0.76 0.81 0.81
3.0 1.22 1.20 1.19 1.20
4.0 1.66 1.66 1.72 1.68
5.0 2.15 2.22 2.16 2.18
6.0 2.66 2.72 2.63 2.67

Table 2: Deflection of 1m beam upon load

5
Group 12- M1

0.003
y = 0.000444x - 0.000057

0.0025

0.002
Deflection, δ (m)

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0
0 1 2 Load,
3 W (N) 4 5 6 7

-0.0005

Graph 1: Deflection vs load for 1m beam

𝛿
Slope of graph Load Vs Deflection, = 0.000444 𝑁/𝑚𝑚
𝑊

6
Group 12- M1

b) Span of tested beam, L = 800±0.01 mm

Load,W Experimental Deflection, δ (±0.01mm)

(N) Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
0 0 0 0 0
1.0 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.17
2.0 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.44
3.0 0.66 0.65 0.67 0.66
4.0 0.93 0.89 0.90 0.91
5.0 1.16 1.11 1.12 1.13
6.0 1.40 1.34 1.38 1.37

Table 3: Deflection of 0.8m beam upon load

0.0016

0.0014
y = 0.000232x - 0.000029

0.0012

0.001
Deflection, δ (m)

0.0008

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.0002
Load, W (N)

Graph 2: Deflection vs load for 0.8 beam

𝛿
Slope of graph Load Vs Deflection, 𝑊 = 0.000232 𝑚/𝑁

7
Group 12- M1

c) Span of tested beam, L = 600±0.01 mm

Load,W Experimental Deflection, δ (±0.01mm)

(N) Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average
0 0 0 0 0
1.0 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04
2.0 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15
3.0 0.30 0.24 030 0.28
4.0 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37
5.0 0.46 0.49 0.46 0.47
6.0 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58

Table 4: Deflection of 0.6m beam upon load

0.0007

0.0006 y = 0.000104x - 0.000044

0.0005
Deflection, δ (m)

0.0004

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.0001
Load, W (N)

Graph 3: Deflection vs load for 0.6m beam

𝛿
Slope of graph Load Vs Deflection, 𝑊 = 0.000104 𝑁/𝑚𝑚

8
Group 12- M1

Span of the beam 𝛿 𝛿 log(𝐿) (m)

(m/N) log(𝑊) (m/N)
specimen L(m) 𝑊

1 0.000444 -3.35262 0
0.8 0.000232 -3.63451 -0.0969
0.6 0.000104 -3.98297 -0.2218
𝛿
Table 5: Solving for log(𝑊) and log(𝐿)

log(δ/W) VS log(L)
-3.3
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
-3.4

-3.5

-3.6
y = 2.8389x - 3.3551
log(δ/W)

-3.7

-3.8

-3.9

-4

-4.1
log(L)

𝛿
Graph 4: log (𝑤) 𝑣𝑠 log(𝐿)

𝛿
Slope of graph of log (𝑤) 𝑣𝑠 log(𝐿) = 2.8389

9
Group 12- M1

DISCUSSION:

Based on Graph 1, 2 and 3, it is found that the deflection of beam increases directly
proportionally to the load applied for all three span of beams. Hence, it is evidence that the beam
is elastically stretched within its proportional limit (Ugural, 2003). Next, by using Eq.4, Graph 4
is drawn and a linear line is shown. From Eq.2 , the slope of the graph, which is the power of L, n
should theoretically be 3, but it is found out to be 2.8389 in this experiment. Hence the percentage
error of n can be calculated using the formula, which gives 5.37%.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (6)

On the other hand, the elastic modulus of the beam specimen can be calculated from the y-
1
intercept of Graph 4 according to Eq.4 and Eq.2. Hence, log (48𝐸𝐼) = 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ =
1
−3.3551. Hence, rearranging and calculating, 𝐸 = 48×10−3.3551×2.28×10−10 = 207 𝐺𝑃𝑎. Generally,

the elastic modulus of the material of the beam specimen used (stainless steel) is approximated to
be 200GPa. Hence, using 200GPa as the theoretical value and calculating the percentage error
using Eq.6, the percentage error is calculated to be only 3.5%. However, the assumed theoretical
value is just an approximation and relative comparison since many factors can affect the value of
elastic modulus such as temperature.

For analyzing the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen, a graph
𝛿
of 𝑤 against L is drawn.

𝛿/𝑤 against L
0.0005

0.0004
𝛿/𝑤 (m N-1)

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Length of beam specimens, L (m)

Graph 5: 𝛿/𝑤 against L

10
Group 12- M1

From Graph 5, it is known that the longer the beam specimen, the easier it is to bend. Also, the
graph curves upwards which signifies that Eq.2 corresponds with this experiment since 𝛿 ∝ 𝐿3 .

The three objectives of the experiment are achieved successfully. The theoretical power
for length such as in Eq. 1 is 3 but is found to be 2.8389 which is 5.37% error. Overall, the outcome
of the experiment is as expected and has no significant error. However, there are some factors that
can contribute to the occurrence of inaccuracies. For instance, when taking readings for beams
with a smaller span, some distribution of weight of the beam is outside the supports. This produces
some moment from the outer part of the beam and can affect the accuracy of the readings. Other
systematic error includes the dial gauge being not well lubricated and contain inner force which
can affect the effective load acting on the beam.

Some human error can also easily occur; such that parallax error when measuring the
dimensions of the beam and dial gauge. Also, the impact of the load on the load hanger can easily
affect the reading of dial gauge. Hence, precautions can be made by putting the load slowly to
minimize the errors. Another precaution that is important in this experiment is to keep the load and
dial gauge exactly at the center since the maximum deflection will be at the center (Bansal, 2006).

11
Group 12- M1

CONCLUSION:

In this experiment, it is found that the deflection of beam increases directly proportionally
with the increase of load. The modulus of elasticity for the beam specimen used was also
determined to be 207GPa. Using 200GPa as approximated theoretical value of modulus of
elasticity for the beam specimen, which is stainless steel, the percentage error is found to be only
3.5%. The relationship between the deflection of the beam and the length of the beam was also
known, that is, the longer the beam, the easier it is to deflect the beam. Futhermore, the line in
Graph 5 curves upwards which indicates that the relationship between deflection and the length
of the beam is non-linear and Eq.1 is satisfied, that 𝛿 ∝ 𝐿3 .

Therefore, the experiment of the experiment is considered successful with little error, and
a greater understanding of the relationship between load, deflection and span of the beam is
established.

12
Group 12- M1

REFERENCES

Bansal, R. (2006). Engineering Mechanics and Strength of Materials. New Delhi: Laxim
Publication (P) Ltd.
Raz, S. A. (2001). Analytical Methods in Structural Engineering. Daryaganj, Delhi: New Age
International (P) Ltd.
Ugural, A. (2003). Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

13