Fall 2013

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department

Polytechnic Institute of New York University

ME2211 – A
Statics Laboratory
Group A1

The Deflection of Beams

Date of Experiment: 9/26/13

Date of Lab Report Submission: 10/10/13

This lab report submission is approved by:

Grading:
William Peng Signature:_________
Objectives: /5
John Giammarino Signature:_________ Introduction: /15
Theory: /10
Avitosh Totaram Signature:_________ Observations: /10
Discussion: /45
Jerome Scelza Signature:_________ Conclusions: /10
References: /5

Total: /100
 1

1. Objective
The objective of this lab is for the researchers to observe the deflection behavior of beams and
cantilevers throughout a series of experiments. These experiments use different materials,
positions and weights to see how different beams resist bending.

2. Introduction
2.1 The Importance of the Experiment

The purpose of this lab was to educate the experimenter with the occurrence of the Deflection of
Beams. In engineering, deflection is the degree to which a structural element is displaced under
a load. [1] More specifically this lab was carried out by testing the deflection of beams; under a
range of loads, at different fixture points and with three different materials (brass, aluminum and
steel). The importance of a solid understanding of deflection is a very important tool in every
engineer’s toolbox. At the most basic level, deflection will allow the engineer to test and analyze
the strength and rigidity of a structure. At the more advanced level, deflection can be used to
understand the reaction of a material on the atomic level and be used by an engineer to develop
new alloys of materials that can suit the necessary criteria for specific projects. An example of
some modern day engineering projects relevant to deflection can be seen below.

Because the characteristic of a material a determinant of properties such as the crystalline and
atomic structure and it patterns, by testing objects on a small scale an engineer’s gains insight
into how the material will act on a much larger scale. For example, a major component of the
properties of any material is; its Elastic and Young’s Modulus. You will soon realize that it is
relatively easy to test for these qualities on a small scale. And by doing so an engineer can
determine how a material or beam 20 times its size will react under the load of a one hundred
story building.

Image 2.1 – The above image is a CAD model of the wing deflection of a small aircraft
 2

2.2 The Experiment

To test the deflection of beams an apparatus (image 2.2) was designed which could secure a
beam with a range of points. After the beam has been secured to the device a dial indicator is
used to determine its original position and is calibrated accordingly. A good reference point is to
test the deflection of the beam under its own load, and then to hang a steadily increasing amount
of weight at different points and use the dial indicator to record the displacement of the beam.
After the bending of the beam has been recorded the theoretical results can be quantified using
the known properties of the material being tested.

Image 2.2 – Deflection of Beams Image 2.3 – Digital Dial Image 2.4 – Weight
Apparatus Indicator Hanger

3. Theory [4]
3.1 Deflection of a Cantilever

Deflection is the resistance of a structure to deform with an applied load. The deformation could
be measured in terms of an angle, or by the distance displaced.

Note: W - Load (N), L - Distance from support to position of load (m), E – Young’s modulus
for cantilever material ( ), I – Second moment of area of the cantilever (

3.2 Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam & The Shape of a Deflection Beam
 3

3.3 Circular Bending

Note: W - Load (N), R – Radius of curvature (m), E – Young’s modulus for cantilever material
( ), I – Second moment of area of the cantilever (

Note: R – Radius of curvature (m), C – Chord (m), h – Height of the chord (m).

3.4 Technical Information

3.4.1 Experiment 1

For the Deflection of a cantilever, students are to test different materials deflections by locking in
the material at one end of the clamp. Placing a movable knife-edge fixed at 200 mm away from
the clamped side. Students are to apply different loads at the 200 mm point. Using the movable
digital dial test indicator, students are to record their results from the experiment.

3.4.2 Experiment 2

For the Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam, students are to place the movable knife edges
400 mm apart from each other in the center of the scale. The movable digital dial test indicator is
then placed in the middle of the movable knife edges. When the material is placed onto the knife
edges, students are to apply different loads and record their data. For the second part of this
experiment, students are to reposition the movable knife edges while applying a single load
quantity. Students are to record this data to see results the position of the knife edges has on the
deflection.

3.4.3 Experiment 3

For the Shape of a Deflected Beam, Students are to place the movable knife edges 400 mm apart
from each other in the center of the scale. Students are to apply a 500 g mass in the center of the
movable knife edges. Placing the movable digital dial test indicator at zero on the scale, students
are to record the data from the digital dial test indicator at different locations of the beam.
 4

3.4.4 Experiment 4

For the Circular Bending, students are to place the movable knife edges 400 mm apart from each
other in the center of the scale. Then the movable digital dial test indicator is then placed in the
middle of the movable knife edges. At the edges of the material, students are to place equal
amounts of mass while recording the results from the movable digital dial test indicator.

4. Observations
4.1 Experiment 1

Table 1: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Brass Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 105

Width, w (mm) 18.55
Depth, d (mm) 3.11
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.65×10-11

Table 2: Load and Deflection of a Cantilevered Brass Beam

Mass (g) Load (N) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (mm)
0 0 3.02 0.00
100 0.98 3.68 0.535
200 1.96 4.30 1.07
300 2.94 4.95 1.61
400 3.92 5.67 2.14
500 4.90 6.27 2.68

The actual deflection is the deflection measured, which is the sum of the deflection of the beam
under its own weight and the deflection due to external loading.

Table 3: Deviation of Measurements from Theoretical Deflection

Mass (g) Load (N) Deviation (mm) Deviation Accounting for

Initial Deflection (mm)
0 0 3.02 0.00
100 0.98 3.15 0.13
200 1.96 3.23 0.21
 5

300 2.94 3.34 0.32

400 3.92 3.53 0.51
500 4.90 3.59 0.57

The deviation accounting for initial deflection is simply the difference between the deviation and
the deflection of the beam under only its own weight, without an external load.

Table 4: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Steel Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 207

Width, w (mm) 19.30
Depth, d (mm) 3.13
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.93×10-11

Table 5: Load and Deflection of a Cantilevered Steel Beam

Mass (g) Load (N) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (mm)
0 0 2.47 0.00
100 0.98 2.73 0.256
200 1.96 3.04 0.512
300 2.94 3.33 0.768
 6

400 3.92 3.63 1.02

500 4.90 3.90 1.28

Table 6: Deviation of Measurements from Theoretical Deflection

Mass (g) Load (N) Deviation (mm) Deviation Accounting for

Initial Deflection (mm)
0 0 2.47 0.00
100 0.98 2.474 0.04
200 1.96 2.528 0.058
300 2.94 2.562 0.092
400 3.92 2.61 0.14
500 4.90 2.62 0.15

Table 7: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Aluminum Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 69

Width, w (mm) 18.99
Depth, d (mm) 3.08
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.62×10-11
 7

Table 8: Load and Deflection of a Cantilevered Aluminum Beam

Mass (g) Load (N) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (mm)
0 0 3.48 0.00
100 0.98 4.34 0.820
200 1.96 5.14 1.64
300 2.94 6.02 2.46
400 3.92 6.92 3.28
500 4.90 7.69 4.10

Table 9: Deviation of Measurements from Theoretical Deflection

Mass (g) Load (N) Deviation (mm) Deviation Accounting for

Initial Deflection (mm)
0 0 3.48 0.00
100 0.98 3.52 0.04
200 1.96 3.50 0.02
300 2.94 3.56 0.08
400 3.92 3.64 0.16
500 4.90 3.59 0.11
 8

Deflection vs. Mass for a Cantilevered Beam

9
y = 0.0085x + 3.479
8
Deflection of Beam (mm)

6
Brass
y = 0.0065x + 3.0148
5 Steel

4 Aluminum
Linear (Brass)
3 y = 0.0029x + 2.459
Linear (Steel)
2 Linear (Aluminum)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Mass applied (g)

Figure 1: Plot of deflection vs. mass.

4.2 Experiment 2

Table 10: Mechanical Properties of a Simply Supported Aluminum Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 69

Width, w (mm) 18.99
Depth, d (mm) 3.08
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.62×10-11

Table 11: Load and Deflection of a Simply Supported Aluminum Beam

Mass (g) Load (N) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (mm)
0 0 0.02 0.00
100 0.98 0.40 0.42
200 1.96 0.87 0.82
300 2.94 1.24 1.23
400 3.92 1.70 1.64
500 4.90 2.08 2.05
 9

Table 12: Deviation of Measurements from Theoretical Deflection

Mass (g) Load (N) Deviation (mm) Deviation Accounting for

Initial Deflection (mm)
0 0 0.02 0.00
100 0.98 0.02 0.00
200 1.96 0.05 0.03
300 2.94 0.01 -0.01
400 3.92 0.06 0.04
500 4.90 0.03 0.01
 10

Deflection vs. Mass for a Simply Supported

2.5 Aluminum Beam
2
Deflection of Beam (mm)

y = 0.0042x + 0.011
1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass applied (g)

Figure 2: Plot of deflection vs. mass.

Table 13: Deflection of a Simply Supported Aluminum Beam of Variable Length

Length (mm) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (mm)

200 0.28 0.256
250 0.52 0.500
300 0.88 0.865
350 1.36 1.37
400 2.05 2.05
450 2.88 2.92
500 3.94 4.00

Load used for this part of Experiment 2 was 500g placed at the center.
 11

Deflection vs. Length for a Simply Supported

Aluminum Beam
4.5
y = 2.89E-08x3 + 2.38E-06x2 - 7.39E-04x + 1.03E-01
4
Deflection of Beam (mm)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Length between Supports (mm)

Figure 3: Plot of deflection vs. length.

4.3 Experiment 3

Table 14: Shape of a Deflected Simply Supported Beam

Position from left (mm) Datum Reading (mm) Loaded Reading (mm) Deflection (mm)
0 0.00 1.44 -1.44
20 0.11 1.01 -0.9
40 0.23 0.60 -0.37
60 0.30 0.11 0.19
 12

80 0.46 -0.27 0.73

100 0.63 -0.59 1.22
150 0.77 -1.57 2.34
200 0.60 -2.48 3.08
250 0.17 -3.18 3.35
300 0.80 -3.46 4.26
350 0.69 -3.80 4.49
400 0.61 -3.36 3.97
450 0.60 -1.98 2.58
500 0.72 -0.53 1.25
550 0.57 0.63 -0.06
600 0.35 1.57 -1.22

Shape of a Simply Supported Aluminum Beam

2

1
True Deflection (mm)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1

Series1
-2

-3

-4

-5
Position (mm)

Figure 4: Shape of a simply supported beam.

4.4 Experiment 4

Table 15: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Aluminum Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 69

Width, w (mm) 18.99
Depth, d (mm) 3.08
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.62×10-11
 13

Table 16: Circular Bending of an Aluminum Beam

Mass at Deflection, Applied Moment, Radius of Curvature, R 1/R M/I (×109)

each end (g) h (mm) M (Nm) (m)
0 0.00 0.00 Infinity (division by 0) 0.00 0.00
100 0.52 0.098 38.5 0.0260 2.12
200 1.09 0.196 18.3 0.0546 4.24
300 1.71 0.294 11.7 0.0855 6.36
400 2.29 0.392 8.73 0.115 8.48
500 2.88 0.490 6.95 0.144 10.6

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )
 14

Table 17: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Steel Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 207

Width, w (mm) 19.30
Depth, d (mm) 3.13
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.93×10-11

Table 18: Circular Bending of a Steel Beam

Mass at Deflection Applied Moment M (Nm) Radius of 1/R M/I (×107)

each end (g) h (mm) Curvature R (m)
0 0.01 0.00 2×109 5×10-10 0.00
100 0.21 0.098 95.2 0.0105 1.99
200 0.40 0.196 50 0.02 3.98
300 0.59 0.294 33.9 0.0295 5.96
400 0.78 0.392 25.6 0.0391 7.95
500 0.95 0.490 21.1 0.0474 9.94

Table 19: Mechanical Properties of a Cantilevered Brass Beam

Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 105

Width, w (mm) 18.55
Depth, d (mm) 3.11
Area Moment of Inertia, I (m4) 4.65×10-11
 15

Table 20: Circular Bending of a Brass Beam

Mass at Deflection Applied Moment Radius of Curvature 1/R M/I (×107)

each end (g) h (mm) M (Nm) R (m)
0 0.02 0.00 1000 0.001 0.00
100 0.46 0.098 43.5 0.0230 2.11
200 0.88 0.196 22.7 0.0441 4.22
300 1.31 0.294 15.3 0.0654 6.32
400 1.74 0.392 11.5 0.0870 8.43
500 2.16 0.490 9.26 0.108 10.5
 16

M/I vs 1/R for Circular Bending in Beams

12
y = 98.301x - 0.1186
y = 209.12x - 0.1361
y = 72.854x + 0.1383
10

8
Aluminum
M/I (N/m3)

6 Steel
Brass
4 Linear (Aluminum)
Linear (Steel)
2 Linear (Brass)

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

-2
1/R (1/m)

Figure 5: Plot of M/I vs 1/R.

Table 21: Experimental and Accepted Values for Elastic Moduli

Metal Experimental Elastic Accepted Elastic Modulus

Modulus, (GPa) (GPa)
Steel 209 207
Brass 98 105
Aluminum 73 69

The experimental elastic moduli were taken as the slopes of the graph of M/I vs 1/R.
 17

5. Discussion
5.1 Experiment 1

It can be clearly seen in experiment 1 that as the mass hanging on the beam increases, the
deflection of the beam also increases. It can also be seen that aluminum beam deflected the most,
the brass beam deflected slightly less than the aluminum beam, and the steel beam deflected the
least. Since the placement of the mass and the mass itself were the same for each beam, the
differences in the deflection must then be a result of differences in the properties of the materials.
Specifically, the property that determines the deflection is the modulus of elasticity or Young’s
modulus. This value is a measure of stiffness of a material. The deflection seen in this
experiment makes sense when this property is taken into account. The higher the modulus is, the
greater the stiffness of the material will be and therefore the less the material will deflect. Steel
has a very high elastic modulus of 207GPa, brass has a modulus of 105GPa, and aluminum has a
relatively low modulus of 69GPa. The values we measured for beam deflection deviated slightly
from the expected values based on theory. The highest deviation was recorded for brass at
9.09%. Steel deviated by 3.86% and aluminum deviated by 2.31%.

One of the biggest reasons for discrepancy between the actual and theoretical values of
deflection for the first experiment was the deflection of the beam under its own weight. The
theoretical deflection assumes the beam to be massless. As a result, the beam would not deflect if
no external load were applied. The beam, however, is not massless. It applies a load to itself and
deflects slightly under the conditions of the experiment, even with no external load. The
measured deflection therefore is the sum of the deflection under the beam’s weight and the
deflection due to external loading. It can be seen in Tables 3, 6, and 9 that this has a more
pronounced effect on materials with a lower elastic modulus.

5.2 Experiment 2

Experiment 2 demonstrates the relationship that exists between the separation of supports in a
simply supported beam and the deflection in the beam for a constant mass. It is clear that as this
distance increases, the beam deflection also increases. In context of our knowledge of levers and
torques, this makes sense. It is known that a force acting on a lever system is dependent on the
distance between the point of application and the fulcrum. A force applied at a greater distance
from the fulcrum will produce a greater torque on the system than an equivalent force applied at
a lesser distance from the fulcrum. A simply supported beam is nothing more than a lever system
supported by two fulcrums. As the distance between these fulcrums increases, the distance
between the force and the fulcrums increases and thus the torque on the system increases,
deflecting the beam more. Based on Figure 3, it can be seen that this relationship follows a cubic
function.
 18

5.3 Experiment 3 & 4

Experiment 3 describes the shape of a deflected beam. It can be seen that this shape is a “u”
shape, with the greatest deflection in the middle of the two supports and approximately
symmetric deflection on either side. On the outside of two supports, near either end of the beam,
the shape of the beam is linear. This again makes sense in context of the concept of torques. The
middle is the place that is the farthest from the two supports. When the mass is applied at that
point, the greatest deflection will occur there. On the free ends, there is no bending moment and
as a result, that portion of the beam does not deflect and remains linear. This concept is again
demonstrated in experiment 4 where masses are placed at either end producing a positive
deflection in the beam. The concept of the elastic modulus is also demonstrated in that the three
different types of beams deflect differently based on their elastic modulus. This follows the same
principle as before where the beam with the greatest elastic modulus deflects the least. An
experimental value for the Elastic modulus could then be calculated by plotting the applied
moment on the beam divided by the area moment of inertia against the inverse of the radius of
curvature of the beam. The slope of this plot yields the elastic modulus. The attained values for
the elastic modulus were fairly accurate. For steel the experimental and accepted value only
yielded a percent error of 0.966%. The percent error for brass was 6.67% and the percent error
for aluminum was 5.80%.

5.4 Common Source of Error

One constant source of error faced throughout the four experiments was the use of the digital dial
test indicator device. The device proved to be extremely temperamental in regards to zeroing.
The method for zeroing the device was to slide it to the appropriate position on the track, let the
device settle by tapping the frame to ensure it was correctly reading the vertical distance, and
then pressing the zero buttons. In pressing the button, vibrations from the hand moved the device
and changed the reading it gave. For almost every instance, the initial reading given by the
device was not zero. This then had to be compensated for during calculations.

6. Conclusion
This lab successfully concluded that the deflection of beams could be tested using the apparatus;
and an understanding of the principles and theory could be obtained. The objective of this lab
was to analyze the deflection of the beams and to compare them against the theoretical data. The
following results show that aside from the distortion of the beams from repeatedly being used for
this experiment the relative error was within the scope of the experiment.

Table 6.1 -

Resultant Percent Errors in Beam Deflection

Brass Steel Aluminum
9.09%. 3.86% 2.31%.
 19

Table 6.2 -

Resultant Percent Errors in Elastic Modulus

Brass Steel Aluminum
6.67% .966% 5.80%

This lab report has conveyed the importance for an engineer to understand the deflection of
beams under specific loads and different fixture types. With this understanding the engineer can
begin to implement his/her knowledge into more advanced systems of analysis such as;
dynamics, aerodynamics and mechanics of materials.
 20

References
1. Beer FP, Johnston ER, Mazurek DF, Cornell PJ, and Eisenberg, ER. (2009) Vector
Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dymanics. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill. p 158.

2. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07, engineering, accessed 6 May 2008

3. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005579/Information/ForcesEqui.htm

4. Hi-Tech Education, HST 1/1 Equilibrium of Forces

5. Meriam, James L., and L. Glenn Kraige. Engineering Mechanics (6th ed.) Hoboken, N.J.:
John Wiley & Sons, 2007; p. 23

6. Gere, James M.; Goodno, Barry J. Mechanics of Materials (Eighth ed.). p. 1083-1087.