Bending Stress

Introduction
The objective of this assignment is to measure the direct stress due to bending in a loaded beam and
compare it with the calculated value.

Apparatus

Figure 2: strain gauge bridge

Figure 1: strain gauge beam

 Strain gauge beam (fig 1)

 Loading rig, Weight carrier and weights
 Strain gauge bridge (fig 2)
 Vernier calliper

Procedure
1. Measure the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam provided. Measure the beam span and
note the Young’s modulus for the beam material.
2. Connect the gauges to a strain gauge bridge in half bridge configuration and set the gauge
factor.
3. Set up the loading and measurement positions as instructed. Zero the bridge with weight
carrier in place.
4. Adding incremental loads up to 50N. Measure the strain. Repeat the strain measurements in
the reverse order by removing incremental loads back to zero and take the average of the
two strain readings for a given load.
5. Plot strain (ordinate) against load (abscissa). Calculate the bending strain for the beam
configuration and loading conditions and plot on the same axes.
6. Repeat steps 3–5 for additional beam configuration and loading conditions as instructed.

© Nizam Inc. 2017

P15219444
Calculation

Figure 3: loads of beams

Figure 4: dimensions of I-beam

𝑏ℎ3 𝑏1 ℎ1 3
𝐼= −2×( )
12 12
20 × 133 9.25 × 9.83
𝐼= −2×( ) = 2210.66233333𝑚𝑚4
12 12

I = 2210.66 mm4 = 2.211 × 10-3m4

The young’s modulus is given as E= 69 GPa

The masses: 10N, 20N, 30N, 40N, 50N were placed at the centre of the beam. From fig 4 the load
was placed at point P

A and B were used to calculate the moments at Ra and Rb:

𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐴:
+ (𝑃 × (350 × 10−3 ) − (𝑅𝑏 × (700 × 10−3 ) = 0
𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑:
𝑃
𝑅𝑎 =
2
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐵:

+ (𝑃 × (350 × 10−3 ) − (𝑅𝑎 × (700 × 10−3 ) = 0

𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑:
𝑃
𝑅𝑏 = 2

Ra = Rb = P/2

© Nizam Inc. 2017

P15219444
 Load (N) Ra (N) Rb (N)
10 5 5
20 10 10
30 15 15
40 20 20
50 25 25
Table 1: theoretical values for load applied against Ra and Rb

Table 1 shows the results of calculating the moments. The values in the table are theoretical values.

Bending moments

© Nizam Inc. 2017

P15219444
10N
10
𝐵𝑀 @ 𝐶 = 2
× 290 × 10−3 𝑚 = 1.45𝑁𝑚

20N
20
𝐵𝑀 @ 𝐶 = × 290 × 10−3 𝑚 = 2.9𝑁𝑚
2

30N
30
𝐵𝑀 @ 𝐶 = × 290 × 10−3 𝑚 = 4.35𝑁𝑚
2

40N
40
𝐵𝑀 @ 𝐶 = × 290 × 10−3 𝑚 = 5.8𝑁𝑚
2
50N
50
𝐵𝑀 @ 𝐶 = × 290 × 10−3 𝑚 = 7.25𝑁𝑚
2
Bending stress= MY/I
M= Moment
Y= Distance from neutral axis = 0.0065m
I= I value = 2.21 x 10-3 m4

10N: Bending stress = (1.45 x (0.0065))/ (2.21 x 10-9) = 4262777 Nm

20N: Bending stress = (2.9 x (0.0065))/ (2.21 x 10-9) = 8933649 Nm
30N: Bending stress = (4.35x (0.0065))/ (2.21 x 10-9) =12794117 Nm
40N: Bending stress = (5.8 x (0.0065))/ (2.21 x 10-9) = 17058823 Nm
50N: Bending stress= (7.25 x (0.0065))/ (2.21 x 10-9) = 21323529 Nm

© Nizam Inc. 2017

P15219444
 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
Young’s Modulus=𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =69GPa

Load (P) Bending Stress Strain

(MNm) (× 10-6)
= Elastic stress 4.26
= 61.779
69 𝑥 10^9
E=Young’s Modulus 10N 4.262777
8.93
= 123.559
69 𝑥 10^9
= Elastic strain 20N 8.933649
1.28
= 165.338
69 𝑥 10^9
30N 1.2794117
1.71
= 247.116
69 𝑥 10^9
40N 1.7058823
2.13
= 308.897
69 𝑥 10^9
50N 2.1323529
Logbook

Load (N) Reading 1 Reading 2 Average Ra (N) Rb (N)

(×10^-6) (×10^-6) (×10^-6)
10 65 65 65 5 5
20 130 130 130 10 10
30 195 196 195.5 15 15
40 260 261 260.5 20 20
50 328 327 327.5 25 25
Table 2: Experimental values of load

Strain vs Load
327.5
340

300
260.5 308.894
260
Strain (ordinate)

247.116
220 195.5

180
130 165.338
140
123.559
100
65
61.779
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Load [N] (abscissa)

Calculated Experimental

Figure 5: Graph representing Strain vs Load (N)

© Nizam Inc. 2017

P15219444
 Load (N) Calculated Experimental Difference Percentage error
Stress Stress (%)
10 61.78 65 3.22 5.2
20 123.56 130 6.44 5.2
30 165.34 195.5 30.16 18.24
40 247.12 260.5 13.38 5.4
50 308.9 327.5 18.6 6.02
Table 3: Difference between calculated and experimental stress

Figure 5 shows us that there is a relationship between the strain and the load. The graph is a linear
graph which suggests that the strain is directly proportional to the load. Both the experimental and
calculated strain has a linear line, and both values have very little difference. However, for the 30N
load there was a strange difference of 18.24%. This is more than double the difference for other
results, which could suggest that the strain value for 30N may be an anomaly.

Apparatus error could have occurred as the weights used may have not been the weight stated by the
manufacturer. Another error could be hysteresis error which is the error that is a result of the histories
that the piece of apparatus has gone through and apparatus error which is due to the inaccuracy of
the apparatus by default. Random error may have also played a part in the experimental values not
meeting the theoretical value as when the weight was placed in the middle of the beam, it was placed
using the naked eye, which could have been misread.

There are many ways in which this experiment could have been more accurate and minimise the risk
or errors. However, there is not one method that could eliminate all errors and give the perfect
reading. Below you will see a brief description on how the errors mentioned earlier could have been
minimised.

Apparatus error could be minimised by either getting more accurate measurement devices, or
having the equipment maintained on a regular basis.

Hysteresis error could have been prevented by using a new beam.

Random error could have been prevented if an electronic device recorded the results.

In conclusion, the experiment held was satisfactory as the stress calculated and obtained was very
close to the theoretical value even though there were a few errors.

© Nizam Inc. 2017

P15219444