Mechanics of Materials

Laboratory
Beam Deflection Test
Date Performed: 2/28/11

Date Due: 3/14/11

Richard Dyar

Group B:

Yazmin Ince

Richard Dyar
Abstract
If a beam is supported at two points, and a load is applied
anywhere on the beam, the resulting deformation can be
mathematically estimated. Due to improper experimental setup, the
actual results experienced varied substantially when compared against
the theoretical values. The following procedure explains how the
theoretical and actual values were determined, as well as suggestions
for improving upon the experiment. The percent error remained
relatively small, around 11%, for locations close to supports. Error was
experienced when analyzing positions closer to the beam, with the
exception of odd values on gage 4.

2
 Background
If a beam is supported at two points, and a load is applied
anywhere on the beam, deformation will occur. When these loads are
applied either longitudinally outside or inside of the supports, this
elastic bending can be mathematically predicted based on material
properties and geometry.

Curvature at any point on the beam is calculated from the

moment of loading (M), the stiffness of the material (E), and the first
moment of inertia (I.) The following expression defines the curvature in
these parameters as 1/ρ, where ρ is the radius of curvature.

1 M
=
ρ E ⋅I

Equation 1

Equation 1 does not account for shearing stresses.

Curvature can also be found using calculus. Defining y as the

deflection and x as the position along the longitudinal axis, the
expression becomes

d2y
1 dx 2
=
ρ  3
 dy  
2 2

1 +   
  dx  

Equation 2

3
 Central Loading

Central loading on a beam can be thought of as a simple beam

with two supports as shown below.

Figure 1

Applying equilibrium to the free body equivalent of Figure 1,

several expressions can be derived to mathematically explain central
loading.

+ → Fx = 0 = Rax
PL P
∑ M A = 0 = − 2 + RC ⋅ L ⇒ RC = 2
P
+ ↑ Fy = 0 = Ray − P + Rc ⇒ Ray =
2

Equation 3, 4, and 5

Figure 2 and 3 act as free body diagrams for the section between
AB and BC respectively.

Figure 2

4
 Figure 3

Solving the reactions between AB and BC, equation 1 can be

expressed as

d2y P x L
EI 2 = 0≤ x≤
dx 2 2
2
d y Px PL L
EI 2 =− + ≤ x≤ L
dx 2 2 2

Equation 6, 7

Integrating twice, Equation 6 becomes

P x3 L
EI y= + C1 x + C2 0≤ x≤
12 2
P x3 P L x 2 L
E I y=− + + C3 x + C4 ≤x≤L
12 4 2

Equation 8, 9

To determine the constants, conditions at certain positions on

the beam can be applied. Knowing the deflection at each of the
supports, as well as the slope at the top of the curve is zero, the
constants can be derived to

P L2 3 P L3
C1 = − C2 = 0 C3 = − P L2 C4 =
16 16 48

Equation 10, 11, 12, and 13

Combining Equations 8 and 9 with 10 through 13, the

expressions for deflection can be expressed as

5
 P x 3 P L2 x L
EI y= − 0≤x≤
12 16 2
P x 3 P L x 2 3 P L2 x P L3 L
E I y=− + − + ≤x≤L
12 4 16 48 2

Equation 14, 15

Overhanging Loads

Overhanging loading on a beam is similar to that of central

loading. In overhanging loading, a simple beam is supported with two
supports and two loads as shown below.

Figure 4

Using similar methods used previously for central loading, the

equation for determination of deflection as a function of position, load,
length, stiffness, and geometry can be derived as

P x3 2
EI y= ( a − b ) − P a x + P L ( 2a + b ) x 0≤x ≤L
6L 2 6

Equation 16

Procedure
See lab manual section 11

6
 Central Loading

Load
Gage 1 Gage 2 Gage 3 Gage 4

Overhanging Loads
Load

Load
Gage 1 Gage 2 Gage 3

Data & Calculations

Central Loading
Table 1 and 2 catalog the dimensions of the beam, as well as the
position of the gages as measured from one of the two fixed supports.

Beam Dimensions (inches)

Test Length 30.000
Width 0.998
Thickness 0.260

Table 1

7
 Position of Gages (inches)
x1 4.000
x2 10.000
x3 20.000
x4 26.000

Table 2

Deflection Data for Central Loading

Strep Type Load (lb) Gage 1 (in) Gage 2 (in) Gage 3 (in) Gage 4 (in)
4.000 10.000 20.000 26.000
0 Actual 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 Theoretical 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 Error 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1 Actual 2.0 -0.0114 -0.0253 -0.0255 -0.0115
1 Theoretical 2.0 -0.0109 -0.0238 -0.0228 0.0001
1 Error 4.40% 6.22% 11.92% -10777.34%
2 Actual 4.0 -0.0257 -0.0510 -0.0512 -0.0232
2 Theoretical 4.0 -0.0218 -0.0476 -0.0456 0.0002
2 Error 17.68% 7.06% 12.36% 10870.19%
3 Actual 6.0 -0.034 -0.076 -0.077 -0.034
3 Theoretical 6.0 -0.033 -0.071 -0.068 0.000
3 Error 4.40% 6.50% 11.92% 10684.50%
4 Actual 8.0 -0.045 -0.102 -0.102 -0.046
4 Theoretical 8.0 -0.044 -0.095 -0.091 0.000
4 Error 3.03% 6.74% 11.81% 10777.34%
5 Actual 10.0 -0.058 -0.128 -0.128 -0.058
5 Theoretical 10.0 -0.055 -0.119 -0.114 0.001
5 Error 5.50% 7.06% 11.92% 10833.05%

Table 3

Overhanging Loads
Beam Dimensions
Test Length 484.000
Width 0.998
Thickness 0.260
Distance from left support to edge 8.000
Distance from right support to edge 6.000

Table 4

8
 Position of gages
x1 6
x2 25
x3 43

Table 5

Deflection Data for Overhanging Loads

Strep Type Load (lb) Gage 1 (in) Gage 2 (in) Gage 3 (in)
6.000 25.000 43.000
0 Actual 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 Theoretical 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 Error 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1 Actual 2.0 -0.014 0.022 -0.009
1 Theoretical 2.0 -0.042 -0.114 0.022
1 Error -67.90% -118.82% -139.44%
2 Actual 4.0 -0.028 0.043 -0.018
2 Theoretical 4.0 -0.084 -0.228 0.043
2 Error -67.30% -118.69% -140.83%
3 Actual 6.0 -0.040 0.064 -0.026
3 Theoretical 6.0 -0.126 -0.343 0.065
3 Error -68.45% -118.62% -140.21%
4 Actual 8.0 -0.053 0.085 -0.035
4 Theoretical 8.0 -0.168 -0.457 0.086
4 Error -68.31% -118.62% -140.25%
5 Actual 10.0 -0.067 0.106 0.142
5 Theoretical 10.0 -0.210 -0.571 0.108
5 Error -68.14% -118.61% 31.77%

Table 6

Results
The theoretical results were not as expected or experienced.
There was significant error between the actual results and theoretical
value, especially as the distance studied approached the midpoint of
the beam.

The main source of error within this experiment occurs due to

the improper testing procedure. As seen in Figure 9, the theory used
within this exercise is based upon a beam with one fixed support

9
allowing one degree of freedom, a second support allowing two
degrees of freedom, and a central load.

Figure 5

This produces dramatically different results when compared

against the actual setup. When using two knife supports, the setup
contains two supports allowing two degrees of freedom and a central
load. This is pictured in Figure 10.

Figure 6

Since both ends are under-constrained, the analysis for the experiment
with the above theory is not accurate.

Another cause of error in the theoretical is the effect of gravity

on the beam. With no applied load, the equations above would return a
zero result. This is inaccurate for beams that are not specifically
supported such that gravitational factors are overcome. Also the
measurements and position of gages for overhanging loading may be
incorrect, and the experiment most likely needs to be re-run.

10
Conclusions
When a load is applied to a beam, either centrally over at
another point, the deflection can be mathematically estimated. Due to
the error that occurred in this exercise, it is clear that margins in safety
factors, as well as thorough testing, is needed when utilizing beam
design. It is also important to ensure the scope of the testing closely
models real-world practicality.

References
Gilbert, J. A and C. L. Carmen. "Chapter 11 – Beam Deflection Test."
MAE/CE 370 – Mechanics of Materials Laboratory Manual. June
2000.

11