tafila technical university

Faculty of engineering



Exp #6
Beams Deflection

Name: Salam Fayez Albaradie
Lecturer name: Dr.Tamer Alshaqarin
Date of submission: 20/4/2014




1. OBJECTIVE
To determine flexural modulus (Ef) of material
2. Introduction & Background
2.1. General 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.
2.2. Determination of Curvature
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/, where is the radius of curvature.
I E
M

1

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
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
+
=
dx
dy
dx
y d

Equation 2


2.3. Simply Supported Beam
Simply Supported Beam on a beam can be thought of as a simple beam with two supports as shown
below.

Figure 1 simply supported beam.
Applying equilibrium to the free body equivalent of Figure 1, several expressions can be derived to
mathematically explain central loading.

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

At x=A, y=0 c
1
= -c
2
/A
At x=C, y=0

( )

( )

3. Equipments and Experimental procedure

3.1. Equipments


Figure 1: Beam Deflection Apparatus

3.2. PROCEDURE

a) Mark the beams with the same span so that they will be supported near their ends and
also mark the point of the span.
b) Take the beam of largest width, measure the width with the veneer Callipers.
c) Support the beam at the two marked supporting points and measure the height of the
mid-point with the deflection measuring device.
d) Apply the 600 g load as point and once again measure the height at the centre.




4. Result
Table 1: property of beam.
A 20 cm
B 60 cm
C 110 cm
H 3 mm
W 25 mm


Load (p) = 600 gram = 0.6 kg * 10 = 6 N.
= 4.35 mm at x = 400 mm.

()
()
() ()
()

( )

( )

( )

At x=A, y=0 c
1
= -c
2
/A
At x=C, y=0

( )

( )

()

( )

( )

()
Subnational 1 on 2
-0.258

5.175*10
-3

To determine the models of elasticity

( )

( )

( )

At x=0.400 m the deflection (y) = -4.35*10
-3
m
= 56.25*10
-12
m
4

( )

( )

( )

()

Note any bricks give inside a negative sign is neglected
So the equation will by

( )

()

=382.4 Gpa
5. Discussion
1. The relationship between load and deflection.
The line of load versus deflection gives a linear equation, meaning that the relationship
between the two must be linear (P ). This is proven by the equation for the deflection of a
simply supported beam above, in which as load is altered, so does the amount of deflection.
This is also in keeping with Hookes Law which states that the deformation of a body is in
direction proportion to the load applied to it. This is only true however as the beam is loaded
within its elastic limit, above this, in the plastic region, the relationship changes to non-linear
until fracture.
2. Possible sources of inaccuracy in the experiment.

With all experiments there is always will always be an element of inaccuracy to take into
account with the results. With this experiment the possible sources were:

1. Human Error there could potentially be an element of human error in 3 places in the
experiment, placing the load central on the span, measuring the overall span and zeroing
the dial gauge.

2. Mass of the weights the actual mass of the weights were not measured these could
differ slightly from those listed on the weight themselves.

3. Accuracy of gauges (dial gauge, ruler on bench, venire calipers) the temperature and
pressure of the environment the experiment was completed in could have affected the
scale on the ruler and Gauges, which were metal; an increase in either from when it was
manufactured could have resulted in a slightly different ruler scale.

4. Parallax could also be classed as human error, parallax in the placement of the dial
gauge on the center of the beam as the ruler was set away from the gauge itself. If the
gauge was not viewed exactly perpendicular to the ruler it could have been positioned
slightly away from center slightly.

5. Placement of the weights the load could not be applied exactly central to the beam due
to the positioning of the dial gauge being exactly central on the beam. It was always
placed next to the gauge on the left hand side, towards point A.

6. Moment about the supporting points the beam was never the exact span length; there
was always an overhang past the knife support edges. The mass of beam overhanging
will have created a moment about points A and C, therefore the forces acting downwards
were not just that of the load, but should also have

6. References
Books:
1. Craig Mechanics Materials 3rd Edition.
2. Mechanics Of Materials Hibbeler 8th Edition.
Website:
1. www.scribd.com
2. www.structureanalysis.weebly.com/deflection-of-beams.html
3. www.slideshare.net/themyth2010/deflection-of-beams