BEHAVIOUR OF SIMPLE

BEAMS FIRST YEAR

LABORATORY
By: Tee Rui Chin Ivan

CID: 00978378

Department of Aeronautics
Personal Tutor: Dr Rob Hewson
Submission Date: 27 April 2015

Abstract
This report highlights the key practical observations made during this laboratory and draws
relations of these observations to the beam theory learnt in lectures. Forces will be applied to
both statically determinate and indeterminate beams and the strains and displacements along
the beam at two points, and these observations will be compared to the expected strains and
displacements in the respective beams by plotting strain-load graphs and displacement-load
graphs.

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Aim .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Procedure of Experiment ....................................................................................................................... 5
Apparatus setup Statically Determinate Beam .............................................................................. 5
Measurements ................................................................................................................................... 5
Apparatus setup Statically Indeterminate Beam ........................................................................... 6
Results and discussion............................................................................................................................ 7
1)

Load applied at a point on a statically determinate beam ..................................................... 7

2)

Linear Superposition ............................................................................................................... 9

3)

Statically Indeterminate Beams ............................................................................................ 10

4)

Raised Beams ........................................................................................................................ 13

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 15

Page 1 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Introduction
The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory (also known as the Engineers Theory of Bending) is a simplification
of the theory of elasticity can be used to describe the characteristics of beams under load, such as its
shear force and bending moment distributions, as well as its displacements and strains across the
beam as a result of the applied load [1].
The beam theory is based upon the assumptions that:
i.
ii.
iii.

The beams are slender

The plane sections that are normal to the longitudinal axis of the beam remain plane and
normal to it after bending (implying that the shear deformation is neglected)1
The beam material is linearly elastic (stress varies linearly with strain)

In this experiment, the beams observed in this case are symmetric about the y-axis, making it easier
to compare the observed results of the beams with their theoretical behaviour.
By studying a small segment of the beam, an equation (Equation 1) relating various characteristics of
the beam can be derived as follows:

= =

Equation 1: Engineer's Theory of Bending Equation [1]
Where M is the bending moment, I is the second moment of area, E is the Youngs Modulus, 1/R is the curvature of the bent
section, is the stress at the point and y is the position above the longitudinal axis being analysed.

By using this beam theory, it is possible to calculate the expected change in strain as a result of an
applied load in a statically determinate beam as they are linearly proportional as shown in equation 2.
Equation 2 also shows the linear proportionality between bending moments and the strains obtained.
Thus, for this experiment, the measured strains can be used as a gauge of the bending moment
present in the beam.
=

=
= ( )

Equation 2: Equations highlighting the relationship between strain and the force applied/bending moment

Similarly, there is also a relation between the force and the displacement for a constant beam crosssectional area. The displacement is dependent on the position along the bar where the force is being
applied. However, as the forces being applied for this laboratory are point loads at a particular point
on the beam, it can be taken that force and displacement vary linearly.

Calculations will show that the deformations due to shear force will be much less significant as compared to
those resulting from bending. (<5% of bending displacement)

Page 2 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

For this laboratory, the two statically determinate beams being analysed are shown in Figure 1.
P

P
1

Figure 1: Loads to be imposed on the Statically Determinate Beam for the laboratory [2]

Given the linear relationships between the force and strain, as well as that between the force and
displacement in a statically determinate beam, the superposition of two forces will result in the
displacement and strain being additive as well according to the Principle of Superposition[3].
The Principle of Superposition states that:
For a linearly elastic structure, the load effects caused by two or more loadings are the sum of the
load effects caused by each loading separately.
In other words, given the strain and displacement arising from applied force in the two statically
determinate beams above, the strain and stress we would expect to observe in a statically determinate
beam with two applied forces (Figure 2) should be the addition of the strains and displacements
observed in statically determinate beams in Figure 1.
P

Figure 2: Linear Superposition in a Statically Determinate Beam [2]

This idea of superposition can also be used to calculate displacements in statically indeterminate
beams (Figure 3). A statically indeterminate beam can be viewed as the superposition of two statically
determinate beams, by fictionally removing one of the supports and subsequently equating the
displacement at that point to be zero.

Figure 3: Superposition in a Statically Indeterminate Beam [2]

Where P+X=0 due to the actual presence of Support C.

Page 3 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

The effect of indeterminacy is important as it affects the structural behaviour of the beam when a
support is moved, as seen shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Effect of indeterminacy [1]

For the statically determinate case, when the support B is moved down, there are no additional
stresses induced in the beam. However, for the statically indeterminate case below, there is an
induced bending in when the support B is moved down.

Aim
The aims of this experiment are to:

Observe the behaviour of simple beam structures and the application of linear superposition
(shown in Figure 1 and 2 above)
Determine the response of a statically indeterminate beam from the superposition of two
statically determinate beams
(shown in Figure 3 above)
Observe the sensitivity of statically determinate and indeterminate beams to a change in the
height of a support (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Raising of Support A in both the statical determinate (left) and statical indeterminate (right) beams [2]

Page 4 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Procedure of Experiment
Apparatus setup Statically Determinate Beam
The experimental setup consists of a steel beam with supports and instruments as shown in Figure 6.
The dial gauges will measure the displacement, while the strain gauges will measure the bending
strains in the bar when the loads are applied.

Figure 6: Initial configuration of the experimental apparatus [4]

Measurements
Zero load measurements are first taken on the dial and strain gauges.
Load is then placed in increments of 5N on Hanger 1 up to a maximum of 20N, and then removed in
the same 5N decrements. The displacements and bending strains are measured at every increment
and decrement.
Following which, load is then placed on Hanger 2 in increments of 5N up to a maximum of 40N, and
then removed in the same 5N decrements. Similarly, the displacements and bending strains are
measured at every increment and decrement.
After these measurements, loads are placed on both Hanger 1 and 2 in increments of 5N and 10N
respectively, up to a maximum of 20N on Hanger 1 and 40N on Hanger 2. Similarly, the displacements
and bending strains are measured at every increment and decrement.
Support A is then lifted and measurements taken as per load increment in the step above.

Page 5 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Apparatus setup Statically Indeterminate Beam

The experimental setup is then modified to that shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Modified configuration of experimental apparatus with an added support for measurement on a statically
indeterminate beam [4]

With the replacement of Hanger 1 with Support C, the displacement as a result of the inclusion of
Support C is measured to account for errors.
Following that, load is applied on Hanger 2 in increments of 5N up to a maximum of 40N, and then
removed in the same 5N decrements.
Support A is then raised, and measurements are taken as per the step above.

Page 6 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Results and discussion

Terminology used in graphs:
-

Displacement 1: Displacement measured from Dial Gauge 1 located at Hanger 1

Displacement 2: Displacement measured from Dial Gauge 2 located at Hanger 2
Strain 1: Bending strain measured from Strain Gauge set I
Strain 1: Bending strain measured from Strain Gauge set II

The locations are referenced to the set-ups shown in Figure 6 and 7.

1) Load applied at a point on a statically determinate beam

Displacement (mm)

Displacement VS Force (P1)

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0 0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
-8.0

y = 0.1x + 0.0214
5

10

15

20

25

y = -0.3514x - 0.0377

P1(N)

Displacement 1

Displacement 2

Linear (Displacement 1)

Linear (Displacement 2)

Graph 1: Displacement measured by Dial Gauges 1 and 2 due to a load applied at Hanger 1

Strain VS Force (P1)

250
y = 10.536x + 2.1329

Micro-Strain ()

200
150
y = 10.451x + 0.9739
100
50
0
0

10

15

20

25

P1(N)
Strain 1

Strain 2

Linear (Strain 1)

Linear (Strain 2)

Graph 2: Strain measured by Strain Gauges Set I and II due to a load being applied at Hanger 1

Page 7 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Displacement VS Force (P2)

5.0
y = 0.1012x + 0.0494

4.0

Displacement (mm)

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0

y = -0.0973x - 0.0495

-5.0

P2 (N)
Displacement 1

Displacement 2

Linear (Displacement 1)

Linear (Displacement 2)

Graph 3: Displacement measured by Dial Gauges 1 and 2 due to a load applied at Hanger 2

Strain VS Force (P2)

50

y = 0.0247x - 0.2611

Micro-Strain ()

-50

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
y = -8.6035x - 3.1832

-350
-400

P2 (N)
Strain 1

Strain 2

Linear (Strain 1)

Linear (Strain 2)

Graph 4: Strain measured by Strain Gauges Set I and II due to a load being applied at Hanger 2

Graphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 show that beam displacements and bending strains are linearly related with
load, adhering closely to the beam theory.
In addition, as we unload each hanger back to zero load, the strains and displacements return to
zero (or almost zero), thus validating one of the key assumptions made in the beam theory, which is
that the beam material has to be linearly elastic.

Page 8 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

2) Linear Superposition
As referred to in Figure 2 above in the introduction, the displacements and strains in a statically
determinate beam with two forces applied can be determined by the Principle of Superposition.
The strain vs load factor and displacement vs load factor graphs for the statically determinate beam
with two forces can be derived from the addition of the two separate cases, and in Graphs 5 and 6,
this calculated value is compared to the measured value.

Displacement VS Load Factor (Calculated and Measured)

0.5

Displacement (mm)

0
-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

Load Factor
Measured Displacement 1
Calculated Displacement 1
Linear (Measured Displacement 1)
Linear (Calculated Displacement 1)

Measured Displacement 2
Calculated Displacement 2
Linear (Measured Displacement 2)
Linear (Calculated Displacement 2)

Graph 5: Comparison between experimentally obtained and calculated values of displacements on a statically determinate
beam (Linear Superposition)

Strain VS Load Factor (Calculated and Measured)

250
200

Micro-Strain ()

150
100
50
0
-50

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

-100
-150
-200

Load Factor
Measured Strain 1

Measured Strain 2

Calculated Strain 1

Calculated Strain 2

Linear (Measured Strain 1)

Linear (Measured Strain 2)

Linear (Calculated Strain 1)

Linear (Calculated Strain 2)

Graph 6: Comparison between experimentally obtained and calculated values of strain on a statically determinate beam
(Linear Superposition)

Page 9 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

The load factor referred to in the graphs above corresponds to the respective loads applied at
Hangers 1 and 2 shown in Table 1.
Load Factor
0
1
2
3
4

Load at Hanger 1 (N)

0
5
10
15
20

Load at Hanger 2 (N)

0
10
20
30
40

Table 1: Load Factors

As seen in Graphs 5 and 6, the displacements and strains calculated using the Principle of
Superposition and from those measured do not differ very significantly, with the errors between the
gradient of the calculated plots and measured plots shown in Table 2 below.

Calculated Value
Measured Value
Percentage Error

Displacement 1
-0.74
-0.75
1.00%

Displacement 2
-0.47
-0.48
0.65%

Strain 1
52.50
53.07
1.08%

Strain 2
-33.35
-32.53
-2.48%

Table 2: Percentage error of gradients between calculated and measured values of displacement and strain

With the error between the calculated gradient and the measured gradient being less than 3% for
both displacements and both bending strain, it can thus be concluded that linear superposition is
applicable.

3) Statically Indeterminate Beams

When Hanger 1 is replaced by a support (Support C), the beam becomes a statically indeterminate
one, and by superposition, it is possible to calculate the expected displacements and strains by
replacing the support with a reaction force and viewing the statically indeterminate beam as two
statically determinate ones as shown in Figure 3 in the introduction.
Theoretically, given that there is a support present where Dial Gauge 1 is, the displacement at that
point should be equal to zero, as given in Equation X below:

+ = 0
Equation 3: Sum of Displacements at Support C
Where P is the displacement at point 1 (where Support C is) when a load is applied at Hanger 2, and X is the displacement
at point 1 when a load is applied at Hanger 1. These can be determined from the results obtained by observing the
individually loaded statically determinate beams.

Since displacement/strain is linearly related to the force, the displacements in Equation 3 above can
be substituted, giving the expression shown in Equation 4 below.
1 + 2 = 0
Equation 4: Sum of Displacements at Support C (rewritten)
Where X is the reaction force from Support C, P is the load applied at Hanger 2; k1 is the gradient from displacement 1 vs
load applied at point 1 and k2 is the gradient from displacement 1 vs load applied at point 2.

Page 10 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

As such, to find the reaction force from Support C, we can rearrange Equation 4 to find the reaction
force X, given as the following in equation 5 below:
=

2
1

Equation 5: Reaction force at Support C (X)

However, practically, there is a displacement present when Support C is introduced. Hence, equation
3 above should be rewritten as per equation 6 to account for this displacement:
+ = 1
Equation 6: Sum of Displacements at Support C (accounted for initial displacement)

When Support C is introduced, 1 is measured to be 0.305mm, and the reaction force can be
recalculated using equation 7 below:
=

1 2
1

Equation 7: Reaction force at Support C (accounted for initial displacement)

Where X is the reaction corresponding to the respective force P applied at Hanger 2.

Given that the reaction force and the applied load area are related, this relation can be further
brought into other data of interest in the beam, where the correlation is shown in Equation 8:
+ =
Equation 8: General equation to find any data of interest in a statically indeterminate beam
Where Xn is the reaction force corresponding to the force Pn applied at Hanger 2, and ka and kb are the gradients found for
the particular data of interest (eg. Displacement, bending strain, etc.)

Using Equation 8, the displacement and bending strains can be calculated, and they are compared
against the measured values in Graphs 7 and 8 below.

Displacement 2 in a Statically Indeterminate Beam

0.00

Displacement (mm)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00

Force P applied at Hanger 2 (N)

Measured

Calculated

Linear (Measured)

Linear (Calculated)

Graph 7: Comparison of Measured and Calculated Displacement at Dial Gauge 2 in a statically indeterminate beam

Page 11 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Strains 1 and 2 in Statically Indeterminate Beam

150

Micro-Strain ()

100
50
0
-50

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-100
-150
-200
-250

Force P applied at Hanger 2 (N)

Strain 1 (Calculated)

Strain 1 (Measured)

Strain 2 (Calculated)

Strain 2 (Measured)

Linear (Strain 1 (Calculated))

Linear (Strain 1 (Measured))

Linear (Strain 2 (Calculated))

Linear (Strain 2 (Measured))

Graph 8: Comparison of Measured and Calculated Strains at Strain Gauges Set I and II in a statically indeterminate beam
However, it should be noted that the calculated values have had the residual strain accounted for (-82.63 for Strain 1
and -84.13 for Strain 2), as it is deduced to be a systematic error present in the readings.

Comparing the calculated displacements and strains to those measured from the statically
indeterminate beam, it can be observed that both the measured data and the calculated values
correspond well, with an average of 2% error for the displacement and an average of 1.5% error for
the strains.
Thus, this validates the application of the Principle of Superposition to find the displacement and
strains present in statically indeterminate beams.

Page 12 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

4) Raised Beams
Observations were also obtained for cases when a packing plate was placed beneath Support A, thus
raising the beam at a particular support and resulting in cases seen in Figure 5.
Forces were then applied as per previously with the displacements and the strains measured. The
results for the raised beam for both statically determinate and indeterminate situations are
compared against their respective levelled counterparts in Graphs 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Displacement in Statically Determinate Beams (Level and Raised)

0.5

Displacement (mm)

0
-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

Load Factor

Linear (Normal SD - D1)

Linear (Normal SD - D2)

Linear (Raised SD - D1)

Linear (Raised SD - D2)

Graph 9: Comparison of the displacement present in level and raised statically determinate beams

Strains in a Statically Determinate Beam (Level and Raised)

250

Micro-Strain ()

200
150
100
50
0
-50 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

-100
-150
-200

Linear (Normal SD - S1)

Load Factor

Linear (Raised SD - S1)

Linear (Normal SD - S2)

Linear (Raised SD - S2)

Graph 10: Comparison of the bending strains present in level and raised statically determinate beams

Page 13 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Displacement in a Statically Indeterminate Beam

(Level and Raised)
Displacement (mm)

0.00
-0.50

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00
-3.50

Force (N)
Linear (Raised SI - D2)

Linear (Normal SI - D2)

Graph 11: Comparison of the displacement present in level and raised statically indeterminate beams

Strains in a Statically Indeterminate Beam (Level and Raised)

400

Micro-Strain ()

300
200
100
0
-100

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-200
-300
-400

Force (N)

Linear (Raised SI - S1)

Linear (Raised SI - S2)

Linear (Normal SI - S1)

Linear (Normal SI - S2)

Graph 12: Comparison of the strains present in level and raised statically indeterminate beams

For the displacements in both the statically determinate and indeterminate beams, there are no
significant changes when Support A is raised as evidenced from Graphs 9 and 11, where the trendlines are close to each other.
There is also no significant change in the strains when Support A is raised in the statically
determinate beam (as evidenced in Graph 10); however, in a statically indeterminate beam, there is
a visible difference in the bending strains seen in Graph 12 when Support A is raised, which is
increased by about 200.
As such, from these data, we can effectively validate the effect of raising a support in a statically
indeterminate beam as shown in Figure 5. While the indeterminacy of the beam does not affect the
displacement of the beam due to a force, bending strains (and moments) are affected if any support
is raised.
Page 14 of 15

Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory Report

Conclusion
From this experiment and the results obtained, it is possible to observe the linear superposition in
statically determinate bars, where the displacements and strains arising from individual point loads
are additive when the two loads are applied simultaneously on the same beam.
This observation also helps us in the analysis of bending moments and shear forces in a statically
determinate beam as well, as the support can be replaced with a reaction force and the displacement
and strain calculated from there.
Practical results obtained have also been found to tally closely with calculated results from
superposition, with little error between the calculated value and the practically obtained value.
There is also a significant observable difference in the displacement and strains obtained between a
statically determinate beam and a statically indeterminate beam when a support is raised. For the
former, raising the support does not result in any large difference in the displacements and strains. In
the latter however, raising the support causes unwanted bending strains in the beam.
Overall, the experiment has shown that the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory is a very good estimation of
how beams will behave under loads, as evident from the comparison of the calculated and expected
strain and displacement results of the linear superposition of statically determinate beams and that
of the statically indeterminate one.

Bibliography
1. Robinson, Paul. 1. Structural Behaviour of Beams. Department of Aeronautics, Imperial
College London, 2014.
2. Robinson, Paul. (2015, February 11th). Behaviour of Simple Beams First Year Laboratory
Experiment Pre-Lab Briefing. [PowerPoint Slides]. Presented at an AE113 pre-laboratory
briefing session at Imperial College London.
3. Caprani, Colin. Structural Analysis III - 3. Principle of Superposition. A. James Clark School of
Engineering, University of Maryland, 2011.
<http://www.eng.umd.edu/~austin/ence353.d/lecture-material2011/ENCE353Superposition-Handout2011.pdf>. (Accessed 25th February 2015)
4. Robinson, Paul. Behaviour of Simple Beams - First Year Laboratory Experiment D. Department
of Aeronautics, Imperial College London, 2015.

Page 15 of 15