Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SECTION : 03
GROUP NO. : 03
GROUP MEMBERS
1
TABLE OF CONTENT
EXPERIMENT PART 1
INDEX CONTENT PAGE NUMBER
1 Summary 3
2 Objective 3
3 Apparatus 4
4 Procedure 4
5 Results and Analysis 5
6 Discussion 7
7 Conclusion 7
EXPERIMENT PART 2
INDEX CONTENT PAGE NUMBER
1 Summary 8
2 Objective 8
3 Apparatus 9
4 Procedure 10
5 Results and Analysis 10
6 Discussion 13
7 Conclusion 14
EXPERIMENT PART 3
INDEX CONTENT PAGE NUMBER
1 Summary 15
2 Objective 15
3 Apparatus 16
4 Procedure 17
5 Results and Analysis 17
6 Discussion 22
7 Conclusion 22
2
Deflection of simple support beam part 1
Summary
For this experiment, we can summarize that the purpose is to carry out a laboratory
investigation to identify the relationship between deflection and the applied load at the centre
of the beam, thus using the deflection data to obtain the Modulus of Elasticity or Young’s
Modulus.
By applying the formulae provided we can calculate the theoretical value of Modulus
of Elasticity that also requires the experimental deflection data. By referring to the
experimental deflection data, the accuracy is low due to several sources of error such as in the
gauge meter and other systematic and human errors, i.e. parallax error, shaking and vibrating
of the table, windy environment, etc. Hence, the calculated Modulus of Elasticity is not very
accurate.
By using the deflection data to plot the graph, we can calculate the Modulus of
Elasticity, through the slope of the graph obtained, assuming a linear relationship between
load and deflection. The graphing and linear equations of the curve are generated by
computerization for better accuracy rather than manual sketching and drawing.
Objective
To establish the relationship between deflection and applied load and determine the elastic
modulus of the beam specimen from the deflection data.
Theory
L/
From Theory,
The mid-span deflection of a beam loaded with a load W at mid-span is given by :
3
WL3
𝛿=
48EI
3
The theoretical mid-span deflection, 𝛿 = bt
12
3
L
Rewriting, 𝐸 = 48I ⦁W
δ
L3
or, 𝐸 = 48I × Slope of the load de�lection curve
Apparatus
1. A support frame
2. A pair of knife- edge support
3. A load hanger
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 accuracy to measuring deflection
5. Beam specimens with constant width and depth.
6. A micrometer to measure the depth and width of the beam specimen
7. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam
8. A set of weights
Procedure
1. Firstly we bolted the knife-edge support to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports was be equal to
the span of the beam to be tested.
2. Secondly we measured the width and depth of specimen and noted the readings
3. The we placed the beam specimen on the supports
4. And fixed the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam
5. We positioned the dial gauge at the mid-span at the beam to measure the resulting
deflection.
6. And zero the dial gauge reading.
7. We placed a suitable load on the load hanger
8. Then made a note of the resulting dial gauge reading
9. Increased the load on the load hanger
10. Then we repeated the steps 8 and 9 for a few more loads increments
11. We also repeated the two above steps for two other beams. The span of the beam
should be similar to the first beam.
4
Results and Analysis
Span of tested beam, L = 600mm
Table 1
N div mm div mm mm mm
5
1. Using the tabulated data in Table 1, the graph of load versus experimental deflection
is plotted and the best fit curve through the plotted points is drawn.
25
Load (N)
20
Plotted Point
15 Best Fit Curve
10
0
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
Experimental Deflection (mm)
2. As the experimental deflection increases, so will the load increase steadily. The load
is proportional to experimental deflection.
3. Modulus of Elasticity
𝐿3
𝐸= × 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒
48 𝐼
6003
= 48 (260.42) × 9.1478
= 158071.961 N/mm2
𝑊𝐿3 (5)(600)3
5N: 𝛿= = 48(158071.961)(260.42) = 0.547mm
48 𝐸𝐼
𝑊𝐿3 (10)(600)3
10N: 𝛿= = 48(158071.961)(260.42) = 1.093mm
48 𝐸𝐼
𝑊𝐿3 (15)(600)3
15N: 𝛿= = 48(158071.961)(260.42) = 1.640mm
48 𝐸𝐼
𝑊𝐿3 (20)(600)3
20N: 𝛿= = 48(158071.961)(260.42) = 2.186mm
48 𝐸𝐼
6
𝑊𝐿3 (25)(600)3
25 N: 𝛿 = = 48(158071.961)(260.42) = 2.733mm
48 𝐸𝐼
𝑊𝐿3 (30)(600)3
30N: 𝛿= = 48(158071.961)(260.42) = 3.279mm
48 𝐸𝐼
Discussion
1. The relationship between the applied load and the resulting displacement is that the
greater the load applied, the greater the resulting displacement or deflection,
whenever we increase the load, the deflection increases proportionally.
2. There is room for errors and mistakes throughout this whole experiment.
- The main error is that the dial gauge was way too sensitive to any movement. The
needle fluctuated even a small movement on the table it is lying on. The unstable
swinging of the load on the hanger also caused the reading to be inaccurate.
- Zero error occurred easily, the initial reading of the dial gauge was not always
zero.
- Parallax error happened when the reading was taken.
- The wrong readings when shifting the beam to its desired location on the support
frame. One could even be so careless that the wrong midpoint of the beam is
wrongly calculated.
Conclusion
From this experiment, we are able to reach its objective, which is to establish the relationship
between deflection and applied load and determine the elastic modulus of the beam specimen
from the deflection data. We can observe from the graph experimental deflection versus load
that as the experimental deflection increases, so will the load increase steadily. The load is
proportional to experimental deflection. The modulus of elasticity calculated for this
experiment is 158071.961 N/mm2. The results achieved through this experiment may not be
entirely accurate due to the various factors of inaccuracy, i.e. human or systematic error. It is
indeed essential to learn the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen
to know how much a beam can take when constructing a building.
7
Deflection of simple support beam part 2
Summary
For this experiment, we can summarize that the purpose is to carry out a laboratory
investigation to identify the relationship between deflection and the span of the beam
specimen using different loads, thus using the deflection data to decide the elastic modulus.
By applying the formulae provided we can calculate the theoretical value of Modulus
of Elasticity that also requires the experimental deflection data. By referring to the
experimental deflection data, the accuracy is low due to several sources of error such as in the
gauge meter and other systematic and human errors, i.e. parallax error, shaking and vibrating
of the table, windy environment, etc. Hence, the calculated Modulus of Elasticity is not very
accurate.
By using the deflection data to plot the graphs, we can calculate the Modulus of
Elasticity. The slope of the graph log (δ/W) vs. log L represents the power of the span and the
vertical intercept represents the value for log C.
Finally we achieve our purpose of this experiment and get to know that the span of the
beam specimen and deflection can be used to determine the elastic modulus of a beam
specimen
Objective
To find the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen
Theory
L/2
From Theory,
The mid-span deflection of a beam is given by the equation,
WL3
𝛿=
48EI
8
In order to study the affect of span upon deflection δ, the power 3 for the span is replaced by
n.
δ/W = C×L𝑛
1
Where the constant C = 48EI
𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑐
Thus,
m represents n
x represents log L
c represents log C
This represents the equation of a straight line. The slope of the graph represents the power of
the span and the vertical intercept represents the constant.
Apparatus
1. A support frame
2. A pair of knife- edge support
3. A load hanger
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 accuracy to measuring deflection
5. Beam specimens with constant width and depth.
6. A micrometer to measure the depth and width of the beam specimen
7. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam
8. A set of weights
9
Procedure
1. Firstly we bolted the knife-edge support to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports was be equal to
the span of the beam to be tested.
2. Secondly we measured the width and depth of specimen and noted the readings
3. The we placed the beam specimen on the supports
4. And fixed the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam
5. We positioned the dial gauge at the mid-span at the beam to measure the resulting
deflection.
6. And zero the dial gauge reading.
7. We placed a suitable load on the load hanger
8. Then made a note of the resulting dial gauge reading
9. Increased the load on the load hanger
10. Then we repeated the steps 8 and 9 for a few more loads increments
11. We also repeated the two above steps for two other beams. The span of the beam
should be similar to the first beam.
Width, b = 25mm
Depth, d = 5mm
Table 1:
10
Table 2:
Deflection (mm)
Deflection vs. Load
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30 y = 0.048x - 0.0167
0.25 Plotted Points
0.20 Best Fit Curve
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Load (N)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
11
b. Graph 2 (700mm span)
Deflection (mm)
Deflection vs. Load
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
y = 0.1774x - 0.009
1.20
0.60
0.40
0.20
2.50
2.00
y = 0.2611x - 0.0486
1.50 Plotted Points
Best Fit Curve
1.00
0.50
4. Using the data from Table 2, the graph of log (𝛿 /W) versus log L is plotted.
-0.400
y = 2.9476x - 9.1386
-0.600
Plotted Points
-0.800 Linear
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
log (δ/W)
5. From the graph of log (δ/W) vs. log L, the power for the span obtained is 2.9476.
(Slope is generated by computerization for greater accuracy)
Discussion
1. We can observe from the graph experimental deflection versus load for each span, as
the span increases so will the deflection increase more rapidly. In other words, the
longer the span, the bigger slope of the graph. The span is directly proportional to
experimental deflection.
2. From theory, we can calculate the exact elastic modulus, however, as we conduct the
experiment, the experimental value will be slightly different than the actual value,
possibly caused by several unavoidable errors during the experiment. There is room
for errors and mistakes throughout this whole experiment.
- The main error is that the dial gauge was way too sensitive to any movement. The
needle fluctuated even a small movement on the table it is lying on. The unstable
swinging of the load on the hanger also caused the reading to be inaccurate.
- Zero error occurred easily, the initial reading of the dial gauge was not always
zero.
- Parallax error happened when the reading was taken.
13
- The wrong readings when shifting the beam to its desired location on the support
frame. One could even be so careless that the wrong midpoint of the beam is
wrongly calculated.
Conclusion
Through this experiment, we have learnt the relationship between deflection and span of the
beam specimen. From the graph experimental deflection versus load for each span, as the
span increases so will the deflection increase more rapidly. In other words, the longer the
span is, the bigger slope the graph has. The span is directly proportional to experimental
deflection. The modulus of elasticity calculated for this experiment is 110073.924 N/mm2 ≈
0.11 MN/mm2. There is a massive room for errors and mistakes that cause inaccuracy due to
human and systematic error.
14
Deflection of simple support beam part 3
Summary
For this experiment, the purpose is to perform a series of investigation to identify the
relationship between deflection and depth, and hence determine the Modulus of Elasticity for
each different thickness.
By applying the formulae provided we can calculate the theoretical value of Modulus
of Elasticity that also requires the experimental deflection data. The deflection data is
obtained from tests for different depth or thickness of the beam. By referring to the
experimental deflection data, the accuracy is low due to several sources of error such as in the
gauge meter and other systematic and human errors, i.e. parallax error, shaking and vibrating
of the table, windy environment, etc. Hence, the calculated Modulus of Elasticity is not very
accurate.
By using the deflection data to plot the graphs, we can calculate the Modulus of
Elasticity, through the slope of the graph obtained, assuming a linear relationship between
beam span length and deflection
Finally we achieve the purpose of this experiment and also get to know that the depth
of beams and deflection can be used to determine the elastic modulus of a beam specimen.
Objective
To establish the relationship between deflection and depth and hence determine the elastic
modulus for the beam specimen.
Theory
L/
From Theory,
The mid-span deflection is given by the equation:
15
WL3
𝛿=
48EI
𝑏𝑡 3
The section modulus 𝐼= 12
𝑊𝐿3 12
𝛿= × 3
48 𝐸𝐼 𝑏𝑡
In order to study the affect of thickness, t, upon deflection, 𝛿, the power 3 for the thickness is
replaced by n.
𝑊𝐿3 12
𝛿= × 𝑛
48 𝐸𝐼 𝑏𝑡
Or,
𝑊𝐿3
𝛿 ⁄𝑊 = × 𝑡 (−𝑛)
4 𝑏𝐸
Or
𝛿 ⁄𝑊 = 𝐶 × 𝑡 (−𝑛)
Where C is a constant, the above equation can be rewritten in log form as well which is as
follows:
y = mx+c
Apparatus
1. A support frame
2. Sa pair of support stand
3. A pair of knife- edge support
4. A load hanger
5. A dial gauge with 0.01 accuracy to measuring deflection
6. 3 beam specimens having similar width but of different depth. Each beam must have
constant depth and width throughout its depth
7. A micrometer to measure the depth and width of the beam specimen
8. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam
9. A set of weights
16
Procedure
1. Firstly we bolted the knife-edge support to the support frame using the plate and bolt
supplied with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports was be equal to
the span of the beam to be tested.
2. Secondly we measured the width and depth of specimen and noted the readings
3. The we placed the beam specimen on the supports
4. And fixed the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam
5. We positioned the dial gauge at the mid-span at the beam to measure the resulting
deflection.
6. And zero the dial gauge reading.
7. We placed a suitable load on the load hanger
8. Then made a note of the resulting dial gauge reading
9. Increased the load on the load hanger
10. Then we repeated the steps 8 and 9 for a few more loads increments
11. We also repeated the two above steps for two other beams. The span of the beam
should be similar to the first beam.
Table 1:
17
Table 2:
Deflection (mm)
Deflection vs. Load
3.50
3.00
2.50
y = 0.4037x - 0.9195
2.00
Plotted points
1.50
Best Fit Curve
1.00
0.50
18
b. Graph 2 (thickness t2)
1.00
0.80
y = 0.1123x - 0.0438
0.60 Plotted Points
Best Fit Curve
0.40
0.20
19
4. Using the data from Table 2, the graph of log (δ/W) versus log t is plotted.
-0.400
-0.600
Plotted Points
-0.800
Linear
-1.000
-1.200
(26)(3)3
t1, 3mm: 𝐼= = 58.5𝑚𝑚4
12
6003
𝐸= (48)(58.5)
× 0.4037 = 31053.8462𝑚𝑚−1
(26)(5)3
t2, 5mm: 𝐼= = 270.833𝑚𝑚4
12
6003
𝐸= (48)(270.833)
× 0.1123 = 1865.91𝑚𝑚−1
(26)(7)3
t3, 7mm: 𝐼= = 743.1667𝑚𝑚4
12
6003
𝐸= (48)(743.1667)
× 0.0434 = 262.7943𝑚𝑚−1
20
428.57+225+40
Average percentage error = 3
= 231.19%
Table 3:
5N:
Beam Theoretical Experimental Percentage Average
thickness deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Error (%) percentage
error (%)
t1, 3mm 0.21 1.11 428.57
t2, 5mm 0.16 0.52 225 231.19
t3, 7mm 0.15 0.21 40
6N:
Beam Theoretical Experimental Percentage Average
thickness deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Error (%) percentage
error (%)
t1, 3mm 0.25 1.49 496
t2, 5mm 0.20 0.63 215 247.53
t3, 7mm 0.19 0.25 31.58
7N:
Beam Theoretical Experimental Percentage Average
thickness deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Error (%) percentage
error (%)
t1, 3mm 0.30 1.89 530
t2, 5mm 0.23 0.74 221.74 261.19
t3, 7mm 0.22 0.29 31.82
8N:
Beam Theoretical Experimental Percentage Average
thickness deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Error (%) percentage
error (%)
t1, 3mm 0.34 2.35 591.18
t2, 5mm 0.26 0.85 226.92 284.7
t3, 7mm 0.25 0.34 36
9N:
Beam Theoretical Experimental Percentage Average
thickness deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Error (%) percentage
error (%)
t1, 3mm 0.38 2.68 605.26
t2, 5mm 0.30 0.97 223.33 289.29
t3, 7mm 0.28 0.39 39.29
21
10N:
Beam Theoretical Experimental Percentage Average
thickness deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Error (%) percentage
error (%)
t1, 3mm 0.42 3.13 645.24
t2, 5mm 0.33 1.08 227.27 302.66
t3, 7mm 0.31 0.42 35.48
231.19+247.53+261.19+284.7+289.29+302.66
Overall percentage error = 6
= 269.43%
Discussion
1. The relationship between the thickness and deflection of a beam is that the thicker the
beam is, the less the deflection is. Deflection is inversely proportional to thickness.
2. From theory, we can calculate the exact elastic modulus, however, as we conduct the
experiment, the experimental value will be slightly different than the actual value,
possibly caused by several unavoidable errors during the experiment. There is room
for errors and mistakes throughout this whole experiment.
- The main error is that the dial gauge was way too sensitive to any movement. The
needle fluctuated even a small movement on the table it is lying on. The unstable
swinging of the load on the hanger also caused the reading to be inaccurate.
- Zero error occurred easily, the initial reading of the dial gauge was not always
zero.
- Parallax error happened when the reading was taken.
- The wrong readings when shifting the beam to its desired location on the support
frame. One could even be so careless that the wrong midpoint of the beam is
wrongly calculated.
Conclusion
Deflection is inversely proportional to thickness. When the thickness of the beam increased,
the deflection of mid span decreased. Thus, this can take more force. This can be investigated
by drawing a graph of log (δ/W) vs. log t. The modulus of elasticity for each thickness has
also been found; for 3mm, E = 31053.8462𝑚𝑚−1 ; for 5mm, E = 1865.91𝑚𝑚−1 ; for 7mm,
E = 262.7943𝑚𝑚−1. The results achieved through this experiment may not be entirely
accurate due to the various factors of inaccuracy, i.e. human or systematic error. The overall
percentage error for this experiment is 269.43%.
22