MEE20004: Deflection of Simply Supported Beam

Name__Muhammad Afwan Irfan_ ID_4309227 Group_Thursday_

Date_5/11/2015_

1. OBJECTIVES
1.1 To establish the relationship between deflection and applied load.
1.2 To determine the elastic modulus of the beam specimen from the deflection data.
1.3 To derive the relationship between the deflection and the applied load for both symmetrical
non-symmetrically loaded beam.

2. APPARATUS

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6

Beam with uniform cross-section throughout its length

A simply supported frame with a pair of knife-edge supports
A load hanger and a set of weights
A micrometer to measure the depth and width of the beam specimen
A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam.
A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy for measuring deflection

3. PROCEDURES
1. Two knife edges support the beam with uniform cross section. The distance between the two
supports, L is the span of the beams to be tested.
2. Measure width and depth of specimen and note the readings (take measurement at 3
locations and record the average reading)
Test

Beam Span, L

Width, b

Height, H

Moment of

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

Inertia, I. (mm )

1000

25.5

3.57

96.68

700

25.5

3.57

96.68

3A. Centrally Loaded beam

1. Fix the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam.
2. Position the dial gauge at the mid-span at the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
3. Place a suitable load on the load hanger and note the resulting dial gauge reading.
4. Increase the loads on the load hanger and note the dial gauge readings.
5. Remove all the loads on the load hanger and repeat steps 3 to 6.
3B. Non symmetrically loaded beam
Change the position of one of the knife edge support so that the beam is now non-symmetrically
loaded. Measure and record the distance between supports and location of applied load as
shown in Appendix.

4. RECORD OF READINGS

Dial Gauge Reading

Load
N
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

Test A
div
24
77.5
124
173.5
231
276.5

mm
0.24
0.775
1.24
1.735
2.31
2.765

Load
N
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

div
25
81
123
187
220
270

mm
0.25
0.81
1.23
1.87
2.2
2.7

Dial Gauge
Reading
Test A
Test B
mm
mm
0.245
0.0525
0.7925
0.15
1.235
0.2625
1.8025
0.38
2.255
0.49
2.7325
0.6

Calculations for Second Moment of Inertia

Span of tested beam, L = 1000 mm
Height of beam, h = 3.57 mm
Width of beam, b = 25.5 mm
Second moment of inertia,

I=

b h3
12

25.5 3.573
12

= 96.68

mm4

div
3.5
15
26
37.5
49
60

Test B
mm
div
0.035
7
0.15
15
0.26
26.5
0.375
38.5
0.49
49
0.6
60

Theoretical
Deflection
Case A Case B
mm
mm
0.5
0.12
1.07
0.25
1.62
0.37
2.15
0.49
2.69
0.62
3.23
0.74

mm
0.07
0.15
0.265
0.385
0.49
0.6

Theoretical
Deflection
Case A Case B
mm
mm
0.5
0.12
1.07
0.25
1.62
0.37
2.15
0.49
2.69
0.62
3.23
0.74

CALCULATIONS FOR THEORITICAL DEFLECTION

Case 3A:

The theoretical deflection of the beam under symmetric loading is calculated by using
the following method.

E = 200000 N/mm2
I = 96.68 mm4
x = 500 mm
L=1000 mm
P = Load Values (0.5-3)

500 mm

1000 mm

4 ( 3 )

y=

N
48(96.68)(200000
)
mm 2

Case 3B:

The theoretical deflection of the beam under non-symmetric loading is calculated by

using the following method.

E = 200000N/mm2
I = 96.68 mm4
x = 500 mm
a = 500 mm
b = 200 mm
L= a+b = 500 mm + 200 mm = 700 mm

Pb
[ x 3 ( L2 b 2 ) x];
6 EIL

L a b

P
(500mm) 3 ((700mm) 2 (200mm) 2 )(500mm)
6(200000 N / mm )(96.68mm 4 )(700mm)
2

Position of Dial gauge:

For test A: x

500

mm

For test B: b

500

mm

Span of tested beam, L =

1000

mm

Moment of inertia of beam specimen

I xx=

Dial gauge reading, 1 div = 0.01 mm

Results and Analysis

The theoretical mid-span deflection:

WL3
max
48 EI

Making E (Youngs Modulus) the subject:

L3 W
E
48 I max

L3

slope of the deflection curve

48 I

Non symmetric Load:

96.68 mm4

 Case 3A (Central Loaded Beam Symmetric)

Load vs Experimental Deflection

TEST A

f(x) = 1.01x + 0.23

Slope = 1.0052 N/mm

Eexp erimental

L3 W
48 I max
L3
slope _ of _ exp . _ deflection
48 I
1000 3

(1.0052)
48(96.68)

216608.0541N / mm 2

Slope = 0.919 N/mm

ETheroretical

L3 W

48 I max
L3

slope _ of _ theo. _ deflection

48I
1000 3

(0.919)
48(96.68)
198033.0299 N / mm 2

Percentage Error Case 3A

theoretical ex. perimental

100%
theoretical

198033.0299 N / mm 2 216608.0541N / mm 2
100%
198033.0299 N / mm 2

9.38%

 Case 3B (Non Symmetric Loaded)

Slope of Deflection: 4.5137 N/mm

200 500
2
2
2
E= 6 96.68 700 [700 200 500 ] 4.5137
2
E= 222319.089 N /mm

Slope of Deflection: 4.0409 N/mm

200 500
2
2
2
E= 6 96.68 700 [700 200 500 ] 4.0409
E= 199031.6607 N /mm

Percentage Error of Case 3B

theo exp
100%
theo

199031.6607N/mm 2 - 222319.089 N/mm 2

100%
199031.6607N/mm 2

11.7%

1. Centrally Loaded Beam

P
a

FA

FB

Equilibrium equation

=0

For centrally loaded beam

L
2
6 EIL
P

y=

y=

y=

P
12 EI

P
48 EI

[x3 (L2

[x3

L

2

3L2 x

[4x3 3L2 x]

) x]

2. Non-Symmetrically Loaded Beam

P
a

x-a
M

Pb
L

Equilibrium equation

Solving using double integration

Applying boundary conditions

At x=0, y=0: c2 = 0
At x=L, y=0:

0=

Thus,

DISCUSSION
In the process of carrying out of the experiment as we know there were some amount of errors
been made. These may errors may lead to make errors in the answers we got during the
experiment. These errors made in the experiments are listed below:
The equipment used in the laboratory is old and very sensitive to any
environmental distortion; hence the load cell shows continuously
changing values and takes some time to come to a stable position for
the observer to measure precise readings.
Time allocated for this experiment is limited this may give restrictions
to repeating of the experiment and get an average reading.
Parallax error caused when taking the results.
The errors listed above may be minimized using the following steps:

 The experiment instruments may be replaced with digital reading

gauge instead of analogue ones which may provide higher accuracy of
the reading.
The instruments are been used for long time replace them with new
instruments.

5. CONCLUSIONS

From this examination we can find the relationship between the

connected load and the subsequent displacement.
1. The resulting graphs themselves demonstrate that the
connected load and
the defection of the beam are directly corresponding to one
another at
both the cases A & B.
2. Hence the deflection increments when more loads are
included step by step
and the deflection diminishes if load is removed slowly.

How the experimental result varies from the hypothetical as far as

precision.
1. Based on the calculation of Young's Modulus for hypothetical
and
experimental qualities, there was a certain percentage
difference found
between the first and experimental values because of the
difficulties
stated previously.
2. There is an error of 9.38% for centrally loaded & 11.7% for
nonsymmetrically loaded beam. These values are very much
acceptable as they
do not vary to a great extent.

APPENDIX:

For Central Load:

M MAX
y

PL
4

P
(4 x3 3L2 x)
48 EI

For Non-symmetric Load:

y

Pb 3
[ x ( L2 b 2 ) x];
6 EIL

L a b