LIGHT STRUCTURE LABORATORY

FULL REPORT
BFC21201
BFC

Course Code BFC21201

Course Name Makmal Hidraulik Dan Mekanik Bahan
Date
Group
Group Leader Norhafidzah Bt Abdul Rahman
Members of Group 1.Muhammad Amin Bin Rosli
2.Mohd Ashraf Bin Mohd Azhan
3.Muhammad Arif Bin Mohd Nazir
4.Mohamad Radzif Bin Mohd Raes
Lecturer/Instructor/Tutor Encik Ahmad Fahmy Bin Kamarudin
Received Date
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 SCR VT TSCR(X)

Attendance Student in laboratory more than 1 Student in laboratory within 30 Student in laboratory within 10 to Student in laboratory just Student in laboratory 10 minutes earlier 1
hour late minutes to 1 hour late 30 minutes late before laboratory start

& Discipline
Aim & Purpose is not identified Purpose is somewhat vague Purpose is identified Purpose is identified Purpose is clearly identified Relevant
variables are described 1
Purpose Relevant variables are not Relevant variables are not Relevant variables are Relevant variables are
described described described in somewhat unclear described
Materials There is not a list of the Most lab materials included All necessary lab materials All necessary lab materials All necessary lab materials included 1
(optional) necessary lab materials included but not listed in any included and listed and listed in an organized
Procedures are not listed Procedures are listed but not in Procedures are listed in clear steps Procedures are listed in clear Procedures are listed in clear
clear steps but not numbered and/or in steps
complete sentences
steps
Each step is numbered and in
Procedure a complete sentence 1
Each step is numbered and in a

complete sentence

Diagrams are included to describe

Data is not represented or is not Data lacks precision Good representation of the Accurate representation of Accurate representation of the a using
accurate data using tables and tor graphs the data using tables and/or tables and/or graphs
graphs
Greater than 20%; difference
Data with accepted values Less than 15% difference with Graphs and tables are labeled and data is 4
accepted values Data is fairly precise precise with less than 5% difference
with accepted values

Precision is acceptable Less than 10?% difference with

accepted value
 Trends / patterns are not Trends / patterns are not Trends /patterns are logically Trends / patterns are logically Tends / patterns are logically
analyzed analyzed analyzed for the most part analyzed
analyzed
Questions are not answered Answers to questions are Questions are answered in Questions are answered in
Analysis /
incomplete complete sentences complete sentences 4
Result Questions are answered
Analysis is not relevant
Analysis is inconsistent Analysis is general Analysis is thoughtful
thoroughly and in complete

No discussion was included or
shows little effort and reflection
on the lab
Discussion
A statement of the results is
incomplete with little reflection
on the lab
A statement of the results of the
lab indicates whether results
support the hypothesis
Accurate statement of the
results of the lab indicates
whether results support the
hypothesis
sentences
Accurate statement of the results of lab
indicates whether results support
hypothesis Possible sources of error and
it was learned from the lab discussed 4

Possible sources of error

identified

Participation Student was hostile about Participation was minimal Did the job but did not appear to be Used time pretty well. Stayed Showed interest, used time very well, 1
(during participating very interested. Focus lost on focused on the experiment most of guide other students and very focused on
experiment several occasion the time experiment
The student cannot answer The student can answer some The student can answer questions The student can explain the results The student can explain the results of the
questions about the experiment questions about the experiment about the experiment and begins of the experiment in detail and the experiment in detail and the ways in
Interview to make connections between the ways in which they relate to the which they relate to the research focus. 3
experiment and its applications research focus The student can also evaluate the
significance of the experiment to the real
situation
NAME OF LECTURER: SIGNATURE: DATE: TOTAL SCORE:

Comment by examiner Received

1.0 OBJECTIVE
To determine the relationship between span and deflection

2.0 INTRODUCTION
A beam must possess sufficient stiffness so that excessive deflections do not have an adverse effect
on adjacent structural members. In many cases, maximum allowable deflections are specified by
Codes of Practice in terms of the dimensions of the beam, particularly the span. The actual
deflections of a beam must be limited to the elastic range of the beam, otherwise permanent
distortion results. Thus in determining the deflections of beam under load, elastic theory is used.

3.0 THEORY

The double integration method is a powerful tool in solving deflection and slope of a beam at any
point because we will be able to get the equation of the elastic curve.

In calculus, the radius of curvature of a curve = () is given by

2 32
[1 + ( ) ]
=
2
| 2|

In the derivation of flexure formula, the radius of curvature of a beam is given as

Deflection of beam is so small, such that the slope of the elastic curve is very small, and squaring

this expression the value become practically negligible, hence

=0

1
=
2
2
 1
=
"

Thus,

1
= "

1
" = =

If EI is constant, the equation may be written as:

" =

Where,

y = deflection of the beam at any distance x

E = modulus of elasticity of the beam

I = moment of inertia about the neutral axis

M = bending moment at a distance x from the end of the beam

EI = flexural rigidity of the beam

 2
= 2 = =
2 2

2
= = +
4 4

2 3
= = + +
8 12

When x = 0; dy = 0 A = 0

3 3
When x = L/2; y = 0; 0= +
32 96

3
= 48

3
When x = 0; = (mid span; c)
48

2
X= L/2; + 16 (at support)

Where E can be obtained from backboard

3
= 12 d
b

4.0 APPARATUS

Brass Strip Beam Steel Strip Beam

 Hanger and Masses Digital Dial Test

Indicator

4.1 PROCEDURE

1) The moveable knife-edge supports was positioned so that they were 400mm apart from
each other.

2) The chosen beam was placed on the support.

3) The hanger and the digital dial test indicator was placed at the mid span. The digital reading
were zero at first.

4) An incremental load was applied and the deflection for each increment was recorded in the
table below.

5) The above steps are repeated using span of 300mm, 400mm and 500mm for both brass and
steel beam.
5.0 RESULT

Specimen beam: Brass

105
Youngs Modulus, = 2

= 105 109 /2

Second moment of area,

= 8.3 , = 3.3

3
=
12

(8.3)(3.3)3
= 12

= 24.8564

Mass of load, = 100 103 9.81

= 0.9810

Experiment 1: Span = 500 mm

No. Mass (N) Deflection Theoretical Def.( ) % Difference

(experimental) (mm) (mm)

1 0.9810 0.59 0.979 39.73

2 1.9620 1.15 1.958 41.27

3 2.9430 1.72 2.937 41.44

4 3.9240 2.26 3.915 42.27

5 4.9050 2.88 4.894 41.15

Use any mass between 100 to 500

Experiment 2: Span = 400 mm

No. Mass (N) Deflection Theoretical Def.( ) % Difference

(experimental) (mm) (mm)

1 0.9810 0.34 0.501 32.14

2 1.9620 0.66 1.002 34.13

3 2.9430 0.96 1.504 36.17

4 3.9240 1.24 2.005 38.15

5 4.9050 1.55 2.506 38.15

Use any mass between 10 to 500

Experiment 3: Span = 300 mm

No. Mass (N) Deflection Theoretical Def.( ) % Difference

(experimental) (mm) (mm)

1 0.9810 0.18 0.211 14.69

2 1.9620 0.40 0.423 5.44

3 2.9430 0.55 0.634 13.25

4 3.9240 0.67 0.846 20.80

5 4.9050 0.80 1.057 24.31

Use any mass between 10 to 500

Specimen beam: Steel

Youngs Modulus, = 207/2

= 207 109 /2

Second moment of area,

= 8.8

= 3.2

3
=
12

(8.8)(3.2)3
= 12

= 24.034

Mass of load, = 100 103 9.81

= 0.9810

Experiment 1: Span = 500 mm

No. Mass (N) Deflection Theoretical Def.( ) % Difference

(experimental) (mm) (mm)

1 0.9810 0.29 0.514 43.58

2 1.9620 0.56 1.027 45.47

3 2.9430 0.81 1.541 47.44

4 3.9240 1.07 2.054 47.91

5 4.9050 1.33 2.568 48.21

Use any mass between 100 to 500

Experiment 2: Span = 400 mm

No. Mass (N) Deflection Theoretical Def.( ) % Difference

(experimental) (mm) (mm)

1 0.9810 0.18 0.263 31.56

2 1.9620 0.31 0.526 41.06

3 2.9430 0.44 0.789 44.23

4 3.9240 0.57 1.052 45.82

5 4.9050 0.71 1.315 46.01

Use any mass between 10 to 500

Experiment 3: Span = 300 mm

No. Mass (N) Deflection Theoretical Def.( ) % Difference

(experimental) (mm) (mm)

1 0.9810 0.08 0.111 27.93

2 1.9620 0.15 0.223 32.74

3 2.9430 0.20 0.333 39.94

4 3.9240 0.26 0.444 41.44

5 4.9050 0.33 0.555 40.54

Use any mass between 10 to 500

5.1 Data analysis

The negative sign in deflection indicates that the deflection is below the unreformed neutral axis.

Brass beam in experiment 1

3
= 48

0.98105003
= 105109
48 24.856
(103 )2

= 0.979

experimentaltheoretical
% Difference = | | 100
theoretical

0.32(0.223)
=| | 100
0.223

= 43.50%

Steel beam in experiment 1

3
= 48

0.49055003
= 69109
48 60
(103 )2

= 0.309

experimentaltheoretical
% Difference = | | 100
theoretical

0.56(0.309)
=| | 100
0.309

= 81.23%
6.0 DISCUSSION

Comment on the different between the theoretical and experimental results.

Referring to the results from the calculation, we can conclude that, the different between the
theoretical and experimental results are different for all Experiment 1, 2, and 3 using steel beam
and brass beam. Thus, the percentage (%) of the difference between the theoretical and
experimental results are different also. From the experiment, we can notice that, the span with the
shorter length will give us the smaller value of deflection when the load is place at the mid span
for both theoretical and experimental results. While when the span with the longer length, the
higher the deflection occurs to the span than the shorter span.

For Experiment 1 that used 500mm span using steel beam, when the load of 0.981 N/100g was
place at the mid span, test indicator give us the reading of deflection with -0.29. When the load is
increased until the load reach 4.905 N/500g with difference 100g each reading respectively, the
deflection recorded by test indicator are until the last one is -1.33 when the load placed at the mid
span are 4.905 N/500g. The values of the deflection for both theoretical and experimental results
increase proportionally to the load when the load of 100g, 200g, 300g, 400g and 500g are place
on the mid span. For Experiment 2 that used 400mm span using steel beam, the first value of load
are same with experiment 1 was place at the mid span, test indicator give us the reading of
deflection with -0.18. When the load is increased with the same value in experiment 1, the test
indicator also show the increasing reading and the value of deflection for this experiment is smaller
than the experiment 1. Next, for Experiment 3 using 300mm span of steel beam, when the first
load was place at the mid span, test indicator give us the reading of deflection with -0.08. When
the load is increased with the same value with the load used in experiment 1 and 2, the values of
the deflection for both results increase proportionally to the load as the load are increase. The value
of deflection for this experiment is smaller than the experiment 1 and experiment 2 because the
length of the span used, 300mm which is shorter than the span used for experiment 1 that is 500mm
and experiment 2 that is 400mm. The values of the deflection for both theoretical and experimental
results increase proportionally to the load when the load force to the span are increase.
To verify the experiment we done using steel beam, we done another experiment using the brass
beam with the same length. From the result we obtain by using brass beam, it show the same as
the steel beam experiment. When the value of load using increased, the higher the reading of the
deflection. The value of deflection calculated using theoretical also will increase if the value of
load is increase.

From the results we get from this experiment, though the different between the theoretical and
experimental results are very big, but the deflection in the span increase when the load is increase.
Besides that, the value of deflection also increase when the length of span used is longer. Thus, we
conclude that, the deflection of span is proportional to the load we place on it and the length of the
span we used.
EXTRA QUESTIONS

1. Calculate the deflection when x = L/3 (experiment 1, no. 3). Check the result by placing
the digital dial at this position.

a) Calculation: Steel beam

When x = L/3, this mean that x = 166.67 (500/3), the value for Deflection (Experimental) we get
is 0.81 and the Theoretical Deflection we get from the calculation is 1.541. The percentage (%)
of the difference between the theoretical and experimental results for this extra experiment is
47.44%.

When, P = 2.9430 N

PL3
y mak
48EI

(2.9430)(500) 3

48(207000)(24.03)

= 1.541

When, P = 2.9430 N

% Difference = {{-0.81 (-1.541)}/-1.541}x100

= 47.44%.
 b) Calculation: Brass beam
When x = L/3, this mean that x = 166.67 (500/3), the value for Deflection (Experimental) we get
is 1.72 and the Theoretical Deflection we get from the calculation is 2.937. The percentage (%)
of the difference between the theoretical and experimental results for this extra experiment is
41.44%.

When, P = 2.9430 N

PL3
y mak
48EI

(2.9430)(500)3

48(105000)( 24.856)

= 2.937

When, P = 2.9430 N

% Difference = {{-1.72 (-2.937)}/-2.937}x100

= 41.44%
2. Calculate Vmak in experiment 2, no.2.

a) Steel beam
Given, Esteel= 207 x 109 Nm-2

Width, b = 8.8mm

Thick, d = 3.2mm

bd 3
I
From Equation, 12

(8.8)(3.32) 3

12

= 26.84 mm4

PL2
v mak
From Equation, 16 EI

(1.9620)( 400) 3

16(207000)( 26.84)

= -1.413
 b) Brass beam
Given, Ebrass = 105 x 109 Nm-2

Width, b = 8.3mm

Thick, d = 3.3mm

bd 3
I
From Equation, 12

(8.3)(3.3) 3

12

= 24.856 mm4

PL2
v mak
From Equation, 16 EI

(1.9620)( 400) 3

16(105000)( 24.856)

= -3.007
7.0 CONCLUSION

From this experiment, our group managed to determine the relationship between the deflection
happened and the span. To determine the deflections happened when the beams under load,
elasticity theory is used. From the results we get from this experiment, we knows that, the span
with shorter length will give us the smaller value of deflection when the load is place at the mid
span for both theoretical and experimental results. While for the span with the longer length, the
deflection is higher than the shorter length of the span even though the load used is same for both
of the span. Even the different in percentage between the theoretical and experimental results are
very big, but the deflection in the span also increase when the load is increase. Thus, we conclude
that, the deflection of span is proportional to the length of the span and the load we place on the
span.