You are on page 1of 6

Deflection of a Loaded Beam

Brian Barker1, Jordan Coenen1, Matthew Remington1 and Spencer Spagnola1.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0352 This report presents the results of experimental data collected on a deflected beam. The data was collected with strain gauge equipment and is compared to theoretical predictions. A 2.303 lb load was applied at the end and at the midpoint during this experiment. It was found that the experimental data did follow the theoretical trend very closely in the first case with a load at the end of the beam. The largest percent difference was found to be 8.18% at the end of the beam. The second case, with a load at the midpoint of the beam, showed the same consistency with the theoretical expectations. The difference between the theoretical and experimental was found to only be 0.23% which is very consistent with what was expected.

Nomenclature
A E F H H L M T W = = = = = = = = = = = = area, in modulus of elasticity, psi force, lbf height, in second moment of area, in4 length, in moment, lbs-ft temperature, F width, in strain, curvature stress, psi
2

I.

Introduction

n many engineering applications loads are applied to cantilever beams. In aerospace especially wings can be seen as such a beam. Because of these applications it is important to understand what affects the loads have on the structure of the beam. The most common form of a deformation in a cantilever beam is deflection. This is caused by a bending moment being applied somewhere on the beam. The deformation of the beam is most often measured by the curvature of the neutral surface which is defined as the reciprocal of the radius of curvature. Using calculus the deflection can be found at any point on the beam, but one thing to notice is that the equations change depending on where the load is applied. The objective of this experiment is to measure the deflection of a cantilever beam at different points along the xaxis with a load at the end of the beam. This data is then compared to the theoretical deflection of the beam and analyzed. All of these measurements and calculations are then done a second time with the load in the center of the beam. Once done the data between the two load points is compared.

II.
The goal of the experiment was to study a beams deflection curve under two different loading conditions shown in figure 1 and figure 2 to the right. This was accomplished by placing the load that was used in two different places along the cantilever beam. For the first loading condition the weight was placed on the unsupported end of the beam. For the
1

Apparatus and Procedure

Figure 1. The test setup with the first loading condition Undergraduate, Aerospace Engineering Department 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

second loading position the weight was placed in the middle of the beam, 13 inches from the end. To actually measure the deflection of the beam a rather simple device was used. It was a standing device that went over the top of the beam, and had the capabilities of measuring from where it stood to the top of the beam. To use this device to measure the deflection, the first distance to be measured were for the unloaded beam. Then those distances can be compared to those of the loaded beam, to get the actual deflection of the beam. To insure the accuracy of the data, it was important that the distances were measured Figure 2. The test setup with the second loading condition at the exact same spots on the beam for both the loaded and unloaded conditions. Once the experiment was setup, a simple procedure was followed. The beam height distances (for comparison) were measured from one end to the other with the beam unloaded. Measurements were taken every two inches for a total of 13 measurements. Then, the weight was placed at the end of the beam, and the measurements of the beam height were taken again. The difference between these measurements and the ones for the unloaded beam would be the deflection of the beam at the different points. This entire process was then repeated for the beam with the weight at 13 inches from the end (halfway along the beam). This was so the differences in deflections can be seen for the different loading conditions.

III.

Analysis

In order to understand the results of the experiment it is important to understand the theory behind the experiment. The theory used in this experiment, beam deflection analysis, or commonly referred to as beam theory, is an important field for aerospace engineering. To understand how a beam deflects, we must understand the relationship between moment and beam curvature, which is given by equation 1.

(1)
The symbol is the curvature of the beam. This is a very general equation for the beam. To help us relate this to the slope of the beam, we know from calculus that slope and curvature are related. Subbing in this relationship we can relate the moment to the slope by equation 2.

(2)
It is very important to not the assumptions that went into this formula. First, the slope of the beam is assumed to be small, that way the slope square term can be dropped. This gives us the linear second order differential equation governing the elastic curve of the beam. To relate this to the deflection of the beam, we need to integrate the equation twice. We will need to know two boundary conditions to solve for the constants in the equation. This is where the specific geometry of the problems comes in to the equation. For the first loading condition, the boundary conditions are zero displacement at the fixed end of the beam and zero slope at the fixed end of the beam. Integrating the equation with these boundary conditions gives equation 3 for displacement along the beam.

(3)
This represents the physical displacement along the beam as a function of the x location on the beam. A zero x location corresponds to the fixed end of the beam. The second loading condition is a more complicated equation. This is because the moment function changes based on what side of the load it is on. For the first half of the beam the displacement function uses the same boundary conditions. The second deflection equation uses continuity of deflection and continuity of slope at the point load as its boundary conditions. This results in equations 4 and 5 for the deflection of the beam under the second loading condition. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(4) (5)
In equations 4 and 5, a, is the distance to the load from the fixed end, which in our case is half the length of the beam, 13 inches. It is important to reiterate the assumption stated earlier to derive these deflections equations. The slope of the beam must be small; so that the slope squared term can be dropped. Otherwise, the equations become much more complicated and are no longer linear.

IV.

Results and Discussion

The beam deflection experiment is a valuable way to evaluate and verify the behavior of a cantilever beam, namely its deflection as a function of position. It is important to note that all of the results in this experiment assume deflection in the linear-elastic region and that an isentropic, homogeneous material was used. Measuring deflection as a function of position was done through the use of a Figure 3. A classic cantilever beam was used and the location of beam measuring 26 inches in length, 1.51 each test load is shown at points A and B respectively. inches wide, and 0.26 inches thick. This cantilever beam extended from a rigid support as shown in Figure 3. A set of initial measurements was taken along the beam in increments of two inches starting from the tip of the beam and moving towards the rigid support. This established a baseline for the vertical location of the beam as a function of position. The initial orientation of the beam had a slight positive angle, which can be seen in Figure 4. This was taken into account when calculating the

Figure 4. The experimental data is presented for the non-loaded, endloaded, and midpoint-loaded cases tested in this experiment.

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

deflection of the beam for the ensuing loading conditions. The experimental deflection for each case (A and B) shown in Figure 3 is the difference between the nominal values and the measured values at each x-location. This effectively measures the difference relative to the initial starting point for every point along the beam. The experimental deflection for the non-loaded, end-loaded, and midpoint-loaded cases are all presented in Figure 4. Again, it is important to note that the measurements were taken stating from the free end of the beam moving inward toward the fixed end. As a result, the points closest to the rigid support were omitted as there were obstructions preventing quality data. The points that did provide quality measurements were plotted in their correct position and a comparison between the theoretical and experimental deflection can still be performed. The load placed at location A and B was 2.303 lbs and the modulus of elasticity was assumed to be 10.6 x 10 6 psi. With the point load placed at the end in location A the following results were obtained and compared to the theoretical deflection shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The experimental results are shown along with the expected results for comparison. As can be seen the experimental deflection lines up quite well with the expected deflection. The maximum percent difference can be seen at the very end of the beam where it reached 8.18 %. The fact that the experimental results line up so well with the theoretical results is likely due to the small magnitude of the load used in this experiment. For a beam with such a large modulus of elasticity experiencing such a small load of 2.303 lbs, the deflection is sure to be minimal. The helped to avoid large discrepancies as the deflection itself was not large. The second case tested in this experiment required the 2.303 lb load halfway along the beam, which was located at 13 inches from the base. This loading configuration differs from the end-loaded case in that the beam only sustains an internal moment up until the location of the point load. There is no internal moment beyond the point load where the first case required an internal moment throughout the beam except of course at the free end where a moment cannot be sustain due to the inherent boundary conditions. The deflection as a function of position for the midpoint-loaded case can be seen in Figure 6.

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 6. The midpoint-loaded beam deflection is verified by the theoretical beam deflection. The experimental results for the second load configuration have a maximum percent difference of 0.23 %, which occurs 24 inches from the rigid support. The load experience by the beam is so small and the modulus of elasticity again is so large that the deflection is sure to be minimal. This allows a very precise prediction of the actual results, as the theoretical model is valid under small angle and small deflection assumptions. A list of the measurements taken to perform the lab can be seen in Table 1 for the end-loaded case and Table 2 for the midpoint-loaded case. Table 1. The experimental results are shown and can be matched to Figure 5 Deflection With Experimental Initial Deflection X Location Load Deflection yo (in) yL (in) yL - yo (in) 6 0.074 0.118 0.044 8 0.072 0.151 0.079 10 0.071 0.197 0.126 12 0.073 0.256 0.183 14 0.075 0.313 0.238 16 0.078 0.376 0.298 18 0.084 0.445 0.361 20 0.085 0.522 0.437 22 0.088 0.595 0.507 24 0.108 0.670 0.562 26 0.099 0.745 0.646

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 2. The experimental results are shown and can be matched to Figure 6 X Location 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Initial Deflection yo (in) 0.074 0.072 0.071 0.073 0.075 0.078 0.084 0.085 0.088 0.108 0.099 Deflection With Load yL (in) 0.067 0.077 0.089 0.102 0.128 0.150 0.168 0.195 0.214 0.235 0.262 Experimental Deflection yL - yo (in) 0.0069 0.0050 0.0180 0.0290 0.0530 0.0720 0.0840 0.1100 0.1260 0.1270 0.1630

V.

Conclusion

This report presented experimental data collected on a deflected beam. The results were subsequently compared. For the first case with the 2.303 lbs load at the end of the beam the deflection of the beam followed the expected deflection closely. This test produced good result compared to the theoretical deflection showing that the test setup and procedure were run correctly. The percent error was found to be 8.18% at the end of the beam. The large elastic modulus and small load combine to make the experimental results very consistent with what the theoretical expectations were. The error could very well be due to human measuring error as measuring the deflection was somewhat difficult. For the second case where the load was positioned at the midpoint of the beam, the experimental results again followed the trend of the theoretical expected deflection very closely. There was a percent difference of only 0.23% at the end of the beam. Again the large elastic modulus and the small load combine to produce results very consistent with the theoretical deflection. The error in both cases could very well be due to human measuring error as measuring the deflection was somewhat difficult.

VI.
1

References

Experiment # 6 Beam Deflections. 433 Lab Manual, Winter 2012. 2 Megson, T. H. G. Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007. Print.

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

You might also like