Bending Of Beam Lab Report

Bending Of Beam Lab Report 2022/2023

University of Portsmouth
Edoardo Peci UP2090265
March 2023
Contents

1 Equipment 2
1.1 Beam’s material ans dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Background and Analysis 3

3 Execution of the experiment 6

3.1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Analysis of the Results 8

1
Chapter 1

Equipment

Figure 1.1: Beam testing apparatus

Dial Gauge: Used to read the bending of the beam.

Pier: 2 piers set with a distance of 1m. The Beam is fixed at the ends.

Load hanger: Situated on the center of the beam, it will be gradually loaded with weights.

Interface unit: It will be used for the deflection readings of the beam.

1.1 Beam’s material ans dimensions

The beam’s materials and dimensions are reported in the Table 1.1 below. For a more
accurate understanding outcome of the result, the beams were measured again before stat-
ing. The width and thickness of the beam are reported while for the length we didn’t have
any measuring equipment, so we have to consider it as 1200 m

width mm thickness mm length mm width mm thickness mm length mm

Material
(theoretical) (theoretical) (theoretical) (measured) (measured) (measured)
Mild steel 25 5 1200 24.92 5.02 /
Aluminium 25.4 4.76 1200 25.37 4.67 /
Aluminium 25.4 6.35 1200 25.76 6.52 /

Table 1.1: Beam’s material and dimensions

2
Chapter 2

Background and Analysis

When a beam bends under load, it creates internal forces and moments which are present
at every point along the beam. Considering the simply supported beam of length L, with a
point load W acting at mid span (Figure 2.1):

Figure 2.1: Supported beam with load applied at mid-span

Due to symmetry, the vertical reaction forces must have equal magnitude W 2 .
When a beam is subjected to PURE BENDING, the beam will be deformed and the deflec-
tion takes the form of a circular arc as shown in the Figure 2.2 with a radius of R (measured
to the neutral axis of the beam). From geometry, the strain in the beam must be:
y
ε= (2.0.1)
R

When a beam is subjected to bending, there is a neutral axis where the strain is zero.
Above the neutral axis (where y > 0), the strain is negative, indicating compressive stress.
Conversely, below the neutral axis, the strain is positive, indicating tensile stress. The
curvature of the beam is related to the radius of curvature by the equation k = R1 , where k
is the curvature and R is the radius of curvature.

Figure 2.2: Beam bending with radius of curvature R

3
 4

The stress in the layer CD is explained by the equation σ = E × ε:

Ey
σ= (2.0.2)
R
σ E
= (2.0.3)
y R

From the equilibrium considerations, the longitudinal tensile force caused by the tensile
stress due to bending must be equal and opposite to the longitudinal compressive force
caused by the compressive stresses due to bending.
Z
ΣF = 0 = σ dA (2.0.4)
Z Z
E
0= y dA = y dA (2.0.5)
R

The moment due to the bending stresses must be equal and opposite to the externally
applied moment M at the appropriate section, i.e.:
Z
ΣM = σy dA (2.0.6)
Z
E E
M= y 2 dA = I (2.0.7)
R R
Z
as_I = y 2 dA (2.0.8)

Therefore:
M E
= (2.0.9)
I R
Where:

E = Young’s Modulus (M P a);

I = second moment of Area (m4 );

R = radius of curvature;

M = moment of Inertia (N m);

A = Area (m2 );

Therefore:
σ M E
= = (2.0.10)
y I R
 5

Determine an expression for the maximum deflection under the load W for the uniform-
section beam shown in Figure 2.3:

Figure 2.3: Sketch of a supported beam

Considering a small deflection:

d2 y
M = EI (2.0.11)
dx2
The maximum deflection,σmax of the simply supported beam with load at the mid-span is
derived as follows:
W L3
σmax = (2.0.12)
48EI
Where :

W : The load (N );

L : The length of the bar between the pivot pins (1000mm);

N
E : The Young’s modulus 210000 for the Mild Steel and 70000 for the Aluminium ( mm 2 );

I : Second moment of area (mm4 )

Chapter 3

Execution of the experiment

3.1 Procedure
1. Measure the width and thickness of each beam to calculate its cross-sectional area
and moment of inertia
2. Set up two supports with a span of 1 meter and connect load cells to interface units.
Turn on the power.
3. Attach the beam in a simply supported state using a load hanger and dial gauge at
the mid-span, as shown in Figure 3.1.
4. Record the dial gauge reading with no load applied for each beam material in result
tables 1-3.
5. For the mild steel beam, apply a load of 30 Newtons in three equal increments (using
the load hanger) and record the dial gauge reading (deflection) at each load.
6. For each aluminum beam, apply a load of 9 Newtons in nine equal increments (using
the load hanger) and record the dial gauge reading (deflection) at each load.

Figure 3.1: Dial Gauge(left) and Clamp Fitting(right)

6
3.2 Results 7

3.2 Results
The tables below show the readings compared to the theoretical values.

Deflection
Load (N)
Gauge reading (mm) Theoretical value (mm)
0 0.00 0.00
10 3.79 3.78
20 7.71 7.55
30 11.72 11.33

Table 3.1: Effect of Beam Material: Mild Steel (5.02 mm thick)

Deflection
Load (N)
Gauge reading (mm) Theoretical value (mm)
0 0.09 0.00
1 1.27 1.38
2 2.63 2.76
3 3.90 4.15
4 5.26 5.53
5 6.60 6.91
6 7.92 8.29
7 9.32 9.68
8 10.63 11.06
9 11.97 12.44

Table 3.2: Effect of Beam Material: Aluminium (4.67 mm thick)

Deflection
Load (N)
Gauge reading (mm) Theoretical value (mm)
0 0.00 0.00
1 0.47 0.50
2 0.96 1.00
3 1.49 1.50
4 1.99 2.00
5 2.49 2.50
6 3.00 3.00
7 3.51 3.50
8 4.00 4.00
9 4.52 4.50

Table 3.3: Effect of Beam Material: Aluminium (6.52 mm thick)

Chapter 4

Analysis of the Results

The accuracy and reliability of the results obtained in this experiment may be affected
by several factors, including the following:

Firstly, the position of the beam on the supports may not have been exactly centered,
which could have resulted in inaccurate measurements of deflection and stress. While efforts
were made to align the beam correctly, there is a possibility that some degree of misalign-
ment occurred, which could have led to errors in the results.
Secondly, it is possible that the beams used in the experiment had undergone plastic de-
formation due to prior use. This could have affected their mechanical properties and led to
incorrect results. To mitigate this factor, only new or well-maintained beams were used in
the experiment.
Lastly, the depth gauge used to measure the deflection of the beam may have given false
readings due to calibration errors or mechanical defects. To minimize the impact of this
factor, calibration checks were performed regularly during the experiment.
Overall, while efforts were made to minimize the impact of these potential sources of error,
it is important to acknowledge that they could have affected the accuracy and reliability of
the results obtained. Nonetheless, the data collected in this experiment provides valuable
insights into the behavior of beams under bending loads and serves as a useful basis for
further analysis and study.

On the next page are presented the graphs depicting the bending moment, using both
the experimental data and the corresponding theoretical calculations.
As we can see from the tables the values from the experiment are similar with the
theoretical ones. For the Mild Steel bar we got an average percentage error of 1.94%. While
for the Aluminium bar 4.67 mm thick the error is 4.88%, a significant error. For the thicker
Aluminium bar the average error is 1.20%.

8
 9

Figure 4.1: Mild Steel deflection (5 mm thick)

Figure 4.2: Aluminium deflection (4.67 mm thick)

Figure 4.3: Mild Steel deflection (6.52 mm thick)