Scribd
Upload
99 views4 pages

Deflection of Beam

The document describes an experiment to determine the relationship between applied load and deflection of a beam. The experiment establishes that deflection increases proportionally with applied load. The slope of the load-deflection curve relates to the beam's Young's modulus, which is calculated. Experimental results differ from theoretical values, with potential errors discussed.

Uploaded by

Rampukar Sah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views4 pages

Deflection of Beam

The document describes an experiment to determine the relationship between applied load and deflection of a beam. The experiment establishes that deflection increases proportionally with applied load. The slope of the load-deflection curve relates to the beam's Young's modulus, which is calculated. Experimental results differ from theoretical values, with potential errors discussed.

Uploaded by

Rampukar Sah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Experiment No.

1
EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF DEFLECTIONS IN BEAM

Objective:
To establish the relationship between deflection and applied load and determine the elastic
modulus of the beam specimen from the deflection data

Theory:

The mid-span deflection of a simply supported beam loaded with a load W at mid-span is given
by the theoretical formula of;
𝑊𝐿
𝛿=
48𝐸𝐼
Where, 𝛿 = Deflection
W= Applied Load
L= Length of Beam
E= Young’s Modulus
I= Moment of Inertia,
[I= ], b= breadth of beam & d= depth/thickness of beam
Rewriting,
𝐿 𝑊
𝐸= ×
48𝐼 𝛿
Or,
𝐿
𝐸= × [𝑆]
[𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒. ]
48𝐼
Apparatus:
The apparatus consists of:
i. A support frame.
ii. A pair of pinned support.
iii. A load hanger.
iv. A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy to measuring deflection.
v. Beam specimen with constant depth and width throughout its length.
vi. A caliper to measure the depth and width of the beam specimen.
vii. A meter ruler or tape measure to measure the span of the beam.
viii. A set of weights.

Procedure:
i. Bolt the two knife edge supports to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied
with the apparatus. The distance between the two supports should be equal to the span
of the beam to be tested.
ii. Measure width and depth of specimen and record the readings.
iii. Place the beam specimen on the knife edge supports.
iv. Fix the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam.
v. Position the dial gauge at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
vi. Set the dial gauge reading to zero.
vii. Place a suitable load on the load hanger (starting with 5N).
viii. Record the resulting dial gauge reading.
ix. Increase the load on the load hanger (by an increment of 5N).
x. Repeat step (viii) and (ix) for a few more load increments of 5N up to a maximum total
load of 25N on the load hanger.
xi. Repeat the above test to obtain another set of readings using the same beam specimen.
xii. Repeat the whole procedure from step (i) to (xi) for two other beam specimens.

Results:
Span of tested beam, L = .................... mm
Width of beam specimen, b = .................... mm
Depth of beam specimen, d = .................... mm
Moment of inertia of beam specimen, I = (bd3/12) = .................... mm4
Dial gauge reading, I division = 0.01 mm
Modulus of Elasticity, E = .................... N/mm2
Table 1: Steel
Applied Experimental deflection
Theoretical
S.N. Load Reading1 Reading2 Average deflection
deflection (𝛿) mm
N Division mm Division mm mm
1
2

Discussion:
1) From this experiment what is the relationship between the applied load and the resulting
displacement/deflection.
2) What does the slope of the graph represents and how does it varies in relation to the load
position.
3) How do the experimental results differ with the theoretical results in terms of accuracy?
Briefly explain the probable cause of errors and how can it be overcome.

The possible factors:


i. The vibration of the table. This is because the dial gauge is very sensitive.
ii. The Modulus of Elasticity of the specimen beam used in the calculation.
Different types of specimen beam have different Modulus of Elasticity.
iii. Improper position of load hanger. The load hanger may be not exactly at the middle of
the span of the tested beam.

The ways of overcoming it:


i. Prevent to touch the table or avoid to nearer the experiment setup. So that the dial
gauge can take more accurate of value.
ii. Search the material to build the specimen used in this experiment and search its actual
Modulus of Elasticity.
iii. Marking the middle of the span of the tested beam.
Name: .......................................
Group Name: DBD1 Group 1
i. From above observation, I understand that the relationship between the applied load
and the resulting mid span deflection. The resulting mid span deflection is directly
proportional to the applied load. When the applied load increases, the deflection of the
beam specimen increases too, From the best fit curve in the graph above, I know that
the slope of the load deflection curve (as known slope of the ) is ,
Let substitute the slope of the = 1.67 into the equation below:
bd
I=
12
(26.8) × (800)
I=
12
I = 246.99

𝐿 𝑊
𝐸= ×
48𝐼 𝛿
(800)
𝐸= × 1.67
48 × 246.99
𝐸 = 72121.67

ii. From this experiment, I obtain that the applied load, W is directly proportional to the
resulting displacement. At the calculation, I realize that the slope of the graph represent
ratio , This ratio is directly proportional to
Young’s Modulus from the equation:

𝐿
𝐸= × [𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 ]
48𝐼
From my percentage error =1.02, I understand that there is some of the factors which
may affect the result during the experiment
iii. The actual Modulus of Elasticity of this specimen (theoretical) is 200000 N/mm2 and
my (experiment) Modulus of Elasticity of this specimen is 29166.67 N/mm2. Hence the
percentage error for this experiment is:

Percentage error:

= × 100

.
= × 100

= 85.42 %

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy