Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

ME2113-1

DEFLECTION AND BENDING STRESSES IN BEAMS


(EA-02-21)

SEMESTER 3
2013/2014

NAME
MATRIC NO.
GROUP
DATE

:
:
:
:

HE QUANJIE, BOEY
A0094502L
2F1
21/08/2013

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE


DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE


The objectives of this experiment are :
1. To study the application of beam theory in practice, by subjecting a cantilever
to

various

point

loads

and

examining

the

resulting

stresses

and

deflections.
2. From these values, to determine the Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio of
the beam material.
3. To examine and investigate the magnitudes and signs of the strains and
stresses at two locations along the beam in terms of their relation to each other
and in accordance with beam theory.

RESULTS
Sample Calculations
Sample Calculation(theoretical) for P=250 g =2.45 N
The Second Moment of Area of the beam,

1
b h3
12
=(0.0256 m)(0.00606 m)3
=4.751010 m4

I z=

Bending Moment,
At

M XZ =P (Lx )

x=d 1=50 mm
M XZ =2.45 N (0.25 m0.05 m)=0.49 Nm

At

x=d 2=150 mm
M XZ =2.45 N ( 0.25 m0.15 m)=0.245 Nm

1. Theoretical Approach
Longitudinal normal stress, xx =
At

x=d 1=50 mm
xx1 =

At

M XZ
y
IZ

0.49 Nm
0.00606 m
(
)=3.126106 Pa
10
4
2
4.7510 m

x=d 2=150 mm
xx2 =

0.245 Nm
0.00606 m
(
)=1.563106 Pa
10
4
2
4.7510 m

2. Experimental Approach
From Graph 1,
We find that

P L3
E=

V L 3I Z
(0.25)3 m3
=5870 N /m
3( 4.751010 m4)
=6.4361010 Pa
=6.4410 10 Pa (3.s.f.)
Also, given that xx = E xx
When x=d 1=50 mm

xx1 =50
xx1 =3.2210 6 Pa
When x=d 1=150 mm

xx2 =24
xx2 =1.546106 Pa

Part 1
Given the following information,

b=0.0256 m
h=0.00606 m
L=0.25 m
I z=

1
bh3=4.751010 m 4
12

1. Find Young's Modulus E from Graph 1


From the graph we obtain that

P
=Slope
VL
=5.87 N /mm
=5870 N / m
3

PL
V L=
3EI Z

Using the formula given


3

E=

P L

V L 3I Z
3

(0.25) m
3( 4.751010 m4)
=6.4361010 Pa
=6.4410 10 Pa (3.s.f.)
=5870 N /m

2. Find Poisson's ratio v from Graph 2


We know that v=

zz
=slope
xx

i.e. The magnitude of the slope of zz against xx gives the poisson's ratio.
We have two readings,
From zz1 against xx1 :
Slope of graph = -0.316

v 1=0.316

From zz2 against xx2 :


Slope of graph = -0.315

v 2 =0.315
Therefore,

Poisson's ratio,

v avg =

(v 1+v 2)
=0.3155
2
=0.316(3.s.f.)

3. Calculate slope of Graph 3

slope=0.0542(3.s.f.)
Part 2
Highest reading of

xx1 =572

Using the slope from Graph 3, we can determine handgrip force

P
xx1
6
=0.054210 N

slope=

Therefore handgrip force P=slope xx1(max)

=31 N

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS


1. Comment on the signs of the strains ( xx1, zz1, xx2 and zz2) with
respect to the location and orientation of the strain gauges and
how the beam is loaded.
From the results obtained, xx1 is positive, zz1 is negative, xx2 is negative and zz2
is negative. The strain measured is positive if there is an elongation and negative if
there is a contration.
As shown in the diagram below, the cantilever beam is loaded transversely,
causing the portion of the beam above the neutral axis to undergo tensile stress
and the portion below the neutral axis to undergo compressive stress.

These stresses are axial and redistributes the volume of the beam. As the
material is being elongated axially along x-axis, the cross section along z-axis
shrinks to compensate the material expanded. The shrinking of z-axis is
proportional to the elongation of the x-axis and the proportionality constant is also
known as the Poisson's ratio.

xx1 is positive because it measures the axial strain of the upper surface of
the beam which undergoes tension as the beam is bended.

xx2 is negative because it measures the axial strain of the lower surface of
the beam which undergoes compression as the beam is bended.

zz1 is negative because measures the transverse strain of the upper surface
of the beam which undergoes compression due to the axial tensile stress.

zz2 is positive because measures the transverse strain of the lower surface
of the beam which undergoes tension due to the axial tensile stress.

2. With reference to Graph 4, comment on the slopes of the six


theoretical lines and also on how stress varies with beam location.
We neglect the signs of the stresses in the graphs as we are only concerned with
its magnitude.
Given M XZ =P ( Lx) and xx =

Thus, xx=

M XZ
y ,
IZ

P ( Lx )
y
IZ

From the equation, the axial stress becomes larger as it is closer to the fixed end
and smaller as it is nearer L.
It can also be observed that xx will become zero at L, which can be seen from
Graph 4 as the lines converges to 0 at when extrapolated to x=0.25m.
The graph suggests a inversely linear relation where stress reaches 0 at x=L,
which corresponds well with the theoretical equation. Furthermore from Graph 4, it is
observed that experimental values are generally smaller than theoretical values.
This could be attributed to experimental errors, calibration errors and to the
assumption that loads attached are point loads.

3. Comment on the accuracy of your handgrip force.


The measurement of the handgrip force is inaccurate. The reasons are as follows :
1. Due to wear and tear, the beam may have undergone plastic deformation
hence the strain read by the gauge may not be accurate. However, this error is
negligible as it is of a much smaller order than the deformation caused by the
handgrip force.

2. The handgrip is restricted from rotating about the point of contact with the
beam and the force applied is made transverse to the beam by it's
symmetric

shape

and

making

sure

the

ends

are

connected

perpendicularly to the beam. However, the force applied may not be applied
perpendicularly as :
1. The springs may have undergone

varying degrees of plastic

deformation hence breaking the symmetry


2. In applying force, we may have pulled the grip along the x-direction
This inaccuracy could be reduced by using a shape that does make depends
on symmetry to cancel out the non-perpendicular components of the force.
3. The handgrip force measured is limited by the space between the parallel
bars. When the two bars of the grip are in contact, we could no longer exert
any further force.
4. The handgrip force is not a discrete force and there was minor variations
in the readings during the experiment. However, such variations are
negligible with respect to the experiment.

CONCLUSION
The experimental values agree with the theories from mechanics. From the graphs
plotted, the accuracy was high (R2 = 1/0.99). This suggests that the mathematical
models derived theoretically are inline with observed experimental phenomena. One
reason that might explain the slight deviations could be the wheatstone bridge circuits in
the strain gauge which might be affected by the various electrical appliances
surrounding the experiment. One way to improve the accuracy would be to shield the
strain gauges from electrical interferences. In conducting the experiment we also
managed to successful calculate the Poisson's ratio and Young's Modulus of the beam
and demonstrated the various mathematical relations between the axial and transverses
stresses induced by bending.