00 mi piace00 non mi piace

329 visualizzazioni11 paginePractical report for bending of cantilever beams

May 20, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Practical report for bending of cantilever beams

© All Rights Reserved

329 visualizzazioni

00 mi piace00 non mi piace

Practical report for bending of cantilever beams

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Jeremy Lwin jeremy.lwin@uqconnect.edu.au 43236280

Mitchell Nissen mitchell.nissen@uqconnect.edu.au 43232657

Daniel Swanson daniel.swanson1@student.uq.edu.au 43225453

Damien Nichol damien.nichol@uqconnect.edu.au 42619457

Aim

The aim of the practical is to visualise and reinforce basic concepts of bending of

beams for the different end conditions and the principle of superposition.

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Module 1a Cantilever Stiffness

Aim: To verify the theoretical equations for deformation of a simple fixed end

cantilever beam

Method

This module was based around the basic principal of deflection of a cantilever

beam.

1. We first calculated the calibration factor by taking measurements for the

geometry of the beam.

2. Using these measurements we also calculated a moment of inertia to use as a

theoretical benchmark for our experiment.

3. Placing the micrometre at a fixed position three different deflections for variable

mass were measured and recorded.

4. The results were then compiled into the results section below

Results

Table 1a.1 Mass, deflection and stress on cantilever

Mass (kg) Deflection

(mm)

Stress

(MPa)

0.000 0.000 0.036

0.138 -0.430 2.666

0.158 -0.520 2.877

0.218 -0.780 4.229

Figure 1a.2 Deflection vs. Load

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Figure 1a.3 Bending Stress vs. Load (module 1a)

Discussion

The results from this experiment are shown in figures 1a.2, 1a.3. The theoretical

comparison is shown as the red line in 1a.3.

Initially our results were not consistent with the theoretical benchmark that we

calculated. It was determined that the calibration had not been performed right.

After this was fixed the following results recorded above were consistent with

the theoretical analysis but still exhibited some inconsistences within a

reasonable margin of error.

The error that is shown is likely human error made in the process of measuring

and determining the moment of inertia or placing the point mass back in the

exact same spot.

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Module 1b

Aim: To verify the theoretical deflection model of a cantilever beam under load

by taking micrometre measurements along its length.

Method:

1. A point mass and a position along the beam were selected so that a measurable

deflection was observed.

2. The point mass is then lifted off and the micrometre to zeroed at the first

position

3. Then the point mass was placed back onto the cantilever beam at the fixed

position chosen and a measurement was taken from the micrometre.

4. This process was repeated for 10 different micrometre positions from x = 170

mm to x = 370mm in 20mm increments.

Results:

Module 1b Cantilever Shape

Table 1b.1 Deflection and distance

Distance

(mm)

Deflection

(mm)

170.00 -0.74

190.00 -0.85

210.00 -1.01

230.00 -1.28

250.00 -1.35

270.00 -1.48

290.00 -1.60

310.00 -1.68

330.00 -1.79

350.00 -2.02

370.00 -2.13

390.00 -2.47

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Figure 1b.2 Deflection Curve

Discussion:

The results that were recorded during this experiment were mostly as expected

and cohesive with the theoretical calculations. Anomalies within a margin of

error are seen at x = 230mm and x = 390. By taking the line of best fit the curve

matches within a margin of error the curve represented in the theoretical line.

The results exhibit a shift of an average -0.7 in the deflection difference between

the two lines. This error is likely due to an error when calibrating the equipment

before the experiment began.

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Module 2a

Experiment 2A: Simply Supported Beam and the Theory of Superposition

Principle for the Deflection of a Cantilever Beam

Aim:

The aim of the practical is to demonstrate the Theory of Superposition for the

deflection of a cantilever beam. This will involve using two different weights and

three different dial gauge locations to record the measured deflection. The results can

then be used to investigate the displacement superposition and any errors or

discrepancies.

Method:

1. Set up a plain cantilever beam with an overhang of 450mm.

2. Take the deflection measurement at three different locations for each

combination of weights added.

3. Enter the initial details into the computer recording software and utilise the

Set the Parameters tab.

4. Place the dial gauge a distance of 170mm from the fixed end. Place mass 1 a

distance of mm from the fixed end. Take the recorded measurement. Remove

mass 1 and place mass 2 a distance of mm from the fixed end. Take the

recorded measurement. Place both masses in their original positions and

record the measurement.

5. On the computer click the cell corresponding to the experimental arrangement

and acquire the data point (s).

6. Place the dial gauge a distance of 250mm from the fixed end. Place mass 1 a

distance of mm from the fixed end. Take the recorded measurement. Remove

mass 1 and place mass 2 a distance of mm from the fixed end. Take the

recorded measurement. Place both masses in their original positions and

record the measurement.

7. Repeat step 5.

8. Place the dial gauge a distance of 330mm from the fixed end. Place mass 1 a

distance of mm from the fixed end. Take the recorded measurement. Remove

mass 1 and place mass 2 a distance of mm from the fixed end. Take the

recorded measurement. Place both masses in their original positions and

record the measurement.

9. Repeat step 5.

Notes:

Mass 1=0.14kg and mass 2=0.22kg

Measurement locations used:

Before obtaining the data make sure the dial gauge is set to zero

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Results:

The experiment involved documenting the deflection of the cantilever beam using the

computer software and dial gauge (see Table 2a). In the table, W1=0.14kg and

W2=0.22kg and the locations for W1 and W2 are 210mm and 290mm respectively.

Table 2a Deflection of a cantilever beam for changing dial gauge positions and

constant masses

Dial Gauge

Position

Dial gauge

distance

from fixed

end

(mm)

W1

(mm)

W2

(mm)

W1 + W2

Measured

(mm)

W1 + W2

Calculated

(mm)

Error

(mm)

1 170.00 -0.49 -1.08 -1.43 -1.57 0.14 (8.9%)

2 250.00 -0.60 -1.83 -2.73 -2.43 0.30 (12.3%)

3 330.00 -0.86 -2.91 -4.14 -3.77 0.37 (9.8%)

By combining the two masses the measured and calculated deflections can be found.

From the respective differences the error discrepancies were found. It is important to

note that there is a difference between errors and experimental uncertainties. The

uncertainty of measurement is considered to be the doubt that occurs from the result

of any measurement (Bell, 2001). For this particular experiment section key

experimental uncertainties can be said to occur with the:

Dial gauge in recording the deflection of the cantilever beam

Scales

Measuring ruler on the frame of the structure

Operator skill in moving the dial gauge and masses to their correct positions in

regards to the measuring ruler were done by hand. This relied on the individuals

attention to detail and thus there can be legitimate uncertainty on the measurements

procured and the accuracy.

In measuring the masses of both W1 and W2 the scales can take time to stabilise and

give off a correct measurement. It also has a maximum capacity of 600g and a

readability of 0.1g. As the masses used were relatively small and the scale rounds to

the nearest 0.1g there can be some uncertainty doubt as to the result of the

measurement.

Discussion:

In these situations the method of super position is needed to aid in solving the

combined loading on the cantilever beam. The key assumptions of the theory for this

section are:

Linear elastic behaviour

Suitable for the experimental material used

Deflection from each problem does not affect the other

With both W1 and W2 attached to the beam there are two applied forces for each of

the three cases. These are: F1= (9.81m/s^2) (0.14kg) =1.3734N and F2= (9.81m/s^2)

(0.22kg) =2.1582N both acting downwards. The applied forces due to the masses stay

constant throughout the three cases. There is also a reaction force at the wall location

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

acting in an upwards direction. What changes through the three instances is the

location of the dial gauge. This means there will be different deflections measured for

the three cases as the distance between the applied forces and the dial gauge are

varied.

At dial gauge position 1 the test device is situated at 170mm, while W1 is at 210mm

and W2 is at 290mm (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Diagram for the dial gauge position 1 site and the respective force

weight

In theory the method of super position allows for the total loading to be separated into

separate loadings, giving a deflection for W1 and W2. The dial gauge measures the

deflection caused by W1 and W2 at its specific location. The key variables involved

in calculating the deflection are:

Youngs modulus for aluminium, E=70GPa

Beam length, L=450mm

The distance from the start of the beam to the dial gauge, x

The distance from the start of the beam to the force weight, a

Second moment of area for the beam, I

At dial gauge position 2 the test device is situated at 250mm, while W1 is at 210mm

and W2 is at 290mm (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Diagram for the dial

gauge position 2 site and

the respective force

weights

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

At dial gauge position 3 the test device is situated at 330mm, while W1 is at 210mm

and W2 is at 290mm (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Diagram for the dial

gauge position 3 site and

the respective force

weights

In summary, the closer the dial gauge gets to the beam overhang the higher the

deflection from the force weights. This is because there is no reaction force at the

beam end to help stabilise the cantilever beam. Due to its higher mass and therefore

greater force, W2 leads to more deflection than the force generated from W1. The

variable, x, has an impact on the calculated deflection because it is the distance

between the dial gauge and the force weight. This doesnt stay constant and is

different at position 1, 2 and 3. From splitting the beams into simple sections and

finding the individual deflections the sum total deflection can be found. The super

position principle can thus be used for two simple beams or more as the procedure

remains the same.

The software program then used the variables to calculate the theoretical values from

the parameters implemented in to the computer. This gave individual values for the

deflection of W1 and W2 and the calculated value of them added together. The

measured deflection is then given by the dial gauge.

From the table in the results section it can be seen that there is a slight difference in

the values. The calculated and measured values have an error of 8.9%, 12.3% and

9.8% respectively. This can mostly be accounted for by the uncertainties and errors

discussed in the results section. The uncertainty in measurement can expound the

accuracy of the final calculations. By analysing the results it can be seen that the

theory of super position is relatively accurate, and in this case to the nearest

millimetre.

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

Module 2b

Module 2b was based on the principle of superposition. We calculated the

deflection of a beam with a single weight attached to the beam and then repeated

for a second weight at a different position, using the principle of superposition

we added these deflections together to calculate the total deflection if weights

were attached. We also measured the deflection when both weights were on the

beam; the overall measurements for deflection in the two cases were different.

Furthermore, the measured values were different to the theoretical values

therefore it is evident there were errors in the measurements.

Module 2b Superposition Reaction

Table 2.2.1 Superposition reaction

Mass

Locn

[mm]

W1

Reactio

n [N]

W2

Reactio

n [N]

W1 + W2

Measured

[N]

W1 + W2

Summed

[N]

W1 + W2

Theoretica

l [N]

Error

1 [N]

Error

2 [N]

220.0

0

0.70 1.76 2.22 2.46 2.08 0.24

11.5%

0.14

6.7%

240.0

0

0.74 1.73 2.35 2.47 2.17 0.12

5.5%

0.18

8.3%

260.0

0

0.86 1.76 2.39 2.62 2.26 0.23

10.2%

0.13

5.8%

The difference between the measured and theoretical values is due to equipment

uncertainties and human error when positioning the weights. The deflection

gauge, micrometre and scales all have an absolute uncertainty. With all of the

uncertainties we could calculate the total uncertainty taking this into account

when comparing the measured and theoretical values we would have a better

understanding of the accuracy of our calculations. Furthermore, prior to adding

weights we calibrated the deflection gauge however if any force is applied to the

gauge - such as being bumped when positioning the weight the initial

calibration is not accurate. Human error is also evident in placing the weights as

it is difficult to place the weight in the exact spot, this error can be taken into

with the uncertainty of the ruler.

The results show a far greater error in the summed calculations; this is because

when we sum the measurements we are also summing the errors. It is significant

that the more measurements we take the larger the error in calculations,

therefore it is important to include uncertainties in all calculations. This will

provide a better analysis of results and more justifiable conclusions.

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

References:

Bell, S (2001). A Beginners Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement, National Physical

Laboratory, Microsoft Word [Internet]. Available from:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/documents/gruanmanuals/UK_NPL/mgpg11.pd

f Viewed on: [01/04/14]

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.