Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

MINE2123/MECH2300 Bending of Beams Practical

MECH2300/MINE2123 Bending of Beams Practical



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]