ME2113-1/2

DEFLECTION AND BENDING STRESSES IN BEAMS

FORMAL REPORT

NAME: THOMAS TAN BOON THIAM

MATRIC NO. : U067740U
GROUP: 2M1

OBJECTIVES:
1.
2.
3.
4.

To find the Transverse strain (zz1 , zz2), Longitudinal strain (xx1 , xx2).
To find the Deflection (Theoretical and Experiment)
To determine the Youngs Modules (E) & Poissons Ratio () of the beam material.
To find the Bending Stress and the Bending moment

RESULTS:
Table 1.1:
P (kg)
5
10
15
20

(-) VL (mm)
L
0.340
0.705
1.075
1.440

U
0.360
0.730
1.090
1.440

A
0.350
0.718
1.083
1.440

Table 1.2:

Axial Strain
XX1()
XX2()

P (kg)
5
10
15
20

L
70.0
141.0
212.0
284.0

U
70.0
141.0
213.0
284.0

A
L
U
A
70.0 -37.0 -38.0 -38.5
141.0 -73.0 -74.0 -73.5
212.5 -109.0 -109.0 -109.0
284.0 -145.0 -145.0 -145.0

Table 1.3:
P (kg)
5
10
15
20

Transverse Strain
ZZ1()
ZZ2()
L
-21.0
-42.0
-63.0
-83.0

U
-24.0
-44.0
-64.0
-83.0

A
-22.5
-43.0
-63.5
-83.0

L
12.0
22.0
31.0
42.0

U
15.0
24.0
33.0
42.0

A
13.5
23.0
32.0
42.0

Table 2:

P (N)
49.05
98.10
147.15
196.20

Mxz (Nm) Mxz (Nm)

at
at
x=50mm x=150mm
-9.81
-19.62
-29.43
-39.24

-4.91
-9.81
-14.72
-19.62

Theoretical
Experimental
xx1
xx2 (MPa)
xx1
xx2 (MPa) at
(MPa) at
at
(MPa) at
x=150mm
x=50mm x=150mm x=50mm
14.37
-7.18
11.46
-6.14
28.74
-14.37
23.09
-12.03
43.11
-21.55
34.79
-17.85
57.48
-28.74
46.50
-23.74

GRAPH 1:

GRAPH 2:

GRAPH 3:

GRAPH 4:

Part I
Calculations

The second moment of area of the beam,

Iz
=

= 4.3357 10-9 m4
Bending moment, Mxz = - P (L x)
At x = d1 = 50 mm,
Mxz = 5 9.81 (250 50) 10-3
= -9.81 Nm
At x = d2 = 150 mm,
Mxz = 5 9.81 (250-150) 10-3
= - 4.905 Nm
From Graph 1:
Gradient = 136.31 N/mm
Given,

E
From Graph 2:

= [(136.31 X 103) x (250 x 10-3)3]/(3 x 4.3357 x 10-9)

= 163.74 GPa

Given,

= Gradient of graph

= 0.2966 (average)
From Graph 3:

The slope of the graph = 0.6923 N

Theoretical Approach
Longitudinal normal stress,

At x = d1 = 50 mm,
xx =

= 14.367 MPa
At x = d2 = 150 mm,
xx =

= -7.184 MPa
Experimental Approach
Given,

When xx1 = 70.0 10-6

xx1 = 163.74 109 70 10-6

= 11.46 MPa
When xx2 = -37.5 10-6
xx1 = 163.74 109 -37.5 10-6
= -6.14 MPa

Part II
Highest reading for xx1 : 440
From Graph 3:

For xx1 = 440,

= 0.6923 440
= 304.61 N

DISCUSSION:
1.

Comment on the signs of the strains with respect to the location and orientation of the
strain gauge and how the beam is loaded
xx1 is measured from the top of the beam. The positive value of xx1 is due to the elongation
of the beam that arises from the applied force P. zz1 is the transverse direction and is a
negative value. This implies that the beam experiences a contraction. This is explained by the
Poissons ratio, where
zz1 -xx1.
xx2 is measured from the bottom of the beam. The negative value of xx2 is due to the
contraction of the beam that arises from the applied force P. zz2 is the transverse direction
and is a positive value. This implies that the beam experiences a elongation. This is also
explained by the Poissons ratio, where
zz2 -xx2.

2.

With reference to Graph 4, comment on the slopes of the four theoretical lines and also
on how stress varies with the beam location.
From the graph, it can be seen that as the mass increases, the slope of the graph becomes
steeper due to the increment of tensile stress after the loads are added. The graph shows a
negative slope and the lines meet at xx = 0 at x =250mm.
The slope of the experimental line graphs is shown to be gentler than that of the
corresponding theoretical line graphs. The differences in gradient might be resulted from
experimental errors such as connection on the wires and parallax errors. The experimental
graphs does all converges to 0.25m but not on the deflection axis. This may be due to
systematic error due to calibration of the strain gauge.
Furthermore, one can observe from the graph is that, the further the distance away from the
built-in-end, the smaller the value of stress is. This can be further illustrated by Saint-Venants
Principle.

3.

Comment on the accuracy of your handgrip force.

The value of the handgrip force obtained from the two graphs is similar with each other. This
implies that the handgrip force obtained is relatively accurate.

CONCLUSION:

From the experiments, we manage to verify that the theoretical value and the experimental value
are almost similar. The Youngs modulus and the Poissons ratio of the beam are determined. The
signs of the axial and transverse strain simply mean that the particular area experiences
elongation or contraction.