LAB REPORT

BENDING IN BEAM

GROUP MEMBERS / STUDENT ID NO.:

1. FAEZAH BINTI JALAL / 2017687248

2. LA’IBAH BINTI MOHD KAMAL / 2017687222

3. ASYRAF SYAZWAN BIN AHMAD TAJUDDIN / 2017806518

4. MOHAMAD FARIZ FIRDAUS BIN IDRIS / 2017806252

5. AKMA NOOR ASYIKIN BINTI OMAR / 2017806246

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3

3.0 Theory ....................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 Apparatus .................................................................................................................. 5

5.0 Experimental Procedures .......................................................................................... 7

6.0 Results ...................................................................................................................... 8

7.0 Sample Calculations ................................................................................................ 11

8.0 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 15

9.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22

10.0 References .............................................................................................................. 27

i
TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Shape change of elements of beam due to bending............................................... 1

Figure 2: Shear force diagram for beam ................................................................................ 2

Figure 3: Bending moment diagram for beam ....................................................................... 2

Figure 4: Bending in beam .................................................................................................... 3

Figure 5: Graph of load vs. deflection.................................................................................... 4

Figure 6: Vernier calliper ....................................................................................................... 5

Figure 7: Load holder ............................................................................................................ 5

Figure 8: Load carrier ............................................................................................................ 5

Figure 9: 2 Newton load ........................................................................................................ 5

Figure 10: Aluminium beam .................................................................................................. 6

Figure 11: Brass beam .......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 12: Mild steel beam .................................................................................................... 6

Figure 13: Steel ruler............................................................................................................. 6

Figure 14: Apparatus set-up .................................................................................................. 7

Figure 15: Graph of load vs. deflection for Aluminium ........................................................... 9

Figure 16: Graph of load vs. deflection for Mild Steel ............................................................ 9

Figure 17: Graph of load vs. deflection for Brass................................................................. 10

Figure 18: Graph of load vs. deflection for Aluminium, Mild Steel and Brass ....................... 10

Table 1: Results .................................................................................................................... 8

Table 2: Graph of W vs. y ................................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Young's Modulus ................................................................................................... 15

Table 4: Experimental Young's modulus values .................................................................. 18

Table 5: Comparison of Young's modulus values ................................................................ 18

ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Bending characterizes the behavior of a slender structural element subjected to

external load applied perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the element. A structural
element subjected to bending is known as a beam. In this experiment, the beam is
subjected to pure bending at the central section. When a beam experiences a bending
moment, it will change its shape and internal stresses will be developed. The photograph
illustrates the shape change of elements of beam in bending. Not that the material is in
compression on the inside of the curve and tension on the outside of the curve, and that
transverse planes in the material remain parallel to the radius during bending.

Figure 1: Shape change of elements of beam due to bending

1
 Shear force is the force in the beam acting perpendicular to its longitudinal (x) axis.
For design purposes, the beam's ability to resist shear force is more important than its
ability to resist an axial force. Axial force is the force in the beam acting parallel to the
longitudinal axis. Shear force diagrams are simply plotting of the shear force (on the y-
axis) versus the position of various points along the beam (on the x-axis). Thus, the
following is the generalized shear force diagram for the beam shown below.

Figure 2: Shear force diagram for beam

The bending moment at any point along the beam is equal to the area under the shear
force diagram up to that point. Bending moment diagrams are simply plots of the bending
moment (on the y-axis) versus the position of various points along the beam (on the x-
axis). Thus, the following is the generalized bending moment diagram for the beam shown
below.

Figure 3: Bending moment diagram for beam

2
2.0 OBJECTIVES

1. Determine the elastic modulus (E) of beam specimen by method of deflection of Mild
Steel, Aluminum and Brass.
2. Validate the data between experimental and theoretical values

3.0 THEORY

--- Pure Bending in Beam ---

As stated in a report from University of Arizona College of Optical Sciences (2016) pure
bending is when beam is straight before loads or forces are applied and it has a constant
cross-sectional area across the beam. It also has a longitudinal plane of symmetry and
the bending moment lies within this plane. Beam is subjected to pure bending where
bending moment is constant throughout its length. Lastly, material of the beam is
homogenous and isotropic.

Figure 4: Bending in beam

3
 Distance between A and B is the distance between the support span which holds the
beam in place for experiment. Weights or loads are hang at x distance from the end of
each support span with x being constant for all tests. While R is the radius of curvature of
the arc form when loads are added.
Pure bending is written as:
𝐿 2
𝑅 2 = (𝑅 − 𝑦)2 + ( )
2
𝐿2
𝑅 2 = 𝑅 2 − 2𝑅𝑦 + 𝑦 2 +
4
Therefore,
𝐿2
2𝑅𝑦 =
4
𝐿2
𝑅=
8𝑦
𝑀 = 𝑊(𝑥)
𝑏ℎ3
𝐿=
12
𝐸 𝑀
=
𝑅 𝐼
𝐸 × 8𝑦 𝑊(𝑥)
=
𝐿2 𝐼

Thus,
𝐸 × 8𝑦 × 𝐼
𝑊=
𝐿2 (𝑥)

Figure 5: Graph of load vs. deflection

4
4.0 APPARATUS

1. Vernier caliper

Figure 6: Vernier calliper

2. Load holder

Figure 7: Load holder

3. Load carrier

Figure 8: Load carrier

4. Load

Figure 9: 2 Newton load

5
5. Specimen

i. Aluminium

Figure 10: Aluminium beam

ii. Brass

Figure 11: Brass beam

iii. Mild steel

Figure 12: Mild steel beam

6. Steel ruler

Figure 13: Steel ruler

6
5.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Figure 14: Apparatus set-up

1. The apparatus was set up as shown in Figure 1.

2. The measurement of each material’s (mild steel, brass and aluminium) length, width
and thickness were taken.
3. The length of L and x is measured 150 mm by using ruler provided.
4. The middle point from length L is calculated to put the gauge onto the point at the beam
surface.
5. The load holder was tighten used screw driver between point L and x that measured.
6. The scale on the dial gauge was set to zero.
7. 2 Newton load was added at both holder (Right side and Left side).
8. The reading on the dial gauge was recorded.
9. Every reading recorded from the gauge is time by 0.01mm.
10. Step 7 and 8 is repeated until both side of load were added to 16 Newton load.
11. The procedure was then repeated again but using different type of specimen.
12. All the data collected was shown in the result.

7
6.0 RESULTS

Initial Measurements

Alumimium = 100.4 cm
Brass = 99.9 cm
Mild steel = 99.9 cm
Support span = 39.7cm

Table of Results

Beam Maximum Deflection (mm)

Load (N)
Aluminium Brass Mild Steel

2 0.19 0.15 0.22

4 0.37 0.30 0.45

6 0.55 0.44 0.68

8 0.74 0.59 0.91

10 0.92 0.74 1.14

12 1.00 0.88 1.37

14 1.29 1.03 1.60

16 1.48 1.18 1.80

Table 1: Results

8
Graphs

Aluminium: Load, kN vs Deflection, mm

16

14

12

10
Load, N

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Deflection of Beam, mm

Figure 15: Graph of load vs. deflection for Aluminium

Mild Steel: Load, kN vs Deflection, mm

16

14

12

10
Load,N

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Deflection of Beam, mm

Figure 16: Graph of load vs. deflection for Mild Steel

9
 Brass: Load, kN vs Deflection, mm
16

14

12

10
Load, N

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection of Beam, mm

Figure 17: Graph of load vs. deflection for Brass

y = 11006x + 0.0021
16

14
y = 13605x - 0.0268
y = 8720.8x + 0.0544
12

10
Load, N

0
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020
Deflection of Beam, m

Mild Steel Aluminium Brass

Linear (Mild Steel) Linear (Aluminium) Linear (Brass)

Figure 18: Graph of load vs. deflection for Aluminium, Mild Steel and Brass

10
7.0 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Table 2: Graph of W vs. y

I. MILD STEEL

Finding the slope, ⌀

𝑊1−𝑊2 16−2
⌀= 𝑌2−𝑌1
=
(0.00183)(2.2×10^−4)

= 8695.65

Finding the first moment of inertia,

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

(0.02)(0.00402)3
𝐼=
12

𝐼 = 1.0827 × 10−10 𝑚4

11
Finding Eexperimental,

Φ(𝑋)𝐿2
𝐸=
𝐼 ×8
(8695.65)(0.13) (0.397)2
𝐸=
(1.0827 × 10−10 )(8)

𝐸 = 205.697 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Finding the percentage of failure,

|𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸 − 𝐶𝐴𝐿𝐶𝑈𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐸𝐷 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸|

PERCENTAGE = 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸
|200−205.697|
= X 100%
100

= 2.85 %

12
II. ALUMINIUM

Finding the slope, ⌀

𝑊1−𝑊2 16−2
⌀ = =
𝑌2−𝑌1 (1.48×10−3 )(0.19×10−3 )

= 10852.71

Finding the first moment of inertia,

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

(0.02)(0.006)3
𝐼=
12

𝐼 = 3.6 × 10−10 𝑚4

Finding Eexperimental,

Φ(𝑋)𝐿2
𝐸=
𝐼 ×8

(10852.71)(0.13) (0.397)2
𝐸=
(3.6 × 10−10 )(8)

𝐸 = 77.209 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Finding the percentage of failure,

|𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸 − 𝐶𝐴𝐿𝐶𝑈𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐸𝐷 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸|

PERCENTAGE =
𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸
|70 – 77.209|
= 70
X 100%

= 10.3 %

13
III. BRASS

Finding the slope, ⌀

𝑊1−𝑊2 16−2
⌀ = =
𝑌2−𝑌1 (1.83×10−3 )(1.5×10−4 )

= 13592.23

Finding the first moment of inertia,

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

(0.02)(0.0062)3
𝐼=
12

𝐼 = 3.97 × 10−10 𝑚4

Finding Eexperimental,

Φ(𝑋)𝐿2
𝐸=
𝐼 ×8

(13592.23)(0.15) (0.397)2
𝐸=
(3.97 × 10−10 )(8)

𝐸 = 87.641 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Finding the percentage of failure,

|𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸 − 𝐶𝐴𝐿𝐶𝑈𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐸𝐷 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸|

PERCENTAGE = 𝑇𝐻𝐸𝑂𝑅𝐸𝑇𝐼𝐶𝐴𝐿 𝑉𝐴𝐿𝑈𝐸
|100 − 87.641|
= X 100%
100

= 12.36 %

14
8.0 DISCUSSION

FAEZAH BINTI JALAL / 2017687248

In this experiment, we used three beams of different materials, mild steel with the
length of 100.4 cm, aluminium with the length of 99.9 cm and brass also with the length
of 99.9 cm. When these beams were subjected to bending, we managed to calculate
these values of modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus (E) of the three specimens (mild
steel, aluminium and brass) and compare it with the theoretical values.

EXPERIMENTAL YOUNG’S THEORETICAL YOUNG’S

SPECIMEN
MODULUS (GPa) MODULUS (GPa)
Mild steel 205.697 210
Aluminium 77.209 69
Brass 87.641 100

Table 3: Young's Modulus

Comparing the values, we could see that the experimental values of Young’s modulus
are different compared to the theoretical values. The percentage of error for the three
beams is 2.85% for mild steel, 10.3% for aluminium and 12.36% for brass beam. Brass
beam deflects the least at 1.18 mm when subjected to bending, followed by aluminium
which deflects 1.48 mm and mild steel which deflects the most at 1.80 mm. From these
values we obtained during the experiment, we could see that the brass beam we used is
the strongest material, followed by aluminium and mild steel being the least strong out of
all three specimens.

However, there might be some errors in the data collected. There are a few possible
sources of errors that might influence the values of the data obtained:

1. Parallax error. This error occurs due to the position of the eye is not
perpendicular to the scale of the extension gage when reading the data, which results
in inaccuracy of the data. Way to overcome this error is to make sure eye level is
perpendicular to the scale of instrument.
2. Machine error. The machine may have a decrease in its functionality as it has
been used a lot of times before. To overcome this, we must regularly check if the
machine is fully functional before starting the experiment.

15
 When a load is applied to a beam, either on a single point or distributed along the
beam, deflection will occur on the beam. The deflection diagram of the longitudinal axis
that passes through the centroid of each cross sectional area of the beam is called the
elastic curve (E). There are other methods available to determine (E) of materials. For
example, the Young’s modulus, E can also be obtained from the slope of a stress – strain
curve created during tensile tests conducted on a material. It also can be defined by using
Macaulay Function. This method is using Calculus to find expressions for the deflection
of loaded beams. It is advisable that in every beam design, a margin of safety and
thorough testing is needed before the design of the beam is used. It is also important
to ensure the testing of the beam design matches real world situation as close
as possible.

16
LA’IBAH BINTI MOHD KAMAL / 2017687222

Based on the experiment, the Young’s Modulus, Eexperiment obtained for the mild steel,
aluminium and brass are 205.697 GPa, 77.209 GPa and 87.641 GPa respectively. The
theoretical value of the Young’s Modulus, Etheoritical obtained for the mild steel, aluminium
and brass are 200 GPa, 70 GPa and 100 GPa respectively. It is shown there were some
difference in the values of Young’s Modulus obtained from experiment and the theoretical
values. This is due to the error occurred during the experiment. The percentage error for
mild steel, aluminium and brass are 2.85%, 10.3% and 12.36% respectively.

The error that might occurred during the experiment is parallax error which happens
when the eyes position of the reader is not parallel to the reading point. Therefore, to
avoid this error to happen, the reader need to make sure the position of the eyes are
parallel with the needle of the dial gauge to obtained more precise reading.

There are a few other methods available to determine the Young’s Modulus of the
materials besides this experiment. One the method is by using the slope from the stress-
strain curve from the tensile test conducted on the material. Tensile test is a test where
pulling force is applied to both end of the specimen until the specimen change it shapes
and rupture. A lot of information can be obtained from this test which are the fracture
surface, yield stress point, tensile strength and ultimate tensile strength as well as the
energy needed for specimen to rupture.

17
ASYRAF SYAZWAN BIN AHMAD TAJUDDIN / 2017806518

From the experiment conducted, we obtained these values of Young’s Modulus from
the three specimens below:

The table is shown the result.

Specimen Young modulus, E

Mild steel 205.697 GPa
Aluminium 77.209 GPa
Brass 87.641 GPa
Table 4: Experimental Young's modulus values

Comparing the experimental value with theoretical value,

Young modulus, E Young modulus, E

Specimen
(experiment) (theoretical)
Mild steel 205.697 GPa 210 GPa
Aluminium 77.209 GPa 70 GPa
Brass 87.641 Gpa 100 GPa
Table 5: Comparison of Young's modulus values

We can clearly see that there was some difference in the values of Young’s Modulus
obtained from experiment and the theoretical values. The percentage error for mild steel
was 2.85 %, aluminium had 10.3 % and brass had 12.36 %. This error occurred because
of a few errors done during the lab session. The first error was parallax error where the
eyes are not directly perpendicular to the load gauge causing a misreading of data. The
next error was the condition of the apparatus. The specimen used was worn off by the
years it has been utilized and this affected the measurement of length and diameter of
the specimen. Besides that, the load holder used to place the load was rusty and missing
a nut to tighten its position to the beam. This greatly affected the maximum beam
deflection as load are not distributed equally according to the load span required. Thirdly,
the condition of the specimen was poor. The specimens were already used many times
for months if not years to perform the same experiment repeatedly and this caused the
specimens to have defects. The first error can be avoided by making sure the eyes are
parallel with to gauge needle so this will allow a reading that is perpendicular to the

18
needle. The next error can be resolved by doing a regular check on the apparatus to
maintain their accuracy and performance at a reasonable state. The third error can be
rectified by ordering new specimens to be used in experiments and limiting the usage of
a specimen. Mild steel has the highest maximum beam deflection followed by Aluminium
and Brass. This is due to the fact that Mild steel has a higher Young’s Modulus than Brass
which will cause Mild steel to be stiffer but less malleable. Brass is less stiff but more
malleable that is why it has a higher maximum beam deflection than mild steel. The
specimens are all bounded by the stress vs strain graph where it in this test it only focused
on the elastic region because the specimens were tested for their maximum beam
deflection.

19
MOHAMAD FARIZ FIRDAUS BIN IDRIS / 2017806252

From our experimental results, we obtained 205.697 GPa for Young’s Modulus (E) of
Mild Steel, 77.209 GPa for Aluminium, and 87.641 GPa Brass. The theoretical values of
Young’s Modulus (E) for those three beams are 200 GPa, 70 GPa and 100 GPa
respectively. Comparing our experiment results to theoretical value, the differences for
those three beams in percentage are 2.85 % for Mild Steel, 10.3 % for Aluminium and
12.36 % for Brass.

There are some factors that affect the value which is the different between
experimental and theoretical value of Young Modulus for each type of specimen used.
One of them is parallax error. It occurs when the position of our eyes is not parallel to the
reading points. During this experiment, parallax error occurs when we take the deflection
reading at the dial gauge and also when we measured the length of the beam using a
meter ruler as we might get a different reading. So, to avoid the errors during this
experiment, we must take some precaution while conducting the experiment. One of the
precautions is we must to make sure that our eyes are parallel with the needle of the dial
gauge so an accurate reading obtained. We must conduct the experiment carefully by
handling the apparatus slowly so that the table and apparatus are not shaking. If not, the
reading of the gauge will not fix due to that defect and the ruler are not straight enough to
get the reading.

Furthermore, the specimen also has their own defects. First of all, the specimen is not
made with fully specification as it is made for students’ experiment and for sure to save
cost, the specimen is made economically. Besides, the specimen has been tested so
many times before we did our experiment. So, we do not know if the specimen is still at
their initial condition from manufacturer as there must be slightly decrease in their
properties after used many times before. So, we suggest that the specimen should be
change into a new one in a specified period of time to maintain the quality result in
experiment.

20
AKMA NOOR ASYIKIN BINTI OMAR / 2017806246

Based on the study, the value of Young’s Modulus, E can be calculated by using the
equation as stated before. The value of 𝐸𝑒𝑥𝑝 for mild steel, aluminium and brass are
205.697 GPa, 77.209 GPa and 87.641 GPa respectively. By comparing it with the
theoretical values, 𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 of 200 GPa, 70 GPa and 100 GPa for mild steel, aluminum and
brass respectively. We can see the difference between 𝐸𝑒𝑥𝑝 and 𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 because of errors
that has been done during the experiments is being conducted.

The percentage errors from data tabulated were 2.85% for mild steel, 10.3% for
aluminium and 12.36% for brass. The errors were most likely due to using of naked eye
to determine the center of the beam. This could be reduce by tracing the middle part of
the beam before the experiment is conducted and then when the beam is placed on the
support span, dial gauge can be placed on the center of the beam. In addition, the reading
on the dial gauge may affect the results. The one who read the data on dial gauge need
to have focus and ensure that no one moves the table which may moves the experiment
that are being study. Lastly, the error may be affected when taking the length of beam.
This is due to the fact that we have to use a meter ruler. From there, it may have few
millimeter off thus it will causes errors.

There are few methods available to determine the Young’s Modulus of the materials.
Method that can be use is by using slope from stress-strain curve created by study
through tensile test conducted on the material. Tensile test is a test where pulling force is
applied to both end of the specimen until the specimen change it shapes and rupture. By
using tensile test, a variety of information can be obtained including fracture surface, yield
stress point, tensile strength and ultimate tensile strength as well as the energy needed
for specimen to rupture. In addition, tensile test are performed commonly on substances
such as metal, wood and ceramics.

21
9.0 CONCLUSION

FAEZAH BINTI JALAL / 2017687248

In conclusion, we can say that this experiment is successful. We managed to achieve

both objectives, which is we determined the elastic modulus (E) of beam specimen by
method of deflection of mild steel, aluminium and brass, and we have validated the data
between experimental and theoretical values.

From the results, mild steel has the maximum beam deflection followed by aluminium
and brass. It can be concluded that among the three specimens used in this experiment,
brass is the strongest material, followed by aluminium and mild steel. Lastly, the
experimental values of the Young’s modulus and the theoretical values are different and
it migh have happened due to some errors as discussed before. However, the values are
not very big in difference and therefore this experiment is successful.

22
LA’IBAH BINTI MOHD KAMAL / 2017687222

From the experiment, mild steel had the highest maximum beam deflection followed
by aluminium and brass. The maximum beam deflection depends on the Young’s
Modulus of a material where higher Young’s Modulus will make a material be stiffer but
less malleable and vice versa. For example, mild steel which have the hardest
characteristics shows that having a high Young’s Modulus, E will result in hard
characteristics.

In conclusion, the objectives of this study which is to determine the elastic modulus, E
of beam specimen by method of deflection of the mild steel, aluminium and brass was
obtained. The experimental value is compared to the theoretical value of the elastic
modulus, the values shows that it differs slightly because different material has particulars
value of elastic modulus. This shows that different modulus of elasticity or Young’s
Modulus is because of the different of elastic curve. Therefore, the experiment is
succeeded because the difference between those values are not that big.

23
ASYRAF SYAZWAN BIN AHMAD TAJUDDIN / 2017806518

In conclusion, the value of Young’ Modulus and also the Maximum Beam Deflection of
the three specimens were determined where Mild Steel had the highest Maximum Beam
Deflection followed by Aluminium and Brass. The Maximum Beam Deflection depends on
the Young’s Modulus of a material where higher Young’s Modulus will make a material
be stiffer but less malleable and vice versa.

24
MOHAMAD FARIZ FIRDAUS BIN IDRIS / 2017806252

Based on the objective and the result we can conclude the experiment has been
achieved. Now we know the different of theory and experiment data that influence to the
result. So, that the theoretical value for brass, mild steel and aluminium and we have
compared it with the value that we have obtained and each young modulus different
because of the different elastic curve. Therefore, the experiment is succeeded because
the difference between those values are not that big.

25
AKMA NOOR ASYIKIN BINTI OMAR / 2017806246

By conducting this study, the objectives of this study which were to determine the
elastic modulus, E of beam specimen by method of deflection of the mild steel, aluminium
and brass can be obtained. When comparing the experimental value to theoretical value
of the elastic modulus, it only differs slightly thus it prove that it has that particulars value
of elastic modulus. To conclude, different modulus of elasticity or Young’s Modulus is
because of the different of elastic curve. As a result, it shows that aluminum has the lowest
value of E compared to brass and mild steel. This is due to the fact that, aluminium is
softer that the brass and mild steel. Lastly, mild steel which having the hardest
characteristics shows that having a high E will result in hard characteristics.

26
10.0 REFERENCES

1. Bending of Beams. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2019, from

https://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/bikes/design/desi_64.htm

2. Farsi, A., Pullen, A. D., Latham, J. P., Bowen, J., Carlsson, M., Stitt, E. H., & Marigo,
M. (2017, April 11). Full deflection profile calculation and Young's modulus optimisation
for engineered high performance materials. Retrieved April 9, 2019, from
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46190

3. R.C. Hibbeler (2017). Mechanics of Materials: Global Edition. Harlow, United Kingdom:
Pearson Education Limited.

4. Shear Force and Bending Moment. (2000, October 5). Retrieved April 8, 2019, from
http://people.virginia.edu/~pjm8f/engr162/beam/shear_force_and_bending_moment.
htm

5. University of Arizona College of Optical Sciences. (2016). Flexural Stresses in Beams.

Retrieved from University of Arizona College of Optical Sciences:
https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/optomech/wp-
content/uploads/sites/53/2016/10/OPTI_222_W9.pdf

27