Civil Engineering Department

Structural Mechanics – 2

CIVIL0013

FALL 2018

Individual Assignment

Extensive Report

(Experiment1, Experiment2 and Experiment3)

Submitted By:

Student Name: Laila Al-Gharbi

ID: 16F16125

Submitted To:

Teacher name: Mr. Kiran Kumar

1
 The contents of table

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Methodology/ derivations ......................................................................................... 8

3.0 Results ......................................................................................................................... 17

4.0 Discussions ................................................................................................................. 34

5.0 Conclusion and recommendations .............................................................................. 37

6.0References .................................................................................................................... 39

List of tables

Table 1:The experimental and theoretical results of support reactions of a simply

supported beam experiment .............................................................................................. 17
Table 2: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of fixed beam length and
variable load ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of variable beam length
and fixed load.................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4: The results of deflection of a simply supported beam (Steel) ............................ 21
Table 5: The results of deflection of a simply supported beam (Aluminum) ................... 23
Table 6: The results of deflection of simply supported beam (Brass) .............................. 24
Table 7: The results of reactions and fixing moment for the fixed beam ......................... 26
Table 8: The results of reactions and fixing moment for the propped cantilever beam ... 29
Table 9: The experimental buckling load and the theoretical load buckling for column
with different types of support .......................................................................................... 32

2
 List of figures

Figure 1: Hanger and weights ........................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: Loading and buckling of struts .......................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Deflection inductor ............................................................................................ 13
Figure 4: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of fixed beam length and
variable load ...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of variable beam length
and fixed load.................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of steel beam .............. 22
Figure 7: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of aluminum beam ..... 23
Figure 8: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of brass beam ............. 25
Figure 9: The deflection value of steel, aluminum and brass of different flexural rigidity
........................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 10: The experimental moment at A and theoretical moment at A for the fixed
beam .................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11: The experimental reaction at B and theoretical reaction at B for the fixed beam
........................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 12: The experimental moment at A and theoretical moment at A for the propped
cantilever beam ................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 13: The experimental reaction at B and theoretical reaction at B for the propped
cantilever beam ................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 14: The experimental buckling and the theoretical buckling for column with
different types of support .................................................................................................. 32

3
 1.0 Introduction
Structural mechanics is a branch that focuses on studying the behavior of materials under
the loads. It concentrates on locating the distribution of strain and stress in rigid when the
materials are used in any type of engineering structures (CSU 2017).

There are several structures types and each structure has a certain function. Some
structures are complex, however others are simple. There are two concepts to build any
structure. The first concept is the structures must carry the loads without any collapse for
the design. The second concept is the structures must support the external loads.

The structure indicates to the system that consists of connected parts use to support the
load. Towers, bridges and buildings are some examples of structures in civil engineering.
These structures are difficult to analysis and design.

The structure consists of various structural elements which are:

 Column: is a vertical member and capable to resist the axial loads.

 Beam: is a horizontal member and carry the vertical loads.
 Tie rods: are structural elements subjected to the tensile loads (UACG 2018).

There are various problems that civil engineering structures suffer such as deflection on
beam and buckling on column. In structural engineering expression, the deflection
indicates to the beam movement from its original place due to the applied loads and
forces to the member. Deflection, also called as displacement and it occurs from structure
weight itself, force of gravity and the external forces or loads (SkyCiv 2017). One the
other problem in civil engineering structures is buckling on column. Buckling is known
as a large deformation that occurs suddenly on column due to small increase of existing
loads (ULF.MAE.EDU 2018).

This report will discuss the following three experiments:

4
Experiment 1:

Experiment 1a: (Support reactions of a simply supported beam)

Theory:

Simply supported beam is a beam that two ends are supported by pinned support and
roller support and the load is applied at any point on the beam (Semesters. In 2018).

When the beam is simply supported beam and all the total loads that exerted on the beam
are equal to the sum of two reactions. Therefore, it can be said the beam is in
Equilibrium (Physics Forums 2018).

The beam deflection depends on its cross sectional shape, its length, the type of load and
the material (CLAG 2018).

Objective 1a: (Support Reactions of a Simply Supported Beam)

The aim of this experiment was to verify the equilibrium equation of the basic beam
which is W=RA+RB.

Objective of experiment 1 b: (Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam)

The aim of this experiment was to determine the relationship between load and the
deflection of beam and the beam span and deflection.

Objective of experiment 1c: (Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam)

The aim of this experiment was to determine the effect of flexural rigidity (moment of
inertia and young’s modulus) of beam on deflection values.

Experiment 2: (Reactions and Fixing Moments of Fixed Beam and

Propped Cantilever Beam)

Theory:

Fixed beam and propped cantilever beam are considered as statically indeterminate beam.

5
  Fixed beam: is the beam that supported at the ends and cannot rotate. The slopes
of fixed beam at the ends remain zero (SVCE 2018).

 Propped cantilever beam: is the beam that fixed at one end and the other end is
supported by roller support (SVCE 2018).

Objective:

The aim of this experiment was to determine the moment at A (MA) and reaction at B
(RB) when the load is constant and the position of load is variable for both fixed beam
and propped cantilever beam.

Experiment 3:

Theory:

Buckling is known as a large deformation that occurs suddenly on column due to small
increase of existing loads (ULF.MAE.EDU 2018).Buckling plays a significant role in
each technology fields, for examples, supports and columns in steel and construction
engineering and piston rod in the hydraulic cylinders (Research Gate 2018).

6
Objective:

The aim of this experiment was to determine the buckling loads for columns with three
cases of support which are fixed/ fixed support, pinned/ fixed support and pinned/pinned
support.

7
 2.0 Methodology/ derivations
2.1 The derivation of the used formula

Simply supported beam (under point load):

∑ F= 0 (+↑,-↓)

RA+RB-W=0

RA+RB= W

∑ MA (with clockwise(+), anticlockwise(-))

Wx-RBL=0

Wx= RBL

a
RB=𝐿 𝑊

a
RA= W- 𝐿 𝑊

𝑊𝐿 a
RA= -𝐿 𝑊
𝐿

𝐿−𝑎
RA= W ( )
𝐿

Bending Moment Equation for region 0< x<a

M(x) = RAx

𝐿−𝑎
M(x) = W ( )𝑥
𝐿

Bending Moment Equation for region a< x<L

M(x) =RAx –W(x-a)

= RAx–Wx+Wa

= x(RA–W) +Wa

8
 𝐿−𝑎
= x (W ( )- W) + Wa
𝐿

𝐿 𝑎
= x (W𝐿- 𝐿 𝑊- W) +Wa

𝑎
=Wx-𝐿 𝑊𝑥-Wx+ Wa

𝑎
= - 𝐿 𝑊𝑥 + Wa

𝑥
M(x)= Wa(- 𝐿 +1)

At x=a

𝑎
M (a) = Wa (- 𝐿 +1)

The Deflection Equation:

𝑑2𝑦
EI𝑑𝑥2=M For region 0< x<a

𝑑2𝑦 (𝐿−𝑎)
EI𝑑𝑥2= Wx 𝐿

By integration:

𝑑𝑦 (𝐿−𝑎)
EI𝑑𝑥 = Wx2 +C1 →Slope Equation
2𝐿

(𝐿−𝑎)
EI 𝑌 =Wx3 +C1x+C2→Deflection Equation
6𝐿

The boundary conditions:

𝑑𝑦
1) At x=a, =0
𝑑𝑥

2) At x=0, y=0
3) At x= L, y=0

Applying condition (1) on:

𝑑𝑦 (𝐿−𝑎)
EI𝑑𝑥 = Wx2 2𝐿
+C1

9
 (𝐿−𝑎)
EI (0) = W (a)2 + C1
2𝐿

(𝐿−𝑎)
C1= - W(a)2 2𝐿

Applying condition (2) on:

(𝐿−𝑎)
EI 𝑌 =Wx3 +C1x+C2
6𝐿

(𝐿−𝑎)
EI (0)=W (0)3 + C1(0)+ C2
6𝐿

C2=0

(𝐿−𝑎) (𝐿−𝑎)
EI 𝑌 =Wx3 +- W(a)2 x+C2
6𝐿 2𝐿

(𝐿−𝑎) (𝐿−𝑎)
Y= Wx3 𝐸𝐼6𝐿 - W(a)2 𝐸𝐼2𝐿 x+ 0

𝑊(𝐿−𝑎) 𝑋^3 𝑎^2𝑥

Y= ( − )
𝐸𝐼𝐿 6 2

For the simply supported beam (under point load) the highest deflection can occur at the
𝐿
center. Therefore, substitute on a and x by 2

𝑊(𝐿−𝑎) 𝑋^3 𝑎^2𝑥

Y= ( − )
𝐸𝐼𝐿 6 2

𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 2 𝐿
𝑊(𝐿−( )) ( )^3 ( ) ∗( )
2 2 2 2
Y= ( − )
𝐸𝐼𝐿 6 2

2𝐿 𝐿 𝐿^3 𝐿^2 2 𝐿
𝑊(( )−( )) ( ) ( ) ∗( )
2 2 8 4 2
Y= ( − )
𝐸𝐼𝐿 6 2

𝐿
𝑊(( )) (𝐿^3) (𝐿^2)2 ∗(𝐿)
2
Y= ( − )
𝐸𝐼𝐿 8∗6 4∗2∗2

𝐿
𝑊(( )) (𝐿^3) 𝐿^3
2
Y= ( − )
𝐸𝐼𝐿 48 16

𝐿
𝑊(( )) (𝐿^3) 𝐿3 ∗3
2
Y= ( − 16∗3)
𝐸𝐼𝐿 48

10
 𝑊∗𝐿 (𝐿^3) 𝐿3 ∗3
Y= 2∗𝐸𝐼𝐿 ( − )
48 48

𝑊 2𝐿3
Y= 2∗𝐸𝐼* 48

𝑊∗𝐿3
Y= 48𝐸𝐼

2.2 Apparatus

Experiment 1:

 Backboard
 Digital Forcemeter
 Weights
 Weight hanger
 Knife edge hanger
 Thin flexible beam

Experiment 2:

 Backboard
 Knife edge
 Digital Forcemeter
 Flexible beam
 Weight hanger
 Weights

Experiment 3:

 Knife edge
 Column
 Loads
 Dial indicators

11
 Figure 1: Hanger and weights

Figure 2: Loading and buckling of struts

12
 Figure 3: Deflection inductor

2.3 Definitions

Experiment 1:

Deflection: indicates to the beam movement from its original place due to the applied
loads and forces to the member. Deflection, also called as displacement and it occurs
from structure weight itself, force of gravity and the external forces or loads (SkyCiv
2017).

Experiment 2:

Moment of force: measures the tendency of body to rotate at specific axis or point (Chris
et al. 2018).

Experiment 3:

Buckling: is known as a large deformation that occurs suddenly on column due to small
increase of existing loads (ULF.MAE.EDU 2018).

2.4 The concepts and Mathematical equations used

Experiment 1a:

1. First, the beam was set up as simply supported beam.

2. Then, the left hand support and right hand support were connected to the digital
forcemeter.

13
 3. After that, the knife edge was moved to distance 40 mm from the left hand
support.
4. Next, the load of 4.9 N was applied on to weight hanger.
5. Then, the readings of two supports were recorded.
6. The same steps were repeated at distance of 80mm, 120mm 160mm, 200mm,
240mm, 280mm 320mm and 360 mm from left hand support.

Experiment 1b:

1. First, the beam was set up as simply supported beam.

2. Then, the supports were moved at knife edges.
3. After that, the digital forcemeter was placed at the center of beam.
4. Next, the deflection was recorded when the load was 0N, 0,98N, 1,96N, 2.94N,
3.92N 4.9N and 4.9N.
5. Then, the beam span was increased to 400mm and the digital forcemeter was
placed at the center of beam. After that, the deflection of beam was recorded
when the load was 4.9N.
6. The same procedures of step 5 were repeated when the beam span were 350mm,
300mm, 250mm and 200mm.

Experiment 1c:

1. First, the beam was set up as simply supported beam on the knife edge supports.
2. Next, the weight hanger was placed at the center of beam.
3. Then, the deflection was recorded for mass of 0g, 100g, 200g, 300g, 400g and
500g for different material steel, aluminum and brass.

Experiment 2:

1. First, the equipment was set up as the fixed beam.

2. Then, the load of 500 g was applied at the distance of 40mm from left hand of
beam.

3. After that, the readings of the moment at A (MA) and reaction at B (RB) were taken.

14
 4. Next, the readings of the moment at A (MA) and support reaction (RB) were taken,
when the distance increase 40 mm across the beam until reach 360 mm distance.

5. The same steps were repeated for the propped cantilever beam.

Experiment 3:

1. First, the struts were set up through knife edges at eccentricity equals zero for all
different conditions.
2. Then, the load was applied until the buckling was occurred for fixed/fixed.
3. Next, the same steps were repeated with different load.

Mathematical equations used

Experiment 1:

 Moment of inertia (I)= (b*d^3)/12

 Deflection (Y)= (W*L ^3 )/ (48 *E* I)

Experiment 2:

 Moment arm force(N)= 0.05*MA

WAB2
 Moment formula for the fixed beam (MA)= L2
WA2 (𝐿+2𝐵)
 Reaction formula for the fixed beam(RB )= L3
WAB(L+B)
 Moment formula for the propped cantilever beam (MA)= 2L2
WA M
 Reaction formula for the propped cantilever beam (RB )= −
L L

Experiment 3:

𝑏∗(𝑑)^3
 Moment of inertia (I)= 12
𝜋^2𝐸𝐼
 Critical buckling load (pcr )= 𝐿^2

15
2.5 Materials used

Determining the materials properties are very important in order to determine the ability
of materials to perform their function (University of Babylon 2018). The materials that
used in these experiments are steel, aluminum and brass.

 Steel: is an alloy of carbon and iron, with a content of carbon approximately

1.5%. The carbon appears as iron carbide due to its ability to increase the strength
and hardness of steel (University of Babylon 2018).
 Aluminum: is a silvery-whit material and it can be found in the crust layer of
earth. It is a ductile metallic element and it has a good thermal and conductive
properties (Alchin 2017).
 Brass: is an alloy of zinc and copper and it has bright gold color and sometimes it
can be silvery-white or reddish-gold. Brass is a good conductive for the heat and
also it is resist the corrosion (Thought Co 2018).

All these materials were used to determine the deflection of beam when the young’s
modulus of steel, aluminum and brass are 2*10^5 N/mm2, 69000N/mm2 and 105000
N/mm2 respectively.

16
 3.0 Results
3.1 Experiment1:

Experiment 1 a:

Table 1:The experimental and theoretical results of support reactions of a simply

supported beam experiment

Distance A (mm) Load W(N) Experimental results Theoretical results

RA (N) RB (N) RA+ RB RA (N) RB (N) RA+ RB
(N) (N)
40 4.9 4 0.9 4.9 4.464 0.435 4.9
80 4.9 3.6 1.3 4.9 4.029 0.871 4.9
120 4.9 2.9 1.8 4.7 3.833 1.066 4.9
160 4.9 2.8 2.1 4.9 3.157 1.742 4.9
200 4.9 2.8 2.1 4.9 2.723 2.177 4.9
240 4.9 2.6 2.1 4.7 2.287 2.613 4.9
280 4.9 2.9 1.9 4.8 1.852 3.041 4.9
320 4.9 2.9 1.9 4.8 1.416 3.484 4.9
360 4.9 1 3.9 4.9 0.98 3.92 4.9

4.9 N
Calculations:

40mm
40 RB
RA
mm
∑ fx =0 (← -, + →)
450mm
RA+RB -W = 0

RA+RB -4.9= 0

RA+RB = 4.9 → Equation (1)

∑MA ( Anticlockwise (-),clockwise (+) )

17
-RA*0 + 4.9*40 - RB*450=0

0 - 450 RB = - 196

RB = 0.435N

From Equation (1):

RA+RB = 4.9

RA+0.435= 4.9

RA = 4.46N

‫؞‬RA+RB =4.9N
4.46+0.435= 4.9

Experiment1b:

Table 2: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of fixed beam length
and variable load

Length Load (N) Experimental Deflection Theoretical Deflection

(mm) (mm) (mm)
450 0 0 0
450 0.98 1.98 2.022
450 1.96 3.42 4.045
450 2.94 5.90 6.068
450 3.92 7.20 8.091
450 4.9 7.9 10.113

18
 12 Y The experimental
deflection and
10 theoretical deflection
of fixed beam length
8 and variable load
Experimental deflection
6 (mm)
Theoretical deflection
4 (mm)

0
Load (N)
0 0.98 1.96 2.94 3.92 4.9

Figure 4: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of fixed beam

length and variable load
Calculations:

𝑏∗(𝑑)^3
 I= 12

b = 20 mm
d = 2 mm
20∗(2)^3
I= 12

= 13.33
𝑊𝐿3
 Y = 48𝐸𝐼

 The calculations of theoretical deflection:

The length (L) = 450 mm
0∗(450)^3
0 Y = =0
48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33
0.98∗(450)^3
W=0.98 Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 2.022 mm
1.96∗(450)^3
W=1.96 Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 4.045 mm
2.94∗(450)^3
W=2.94 Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 6.068 mm
3.92∗(450)^3
W=3.92 Y= 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 8.091mm

19
 4.9∗(450)^3
W=4.9 Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 10.113 mm

Table 3: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of variable beam

length and fixed load

Length (mm) Load (N) Experimental Deflection Theoretical Deflection

(mm) (mm)
400 4.9 7.6 7.103
350 4.9 4.83 4.75
300 4.9 3 2.996
250 4.9 1.81 1.734
200 4.9 1.02 0.887

8 y (mm)
The experimental
7 deflection and
theoretical deflection
6
of variable beam
5 length and fixed load

3 Experimental deflection
(mm)
2
Theoretical deflection
1 (mm)

0
400 350 300 250 200 Length (mm)

Figure 5: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of variable beam

length and fixed load
Calculations:

 The calculations of theoretical deflection:

𝑊𝐿^3
Y= 48𝐸𝐼

Load (W) = 4.9 N

20
 4.9∗(400)^3
L=400 mm Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 7.103 mm
4.9∗(350)^3
L=350 mm Y= 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 4.75 mm
4.9∗(300)^3
L=300 mm Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 2.996 mm
4.9∗(250)^3
L=250 mm Y = 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 1.734 mm
4.9∗(200)^3
L=200 mm Y= 48∗(69∗103 )∗13.33 = 0.887 mm

Experiment 1c:

Table 4: The results of deflection of a simply supported beam (Steel)

Beam material: Steel

Distance between supports: 700 mm
Moment of inertia (I) =(b*d^3)/12 = (20*(3)^3)/12 = 45mm4
Yong’s Modulus(E) = 2*10^5 N/mm2
Flexural rigidity (EI)= 45*2*10^5 =11.828*10^6=9*10^6N.mm2
Load (g) Force (N) Experimental Theoretical Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm) Y= (W*L ^3 )/ (48 *E* I)
0 0 0 0
100 0.980 0.7 0.778
200 1.961 1.41 1.556
300 2.941 2.09 2.335
400 3.922 2.73 3.113
500 4.903 3.49 3.892

21
 4.5 Y (mm)
The experimental
4 deflection and
theoretical
3.5
deflection of steel
3 beam
2.5
Experimental deflection
2
(mm)
1.5
Theoretical deflection
1 (mm)

0.5

0
0 0.98 1.961 2.941 3.922 4.903 Force (N)

Figure 6: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of steel beam

Calculations:

 Moment of inertia (I) =(b*d^3)/12 = (20*(3)^3)/12 = 45mm4

 The calculations of theoretical deflection:

(Y) = (W*L ^3)/ (48 *E* I)

W= 0.980 N→ Y = (0.980 *(700) ^3)/ (48*(2*10^5)*45) =0.778mm

W= 1.961 N→ Y = (1.961 *(700) ^3)/ (48*(2*10^5)*45) =1.556mm

W= 2.941N→ Y = (2.941 *(700) ^3)/ (48*(2*10^5)*45) =2.335mm

W= 3.922N→ Y = (3.922 *(700) ^3)/ (48*(2*10^5)*45) =3.113mm

W= 4.903 N→ Y = (4.903 *(700) ^3)/ (48*(2*10^5)*45) =3.892mm

22
 Table 5: The results of deflection of a simply supported beam (Aluminum)

Beam material: Aluminum

Distance between supports: 700 mm
Moment of inertia (I)=(b*d^3)/12= (19.05*(4.762)^3)/12= 171.428 mm4
Yong’s Modulus= 69000N/mm2
Flexural rigidity (EI)= 171.428*69000=11.828*10^6N.mm2
Load (g) Force (N) Experimental Theoretical Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm) Y= (W*L ^3 )/ (48 *E* I)
0 0 0 0
100 0.980 0.60 0.592
200 1.961 1.11 1.184
300 2.941 1.79 1.776
400 3.922 2.42 2.369
500 4.903 2.92 2.961

3.5 Y (mm)
The experimental
3 deflection and
theoretical
2.5 deflection of
aluminum beam
2
Experimental deflection
1.5
(mm)

1 Theoretical deflection
(mm)
0.5

0
0 0.98 1.961 2.941 3.922 4.903 Force (N)

Figure 7: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of aluminum beam

Calculations:

 Moment of inertia (I) =(b*d^3)/12 = (20*(3)^3)/12 = 45mm4

23
 The calculations of theoretical deflection:

(Y) = (W*L ^3)/ (48 *E* I)

W= 0.980 N→ Y = (0.980 *(700) ^3)/ (48*69000* 171.428) = 0.592mm

W= 1.961 N→ Y = (1.961 *(700) ^3)/ (48*69000*171.428) = 1.184mm

W= 2.941N→ Y = (2.941 *(700) ^3)/ (48*69000*171.428) = 1.776mm

W= 3.922N→ Y = (3.922 *(700) ^3)/ (48*69000*171.428) = 2.369mm

W= 4.903 N→ Y = (4.903 *(700) ^3)/ (48*69000*171.428) = 2.961mm

Table 6: The results of deflection of simply supported beam (Brass)

Beam material: Brass

Distance between supports: 700 mm
Moment of inertia (I)=(b*d^3)/12 = (19.05*(4.762)^3)/12= 171.428 mm4
Yong’s Modulus(E)= 105000 N/mm2
Flexural rigidity (EI)= 171.428*105000=17.999*10^6 N.mm2
Load (g) Force (N) Experimental Theoretical Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm) Y= (W*L ^3 )/ (48 *E* I)
0 0 0 0
100 0.980 0.39 0.389
200 1.961 0.77 0.778
300 2.941 1.23 1.167
400 3.922 1.60 1.557
500 4.903 2.02 1.946

24
 2.5 Y (mm)
The experimental
deflection and
2 theoretical deflection
of brass beam
1.5 Experimental deflection
(mm)

1 Theoretical deflection
(mm)

0.5

0
0 0.98 1.961 2.941 3.922 4.903 Force(N)

Figure 8: The experimental deflection and theoretical deflection of brass beam

Calculations:

 Moment of inertia (I) =(b*d^3)/12 = (20*(3)^3)/12 = 45mm4

 The calculations of theoretical deflection:

(Y) = (W*L ^3)/ (48 *E* I)

W= 0.980 N→ Y = (0.980 *(700) ^3)/ (48*105000* 171.428) = 0.389 mm

W= 1.961 N→ Y = (1.961 *(700) ^3)/ (48*105000*171.428) = 0.778 mm

W= 2.941N→ Y = (2.941 *(700) ^3)/ (48*105000*171.428) =1.167 mm

W= 3.922N→ Y = (3.922 *(700) ^3)/ (48*105000*171.428) =1.557mm

W= 4.903 N→ Y = (4.903 *(700) ^3)/ (48*105000*171.428) =1.946mm

25
 4 Y (mm)
The
3.5 deflection
of steel,
3
aluminum
2.5 and brass
2

1.5 Steel

1 Aluminum
Brass
0.5

0
0 0.98 1.961 2.941 3.922 4.903 Force (N)

Figure 9: The deflection value of steel, aluminum and brass of different flexural
rigidity

Experiment2:

Table 7: The results of reactions and fixing moment for the fixed beam

Distance A Load W Moment arm Experimental results Theoretical

(m) (N) Force results
= 0.05*MA (N.m) MA(N) MA(N.m) RB(N) MA(N.m) RB(N)
0.04 4.9 0.055 1.1 0.055 0.2 0.162 0.109
0.08 4.9 0.1 2 0.1 0.5 0.265 0.409
0.12 4.9 0.125 2.5 0.125 0.9 0.316 0.859
0.16 4.9 0.125 2.5 0.125 1.5 0.325 1.417
0.2 4.9 0.11 2.2 0.11 2.1 0.302 2.043
0.24 4.9 0.085 1.7 0.085 2.7 0.256 2.694
0.28 4.9 0.06 1.2 0.06 3.1 0.195 3.330
0.32 4.9 0.045 0.9 0.045 3.4 0.130 3.909
0.36 4.9 0.02 0.4 0.02 3.9 0.070 4.390

26
 0.35 Ma (N.m)
The experimental
0.3 moment and
theoretical moment
0.25 of fixed beam

0.2 Experimental Ma (N.m)

0.15
Theoretical Ma (N.m)
0.1

0.05

0
Distance (m)
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

Figure 10: The experimental moment at A and theoretical moment at A for the fixed
beam

5 Rb (N)
4.5
The experimental
reaction at B and
4 theoretical reaction
3.5 at B for fixed beam
3
2.5 Experimental Rb(N)

2 Theoretical Rb(N)

1.5
1
0.5
0
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 Distance (m)

Figure 11: The experimental reaction at B and theoretical reaction at B for the fixed
beam
Calculations:

 L=450mm
WAB2
 MA= L2
WA2 (𝐿+2𝐵)
 RB = L3

27
 4.9∗0.04∗(0.41)2
Distance A (0.04 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.162 N.m

4.9∗(0.04)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.41)
RB= (0.45)3
= 0.109 N

4.9∗0.08∗(0.37)2
Distance A (.08 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.265N.m

4.9∗(0.08)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.37)
RB= (0.45)3
= 0.409N

4.9∗0.12∗(0.33)2
Distance A (0.12 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.316N.m

4.9∗(0.12)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.33)
RB= (0.45)3
= 0.859N

4.9∗0.16∗(0.29)2
Distance A (0.16 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.325N.m

4.9∗(0.16)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.29)
RB= (0.45)3
= 1.417N

4.9∗0.2∗(0.25)2
Distance A (0.2 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.302N.m

4.9∗(0.2)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.25)
RB= (0.45)3
= 2.043N

4.9∗0.24∗(0.21)2
Distance A (0.24 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.256N.m

4.9∗(0.24)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.21)
RB= (0.45)3
= 2.694N

4.9∗0.28∗(0.17)2
Distance A (0.28 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.195N.m

4.9∗(0.28)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.17)
RB= (0.45)3
=3.330 N

4.9∗0.32∗(0.13)2
Distance A (0.32 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.130N.m

4.9∗(0.32)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.13)
RB= (0.45)3
=3.909 N

28
 4.9∗0.36∗(0.09)2
Distance A (0.36 m) → MA= (0.45)2
=0.070N.m

4.9∗(0.36)2 ∗(0.45+2∗0.09)
RB= (0.45)3
= 4.390N

Table 8: The results of reactions and fixing moment for the propped cantilever
beam

Distance A Load W Moment arm Force Experimental results Theoretical

(m) (N) (N.m) results
= 0.05*MA MA(N) MA(N.m) RB(N) MA(N.m) RB(N)
0.04 4.9 0.02 0.4 0.02 0.4 0.170 0.057
0.08 4.9 0.015 0.3 0.015 0.7 0.293 0.22
0.12 4.9 0.03 0.6 0.03 1.1 0.373 0.477
0.16 4.9 0.055 1.1 0.055 1.5 0.415 0.82
0.2 4.9 0.055 1.1 0.055 1.9 0.423 1.237
0.24 4.9 0.04 0.8 0.04 2.4 0.402 1.72
0.28 4.9 0.04 0.8 0.04 2.8 0.357 2.255
0.32 4.9 0.035 0.7 0.035 3.2 0.291 2.837
0.36 4.9 0.02 0.4 0.02 3.8 0.211 3.451

29
 0.45 Ma (N.m)
The experimental
0.4 moment at A and
0.35
theoretical moment
at A for the
0.3 propped cantilever
0.25 beam

0.2
Experimental Ma (N.m)
0.15

0.1
Theoretical Ma (N.m)
0.05

0
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 Distance (m)

Figure 12: The experimental moment at A and theoretical moment at A for the
propped cantilever beam

4 Rb (N)
The
3.5 experimental
3
reaction at B and
theoretical
2.5 reaction at B for
the propped
2 cantilever beam
1.5 Experimental Rb (N)
1 Theoretical Rb (N)

0.5

0
Distance (m)
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

Figure 13: The experimental reaction at B and theoretical reaction at B for the
propped cantilever beam

Calculations:

 L=450 mm
30
 WAB(L+B)
 MA= 2L2
WA M
 RB= −
L L

4.9∗0.04∗0.41(0.45+0.41)
Distance A (0.04 m) → MA= =0.170N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.04 0.170
RB= − =0.057N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.08∗0.37(0.45+0.37)
Distance A (0.08 m) → MA= =0.293N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.08 0.293
RB= − =0.22N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.12∗0.33(0.45+0.33)
Distance A (0.12 m) → MA= =0.373N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.12 0.373
RB= − =0.477N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.16∗0.29(0.45+0.29)
Distance A (0.16 m) → MA= =0.415N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.16 0.415
RB= − =0.82N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.2∗0.25(0.45+0.25)
Distance A (0.2 m) → MA= =0.423N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.2 0.423
RB= − =1.237N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.24∗0.21(0.45+0.21)
Distance A (0.24 m) → MA= =0.402N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.24 0.402
RB= − =1.72N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.28∗0.17(0.45+0.17)
Distance A (0.28 m) → MA= =0.357N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.28 0.357
RB= − =2.255N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.32∗0.13(0.45+0.13)
Distance A (0.32 m) → MA= 2∗(0.45)2
=0.291N.m

31
 4.9∗0.32 0.291
RB= − =2.837N
0.45 0.45

4.9∗0.36∗0.09(0.45+0.09)
Distance A (0.36) → MA= =0.211N.m
2∗(0.45)2

4.9∗0.36 0.211
RB= − =3.451N
0.45 0.45

3.3 Experiment 3:

Table 9: The experimental buckling load and the theoretical load buckling for
column with different types of support

e = 0mm
Type of support Experimental 𝝅^𝟐𝑬𝑰
Theoretical Buckling pcr = 𝑳^𝟐
Buckling
Fixed/ fixed support 130 N 299.736N
Pinned/ fixed support 80 N 149..868N
Pinned/ pinned support 40 N 18.733N

350
The experimental
300 buckling load and
250
theoretical
buckling load for
200 column
150
Experimental Buckling (N)
100 Theoritical Buckling (N)

50

0
Fixed/ fixed Pinned/ fixed Pinned/ pinned
support support support

Figure 14: The experimental buckling and the theoretical buckling for column with
different types of support
Calculations:

32
 b = 20mm
 d = 2 mm
𝑏∗(𝑑)^3 20∗(2)^3
 I= = = 13.333mm4
12 12

 L= 600mm
 E= 205KN/mm2 = 205000N/mm2
𝜋^2𝐸𝐼
 pcr = 𝐿^2

 Fixed/ fixed support:

L= L/2= 600/2= 300mm
𝜋^2𝐸𝐼 𝜋 2 ∗205000∗13.333
pcr = = = 299.736N
𝐿^2 3002

 Pinned/ fixed support:

L= L/√2= 600/√2= 424.264mm
𝜋^2𝐸𝐼 𝜋 2 ∗205000∗13.333
pcr = = = 149.868N
𝐿^2 424.2642

 Pinned/ pinned support:

L= 2*L= 2*600=1200mm
𝜋^2𝐸𝐼 𝜋 2 ∗205000∗13.333
pcr = = = 18.733N
𝐿^2 12002

33
 4.0 Discussions
4.1 Experiment:

Experiment 1a:

From the experimental results, it can be observed that at simply supported beam, the sum
of the reactions (RA and RB) equals to the load when the load at distance 40mm, 80mm,
160mm, 200mm and 360mm, while the sum of the reactions (RA and RB) nears to the
load value when the load at distance 120mm, 240mm, 280mm and 320mm. On the other
hand, the theoretical results, it can be noticed that the sum of the reactions (R A and RB)
when the load at any distance equal to the load value. This means there was some errors
while doing the experiment such as maybe the beam was not adjusted properly.

Experiment 1b:

The results of experiment show that there is direct relationship between load and
deflection when the beam span is constant. For example, when the load was 0.98N the
deflection was 1.98mm and when the load was 1.96N the deflection was 3.42mm. This
means when the load is increased the deflection increased.

In addition, the results of experiment clarify that there is direct relationship between
beam span and deflection when the load is constant. For instance, when the beam span
was 350mm the deflection was 4.83mm and when the beam span was 400mm the
deflection was 7.6mm. This indicates that when the beam span is increased the deflection
increased.

From the results, it can be observed there is a slight difference between the experimental
results and theoretical results and this difference may be due to the beam was not
adjusted properly.

Experiment 1c:

If the young’s modules, moment of inertia, length, support conditions and load of steel,
aluminum and brass are same, the deflection of the steel beam will be less compared with

34
aluminum beam and brass beam ( Kulkarni et al. 2018). This means the steel can resist
more loads than aluminum and brass (Encylopaedia Britannica 2018).

There is inverse relationship between the deflection and flexural rigidity (EI). For this
reason the results show that the deflections of brass beam were less than the aluminum
beam and steel beam. For example, when the load that effect on the beam was 0.980N,
the deflection of steel beam, aluminum beam and brass beam were 0.7mm, 0.60mm and
0.39mm respectively. This is because the flexural rigidity of brass beam is 17.999*10^6
N.mm2, while flexural rigidity of aluminum beam and steel beam are 11.828*10^6N.mm2
and 9*10^6N.mm2 respectively.

There is no difference between experimental deflection results and theoretical deflection

results. The results of experimental deflection and theoretical deflection are close. This
means there was no resources of errors.

Experiment 2:

This experiment was determined the reactions and moment for the fixed beam and
propped cantilever beam. As it is known the fixed beam can carry more loads rather than
propped cantilever beam (About Civil.org 2017).

From the results of this experiment, it can be observed how the position of load effect on
moment readings (MA). For more explanation, for both fixed beam experiment and
propped cantilever beam experiment, the maximum moment was on the center of beam or
near from the center. For example, at fixed beam experiment the maximum moment was
on the distance 0.12m and 0.16 m from the left end as well as at propped cantilever beam
experiment the maximum moment was on the distance 0.16m and 0.2m from the left end.

In addition, the position of load effects on reaction (RB) readings. For more explanation,
for both fixed beam experiment and propped cantilever beam experiment, the reaction
(RB) value increased when the distance from the left end is increased. For instance, the
maximum reactions value was at distance 0.36mm.

One striking thing, the moment values at propped cantilever beam were less than fixed
beam. For instance, at distance 0.04 m the moment value of propped cantilever beam was
35
0.02 N.m, while at same distance the moment value of fixed beam was 0.055 m. The
moment value of fixed beam should be less than moment value of propped cantilever
beam because the fixed beam can carry more loads rather than propped cantilever beam.

There is difference between the experimental results and theoretical results. The reasons
behind this difference maybe there was some mistakes while taking the readings or the
beam was not adjusted properly.

Experiment 3:

This experiment was determined the buckling load value for column with three different
supports fixed/ fixed support, pinned/ fixed support and pinned/ pinned support. As it is
shown on the results fixed/ fixed support can resist more loads than pinned/fixed support
and pinned/ pinned support because it has highest buckling load value compared with
other supports.

In addition, there was no deflection at the column when the eccentricities equals zero
because the column at the center. On the other hand, when there is value for
eccentricities, there will be deflection at the column.

There is difference between experimental buckling results and theoretical buckling

results. This errors maybe happens because the column was not adjusted properly.

36
 5.0 Conclusion and recommendations
Overall, the aim of this report was achieved. It was discussed three experiments with
several objectives. The first experiment was verified the equilibrium equation of the basic
beam which is W=RA+RB. In addition, it was determined how each of load, beam span,
young’s modulus and moment of inertia factor effect on the deflection value. The second
experiment was determined the moment at A (MA) and reaction (RB) when the load is
constant and the position of load is variable for both fixed beam and propped cantilever
beam. And the third experiment was determined the buckling loads for columns with
three cases of support which are fixed/ fixed support, pinned/ fixed support and
pinned/pinned support.

The main findings of these three experiments are:

 For simply supported beam, the sum of the reactions (RA and RB) equals to the
load.
 There is direct relationship between load and deflection when the beam span is
constant. For example, when the load was 0.98N the deflection was 1.98mm and
when the load was 1.96N the deflection was 3.42mm. This means when the load
is increased the deflection increased.
 There is direct relationship between beam span and deflection when the load is
constant. For instance, when the beam span was 350mm the deflection was
4.83mm and when the beam span was 400mm the deflection was 7.6mm. This
indicates that when the beam span is increased the deflection increased.
 If the young’s modules, moment of inertia, length, support conditions and load of
steel, aluminum and brass are same, the deflection of the steel beam will be less
compared with aluminum beam and brass beam.
 There is inverse relationship between the deflection and flexural rigidity (EI). For
this reason the results show that the deflections of brass beam were less than the
aluminum beam and steel beam. For example, when the load that effect on the
beam was 0.980N, the deflection of steel beam, aluminum beam and brass beam
were 0.7mm, 0.60mm and 0.39mm respectively. This is because the flexural

37
 rigidity of brass beam is 17.999*10^6 N.mm2, while flexural rigidity of aluminum
beam and steel beam are 11.828*10^6N.mm2 and 9*10^6N.mm2 respectively.
 The position of load effect on moment readings (MA). For more explanation, for
both fixed beam experiment and propped cantilever beam experiment, the
maximum moment was on the center of beam or near from the center. For
example, at fixed beam experiment the maximum moment was on the distance
0.12m and 0.16 m from the left end as well as at propped cantilever beam
experiment the maximum moment was on the distance 0.16m and 0.2m from the
left end.
 The position of load effect on reaction (RB) readings. For more explanation, for
both fixed beam experiment and propped cantilever beam experiment, the
reaction (RB) value increased when the distance from the left end is increased. For
instance, the maximum reactions value was at distance 0.36mm.
 There was no deflection at the column when the eccentricities equals zero because
the column at the center. On the other hand, when there is value for eccentricities,
there will be deflection at the column.
 Fixed/ fixed support can resist more loads than pinned/fixed support and pinned/
pinned support because it has highest buckling load value compared with other
supports.

Recommendations

Civil engineer should determine the value of deflection and buckling that may be
occurring on the structure. There are several of recommendations and considerations that
must be taken. The following are examples of these recommendations and considerations:

 More supports must be added to provide strength for the structures.

 The maximum loads that structure can carry must be determined.
 The distance between two supports must be reduced.
 The materials that used in construction must have a high young’s modulus and
moment of inertia.

38
 6.0References
 About Civil.org (2017) Types of Supports for Loads [online] available from <
https://www.aboutcivil.org/types-of-supports.html> [9 December 2018]
 Alchin, L. K.(2017) Aluminum Properties [online] available from <
http://www.elementalmatter.info/aluminum-properties.htm > [7 December
2018]
 Chris,H. and Donald,P.(2018) What is Moment? [online] available from <
http://web.mit.edu/4.441/1_lectures/1_lecture5/1_lecture5.html> [7 December
2018]
 CLAG (2018) Deflection of Beams [online] available from <
http://www.clag.org.uk/beam.html > [1 December 2018]
 Colorado State University (2017) Structural Engineering and Structural
Mechanics [online] available from <
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/ce/academicprograms/structural.shtml> [25
November 2018]
 Encylopaedia Britannica (2018) Young’s Modulus [online] available from <
https://www.britannica.com/science/Youngs-modulus > [18Novermber 2018]
 Kulkarni H.R, Shukla S.N and Dongare M.B (2018) Determination of Young’s
Modulus of Aluminium, Copper, Iron, Brass and Steel Alloys by Using Double
Exposure Holographic Interferometry (DEHI) Technique [online] available from
< http://www.materialsciencejournal.org/vol14no2/determination-of-youngs-
modulus-of-aluminium-copper-iron-brass-and-steel-alloys-by-using-double-
exposure-holographic-interferometry-dehi-technique/ > [6 December 2018]
 Physics Forums (2018) Beams in Equilibrium [online] available from <
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/beams-in-equilibrium.797412/> [1
December 2018]
 Research Gate (2018) Buckling Test [online] available from <
https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=58a51174f7b67e89
177be304&assetKey=AS%3A462218627162112%401487212916173 > [8
December 2018]

39
 Semesters. In (2018) Beam Types [online] available from <
http://semesters.in/definition-and-types-of-a-beam-notes-pdf-ppt/ > [1
December
 SkyCiv Engineering (2017) Beam Deflection Definition [online] available from
< https://skyciv.com/tutorials/what-is-deflection/ > [27 November 2018]
 Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering (2018) Unit II – Indeterminate Beams
[online] available from <
https://www.svce.ac.in/departments/cve/downloads/Strength%20of%20Mate
rials/Unit%20II-%20Indeterminate%20Beams.pdf> [7 December 2018]
 The Constructor (2017) Compressibility and Consolidation of Soil [online]
available from < https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/compressibility-and-
consolidation-of-soils/1083/ > [13May 2018]
 Thought Co (2018) Brass Composition, Properties, and Comparison With Bronze
[online] available from < https://www.thoughtco.com/brass-composition-and-
properties-603729> [7 December 2018]
 University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy (2018) Structural
Mechanics [online] available from < https://uacg.bg/filebank/att_2699.pdf> [27
November 2018]
 University of Babylon (2018) Engineering Materials and their Properties [online]
available from <
http://www.uobabylon.edu.iq/uobColeges/ad_downloads/4_26634_460.pdf >
[7 December 2018]
 University of Florida Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering (ULF.
MAE.EDU) (2018) Introduction to column buckling [online] available from <
http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/haftka/adv-elast/lectures/Sections12.1-3.pdf > [30
November 2018]

40