NTO 1016 Structural and Stress

Analysis - Beam Bending

ANDREW WICAKSONO SUGIHARTO - 40319096
Abstract

Determining beam deflection can be done experimentally using a deflection gauge or by

calculation. This experiment studied the experimental and the calculated deflection in the

midspan of a simply supported beam under point load. Furthermore, superposition theorem

was also tested experimentally. The effect of second moment of inertia on beam load capacity

and beam deflection were also analysed. The results concluded that downward beam

deflection linearly rises as point load increases. Superposition was also proven to hold true. In

addition, in the case of downward point load in the midspan of a simply supported beam, the

larger the second moment of inertia of the beam’s cross-section per unit volume, the greater

the carrying load capacity of the beam and the lesser the deflection of the beam.
Contents

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. 1
2. Method …………………………………………………………………….. 6
3. Results …………………………………………………………………….. 8
4. Discussion …………………………………………………………………….. 22
5. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 25
References …………………………………………………………………….. 27
 NTO 1016 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS - BEAM BENDING

1. Introduction

Beam bends due to load that is applied. According to Hibbeler (2019), slender member

that carries component of load that is parallel to the member’s cross-section is called beam.

The load could be point load, triangular load, uniformly distributed load, external moment

and many more. When beam carries load, stress develops inside the beam, namely

compression stress and tensile stress. These internal stresses cause beam to bend. Part of the

beam that undergoes compression will shorten (negative strain) whilst part of the beam that

undergoes tension will elongates (positive strain). There is, however, part of the beam of

which the length remains constant, exactly the same as the beam’s original length. The part of

the beam that remains constant lies on the neutral axis. Neutral axis is located in the centroid

M σ E
of the beam’s cross-section. The relation = = can then be obtained whereM is the
I y R

internal bending moment at a particular horizontal distance (parallel to the beam length), I is

the moment of inertia of the beam’s cross-section about the neutral axis, y is the distance of

an element in the cross section from the neutral axis, σ is the stress at that particular y and R

is the radius of curvature the beam is bent.

Fig. 1.1 – Diagram of internal stress distribution in a rectangular cross section beam (Beer et al., 2011).

Page | 1
 NTO 1016 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS - BEAM BENDING

Fig. 1.2 – Diagram of beam bending.

Beam deflection is a measure of the beam bending, commonly hogging or sagging, due to

external load that is applied. This change could be expressed as an angle, also known as the

slope, and or distance with respect to the original position (Deflection, 2021). The deflection

of the beam varies along the horizontal distance (x), as shown in Fig. 1.3. It is important to

note that the deflection of the beam is the ordinate of the beam at a particular abscissa.

Fig. 1.3 – Diagram of deflection of beam (Beer et al., 2011).

Deflection in beams is crucial to be calculated, especially in structural, civil and

mechanical engineering since it helps material designation. By calculating the bending in

beams, engineers can decide the type of materials that has the appropriate properties for that

particular application. Furthermore, it is useful to determine whether a beam is overloaded or

not in further analysis (Beam Deflection: When is it a Problem?, 2020). An equation that

describes the deflection of beam and its slope shall be derived first.

Page | 2
 NTO 1016 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS - BEAM BENDING

M σ E
It is known that the relationship = = is true. From calculus, it is proven that the
I y R

Radius of curvature can be expressed as,

dv 2 3/ 2
[1+( )]
dx
R=
d2 v
2
dx

where v is the deflection of the beam (the ordinate of the beam at a particular abscissa) and x

is the horizontal distance of the segment with respect to one end of the beam (abscissa).

M E
Substituting R to the equation = , yields the expression below.
I R

d2 v
d x2
EI =M
dv 2 3 /2
[1+( ) ]
dx

This equation is complicated since it forms a second order, constant coefficient, non-linear,

dv
non-homogenous differential equation. However, the term is considered small relative to
dx

dv 2
the other term. Hence, the term ( ) can be considered negligible. Hence the equation can
dx

be simplified as the following.

d2 v
d x2
EI =M
[1+(0)2 ]3 /2

d2 v
EI =M
d x2

The term EI is commonly known as the flexural rigidity, bending stiffness or flexural

stiffness (Coloured Textbooks). The above relationship can be used to calculate the deflection

in beam along with the slope. Integrating the above equation gives

Page | 3
 NTO 1016 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS - BEAM BENDING

d2 v
∫ EI d x2
dx=∫ M dx

dv 1
sin ϕ= M dx
dx EI ∫
=

dv
where ϕ is the angle of deflection of the beam in radian and is the slope of the beam.
dx

From small angle approximation, it is known that sin ϕ ≈ ϕ, cos ϕ ≈1 and tan ϕ ≈ ϕ. Hence, the

above equation can be rewritten as

dv 1
ϕ= M dx
dx EI ∫
=

Integrating once again yields

dv 1
∫ dx dx= EI ∬ M dx
1
v= M dx
EI ∬

This method of solving deflection in beams is commonly recognized as double integration

method. Just like most of the methods to calculate beam deflection, it is necessary to assume

that the beam has uniform cross section, isotropic, inextensible and can resist torsion (the

effect of torsion that might present is neglected) (Kimiaeifar et al., 2014). Furthermore, this

relation is valid only for small deflection. For large beam deflection, alternative method has

to be considered, such as approximation using the Galerkin method (Abolfathi et al., 2010).

Below are more assumptions that have to be made according to Singhal and Narayanamurthy

(2019):

 The beam deflects elastically (Obeys Hooke’s law).

 The bending of the beam is small and does not alter the length in any way.

 Poisson’s effect is negligible.

 The beam cross-section remains perpendicular to the neutral axis before and after

deflection (Fig. 1.4).

Page | 4
 NTO 1016 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS - BEAM BENDING

Fig. 1.4 – Beam cross-section remains plane assumption (5.2 The Bernoulli-Euler Beam Theory | Learn
About Structures, 2020).

Calculating the moment function can be difficult, especially with beams that has more

than 1 loading since there will be different moment function for each segment. Thus, each

moment function would have to be integrated twice. However, there is a superposition

method that will enable engineers to calculate the deflection in beams easily. Superposition

theorem imply that the deflection of beam due to load A and B is equal to the algebraic sum

of the beam deflection due to load A and the beam deflection due to load B (Ye, 2016).

With regards to the methods of analysing beam deflection previously explained,

deflection in beam can be determined experimentally using a deflection gauge or by

calculation. This experiment aims to study the experimental deflection in the midspan of a

simply supported beam under point load and the comparison of the calculated deflection and

the experimental deflection. Additionally, the effect of second moment of inertia on beam

deflection and the theory of superposition will also be evaluated.

Page | 5
2. Method

2.1. Equipment list

 Simply supported beam

 Deflection clock gauge

 Masses

 Mass hangers

 Electronic Vernier callipers

Fig. 2.1 – Picture of the masses and mass hangers.

Fig. 2.2 – Picture of the deflection clock hanger.

2.2. Procedure

Part 1

1. The deflection clock gauge was positioned in the midspan of the beam.

2. One mass hanger was positioned in the midspan of the beam.

3. 5kg mass was added in the mass hanger.

4. The reading in the deflection clock gauge was recorded.

5. Step 3 and step 4 was repeated for a mass of 10kg, 15kg, 20kg, 25kg, 30kg.

6. The mass was removed.

7. One mass hanger was positioned 35cm from one of the supports.

8. 5kg mass was added to the mass hanger.

Page | 6
9. The reading in the deflection clock gauge was recorded.

10. Step 8 and 9 was repeated for a mass of 10kg, 15kg, 20kg, 25kg, 30kg.

11. The mass was removed.

12. One more mass hanger was added (a total of two mass hangers).

13. One mass hanger was positioned tin the mid span of the beam, the other mass hanger

was positioned 35cm from one of the supports.

14. 5kg of mass was added to each mass hangers.

15. The reading in the deflection clock gauge was recorded.

16. Step 14 and 15 was repeated to for a mass of 10kg, 15kg, 20kg, 25kg, 30kg on each

mass hangers.

17. The result of the experiment was neatly presented in a table as shown in Fig. 2.4.

Fig. 2.3 – Diagram of the setup.

Page | 7
3. Results

Young’s Modulus (E) - GPa 70

Beam Length (l) - m 1.4
Breadth (b) - mm 25.56
Depth (d) - mm 31.5
Central deflection (mm)
Load level Actual load (kg)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
0 0 0 0 0
1 5 0.55 0.36 0.97
2 10 1.16 0.78 2.00
3 15 1.76 1.19 3.01
4 20 2.35 1.61 4.03
5 25 2.96 2.02 5.04
6 30 3.57 2.43 6.05
Fig. 3.0.0.1 – Table of beam properties.

Fig. 3.0.0.2 – Table of experiment result.

Part One

Case 1

Load level Actual Load (kg) Central Deflection (mm)

0 0 0
1 5 0.55
2 10 1.16
3 15 1.76
4 20 2.35
5 25 2.96
6 30 3.57
Fig. 3.1.1.1 – Experiment result table for case 1.

Considering that the deflection of the beam is downwards, the sign convention (downwards is

negative) shall be applied and the load shall be converted to N by multiplying with gravity

acceleration.

Load level Actual Load (N) Central Deflection (mm)

0 0 0
1 49.05 -0.55
2 98.10 -1.16
3 147.15 -1.76
4 196.20 -2.35
5 245.25 -2.96
6 294.30 -3.57
Fig. 3.1.1.2 – Experiment result table for case 1.

Page | 8
 Case 1 Deflection
0
0 f(x)
R² ==−10.0150x + 0.03 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.5

-1
Deflection (mm)

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

Actual Load (N)

Fig. 3.1.1.3 – Deflection and load graph for case 1.

Case 2

Load level Actual Load (kg) Central Deflection (mm)

0 0 0
1 5 0.36
2 10 0.78
3 15 1.19
4 20 1.61
5 25 2.02
6 30 2.43
Fig. 3.1.2.1 – Experiment result table for case 2.

Considering that the deflection of the beam is downwards, the sign convention (downwards is

negative) shall be applied and the load shall be converted to N by multiplying with gravity

acceleration.

Load level Actual Load (N) Central Deflection (mm)

0 0 0
1 49.05 -0.36
2 98.10 -0.78

Page | 9
 3 147.15 -1.19
4 196.20 -1.61
5 245.25 -2.02
6 294.30 -2.43
Fig. 3.1.2.2 – Experiment result table for case 2.

Case 2 Deflection
0
0 f(x) = − 0.01
50x + 0.03 100 150 200 250 300 350
R² = 1
-0.5

-1
Deflection (mm)

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

Actual Load (N)

Fig. 3.1.2.3 – Deflection and load graph for case 2.

Case 3

Load level Actual Load (kg) Central Deflection (mm)

0 0 0
1 5 0.97
2 10 2.00
3 15 3.01
4 20 4.03
5 25 5.04
6 30 6.05
Fig. 3.1.3.1 – Experiment result table for case 3.

Considering that the deflection of the beam is downwards, the sign convention (downwards is

negative) shall be applied and the load shall be converted to N by multiplying with gravity

acceleration.

Load level Actual Load (N) Central Deflection (mm)

Page | 10
 0 0 0
1 49.05 -0.97
2 98.10 -2.00
3 147.15 -3.01
4 196.20 -4.03
5 245.25 -5.04
6 294.30 -6.05
Fig. 3.1.3.2 – Experiment result table for case 3.

Case 3 Deflection
0
0 f(x) = − 0.0250
x + 0.02 100 150 200 250 300 350
R² = 1
-1

-2
Deflection (mm)

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

Actual Load (N)

Fig. 3.1.3.3 – Deflection and load graph for case 3.

Part Two
i.

Page | 11
 Fig. 3.2.1.1 – Cross section view of the beam used.

The formula to calculate the deflection in the centre of a simply supported beam with point

load in the middle is expressed as the following.

−F L3
v=
48 EI

The moment inertia of a rectangular cross section beam with respect to the neutral axis is as

follows.

b d3
I=
12

Substituting the value of b and d yields

25.56 ∙31.503 4
I= =66575.01 mm
12

66575.01
I= 4
=6.66× 10−8 m 4
1000

The theoretical deflection in the middle of the beam for load level 6 if the beam is to be

loaded as in case 1 can be calculated as follows.

Page | 12
 −294.30∙ 1.43 −3
v theo. loadlevel 6 = 9 −8
=−3.61×10 m=−3.61 mm
48 ∙70 ×10 ∙ 6.66 ×10

The error of the experiment can be calculated as shown below.

|v act . load 6 case 1 −v theo .load level 6|

%error= × 100 %
|v theo .load level 6|

|−3.57−−3.61 mm|
%error= ×100 %
|−3.61mm|

%error=1.11 %

ii.

From the load level 6 in case 1, case 2 and case 3, it can be proven that superposition theorem

holds true. By using the experimental data for load level 6 in case 1, case 2 and case 3, the

sum of the deflection in case 1 ( v act .load 6 case 1) and case 2 ( v act .load 6 case 2) is approximately equal

to the deflection in case 3 ( v act .load 6 case3)

v act .load 6 case1 +v act .load 6 case2=v act .load 6 case3

−3.57+(−2.43)≈−6.05

−6.00 mm ≈−6.05 mm

Another way of proving this is by summing the y 1 and y 2 at which the load is equal to 30kg

(294.3 N), then compare whether or not the value is approximately equal to the y 3 at which

the load is 30kg.

y 1=−0.0122 x +0.0271; y 2=−0.0083 x +0.0271; y 3=−0.0206 x +0.02

y 1 @ 294.3 N =−0.0122∙(294.3)+0.0271=−3.56 mm

y 2 @ 294.3 N =−0.0083∙ ( 294.3 ) +0.0271=−2.42 mm

Page | 13
y 3 @ 294.3 N =−0.0206 ∙ ( 294.3 )+ 0.0200=−6.04 mm

y 1 @ 294.3 N + y 2 @ 294.3 N ≈ y 3 @294.3 N

−3.56 mm±2.42mm ≈−6.04 mm

−5.98 ≈−6.04 mm

It is proven that the sum of y 1 @ 294.3 N and y 2 @ 294.3 N is approximately equal to y 3 @ 294.3 N . Thus,

superposition theorem holds true.

Part Three

To investigate the effects of different moment of inertia on the maximum load the beam can

carry, case 4 and case 5 are considered. It is assumed that for both cases, the framework used

is a simply supported beam with point load in the middle. It is also necessary to assume that

both beams have the exact same Young’s modulus.

Fig. 3.3.1.1 – Simply supported beam problem for case 4 and case 5.

 Support Reaction

∑ M b =0 ∑ F y =0
L L L −F+ R a + Rb=0
F −Ra ( + )=0
2 2 2
F
−F+ + R b=0
F 2
Ra =
2
F
Rb =
2
 Internal moment and internal shear force functions

Page | 14
 To create moment diagram, consider segment 1 and 2 below.

 Segment 1 (0 ≤ x ≤ L/2 )

∑ M =0 ∑ V =0
Ra x−M i 1=0 Ra −V 1=0
F F
x=M i 1 =V 1
2 2
 Segment 2 ( L/2≤ x ≤ L)

∑ M =0 ∑ V =0
L Ra −F−V 2=0
Ra x−F ( x− )−M i 2=0
2
F
−F=V 2
F L 2
x−F ( x− )=M i 2
2 2
−F
=V 2
−F FL 2
x + =M i 2
2 2
 Shear and moment diagram

Shear diagram

Page | 15
 Moment diagram

L FL
It can be seen that the largest moment occurs at an has a magnitude of .
2 4

 Internal stress and moment of inertia calculation

M σ E My
Now, manipulating the equation = = yields σ = .
I y R I

My
σ=
I

M max ∙ y max
σ max=
I

FL y max
σ max= ∙
4 I

4 ∙ σ max ∙ I
=F
L ∙ y max

Page | 16
σ max is considered to be the maximum internal stress due to bending moment the beam

can withstand. To obtain the maximum F the beam can support, the corresponding y max

and I for case 4 and case 5 shall be used.

Case 4

Fig. 3.3.4.1 – Beam cross section for case 4.

Where b=2 a and d=a

V =bdL

V =2a 2 L

The moment of inertia can be calculated as follows.

b d3
I=
12

2 a∙ a3
I=
12

a4
I case 4 =
6

Substituting the moment of inertia and y max to the force equation yields

Page | 17
 4 ∙ σ max ∙ I
F=
L ∙ y max

a4
4 ∙ σ max ∙
6
F=
a
L∙
2

4 ∙ 2∙ σ max ∙a 4
F=
6 ∙ L∙ a

4 ∙ σ max ∙a 3
F case 4 max =
3∙ L

4 a3
F case 4 max = σ
3 L max

Case 5

Fig. 3.3.5.1 – Beam cross section for case 4.

Where b=a and d=2a

V =bdL

Page | 18
 V =2a 2 L

The moment of inertia can be calculated as follows.

b d3
I=
12

a ∙(2 a)3
I=
12

2 a4
I case 5=
3

Substituting the moment of inertia and y max to the force equation yields

4 ∙ σ max ∙ I
F=
L ∙ y max

2a 4
4 ∙ σ max ∙
3
F=
L∙ a

4 ∙ 2∙ σ max ∙a 4
F=
3 ∙ L∙ a

8 ∙ σ max ∙ a3
F case 5 max =
3∙ L

8 a3
F case 5 max = σ
3 L max

 Calculation of the deflection of case 4 and case 5

Contrary with the calculation of the maximum force the beam can handle, now it shall be

assumed that both beams are exposed to the same amount of downwards point load of

F= p in a similar manner like case 1. For a simply supported beam with load in the

Page | 19
middle, the deflection in the middle of the beam can be calculated using the generic

tabulated formula as follows.

−F L3
v=
48 EI

−P L3
v=
48 EI

Case 4

a4
The value of I for case 4 obtained previously (I case 4 = ) shall be substituted.
6

−6 P L3
v=
48 E a 4

−P L3
v case 4 =
8 E a4

Case 5

2 a4
The value of I for case 5 obtained previously (I case5= ) shall be substituted.
3

−3 P L3
v=
2∙ 48 E a 4

−P L3
v case 5=
32 E a 4

It is clear that the deflection in case 4 is greater than case 5. Explanation as to why the

deflection and the maximum load is different for case 4 and case 5 will be explained in

the discussion chapter.

Page | 20
4. Discussion

The result of part 1 indicates a linear trend increase in the downward deflection of the

beam as the load progresses in all case (case 1, case 2 and case 3). The equation for the line

of best fit in case 1, case 2 and case 3 is v1 =−0.0122 F +0.0271, v 2=−0.0083 F+0.0271,

v3 =−0.0206 F+ 0.02 respectively. The term v represents the deflection and F represents the

point load in N that is applied in the specified position. The result denotes that there is a

linear relationship between point load and beam deflection. As the point load increases, the

downward deflection also gets larger. However, this linear relationship is only valid for point

load and for small deflection only.

The calculation in part 2 i concluded that there is marginal difference in the experimental

and theoretical deflection for case 1 load level 6 of 1.11 %. The theoretical value and the

experimental value is -3.61mm and -3.57 respectively. This difference might be due to errors.

One source of difference in values might be the rotation of the beam along the axis

perpendicular to the cross-section plane due to torsion during the experiment (Abolfathi et

al., 2010). The double integration method and Macaulay’s function to determine beam

deflection assumes it is a deflection purely due to loads and or external moments that cause

internal bending moment to develop. However, in practice, there are always factors that cause

small rotation. This might explain why the experimental value are not exactly equal to the

calculated value. Moreover, the change in the beam length due to deflection (shortening of

moment arm) was also not accounted in the calculation although this might only introduce

infinitesimally small errors for small beam deflection, as stated by Singhal and

Narayanamurthy (2019). Another possible sources of errors are the possibility of inaccurate

reading of the deflection clock gauge or that the beam might already plastically deform

(bend) prior to the experiment.

Page | 21
 In part 2 section ii, it is proven experimentally that superposition theorem holds true. It is

recorded that the deflection in the middle of the beam for load level 6 in case 1 and 2 is

−3.57 mm and −2.43 mm respectively. The sum of the beam deflection in load level 6 in case

1 and case 2 (−6.00 mm) is approximately equal to the deflection in case 3 (−6.05 mm).

Again, this infinitesimally small difference in value might be due to errors.

The result of part 3 concluded that despite having the same material properties and having

2 a4
the same volume, beam in case 5 (I case 5= ) has a greater second moment of inertia
3

4
a
compared to that of beam in case 4 (I case 4 = ). In other words, beam in case 5 have a greater
6

second moment of inertia per unit volume compared to that of case 4. For simply supported

beam with allowable internal stress of σ max, the maximum point load in the midspan of the

4 a3
beam (as in case 1) that the identical beam in case 4 and case 5 can withstand is σ and
3 L max

8 a3
σ respectively. It is proven that an increase in the second moment of inertia will result
3 L max

in an increase of the maximum load the beam can support. In other words, for the same

amount of material, the geometric design of the cross section dictates the maximum load that

can be supported (Fig. 3.3.4.1 and Fig. 3.3.5.1). To increase the load capacity, the beam

should be designed to have the biggest second moment of inertia per unit volume. In the case

of rectangular cross-section beam, this could be easily achieved by positioning the longest

side of the cross-section perpendicular to the bending axis (neutral axis) so that the second

moment inertia with respect to the neutral axis is the highest (Fig. 3.3.5.1).

Page | 22
 Speaking about the amount of deflection that might occur, if the beam in case four and

case five is exposed to the same amount of downward point load in the midspan of the beam

−P L3 −P L3
(as in case 1), the deflection in the middle of the beam is and respectively, as
8 E a4 32 E a 4

shown in part three. The deflection in case five is approximately 75% less than case four.

This substantial decrease in the downward deflection is due to an increase in the second

moment of inertia of the beam’s cross-section with respect to the bending axis. Thus, it can

be deduced that an increase in second moment of inertia of the beam cross-section will

reduce the amount of bending for the same amount of load.

For further experiment, it suggested to use a digital deflection gauge to get more accurate

reading although this might only improve the accuracy marginally. Also, it is recommended

to use a new beam for the experiment to eliminate the possibility of permanent deformation

in the current beam.

For high load applications, it is suggested to use beam with “I” cross section. “I” beam

will have larger second moment of inertia per unit volume since most of the material is

located away from the bending axis. Therefore, the structure made with I beam can support

more load, less bending and with lower cost.

Page | 23
5. Conclusion

Beam deflection can be determined by calculation or by experiment. In an experiment,

beam deflection is measured using a deflection clock gauge whereas in analytical method,

beam deflection is determined by calculating the moment of inertia first and integrating the

internal bending moment function twice. To calculate the beam deflection in beam with more

than 1 load, there is a method that will simplify the analysis, that is superposition theorem.

As stated previously, this experiment studied the theoretical and experimental deflection

in the middle of a simply supported beam under point load. The superposition theorem was

also evaluated along with the effect of second moment of inertia of the beam cross section on

its load capacity.

The objectives of this experiment have been achieved. The relation between point load

and beam deflection, the experimental validation of superposition theorem and the effect of

second moment of inertia on beam deflection have been analysed in detail.

From the experiment, it is proven that beam deflection is linearly proportional to point

load on the beam. It is also experimentally evidenced that superposition theorem holds true.

Furthermore, the theoretical (calculated) beam deflection and the experimental beam

deflection is approximately equal with considerably minimal errors. The geometrical design

of the beam’s cross-section affects the second moment of inertia about the neutral axis. Beam

with higher cross-section second moment of inertia is evidenced to have a greater load

capacity. Furthermore, the higher the second moment of inertia of the cross-section about the

neutral axis, the lesser the deflection that will occur. Thus, for the same amount of volume,

beam with larger depth is found to be more capable of withstanding higher load with less

deflection (depth is the cross-section side perpendicular to the neutral axis) compared to

beam with larger breadth.

Page | 24
 This study adds knowledge about beam behaviour under loading and how to maximize

the beam to be able to carry more load. The importance of comprehending beam deflection

and beam bending cannot be neglected since they are the fundamentals of almost any branch

of mechanical, aerospace and structural engineering or analysis. As mentioned, beam

deflection helps engineers decide the material and the cross-section geometry suitable for a

particular application. The beam deflection can also be used to analyse the reaction force of

statically indeterminate beams. Furthermore, engineer could also inspect whether or not the

beam is overly loaded by measuring the deflection that occurs.

Page | 25
References

Abolfathi, A., Brennan, M. and Waters, T., 2010. Large deflection of simply supported beam. ISVR
Technical Memorandum No. 988.
Beer, F., Johnston, E., DeWolf, J. and Mazurek, D., 2011. Statics and Mechanics of Materials. New
York: Mcgraw Hill Higher Education, pp.442-626.
Designingbuildings.co.uk. 2021. Deflection. [online] Available at:
<https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Deflection> [Accessed 17 March 2021].

Hibbeler, R. and Yap, K., 2019. Statics and Mechanics of Materials. 5th ed. United Kingdom:
Pearson Education Limited, pp. 518-790.
Kimiaeifar, A., Tolou, N., Barari, A. and Herder, J., 2014. Large deflection analysis of cantilever
beam under end point and distributed loads. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 37(4),
pp.438-445.
Learnaboutstructures.com. 2020. 5.2 The Bernoulli-Euler Beam Theory | Learn About Structures.
[online] Available at: <https://learnaboutstructures.com/Bernoulli-Euler-Beam-Theory> [Accessed 20
March 2021].
Singhal, D. and Narayanamurthy, V., 2019. Large and Small Deflection Analysis of a Cantilever
Beam. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 100(1), pp.83-96.
Steelking.com. 2020. Beam Deflection: When is it a Problem?. [online] Available at:
<https://www.steelking.com/beam-deflection-when-is-it-a-problem/> [Accessed 12 March 2021].
Ye, J., 2016. Structural and Stress Analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group/CRC,
pp.117-130.

Page | 26