UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MECHANICS OF MATERIAL LABORATORY EXPERIMENT (MEC411)

PROGRAM: BACHELOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING (HONS)

NAME OF MEMBERS: STUDENT ID NO:

MOHAMAD ZAHIRUL HAZIQ BIN MEGAT AZLAN 2017665848

MUHAMAD AIMAN BIN MOHD RADZUAN 2017806636

SITI NURSYAFIQAH SAZWA BINTI IBRAHIM 2017806566
KHAIRUNISA NAJWA BINTI ZAHIRUDIN
NUR AININ SOFIYA BINTI KAMARUL ZAMAN 2017806548

GROUP NO.: 1 (EMD3M4A)

SEMESTER: 3
PROGRAM/CODE: MECHANICS OF MATERIAL
SUBMIT TO: PROF. MADYA YAKUB BIN MD TAIB
EXPERIMENT TITLE: DATE PERFORMED:
DEFLECTION OF CURVED BEAMS
DEFLECTION OF CONTIONUOUS BEAM

Checked By:

______________________
Date:
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGES
Acknowledgement
Experiment of Deflection of Curved Beams
Experiment of Continuous Beam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DEFLECTION OF
CURVED BEAMS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS: DEFLECTION OF CURVED BEAMS

NO. CONTENTS PAGES

1. Theory of Defection of Curved Beam
2. Objectives
3. Methodology/Procedure
4. Results
5. Discussions
6. Conclusions
7. References
THEORY

Castigliano’s theorem can be employed to determine the deflection incurred by a force of

loading in a curved beam. Castigliano’s theorem states that the component in a given
direction of the deflection caused by an external force on an elastic body isequivalent to the
partial derivative of the work of deformation with respect to the component of the force in
the given direction. The work of deformation in this case is a moment induced by a loading
force on the beam. The general expression of Castigliano’s theorem is as follows;

πWR³ 2WR³
BEAM 1 : δv = δh =
2𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼

πWR³ 𝑊𝑅²𝐿 𝑊𝑅³ 𝑊𝑅𝐿

BEAM 2 : δv 2𝐸𝐼
+ 𝐸𝐼
δh = 2𝐸𝐼
+ 𝐸𝐼
[ R + L/2 ]
OBJECTIVES

The object of this experiment was to determine the deflections in the horizontal and vertical
directions under loading of a semi-circular beam and a davit by means of experiment and
compare the experimental values of deflection to calculated, theoretical values
 METHODOLOGY/PROCEDURE

1. The apparatus was set up as shown Figure 1 (a) and Figure 1 (b);

Vertical dial gauge

Load holder Horizontal dial gauge

Semi-circle beam

Loads (N)

Figure 1 (a): Apparatus of Semi-Circle Beam

Vertical dial gauge

Horizontal dial
gauge

Quarter-circle beam

Load holder

Figure 1 (b): Apparatus of Quarter-Circle Beam

2. The dial gauges (vertical and horizontal position) were placed at the beam;
3. Load holder were hanged at the fix beam and the dial gauges were set to 0.00 mm;

Figure 2: The dial gauges were set to 0.00mm

4. Load 1 N were put on the holder as shown Figure 3;

Figure 3: Load 1 N were put on the holder

5. The horizontal and vertical deflection of the beam were recorded, every indicated
strain will be 0.01 mm;

Figure 4: The student recorded the dial gauges reading.

6. A 1 N of load was added to the load holder and the horizontal and vertical
deflection were recorded again;
7. Step 6 were repeated until a total weight applied to the load holder is equal to 6 N;
8. A 1 N of load was removed from the load holder and the horizontal and vertical
deflection were recorded again;
9. Step 6 were repeated until a 1 N load were left.
RESULTS

Percentage error of the deflections can be calculated by using the formula given and the
deflection of semi-circle and quarter-circle beams are recorded as shown on Table 1, Table
2, Table 3 and Table 4 below:

𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦−𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
Percentage Error = × 100%
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦

Beam 1: Semi-circle

Radius of semi-circle beam, R = 145mm

Beam dimension = 24.7 mm x 2.89 mm x 500 mm

E = 210 GPa

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory (mm) x Exp (mm) x Theory (mm)

1 0.19 0.47 0 0.60
2 0.88 0.94 0.72 1.19
3 1.44 1.41 1.34 1.79
4 1.90 1.87 1.82 2.39
5 2.52 2.34 2.58 2.98
6 3.19 2.81 3.34 3.58

Table 1: Deflection of Semi-Circle Beam

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory (mm) x Exp (mm) x Theory (mm)
1 0.21 0.75 0.12 1.11
2 0.38 1.50 0.22 2.21
3 0.67 2.24 0.41 3.31
4 0.94 3.00 0.53 4.38
5 1.13 3.74 0.70 5.61
6 1.40 4.50 0.86 6.57
Table 2: Def;ection of Semi-Circle Beam in Inverse Weight
Beam 2: Quarter-circle

Radius of semi-circle beam, R = 145mm

Beam dimension = 24.7 mm x 2.89 mm x 200 mm

E = 210 GPa

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory x Exp (mm) x Theory

(mm) (mm)
6 0.85 0.47 0.1 0.60

5 1.30 0.94 0.46 1.19

4 1.75 1.41 1.02 1.79

3 2.42 1.87 2.76 2.39

2 2.88 2.34 3.16 2.98

1 3.19 2.81 3.34 3.58

Table 1: Deflection of Quarter-Circle Beam

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory x Exp (mm) x Theory

(mm) (mm)
6 0.34 0.75 0.22 1.11

5 0.57 1.50 0.35 2.21

4 0.79 2.24 0.49 3.31

3 1.00 3.00 0.62 4.38

2 1.19 3.74 0.73 5.61

1 1.40 4.50 0.86 6.57

Table 2: Def;ection of Quarter-Circle Beam in Inverse Weight

DISCUSSIONS

The graphs below illustrate how weights in Newton (N) effect the deflection on horizontal
and vertical of semi-circle beam (mm) and a quarter circle beam (mm) can be observed as
shown.

Beam 1: Semicircle

Vertical Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to

Weight (N)
7
6
5
Weight (N)

4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 1 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to applied load (N)

Vertical Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to

inverse in Weight (N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 2 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to inverse applied
load (N)
From the graphs above, it can be seen that the blue line represents the theoretical values
whilst orange line represents experimental values obtained from the experiment. The general
trend of these graphs for both values were aligned over the applied loads. Graph 1 shows
that both values grow steadily even though experimental data have higher deflections length
compared to theoretical values. In contrast, in Graph 2, with inverse loading apply the
deflections experienced a downward trend.

Horizontal Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to

Weight (N)
7
6
5
Weight (N)

4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

Weight (N) x-theory (mm) x-exp (mm)

Graph 3 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to applied load
(N)

Horizontal Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to

inverse in Weight (N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

x-theory (mm) Weight (N) x-exp (mm)

Graph 4 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to inverse applied
load (N)
In horizontal deflections’ graph, the blue color indicates the theoretical data and orange color
indicates the obtained data. The results observed were expected and have met with our
assumptions that the collected values are bit varies than the calculated. Interestingly, in
Graph 4, experimental data for horizontal deflections superimposed the theoretical.

To conclude, upon reviewing the plotted Graph 1 and Graph 2, the vertical and horizontal
deflections of semicircle beam are in steady increases in function to its applied loadings.
However, in inverse loads cases as in Graph 3 and Graph 4, the line graphs show the values
are decreasing.

Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Vertical Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to

Weight (N)
7
6
5
Weight (N)

4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 5 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to applied load (N)
 Vertical Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to
inverse in Weight (N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 6 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to inverse applied load
(N)

In Beam 2, the green color shows the theoretical values and red color shows the obtained
results from experiment. The obtained data are divergent with calculated data. The
theoretical data were calculated by using the equation given in theories of deflection on
curved beams. Therefore, it has been seen that the data are different but it still has the same
general trend. The trend is the same as the Beam 1 which when loads are applied, the line
rises upward trend and in inverse loadings, it went downward.

Horizontal Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to

Weight (N)
7
6
5
Weight (N)

4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

x-theory (mm) Weight (N) x-exp (mm)

Graph 7 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to applied load (N)
 Horizontal Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to
inverse in Weight (N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

x-theory (mm) Weight (N) x-exp (mm)

Graph 8 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to inverse applied
load (N)

Besides, for the horizontal deflections, the quarter beam experienced the same trend of
deflections (mm) with vertical deflections. The values from the experiment have small
changes from one load to another load, either in additional or subtraction on loads. Despite
the fact, it still gave the same results pattern as the theoretical data.
Sample Calculation

Given information from the experiment that have been discovered,

b = 24.7mm = 0.0247m
t/h = 2.87mm = 2.87 x 10-3m

therefore, the moment of inertia, I can be calculated by the following equation;

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12
(0.0247)(2.87𝑥10−3 )3
=
12

= 4.866𝑥10−11 𝑚4

Beam 1: Semicircle

Sample calculation of theoretical vertical deflection of the semicircle beam at loading force
in weight of 3N:

𝜋𝑊𝑅3
𝛿𝑣 = 2𝐸𝐼

𝜋(3)(0.145)3
=
(2)(210𝑥109 )(4.866𝑥10−11 )

= 1.41𝑥10−3 𝑚

= 1.41𝑚𝑚

Sample calculation of theoretical horizontal deflection of the semicircle beam at loading

force in weight of 3N:

2𝑊𝑅3
𝛿ℎ = 𝐸𝐼

(2)(3)(0.145)3
=
(210𝑥109 )(4.866𝑥10−11 )

= 1.79𝑥10−3 𝑚

= 1.79𝑚𝑚
Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Given:

L = 250mm = 0.25m

Sample calculation of theoretical vertical deflection of the quarter circle beam at loading
force in weight of 3N:

𝜋𝑊𝑅3 𝑊𝑅2 𝐿
𝛿𝑣 = +
4𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼

𝜋(3)(0.145)3 (3)(0.145)2 (0.25)

= +
(4)(210𝑋109 )(4.866𝑋10−11 ) (210𝑋109 )(4.866𝑋10−11 )
= (7.03𝑥10−4 ) + (1.54𝑥10−3 )
= 2.243𝑥10−3 𝑚
= 2.243𝑚𝑚
Sample calculation of theoretical horizontal deflection of the quarter circle beam at loading
force in weight of 3N:

𝑊𝑅3 𝑊𝑅𝐿 𝐿
𝛿𝑣 = + [𝑅 + 2]
2𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼
(3)(0.145)3 (3)(0.145)(0.25) 0.25
= + [0.145 + ]
(2)(210𝑋109 )(4.866𝑋10−11 ) (210𝑋109 )(4.866𝑋10−11 ) 2

= (4.48𝑥10−4 ) + (0.011)(0.27)

= (3.32𝑥10−3 )𝑚

= 3.32𝑚𝑚
Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of vertical and
horizontal deflections weight force of 3N for the semicircle beam and quarter circle beam.
The percentage error is calculated as shown in specified to increase loading case.

𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦

Beam 1: Semicircle

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of vertical

deflection of weight force of 3N for the semicircle beam

1.41 − 1.44
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
1.41

= −2.1 %

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of horizontal

deflection of weight force of 3N for the semicircle beam

1.79 − 1.34
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
1.79

= 25.1 %

Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of vertical

deflection of weight force of 3N for the quarter circle beam

2.24 − 0.67
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
2.24

= 70.1 %

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of horizontal

deflection of weight force of 3N for the quarter circle beam

3.32 − 0.41
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
3.32

= 87.7 %
CONCLUSIONS

It was acknowledged that the calculation and experimental values of the horizontal and
vertical deflections for both the semi-circular and quarter circular beam were not in complete
agreement. Thus, a percent error analysis was performed to determine the degree of this
discrepancy. Percentage error of the deflections can be calculated by using the formula given
and the percentage are recorded as shown in Table 1 and 2 below.

𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦

Beam 1: Semi-circle

Horizontal Deflection, x
Weight, W (N) Vertical Deflection, y (%)
(%)
1 6 59.6 -80.9 100 83.3
2 5 6.38 -38.3 39.5 61.3
3 4 -2.1 -24.1 25.1 43
4 3 -1.6 -29.4 23.8 -15.5
5 2 -7.7 -23.1 13.4 -6
6 1 -13.5 -13.5 6.7 6.7
Table 1 Percentage Error Analysis of Semi-Circle Beam

Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Horizontal Deflection, x
Weight, W (N) Vertical Deflection, y (%)
(%)
1 6 72 54.7 89.2 80.2
2 5 74.7 62 90 84.2
3 4 70.1 64.7 87.7 85.2
4 3 68.7 66.7 87.9 85.8
5 2 69.8 68.2 87.5 87
6 1 68.9 68.9 86.9 86.9
Table 2 Percentage Error Analysis of Quarter Circle Beam
Based on the results of the error analysis, it was determined that the initial loading of both
beam is where the highest percentage of error happened. In contrast, for quarter circle, the
weight in 2 N, have highest percentage rate for error in vertical and horizontal deflections.
It can be observed from the Table 1 and Table 2 that as the loading increases, the percentage
of error trended downwards whilst as the loading decreases, the percentage of error trended
upwards.

Fascinatingly, for Beam 1, the horizontal deflection in x-axis have great reduction in error
rate when the load applied are either increasing or decreasing. On the other hand, for Beam
2, the vertical and horizontal deflections for inverse loadings have an increment in error
percentage.

Furthermore, during the experiment, some sources of error have been taken in consideration
that caused the faulty for this experiment. One of the sources of error is due to the sensitivity
of the tip of the dial gauge. A slight touch on the apparatus have interrupted the reading on
the dial gauge. Therefore, an improvement to overcome this fault would be to use digital
deflection indicators. By using digital deflection indicators seemed allow for more accurate
values of deflections to be recorded as in percent error or graph plotting. Besides that, the
environment of the laboratory also plays a role in this experiment. For instances, the table
we used to place the apparatus is tilted on one side which makes it difficult to read the
readings and on the same time preventing anything to bump into the table direction. This
was hard to control but we managed to pull it off until the end of the experiment. In this
case, an improvement to eliminate this issue is to set up a better place for the experiment to
be conducted. Last but not least, the fault in readings the results on dial gauge will be one of
the sources as well, as the eyes level are not parallel to its dial. Therefore, the same remedy
stated above that by replacing the dial gauge with digital deflection indicators is the best
solution.
REFERENCES

1. Textbook: Mechanics of Materials 9th Edition in S.I Units by R. C. Hibbeler (2014)

Chapter 14, Energy Method (Page: 569-619)

2. Beer & E. Russell Johnston, Jr (1992). "Mechanics of Materials, Metrics Editions,

McGraw-Hill Book Company
Chapter 11, Bending (Page: 301-389)

3. Internet/Website: Introductory Problems in Structural Analysis Deflections – Work-

Energy Methods, (Date: 1 Nov 2017)
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~fanous/ce332/virtualwork/homepage.html
DEFLECTION OF
CONTINUOUS
BEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS: DEFLECTION OF CONTINUOUS BEAM

NO. CONTENTS PAGES

1. Theory of Deflection of Continuous Beam
2. Objectives
3. Methodology/Procedure
4. Results
5. Discussions
6. Conclusions
7. References
THEORY

Continuous beam is a beam which extends over three or more supports that joined
together. Therefore, the given load on one span will effect on the other spans. Hence the
reaction on the other support can be calculated based on the given load. Different
arrangement of span and load will give a different value of reaction at the support. Typical
reactions at the support of a continuous beam are shown below;

L/2 W W L/2

L L
5W/16 22W/16 5W/1

W
L/2

L L
13W/32 22W/32 3W/32

L W

2L L
3W/8 7W/8 W/4

OBJECTIVES

The object of this experiment was to determine the reaction of a two-span continuous
beam.
APPARATUS

This apparatus are the main tools that had been used when doing this experiment:

Name of Apparatus Picture

 A support frame

 3 Nos. reaction support pier

 2 Nos. load hangers

 Beam specimen

 A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam

 A set of weights (5N)

PROCEDURE

1. The display unit was switched on to be warm up.

2. The reaction piers were clamped to the support frame using
the place and bolt supplied with apparatus and at
predetermine distant between the supports.
3. The beam then was placed between the two cylindrical pieces
of each support. The two screws at the top of each support
were tightened with finger.
4. The load hanger was fixed at the position where the beam is
to be loaded.

5. The load cell was connected from the support pier to the
display unit each load cell occupied one terminal on the
display.

6. Begin with channel 1 the initial reading for each channel were
recorded.

7. A suitable load was placed on the hanger and reading of each

load cell were noted. This represent the reaction at each pier.

8. The load on the load hanger was increased at suitable

increments and the pier reaction for each increment was
recorded.
DISCUSSIONS

From this experiment what would need to be discussed is an error that was appeared
to the meter that detects load reading. There is a zero error on support of left-hand, -8.5
errors on middle-hand and 18.3 errors on right-hand. This error must cause of mechanical
problem of that equipment itself.

Next there is also a bit different between the readings were read by the device and
the reading that was obtain by using a formula. This thing might happen because of an error
that was obtained before or mistakenly of calculation using a formula.

Lastly even know there is a big different of result between the theoretical and experiment
but the equipment still can be use because of there is just a slight different of deflection
between this both method. It was 0.7 deflections on theoretical and 0.85 on experiment.

1. If the material of the beam is changed from mild steel to aluminium, how does this
affect the support reaction?
If the beam material changed from mild steel to aluminium, aluminium has a higher
modulus of elasticity than steel and therefore the reaction at the supports will be lower
when aluminium is used.

2. If a thinner beam is used, how does this affect the support reaction? Give reasons
for your answer.
If a thin beam is used, the effect of an adverse reaction will occur on the support. This
will cause the beam to become brittle and will easily collapse the building. This will
require the high cost of repairing. Otherwise it will endanger the lives users if the
building is built is not safe to use.
3. How does the experimental reactions compare to theoretical?
Experiment Theoretical
 The value is a bit lower than the  The value is a bit higher than the
value that was got using the value that was get from the
formula experiment
 The value of M for the experiment  Value of M for theoretical is 0.70
is 0.68

4. State the possible factors that might have influenced your results and possible
means of overcoming it.

The reason that influenced the result might be because of the error that already there at
the apparatus and misreading of experimental values by the group members. The errors
can be overcome by:
 Ensuring that a well qualified laboratory assistant guides in the setting up of the
apparatus.
 Careful reading of data from the group embers and confirmation from a second group
members
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusions, the reaction at the two span continuous beam will increases with an increase
in the load. Other factors like the distance of the load from the supports, type of material and
width will also affect the reaction. Some errors might occur in this experiment. Errors in this
experiment can be minimised through:

 Careful reading of data from the group embers and confirmation from a second group
members.
 Ensuring that a well qualified laboratory assistant guides in the setting up of the
apparatus.
 Taking several readings of every load and find the average.
REFERENCES

1. T.H.G. Megson, Structural and Stress Analysis, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014

Chapter 11, Beam (Page: 177-201)
2. S. S. Rattan, Strength of materials, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2008

Chapter 8, Beam (Page: 281-299)

3. “Deflection of Continuous Beam formula” (Budynas-Nisbett,) access on 1/11/2017

https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/roarks-formulas-for-stress-and-strain-
eighth-edition/c97800717424740900#Chap0901clnk82

4. “ Deflection of Beam in Structural Analysis ” (Lindeburg, Michael R., ) access on 2/11/2017

https://www.engineersedge.com/beam_bending/beam_bending22.htm
THIN CYLINDER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS: THIN CYLINDER

NO. CONTENTS PAGES

1. Theory of Thin Cylinder
2. Objectives
3. Methodology/Procedure
4. Results
5. Discussions
6. Conclusions
7. References
THEORY

Stresses in thin-walled cylinder

If a thin walled cylindrical vessel is subjected to an internal pressure, Pi. a state of plane
stress consisting stress in the circumferential (or hoop) direction, σh and in the direction of

cylinder axis (or longitudinal axis) σL exists.

Considering the equilibrium of forces in the circumferential direction f the half section of
the cylinder (figure a),

2σh x Lt = Pi.L.di ∴ σh = Pi.di/2t

Now consider the equilibrium or forces along the cylinder axis (fig h)

σL x π dit = p𝜋di2/4 ∴ σh = Pi.di/4t

Poisson’s Ratio, v

Is the ratio of the lateral strain to the longitudinal strain. Consider the biaxial stress system
as in the above cylinder surface. Hence, the strain in the longitudinal direction,

ɛL = σL / E – v.σh /E.

Strain in the circumferential direction

ɛh = σh / E – v.σL /E.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this experiment is to determine the materials elastic modulus E and
Poison’s ratio v. The experiment also conducted to compare the experimental strains with
the theoretical values for a closed ends cylinder.
 METHODOLOGY/PROCEDURE

Open End condition

1. The apparatus was set up as shown Figure 1 (a) :

Handwheel for plunger Plunger Fixed wheel cover

Data Logger FL-151

Pressure Gauge

Strain gauge Turning Wheel Hydraulic pump

Collar

Measurement cylinder

Figure 1 (a): Apparatus of Thin Cylinder

2. The end plunder were screwed via handwheel.

3. The turning wheel is turned and pressure is applied to the hydraulic pump.
 Figure 2: The turning wheel were turned until the pressure at 10 bar

4. The base frame was absorbed the end face pressure then the cylinder is therefore
subjected to a uniaxial stress of an open pipe. The load in the axial direction was
zero and the only stress exerted by the cylinder body was along the hoop direction.
5. The strain in the hoop and longitudinal direction was recorded.
Closed End condition

1. The plunger was unscrewed.

2. The plunger was absorbed the applied pressure.
3. The collar was screwed to the cylinder and it was subjected to the biaxial stress
state.
4. The strain reading along the circumferential and longitudinal direction was
recorded.

Figure 2: The reading at Data Logger FL-151 was recorded

EXPERIMENTAL RESULT

Outside diameter : 0.075 m

Wall thickness : 2.8 × 10ˉ³ m

Inside diameter : 0.0694 m

Cylinder length : 0.4 m

Open End (Unscrew Plunger)

Pressure (Bar) Hoop Stress (MPa) Strain Readings

Hoop Strain Axial Strain
(MPa) (MPa)
5 61.96 -28 87.3
10 123.93 -52.5 171
15 185.89 -89.2 252.1

Graph of Hoop Stress, (MN.m-2)

against Hoop Stain, µ
200 185.89
180
Hoop Stress, (MN.m-2)

160
140 123.93
120
100
80 61.96
60
40
20
0
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88
Hoop Stain, µ
Closed End (Screw Plunger In)

Pressure (Bar) Hoop Stress Loop Stress Strain readings

(MPa) (MPa) Hoop Strain Axial Strain
5 61.96 30.98 -28 87.3
10 123.93 61.96 -52.5 171
15 185.89 92.95 -89.2 252.1

Graph of Longitudinal Stress (µ) against Hoop Strain (µ

100 92.95
90
Longitudinal Stress, µ

80
70 61.96
60
50
40 30.98
30
20
10
0
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88

Hoop Strain, µ

CALCULATION

𝑃𝑖𝑑𝑖
Hoop stress, σh =
2𝑡
 𝑃𝑖𝑑𝑖
Loop stress, σL =
4𝑡

𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
Poisson’s ratio, ⱱ =
𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛

1. OPEN END (SCREW PLUNGER IN)

Pi = 5 MPa

(5𝑀)(0.0694) 28
σh = (2)(2.8 ⱱ=
×10ˉ3 ) 87.3

= 61.96 MPa = 0.321

Pi = 10 MPa

(10𝑀)(0.0694) 52.5
σh = (2)(2.8 ×10ˉ3 )
ⱱ=
171

= 123.93 MPa = 0.307

Pi = 15 MPa

(15𝑀)(0.0694) 89.2
σh = (2)(2.8 ×10ˉ3 )
ⱱ=
252.1

= 185.89 MPa = 0.354

2. CLOSED END (UNSCREW PLUNGER)

Pi = 5 MPa
 (5𝑀)(0.0694) (5𝑀)(0.0694) 28
σh = (2)(2.8 σL = (4)(2.8 ⱱ=
×10ˉ3 ) ×10ˉ3 ) 87.3

= 61.96 MPa = 30.98 MPa = 0.32

Pi = 10 MPa

(10𝑀)(0.0694) (10𝑀)(0.0694) 52.5

σh = (2)(2.8 ×10ˉ3 )
σL = (4)(2.8 ×10ˉ3 )
ⱱ=
171

= 123.93MPa = 61.96 MPa = 0.31

Pi = 15 MPa

(15𝑀)(0.0694) (15𝑀)(0.0694) 89.2

σh = (2)(2.8 ×10ˉ3 )
σL = (4)(2.8 ×10ˉ3 )
ⱱ=
252.1

= 185.89 MPa = 92.95 MPa = 0.35

DISCUSSION
It was noted that the graph produce for stress due to pressure as seen in graph 1 and 2
generated a linear function. There were a few source of error in this experiment. One
source of error was due to the readings of the indicated strain. The strain indicator values
fluctuated very slowly around a central value. This was most likely due to the need of new
wiring between the strain gauge and strain indicator. Another source of error was incurred
by the readings of the pressure gauge of the thin-walled cylindrical pressure vessel to an
exact indicated pressure. The error of the pressure recordings will cause a slightly skewed
calculated value for the theoretical longitudinal and hoop stresses.

Graph 9: Graph of Hoop Stress (MN.m-2) against Hoop Strain (µ)

From the Graph 1, the value of the Young’s Modulus is 66.6GPa. The gradient of graph is
0.0666MPa.

The actual value of Young’s Modulus is 69GPa.

69 − 66.6
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
69
= 3.48%

Graph of Longitudinal Stress (µ) against Hoop Strain (µ)

90 82.8
80 y = 0.2191x + 2
R² = 0.9983
70
Longitudinal Stress, µ

57.6
60
50
40
28.5
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Hoop Strain, µ

Graph 10: Graph of Longitudinal Stress (µ) against Hoop Strain (µ)

From the Graph 2, the value of the Poisson’s ratio is 0.2191. The gradient of graph is 0.2191.

The actual value of Poisson’s ratio is 0.21.

 0.21 − 0.22
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
0.21
= 4.76%
CONCLUSION

It can be conclude that the pressure in the thin cylinder did not exceed the proportional limit
or yield strength of the thin material. The deformation incurred by the pressure was elastic
and completely recoverable. Therefore, the use of Hooke’s Law was applicable. If the
plotted data had yielded and exponential line portion, Hooke’s Law will only applicable to
the data points that occur before the curvature. The experimental values calculated for
longitudinal stress and hoop stress are within an acceptable range of their respective
theoretical values. However, due to the fact that the stresses were measured indirectly by the
apparatus, a percent difference analysis was conducted to conclude if the result produced by
this experiment were accurate. The values for the percent difference of experimental and
theoretical calculations of longitudinal and hoop stress can be seen in graph 1 & 2. Then a
few improvement for this experiment can be made is to ensure that the wiring used on the
testing apparatus is properly grounded and there is no damage to the wiring. Damage wiring
generates line noise and skews the actual indicated strains produced by the strain indicator.
REFERENCES

1. T.H.G. Megson, Structural and Stress Analysis, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014

Chapter 3, Stress Strain (Page: 399-401)
2. S. S. Rattan, Strength of materials, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2008

Chapter 2, Axial Loading (Page: 177-200)

3. “Stress Analysis of Thin Wall Cylinder” (John Megan) access on 1/11/2017

http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-1860230_53766.htm

4. E-book: Nashwan T. Younis, "New optical method for determining Poisson's

ratio/Young's modulus for transparent materials," Optical Engineering 41(2), (1
February 2002) access on 16/11/2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1430726