Pure Bending in Beam

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
___________________________________________________________________
Programme : Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)

Mechanical
(EM220) Course : Applied Mechanics Lab
Code : MEC 424
Lecturer : DR. RAMZYZAN RAMLY
Group : EMD4M12B
___________________________________________________________________
MEC 424 - LABORATORY REPORT
LAB 1 TITLE: Pure Bending in Beam
No NAME STUDENT ID
1. AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDDIN 2019654456
2. ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY 2019454998
3. AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY 2019717427
4. AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI 2019527997
5. AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD 2019848452
REPORT SUBMISSION: 5 JULY 2020

(DATE)
*By signing above you attest that you have contributed to this submission and confirm that all work you
have contributed to this submission is your own work. Any suspicion of copying or plagiarism in this
work will result in an investigation of academic misconduct and may result in a “0” on the work, an “F” in
the course, or possibly more severe penalties.
Marking Scheme
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Teamwork Assessment Form
Name
1 : AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDDIN
2 : ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY
3 : AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI
4 : AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY
5 : AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD
Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Level Poor Acceptable Excellent
You will rate yourself and your team members on the following criteria
Earned Assessment
Element Self Members
1 2 3 4
I was ready to work with my team 5 5 5 5 5
I did my assigned work well and always on time 5 5 5 5 5
I was fair to my teammates and myself 5 5 5 5 5
I listened to others appreciatively and was supportive 5 5 5 5 5
I was very committed and focused in my team 5 5 5 5 5
I put extra efforts to finish or accomplish our task 5 5 5 5 5
I encouraged others in my team and was helpful 5 5 5 5 5
I managed and coordinated team efforts effectively 5 5 5 5 5
I was able to lead discussions and provide solutions 5 5 5 5 5
Overall, I was very satisfied and enjoyed my work 5 5 5 5 5
Total 50 50 50 50 50
Comment
Self: AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD
No comment
Member 1: AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDIN
No comment
Member 2: AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI
No comment
Member 3: AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY
No comment
Member 4: ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY
No comment

Name
Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Earned Assessment
1 2 3 4
Total 50 50 50 50 50
Comment
Self: AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY
No comment
No comment
Member 2: AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD
No comment
No comment
No comment

Name
Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Earned Assessment
1 2 3 4
Total 50 50 50 50 50
Comment
Self: AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI
No comment
No comment
No comment
Comment
No comment
Name
5 : AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDIN
Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Earned Assessment
1 2 3 4
Total 50 50 50 50 50
Comment
Self : AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDDIN
No comment
No comments
No comments
No comments
No Comments
Name
5 : AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDIN
Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Earned Assessment
1 2 3 4
Total 50 50 50 50 50
Comment
Self : ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY
No comment
No comments
No comments
No comments
No Comments
ABSTRACT
The pure bending in beam experiment was carried out in order to determine the
behavior of a slender structural element subjected to external load applied perpendicularly to
longitudinal axis and use the resulted changes to determine its elastic modulus, E, of beam of
specimen. The specimen that will be used is Mild Steel, Brass and Aluminum. The specimen
will be fixed at the both of its end to make beam structure and load will be placed in the
middle of the beam. The load will be started from 2N and increasing by increment of 2N.
Deflection of the beam will be recorded. A graph will be plotted by the resulted deflection
and Elastic Modulus can be find by calculating the gradient of the graph. Experimental
Elastic Modulus will be compared with theoretical Elastic Modulus and error will be
calculated. This will validate the data between experimental and theoretical value.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NO TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 THEORY 3
3.0 OBJECTIVE 8
4.0 APPARATUS 8
5.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES 10
6.0 RESULTS 11
7.0 DISCUSSIONS 36
8.0 CONCLUSIONS 47
REFERENCES 52
APPENDIX 53
II
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Example of I-shaped beam and bending of beam

Figure 2.1 Bending of an I-beam
Figure 2.2 Shape change of elements of a beam
Figure 2.3 Bending moments in beam
Figure 2.4 Deflection of a beam deflected symmetrically
Figure 4.1 Dial Gauge
Figure 4.2 Loads hung on beams
Figure 4.3 Type of beam and 1m Steel Ruler
Figure 4.4 Vernier Caliper
Figure 4.5 Equipment Beam Setup
Figure 6.1 Deflection of Bean Against Load
Figure 6.2 Plotted graph of deflection of the Beam
Figure 6.3 Graph deflection of the beams
Figure 6.4 Graph of Load vs Deflection
Figure 6.5 Graph deflection of the beams
III
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1 Parameter of Each Specimen
Table 6.2 Data of Deflection Beam
Table 6.3 The measurement for each specimen in mm
Table 6.4 The deflection recorded
Table 6.5 The value of theoretical modulus of elasticity
Table 6.6 Dimensions of the beams
Table 6.7 Moment of Inertia
Table 6.8 Maximum deflection of the beam and the modulus of Elasticity
Table 6.9 Experimental Data
Table 6.10 The deflection of the Beam
Table 6.11 Dimensions of the Beams
Table 6.12 The deflection recorded
Table 7.1 Results of Modulus of Elasticity for theoretical and experimental
Table 7.2 Results of percentage of errors
Table 7.3 Percentage of errors
Table 7.4 Results of Modulus of Elasticity for theoretical and experimental
Table 7.5 Results of percentage of errors
IV
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bending in engineering mechanics characterizes the action of a slender structural
structure that is subjected to an external load applied perpendicularly to an element's
longitudinal axis. It is assumed that the structural element is such that at least one of its
dimensions is a small fraction.
Figure 1.1: Example of I-shaped beam and bending of beam
The beams produce normal stresses in the longitudinal direction, ranging from the
maximum strain at one surface to zero at the centre plane of the beam, to the maximum
compression at the opposite side. Shear stresses are often caused, but these mostly are
marginal compared to normal stresses when the beam's length-to-height ratio is high. The
bending of a beam depends on its length, cross-sectional area and the material of the beam,
where the deflecting force is applied, and how the beam is supported. It is still having
limitation which must be known in order to provide a structure or system with stability and to
prevent material failure.
In this experiment, the beam is bending due to applied load is determined at two
points along the beam, and the elastic modulus is calculated by deflection process. The beams
analysed were using different materials which is mild steel, aluminium and brass. The priority
of the beam function is as a load resistant structural feature. It can be seen the beam used in
building structural elements, automobile or machine frames as well to support the structure.
Some applications require beams to support loads that can bend the beams; therefore, it is
important to observe the behaviour of the beams under bending forces and which parameters
influence this behaviour. If the maximum deflection that the beam can resist were not taken
into consideration in the design process, there would be some serious failures in structures
that can lead to some serious effects to the structure.
During the experiment, the overhanging beam is used which can be defined simply as
a beam supported on two fixed supports. To conduct this experiment and investigate the
deflection variation of a simply supported beam, an apparatus is used which contains two
support points. The relationship between deflection and load is to be obtained during the
1
experiment have been observe as a result. However, to further improve the quality of the
search results. different loads are used and by getting the average yield. Lastly, the data will
then be compared between experimental and theoretical values and error analysis can be
obtain.
2
2.0 THEORY
Bending is a major concept used in the design of many machine and structural
components, such as beams and girders. In Applied Mechanics, bending which is also known
as flexure, characterizes the behavior of a slender structural element subjected to an external
load applied perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the element.
The structural element is assumed to be such that at least one of its dimensions is a
small fraction, typically 1/10 or less, of the other two. When the length is considerably longer
than the width and the thickness, the element is called a beam. For example, a closet rod
sagging under the weight of clothes on clothes hangers is an example of a beam experiencing
bending. On the other hand, a shell is a structure of any geometric form where the length and
the width are of the same order of magnitude but the thickness of the structure (known as the
'wall') is considerably smaller. A large diameter, but thin-walled, short tube supported at its
ends and loaded laterally is an example of a shell experiencing bending.
In the absence of a qualifier, the term bending is ambiguous because bending can
occur locally in all objects. To make the usage of the term more precise, engineers refer to the
bending of rods, the bending of beams, the bending of plates, the bending of shells, and so on.
Figure 2.1: Bending of an I-beam
When a beam experiences a bending moment, it will change its shape and internal
stresses will be developed. The figure below illustrates the shape change of elements of a
beam in bending. Note that the material is in compression on the inside of the curve and
tension on the outside of the curve, and that transverse planes in the material remain parallel
to the radius during bending.
3
Figure 2.2: Shape change of elements of a beam
The pure bending shown in the figure can be produced by applying four forces to the
beam, two of opposite direction at each end. This configuration is known as ‘four-point
bending’ and produces a uniform bending moment over the Centre section of the beam as
illustrated in (b) opposite.
In the Euler-Bernoulli theory of slender beams, a major assumption is that 'plane
sections remain plane'. In other words, any deformation due to shear across the section is not
accounted for (no shear deformation). Also, this linear distribution is only applicable if the
maximum stress is less than the yield stress of the material. For stresses that exceed yield,
refer to article plastic. At yield, the maximum stress experienced in the section (at the furthest
points from the neutral axis of the beam) is defined as the flexural strength.
The Euler-Bernoulli equation for the quasistatic bending of slender, isotropic,

homogeneous beams of constant cross-section under an applied transverse load, q(x) is;
where E is the Young's modulus, I is the area moment of inertia of the cross-section, and w(x)
is the deflection of the neutral axis of the beam.
After a solution for the displacement of the beam has been obtained, the bending
moment, M and shear force, Q in the beam can be calculated using the relations
4
Simple beam bending is often analyzed with the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation. The
conditions for using simple bending theory are:
1. The beam is subject to pure bending. This means that the shear force is zero, and that
no torsional or axial loads are present
2. The material is isotropic and homogenous
3. The material obeys Hooke’s law (it is linearly elastic and will not deform plastically)
4. The beam has an axis of symmetry in the plane of bending
5. The proportions of the beam are such that it would fail by bending rather than by
crushing, wrinkling or sideways buckling
6. Cross-sections of the beam remain plane during bending.
Figure 2.3: Bending moments in beam
The classic formula for determining the bending stress in a beam under simple bending is;
Where;
 Is the bending stress
 M- the moment about the neutral axis
 Y- the perpendicular distance to the neutral axis
 Ix – the second moment of area about the neutral axis x
5
In this Applied Mechanics Lab, we are interest in the determination of the deflection of
the bending of beams. Of interest is the determination of the maximum deflection of a beam
under a given loading, since the design specifications of a beam will generally include a
maximum allowable value for its deflection. Also, of interest is that the knowledge of the
deflections is required to analyze indeterminate beams.
A prismatic beam subjected to pure bending is bent into an arc of circle and that, within
the elastic range, the curvature of the neutral surface can be expressed as;
Where M is the bending moment, E the modulus of elasticity and the I the moment of
inertia of the cross section about its natural axis. Denoting by x the distance of the section
from the left end of the beam, we write;
To determine the slope and deflection of the beam at any given point, we first derive
the following second-order linear differential equation, which governs the elastic curve
characterizing the shape of the deformed beam;
If the bending moment can be represented for all values of x by a single function
M(x), as in the case of the beams and loadings, the slope ϴ = 𝑑𝑦⁄𝑑𝑥 and the deflection y at
any point of the beam may be obtained through two successive integrations. The two
constants of integration introduced in the process will be determined from the boundary
conditions indicated in the figure. However, if different analytical functions are required to
represent the bending moment in various portions of the beam, different differential equations
will also be required, leading to different functions defining the elastic curve in the various
portions of the beam.
6
Figure 2.4: Deflection of a beam deflected symmetrically
7
3.0 OBJECTIVE
Upon completion of this experiment, students should be able to;
1. Determine the elastic modulus (E) of beam specimen by method of deflection of
Mild Steel, Aluminum and Brass.
2. Validate the data between experimental and theoretical values.
4.0 APPARATUS
1. Mild Steel Aluminum and Brass beams.

2. The cantilever beam setup.
3. Vernier caliper, dial gauge and 1m steel ruler.
4. Load hangers.
5. Load/weights to be hung on the beam
Figure 4.1: Dial Gauge
Figure 4.2: Loads hung on beams
Figure 4.3: Type of beam and 1m Steel Ruler
8
Figure 4.4: Vernier Caliper
Figure 4.5: Equipment Beam Setup
9
5.0 PROCEDURE
1. The dimension of span (L) in between the supports were measured and recorded.
2. The length (d), position of weight was measured from the wall to the centre of dial
callipers and readings were recorded.
3. The centre and place to hang the weight hanger on the beam was marked.
4. Next, aluminium beam was setup and placed the weight hanger at marked designation.
5. Experiment starts by putting on load (W) of 2N at each marked end of the beam.
6. Later, deflection reading (y) on the dial indicator for each burden exerted was
recorded.
7. Continues with increment of loads by 2N till 16N

8. Load (W) recorded and deflection (y) was measured at every increment.
9. Repeat steps with mild steel and brass beams.
10
6.0 RESULTS
ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY (2019454998)
Experimental Data
Experimental result for maximum beam deflection for three tested beam, mild steel,
aluminium and brass with different applied load.
Materials Length (m) Width (mm) Thickness (mm)
Aluminium 0.4 19.30 6.52
Brass 0.4 20.00 6.00
Mild Steel 0.4 20.36 4.00
Table 6.1: Parameter of Each Specimen
Deflection of Beam (mm)

Load Materials
(N) Aluminium Brass Mild Steel
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68
Table 6.2: Data of Deflection Beam
Figure 6.1: Deflection of Bean Against Load
11
12
Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity (E) For Each Specimen
Equation that use in calculation;

Moment , M =W × d (Nm)
L2
Radius of curvature , R= (m)
8y
MR
Modulus of Elasticity , E=
I
b h3
Mass moment of Inertia , I =
12
 Aluminium
Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity (E) for aluminium
Data for aluminium specimen:

Length, L (m) 0.4
Breadth, b (m) 0.0193

Thickness, h (m) 6.52x10−3
Distance load hanger & support, d (m) 0.1
3
( 0.0193 ) ( 6.52×10−3 )
12
¿ 4.456 × 10−10 (m¿¿ 4) ¿
13
2
4.456(m)
4.456
8(0.32
8(0.48
8(1.12
8(1.28
8(0.15
8(0.64
8(0.80
8(1.06xx 10
10
10
10−10
−10
−3) )
−3
8
Load, W (N) R= Moment, Modulus of Elasticity, E =

M = W × d (Nm)
2 0.42 M = 2 × 0.1 = 0.2 (0.2)(133.33)
R= E=
= 133.33 = 59.84 GPa
4 0.42 M = 4 × 0.1 = 0.4 (0.4)(65.5)
R= E=
=65.50 = 58.80 GPa
6 0.42 M = 6 × 0.1 = 0.6 (0.6)(41.67)
R= E=
= 41.67 = 56.11 GPa
8 0.42 M = 8 × 0.1 = 0.8 (0.8)(31.25)
R= E=
= 31.25 = 56.10 GPa
10 0.42 M = 10 × 0.1 = 1.0 (1.0)(25.00)
R= E=
= 25.00 = 56.10 GPa
12 0.42 M = 12 × 0.1 = 1.2 (1.2)(18.87)
R= E=
= 18.87 = 50.82 GPa
14 0.42 M = 14 × 0.1 = 1.4 (1.4)(17.87)
R= E=
= 17.86 = 56.14 GPa
16 0.42 M = 16 × 0.1 = 1.6 (1.6)(15.63)
R = E=
= 15.63 = 56.12 GPa
14
Average modulus of elasticity, E
E=
∑E
8
450.03
¿
8
= 56.25 GPa (Experimental Value)
Modulus of Elasticity, M
Theoretical Value Experimental Value

69Gpa 56.25Gpa
15
2
3.6
3.6 (m)
8 xxx 10
3.6
8(0.47
8(0.59
8(0.70
8(0.12
8(0.24
8(0.35 10
10−10
−10
−10
10
10−3−3) )
 Brass
Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity (E) for brass
Data for brass specimen:

Length, L (m) 0.4
Breadth, b (m) 0.02

3
[ ( 0.02 ) ( 6.0× 10−3 ) ]
12
¿ 3.6 ×10−10( m¿¿ 4) ¿

Load, W (N) R = Moment, Modulus of Elasticity, E =
M = W × d (Nm)
2 0.42 M = 2 × 0.1 (0.2)(166.67)

R= = 0.2 E=
= 166.67 = 92.59 GPa
4 0.42 M = 4 × 0.1 (0.4)(83.33)
R= = 0.4 E=
= 83.33 = 92.59 GPa
6 0.42 M = 6 × 0.1 (0.6)(57.14)
R= = 0.6 E=
= 57.14 = 95.23 GPa
8 0.42 M = 8 × 0.1 (0.8)(23.81)
R= = 0.8 E=
= 42.55 = 94.55 GPa
10 0.42 M = 10 × 0.1 (1.0)(33.90)
R= = 1.0 E=
= 33.90 = 94.17 GPa
12 0.42 M = 12 × 0.1 (1.2)(28.57)
R =28.57 = 1.2 E = 95.23 GPa
16
3.6
3.6xx10
8(0.94
8(0.82 10−10
1010−3−3) )
−10
14 0.42 M = 14 × 0.1 (1.4)(24.39)

R= = 1.4 E=
= 24.39 = 94.85 GPa
16 0.42 M = 16 × 0.1 (1.6)(21.28)
R= = 1.6 E=
= 21.28 = 94.58 GPa
E=
∑E
8
753.79
¿
8
= 94.22GPa (Experimental Value)

97 Gpa 94.22 Gpa
17
0.2
0.6
0.4
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.6
0.8(13.605)
(15.873)
(105.26)
(31.746)
(47.619)
(19.048)
(11.905)
(23.81)
1.086 x 10−10
88 (1.47x10ˉ
(0.19x10ˉ33 ))
(0.42x10ˉ
(0.63x10ˉ
(0.84x10ˉ
(1.05x10ˉ
(1.26x10ˉ
(1.68x10ˉ
8yI
 Mild Steel
Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity (E) for mild steel
Data for brass specimen:

Length, L (m) 0.4
Breadth, b (m) 0.02036

3
[ ( 0.02036 ) ( 4.0 ×10−3 ) ]
12
¿ 1.086 ×10−10( m¿¿ 4)¿
Load W, (N) Deflection of Radius, R Moment, M M = Elastic modulus, E

beam, y L² Wd MR
2 0.19 x10ˉ³ m R =R=

0.4² M = 2 x 0.1 = E
E==
= 105.26 m 0.2 = 19.39 x 1010
4 0.42 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 4 x 0.1 = E=

= 47.619 m 0.4 = 17.54 x 1010
6 0.63 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 6 x 0.1 = E=

= 31.746 m 0.6 = 17.54 x 1010
8 0.84 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 8 x 0.1 = E=

= 23.81 m 0.8 = 17.54 x 1010
10 1.05 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 10 x 0.1 = E =

= 19.048 m 1.0 =17.54 x 1010
12 1.26 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 12 x 0.1 = E =

= 15.83 m 1.2 = 17.54 x 1010
14 1.47 x10ˉ³m 0.4² R = M = 14 x 0.1 = E =

= 13.605 m 1.4 = 17.54 x 1010
16 1.68 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 16 x 0.1 = E =

= 11.905 m 1.6 = 17.54 x 1010
18
E=
∑E
8
142.17
¿
8
=17.77 GPa (Experimental Value)

200 Gpa 177.7 Gpa
19
Percentage of Error
Percentage of error, % error for each specimen;

THEORITICALVALUE −EXPERIMENTALVALUE
= ×100 %
THEORITICAL VALUE
 ALUMINIUM
69× 109−56.25 ×10 9

¿ ×100 %
69 ×109
= 18.47%
 Brass
97 ×109 −94.22× 109
¿ ×100 %
97 ×10 9
= 2.87%
 Mild Steel
200× 109−177.7 ×10 9

¿ ×100 %
200 ×109
= 11.15%
20
AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDDIN (2019654456)
Initial Measurement;
Materials Length, mm Width, mm Thickness, mm
Aluminium 998 19.30 6.52
Brass 1005 20.00 6.00
Mild Steel 999 20.36 4.00

Table 6.3: The measurement for each specimen in mm
Support span = 100mm
Distance between load = 400mm

LOAD
Materials
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68

Table 6.4: The deflection recorded
THEORETICAL VALUE MODULUS

SPECIMEN
OF ELASTICITY
Aluminum 70GPa
21
Brass 97GPa
Mild Steel 210GPa

Table 6.5: The value of theoretical modulus of elasticity
Load vs Deflection
18
16
f(x) 17092.77xx x++ −0.06
f(x) == 9477.62
12144.8 0.03
0.11
14
12
10
Load (N)
8
6
4
2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aluminum Linear (Aluminum) Brass

Linear (Brass) Mild Steel Linear (Mild Steel)
Figure 6.2: Plotted graph of deflection of the Beam
Sample Calculation:
a. Aluminum
b h3
Moment of Inertia , I ¿
12
( 0.01930 )( 0.00652)3
I ¿
12
I ¿ 4.4578 × 10−10 m4
Radius of Curvature, R (m) Moment, M (Nm) Modulus of Elasticity, E (GPa)

L2 E=
MR
R= M =W ( x )
8y I
22
0.42 ( 0.2 ) 133.33
R= =133.33 m M =2 ( 0.1 )=0.2 Nm E= =59.82GPa
8 ( 0.00015 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.42 ( 0.4 ) 62.50
R= =62.50 m M =4 ( 0.1 )=0.4 Nm E= =56.08 GPa
8 ( 0.00032 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.42 ( 0.6 ) 41.67
R= =41.67 m M =6 ( 0.1 ) =0.6 Nm E= =56.09 GPa
8 ( 0.00048 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.42 ( 0.8 ) 31.25
R= =31.25 m M =8 ( 0.1 ) =0.8 Nm E= =56.08 GPa
8 ( 0.00064 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.42 ( 1.0 ) 25.00
R= =25.00 m M =10 ( 0.1 )=1.0 Nm E= =56.08 GPa
8 ( 0.00080 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.42 ( 1.2 ) 18.87
R= =18.87 m M =12 ( 0.1 )=1.2 Nm E= =50.80 GPa
8 ( 0.00106 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.4 2 ( 1.4 ) 17.86
R= =17.86 m M =14 ( 0.1 )=1.4 Nm E= =56.09 GPa
8 ( 0.00112 ) 4.4578× 10−10
0.42 ( 1.6 ) 15.63
R= =15.63 m M =16 ( 0.1 ) =1.6 Nm E= =56.10 GPa
8 ( 0.00128 ) 4.4578× 10−10
Average Modulus of Elasticity, E;
Eave ¿
∑E
8
59.82+56.08+ 56.09+ 56.08+56.08+50.80+56.09+56.10
Eave ¿
8
Eave Aluminum
¿ 55.89 GPa
b. Brass
b h3
12
( 0.0200 ) ( 0.00600 )3
I ¿
12
I ¿ 3.600 ×10−10 m 4
L2 E=
MR
R= M =W ( x )
8y I
0.42 ( 0.2 ) 166.67

R= =166.67 m M =2 ( 0.1 )=0.2 Nm E= =92.59GPa
8 ( 0.00012 ) 3.600 ×10−10
23
0.42 ( 0.4 ) 83.33
R= =83.33 m M =4 ( 0.1 )=0.4 Nm E= =92.59GPa
8 ( 0.00024 ) 3.600 ×10−10
0.42 ( 0.6 ) 57.14

R= =57.14 m M =6 ( 0.1 ) =0.6 Nm E= =95.23GPa
8 ( 0.00035 ) 3.600 ×10−10
0.42 ( 0.8 ) 42.55

R= =42.55 m M =8 ( 0.1 ) =0.8 Nm E= =94.56 GPa
8 ( 0.00047 ) 3.600 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.0 ) 33.90

R= =33.90 m M =10 ( 0.1 )=1.0 Nm E= =94.17 GPa
8 ( 0.00059 ) 3.600 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.2 ) 28.57

R= =28.57 m M =12 ( 0.1 )=1.2 Nm E= =95.23GPa
8 ( 0.00070 ) 3.600 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.4 ) 24.39

R= =24.39 m M =14 ( 0.1 )=1.4 Nm E= =94.85GPa
8 ( 0.00082 ) 3.600 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.6 ) 21.28

R= =21.28 m M =16 ( 0.1 ) =1.6 Nm E= =94.58GPa
8 ( 0.00094 ) 3.600 ×10−10
Eave ¿
∑E
8
92.59+92.59+95.23+ 94.56+94.17+ 95.23+94.85+94.58
Eave ¿
8
Eave ¿ 94.23 GPa
brass
c. Mild Steel
b h3
12
( 0.02063 )( 0.004 )3
I ¿
12
I ¿ 1.1003 ×10−10 m4
L2 E=
MR
R= M =W ( x )
8y I
0.42 ( 0.2 ) 105.26

R= =105.26 m M =2 ( 0.1 )=0.2 Nm E= =191.33 GPa
8 ( 0.00019 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
0.42 ( 0.4 ) 47.62

R= =47.62m M =4 ( 0.1 )=0.4 Nm E= =173.12 GPa
8 ( 0.00042 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
24
0.42 ( 0.6 ) 31.75
R= =31.75 m M =6 ( 0.1 ) =0.6 Nm E= =173.13 GPa
8 ( 0.00063 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
0.42 ( 0.8 ) 23.81

R= =23.81m M =8 ( 0.1 ) =0.8 Nm E= =173.12 GPa
8 ( 0.00084 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.0 ) 19.05

R= =19.05 m M =10 ( 0.1 )=1.0 Nm E= =173.13 GPa
8 ( 0.00105 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.2 ) 15.87

R= =15.87 m M =12 ( 0.1 )=1.2 Nm E= =173.08 GPa
8 ( 0.00126 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.4 ) 13.61

R= =13.61 m M =14 ( 0.1 )=1.4 Nm E= =173.17 GPa
8 ( 0.00147 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
0.42 ( 1.6 ) 11.90

R= =11.90 m M =16 ( 0.1 ) =1.6 Nm E= =173.04 GPa
8 ( 0.00168 ) 1.1003 ×10−10
Eave ¿
∑E
8
191.33+ 173.12+173.13+173.12+173.13+173.08+173.17+ 173.04
Eave ¿
8
Ea ve Mild Steel
¿ 175.39 GPa
Finding the percentage of error,

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY, E, GPa PERCANTAGE OF ERROR
SPECIME
N THEORY EXPERIMENTAL
|Theoretical−experimental
Theoretical |×100 %
Aluminum 70 55.89 |70−55.89
70 |×100 % ¿ 20.16 %
Brass 97 94.23 |97−94.23

97 |× 100 % ¿ 2.86 %
Mild Steel 210 175.39 |210−175.39

210 |×100 % ¿ 16.48 %
25
26
AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI (2019527997)
DIMENSIONS OF THE BEAM
MATERIALS LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS (m)

(m) (m)
ALUMINIUM 0.9980 0.0193 0.0065
BRASS 1.0050 0.0200 0.0060
MILD STEEL 0.9990 0.0204 0.0040
Table 6.6: Dimensions of the beams
MOMENT OF INERTIA
MOMENT OF INERTIA(m4) EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR

MATERIALS MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (GPa)
I = bh³
12
= (0.0193)(6.52 𝑥 10ˉ³)³ = 2 (0.1)(0.4)²

ALUMINIUM 12 0.00015 8(4.458 𝑥 10−10)
= 4.458 x 10 -10 = 59.77

= (0.0200)(6.00 𝑥 10ˉ³)³ = 2 (0.1)(0.4)²
BRASS 12 0.00012 8(3.600 𝑥 10−10)
= 3.600 x 10 -10
= 92.61
= (0.0204)(4.00 𝑥 10ˉ³)³ = 2 (0.1)(0.4)²

MILD STEEL 12 0.00019 8(1.088 𝑥 10−10)
= 1.088 x 10 -10
= 193.04
Table 6.7: Moment of Inertia
27
MAXIMUM DEFLECTION OF THE BEAM AND THE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
DEFLECTION OF THE BEAM(m) MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (GPa)
MATERIALS MATERIALS
MILD MILD
LOAD (N) ALUMINIUM BRASS STEEL ALUMINIUM BRASS STEEL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.00015 0.00012 0.00019 59.77 92.61 193.04
4 0.00032 0.00024 0.00042 56.05 92.61 174.76
6 0.00048 0.00035 0.00063 56.05 95.25 174.76
8 0.00064 0.00047 0.00084 56.05 94.57 174.76
10 0.0008 0.00059 0.00105 56.05 94.17 174.76
12 0.00106 0.0007 0.00126 50.76 95.25 174.76
14 0.00112 0.00082 0.00147 56.05 94.89 174.76
16 0.00128 0.00094 0.00168 56.05 94.57 174.76
TOTAL AVERAGE 55.85 94.24 177.05
Table 6.8: Maximum deflection of the beam and the modulus of Electricity
Load VS Deflection
4.5
4
3.5
3
Deflection
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Load
Figure 6.3: Graph deflection of the beams
AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD (2019848452)
28
Material Length,m Width,m Thickness, m
Aluminium 0.99800 0.01930 0.00652
Brass 1.00500 0.02000 0.00600
Mild Steel 0.99900 0.02036 0.00400
Table 6.9: Experimental Data
Beam max, deflection, mm

Load,N
Aluminium Brass Mild Steel
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.80 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.70 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68
Table 6.10: The deflection of the Beam
For aluminium,W must not exceed 20N

L = 400mm
D = 100mm
Young Modulus of Aluminium, Etheoretical = 210GPa

Young Modulus of Brass, Etheoretical = 70GPa
Young Modulus of Mild Steel, Etheoretical = 100GPa
29
Figure 6.4: Graph of Load vs Deflection
Given,
I = Moment of inertia
b = Width of the beam
h = Thickness of the beam
R = Radius of curvature
L = Distance between support span
y = Deflection
w = Load
E = Young Modulus
M = Moment
30
Aluminium
MR
The elastic modulus of the beams, E=
I
L2
Radius of Curvature, R ¿
8y
( 0.4 m)2
¿
8(0.15 ×10−3 m)
¿ 133.33 m
Moment, M ¿w×d
¿ 2 ×0.1
¿ 0.2 Nm
bh3
Moment of Inertia, I ¿
12
(0.0193 m)( 0.00652m)3

¿
12
¿ 4.458 ×10−10 m4
The elastic modulus of the beams, Eexperimental
MR
E=
I
(0.2 Nm)(133.33 m)
¿
( 4.458 ×10−10 m 4 )
¿ 59.82GPa
Etheoretical −Eexperimental
Percentageerror ¿ | E theoretical | ×100 %
( 70GPa )−(59.82GPa)
¿ | 70 GPa
×100 %|
¿ 14.54 %
31
Brass
MR
I
L2
8y
(0.4 m)2
¿
8(0.12 ×10−3 m)
¿ 166.67 m
Moment, M ¿w×d
¿ 2 ×0.1
¿ 0.2 Nm
bh3
12
(0.02 m)(0.006 m)3
¿
12
¿ 3.6 ×10−10 m4
MR
E=
I
(2 N)(0.1m)(166.67 m)
¿
( 4.458 ×10−10 m4 )
¿ 92.59 GPa
( 100GPa )−(92.59 GPa)

¿ | 70GPa |
× 100 %
¿ 7.41 %
32
Mild Steel
MR
I
L2
8y
(0.4 m)2
¿
8(0.19 ×10−3 m)
¿ 105.26 m
Moment, M ¿w×d
¿ 2 ×0.1
¿ 0.2 Nm
bh3
12
(0.02036 m)( 0.004 m)3
¿
12
¿ 1.086 ×10−10 m4
MR
E=
I
(2 N)( 0.1m)(105.26 m)
¿
(1.086× 10−10 m4)
¿ 193.8 GPa
( 210 GPa )−(193.8 GPa)

¿ | 70GPa |
×100 %
¿ 7.71 %
33
AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY (2019717427)
Dimensions Of The Beam
MATERIALS LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS (m)

(m) (m)
ALUMINIUM 0.9980 0.0193 0.0065
BRASS 1.0050 0.0200 0.0060
MILD STEEL 0.9990 0.0204 0.0040
Table 6.11: Dimensions of the beams
Support span = 100mm

Distance between load = 400mm

LOAD
Materials
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68
Table 6.12: The deflection recorded
34
Load VS Deflection
1.8
1.6
Series
1.4 1
1.2 Series
2
Deflection
1
Series
0.8 3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 6.5: Graph deflection of the beams
35
7.0 DISCUSSIONS
Based on the result of experiment conducted, there are three results that are sought
and obtained from this experiment. This is because there are three different specimens used
namely aluminium, brass and mild steel. After all the required data were obtained from this
experiment, all the data was collected and placed in the table for the computation process.
However, there are difference in the value of the Young’s modulus (E) when comparing the
values between experiment and theory. The percentage error is found after using the method
of difference between the values obtained from the experiments and the theory. The equation
is written below to get the percentage error:
THEORITICALVALUE −EXPERIMENTALVALUE
×100 %
THEORITICAL VALUE
The values for experimentally are determined by different loads which is 2.0N l4N,
6N, 8.5N, 10N, 12N, 14N, and 16N. So, each load is applied to each specimen to find out the
deflection of every specimen. Next, the deflection value of the beam has been consolidated in
the form of a graph against the load for each specimen. So, it can easily see the difference
value for each of the specimen. The percentage error between the theoretical and
experimental values can be observed in Table. First of all, theoretically can be concluded that
Mild Steel has the highest Modulus of Elasticity followed by Brass and then Aluminium.
Through this experiment, even has higher percentage error, it still showed that Mild Steel the
most elastic followed by Brass and Aluminium.
Firstly, mild steel specimen was used as a specimen in the bending beam experiment,
so from the average of the young modulus result, Mild Steel beam’s young modulus of
experiment is 177.7GPa but for the theory value is 200GPa. The percentage error between
theoretical and the values of Mild Steel beam’s young modulus of experiment is 11.15%.
Secondly, aluminium specimen was used as a specimen in the bending beam experiment. The
result of the calculation had showed that the value average of the young modulus result of
experiment is lower than the young modulus value of theory. Aluminium beam’s young
modulus of experiment is 56.25GPa but for the theory value is 69GPa. The percentage error
between theoretical and the values of Aluminium beam’s young modulus of experiment is
18.87%.
Lastly, brass beam specimen was used as a specimen in the bending beam experiment.
The result of the calculation had showed that the value of young modulus of experiment is
36
slightly different compared to the theory value which only 2.86% of percentage error. Brass
beam’s young modulus of experiment is about 94.22GPa compared to the theory but for but
for the theory 97GPa.
However, during experiment may there are several possible causes for error in
experimenting and computation of value. Among the factors that may affect the decision of
experiment is human error. This experiment was conducted involving humans with a
probability of error from human. The type of error is in terms of readings and procedure such
as parallax error and precision error and even minor errors can make a difference in the
result, which can result in relatively high percent error values. Next, error can occur during
assembling the experiment including calibrating the gauge to zero because the gauge is very
sensitive to the slight change of deflection of the beam. Hence, it causes the value to be
difference and affect the calculation. But all the error can be overcome by in various ways,
such as repeating a reading or process.
37
Three beams with different kind of materials were used for this experiment. All beams
were same in term of length but different cross section area. For their theoretical Young
Modulus, E, for mild steel its young modulus is 210GPa, while for aluminum is 69GPa and
brass is 97GPa. When loads were exerted on the beam, the deflection were taken and the
young modulus from experiment can be calculated and compared with the theoretical values.
From the experiment the young modulus for mild steel is 175.39GPa, brass is 94.23GPa and
aluminum is 55.89GPa. By comparing between theoretical and experimental value,
differences can be seen. The percentage error for the three of the beams is 20.16% for
aluminum, 2.86% for brass and 16.48% for mild steel. From the deflection table, brass beam
deflects less than aluminum followed by mild steel.
Furthermore, there might be some errors for the data that had been recorded during
the experiment. There are few possible sources of error that might be happens and affects the
value of the data that were obtained. First, the error may come from parallax error which is
the error that occur due to the position of the eye that is not perpendicular to the scale of the
extension gauge when recording the data. To overcome this, eye must be ensured to be
perpendicular to the gauge and scale of the instrument. Next, error may come from the
systematic error. Systematic error is where the apparatus may have a decrease in its
functionality as it has been used a lot of times before. In order to overcome this error,
When load is subjected to the beam, either on a single point or distributed along the beam,
deflection can be seen occur on the beam. The deflection diagram of the longitudinal axis that
passes through the centroid of each cross-sectional area of the beam is called the elastic
curve, E. There are other methods that can be used to determine the modulus of elasticity of
material. Slope of a stress-strain curve during tensile test can be used to gain the young
modulus of the material as shown below by using calculus to find expression for the
deflection of loaded beams;
i) MILD STEEL
W 1−W 2 16−2
∅ ¿ ¿
Y 2−Y 1 ( 0.00168−0.00019 )
∅ ¿ 9395.973
Finding the first moment of inertia,
38
b h3
I ¿
12
( 0.02063 )( 0.004 )3
I ¿
12
I ¿ 1.1003 ×10−10 m4
Finding E Experimental,
∅ x L2
E ¿
I ×8
( 9395.973 ) ( 0.1 )( 0.4 )2

E ¿
( 1.1003× 10−10 ) ( 8 )
E ¿ 170.789 GPa
ii) ALUMINUM
W 1−W 2 16−2
∅ ¿ ¿
Y 2−Y 1 ( 0.00128−0.00015 )
∅ ¿ 12389.38
b h3
I ¿
12
( 0.01930 )( 0.00652)3
I ¿
12
I ¿ 4.4578 × 10−10 m4
∅ x L2
E ¿
I ×8
39
( 12389.38 )( 0.1 ) ( 0.4 )2
E ¿
( 4.4578× 10−10 ) ( 8 )
E ¿ 55.585 GPa
iii) BRASS
W 1−W 2 16−2
∅ ¿ ¿
Y 2−Y 1 ( 0.00094−0.00012 )
∅ ¿ 17073.17
b h3
I ¿
12
( 0.0200 ) ( 0.00600 )3
I ¿
12
I ¿ 3.600 ×10−10 m 4
∅ x L2
E ¿
I ×8
( 17073.17 )( 0.1 )( 0.4 )2

E ¿
( 3.600 × 10−10 ) ( 8 )
40
E ¿ 94.85 GPa
41
1. Compare the value of E obtained from this method with their theoretical
value.
BEAMS THEORY EXPERIMENT
(GPa) (GPa)
ALUMINIUM 68 55.85
BRASS 96 94.24
MILD STEEL 209 177.05
Table 7.1: Results of Modulus of Elasticity for theoretical and experimental
As can be seen from the tabulated table, there is differences in between values of
modulus of elasticity experimentally and theoretically. Values of aluminum, the theoretical
value for modulus of elasticity is 68 GPa while the experimental value for modulus elasticity
is 55.85 GPa. Values of brass, the theoretical value for modulus elasticity is 96 GPa while the
experimental value for modulus elasticity is 94.24 GPa. Values of mild steel, the theoretical
value for modulus elasticity is 209 GPa while the experimental value for modulus elasticity is
177.05 GPa.
2. Calculate errors between the experimental data and theoretical value.
BEAMS ERROR (%)

ALUMINIUM 17.87
BRASS 1.83
MILD STEEL 15.29
Table 7.2: Results of percentage of errors
PERCENTAGE ERROR:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑥 100%

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Aluminium : = 68 GPa – 55.85 GPa x 100%

68 GPa
= 17.87%
Brass : = 96 GPa – 94.24 GPa x 100%

96 GPa
= 1.83%
42
Mild Steel : = 209 GPa – 177.05 GPa x 100%
209 GPa
= 15.29 %
3. Comment on the result.
Throughout the experiment, values of data, calculations and results

obtained from three types of beams that had been used in the experiment,
which was aluminium, brass and mild steel. Each item gave different
responding results that can be comprehend. What can be commented was
the result for experimental of modulus elasticity was lower than the
theoretical value of modulus elasticity. Later on the graph can be related by
displaying the relations between the load and the maximum beam
deflection are directly proportional as where the load increases, so thus the
maximum deflection will.
4. State other methods to determine E of the materials.
Another method that can be considered in obtaining the Elasticity of

materials is the natural frequency vibration method or also known as
impact and resonance method that had been quite useful in determining the
Young’s Modulus. The method can be held by letting a beam stuck in
allowing it to ring and displays the recorded sound spectrum to show the
characteristics frequency of vibration.
43
The value of Elastic Modulus, E between the experimental theoretical are difference
because of error occurred during this experiment. The value of Etheoretical for Aluminium is the
lowest compared to Brass and Mild Steel which is 70Gpa. However, the value of E experimental is
lowest which is 59.82GPa. The value of E for Brass between the experimental and theoretical
values is slightly difference which 92.59GPa and 70Gpa respectively. Brass has smallest
difference values compared to two other materials. For Mild Steel, E experimental is greater than
Etheoretical which is 193.8GPa and 100GPa.
These are the percentage errors that has been calculated in this experiment:
Types of beam Eexperimental, GPa Etheoretical, GPa Percentageerror, %
Aluminium 59.82 210 14.54
Brass 92.59 70 7.41
Mild Steel 193.8 100 7.71

Table 7.3: Percentage of errors
Based on the table, the percentage error values for Aluminium are higher than brass
and mild steel. This is because Aluminium is brittle material and cannot retain much strength.
Errors in this experiment may be happen because of two factors. First is apparatus error and
secondly human error. Apparatus error includes inaccurate dial gauge, apparatus not balance
and beam already deformed. Human error includes wrong observation or lack of experience
doing this experiment.
44
1. Compare the value of E obtained from this method with their theoretical value.
As can be seen from the tabulated table below, there are variations experimentally and
theoretically between values of the elasticity modulus. Aluminum values, the theoretical
value for the elasticity modulus is 68 GPa whereas the experimental value for the
elasticity modulus is 55,85 GPa. Brass values, the theoretical value for elasticity of the
modulus is 96 GPa while the experimental value for elasticity of the modulus is 94.24
GPa. Values of mild steel, the theoretical value for elasticity of the modulus is 209 GPa
while the experimental value for elasticity of the modulus is 177.05 GPa.
BEAMS THEORY EXPERIMENT(G

(GPa) Pa)
ALUMINIUM 68 55.85
BRASS 96 94.24
MILD STEEL 209 177.05
Table 7.4: Results of Modulus of Elasticity for theoretical and experimental
2. Calculate errors between the experimental data and theoretical value.
BEAMS ERROR (%)

ALUMINIUM 17.87
BRASS 1.83
MILD STEEL 15.29
Table 7.5: Results of percentage of errors
PERCENTAGE ERROR:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑥 100%

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Aluminium : = 68 GPa – 55.85 GPa x 100%

68 GPa
= 17.87%
Brass : = 96 GPa – 94.24 GPa x 100%

96 GPa
= 1.83%
45
Mild Steel : = 209 GPa – 177.05 GPa x 100%
209 GPa
= 15.29 %
3. Comment on the results

Information, measurements and results obtained during the experiment from three
types of beams used in the experiment that was aluminum, brass and mild steel. Every
element has provided different results which can be understood. The result for modulus
elasticity experimental was lower than the theoretical value of modulus elasticity which can
be commented on. Further on the graph, the relationship between the load and the maximum
deflection of the beam is directly proportional as the load increases, so the maximum
deflection is.
4. State other methods to determine E, of the materials.

Another approach that can be considered in obtaining material elasticity is the
approach of natural frequency vibration, or also known as the method of impact and
resonance, which was very useful in determining the Young's Modulus. The approach can be
carried by allowing a beam to ring and showing the registered spectrum of sound to demons.
46
8.0 CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, the objectives have been achieved after performing and completing
this experiment. From the experiment, it can be concluding that the higher the modulus of
elasticity of the material the stronger the material. In addition, for the result in experiment we
can get the reaction force, maximum bending stress and maximum shear stress in the straight
beam from a bending test for each type of specimen. However, we have found the result
slight difference whenever compared the experimental and theoretical value. The best
outcome of experiments is that we can minimize the error that may occur. The way to avoid
the error is by the reading been taken parallel to the eyes and take the average of the repeated
values to get more accurate values. But since the percentage is less than 20% so we can
conclude that this experiment is succeed with the objective archived.
47
In conclusion, the objectives of the experiment were successfully obtained. The

Elastic Modulus, E, of the beam specimen were obtained by using method of the deflection
for Mild Steel, Aluminum, and Brass. When the validations were conducted between the
experimental value and the theoretical value, the values show that its slightly different. This
may because the material that were used for the experiment were affected by surrounding. In
addition, different material shows different elastic curve. Therefore, this experiment is
succeeded because the percentage error between theoretical and experimental value are not
that big.
48
The study is to determine the elastic modulus (E) of beam specimen by the method of
deflection of Aluminium, Bras and Mild Steel is can be considered as successful. After that,
the validation of data between experimental and theoretical value was also consider achieved
throughout the experiment. In conclusion, the deflections in beams under certain length
depends on the materials, point of force applied and the applied forces.
49
The experiment was done successfully in order to achieve the objective of the
experiment. The experiment was performed on three different types of beam and charged to
various load and the results were reported in data. From the experiment, it can be inferred that
the beam deflection under a force depends on its size, shape, material and point of application
of force.
50
In conclusion, the experiment's aims were achieved successfully. For Mild Steel,
Aluminum, and Brass, the Elastic Modulus, E of the beam specimen was obtained using
deflection process. When the validations between the experimental value and the theoretical
value is performed, the values indicate that it is slightly different. This may be because
surroundings have contaminated the substance which was used for the experiment.
Additionally, different material shows different elastic curve. This experiment is therefore
successful, since the percentage error between theoretical and experimental value is not that
large.
51
REFERENCE
1. Structure10. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2020, from

https://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/bikes/design/desi_64.htm
2. Farsi, A., Pullen, A., Latham, J., Bowen, J., Carlsson, M., Stitt, E., & Marigo, M.
(2017, April 11). Full deflection profile calculation and Young's modulus
optimisation for engineered high performance materials. Retrieved July 03, 2020,
from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46190
3. R.C. Hibbeler (2017). Mechanics of Materials: Global Edition. Harlow, United
Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
4. Introduction to Engineering: Shear Force and Bending Moment. (2000, October 05).
Retrieved July 03, 2020, from
http://people.virginia.edu/~pjm8f/engr162/beam/shear_force_and_bending_moment.h
tm
52
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Data of features for any specimen
Appendix 2: Deflection of beam data for each specimen
53
Appendix 3: Division of task for each member through whatsapp
54

Pure Bending in Beam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pure Bending in Beam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Programme : Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)

MEC 424 - LABORATORY REPORT

LAB 1 TITLE: Pure Bending in Beam

REPORT SUBMISSION: 5 JULY 2020

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

2 : ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY

3 : AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI

4 : AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY

5 : AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

2 : AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD

3 : AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI

4 : ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY

5 : AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

2 : AHMAD BASYIR BIN DAUD

3 : ALIF FADHLI BIN SAULY

4 : AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY

5 : AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI

3 : AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY

4 : AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI

5 : AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDIN

3 : AIMAN AFIQ BIN MOSLY

4 : AHMAD NAJMUDIN BIN MAT RABI

5 : AHMAD SYAMIL BIN SHAHRUDIN

LIST OF FIGURES iii

5.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES 10

Figure 1.1 Example of I-shaped beam and bending of beam

Figure 1.1: Example of I-shaped beam and bending of beam

Figure 2.1: Bending of an I-beam

The Euler-Bernoulli equation for the quasistatic bending of slender, isotropic,

Figure 2.3: Bending moments in beam

1. Mild Steel Aluminum and Brass beams.

Figure 4.1: Dial Gauge

Figure 4.2: Loads hung on beams

Figure 4.3: Type of beam and 1m Steel Ruler

Figure 4.5: Equipment Beam Setup

7. Continues with increment of loads by 2N till 16N

Deflection of Beam (mm)

Figure 6.1: Deflection of Bean Against Load

Equation that use in calculation;

Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity (E) for aluminium

Data for aluminium specimen:

Breadth, b (m) 0.0193

¿ 4.456 × 10−10 (m¿¿ 4) ¿

Load, W (N) R= Moment, Modulus of Elasticity, E =

Theoretical Value Experimental Value

Data for brass specimen:

Breadth, b (m) 0.02

¿ 3.6 ×10−10( m¿¿ 4) ¿

2 0.42 M = 2 × 0.1 (0.2)(166.67)

14 0.42 M = 14 × 0.1 (1.4)(24.39)

Average modulus of elasticity, E

Theoretical Value Experimental Value

Data for brass specimen:

Breadth, b (m) 0.02036

¿ 1.086 ×10−10( m¿¿ 4)¿

Load W, (N) Deflection of Radius, R Moment, M M = Elastic modulus, E

2 0.19 x10ˉ³ m R =R=

4 0.42 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 4 x 0.1 = E=

6 0.63 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 6 x 0.1 = E=

8 0.84 x10ˉ³ m 0.4² R = M = 8 x 0.1 = E=