ENGD 2110 – Solid Mechanics

Lab 2 - Beams -
Part 1 (bending
stress)
Lab Tutor: Farukh F

Giorgos Mousoullos - P Number: P2549520

Objective:
Measure the direct stress in a loaded beam due to bending and compare it to the measured value.

Apparatus:
 Strain gauged beam.
 Loading rig, weight carrier and weights.
 Strain gauge bridge.
 Vernier calliper.
 Meter ruler for the distances.

Procedure:
1. Measure the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam provided. Measure the beam span and
note the Young’s modulus for the beam material.
2. Connect the gauges to a strain gauge bridge in half bridge configuration and set the gauge
factor.
3. Set up the loading and measurement positions as instructed. Zero the bridge with weight
carrier in place.
4. Adding incremental loads up to 50N. Measure the strain. Repeat the strain measurements in
the reverse order by removing incremental loads back to zero and take the average of the
two strain readings for a given load.
5. Plot strain (ordinate) against load (abscissa). Calculate the bending strain for the beam
configuration and loading conditions and plot on the same axes.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 for additional beam configuration and loading conditions as instructed.

Computation:
1. Compute the I value of the beam using the cross-sectional dimensions.
2. Compute reactions as a function of the applied load, P.
3. Compute bending moment at the strain gauge measurement position. You must show your
working.
4. Compute bending stress at the surface of the measurement position for each load applied.

5. Using Hooke's law, calculate the associated strain arising from the stress measured in (4).
Beam Parameters:

Results and Calculations:

Measured Data:
Load (Kg) Set 1 Set 2
E(x10-6) Applied E(x10-6) Released E(x10-6) Applied E(x10-6) Released
0 0 0 0 0
1 65 66 66 67
2 131 131 132 132
3 196 197 198 198
4 263 263 264 264
5 330 330 330 330

I value:

b h3 b ₁ h ₁3
I= ( ) (
12
−2
12 )
b= 19.9mm

19.9−1.57
b1= =9.17 mm
2
h= 12.74mm

h1= 12.74- 2 x 1.66 = 9.42mm

b h3 b ₁ h ₁3 19.9× 12.743 9.17 ×9.423

I= ( ) (
12
−2
12
=¿ ) (
12
−2 ) (
12
¿ 2151.57 mm4)
Reactions on the applied load P:

C
A B

291.5mm 351.5mm

Ra Rb

Ra+Rb-P=0 ⇒ Ra+Rb=P

M@A: -(0.3515) P+0.703Rb=0 Note: 1 Kg = 9.81 N

0.3515P=0.703Rb

0.3515 P P
Rb= =
0.703 2
M@B: -(0.3515) P+0.703Ra=0

0.3515 P P
⇒Ra= =
0.703 2
P 9.81
 Ra=Rb=
2= 2
=4.9 N (For P=9.81N)
P 19.62
 Ra=Rb=
2= 2
=9.81 N (For P= 19.62N)
P 29.43
 Ra=Rb=
2= 2
=14.72 N (For P=29.43N)
P 39.24
 Ra=Rb=
2= 2
=19.62 N (For P=39.24N)
P 49.05
 Ra=Rb=
2= 2
=24.53 N (For P=49.05N)
Bending Moment:

Bending Moment (M)= Force(f) x Distance(d)= Nmm

For P=9.81N:

 At A = 0Nmm

 At B= 0Nmm

 At C= 4.9 x 291.5 = 1428.35Nmm

 At P= 4.9 x 351.5
Bending Moment Diagram
2000
= 1722.35Nmm
1800
1600
1400
Bending Moment

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Distance Along Beam

For P=19.62N:

 At A= 0Nmm

 At B= 0Nmm

 At C= 9.81 x 291.5 = 2859.62Nmm

Bending Moment Diagram  At P= 9.81 x 351.5

10000
9000 = 3448.22Nmm
8000
7000
Bending Moment

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Distance Along Beam
For P=29.43N:

 At A= 0Nmm

 At B= 0Nmm

 At C= 14.72 x 291.5 = 4290.88Nmm

 At P= 14.72 x
Bending Moment Diagram
10000
351.5 =
9000
8000
5174.08Nmm
7000
Bending Moment

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Distance Along Beam

For P=39.24N:

 At A= 0Nmm

 At B= 0Nmm

 At C= 19.62 x 291.5 = 5719.23Nmm

 At P= 19.62 x 351.5 = 6896.43Nmm

 Bending Moment Diagram
10000
9000
8000
7000
Bending Moment

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Distance Along Beam

For P=49.05N:

 At A= 0Nmm

 At B= 0Nmm

 At C= 24.53 x 291.5 = 7150.50Nmm

 At P = 24.53 x
Bending Moment Diagram
10000
351.5=
9000
8000
8622.30Nmm
7000
Bending Moment

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Distance Along Beam

Bending Stress Equation:

Μy
σ=
I
y= distance from neutral axis (9.42/2 + 1.66 = 6.37)

For P= 9.81N:

Μ y 1428.35 × 6.37
σ= = =4.23 N /m m 2
I 2151.57

For P= 19.62N:
Μ y 2859.62×6.37
σ= = =8.47 N /m m2
I 2151.57

For P=29.43N:
Μ y 4290.88 ×6.37
σ= = =12.70 N /m m 2
I 2151.57

For P=39.42N:
Μ y 5719.23 × 6.37
σ= = =16.93 N /mm 2
I 2151.57

For P= 49.05N:
Μ y 7150.50 × 6.37
σ= = =21.17 N /m m2
I 2151.57
Hooke’s Law:
σ
ε=
Ε
Converting theoretical stress to theoretical strain:
For P=9.81N:

σ 4.23 ×106 −6
ε= = 9
=61.30 ×10
Ε 69× 10

For P= 19.62N:

σ 8.47× 106 −6
ε= = =122.75 ×10
Ε 69× 109

For P= 29.43N:
 σ 12.70 ×10 6 −6
ε= = 9
=181.05× 10
Ε 69 × 10

For P= 39.42N:

σ 16.93 ×10 6 −6
ε= = 9
=245.36× 10
Ε 69 × 10

For P= 49.05N:

σ 21.17 × 106 −6
ε= = 9
=306.81× 10
Ε 69× 10

εExperimental:
Load (kg) Average Applied ε ( x 10−6 ) Average Released ε ( x 10−6 )
0 0 0
1 65.6 66.5
2 131.5 131.5
3 197 197.5
4 263.5 263.5
5 330 330

Percentage Difference:
Experimental value−Theoretical Value
Difference %= ×100
Theoretical value

For P=9.81N:
65.6−61.3
Difference%= x 100=7.01%
61.3

For P = 19.62N:
 131.5−122.75
Difference%= x 100=7.13 %
122.75

For P=29.43N:
197−181.05
Difference%= x 100=8.81%
181.05

For P= 39.42N:
263.5−245.36
Difference%= x 100=7.39 %
245.36

For P= 49.05N:
330−306.81
Difference%= x 100=7.55 %
306.81

Load/Kg vs Strain/ε(x10^-6)
350 330
306.81
300
263.5
245.36
250
Strain/ε(x10^-6)

197
200 181.05

150 131.5
122.75

100
65.6
61.3
50

0
1 2 3 4 5

Load/Kg

ε experimental ε theoretical

Discussion:
The experimental findings were better than the theoretical results, as shown by the results and
graph. This demonstrates that the two values differ by a slight amount. The error was between 7 and
8% for all of the values, indicating that the percentage discrepancy was due to experimental causes
and that there were no particular differences in just one point. Furthermore, it demonstrates that
the experiment was carefully carried out, with no significant irregularities impacting the precision of
the findings. These errors may have been caused by human or apparatus confusion. Because of the
human error, the apparatus was not assembled as it should have been, causing some doubt in the
experimental findings. In addition, the proportions of the beam can be unknown. Contraction and
dilation may have induced variations in the beam's dimensions, resulting in the experiment's errors.
To proceed, the graph depicts a load-strain relationship that is strictly proportional. When the load
increases, so does the strain. This demonstrates that the greater the force applied to the beam, the
greater the strain caused. This occurs since the bending moment is proportional to the force
multiplied by the distance. The bending moment value is then used for the formula =My/I, where I
and y are constants, implying that M and have a direct proportional relationship.

Conclusion:
To sum up, the procedure went off without a hitch, with a few slight hiccups. The experiment's goal
has been accomplished. The experimental direct stress was compared to the theoretical direct
stress, and the findings were identical. The graph and the use of formulae have assisted in proving
that load and strain are directly proportional. The load was in kg units and it was converted to
Newtons by using the conversion of 1kg = 9.81N. The experiment gave the expected results and both
experimental and theoretical values were compared and prove similar results.