NAME: Mubarak Afolabi

STUDENT ID: 00671960

COURSE: Mechanical
Engineering
 BENDING OF
BEAM REPORT
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
THEORY 2
Type chapter title (level 3) 3
DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS 4
PROCEDURE 5
RESULTS 6
DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………………………
7
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8
REFERENCE ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this experiment is to apply the fundamental bending formula to clarify
the concepts of elastic bending.
2. This entails a thorough examination of the impact that a material's dimensional
properties and Young's modulus (E) have on the bending stress (σ) and radius of
curvature (R).
3. This study consisted of three separate experiments. First, an analysis of elastic
bending theory was conducted in order to find relationships between Young's
modulus and material deflections under applied stresses. The second experiment then
included applying a load to a beam in order to measure its radius of curvature and
assess deflection. In order to identify connections between stress and the second
moment of area itself, the third experiment focused on studying the second moment of
area.
4. Meticulous examination was used in all three trials, yielding exact and accurate
results. The first experiment showed that a higher Young's modulus is associated with
a lower beam deflection. In the second experiment, it was shown that a smaller radius
of curvature correlated with increased beam deflection. The third experiment
concluded that a beam's ability to tolerate stress is improved by an increased second
moment of area.
THEORY

The Bending Moment relation shows that for any point on a beam, at any transverse section
of the beam. y
x

M E σ
= =
I R y Eq.1 R

Hence, M M

EI RM
R= E= y
M Eq. 2 or, I Eq. 3 Neutral Axis Fig. 4 Beam in Bending

M, is the bending moment, I is the second moment of area about a transverse axis through a
neutral axis, E is Young’s modulus, y is the distance measured from the Neutral axis, σ is the
axial stress (at distance, y) and R is the radius of curvature.

(ii) If the bending over the bridge gauge length, l (or the beam span length, L), is circular, then
(for the bridge gauge, with length, l);

A
2
l
=δ ( 2 R−δ ) C O D

4 Eq. 4 l/2
or, L/2 R
δ

Note:
thus,
Using geometric relationships
for circles

CO.DO = AO.BO
l 2 =8 Rδ−4 δ 2 Eq. 5 B Hence,

(CO)2 = (DO)2 = AO.BO

In beams, δ is small and δ 2 may be neglected, therefore,
 l2 2
R= R=
L
8δ for Bridge Gauge (or, 8δ for the beam Span ) Eq. 6

DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS.

2.1) Vernier Calliper and tape

measure
It is a device that
visualise the accurate
measurement reading
between two
markings for example
measuring the width of beam.
This device can provide the
accuracy like 0.01mm which is
very tiny number. The Vernier
Calliper was used to
process the test was digital
Vernier Calliper and all the
readings were taken in written
form. The width and the
thickness of the beam will be
measured with this. The device
is shown in the figure 1.
2.1) Vernier Calliper and tape measure It is a device that visualise the accurate
measurement reading between two markings for example measuring the width of beam.
This device can provide the accuracy like 0.01mm which is very tiny number. The Vernier
Calliper was used to process the test was digital Vernier Calliper and all the readings were
taken in written form. The width and the thickness of the beam will be measured with this.
2.2) Bridge Gauge It is a Gauge that will be used to ensure the bending moment is not
exceeded 11Nm,
It is a manual Gauge that is always required to set to zero before proceeding to the next step.
2.3) The supports were there to hold up the beam on to its position so the experiment can be
carried out.
2.4) Metal Beam It is a piece of work that experiment will be carried on, it is fairly
rectangular and with specific dimensions length, width and thickness.
2.5) Weight hanger and weights the weight hanger is approximately 200g made from metal,
which can easily be hanged on the beam to hold the weight on the beam. And the weights are
in form of circular plates of 0.5kg each there are many plates so the weight can be adjusted in
0.5 kgs. As plates are added weight will be increased.
2.6) Dial Gauge It is a digital device, that is used to measure the difference on the plain
surface, but in this case this device will be used to measure the lift up of the beam from the
middle this device is very accurate. It can measure from 0.01mm up to its max capacity
which can be varies like 30mm to 300mm. This device requires a clamp to be hanged with
and to be positioned on its work piece.
PROCEDURE
Three experiments with three distinct objectives were conducted as part of the experiment
known as "Bending of Beams." The thickness and diameter of the beam were measured prior
to doing any testing. After three repetitions, the average was calculated.

TEST 1
The beam was first placed onto the supports with a 700mm space between the point of
contact between the supports and the beam. Next, the Bridge Gauge was placed on the beam.
On the inner side of the supports, the gauge was positioned 45 mm from the left support.
Subsequently, weight hangers were installed 300 mm from the places of support on the
outside of the supports and on both sides of the beam.
TEST 2
This test and test 1 were comparable. The location of the weight and weight hanging was one
of the few variations. The two beam supports were spaced 700 mm apart from one another. In
order to load the weight, the hanger was first placed in the centre. Next, the bridge gauge was
placed as normal, 45 mm from the point where the support touched the beam. Next, the gauge
is set to zero to ensure excellent precision and calibration. Following the loading of 5 kg of
weight onto the hanger, the beam was raised on both sides to create a curve. Furthermore, the
Gauge was used to get the reading.
TEST 3
Because a new instrument was utilized in a different fixed position for this test, it differed
slightly from the previous two. To do that, the dial gauge was placed in the centre of the
support's points touching the beam, the weight hangers were positioned as they were in test 1,
and the bridge gauge was taken out of the beam and reset to its position. It was situated 350
millimetres apart from both supports. Once more, the weight hangers were placed 300 mm
from the outside of the supports. In order to do this test, 5N was added to either side of the
beam one at a time, and readings were taken until the 35N was reached.
RESULTS
X Deflection reading Deflection Reading /1000
(in MM) (in MM) (in MM)
45 52 0.052
90 52 0.052
135 52 0.052
180 53 0.053
225 53 0.053
FIGURE 1
Position, X Deflection Moment Radius, R

(mm) Reading Reading/1000 (N.mm) (mm)

45 -6 0.006 1125 117187
90 -12 0.012 2250 58593.75
135 -18 0.018 3375 39062.5
180 -24 0.024 4500 29296.9
225 -29 0.029 5625 24245.7

FIGURE 2
Loading Deflection, Deflection, Moment, M R
(Loading) (Average)
(n.mm)
Mass Load (mm)
0.0 0
0.5 5 0.65 0.67 0.66 1500 92803.0
1.0 10 1.30 1.33 1.315 3000 46577.9
1.5 15 1.96 1.99 1.975 4500 31012.7
2.0 20 2.62 2.65 2.635 6000 23244.8
2.5 25 3.28 3.3 3.29 7500 181617.0
3.0 30 3.93 3.97 3.95 9000 15506.3
3.5 35 4.40
FIGURE 3
The cantilever was set up as
shown in the above picture,
with the beam connected
at one end by a secure fixing.
The dial test indicator was set
up and secured above the load
application point,
which was 200mm from the
beam fixture.
The frame was then tapped
lightly to steady the
experiment before the text
indicator
was zeroed.
Loads of 100g increments
were then applied to the
weights hanger up to 500g
with
the deflection being recorded
after each step. Then frame
was again tapped lightly
after each increment to ensure
the reading was accurate.
The Young's Modulus (E) of
the materials was given
on the equipment, as shown in
the image on the
right.

The cantilever was set up as

shown in the above picture,
with the beam connected
at one end by a secure fixing.
The dial test indicator was set
up and secured above the load
application point,
which was 200mm from the
beam fixture.
The frame was then tapped
lightly to steady the
experiment before the text
indicator
was zeroed.
Loads of 100g increments
were then applied to the
weights hanger up to 500g
with
the deflection being recorded
after each step. Then frame
was again tapped lightly
after each increment to ensure
the reading was accurate.
The Young's Modulus (E) of
the materials was given
on the equipment, as shown in
the image on the
right.

DISCUSSION

Three tests were conducted with the goal of determining the juvenile modulus, a mechanical
indicator of the material's stiffness. The beam's curvature was determined by applying force
at specific locations along the beam. In test 1, for instance, force and weights were applied to
the sides, but the measurement was made using a bridge gauge. In test 3, weights were
similarly applied to the sides, but this time, the measurement was made using a dial gauge.
The test findings were documented in the tables. In test 1, the force remained constant, and
the deflection was measured at specific locations along the beam because the weight was the
same, so the deflection did not change. At position 45mm, the deflection was recorded at
0.042mm, and at the other locations, it was recorded at 0.040mm. This is a very small
difference that could have happened due to human error or error during reading. Test 2
differed slightly from the other two tests, though, in that the weight and force applied in the
first test were on the sides, whereas in the second test the force was put directly in the centre
of the beam, meaning the sides would have been raised and the Bridge Gauge would have
shown a negative value.
A bridge gauge serves as an instrumental device for quantifying the deflection of a beam at
designated points. The mass of the bridge gauge can be conceptualized as a force exerted
upon the beam, albeit of such negligible magnitude that it exerts negligible influence on the
test outcomes. Furthermore, the close spatial proximity of the bridge gauge to the reactive
forces, emanating from the beam's supporting structures, ensures its negligible impact on the
experimental proceedings. As previously articulated, the entirety of the dataset emanated
from the findings of the initial test. The deflection of the beam exhibited constancy, or near
constancy, when subjected to lateral forces.
In Test 2, a 50N force was applied at the beam's centre, and the deflection at various points
along the beam was measured using the Bridge Gauge. The position (x) and the deflection
rate were found to have a linear relationship, in line with theoretical predictions; the
deflection increased as the distance from the supports increased. In contrast, as the distance
(x) decreased, positions near the supports saw a decrease in deflection. The experimental
values closely matched the theoretical predictions, with very small errors, despite small
discrepancies. For example, the observed deflection at x = 135 was 0.014, which differed
slightly from the expected 0.015. Similarly, the measured deflection at x = 225 was 0.024
instead of the expected 0.025.
In Test 3, The dial gauge was positioned in the centre of the beam, and 5N to 35N of force
were applied on either side. The relationship between the load and deflection is linear, based
on the theoretical graph. This indicates that as the load lowers, the value of deflection will
likewise decrease. The load value increases with the value of deflection.The experimental
graph nearly perfectly illustrates the linear relationship between load and deflection; the
theoretical and experimental results' graphs hardly differ at all.

CONCLUSION