SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

SARAWAK

MEE 20004 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS

LAB 1: DEFLECTION OF BEAM

Group 12
TEAM MEMBER:
102763101 Jonathan Chia Hung Xiang
101231144 Mudiwa Anthony Chakumhara
104389282 Felicia Jata Ak Francis
102772893 Stanley Kung Chew How
104382951 Ushan Abhishek Hettiarachchi

LECTURER: DR SOON KOK HENG

SUBMISSION DATE:
28 APRIL 2024

1
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
Objective ....................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3
Apparatus .................................................................................................................. 3
.................................................................................................................................. 4
.................................................................................................................................. 4
.................................................................................................................................. 4
Procedure .................................................................................................................. 4
Results .......................................................................................................................... 5
Result of Laboratory.................................................................................................... 5
Result of Hand Calculation ......................................................................................... 6
Graphs ....................................................................................................................... 8
Calculations ..............................................................................................................10
Discussions ..................................................................................................................14
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................16
Appendix ......................................................................................................................17

2
Introduction
The study of beam deflection plays a pivotal role in the fields of civil, mechanical, and aerospace
engineering, forming the basis for understanding how structures withstand applied forces and
deformations. Beams, fundamental structural elements, are designed to carry loads while
resisting bending and deflection. The behaviour of a beam under load is influenced by its
material properties, cross-sectional geometry, and the way the load is applied.

This laboratory experiment focuses on observing the deflection of beams subjected to various
loading conditions to provide practical insights into the theoretical principles of mechanics. By
measuring the deflection caused by known forces, students can gain a deeper understanding of
concepts such as bending moment, shear force, modulus of elasticity, and moment of inertia. The
experiment typically utilizes common beam materials such as steel, aluminium, or brass,
allowing for a comparison of theoretical predictions with actual experimental data.

Objective
- To observe and measure the deflection of beams under different loading conditions.
- To compare experimental results with theoretical values
- To understand the effect of beam material and cross-sectional area on beam deflection.
- To apply principles of structural analysis and mechanics of materials

Methodology
Apparatus
1. A support frame.
2. Pinned support pair.
3. One load hangar.
4. A dial gauge with a 0.01mm accuracy to measuring deflection.
5. Beam specimen.
6. A pair of vernier callipers.
7. A set of 50g weights.

Specimen (materials) used are aluminium, steel, and brass.

Additional information:

It is important to note that the team used a total of three (3) materials. Two variants of each
material were used to compare and fully analyse the added weight and respective

3
deflection effect on materials. The variable concentrated on in this experiment is weight
and material thickness.

Procedure
1) Mount the specimen on a simply supported beam 60cm apart.
2) Place the dial gauge on the mid-section of the distance (max deflection).
3) Place the loading hangar in the mid-section aligned with the dial gauge tip.
4) Calibrate and set the dial gauge to zero reading with the gauge sensing tip
resting on the specimen surface.
5) Verify that the tip rests lightly on the surface of the specimen without exerting
the load.
6) Successively add 50g loads with the weight hangar.
7) Record the hangar load deflection reading.
8) Record the corresponding deflection reading with each incremental load
from the dial gauge.
9) Minimize errors by taking the reading with the gauge perpendicular to the
beam’s longitudinal axis.

4
 10) Safely remove the load from the beam and unload the testing setup.
11) Store the equipment properly placing the specimen in their storage bag and
return experimental setup to their original setup.
12) Repeat the experiment for different loading conditions or beam
configurations to validate the results thud compare experimental and
theoretical results.

Results
Result of Laboratory
Aluminium

a) Dimension = 19.64(w) x 2.92(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.48 -1.47 -2.23 -2.73 -3.47 -4.33

b) Dimension = 25.46(w) x 6.35 (t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.08 -0.16 -0.21 -0.29 -0.36 -0.4

Steel

a) Dimension = 20.49(w) x 3.03(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.25 -0.43 -0.67 -0.94 -1.19 -1.47

b) Dimension = 19.81(w) x 5.38(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.05 -0.11 -0.18 -0.21 -0.27 -0.31

5
Brass

a) Dimension = 19.34(w) x 3.28(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.19 -0.78 -1.2 -1.61 -1.91 -2.42

b) Dimension = 19.09(w) x 4.75(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.1 -0.32 -0.48 -0.63 -0.73 -0.9

Result of Hand Calculation

Aluminium

c) Dimension = 19.64(w) x 2.92(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.774 -1.548 -2.322 -3.095 -3.87 -4.643

d) Dimension = 25.46(w) x 6.35 (t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.058 -0.116 -0.174 -0.232 -0.29 -0.348

Steel

c) Dimension = 20.49(w) x 3.03(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.232 -0.465 -0.697 -0.929 -1.162 -1.394

6
 d) Dimension = 19.81(w) x 5.38(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.043 -0.086 -0.129 -0.172 -0.215 -0.258

Brass

c) Dimension = 19.34(w) x 3.28(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.323 -0.647 -0.971 -1.294 -1.618 -1.941

d) Dimension = 19.09(w) x 4.75(t) mm

Weight (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300

Deflection -0.108 -0.216 -0.324 -0.432 -0.54 -0.647

7
Graphs

Figure 1 Deflection vs Weight Graph (Lab Result)

Discussion

Generally, materials with higher stiffness exhibit less deflection for a given load. Based on the
provided data, steel tends to show the least deflection among the three materials. This suggests that
steel is likely the stiffest material in this comparison. Materials with higher ductility tend to deform
more before failure, resulting in higher deflection. Brass, being a more ductile material than
aluminium and steel, tends to exhibit higher deflection values, especially evident in Brass 1 where
the deflection values are notably higher compared to Aluminium and Steel. The dimensions of the
specimens can also influence deflection. Thicker and wider specimens may exhibit less deflection
compared to thinner and narrower ones, all other factors being equal. This can be observed in the
difference between aluminium 1 and aluminium 2, where aluminium 2, with larger dimensions,
shows slightly lower deflection values. Each material has unique mechanical properties that
influence its deflection behaviour. Steel is known for its high stiffness and strength, resulting in
lower deflection. Aluminium is lighter and less stiff than steel but stiffer than brass. Brass, being
less stiff but more ductile, tends to exhibit higher deflection compared to aluminium and steel. To
conclude the results, based on the provided data, steel appears to be the stiffest material, followed
by aluminium, and then brass. Brass, being more ductile, exhibits higher deflection values
compared to aluminium and steel. The dimensions of the specimens also play a role in influencing
the deflection behaviour of each material.

8
 Figure 2 Weight vs Deflection Graph (Calculated)

Discussion

Similar to the relationship observed in the investigated results, materials with higher stiffness tend
to exhibit less deflection for a given load. In the calculated results, steel tends to show lower
deflection values compared to aluminium and brass, suggesting that steel is likely the stiffest
material in this comparison. The dimensions of the specimens also influence deflection in the
calculated results. Thicker and wider specimens tend to exhibit less deflection compared to thinner
and narrower ones, all other factors being equal. This can be observed in the difference between
aluminium 1 and aluminium 2, where aluminium 2, with larger dimensions, generally shows
slightly lower deflection values. Each material has unique mechanical properties that influence its
deflection behaviour. Similar to the observed relationship in the investigated results, steel tends to
exhibit lower deflection due to its higher stiffness and strength compared to aluminium and brass.
Aluminium is lighter and less stiff than steel but stiffer than brass. Brass, being less stiff but more
ductile, tends to exhibit higher deflection compared to aluminium and steel. Based on the provided
calculated results, steel appears to be the stiffest material, followed by aluminium, and then brass.
Brass, being less stiff but more ductile, tends to exhibit higher deflection values compared to
aluminium and

9
Calculations
𝑃𝑃
FBD:

𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵

a b
L

0 < 𝑥𝑥 < 𝑎𝑎: 𝑎𝑎 < 𝑥𝑥 < 𝐿𝐿:

𝑃𝑃
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴

X
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴
a
X

0 < 𝑥𝑥 < 𝑎𝑎 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 2 ∶ [𝑥𝑥 = 0, 𝑦𝑦 = 0]

ΣM = 0 𝑃𝑃 1
0= � 𝑏𝑏(0)3 � + 𝐶𝐶1 (0) + 𝐶𝐶2
𝑀𝑀 − 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 (𝑥𝑥) = 0 𝐿𝐿 6
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 0 = 0 + 0 + 𝐶𝐶2
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 = 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 = (𝑥𝑥) 𝐶𝐶2 = 0
𝐿𝐿

Σ𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 = 0 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑎𝑎 < 𝑥𝑥 < 𝐿𝐿 [𝑥𝑥 = 0, = ]
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 − 𝑃𝑃 + 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 = 0 ΣM = 0 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒1 = 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒3
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 + 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑀𝑀 − 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 (𝑥𝑥) + 𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑎𝑎) = 0 𝑃𝑃 1 𝑃𝑃 1 1
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 � 𝑏𝑏(𝑎𝑎)2 � + 𝐶𝐶1 = � 𝑏𝑏(𝑎𝑎)2 − 𝐿𝐿(𝑎𝑎 − 𝑎𝑎)2 � + 𝐶𝐶3
𝑀𝑀 = (𝑥𝑥) − 𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑎𝑎) 𝐿𝐿 2 𝐿𝐿 2 2
Σ𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴 = 0 𝐿𝐿 1 + 𝐶𝐶1 = 1 − 0 + 𝐶𝐶3
𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 (𝐿𝐿) − 𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎) = 0 𝑃𝑃
𝑀𝑀 = [𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝐿𝐿(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑎𝑎)] 𝐶𝐶1 = 𝐶𝐶3
𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 (𝐿𝐿) = 𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎) 𝐿𝐿
𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎) [𝑥𝑥 = 𝑎𝑎, 𝑦𝑦 = 𝑦𝑦]
𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 = 0 < 𝑥𝑥 < 𝑎𝑎
𝐿𝐿 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2 = 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒4
𝑑𝑑 2 𝑦𝑦 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 1 3 𝑃𝑃 1 1
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 2 = (𝑥𝑥) � 𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎 � + 𝐶𝐶1 𝑎𝑎 + 𝐶𝐶2 = � 𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎3 − 𝐿𝐿(𝑎𝑎 − 𝑎𝑎)3 � + 𝐶𝐶3 𝑎𝑎 + 𝐶𝐶4
𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥 𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿 6 𝐿𝐿 6 6
𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑃𝑃 1 2 1 + 𝐶𝐶1 𝑎𝑎 + 𝐶𝐶2 = 1 − 0 + 𝐶𝐶3 𝑎𝑎 + 𝐶𝐶4
𝐿𝐿 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = � 𝑏𝑏𝑥𝑥 � + 𝐶𝐶1 (𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒1)
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 = 𝑃𝑃 − 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝐿𝐿 2 𝐶𝐶1 𝑎𝑎 + 𝐶𝐶3 𝑎𝑎 = 𝐶𝐶4 − 𝐶𝐶2
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 1 3 𝐶𝐶1 𝑎𝑎 + 𝐶𝐶1 𝑎𝑎 = 𝐶𝐶4 − 0
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 = 𝑃𝑃 − 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑦𝑦 = � 𝑏𝑏𝑥𝑥 � + 𝐶𝐶1 𝑥𝑥 + 𝐶𝐶2 (𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2)
𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿 6 𝐶𝐶4 = 0
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 = 𝑎𝑎 < 𝑥𝑥 < 𝐿𝐿 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒4 ∶ [𝑥𝑥 = 𝐿𝐿, 𝑦𝑦 = 0], 𝐶𝐶4 = 0
𝐿𝐿
𝑃𝑃(𝐿𝐿 − 𝑎𝑎) 𝑑𝑑 2 𝑦𝑦 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 1 1
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 2 = [𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝐿𝐿(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑎𝑎)] 0 = � 𝑏𝑏𝐿𝐿3 − 𝐿𝐿(𝐿𝐿 − 𝑎𝑎)3 � + 𝐶𝐶3 𝐿𝐿 + 0
𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿 6 6
𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥 𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃 1 1
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑃𝑃 1 2 1 𝐶𝐶3 = � (𝐿𝐿 − 𝑎𝑎)3 − 𝑏𝑏𝐿𝐿2 �
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = � 𝑏𝑏𝑥𝑥 − 𝐿𝐿(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑎𝑎)2 � + 𝐶𝐶3 (𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒3) 𝐿𝐿 6 6
𝐿𝐿 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝐿𝐿 2 2
𝑃𝑃 1 3 1
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑦𝑦 = � 𝑏𝑏𝑥𝑥 − 𝐿𝐿(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑎𝑎)3 � + 𝐶𝐶3 𝑥𝑥 + 𝐶𝐶4 (𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒4)
𝐿𝐿 6 6

10
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐: 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 1: 𝑃𝑃3 = 150𝑔𝑔
150
1 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥 3
𝑃𝑃 1 1 𝐸𝐸 = 70𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 1.472𝑁𝑁
𝑦𝑦 = � + � 𝑏𝑏3 𝑥𝑥 − 𝐿𝐿2 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏�� 𝑏𝑏ℎ3 1000
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 6𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿 6 6 𝐼𝐼 = (1.472)(0.6)3
𝑃𝑃 1 3 1 3 1 2 12 𝑦𝑦 = −
(19.64)(2.92)3 48(70 × 109 )(4.075 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = � 𝑏𝑏𝑥𝑥 + 𝑏𝑏 𝑥𝑥 − 𝐿𝐿 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏� 𝑦𝑦 = −2.322 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 6 6 6 𝐼𝐼 =
𝐿𝐿 12 𝑦𝑦 = −2.322 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑏𝑏 = 𝑥𝑥 = 488.98
2 𝐼𝐼 =
𝑃𝑃 1 𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿 3 1 𝐿𝐿 3
𝐿𝐿 12 𝑃𝑃4 = 200𝑔𝑔
𝑦𝑦 = � � �� � + � � � � 𝐼𝐼 = 40.75 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 200
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 6 2 2 6 2 2
𝐼𝐼 = 4.075 × 10−11 𝑚𝑚4 𝑃𝑃1 =
1000
× 9.81 ≈ 1.962𝑁𝑁
1 2 𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
− 𝐿𝐿 � � � �� 𝐿𝐿 = 60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≈ 0.6𝑚𝑚 (1.962)(0.6)3
6 2 2 𝑦𝑦 = −
48(70 × 109 )(4.075 × 10−11 )
𝑃𝑃 𝐿𝐿4 𝐿𝐿4 𝐿𝐿4 𝑃𝑃1 = 50𝑔𝑔 𝑦𝑦 = −3.095 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = � + − � 50 𝑦𝑦 = −3.095 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 96 96 24 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 0.4905 𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃 2𝐿𝐿4 − 4𝐿𝐿4 1000
𝑦𝑦 = � � 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿3 𝑃𝑃5 = 250𝑔𝑔
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 96 𝑦𝑦 = − 250
48𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 2.453𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃 −2𝐿𝐿4 1000
𝑦𝑦 = � � (2.453)(0.6)3
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 96 (0.4905)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(70 × 109 )(4.075 × 10−11 )
𝑃𝑃 −𝐿𝐿4 48(70 × 109 )(4.075 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = � � 𝑦𝑦 = −0.774 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −3.870 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 48 𝑦𝑦 = −3.870 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.774 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿3
𝑦𝑦 = − 𝑃𝑃6 = 300𝑔𝑔
48𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑃𝑃2 = 100𝑔𝑔 300
100 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 2.943𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 0.981𝑁𝑁 1000
1000 (2.943)(0.6)3
(0.981)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(70 × 109 )(4.075 × 10−11 )
48(70 × 109 )(4.075 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −4.643 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −1.548 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −4.643 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −1.548 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 2: 𝑃𝑃3 = 150𝑔𝑔

𝐸𝐸 = 70𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 150
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 1.472𝑁𝑁
𝑏𝑏ℎ3 1000
𝐼𝐼 = (1.472)(0.6)3
12 𝑦𝑦 = −
(25.46)(6.35)3 48(70 × 109 )(54.33 × 10−11 )
𝐼𝐼 = 𝑦𝑦 = −0.174 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
12 𝑦𝑦 = −0.174 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
6518.979
𝐼𝐼 =
12 𝑃𝑃4 = 200𝑔𝑔
𝐼𝐼 = 543.25 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 200
𝐼𝐼 = 54.33 × 10−11 𝑚𝑚4 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 1.962𝑁𝑁
1000
𝐿𝐿 = 60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≈ 0.6𝑚𝑚 (1.962)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = −
48(70 × 109 )(54.33 × 10−11 )
𝑃𝑃1 = 50𝑔𝑔 𝑦𝑦 = −0.232 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
50 𝑦𝑦 = −0.232 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 0.4905 𝑁𝑁
1000
𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿3 𝑃𝑃5 = 250𝑔𝑔
𝑦𝑦 = − 250
48𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 2.453𝑁𝑁
1000
(0.4905)(0.6)3 (2.453)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = − 𝑦𝑦 = −
48(70 × 109 )(54.33 × 10−11 ) 48(70 × 109 )(54.33 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −0.058 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −0.290 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.058 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −0.290 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝑃𝑃6 = 300𝑔𝑔
𝑃𝑃2 = 100𝑔𝑔 300
100 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 2.943𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 0.981𝑁𝑁 1000
1000 (2.943)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = −
48(70 × 109 )(54.33 × 10−11 )

11
 (0.981)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −0.348 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = − 𝑦𝑦 = −0.348 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
48(70 × 109 )(54.33 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −0.116 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.116 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 1: 𝑃𝑃3 = 150𝑔𝑔

𝐸𝐸 = 200𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 150
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 1.472𝑁𝑁
𝑏𝑏ℎ3 1000
𝐼𝐼 = (1.472)(0.6)3
12 𝑦𝑦 = −
(20.49)(3.03)3 48(200 × 109 )(4.750 × 10−11 )
𝐼𝐼 = 𝑦𝑦 = −0.697 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
12 𝑦𝑦 = −0.697 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
569.99
𝐼𝐼 =
12 𝑃𝑃4 = 200𝑔𝑔
𝐼𝐼 = 47.50 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 200
𝐼𝐼 = 4.750 × 10−11 𝑚𝑚4 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 1.962𝑁𝑁
1000
𝐿𝐿 = 60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≈ 0.6𝑚𝑚 (1.962)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = −
48(200 × 109 )(4.750 × 10−11 )
𝑃𝑃1 = 50𝑔𝑔 𝑦𝑦 = −0.929 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
50 𝑦𝑦 = −0.929 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 0.4905 𝑁𝑁
1000
𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿3 𝑃𝑃5 = 250𝑔𝑔
𝑦𝑦 = − 250
48𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 2.453𝑁𝑁
1000
(0.4905)(0.6)3 (2.453)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = − 𝑦𝑦 = −
48(200 × 109 )(4.750 × 10−11 ) 48(200 × 109 )(4.750 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −0.232 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −1.162 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.232 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −1.162 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝑃𝑃6 = 300𝑔𝑔
𝑃𝑃2 = 100𝑔𝑔 300
100 𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 2.943𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃1 = × 9.81 ≈ 0.981𝑁𝑁 1000
1000 (2.943)(0.6)3
(0.981)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(200 × 109 )(4.750 × 10−11 )
48(200 × 109 )(4.750 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −1.394 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.465 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −1.394 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.465 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 2: 𝑃𝑃3 = 1.472𝑁𝑁

𝐸𝐸 = 200𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 (1.472)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑏𝑏ℎ3 48(200 × 109 )(25.71 × 10−11 )
𝐼𝐼 = 𝑦𝑦 = −0.129 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
12
(19.81)(5.38)3 𝑦𝑦 = −0.129 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐼𝐼 =
12
3048.83 𝑃𝑃4 = 1.962𝑁𝑁
𝐼𝐼 = (1.962)(0.6)3
12 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝐼𝐼 = 257.07 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 48(200 × 109 )(25.71 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −0.172 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝐼𝐼 = 25.71 × 10−11 𝑚𝑚4
𝑦𝑦 = −0.172 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐿𝐿 = 60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≈ 0.6𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃5 = 2.453𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃1 = 0.4905 𝑁𝑁 (2.453)(0.6)3
(0.4905)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(200 × 109 )(25.71 × 10−11 )
48(200 × 109 )(25.71 × 10−11 ) 𝑦𝑦 = −0.215 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.043 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −0.215 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.043 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃6 = 2.943𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃2 = 0.981𝑁𝑁 (2.943)(0.6)3
(0.981)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(200 × 109 )(25.71 × 10−11 )
48(200 × 109 )(25.71 × 10−11 ) 𝑦𝑦 = −0.258 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.086 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −0.258 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.086 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

12
 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 1: 𝑃𝑃3 = 1.472𝑁𝑁
𝐸𝐸 = 120𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 (1.472)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑏𝑏ℎ3 48(120 × 109 )(5.687 × 10−11 )
𝐼𝐼 = 𝑦𝑦 = −0.971 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
12
(19.34)(3.28)3 𝑦𝑦 = −0.971 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐼𝐼 =
12
682.46 𝑃𝑃4 = 1.962𝑁𝑁
𝐼𝐼 = (1.962)(0.6)3
12 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝐼𝐼 = 56.87 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 48(120 × 109 )(5.687 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −1.294 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝐼𝐼 = 5.687 × 10−11 𝑚𝑚4
𝑦𝑦 = −1.294 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐿𝐿 = 60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≈ 0.6𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃5 = 2.453𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃1 = 0.4905 𝑁𝑁 (2.453)(0.6)3
(0.4905)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(120 × 109 )(5.687 × 10−11 )
48(120 × 109 )(5.687 × 10−11 ) 𝑦𝑦 = −1.618 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.323 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −1.618 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.323 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃6 = 2.943𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃2 = 0.981𝑁𝑁 (2.943)(0.6)3
(0.981)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(120 × 109 )(5.687 × 10−11 )
48(120 × 109 )(5.687 × 10−11 ) 𝑦𝑦 = −1.941 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.647 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −1.941 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.647 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 2: 𝑃𝑃3 = 1.472𝑁𝑁

𝐸𝐸 = 120𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 (1.472)(0.6)3
𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑏𝑏ℎ3 48(120 × 109 )(17.05 × 10−11 )
𝐼𝐼 = 𝑦𝑦 = −0.324 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
12
(19.09)(4.75)3 𝑦𝑦 = −0.324 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐼𝐼 =
12
2045.91 𝑃𝑃4 = 1.962𝑁𝑁
𝐼𝐼 = (1.962)(0.6)3
12 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝐼𝐼 = 170.49 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 48(120 × 109 )(17.05 × 10−11 )
𝑦𝑦 = −0.432 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝐼𝐼 = 17.05 × 10−11 𝑚𝑚4
𝑦𝑦 = −0.432 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐿𝐿 = 60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≈ 0.6𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃5 = 2.453𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃1 = 0.4905 𝑁𝑁 (2.453)(0.6)3
(0.4905)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(120 × 109 )(17.05 × 10−11 )
48(120 × 109 )(17.05 × 10−11 ) 𝑦𝑦 = −0.54 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.108 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −0.54 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.108 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃6 = 2.943𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃2 = 0.981𝑁𝑁 (2.943)(0.6)3
(0.981)(0.6)3 𝑦𝑦 = −
𝑦𝑦 = − 48(120 × 109 )(17.05 × 10−11 )
48(120 × 109 )(17.05 × 10−11 ) 𝑦𝑦 = −0.647 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.216 × 10−3 𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 = −0.647 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 = −0.216 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

13
Discussions
There are three types of material deflection of the beam that we are investigated which is
Aluminium, Steel and brass. Three types of material have been tested to see the results on the
graphs to see the relationship between calculated and investigated result. In terms of Aluminium
there are two different dimension that we investigate which is 19.64(w) x 2.92(t)mm and 25.46(w)
x 6.35(t)mm while Steel also divided into two different dimension which is 20.49(w) x 3.03(t)mm
and the second dimension is 19.81(w) x 5.38(t)mm. Lastly, the dimension of Brass is 19.34(w) x
3.28(t)mm and the second dimension is 19.09(w) x 4.75(t)mm. Each of the material has a different
weight (g) and deflection of the beam.
In terms of Aluminium for dimension 19.64(w) x 2.92(t)mm the different between the
investigated and calculated results it shows that the investigated deflection is -0.48, -1.47, -2.23, -
2.73, -3.47, -4.33 while the calculated deflection is -0.774, -1.548, -2.322, -3.095, -3.87, -4.643.
By looking at the values, we can observe that the calculated deflection values are consistently
greater (more negative) that the investigated deflection values for each weight. This indicates that
there is an increase in deflection between the investigated and calculated results. The increase in
deflection suggests that the calculated values predict a higher degree of deflection compared to
what was observed in the experiments. Next, is dimension 25.46(w) x 6.35(t)mm the different
between the investigated and calculated results it shows that the investigated deflection is -0.08, -
0.16, -0.21, -0.29, -0.36, -0.4 while the calculated deflection is -0.058, -0.116, -0.174, -0.232, -
0.29, -0.348. Upon comparison, we can see that the calculated deflection values are consistently
lower (lower negative) that the investigated deflection values for each weight. The decrease in
deflection suggests that the calculated values predict a lower degree of deflection compared to
what was observed in the experiments.
Next, for Steel material of dimension 20.49(w) x 3.039(t)mm the different between the
investigated and calculated results shows that the investigated deflection -0.25, -0.43, -0.67, -0.94,
-1.19, -1.47 while for calculated deflection -0.232, -0.465, -0.697, -0.929, -1.162, -1.394 we can
see that the calculated deflection values are consistently lower less negative than the investigated
deflection values for each weight. This indicates that there is a decrease in deflection between the
investigated and calculated results. The decrease in deflection suggests that the calculated values
predict a lower degree of deflection compared to what was observed in the experiments. Besides,
dimension of 19.81(w) x 5.38(t)mm the investigated deflection is -0.05, -0.11, -0.18, -0.21, -0.27,
-0.31 while calculated deflection -0.043, -0.086, -0.129, -0.172, -0.215, -0.258. we can observe
that the investigated and calculated deflection values are very close to each other. The calculated
values are consistently slightly lower than the investigated deflection values for each weight. The
decrease in deflection is very small, suggesting that the calculated values are generally in good
agreement with the investigated results.

14
 Lastly, for Brass material of dimension 19.34(w) x 3.38(t)mm the different between the
investigated and calculated results shows that the investigated deflection -0.19, -0.78, -1.2, -1.61,
-1.91, -2.42 while calculated deflection is -0.323, -0.647, -0.971, -1.294, -1.618, -1.941. We can
see that the calculated deflection values are consistently higher more negative than the investigated
deflection values for each weight. The increase in deflection suggests that the calculated values
predict a higher degree of deflection compared to what was observed in the experiments. Other
than that, for 19.09(w) x 4.75(t)mm the investigated deflection is -0.1, -0.32, -0.48, -0.63, -0.73, -
0.9 while the calculated deflection -0.108, -0.216, -0.324, -0.432, -0.54, -0.647. By looking at the
values we can observe that the calculated deflection values are consistently slightly lower (more
negative) than the investigated deflection values for each weight. The decrease in deflection is
very small, suggesting that the calculated values are generally in good agreement with the
investigated results. Overall, the different of the values is existed because of material stiffness,
simplification in calculations and measurement error.
Since the gradient of the line in the graph plotted shows the young’s modulus, E. We can
now compare both graphs and know how much of a variation the both the experiment data and the
calculated data differ by using the percentage error formula.
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 − 𝑇𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = × 100%
𝑇𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉

Experimental Gradient Values Calculated Gradient Values Percentage error (%)

Aluminium 1 0.0147 0.0155 5.16
Aluminium 2 0.0013 0.0012 8.33
Steel 1 0.0049 0.0046 6.52
Steel 2 0.001 0.0009 11.11
Brass 1 0.0085 0.0065 30.77
Brass 2 0.0031 0.0022 40.91

The percentage error must be considered when comparing computed and experimental
gradient values to assess the measurement accuracy. Measurement error, human error, and
systematic error are the reasons for the percentage error in this study. For example, in the case of
Aluminium 1, the computed value was 0.0155, whereas the experimental gradient value was
0.0147, yielding a percentage error of 5.16%. Likewise, an 8.33% discrepancy existed between
the computed and observed gradient values for Aluminium 2. Potential sources of error in the
measurement method are also reflected in the disparity between Steel 1 (6.52%) and Steel 2
(11.11%). Notably, Brass 1 and Brass 2 show larger percentage errors (30.77% and 40.91%,
respectively), indicating a higher degree of discrepancy between the calculated and experimental
values, This might also be accredited to the differences in materials between the virtual labs
young’s modulus, E value to the real life value of the material used in the lab.

15
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of Experiment 1 demonstrated how important material
choice and Young's modulus are in determining beam deflection. Greater stiffness in
materials indicates better resistance to deformation, as evidenced by the consistent
correlation between higher Young's modulus and decreased deflection. The significance of
these material characteristics was highlighted by the overall alignment of experimental
results with theoretical predictions. But with brass, an interesting finding surfaced: it
behaved in an unexpected way, indicating special qualities that may be related to the alloy
composition. The second experiment examined how the moment of inertia or beam
thickness affected the deflection of steel beams. This experiment's data consistently
demonstrated that thicker beams had less deflection than their thinner counterparts, which
was consistent with calculations made in theory. Although the study's primary focus was on
steel beams, a greater variety of materials and beam types can benefit from the concepts
established by these findings and finally, the focus of Experiment 3 was on how a steel beam
with a constant thickness and load deflected in relation to the distance between the support
and the load. The data revealed a distinct and steady trend that increased beam deflection
was correlated with a greater distance between the load and the support. This result
validates the significance of taking loads and supports into account when designing
structures, as it agreed with theoretical computations.

Overall, the experiments demonstrated, in summary, the important effects of

material qualities, beam thickness, and support-load distance on beam deflection. The
results emphasise how crucial it is to take these variables into account when designing
structures to guarantee their best performance and longevity. Anomalies found, like those in
brass, also point to the necessity of more research into peculiar material behaviours. Also,
the study offers insightful information that can be applied to a wide range of material kinds
and structural configurations, guiding the development of more efficient engineering
techniques.

16
Appendix
Distribution of work for report

Stanley Kung Chew How Introduction, Objectives & Result of Laboratory

Mudiwa Anthony Chakumhara Methodology & Result of Laboratory
Felicia Jata Ak Francis Discussion & Result of Laboratory
Ushan Abhishek Hettiarachchi Conclusion & Result of Laboratory
Jonathan Chia Hung Xiang Calculation, Graphs & Result of Laboratory

Figure 4 Group chat showing everyone's involvement in

joining the lab session (b)
Figure 3 Group chat showing everyone's involvement in
joining the lab session (a)

Figure 6 Distribution of work in group chat (b)

Figure 5 Distribution of work in group chat (a)

Figure 7 Distribution of work in group chat (c)

17