BAKI ALİ NEFT MƏKTƏBİ

BAKU HIGHER OIL SCHOOL

Baku Higher Oil School

Petroleum Engineering Department
Mechanical Engineering Science 3
Laboratory Report №1

NAME: Vidadi Agharzayev

EXPERIMENT TITLE: Determination of the reactions and

deflections in two different types of

beams.

DATE OF EXPERIMENT: 17th of October 2022

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 17th of November 2022

SUPERVISOR: Fuad Valiyev

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS....................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
THEORY........................................................................................................................................4
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS...........................................................................................................7
Equipment..............................................................................................................................................7
Procedure..............................................................................................................................................7
RESULTS......................................................................................................................................9
DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................15
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................16
SYNOPSIS
This laboratory report supplies the overview of the first laboratory experiment from
mechanical engineering science which is about deflection of the beams. Besides being
a fundamental part of mechanics, the term “deflection” has a significant role not only in
Petroleum engineering but also in various branches of engineering science. Particularly,
deflection should be taken into consideration when it comes to design an industrial
structure to avoid and prevent unwilling incidents such as mechanical damage or even
collapse of the structure. Thus, as is mentioned in the Introduction section, the main aim
of the experiment is to define the relationship between deflection of the beam and
weight load. On the other hand, this laboratory scrutiny was conducted by utilizing
special equipment in two practically identical parts with different intentions. Detailed
information is provided in the Experimental Details section, but shortly, first part aims to
determine the dependence between the load, reaction of the supports and beam
deflection by using pinned support beam while in the second part, only reactions are
required to be determined from fixed support. Calculation procedure is done for two
parts independently and includes Mauclay’s method of moment calculation which is
mentioned in the Theory section. Results of the calculations and errors of the first and
second part are demonstrated in the Results section by sketching graph 1, graph 2,
graph 3, graph 4 and tabulating the data in table 1,2 and table 3. Errors and possible
error merging factors as well as recommendations for further improvement of the
precision will be negotiated in the Discussion section.
INTRODUCTION
The term deflection which is broadly utilized in mechanical engineering can be
simplified by using the word “bending”. When beams are loaded, they tend to bend from
their initial position. After reaching the critical point of deflection, structural member can
be deformed excessively and in turn can cause a significant amount of damage for the
whole structure. Moving parts, on the other hand, can be distorted due to excessive
deflection which results in stuck or permanent damage of the system. Therefore,
deflection should be analyzed meticulously for each material to avoid and prevent
hazardous problems for mechanical systems [1].

The laboratory scrutiny simulates the process in which the beam deflects with
weight suspended. The major purpose of the experiment is to identify the relationship
between the deflection and the amount of the weight load.

This experience has further

utilizations on the design of
mechanical models of the
processes where mechanical
elements including shafts, cranks,
axles, and levers are
indispensable parts. Particularly, in
Figure 1. Vertical, directional, and horizontal drilling. An
the oil and gas industry, material increasing slope from left to right.
deflection is highly considered
when it comes to drilling pipes. For example, during directional and horizontal drilling
operations, drill pipes are more likely to expose to mechanical stress when the slope of
the drill string (see figure 1.) is excessively sharp. Because of that, the drill pipe can
deform permanently which in turn causes the stuck of the drill string in the wellbore [2].
Thus, it is necessary to consider the deflection of the drilling pipes while the model of
the well and the drilling process are simulated.
THEORY
This part enlightens the theory behind the experiment within 2 parts. To start with
the first part, figure 2 illustrates the analogy of the system used in experiment.

In experimental case, the

location of the load is on
center. So that A will be equal
L
to . Considering the system
2
as stationary two equality can
be written:
Figure 2. The analogy of the first part.
−∑ F y =0

∑ M b ( F k )=0
From these equation reaction forces can be determined:

{ { {
W
Ra + R b−W =0 R a + Rb=W R a=
→ 2 (1)
W ∗L W ∗L →
Ra∗L− =0 Ra∗L= W
2 2 R b=
2

After that, Mauclay’s method of moments can be applied from one side.

[ ]
'
L
M =R a∗x−W x− (2)
2

It is conclusively clear that in Mechanical Engineering Science 3 course a certain

correlation between deflection and the moment is revealed:

[ ]
'
d2 v L
−EI =R a∗x−W x− (3)
dx
2
2

Doing the integration, it is calculated as follows:

[ ]
2
L
2 W x−
dv R a x 2
−EI = − +C1
dx 2 2
 [ ]
3
L
3 W x−
R x 2
−EIv= a − +C 1 x +C 2
6 6

Considering x and v values as zero, C 2 should be equal to zero. On the other hand, if
x=l , the equation above can be written as following:

3 3 2
WL WL −W L
0= − +C 1 x , and from here C 1 can be calculated as .
12 48 16

Thus:

[ ]
3
L
W x−
Ra x 3 2 W L2
−EIv= − − x (4)
6 6 16

L W
Note that the deflection should be determined at the point x= when Ra = :
2 2

3 3 3 3
W L W L −2W L −W L
−EIv= − = = (5)
96 32 96 48

And therefore:

3
WL
v= (6)
48 EI

The equations below are for the changing distance with constant mass. In this case the
reaction forces on A and B changes with the point where load is placed.

WA
∑ M ( A)=W∗A−R B∗L=0 ; R B = L

W ( L− A )
∑ M ( B)=R A∗L−W∗( L−A )=0; R A= L

Coming to the second part of the experiment, unlike the first part which included pinned
support beam, in the second part, fixed support beam was used. Figure 3 describes the
system.
In the second part, it is required to calculate the reaction forces at the supports. Utilizing
the Mauclay’s law, from deflection equation moments can be calculated. Before starting,
reaction forces should be figured out.

∑ M B ( F k ) =0
∑ M A ( F k ) =0

Figure 3. The analogy of the second part.

W ∗B M a
M B ( F k )=R a∗L−W ∗B−M a=0 ; Ra= +
L L
Following the Mauclay’s law:
2
d y
−EI 2
=R a∗x−M a −W [ x− A]
dx
2 2
dy R a∗x [ x− A ]
−EI = −M a∗x−W
dx 2 2
3 3
Ra∗x M a∗¿ x [ x− A ]
2

−EIy= − −W ¿
6 2 6

Considering that x=0 and y=0 then M a should be equal to:

W ∗A∗B( L+ B)
M a=
2 L2

EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Experimental Details section supplies the information about the equipment and
procedure used to conduct the experiment.

Equipment
Laboratory experiments regarding mechanics might require complex laboratory devices.
In this laboratory scrutiny, a specific device named STR-13 is utilized (see figure 4).

Shortly, the experiment was conducted in two similar parts. Supported beam and
cantilever beam are utilized in the first and second part respectively. As the equipment
was identical in both parts, they can be numbered in one picture.

1. Support
2. Digital display
3. Moment Chuck
4. Test beam
5. Digital indicator for deflection
6. Masses and Hanger (each being
10g)
7. Back board

Procedure

The diagram below shows the overall

Figure 4. SRT-13
process for the first part.
 Firstly, make shure that the device is plugged and turned on and all the
values on digital displays should be adjusted to zero. Note that after each
1 measurement, values should be changed to zero repeatedly.

Place the beam in right position in which the digital display is on its center.
Try to place at the level of 300mm by using ruler.
2
Set 100, 200, 300 and 350 grams of load (note that each rings and hunger
are 10 grams). Starting from 100g hang the load from the center and take
3 deflection and reaction measurement. Increase the weight till 350 grams.

Write down the values derived from each measurement.

4
After that, take constant 300g load and place it starting from 100mm
distance. After each measurement increase the distance 50mm untill
5 reaching 300mm. Note down the results.

Diagram 1. Procedure of the first part.

Diagram 2 shows the whole procedure of the second part.

Set 300g constant load and slide it through the beam. Take the
values for the reaction forces at 100mm, 150mm, 200mm, 250mm
1 and 300mm.

Finally, after making all the measurements plug off the device.
2

Diagram 2. Procedure of the second part.

 RESULTS
Table 1 and table 2 represent all data from the experiment and calculations.
Experiment

Distanc Load
Mass, Results of Theoretical values for
e Ai W, Variance in %
(g) experimentation (N) experimentation (N)
(mm) (N)

R(A R(A) R(A)

R(B) R(A) R(B) R(A) R(B) R(A)+R(B)
) +R(B) +R(B)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A=L/2=300mm
A is const.
1st section

100 0.98 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.491 0.491 0.98 39% 59% 49.5%

200 1.96 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.981 0.981 1.962 18% 49% 34.3%

300 2.94 1.2 0.8 2 1.472 1.472 2.94 18% 47% 32%

350 3.92 1.5 0.9 2.4 1.961 1.961 3.92 23% 53% 39%

100 2 0.2 2.2 2.21 0.74 2.9 9% 72% 25%

G=const; G=300g

150 1.6 0.4 2 1.848 1.10 2.95 13% 62% 32%

2nd section

W=2.94 N

200 1.2 1.8 2 1.47 1.47 2.94 18% 47% 32%

250 0.8 1.2 2 1.10 1.84 2.9 27% 35% 33%

300 0.5 1.3 1.8 0.740 2.21 2.94 32% 42% 40%

Table 1. Results of the first part of the experiment.

Deflection (mm)
Experimental Variance In %
Mass (g) Theoretical results
results
0 0 0 0
100 -0.89 -0.61 45%
200 -2.31 -1.23 88%
300 -3.79 -1.94 95%
350 -4.54 -2.43 87%

Table 2. Calculated data for the deflection.

 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Deflection (mm)

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
Mass (g)

Experimental results Theoretical results

Graph 1. Dependency between deflection and weight load.

2.5

2
Reaction force (N)

1.5

0.5

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Distance (mm)

R a experimental R b theoretical

Graph 2. Dependency between reaction force at point A and distance.

 2.5

2
Reaction force (N)

1.5

0.5

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance (mm)

R b experimental R b theoretical

Graph 3. Dependency between reaction force at point B and distance.

2.5

2
Reaction force (N)

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Mass (g)

R a experimental R a theoretical

Graph 4. Dependency between reaction force at point A and mass.

 2.5

2
Reaction force (N)

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Mass (g)

R b experimental R b theoretical

Graph 5. Dependency between reaction force at point B and mass.

Coming to the second part, results are available below at table 3.

Experi Theoreti
Moment M(A)
Loa mental cal
Distanc arm M(A) (Nm)- (Nm)- Variance Variance in Variance in
dW value value of
e (mm) Force experimental Theoret in Nm N %
(N) of R(B) R(B) in
(N) ical
in N N

50 1.7 0.085 0.201 0.116 0.1 0.110 0.01 95

100 2.9 0.29 0.32 0.032 0.3 0.422 0.121 29%

150 3.4 0.51 0.373 0.137 0.7 0.905 0.205 23%

4.9
200 3.3 0.66 0.37 0.293 1.1 1.531 0431 28%

250 2.9 0.726 0.316 0.409 1.5 2.274 0.773 34%

300 2 0.61 0.230 0.370 2 3.10 1.101 36%

Table 3. Results of the second part of the experiment.

 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Moment (Nm)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (mm)

M a experimental M a theoretical

Graph 5. Moment at point A versus distance.

2.5

2
Reaction force (N)

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (mm)

R b experimental R b theoretical

Graph 6. Reaction force at point B versus distance.

DISCUSSION
The primary goal of these experiments was to investigate the varying real-world
characteristics of beams and their applications in many disciplines. It's important to
recall that the experiment had two phases. After defining the reaction forces at the
supports and the deflection values for a simply supported beam, the second step of the
analysis determines the moment and the reaction force at the fixed end of a cantilever
beam.

Following the conclusion of the preliminary assessments, the unknown and

experimental quantities for the first portion were collated into the first and second table,
and the corresponding graphs were then drawn. According to Table 1, the relative error
for the reaction force at point A was constant across all masses at 39%, but it varied
between 59% and 49% at point B. However, it was found that the percentage of
variation in the calculated deflection values over a range of masses ranged from 45% to
94%. In contrast, at various separations, the estimated range of moment value variation
at point A was found to be between 10% and 161%, while the range of response force
variation at point B was determined to be between 9% and 36%.

In order to better understand the variations and the dependencies of the final outcomes,
specific graphs were drawn. With respect to the first portion of the experiments, three
separate graphs were shown, one of which shows the dependence between the mass
of the load and the deflection (this link may also be found by using the sixth equation in
the theoretical portion). The actual and theoretical reaction forces at A and B are shown
in the second and third graphs, respectively. Graph 2 clearly shows that when the load
moves away from point A, the reaction force at point A decreases, while the reaction
force at point B increases (graph 3). However, diagrams 4 and 5 show that reaction
forces rise as load mass rises.

The second phase of the test is shown in the sixth graph, which explains the
dependence of moment on distance, making it clear that the maximum value of moment
was found in the middle. After describing the 7th graph, which shows the relationship
between reaction force at B and distance, it became clear that as the loads approached
the point A, the reaction forces at point B began to grow.
In addition, the differences between the first and second halves of the experimentation
might be attributed to a variety of factors, some of which are described below.

 Material of the beam: in the experiment aluminium beam was used. It does not
have high elasticity, however over the time deformation are more likely to
happen.
 Calibration: before starting take measurements, the values on displays should be
adjusted to zero. Even an insignificant amount of load can change the calibration.
 Human factor: in the first experiment the beam was not fixed so that it can easily
move on the pins. This causes inaccuracies while changing the position of the
load.

An array of strategies is required to eradicate inconsistencies and improve the

experimental process. Researchers should read the procedure manual thoroughly, use
caution while handling experimental apparatus, and only go forward with reliable results.
In the end, experimental errors are inevitable; nonetheless, the aforementioned
situations must be dealt with, and safety protocols should be followed when working in
labs to decrease errors and offer more suitable findings.

CONCLUSION
To sum up, the primary goals of the experimentation, including beam application and
determining unknown variables utilizing the apparatus (STR-13), were successfully
attained. The report's goals were to, among other things, identify a broad range of
application fields; compare empirical and conceptual values of response forces and
moments; and identify the key causes of reported inaccuracies. The STR-13 apparatus
was used to perform the experiments, and the corresponding calculations were solved
using Eq. (1-15). Then, the results were collated into tables 1, 2, and 3, and seven
graphs were drawn to represent the data. Furthermore, the Discussion section
elaborated on the most significant causes of experimental mistakes. Numerous
inaccuracies happened in the initial portion of the study, with the reaction forces at point
A, B, and deflections being calculated as 39%-59% and 45%-94%, respectively.
Moment and response force levels were shown to vary by between 10% and 161% and
9% and 36% in the second section. Because of this, the investigation may be seen as
beneficial and instructive, notwithstanding the fact that a substantial percentage of
inaccuracies between actual and theoretical numbers developed as a consequence of
certain conditions (discussed in the Discussion section).

REFERENCES
[1] Ibrahim Ceren; “Deflection of the beam”. Page 4 (Introduction).

[2] Vidadi Agharzayev; “Internship Report”. Directional drilling. Page 10.

[] Heriot-Watt University. Mechanical Engineering Science 3.

[] Laboratory Manual. A.Azizov