Lab #8: Beam Displacements

Bao Phan
CIVE302
March 22, 2016
1. OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this experiment is to identify the maximum tensile and
compressive bending stresses the beam experiences by applying loads to an
aluminum beam and measure the displacements.

2. THEORY
When forces or moments act on an object, they can either act normal to the plane
(axial), or transverse to the plane (shear), or rotate a plane (bending). Each of
these types of forces can cause deformation to the face they act on. Axial forces
shrink or expand the face they act on, shear forces translate the face, and
moments rotate on the face they act on. Beams are capable of resisting applied
loads by bending between reaction points caused by a point or distributed loads
that act on the member resulting in both shear forces and bending moments.
Alone, beams do not carry axial forces.

There are two common types of flexural deformations. These include cantilever
beams and simply supported beams. A cantilever beam has a fixed support at the
end of one member and the other has a load applied that is fixed from rotation
and translation. In contrast, a simply supported beam has a roller at one end and
pinned at the other, with a vertical load placed at a 1/3 of the length.

Bending moments may be found by dividing the flexural rigidity of the beam.
Rigidity is the body’s resistance to deformation. This may be seen as:

ME
ϕ= (8-1)
I

Double integration provides the slope and the displacement equations of the
beam. Slope and displacement found by integration will include two singularity
terms.

The first integral gives the slope expression of

2
dy 2 P L
EI = P x2 − x−
dx 6 2 3 ⟨ ⟩
+C 1 (8-2)

Since the slope is not yet know at any location along the length of the member,
the constant of integration is not yet determined and another integration is
required.
 3
1 P L
EIy= P x 3−
9 6
x− ⟨ ⟩
3
+ C1 x+C 2 (8-3)

Using displacement boundary conditions the constant of integration may be

determined. At the left end of the member there is no vertical displacement
(@y=0, x=0), and the singularity term is zero. From this, C 2 must be zero, which
is what one would expect since the reaction at x=0 prevents deflection of the
beam at that point. Considering the second boundary condition, the right end of
the beam when x=L the vertical displacement is also zero, giving

3
1 P 2L
EI ( 0 )= P L3−
9 ⟨ ⟩
6 3
+C1 L (8-4)

Solving for C 1 we obtain

−5
C 1= P L2 (8-5)
81

The final slope and displacement equations are

2
dy 2 P L 5
EI = P x2 − x−
dx 6 2 3 ⟨ ⟩
− P L2
81
(8-6)

3
1 P L 5
EIy= P x 3−
9 6
x− ⟨ ⟩
3
− P L2
81
(8-7

Both slope and displacement equations contain a singularity function, and

calculations of slope or displacement at a point must follow the appropriate
rules for these terms. In this case, the singularity term is not included for either
the slope or displacement values at x =L/4 but is included at x=L/2.

For this beam the moment function is

L 2L
M =Px−P x− ⟨ ⟩ ⟨3
−P x−
3 ⟩ (8-8)

By double integration of the above equation, the slope and displacement

equations may be obtained. In both cases, the equations will have two singularity
terms.
3. EXPERIMENT SETUP
The experiment was conducted by loading different weights to aluminum beams
between simple supports and measuring the displacements. Displacements are
measured using dial indicators that are set up in 4 different locations to measure
different parts of the beam.
4. PROCEDURE
The following procedure was followed:
- Measure length of the beam. (L = 90 inches)
- Set up the load hangers so that it is equally spaced to each other along the
length of the beam. (L1 = 30 inches; L2 = 60 inches)
- Set up 4 dial indicators so that they are equally spaced out to each other at
22.5 inches each.
- Zero each indicator.
- Record the initial reading of the gage.
- Apply load and record the new value from dial indicators.

5. DATA
E (psi) L (in) I (in^4) D1 = 45 (in)
10000000 90 2.5 D2 = 75 (in)
Loading Dial Indicator Reading
P1 (lbs) P2 (lbs) D1 (in) D2 (in)
Test 1
60 40 -0.0575 -0.028
Test 2
60 60 -0.0685 -0.034
Test 3
60 120 -0.102 -0.052
 7.
SHEAR DIAGRAM
Moment DiagramLOAD
LoadCASE 1 1
Case
60
1800
40
1600
1400
20
(lb-in)(lbs)

1200
0
MomentShear

1000
-20
800
-40
600
-60
400
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90
200 Length (in)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Length (in)

PLOTS
 Shear Diagram Load Case 2
80
60
40
20
Shear (lbs)

0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90
Length (in)

Moment Diagram Load Case 2

2000

1800

1600

1400
Moment (lbs-in)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

Lenth (in)
 Shear Diagram Load Case 3
100

50 Moment Diagram Load Case 3

3500
0
Moment (lb-in) Shear (lbs)

3000
-50
2500

-100
2000

1500
-150
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90
1000
Length (in)
500

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90
Length (in)
 Defl ecti on load case 1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

-0.01

-0.02
Deflection (in)

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

-0.07
Length (in)

Defl ecti on load case 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0

-0.01

-0.02
Deflection (in)

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

-0.07

-0.08
Length (in)
 0 10 20
Defl30ecti 40
on load
50
case
60
3 70 80 90 100
0

-0.02

-0.04
Deflection (in)

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1

-0.12
Length (in)

8. DISCUSSION
After analysis of the data, it is evident that the theoretical and measured displacements are
significantly similar to each other. For example, for Test 1 at P = 20 lbs and a length of 22.5
inches, the dial indicator measured a displacement of -0.0575 in. while the theoretical
calculations suggested the displacement is -0.03755 in. For Test 3, at length of 75 inches, the
theoretical value is -0.0482 while our measured deflection is at -0.0520, leaving only 7% of
error. Despite the little variability that is seen in the data, it is still important to discuss possible
reasons that may promote the differences seen in the values of the theoretical and measured
values. These variances may most likely be attributed to errors during experimentation. During
the lab, any leaning or pushing of the beam has the potential to affect the results. Additionally,
during the loading of the pre-measured plates, the hanger could have been moved which would
prompt the readings and load locations to be off. Finally, due to the sensitivity of the
indicators, any vibrations caused by students or air flow can lead to discrepancies in the
indicator measurements. Despite this minimal error, it is also important recognize that the
plots of each test demonstrate that the measured and theoretical data trend in the same
direction. This statement holds true for both the loading and unloading phases of
experimentation. Another trend that can be seen by analysis of the plots resides in the amount
of displacement with successive loads. From the plot, it is seen that at lesser loads, the beam
displaces less while at higher loads the sees the most deflection.
In analysis of the data, it can be seen that the data from each test have a correlation. The results
from test 1 and test 2 can be summed up to get the same results as test 3. Theoretically, this
makes sense due to the same load amounts being applied in the same fashion and then at
different times. In addition, in test 3 it was noticed that both indicators at the lengths of 22.5 in
and 67.5 in were almost identical. This can be reasoned because the load was placed evenly on
the aluminum beams, thus causing an even displacement of the member.