CONTENTS

1. ITRODUCTION...........................................................................7

1.1. DEFLECTIONS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.............................................7

1.2. TYPES OF DEFLECTIONS.......................................................................7

1.2.1. ANGULAR...................................................................................7

1.2.2. LINEAR.......................................................................................7

2. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS...........................................................9

2.1. TASK 1..................................................................................................9

2.1.1. SEMI-GRAPHICAL METHODS.......................................................9

2.1.2. ENERGY METHODS.....................................................................9

2.1.3. DETERMINATION OF SLOPE AND DEFLECTION USING THE DOUBLE

INTEGRATION METHOD.........................................................................9

 Solution of Given Problem...............................................................9

............................................................................................................12

 Experiment #1(Case B): Effect of Span (Length)..........................13

 Experiment #1(Case C): Effect of Moment of Inertia....................14

To investigate the effect of the moment of inertia on deflection, beams 3,

9, and 10 were analyzed, with all other factors held constant. The results
are shown below.................................................................................14

 Experiment #1(Case D): Effect of Material....................................15

 Comparison of Software and Manual Results................................16

2.2. TASK 2................................................................................................18

 Software Results for Case (a): Fixed-fixed beam...........................19

 Software Results for Case (b): Fixed-propped beam.....................19

 Comparison of Software and Theoretical results...........................19

 2.3. TASK 3................................................................................................21

 Results for Beam: 300x800 & Column: 300x600 mm..................22

 Results After Inverting Cross Sections (Beam: 300x600 & Column:

300x800).............................................................................................23

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION................................................25

3.1. REMARKS ON TASK 1, 2, AND 3..........................................................25

3.1.1. Task 1......................................................................................25

3.1.2. TASK 2.....................................................................................25

3.1.3. TASK 3.....................................................................................26

4. REFRENCES............................................................................ 27
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Deflection in beam.....................................................................................7

Figure 2 showing a simply supported beam under point load at the mid.............................10

Figure 3 Deflections under varying loads...................................................................12

Figure 4 Deflection for span of 500mm, 550mm, and 600mm.........................................13

Figure 5 Deflection of beam 3, 9, and 10...................................................................14

Figure 6 Deflection of beam 7, 8, and 10...................................................................15

Figure 7 Fixed beam subjected to point load...............................................................18

Figure 8 Results for load applied at various locations from left support..............................19

Figure 9 Results for load applied at various locations from left support..............................19

Figure 10 Model Showing Dimensions.....................................................................21

Figure 11 Applied Loads in kN and kN/m..................................................................21

Figure 12 Bending Moment Diagrams in KN-m (part a)................................................22

Figure 13 Shear Force Diagrams in KN (part b)...........................................................22

Figure 14 Reactions and Deflections (part c and d).......................................................23

Figure 15 Support Reactions and Deflection...............................................................23

Figure 16 Shear Force Diagrams.............................................................................24

Figure 17 Bending Moment Diagrams in kNm............................................................24

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of results for the effect of load for beam 10(Case A)..........................16

Table 2 Showing comparison of results of span for case B.............................................16

Table 3 Showing comparison of results for inertia for case C..........................................16

Table 4 Comparison of Results for effect of Material [Case D]........................................17

Table 5 Experiment 2-Case a: Comparison of results for fixed-fixed beam.........................20

Table 6: Experiment 2-Case b: Comparison of results for fixed-propped beam

.......................................................................................................................20

Table 7 Experiment 2-Case b: Comparison of results for fixed-propped beam.....................20

1. ITRODUCTION
1.1. DEFLECTIONS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
Every structure has an initial state known as its neutral shape, representing its form when no
external forces are acting upon it. When subjected to external loads, each point within the
structure experiences deformation, leading to a change from its original shape to what is known
as its deflected shape. Deflection measures how far a point has moved from its original position,
and understanding this behavior is a crucial part of structural analysis. Structures naturally resist
deflection, a property known as rigidity, which will be further discussed later.
Deflection is the extent to which a long structural element, such as a beam, deforms laterally
(perpendicular to its longitudinal axis) under a load. Factors contributing to structural deflection
include applied loads, temperature changes, fabrication inaccuracies, or foundation settlement.
During the design phase, it is vital to limit deflection to ensure the stability and durability of
structural components, particularly to prevent cracks in attached brittle materials like concrete,
plaster, or glass. Additionally, excessive deflection or vibration should be minimized to maintain
a sense of safety for occupants. The primary cause of deflection is the internal forces within a
structure, which can include normal forces, shear forces, or bending moments. In beams and
frames, bending moments are the primary internal forces leading to deflection, whereas, in
trusses, it is the internal axial forces that result in deflection.

Figure 1 Deflection in beam

1.2. TYPES OF DEFLECTIONS

There are two primary types of deflection:
1.2.1. ANGULAR
Angular deflection, or rotational deflection, measures how much a structure rotates from its
original orientation. When subjected to significant loads, structures may shift and rotate from
their initial alignment. Determining angular deflection involves assessing the change in angular
position from the initial state to the final rotated position.
1.2.2. LINEAR
Linear deflection, also called translation deflection, refers to the displacement of a specific point
on a structure from its original position. This movement can range from very small, only a few
millimeters, to more substantial distances. Linear deflection can occur in both vertical and
horizontal directions, depending on the load's direction. It typically indicates the maximum
distance between a curve and its tessellation, which involves repeating a similar shape multiple
time.
In beams and frames, bending is the primary internal force causing deflection, whereas in
trusses, it is the internal axial forces that result in deflection. Deflection is crucial in structural
engineering due to its significant practical implications. Excessive deflection in structures can
lead to expensive repairs, misalignment of connected parts, psychological discomfort, and, in
extreme cases, catastrophic failure.
This report will examine the critical issue of deflection, emphasizing its importance in
construction and its effect on the longevity of structures. Deflection is an essential factor in
structural design, and neglecting it can result in serious failures. It occurs when various types of
loads—including point loads, distributed loads, wind loads, seismic forces, and more—act on
structural elements such as beams, columns, floors, and walls. Even non-structural components,
such as cladding panels, can experience deflection under certain conditions. Building codes
typically set maximum allowable deflection limits to ensure structural safety and integrity, often
expressed as a fraction of the span, to guide engineers in designing structures that can handle
expected loads without exceeding these limits.
2. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
2.1. TASK 1
Two main methods are widely used for determining deflections
2.1.1. SEMI-GRAPHICAL METHODS
These methods are highly effective for calculating displacements and slopes at various points in
beams under simple loading conditions. Techniques such as the Double Integration Method,
Moment-Area Theorems, and the Conjugate-Beam Method are part of this category. For more
complex loading scenarios or structures like trusses and frames, energy methods are typically
preferred for calculations (Hedia et al., 2015; Hibbeler & St, 2022).
2.1.2. ENERGY METHODS
These methods are often employed for more complex loading conditions or structural types,
including trusses and frames.
For this context, we will use the double integration method. This approach, also known as direct
or constant integration deflection, calculates deflection by integrating the differential equation of
the elastic curve twice and applying boundary conditions to find the constants of integration. The
first integration provides the slope of the beam, while the second integration gives the deflection.
This method is particularly effective for continuous loading conditions.
2.1.3. DETERMINATION OF SLOPE AND DEFLECTION USING THE DOUBLE
INTEGRATION METHOD
The bending moment Mx at any point x along a beam section can be calculated using the double
integration formula.
2
−EI d y
M=
dx
Where;
M =¿ bending moment
EI =¿ flexural rigidity
dy
=¿ the slope of the beam at that particular point.
dx

Solution of Given Problem

From figure 2.1. From ΣMA = 0

L
W × −RB L=0
2
R B=0.5 W
From vertical equilibrium (ΣV = 0), we have

R A + R B −W =0

R A =W −RB =W −0.5W =0.5 W

Figure 2 showing a simply supported beam under point load at the mid

M A ¿ mid ¿=0.5 Wx; 0 ≤ x ≤ L/2

By putting values in double integration formula and then integrating twice.

2
EI d y
2
=−0.5Wx
dx
2
dy −W x
EI = +C1
dx 4
3
−W x
EIy= +C 1 x +C 2
12

Boundary Conditions:

x=L/2 ; dy /dx=0

x=0 ; y =0

Now,
2
dy −W x
EI = +C1
dx 4

Which on putting in above equation yields

2
WL
C 1=
16

Similarly;
 3
−W x
EIy= +C 1 x +C 2 → C2=0
12
2 3
WL Wx
∆= x−
16 EI 12 EI

Maximum slope and Deflection

Put x = 0

2
dy dy W L2 W ( 0 ) W L2
= = − =
dx dx 16 EI 4 EI 16 EI

The maximum deflection which occure at the midpoint, so we substitute x = 0.5L.

3 2
−w ( 0.5 ) P L ( 0.5 L )
∆ max = +
12 EI 16 EI
3
wL
∆ max =
48 EI

Results by ROBOT Software

Experiment #1(Case A): Effect of Load
Steel beam 10 was analyzed using AUTODESK ROBOT software to assess the impact of loads
of 20, 25, and 30 N, with all other parameters held constant. The results are presented below.
 Experiment #1(Case B): Effect of Span (Length)
The steel beam S was analyzed using Autodesk ROBOT software to evaluate the effect of span,
with lengths of 500 mm, 550 mm, and 600 mm, while keeping all other parameters constant.

Figure 4 Deflection for span of 500mm, 550mm, and 600mm

 Experiment #1(Case C): Effect of Moment of Inertia
To investigate the effect of the moment of inertia on deflection, beams 3, 9, and 10 were
analyzed, with all other factors held constant. The results are shown below.

Figure 5 Deflection of beam 3, 9, and 10

 Experiment #1(Case D): Effect of Material
To evaluate the impact of material changes on deflection, beams 7, 8, and 10 were analyzed in
ROBOT, with all other factors held constant. The results are shown below.

Figure 6 Deflection of beam 7, 8, and 10

 Comparison of Software and Manual Results
The tables below present a comparison of the results obtained from the software with the
corresponding theoretical values for various cases.
Load at Beam Experimental Theoretical
Material E Inertia
# midspan Length Deflection Deflection
type (in N/mm2) (in mm4)
(in N) (in mm) (in mm) (in mm)
1 20 500 STEEL 207000 104.167 2.415 2.42
2 25 500 STEEL 207000 104.167 3.019 3.02
3 30 500 STEEL 207000 104.167 3.623 3.62

Table 1 Comparison of results for the effect of load for beam 10(Case A)
Load at Beam Experimental Theoretical
Material E Inertia
# midspan Length Deflection Deflection
type (in N/mm2) (in mm4)
(in N) (in mm) (in mm) (in mm)
1 30 500 STEEL 207000 104.167 3.623 3.62
2 30 550 STEEL 207000 104.167 4.822 4.82
3 30 600 STEEL 207000 104.167 6.261 6.26

Table 2 Showing comparison of results of span for case B

Load at Beam Experimental Theoretical

Material E Inertia
# midspan Length Deflection Deflection
type (in N/mm2) (in mm4)
(in N) (in mm) (in mm) (in mm)
1 30 500 STEEL 207000 45 8.387 8.39
2 30 500 STEEL 207000 80 4.718 4.72
3 30 500 STEEL 207000 104.167 3.623 3.62

Table 3 Showing comparison of results for inertia for case C

Load at Beam Experimental Theoretical

Material E Inertia
# midspan Length Deflection Deflection
type (in N/mm2) (in mm4)
(in N) (in mm) (in mm) (in mm)
1 30 500 ALUMINIUM 69000 104.167 10.878 10.87
2 30 500 BRASS 105000 104.167 7.143 7.14
3 30 500 STEEL 207000 104.167 3.623 3.62
Table 4 Comparison of Results for effect of Material [Case D]
 The plots for comparison of software and theoretical results are shown below.

Deflection (mm)
Effect of Load Change 3
2
1 Experiment (mm)
0 Theory (mm)
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Load (N)

8
Deflection (mm)

6
Effect of Span Change
4
2 Experiment (mm)
0 Theory (mm)
480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620
Span L (mm)

10
Effect of Moment of
Deflection (mm)

8
Inertia Change 6
4
Experiment (mm)
2
Theory (mm)
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Inertia (mm4)

12
10
Deflection (mm)

Effect of Load Change 8

6
4 Experiment (mm)
2 Theory (mm)
0
50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
E (N/mm 2)
2.2. TASK 2
Using double integration method, the bending moment equation is written as follows:
2
−Wa b2 W b ( L+2 a )
M= + x ;0≤ x ≤ a
L2 L3
 Figure 7 Fixed beam subjected to point load
Putting values and solving;
2
EI d y
2
=−M
dx
2
EI d 2 y Wa b2 W b ( L+2 a )
= − x
d x2 L2 L3
2
dy Wa b 2 W b ( L+2 a ) 2
EI = 2 x− x +C 1
dx L 2 L3
2
Wa b2 2 W b ( L+ 2 a ) 3
EIy= x− x +C1 x+C 2
2 L2 6 L3

[ ]
2
W 3 a b2 2 b ( L+2 a ) 3 3
EIy= 2
x− 3
x + ( x −a ) +C 1 x +C 2
6 L L
 Boundary Conditions:

At x=0 ; dy /dx=0

At x=0 ; y =0

Applying these conditions give both C1 and C2 equal to 0. So, finally we get the following equations

2
dy Wa b 2 W b ( L+2 a ) 2
= 2 x− x
dx L EI 2 L3 EI

and

[ ]
2
W 3 a b2 2 b ( L+2 a ) 3
Δ= x− x
6 EI L2 L3

Software Results for Case (a): Fixed-fixed beam

Figure 8 Results for load applied at various locations from left support
Load at 60mm Load at 180 mm Load at 300mm

Software Results for Case (b): Fixed-propped beam

Figure 9 Results for load applied at various locations from left support
Load at 60mm Load at 180 mm Load at 300mm
Comparison of Software and Theoretical results
The tables provided below present the results obtained from software were compared with
corresponding theoretical values for different cases.
 Distance B.M at left Support Reaction at right support Deflection (mm)
# from point
A ( in mm) Software Theory Software Theoretical Software Theoretical

1 60 972 972 0.56 0.56 0.1 0.1

2 180 1764 1764 4.32 4.32 0.1 0.1
3 300 1500 1500 10 10 2.2 2.2

Table 5 Experiment 2-Case a: Comparison of results for fixed-fixed beam

Table 6: Experiment 2-Case b: Comparison of results for fixed-propped beam

Distance B.M at left Support Reaction at right support Deflection (mm)

# from point
A ( in mm) Software Theory Software Theoretical Software Theoretical

1 60 1026 1026 0.29 0.29 0.2 0.2

2 180 2142 2142 2.43 2.43 1 1
3 300 2250 2250 6.25 6.25 3.8 3.8

Table 7 Experiment 2-Case b: Comparison of results for fixed-propped beam

2.3. TASK 3
The given system was modeled and analyzed in ROBOT software and the results obtained are shown
below.

Figure 10 Model Showing Dimensions

Figure 11 Applied Loads in kN and kN/m

Results for Beam: 300x800 & Column: 300x600 mm

Figure 12 Bending Moment Diagrams in KN-m (part a)

Figure 13 Shear Force Diagrams in KN (part b)

 Figure 14 Reactions and Deflections (part c and d)

Results After Inverting Cross Sections (Beam: 300x600 & Column: 300x800)

Figure 15 Support Reactions and Deflection

 Figure 16 Shear Force Diagrams

Figure 17 Bending Moment Diagrams in kNm

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
3.1. REMARKS ON TASK 1, 2, AND 3
After thorough evaluation and comparison of the results, the following comments on all three
tasks are outlined.
3.1.1. Task 1
Case A: The analysis showed a direct, proportional relationship between applied load and
deflection, a fundamental concept in structural mechanics. The updated data confirmed the linear
nature of this relationship, with minor numerical adjustments demonstrating the precision of the
computational tools used, as they closely align with theoretical predictions. These results
reaffirm that deflection increases linearly with load, emphasizing the predictable behavior of
materials under varying loads.
Case B: The recalculated deflection values, based on span length, reaffirm the critical influence of
this parameter. Deflection increased exponentially with span length, consistent with the L³-
dependence. The updated data further highlights that span length has the most significant impact
on deflection among all factors studied, stressing the importance of limiting span lengths during
design to control deflections effectively.
Case C: The results for varying moments of inertia showed a strong inverse relationship with
deflection. Beams with higher moments of inertia exhibited reduced deflections, highlighting the
critical role of sectional properties in structural performance. The updated experimental and
theoretical deflection values closely matched, validating the computational models and
reinforcing the role of inertia in resisting bending.
Case D: The material’s modulus of elasticity emerged as a key determinant of deflection behavior.
Steel, with the highest modulus, experienced the least deflection, while aluminum and brass
exhibited greater deflections under the same load. These findings confirm the importance of
material selection for optimal structural performance, with the updated results validating the
theoretical framework, aligning closely with manual calculations.
3.1.2. TASK 2
The software analysis provided valuable insights into the behavior of fixed-fixed and fixed-
propped beams. The recalculated results showed consistent agreement between manual and
computational methods. Deflection peaked at the midspan for both configurations, and the
bending moments and reactions were in line with theoretical expectations. The updated values
highlight the accuracy of the models employed, instilling confidence in the structural analysis.
The recalculated deflection patterns, though slightly adjusted, confirmed the expected behavior
of fixed-propped beams, where rotational restraint at one end limits bending. These results
reinforce the reliability of both theoretical and computational tools in predicting the performance
of structural systems.
3.1.3. TASK 3
In Task 3, the analysis of updated support reactions revealed significant variations in the
distribution of forces at critical supports (A, C, I, and J). Horizontal reactions were recalculated
as -23.65 kN, -11.87 kN, -15.57 kN, and -10.91 kN, respectively, while vertical reactions showed
notable differences: -5.73 kN at A, 124.09 kN at C, 396.6 kN at I, and 245.34 kN at J. These
findings highlight Support I as a critical location, experiencing the highest vertical reaction,
which makes it a focal point for structural design considerations.
Upon inverting the cross-sections, noticeable shifts occurred in the bending moment and
deflection patterns. The absence of a bending moment at the pin support reaffirmed its lack of
rotational restraint, allowing the beam to rotate freely. Significant deflections were observed,
especially in cantilevered sections, which were more vulnerable due to their unsupported length
and reduced stiffness in the inverted sections. These patterns align with fundamental structural
principles under altered geometrical configurations.
The changes in bending moment and deflection are analytically attributed to the modified cross-
sectional properties, which directly affect the moment of inertia and structural stiffness. Reduced
stiffness increases susceptibility to bending, amplifying deflections. Altered geometry also
influences load distribution, leading to variations in shear forces and bending moments across the
structure. These findings underscore the importance of optimizing cross-sectional design and
geometry to ensure stability and load resistance.
4. REFRENCES
[1] Choi, X. (n.d.). MECHANICS OF MATERIALS EIGHTH EDITION. Retrieved April
17, 2024, from
https://www.academia.edu/35056877/MECHANICS_OF_MATERIALS_EIGHTH_
EDITION
[2] Deflection. (n.d.). [Definition; Guidance]. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk.
Retrieved March 24, 2024, from
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Deflection
[3] Deflection in Concrete Topic. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2024, from
https://www.concrete.org/topicsinconcrete/topicdetail/Deflection%20in
%20Concrete?search=Deflection%20in%20Concrete
[4] Hedia, H., Mohorgy, A., & Aldousari, S. (2015). STRENGTH OF MATERIALS.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3133.0007
[5] Hibbeler, R., & St, C. (2022). Statics Engineering Mechanics RC Hibbeler book
12th.
[6] How to Analyze Deflection? - Structural Engineering | WeTheStudy. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 17, 2024, from https://www.wethestudy.com/tree-posts/how-to-
analyze-deflection
[7] Muvdi, B. B., & McNabb, J. W. (1991). Deflections of Beams. In B. B. Muvdi & J.
W. McNabb (Eds.), Engineering Mechanics of Materials (pp. 265–335). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3022-9_6
[8] Santana, G., & Committee, A. (2019). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary. https://doi.org/10.14359/51716937
[9] What Is Deflection Engineering? (Plus How To Calculate). (n.d.). Indeed Career
Guide. Retrieved April 17, 2024, from
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/deflection-
engineering