ME – 216 MECHANICS OF MATERIALS LAB

SEMESTER V

SUBMITTED TO: ENGR. KHAYYAM

SESSION: ME 14 SECTION: A
SUBMITTED BY

SR NO. NAME TRN CMS ID

01 AMEN TUFAIL 04 407513
02 MUHAMMAD SAAD BUTT 27 405978
03 ZEESHAN AMJAD 47 405971
04 MEER TAHA AHMED MAGSI 09 420423
05 MUHAMMAD UMAR ABDULLAH 32 407559
06 ABDULLAH FAHEEM 12 411819

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING

(SMME)

1|Page
 LAB REPORT 02: BEAM DEFLECTION APPARATUS

OBJECTIVES:
Following were the objectives that were discussed during the Lab:

 Determine the relationship between the applied load and deflection in a simply supported beam.
 Compare the theoretical and experimental results of deflection.
 Plot a graph representing the deflection under varying loads.

APPARATUS:
 Beam deflection Apparatus
 Load hanger
 Vernier caliper
 Loads

Figure 1: Beam Deflection Apparatus with labelling

2|Page
DESCRIPTION:
 Deflection gauge: Measures the vertical displacement (deflection) of the beam.
 Meter ruler: Used to measure distances along the beam.
 Beam: A horizontal structure that supports the loads and experiences deflection.
 L (Length): The total length of the beam between the supports.
 a: Distance from the left support to the point where the load is applied.
 b: Distance from the right support to the point where the load is applied.
 Loads: Weights applied to cause deflection in the beam.

PROCEDURE:
 Required parameters for the theoretical formula were measured using a meter rule and vernier calipers.
 Initial deflection of the beam was recorded without any load.
 A fixed load was applied, dividing the 600 mm beam into sections of 400 mm and 200 mm.
 Dial gauge readings were taken at regular intervals from 0 mm to 600 mm, with 100 mm increments.
 Loads of 4N, 5N, and 6N were applied to the hanger.
 Deflection was measured experimentally and compared with theoretical calculations using the formula.

FORMULA USED:
−𝑃𝑏𝑥
 𝑣 = (L2 – a2 – x2) (0 ≤ x ≤ a)
6𝐿𝐸𝐼

−𝑃𝑏𝑥 𝑃(𝑥−𝑎)3
 𝑣 = (L2 – b2 – x2) - (0 ≤ x ≤ a)
6𝐿𝐸𝐼 6𝐸𝐼

Figure 2: Free Body Diagram of the Beam Deflection Apparatus

3|Page
EXPERIMENTAL DATA:
Length of beam = L = 900 mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam = 𝑏ℎ3 = 482.3 m𝑚4
12
Elastic modulus of given beam = E = 210 GPa
a = 400 mm b =500mm

a=
LOAD b= 𝒗𝟏 𝒗𝟐 𝒗𝟑 𝒗𝟒 𝒗𝟓 𝒗𝟔 𝒗𝟕 𝒗𝟖 𝒗𝟗 𝒗𝟏𝟎 𝒗𝟏𝟏 𝒗𝟏𝟐 𝒗𝟏𝟑
(mm (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)

X (mm) DISTANCE 50 110 170 230 290 350 410 470 530 590 650 710 770

NO LOAD 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9

500 EXP. -0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -1.2 -1.4 -1.7 -1.9 -2.0 -2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.4
4N
400 THEO. -0.102 -0.221 -0.331 -0.427 -0.505 -0.561 -0.587 -0.615 -0.653 -0.695 -0.739 -0.778 -0.809

600 EXP. -0.4 -0.7 -1.0 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2.1 -2.2 -2.5 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 -1.9
5N
300 THEO. -0.127 -0.276 -0.413 -0.534 -0.631 -0.701 -0.736 -0.769 -0.816 -0.869 -0.923 -0.973 -1.011

450 EXP. -0.3 -0.8 -1.2 -1.5 -1.9 -2.1 -2.2 -2.3 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -2.0 -1.8
6N
450 THEO. -0.153 -0.331 -0.496 -0.640 -0.756 -0.841 -0.883 -0.923 -0.979 -1.043 -1.108 -1.167 -1.213

4|Page
 SR NO. 01

NAME: AMEN TUFAIL

TRN: 04
CMS: 407513

SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS:
Length of beam = L= 900mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam = 𝑏ℎ3 = 482.3 m𝑚4
12

Elastic modulus of given beam = E= 210 GPa

a = 400 mm

b = 500mm

P = 4 (N)
𝑃𝑏𝑥
V = − 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑎2 − 𝑥 2 ) for 0 ≤ x ≤a

For x = 0.05
−4(0.05)(0.5)(0.92 −0.42 _0.052)
V= 6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
= -0.102

𝑃𝑏𝑥 𝑃(𝑥−𝑎)3
V = 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑏 2 − 𝑥 2 )- 6𝐸𝐼
for a≤x≤L

Putting values:

For x=0.41
−4(0.05)(0.5)(0.92 −0.42 _0.052 ) 4(0.41−0.4)3
V= - = -0.5886
6(0.9)(210×10 )(482.3×10 ) 6((210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
9 12

5|Page
GRAPHS:

Figure 3: Theoretical Experimental values of Deflection for 4(N) Force

Figure 4: Experimental Values of Deflection of 4N, 5N, 6N

DISCUSSION:
The experiment showed that with the increasing the load the deflection at different points of rod somehow also
increases, but there are some irregularities at highest value of deflection between 5 and 6 N force, maximum
deflection for 5(N) force was higher than maximum deflection of 6(N) which may be due to some factors like

 Load was not properly placed

 Readings were misinterpreted
6|Page
The deflections on guage was in anti clockwise direction which is why they were taken in negative. The theoretical
values calculated with the help of given formula had an upward trend which is deviating from experimentally
measured values. This may be due to the fact that theoretical formula is based on some assumptions like constant
material properties, perfectly elastic behavior, no imperfections in the beam. Experimentally calculated deflections
has a peak values at a 530 mm for 4(N) force after that it started reducing uptill 770 mm.

CONCLUSION:
The theoretically calculated values for deflection at different points along the beam length had an increasing trend
while experimental values had this trend upto a certain point then it begin to decrease. While increasing the load
at same position showed that deflection of beam increases with the with the increased load.

7|Page
 SR NO. 02

NAME: MUHAMMAD SAAD BUTT

TRN: 27
CMS: 405978

SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS:
Length of beam=L=900mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam=12 𝑏ℎ3 =482.3 m𝑚4

Elastic modulus of given beam= E= 210 GPa

a = 400 mm

b = 500mm

P = 5(N)
𝑃𝑏𝑥
v= − (𝐿2 − 𝑎2 − 𝑥 2 ) for 0 ≤ x ≤ a
6𝐿𝐸𝐼

For x=0.11
−5(0.11)(0.5)(0.92 −0.42 _0.112 )
V= = -0.2757
6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )

𝑃𝑏𝑥 𝑃(𝑥−𝑎)3
v= 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑏 2 − 𝑥 2 )- 6𝐸𝐼
for a≤x≤L

Putting values:

For x = 0.59
−4(0.59)(0.5)(0.92 −0.52 −0.592 ) 4(0.59−0.4)3
V= 6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
- 6((210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
= -0.869

8|Page
GRAPHS:

Chart
0
0.05 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.47 0.53 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

Theoretical Experimental

Figure 5: Theoretical vs Experimental Deflection for 5N

0
0.05 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.47 0.53 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

4N 5N 6N
-3
Figure 6: Experimental defection of 4N, 5N, 6N in terms of x

9|Page
DISCUSSION:
We can see that when we apply load, as we move from ends to the middle, we can see the deflection is greater and
as we move back to the other end, the deflection decreases. And if we apply a greater load then the deflection
increases even more. There is difference in experimental and theoretical values because of human error and
instrumental error as we see in the first graph.

CONCLUSION:
The bending or deflection is the greatest in the middle (from both experimental and theoretical results) and
decreases towards the end. This is because of the distribution of bending moments along the length of the beam.
When a load is applied, the bending moment is greatest at the midpoint, where the distance from the supports
(moment arm) is the largest. This results in maximum bending stress and, consequently, maximum deflection at the
center of the beam.

10 | P a g e
 SR NO. 03

NAME: ZEESHAN AMJAD

TRN: 47
CMS: 405971

SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS:
Length of beam =L =900mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam=12 𝑏ℎ3 =482.3 m𝑚4

Elastic modulus of given beam= E= 210 GPa

a = 450 mm

b = 450 mm

P = 6(N)
𝑃𝑏𝑥
v= − (𝐿2 − 𝑎2 − 𝑥 2 ) for 0 ≤ x ≤ a
6𝐿𝐸𝐼

For x=0.11
−6(0.11)(0.45)(0.92 −0.452 −0.112 )
V= = -0.331
6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )

𝑃𝑏𝑥 𝑃(𝑥−𝑎)3
v= 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑏 2 − 𝑥 2 )- 6𝐸𝐼
for a≤x≤L

Putting values:

For x = 0.59
−6(0.59)(0.5)(0.92 −0.52 −0.592 ) 4(0.59−0.4)3
V= 6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
- 6((210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
= -1.0427

11 | P a g e
GRAPHS:

Experimental Theoretical
0 -0.153
-0.3
1 -0.331
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
-0.496
-0.5 -0.64
-0.8 -0.756
-0.841 -0.883 -0.923 -0.979
-1.043
-1 -1.108 -1.167
-1.2 -1.213
Deflection (m)

-1.5
-1.5
-1.8
-1.9
-2
-2.1
-2 -2.2 -2.2
-2.3 -2.3
-2.4

-2.5

-3
x (m)

Figure 7: Theoretical VS Experimental Deflection for 6N

4N 5N 6N
0 -0.2
-0.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5 -0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
-1 -1.2 -1.2
Deflection (m)

-1.4 -1.4 -1.4

-1.5
-1.6
-1.5 -1.7
-1.8 -1.8 -1.8
-1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9
-2 -2 -2
-2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1
-2 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2
-2.3 -2.3
-2.4
-2.5
-2.5

-3
x (m)

Figure 8: Experimental Deflection for 4N, 5N and 6N in terms of x

12 | P a g e
DISCUSSION:

The experiment demonstrated that as the applied load increased, deflection at various points along the rod also
increased. However, irregularities were observed at the highest deflection values between the 5N and 6N loads.
Specifically, the maximum deflection under 5N was higher than under 6N, likely due to factors such as improper
load placement or misinterpretation of readings. Deflections were recorded in the negative direction since the
gauge moved counterclockwise.

Theoretical values, calculated using a standard formula, showed an upward trend but deviated from the
experimental results. This discrepancy could be attributed to the assumptions behind the theoretical model, such
as constant material properties, perfect elasticity, and the absence of imperfections. In contrast, experimental
deflection under the 6N load peaked at 530 mm before decreasing at 770 mm.

As load is applied, deflection tends to increase as one moves toward the center of the beam, with deflection
decreasing as the gauge moves back toward the ends. Higher loads led to even greater deflections. Differences
between theoretical and experimental values can be attributed to human and instrumental errors, as reflected in
the initial graph.

CONCLUSION:
 Deflection increased with higher loads, but irregularities occurred between 5N and 6N forces.
 Maximum deflection for 5N was unexpectedly higher than for 6N, likely due to load placement or reading
errors.
 Theoretical values showed deviations from experimental results due to assumptions like perfect material
properties.
 Deflection was greater near the center of the beam, with differences between theoretical and experimental
values caused by human and instrumental errors.

13 | P a g e
 SR NO. 04

NAME: MEER TAHA AHMED MAGSI

TRN: 09
CMS: 420423

SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS:
Length of beam=L=900mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam=12 𝑏ℎ3 =482.3 m𝑚4

Elastic modulus of given beam= E= 210 GPa

a= 400 mm

b=500mm

P=4(N)
𝑃𝑏𝑥
v= − (𝐿2 − 𝑎2 − 𝑥 2 ) for 0≤x≤a
6𝐿𝐸𝐼

For x=0.11
−4(0.11)(0.5)(0.92 −0.42 _0.112 )
V= =-0.22
6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )

𝑃𝑏𝑥 𝑃(𝑥−𝑎)3
v= 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑏 2 − 𝑥 2 ) - 6𝐸𝐼
for a≤x≤L

Putting values:

For x=0.47
−4(0.47)(0.5)(0.92 −0.42 _0.472 ) 4(0.47−0.4)3
V= - = -0.616
6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 ) 6((210×109 )(482.3×1012 )

14 | P a g e
GRAPHS:

Figure 9: theoretical, experimental values of deflection for 4(N) forces

Figure 10: Experimental values of deflection of 4, 5, 6 (N)

15 | P a g e
DISCUSSION:
When we add load, we can observe that the deflection increases as we go from the ends to the middle and
diminishes as we move back to the other end. Furthermore, the deflection rises even further with increased load
application. As the first graph illustrates, there are discrepancies between experimental and theoretical values due
to instrumental and human error.

CONCLUSION:
 The deflection is most in the middle and gets smaller as it gets closer to the end.

16 | P a g e
 SR NO. 05

NAME: MUHAMMAD UMAR ABDULLAH

TRN: 32
CMS: 407559

SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS:
Length of beam=L=900mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam= 𝑏ℎ3 =482.3 m𝑚4
12

Elastic modulus of given beam= E= 210 GPa

a = 400 mm

b = 500mm

P = 5(N)
𝑃𝑏𝑥
v= − 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑎2 − 𝑥 2 ) for 0 ≤ x ≤ a

For x=0.29
−5(0.29)(0.5)(0.92 −0.42 _0.292 )
V= 6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 )
= -0.6312

𝑃𝑏𝑥 𝑃(𝑥−𝑎)3
v= 6𝐿𝐸𝐼 (𝐿2 − 𝑏 2 − 𝑥 2 )- 6𝐸𝐼
for a≤x≤L

Putting values:

For x = 0.71
−4(0.71)(0.5)(0.92 −0.52 −0.712 ) 4(0.71−0.4)3
V= - = -0.9727
6(0.9)(210×109 )(482.3×1012 ) 6((210×109 )(482.3×1012 )

17 | P a g e
GRAPHS:

Red indicates theoretical while blue indicates experimental

18 | P a g e
DISCUSSION:
When a load is applied, the deflection progressively increases from the ends towards the centre of the structure,
with the maximum deflection occurring at the midpoint. For instance, under a 4N load, the experimental deflection
reaches a maximum of -2.1 mm at x = 530 mm, while the theoretical deflection for the same load is-0.809 mm at x
= 770mm. The trend remains consistent with higher loads, with a 5N load yielding a maximum experimental
deflection of -2.5 mm and a theoretical deflection of -1.011 mm. Similarly, for a 6N load, the experimental deflection
is -2.4 mm, whereas the theoretical value peaks at -1.213 mm.

The difference between experimental and theoretical deflections is consistently in the range of 2 to 3 times greater
in the experimental results across all loads. Measurement errors, as well as limitations in instrument precision,
contribute to this discrepancy. Material inconsistencies, environmental influences, or imperfect support conditions
may also play a role in these differences.

CONCLUSION:

 Maximum deflection at midpoint: The deflection is greatest in the middle of the beam and decreases
towards the ends.
 Bending moment distribution: Bending moments are distributed along the beam's length, with the highest
bending moment at the midpoint.
 Load and moment arm: When a load is applied, the moment arm (distance from the supports) is largest at
the center, causing a higher bending moment.
 Maximum bending stress: The largest bending stress occurs at the midpoint, leading to maximum
deflection.
 Decreasing deflection towards ends: As the distance from the center decreases towards the supports, the
bending moment and deflection both decrease

19 | P a g e
 SR NO. 06

NAME: MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH FAHEEM

TRN: 12
CMS: 411819

SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS:

𝐏𝐛𝐱
𝒗= (𝑳𝟐 − 𝒂𝟐 − 𝒙𝟐 ) for 𝟎≤𝒙≤𝒂
𝟔𝐋𝐄𝐈
Putting values:
Length of beam=L=900mm
1
Moment of inertia of beam= 𝑏ℎ3 =482.3 m𝑚4
12

Elastic modulus of given beam= E= 210 GPa

a= 400 mm
b=500 mm
P= 6 N
For x= 0.71 m
(𝟔)(𝟎.𝟓)(𝟎.𝟕𝟏)
𝒗= (𝟎. 𝟗𝟐 − 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐 − 𝟎. 𝟕𝟏𝟐 ) for 𝟎≤𝒙≤𝒂
𝟔(𝟎.𝟗)(𝟐𝟏𝟎𝐱𝟏𝟎)𝟒𝟖𝟐.𝟑

𝑣 = −0.4955𝑚

𝑷𝒃𝒙 𝑷(𝒙−𝒂)𝟑
𝒗= (𝑳𝟐 − 𝒃𝟐 − 𝒙𝟐 ) − for 𝒂 ≤ 𝒙 ≤ 𝑳
𝟔𝑳𝑬𝑰 𝟔𝑬𝑰

Putting values:
For x=

(𝟔)(𝟎. 𝟓)𝟎. 𝟕𝟏 𝟔(𝟎. 𝟕𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟒)𝟑

𝒗= (𝟎. 𝟗𝟐 − 𝟎. 𝟓𝟐 − 𝟎. 𝟕𝟏𝟐 ) − = −𝟏. 𝟏𝟔𝟕
𝟔(𝟎. 𝟗)𝟐𝟏𝟎(𝟒𝟖𝟐. 𝟑) 𝟔(𝟐𝟏𝟎)𝟒𝟖𝟐. 𝟑

20 | P a g e
GRAPHS:

Figure 11: Comparison of all the loads applied and there deflection

Figure 12: Comparison of theoretical and experimental values for 6N

21 | P a g e
DISCUSSION:
This lab provided an understanding of the load distribution in the beam when load is applied and with no load. A
rectangular beam of moment of inertia 482 𝑚𝑚4 was used. A deflection gauge was used for finding out about the
deflection at every point. Although it was not calibrated zero when there was no deflection applied, it calibrated to
be zero. The graph between theoretical and experimental load showed elongation at different point at different
load, and there was a formula for calculation of the theoretical load, it showed an error between the theoretical
load and the experimental load. It could be because the equation for theoretical may have been made by keeping
some assumptions or conditions that weren’t met when doing experiments real life. It could be helpful in designing
of beams.

CONCLUSION:
 As the load applied to the beam increases, the deflection also increases.
 The deflection is greatest near the load, and it decreases on both sides when moving away from the load.
 The maximum deflection is where the load is applied and the minimum is where the reactions act on the
beam.

22 | P a g e