+

NON LINEAR BENDING OF A

CANTILEVER BEAM
Research Methods Coursework

ALI SARFRAZ
DECEMBER 10, 2015
MSc Mechanical Engineering Design 2015-16
Student ID: 9863793
Submitted to: Dr QingMing Lee
 Page 1

Contents

1. Experimental setup ............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Equipment used ........................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Setup ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Observations ................................................................................................................ 4

2. Finite Element Modelling ................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Model Parameters ........................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Mesh Sensitivity .......................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Results and comparison ............................................................................................... 6

3. Dimensional analysis and Scaling ...................................................................................... 7

3.1 Dimensional Analysis ................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Prototype model .......................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Scaling ......................................................................................................................... 8

4. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 8

5. References .......................................................................................................................... 8

6. Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 9

6.1 Appendix A (Experimental Section) ........................................................................... 9

6.2 Appendix B (Numerical Analysis) ............................................................................ 10

6.3 Appendix C (Dimensional analysis and scaling) ...................................................... 13

Figure 1-A (Illustration of Experiment) ________________________________________________________ 3

Figure 1-B (Experimental, theoretical deflections) Figure 1-C (Experimental strain) ________________ 4
Figure 1-D (Dynamic Response of beam) Figure 1-E(Single Sided Amplitude Spectrum) ___________ 4
Figure 2-A (Mesh Sensitivity through thickness) Figure 2-B (Global Mesh Sensitivity) _________________ 6
Figure 2-C (Numerical Deflection) Figure 2-D (Numerical Strain) ________________________________ 6
 Page 2

Figure 2-E (Percentage Difference in Results) __________________________________________________ 6

Figure 6-A (Beam Setup) ___________________________________________________________________ 9
Figure 6-B (Experimental Results) ____________________________________________________________ 9
Figure 6-C (Part Modelling) _______________________________________________________________ 10
Figure 6-D (MPC Constraint) ______________________________________________________________ 11
Figure 6-E (Assembly) ____________________________________________________________________ 11
 Page 3

1. Experimental setup
The experiment is designed to measure elastic deflection and axial tensile strain at set points
along the length of a cantilever beam under varying loads.

1.1 Equipment used

A rectangular section beam is used. Material properties (AZO, 2001) are shown in Error!
Reference source not found.. Four strain gauges are installed on the beam, two at the top
and two at the bottom. For this case, readings would be taken from the one measuring axial
tensile strain at the top surface. Accuracy of the gauge is 2 microns. A linear variable
differential transformer is used to measure the linear
Material Used 301 Spring Steel
displacement of the beam along the y-axis. The Young’s Modulus 193 GPa
output is shown on a digital indicator. The weights Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Yield Strength 193 MPa
used are 100g each and accurate to about 2%.
Table 1-A (Material Properties)
1.2 Setup
The beam is fixed at one end using G-Clamps (all DOF restricted), as shown. Strain gauge
distance is taken to the centre of strain gauges. Mass is attached to the other end in steps of
100 grams and values are taken once steady. Dimensions are shown in Figure 1-A

Cantilever (G-Clamps) Coordinate System

a
Strain Gauge Y

X
e
LVD Loa
T d
d Front View
Side View

Figure 1-A (Illustration of Experiment)

Parameter Measuring Least Count Measured values (mm) Mean

Instrument (mm) (mm)
Length (a.) Measuring tape 0.5 455 455
Width (b.) Digital Caliper 0.01 49.87 50.23 50.34 49.4 49.9675
Thickness (c.) Digital Caliper 0.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
LVDT Distance (d.) Measuring tape 0.5 159.5 159.5
Strain Gauge distance (e.) Measuring tape 0.5 57.5 57.5
Table 1-B (Dimensions)
 Page 4

1.3 Results
Figure 1-B shows LVDT deflection (experimental and theoretical) and Figure 1-C shows
tensile strain (experimental) against varying load respectively. Figures 1-D and 1-E show
dynamic response to initial perturbation.

Figure 1-B (Experimental, theoretical deflections) Figure 1-C (Experimental strain)

Figure 1-D (Dynamic Response of beam) Figure 1-E(Single Sided Amplitude Spectrum)

1.4 Observations
The theoretical load is calculated considering zero curvature using beam deflection formula[1]
(Hibbeler, 2013).The results show a nonlinear behaviour as load is increased, since curvature
is directly proportional to bending moment as shown in Euler Bernoulli beam theory
(Hibbeler, 2013). Sources of errors in results include improper clamping, a previously yielded
beam, temperature variance (effects strain gauge), faulty instruments (e.g. wrongly
calibrated), material defects in beam, improper orientation of strain gauge/LVDT,
uncertainties in equipment used (such as weights used). In addition, human errors such as
 Page 5

parallax error, excessive force on Caliper, misalignment when using instruments and reading
errors. There might have been localized yielding in beam due to stress concentration as well.

2. Finite Element Modelling

2.1 Model Parameters

Modelling Space 3D Length 0.455 m
Type Deformable Thickness 0.00101 m
Shape Solid Width 0.0499675 m
Type Extrusion Young modulus 193e09 Pa
Boundary Encastre (over surface on one Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Condition end of cross section)
Nlgeom On, improves accuracy for Load Type Concentrated
(Nonlinear large deflections Force
geometry)
Load Steps 1.) Initial 2.) Loading Number of Elements 5
(Static,General) through thickness
Constraint Edge (Bottom edge of free Number of elements 7345
Region end)
Constraint/Type MPC Constraint (type: Tie) Edge Seed size (through 0.2
thickness)
Acceleration due 9.81 ms-2 Global Seed Size(mesh) 4
to gravity (for
weight)
Geometric Order Quadratic (provides better Technique Structured
of mesh approximation than linear for
large deflections)
Element Type C3D20 20 Node brick Element Shape Hex
Table 2-A (Numerical Model Parameters)

As shown in Table 2-A, a geometric model very close to the experimental model is
developed. The Encastre boundary condition very closely simulates the fixed end. Nonlinear
geometry is turned on during the static loading step to incorporate curvature effects. Since
load is applied over a significant part of width during experiment, an edge constraint is used
to apply the load over an edge. Second order geometric elements are used for increased
accuracy for large deflections. Structured mesh is used due to the simple shape of model.
EE11 is the value probed for axial tensile strain, while U2 is probed for deflection.

2.2 Mesh Sensitivity

Mesh sensitivity is essential for computational efficiency and accuracy. An initial size global
seed size of 5mm was taken and iterations were made increasing elements through the
thickness until the deflection at LVDT distance became constant. The results converge at 5
 Page 6

elements through thickness. Thereafter, global seed size was decreased until a steady value
was obtained. The final mesh size was established as 7345 elements, with 5 elements
through the thickness (Global Mesh Size: 4mm).

Figure 2-A (Mesh Sensitivity through thickness) Figure 2-B (Global Mesh Sensitivity)

2.3 Results and comparison

Figure 2-C (Numerical Deflection) Figure 2-D (Numerical Strain)

The numerical results follow the general

trend of a decreasing rate of change of
deflections and axial strain due to increasing
curvature with increasing loads. The
difference in results between experimental
and numerical model (Figure 2-E) is a
combination of the sources of error
described in section 1.4, and the fact that
Figure 2-E (Percentage Difference in Results)
 Page 7

FEA uses numerical techniques to ‘approximate’ results. Moreover, ideal conditions are
considered in the numerical analysis which do not reflect the original model. But overall, the
maximum difference between experimental and numerical models is 5.64% in strain and
8.31% in deflection, and hence the numerical model can offer a reasonable estimate for these
parameters.

3. Dimensional analysis and Scaling

3.1 Dimensional Analysis

Bending of a cantilever beam (𝛿), with rectangular cross section, at the free end is given by
𝑃𝑙 3 3
𝑏ℎ
𝛿= where 𝐼 = 12
(Hibbeler, 2013)
3𝐸𝐼

E=Young’s Modules, b=width of beam cross section, h=thickness of beam, P=Applied Force
(at free end), l=Length of beam, I=second moment of area

Using Buckingham Pi theorem (Hanche-Olsen, 2004) for dimensional analysis with primary
dimensions taken as [M,L,T], m (number of variables) = 6 (𝛿,E,P,b,h,l) and n (basic
dimensions) = 2 (MT-2,L). Therefore, there are 4 π terms, shown in Table 3-A.

𝛿 ℎ 𝑏 𝑃
π1 = π2 = π3 = π4 =
𝑙 𝑙 𝑙 𝐸𝑙 2

Table 3-A (Pi values)

3.2 Prototype model

These pi terms must be equal for model and prototype (πm = πp) to validate scaling law e.g.
𝛿𝑚 𝛿𝑝 𝛿𝑚
= . Supposing we scale the model to halve the deflection i.e. = 2 while using the
𝑙𝑚 𝑙𝑝 𝛿𝑝

same material (i.e. Em=Ep). Hence,

𝛿𝑚 𝑙𝑚 ℎ𝑚 𝑏𝑚 𝑃𝑚 Length (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm)

= = = =2 =4
𝛿𝑝 𝑙𝑝 ℎ𝑝 𝑏𝑝 𝑃𝑝 227.5 24.98375 0.505

Table 3-B (Parameter Ratios) Table 3-C (Prototype Dimensions)

The global seed size used was the same for closer results
 Page 8

3.3 Scaling
Data Original Numerical Model Scaled Prototype Scale Factor
Point Load Maximum Deflection in Load Maximum Deflection 𝛿𝑚
(g) y-axis (mm) 𝛿𝑚 (g) in y-axis (mm) 𝛿𝑝 𝛿𝑝
1 100 -37.4 25 -18.71 1.998931053
2 200 -73.09 50 -36.29 2.014053458
3 300 -105.6 75 -52.76 2.0015163
4 400 -134.5 100 -67.23 2.000594972
5 500 -160 125 -79.97 2.000750281
6 600 -182.4 150 -91.1 2.00219539
7 700 -201.8 175 -100.9 2
8 800 -219.2 200 -109.4 2.003656307
9 900 -234.1 225 -117 2.000854701
10 1000 -247.2 250 -123.6 2
Table 3-D (Comparison of Results)

The results show that the ratio of deflections is almost 2 in all cases, with very
slight/negligible variations appearing even with non-linear geometry turned on. Thus the
validity of scaling law is confirmed.

4. Conclusions
The first major finding is that numerical models offer a reasonably accurate estimate of static
response of a cantilever beam, and prove to be a more economically viable alternative to
physical testing, and giving flexibility of analysing multiple designs within a short period of
time. The use of scaled down models means fewer number of elements can be used, thus
saving computational resources and the behaviour of original models can be very closely
simulated.

5. References
AZO, M., 2001. Stainless Steel - Grade 301 (UNS S30100). [Online]
Available at: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?articleId=960
Hanche-Olsen, H., 2004. Buckingham’s pi-theorem. [Online]
Available at: http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/buckingham/buckingham-a4.pdf
Hibbeler, R. C., 2013. Mechanics of Materials. 9th ed. s.l.:Prentice Hall.
 Page 9

6. Appendix

6.1 Appendix A (Experimental Section)

i.Experimental Setup

Figure 6-A (Beam Setup)

ii.Experimental and theoretical results

Data Applied Strain Deflection Deflection w/o Theoretical

Point mass (microstrains) with zero zero error (mm) Deflection
(grams) error (mm)
1 0 0 23.51 0 0
2 100 229 17.38 -6.13 -6.055897852
3 200 440 11.47 -12.04 -12.1117957
4 300 630 6.02 -17.49 -18.16769355
5 400 810 0.71 -22.80 -24.22359141
6 500 970 -4.18 -27.69 -30.27948926
7 600 1123 -8.90 -32.41 -36.33538711
8 700 1250 -12.86 -36.37 -42.39128496
9 800 1390 -17.4 -40.91 -48.44718281
10 900 1507 -21.25 -44.76 -54.50308066
11 1000 1620 -24.96 -48.47 -60.55897852

Figure 6-B (Experimental Results)

iii.Formula for theoretical linear deflection

𝑃𝑥 2 (3𝑙−𝑥) 3
𝑏ℎ
𝛿= where 𝐼 = 12 (Hibbeler, 2013)
3𝐸𝐼
 Page 10

E=Young’s Modules, b=width of beam cross section, h=thickness of beam, P=Applied Force
(at free end), l=Length of beam, I=second moment of area, x=data point (LVDT distance in
this case).

iv.MATLAB code for natural frequency

clear all;
close all;
load('group10.mat'); % Given by professor
Y=fft(signal);
Fs = 1000; % Sampling frequency 1000 Hz
T = 1/Fs; % Sampling period 25000 milliseconds
L = 25000; % Length of signal
%t = (0:L-1)*T; % Time vector
P2 = abs(Y/L);
P1 = P2(1:L/2+1);
P1(2:end-1) = 2*P1(2:end-1);
f = Fs*(0:(L/2))/L;
plot(times,signal);
xlabel('Time (Seconds)','FontSize',18,'FontWeight','bold','Color','r')
ylabel('Amplitude','FontSize',18,'FontWeight','bold','Color','r')
set(gca,'fontsize',14)
grid on
figure
plot(f(1:1000),P1(1:1000),'linewidth',2)
grid on
title('Single-Sided Amplitude Spectrum of
Signal','FontSize',12,'FontWeight','bold','Color','b')
xlabel('Frequency (Hz)','FontSize',18,'FontWeight','bold','Color','r')
ylabel('Amplitude','FontSize',18,'FontWeight','bold','Color','r')
set(gca,'fontsize',14)

6.2 Appendix B (Numerical Analysis)

i.Numerical Model

Figure 6-C (Part Modelling)

 Page 11

Figure 6-E (Assembly) Figure 6-D (MPC Constraint)

 Page 12

ii.Mesh Sensitivity data

Number
Number of Deflection
of elements at LVDT
Elements through distance
thickness
12 1 -42.087
69 1 -43.82
138 2 -44.215
230 1 -44.1619
460 2 -44.353
910 1 -44.2976
920 4 -44.356
1820 2 -44.415
2730 3 -44.4255
3640 4 -44.4282
4550 5 -44.43
7280 2 -44.4095
7345 5 -44.444
10920 3 -44.355
12920 5 -44.444
18200 5 -44.444
21840 6 -44.444
 Page 13

iii.ABAQUS Results
Data Point Applied mass (grams) Strain EE11 (microstrains) Deflection U2 (mm)

1 0 0 0
2 100 231 6.02
3 200 442.08 11.88
4 300 631.6 17.32
5 400 802.94 22.3196
6 500 956.042 26.89
7 600 1095.16 31.07
8 700 1221 34.876
9 800 1333 38.3487
10 900 1436.23 41.5254
11 1000 1528.67 44.44

Deflection Strain
0.00% 0.00%
1.79% -0.87%
1.33% -0.47%
0.97% -0.25%
2.11% 0.87%
2.89% 1.44%
4.13% 2.48%
4.11% 2.32%
6.26% 4.10%
7.23% 4.70%
8.31% 5.64%

6.3 Appendix C (Dimensional analysis and scaling)

i.Small scale model
It is made up essentially of the same material and similar element size, just scaled down by
relevant factors in dimensions and loading.