Stress Lab Report

Beam Deflections

2011/12

Executive Summary

This report investigates a component used in the

Aerospace industry which has failed at a lower load than
predicted. The component was designed using only
dimensions taken from Finite Element Analysis (FEA). In
this report, experimental data, theoretical calculations
and FEA have been conducted to compare and justify the
extreme importance of experimental testing in order to
backup and calibrate theoretical and FEA studies.

By: Steven Goddard

Student Number: 10038749
Course: Mechanical
Engineering (PT)
Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 1 of 10

Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Theoretical Calculations & Background .................................................................................................................... 1
3. Experimental Design and Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 3
4. Finite Element Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 4
5. Further Investigation ................................................................................................................................................ 5
6. Analysis of Results & Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 7
7. Self-Reflection of Other Experiments ....................................................................................................................... 7
g

Figures
Figure 1 – The Beam Showing Load and Reaction Force Positions ................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 – Simply Supported Beam Deflection Test Rig..................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 – Weight Holder Simulating a Point Load ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 4 – DTI and Beam .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 5 – Beam Dimensions ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 6 - Mesh Study ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 7 - Comparison of Theoretical and FEA Deflection ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 8 - Effect of a 10 N/m UDL ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Tables
Table 1 - Experimental Test Results ................................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2- Finite Element Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3- Comparison of Results ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 4 – Euler Buckling Data ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Table 5 – Thin Cylinder Data .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 6 – Unsymmetrical Bending Data............................................................................................................................. 9

Group Roles
Steve Goddard – Project Manager/Experimental Test
Alex Oliver – Theoretical Test
Steve Morphew – Experimental Test
Sam Wort – Finite Element Analysis
Peter O’Shea – Finite Element Analysis

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

1. Introduction
This Report is a requirement for the Stress Analysis Labs module of the Mechanical Engineering course.
This report was written by Steven Goddard (Student Number 10038749) as part of the Mechanical
Engineering (Part Time) course at UWE, Bristol during the 2011/2012 student year.

The following pages describe the investigation that took place on the 31st January 2012 into an aerospace
component that has failed at a lower load than was predicted by the original design. The report asks the
question of why the component has failed.
The investigation includes experimental testing (practical replication of load conditions), theoretical analysis
(calculations) and analytical analysis (Finite Element). The results show the accuracy of each method and
include relevant comments and explanations into possible sources of errors.
The component was originally designed using FEA (Finite Element Analysis) only; these results illustrate the
dangers of only using this approach in component design.

2. Theoretical Calculations & Background

The deflection in the beam was theoretically calculated using Macaulay’s Method, this method was developed
to make integrations easier, the basic equation governing the slope and deflection of beams is:

d2y
EI = M (Where M is a function of x)
dx 2
One important feature of Macaulay’s Method is that it requires all terms containing x to be placed in square
brackets and integrating the bracket, not x. Also when evaluating the terms any bracket with a negative value
is ignored.

To begin the calculations M must be determined. M is the bending moment equation of the beam.

x
Figure 1 – The Beam Showing Load and Reaction Force Positions

To determine M, first the reaction forces R1 and R2 are to be calculated.

Take the Sum of forces in each direction (All forces in Newton unless otherwise stated):
F x =0
F y = R1 − 10 + R 2 − 5  R1 + R 2 = 15
Next take moments around a point, for simplification and to ensure the elimination of one variable the
moments will be taken around R1:
+
M R1 = (− 10  0.4 ) + (R 2  0.8) − (5  1.2 )  0.8 R 2 = 10  R 2 = 12 .5
And so:
R1 = 15 − 12.5 = 2.5
Now that all the shear forces are calculated, the bending moment equation can be derived.
M = 2.5 x − 10x − 0.4 + 12 .5x − 0.8 − 5x − 1.2
Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 2 of 10

Substitute M into the Macaulay Equation:

d2y
EI = 2.5 x  − 10 x − 0.4 + 12 .5x − 0.8 − 5x − 1.2
dx 2
Now the expression has to be integrated twice to obtain deflection, y:

EI
dy
= 2.5
x − 10 x − 0.4 + 12.5 x − 0.8 − 5 x − 1.2 + A
2 2 2 2

dx 2 2 2 2

EI y = 2.5
x3 − 10 x − 0.43 + 12.5 x − 0.83 − 5 x − 1.23 + Ax + B
6 6 6 6
To find A and B, boundary conditions have to be identified:
When x = 0, y = 0 and when x = 1.2, y = 0
Using the first boundary condition:

EI (0) = 2.5
03 − 10 0 − 0.43 + 12.5 0 − 0.83 − 5 0 − 1.23 + A(0) + B  0=B  B=0
6 6 6 6
Note: Negative values in the square brackets are omitted (replaced by a zero).
Now that B has been solved the second boundary conditions can be used to solve for A:

EI (0) = 2.5
0.83 − 10 0.8 − 0.43 + 12.5 0.8 − 0.83 − 5 0.8 − 1.23 + A(0.8) + 0
6 6 6 6
16 8 8 2
0= − + 0.8 A  0.8 A = −  A=−
75 75 75 15

Finally the only missing values are Second Moment of Area (I) and Young’s Modulus (E), Young’s Modulus is a
material property and is given as E = 76 GPa.
The beam is a standard rectangle so the calculation for Second Moment of Area is fairly standard:

bd 3 = (0.01915)(0.006418) = 421.877  10 −12 m 4

1 1
I=
3

12 12
Now it can be shown that the general equation for the deflection in the beam is:

2.5
x3 − 10 x − 0.43 + 12.5
x − 0.83 − 5 x − 1.23 − 2
x
y= 6 6 6 6 15
(76  10 )(421.877  10 )
9 −12

Deflection values are now calculated for the specified measuring points:
Deflection at 0.2m:

2.5
0.23 − 10
0.2 − 0.43 + 12.5
0.2 − 0.83 −5
0.2 − 1.23 −
2
(0.2) 2.5
0.23
2
(0.2)−
y= 6 6 6 6 15 = 6 15 = −0.728mm
(76  10 )(421.877  10 )
9 −12
( )(
76  10 9 421.877  10 −12 )
Deflection at 0.6m:

2.5
0.63 − 10 0.6 − 0.43 + 12.5 0.6 − 0.83 − 5 0.6 − 1.23 − 2 (0.6) 2.5
0.63 − 10 0.23 − 2 (0.6)
y= 6 6 6 6 15 = 6 6 15 = −0.104mm
(76  10 )(421.877  10 )
9 −12
(76  10 )(421.877  10 )
9 −12

Deflection at 1m:

2.5
13 − 10
1 − 0.43 + 12.5
1 − 0.83 −5
1 − 1.23 −
2
(1) 2.5
13 − 10
0.63 + 12.5 0.23 −
2
y= 6 6 6 6 15 = 6 6 6 15 = −1.87mm
( )(
76  10 9 421.877  10 −12 ) ( )(
76  10 9 421.877  10 −12 )
Summary
Deflection at 200 mm = -0.728 mm

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 3 of 10

Deflection at 600 mm = -0.104 mm

Deflection at 1000 mm = -1.870 mm

A further explanation of all calculations and results can be found in the Appendix.

3. Experimental Design and Procedure

The experimental design as shown in Figure 2 consists of a deflection test rig and various measuring and load
application devices.
The upper strut of the test rig has measurements on along with 3 dial test indicators (DTI’s) which are
movable along the strut. On the lower strut there are 3 supports (only two of which are used). These are
positioned against the measurements on the top strut to hold the beam in the exact place required.

Figure 2 – Simply Supported Beam Deflection Test Rig

Figure 3 – Weight Holder Simulating a Point Load

As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, the beam has weight holders; these have a transparent back with a line so
that they can be accurately placed with respect to the measure on the top strut. They are also placed on the
beam via a point rather than the surface area of the black section as this would be more similar to a Uniformly
Distributed Load (UDL) and would not accurately represent the point load conditions required. The beam also
features a line down its middle so that the weight point can be positioned in such a way that it does not
create a twisting force on the beam.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 4 of 10

Figure 4 – DTI and Beam

Beam shows the DTI, it features a digital display and zeroing function for calibration before the weights are
applied.

The experiment was conducted at 14:15 on the 31st January 2012; approximate room temperature was 20°C.

The beam was measured with a micrometer; the results were 6.418mm x 19.15mm with the length being
stated in the lab sheet as 1200mm (this was confirmed from the measure on the test rig, show in Figure 5).

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 5 – Beam Dimensions

Weights were applied as per Figure 1 and measurements were taken at 200, 600 and 1000mm across the
beam. Results were taken 3 times for repeatability and quality. Between each test the weights were removed
and applied again. At the start of each test, measurement devices were checked to ensure they were all
reading zero whilst no weight was applied.

The results are shown in Table 1:

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average

Deflection at 200 mm -0.68 -0.7 -0.68 -0.69
Deflection at 600 mm -0.16 -0.14 -0.16 -0.15
Deflection at 1000 mm -3.21 -3.14 -3.17 -3.17
Table 1 - Experimental Test Results

4. Finite Element Analysis

The Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was used to create a virtual representation of the conditions on the beam.
To begin a computer aided design (CAD) model of neutral or FEA compatible file format was needed, the
model for this test was created via Solidworks and exported as an .iges file.
The model is then imported into an FEA software package, for this investigation Autodesk Multiphysics
Simulation was used. The model is loaded and a mesh was required. Mesh sizes from 10 to 5 in intervals of 1
and from 5 to 1 in intervals of 0.5 were analysed to get a range of results.
Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)
Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 5 of 10

Once the beam was meshed the specified loads were applied on or as close as possible to the dimensions in
Figure 1 – The Beam Showing Load and Reaction Force Positions. Boundary conditions were also set at the
beam supports. When the beam had been set up correctly the analysis was run.
Readings were taken using the “Result Inquire> Current Results” command and selecting a point along the
middle of the beam at each distance requires (200m, 600mm and 1000mm). Due to the mesh sizes the closest
values had to be taken. All displacement values are shown against the mesh size used in Figure 6 - Mesh Study
Mesh Study
The mesh study was used to verify the accuracy of the FEA model, results tend to vary when a coarse mesh is
used, the result tend to stabilize as a finer mesh is used, however finer meshes require more computing time
so the choice of mesh has to be a balance between accuracy and computing time. In Figure 6 the mesh sizes
and displacement values are shown for each chosen node, 200mm, 600mm and 1000mm.
The results of this graph suggest that the displacement values stabilize at a 2.5mm or finer mesh.
Mesh Study
2
Displacement (mm)

1.5

1 Node 1
Node 2
0.5
Node 3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mesh Size (mm)

Figure 6 - Mesh Study

The results of the FEA for meshes finer than 2.5mm are shown in Table 2- Finite Element Analysis Results.

Mesh Size Elements 200mm 600mm 1000mm

2.5 11520 0.727 0.104 1.872
2 18000 0.727 0.103 1.872
1.5 41600 0.723 0.102 1.887
1 136800 0.727 0.103 1.872
Average 0.726 0.103 1.876

Table 2- Finite Element Analysis Results

Full results, including positional accuracy of loading and measurements can be found in the Appendix.

5. Further Investigation
5.1. Theoretical and Simulated (FEA) Deflection
Figure 7 shows the comparison between theoretical deflection across the beam and FEA calculated deflection.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 6 of 10

Comparison of Theoretical and FEA Deflection

1

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Deflection (mm)

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
Distance Along Beam (mm)

Theoretical FEA at 2.5mm Mesh

Figure 7 - Comparison of Theoretical and FEA Deflection

This shows and further reinforces the fact that a 2.5mm mesh size is a suitable accuracy, due to the values being almost
identical (largest deviation of 0.0006mm). This also shows that experimental testing is required even if proved in theory.

5.2. 10 N/m Uniformly Distributed Load

An additional investigation is required to determine the effect of adding a 10 N/m uniformly distributed load (UDL)
across the length of the beam.
The calculations follow the same principles as those in Section 2 only with the addition of the UDL.
The reaction forces were calculation as:
R1 = 5.5 R2 = 21 .5
The resulting beam deflection formula is:

5.5
x3 − 10 x − 0.43 + 21.5
x − 0.83 − 5 x − 1.23 − 10x 4 − Ax + B
y= 6 6 6 6 24
(76  10 )(
9
421.877  10−12)
With boundary conditions (x = 0, y = 0 and x=0.8 y=0):
A = 0.24 B=0
Solving this for 200mm, 600mm and 1000mm gives:

Deflection at 200 mm = -1.289 mm

Deflection at 600 mm = -0.416 mm
Deflection at 1000 mm = -2.225 mm
In order to see the effect of this load the calculations have been made at 50mm intervals and plotted against
the data for standard loading conditions. Shown in Figure 8; the beam clearly tends to sag more, as expected
and deflects approximately 1mm more at the most deflected point.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 7 of 10

Effect of Adding an Additional 10 N/m Load

0
Deflection (mm)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-2

-4

-6
Distance Along Beam (mm)
Standard Conditons Additional 10 N/m Load

Figure 8 - Effect of a 10 N/m UDL

6. Analysis of Results & Conclusions

The results of the 3 main investigations are shown in Table 3, the difference from the experimental results are
shown in the last two columns on the right.
Experimental Theoretical FEA Δ Experimental Δ Experimental
(Average) and Theoretical and FEA
Deflection at 200 mm -0.69 -0.728 -0.726 0.038 0.036
Deflection at 600 mm -0.15 -0.104 -0.103 0.046 0.047
Deflection at 1000 mm -3.17 -1.870 -1.876 1.300 1.294
Table 3- Comparison of Results
From the results it is apparent that at the 200mm position the calculations and simulations were very close to
the experimental results, however as the measurements are taken further up the beam the accuracy
decreases, especially at 1000mm where there is an approximately 1.3mm deviation between theoretical/
simulated values and that of the experiment.
Apart from the 200mm measurement there is also a trend that shows the theoretical and simulated results
being very optimistic compared to the actual experiment.
This could be due to a number of factors such as:

• Weight of the beam (as a UDL) not taken into account. • Experimental Beam was initially bent.
• Positions of weights on the experimental test were placed • Loading on FEA was not able to be on the
against a measure and by human eye accuracy. exact positions due to mesh size.
• Weights on the experimental test could have been slightly • Material data was inaccurate.
off centre, causing a small torque.
In conclusion it is clear that the use of FEA and Theoretical analysis is useful to estimate components in-
service properties but in order to check and justify the accuracy of this information, experimental testing is
extremely important and must not be overlooked.
In light of this investigation it is recommended that components are risk assessed and an appropriate level of
experimental testing is conducted before production.

7. Self-Reflection of Other Experiments

This section provides a brief explanation of the other investigations. Lab Sheets for each experiment are
included in the Appendices.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 8 of 10

7.1.Euler Buckling
The Euler Buckling experiment involved measuring the critical buckling load of various struts through a normal
and offset load. Deflection was also measured. Critical Buckling Load was then calculated using a Southwell
Plot for Strut 1 and Strut 2 (Strut 2 with 5mm eccentricity). The Southwell plot enables the calculation of
critical buckling load without damaging the test specimen. An aluminium angle strut (G) was also tested but
no FEA was performed on this.
Results for this experiment are shown in Table 4 – Euler Buckling Data.
Strut Length Measured Average Calculated FEA Calculated Deflection (mm)
No. (m) Buckling Load (N) Buckling Load (N) Buckling Load (N) at buckling
1 0.75 177 171.32 208.3 40.75
2 0.7 206.5 196.67 239.1 34.85
3 0.65 239.5 228.09 277.3 29.98
4 0.625 258 246.70 299.9 27.79
5 0.6 280.5 267.69 325.4 25.52
6 0.55 335.5 318.57 387.4 21.25
G 0.75 271 261.89 N/A 21.46

Southwell Plot Calculations

Strut Measured Average Calculated Buckling Load
Buckling Load (N) from Southwell Plots (N)
Strut 1 No offset 177 176
Strut 2 5m offset* 177 178
NOTE: Due to the attachments used for adding a 5mm offset the values from
strut 1 need to be used (i.e. Buckling load is approximately the same as strut 1)
Table 4 – Euler Buckling Data
7.2.Thin Cylinder
The Thin Cylinder task involved pressurizing a cylinder, with two different end conditions, one open (hand
wheel holding each end) so that the frame takes all of the longitudinal stress and one closed (hand wheels
open) so the longitudinal stresses are retained by the cylinder, forming a pressure vessel. Strain data was
gathered for each condition and compared to theoretical and FEA data, results are shown in Table 5 – Thin
Cylinder Data.
Open Ended Close Ended
(Degrees)
Direction

Theoretical Experimental FEA Standard Theoretical Experimental FEA Standard

Deviation Deviation
MIcrostrain (µε) MIcrostrain (µε)
0 -191 -200 -175 12.7 98.6 99 100 0.7
45 194 187 190 3.5 292.8 293 291 1.1
90 580 586 585 3.2 484 493 486 4.7
150 1.2 2 0.3 0.9 195.7 198 196 1.3
240 387 379 382 4.0 389.9 388 387 1.5
Table 5 – Thin Cylinder Data
7.3.Combined Bending & Direct Load
The Combined Bending & Direct Load experiment involved a hollow aluminium 50.8x1.5mm square box
section with a number of strain gauges and a strain rosette bonded to it. These strain gauges were connected

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Student Number: 10038749 Stress Lab Report – Beam Deflection Page 9 of 10

to a digital readout. At the top of the aluminium section there was a loading arm on which a maximum load of
60N was applied. Strain measurements were taken at loads of 10N increments and compared to theoretical
and FEA results. The results of this investigation are shown in XXXXXXXXX

7.4.Unsymmetrical Bending
The Unsymmetrical Bending experiment involved a 1” square aluminium box section attached horizontally to
a vertical stand and the principle axes were inclined 30° from the horizontal. Strain gauges were placed at
405mm from the end of the section at various points around the perimeter of the section. 30N was applied to
the end of the section and the results were recorded from the strain gauges. These were compared against
the theoretical and FEA results which are shown in Table 6.

Strain Gauge Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average

A 1 0 0 0
B 107 109 109 108
C -2 -2 -2 -2
D -104 -104 -104 -104
E 48 48 48 48

Table 6 – Unsymmetrical Bending Data

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)