ES196 STATICS AND STRUCTURES

Beam Bending Laboratory Report

University ID: u1821010

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………...2
Introduction……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……………2
Method……………………………………………………………………………………....2
Errors…………………………………………………………………………………………………2
Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Results…………………………………………………………………………………........4
Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………...4
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..6
References………………………………………………………………………………….6

1
Abstract
The main theme of the experiment is to understand the theory of bending moments and applying its principles to a
determinant overhanging beam. This is done by experimentally applying concentrated loads across its length, to see
how the bending moment varies at different positions on the beam. Results including the experimental bending
moments(Nm) and the concentrated bending moments(Nm) are calculated, compared and used to construct bending
moment diagrams to evaluate its variation along the beam. The results of the experiment suggest that, in the case of a
point load, as heavier loads are applied to the beam the bending moment at the cut position is larger. It was also noted
that point loads produced bending moment diagrams with straight lines, whereas distributed loads generated parabolic
curves through the length that they were applied to. It was also found that applying point loads to the left support of the
beam caused negative bending moments to be produced.

Introduction
The aim of the experiment is to understand the behaviour of an overhanging beam when different loads are applied to
it across its length, by calculating the bending moment at different points along the beam. By applying different cases
of point loads and distributed loads to the beam, we can generate values for the theoretical and experimental bending
moments, allowing us to examine the distribution of the bending moment in the beam as the loading conditions are
varied. Such analysis has much significance as beams are widely used in real-life, for instance in frames for machinery
equipment or as supports in ceilings and roofs of buildings[4]. The experiment has much relevance to the type of work
civil engineers would carry out to ensure the beams in a particular structure are safe given certain loading conditions.
Beams are described as long and slender structural members[1], able to withstand loads applied transversely to their
longitudinal axis[2]. As a result of the external forces and reactions applied to a beam, internal forces including shear
force, normal force and bending moment act within the beam to oppose the external forces[3]. The internal bending of
the beam varies along its length, height and is influenced by the direction, type and magnitude of the external loads
applied[3].
Beams can be considered as straight bars with a constant cross sectional area, and can be classified according to their
type of support. An example is of a cantilever beam with a fixed support at one end and is free at the other, another is
of a simply supported beam with a pin support and one end and roller at the other, and lastly is of an overhanging beam
with both its ends extended freely over the supports [2]. In 2D beam theory, 3 equations of equilibrium can be applied
to resolve the reactions of the support components of a determinate beam. These are given as ∑Fx=0, ∑Fy=0, and
∑Mo=0, where ∑Fx=0 and ∑Fy=0 are the equilibrium of the forces acting in the x and y directions and ∑Mo=0 is the
equilibrium of the moment forces present acting about the z-axis[3].
Internal forces differ across the various points on the beam, and so the shear forces(V(x))) and bending moments((M(x))
can be calculated with respect to their position x along the beam. The functions V(x) and M(x) help us determine the
maximum values for these forces and enable us to construct diagrams to illustrate the distribution of shear force and
bending moment[5].
Shear forces and bending moments are calculated generating a free body diagram of the beam and sectioning the beam
each time there is a change in the loading conditions of the beam. A sign convention is also required in order to
determine when the shear and moment function have positive or negative values. This in turn helps sketch the diagrams
for the functions, where positive bending moments are sketched below the axis.

Method
In order to carry out the experiment the following set up (Diagram 1) is used, where there is an overhanging beam
screwed onto an aluminium frame by a roller support on the
left-hand side and a pin support on the right-hand side.
Every 20mm, the beam is fitted with grooved hangers where
the weights can be placed as loads. Masses of 10g as small
discs are loaded onto the hanger depending on the desired
weight required and then hung onto the grooves of the
beam. Once the loads are applied, the digital force display
gives a reading of the reaction force at the moment arm. The
moment arm of length 125mm is equipped with a force
sensor and measures the force developed at that end of the
Grooved Cut Position arm. The arm connects the perpendicular cut to whole beam
hangers Force Sensor and enables the calculation of the experimental bending
moment developed at the cut position, by multiplying the
force shown on the display by the 125mm length of the arm
[3].
Set Zero Dial
Errors associated with apparatus/measurements:
A systematic error like a zero error on the equipment could
lead to a skew in the results and reduce their accuracy, thus
the ‘Set Zero’ black control dial needs to be rotated before
Diagram 1 [3] loads are applied for each experiment, to set the reading on the digital force

2
 display to zero. After the display has been zeroed, gently apply your finger as a load to equilibrate the beam [3].

Once masses are hung onto the grooved hangers of the beam they are prone to swinging and thus the digital force
display provides a varying display of the force measured at the cut. Here the masses need to be stabilized by reducing
their motion once hung, in order to get an accurate reading.

Procedure: For the first experiment weights are hung at the position of the cut and the bending moment of the beam is
analysed at the point where the load is applied(Diagram 2). To begin, a 100g mass is hung at the cut position and
force(N) reading was shown on the digital force display and recorded onto Table 2. This procedure is repeated for the
200g, 300g, 400g & 500g masses. The mass(g) values are then converted to load(N) values using the formula W=mg,
where ‘m’ is the mass in ‘kg’, ‘g’ is the acceleration of gravity given as ‘9.81m/s^2’ and W is the weight, and in this case
the load(N). The experimental bending moment(Nm) at the cut position is then calculated by multiplying the reading
from the digital force display(N) by 0.125m. Following this, the theoretical bending moment(Nm) is calculated by drawing
a free body diagram of the beam, working out the reactions at the supports and sectioning the beam before the cut to
apply the bending moment equation(see ‘results’ for a sample calculation).

260mm
140mm 140mm
300mm 220mm

440mm Cut
Diagram 2 [3] Diagram 3 [3] Diagram 4 [3]

For the second experiment, there are 3 different cases with single and multiple loads applied at different
positions along the beam to examine the changes to the bending moment at the cut position. For the first case a 400g
weight is hung onto the left end of the beam(Diagram 3) and the digital force display reading is noted. The masses(g)
are converted loads(N) using the equation ‘W=mg’, then multiplied by 0.125m to give the experimental bending
moment(Nm) and finally the theoretical value is computed as previously explained.
For the second case(Diagram 4) a 200g weight and 400g weight are hung at 220mm and 260mm from the left hand
support respectively. The same calculations and procedures are followed as in case 1 to give values for the experimental
and theoretical bending moments(Nm).
For the third case (Diagram 5) a 400g weight and 500g weight are hung at 240mm and 400mm from the left hand
support respectively. The same calculations and procedures are followed as in case 1 to give values for the experimental
and theoretical bending moments(Nm).

240mm 140mm 140mm

260mm

400mm 400mm
Diagram 5 [3] Diagram 6 [3] Diagram 7 [3]

For the third experiment there are 2 cases to examine the effects of a distributed load on the bending moment
of the beam. For the first case, 3 masses of 200g each are applied over a certain length(Diagram 6). Following this, the
same calculations and procedures are repeated as in the first experiment to compute values for the experimental and
theoretical bending moments(Nm).
For the second case(Diagram 7), the same loading conditions as in case 1 are applied to this case with the addition of
a 300g mass to the left end of the beam. Once again the same calculations and procedures are repeated as in previous
cases to compute values for the experimental and theoretical bending moments(Nm).

3
Results
Experiment 1: Weights hung at cut position of beam. (Table 1)

Experiment 2: Weights hung at different positions on the beam. (Table 2)

Experiment 3: Distributed weights applied to beam. (Table 3)

Sample calculation for theoretical bending moment:

A free body diagram is drawn(Diagram 8) to represent the beam,
its supports and the loading conditions. First the global equations
of equilibrium are applied to the beam, followed by sectioning the
beam from the right-hand side, just before the cut, to impose the
internal forces and to compute the bending moment at the cut
position. The following method can be applied to all load cases
for the remaining experiments.

The relative error is calculated by the following equation:

((Experimental value-Theoretical value)/Theoretical value)*100

Diagram 8

Analysis
Graph of Experiment 1 with weights
The graph for experiment 1, illustrates that as applied at the cut position, Bending
greater loads are applied, the bending moment moment(Nm) against Load(N)
increases at the cut, representing a linear
relationship between the two variables. It can also 0.5
be seen that the difference between the variation of 0.4
experimental and theoretical bending moments
(BM), as heavier loads are applied, increases. 0.3
Whilst the theoretical and experimental moments 0.2
are roughly similar to begin with, after the 1.962N
0.1
load, the theoretical bending moment goes above
the experimental bending moment, where the 0
maximum deviation between the two bending 0.981 1.962 2.943 3.924 4.905
moments is 0.068Nm. This deviation is also
represented by a relative error of “-14.5%”, as Experimental Bending Moment(Nm)
calculated in Table 1, which could be due a Theoretical Bending Moment(Nm)
systematic error, for example a zero-offset error on
the digital force display, where the equipment may not have been calibrated before applying the load. Another reason
for this uncertainty may be due to a lag time systematic error, where the beam and the digital force display didn’t receive
enough time to stabilize and reach equilibrium, leading to experimental measurements that were lower than usual.

4
 By analysing the results for experiment 1, it can be concluded
that the bending moment at the cut increases as the load
applied increases, as greater internal forces are required to
oppose the greater external forces. Therefore, as the
transverse acting downward at the cut increase, fibres at top
of the beam contract more in length (compress more), and
the fibres at the bottom extend more (higher tension) [6],
creating a positive bending moment acting anticlockwise, as Bending moment diagram for
illustrated by Diagram 9.
Experiment 1 - 500g weight Diagram 9

Upon inspection of the results table of experiment 2, the values for the
theoretical and experimental results appear to have minimal deviation,
however the relative error calculations suggests otherwise. With an
error of close to 9% and 10% for the first two load cases, suggests there
to be systematic errors similar to those in the case of the first
experiment. Lag time error suggests that measurements may be have
been recorded before the equipment was given time to stabilise. In this
experiment, the introduction of a second load onto the beam, introduces
Bending moment diagram for
a greater random error into the experiment, where two hanger weights Experiment 2 – Case 1
Diagram 10
producing swinging motion when hung onto beam. This
generates a varying result on the digital force display, Diagram 11
thus making it difficult to take an accurate reading which Bending moment diagram for
may have created discrepancies in the results. Experiment 2 – Case 2
A significant difference is highlighted by the first load
case(3.924N) where only one load is applied, leading to
both the experimental and theoretical bending moments
are calculated to be negative. By having a load applied
at the left end of the beam, generates a clockwise
moment at the cut position, resulting in a negative value
for the bending moment when the internal forces are
calculated. Diagram 10 illustrates this with the bending moment
being drawn above the axis, suggesting that the whole top of the Diagram 12
beam is in a tensional state with fibres expanding. Bending moment diagram for
According to Diagram 11 and 12, it can be seen that load case 2 and
3 have similar looking bending moment diagrams. Both produce a Experiment 2 – Case 3
positive internal bending moment, which acts anticlockwise, as can
be observed in the diagrams, where the bending moment is sketched
below the x-axis. The loads in these cases are applied between the
pivots, in contrast to load case 1, thus the downwards transverse
forces cause compression in the top of the beam and tension at the
bottom.

Diagram 13 In experiment 3, distributed loads are applied to the beam to

Bending moment diagram for examine how the shape of the bending moment diagrams are
Experiment 3 – Case 1 affected. When a point load is applied in Diagram 9, the shape of
the bending moment is illustrated by linear straight lines that
converge at the point where the load is applied. Also, in other cases
where more than 1 point load is applied, the bending moment
diagrams are represented by ramps and a change in slope, each
time a load is applied. Whereas, in the distributed load case, the
bending moment diagram has a parabolical shape across the
distance the distributed load is applied to connected by straight lines
Diagram 14 Bending moment diagram
for Experiment 3 – Case 2
across the portion where no loads are applied.

Comparing case 1 to case 2 where the 300g mass is applied to the

left end of the beam changes the shape of the bending moment
diagram. The addition of the 300g mass generates a negative
bending moment at the roller support of the beam, suggesting it acts
in a clockwise motion. It is represented by drawing the bending
moment above the axis as seen in Diagram 14, producing a
maximum negative bending moment of -0.41Nm.

5
Being a point load, it alters the shape of the bending moment diagram when compared to Diagram 13, it creates a ramp
in the shape of the bending moment that is drawn in as a strain line connecting to the parabolic curve where the distributed
load is applied. The application of the 300g load changes the values of the internal bending moment throughout the beam,
especially the values around the parabolic section, where they decrease by approximately 0.20N. Examining the results
table for experiment 3, the relative percentage error table reveals that the deviations between the experimental and
theoretical values were minimal. This highlights that the errors associated to the experiment were limited, giving accurate
results with only slight exposure to random or systematic errors.

Conclusion

The aim of the experiments was to understand and examine the variation of bending moments in a determinate
overhanging beam when concentrated loads were applied at different points on the beam, allowing theoretical and
experimental results to be computed by applying the principals of bending moments.

The most significant outcomes we expected to obtain was observing a change in the shape of the bending moment
diagrams when going from hanging one point load to hanging two and then to hanging a distributed load, at different
points on the beam. We were clearly able to obtain these outcomes, as can be seen by the bending moment diagrams
drawn using theoretical calculations. When a point load was applied, the bending moment was drawn using straight
lines and when more than one point load was present there were ramps in the diagrams with the lines still straight,
whereas when distributed loads were applied they generated a parabolic shaped bending moment curve across the
length the load was applied. Another key outcome observed was that the bending moment increased as the load at the
point was increased, as greater internal forces were required to resist the external force.

Across the experiments for the different load cases, results for the theoretical and experimental bending moments
produced were roughly similar, although a few of the results had larger deviations as observed in the table of relative
errors. This was due to the presence of systematic and random errors, such as the lag time error, where the loads were
hung onto the beam before the equipment had time to equilibrate and thus the produced an inaccurate reading on the
digital force display. Another error was due to the masses swinging when hung onto the beam causing the force display
to produce a changing reading, reducing the accuracy of the results.
Considering these errors, it can be said with medium confidence that the experimental values are accurate, as large
deviations in the experimental values occur in only two to three load cases. In the future, to improve the experimental
technique and accuracy of the results, alternative measures can be taken to reduce the presence of errors. These may
include, using heavier masses to hang on the beam, as these would swing less, thus producing a more accurate value
on the digital force display. Another possibility to improve the experiments accuracy may be to use the TecQuipment
structure software that allows virtual simulations of the actual experiment and is likely to be more accurate, as it would
not be influenced by random or systematic errors, thus providing more accurate results.

References
[1] Paul, A.L. (2008). “Unit M4.3 Statics of Beams” [online]. Available at:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/materials/Lectures/M4.3-Unified09.pdf/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2019].

[2] Hibbeler, RC. (2014). Statics and Mechanics of Materials, 4th Ed, Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN-13: 978-
0133451603.

[3] Lab report: https://moodle.warwick.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1285192/mod_page/content/38/ES196%20-

%20Beam%20Bending%20Briefing%202019.pdf

[4] Moscovitch, N. (2019). What are Beams & Columns in Structures?. [online] Structural Engineering Basics.
Available at: https://structuralengineeringbasics.com/what-are-beams-and-columns-building-construction/ [Accessed
27 Nov. 2019].

[5] Krenk, S. & HØgsberg, J. (2013). Statics and Mechanics of Structures, ISBN: 978-94-007-6112-4

[6] Piaras, K. (2013) . Solid Mechanics Lecture Notes. [online]. Available at:
http://homepages.engineering.auckland.ac.nz/~pkel015/SolidMechanicsBooks/Part_I/BookSM_Part_I/07_ElasticityAp
plications/07_Elasticity_Applications_04_Beam_Theory.pdf/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2019].

6
 ES196 Statics and Structures:
Truss Experiment Lab Report

The aim of the experiment was to understand the functioning of a simple pin-jointed truss by the
application of loads at different joints and experimentally measuring the strains developed in the
members, then comparing the values to those theoretically calculated. The graph illustrates the
Experimental force(N) and the Theoretical Forces(N) to be similar when a downward 500N load is
applied to member GH, proving to be consistent with the simplified pin joint theory, which suggests
that loads are only applied at the joints and members experience axial forces only. Experimental
results show members AE, AG, AH and DJ to be in similar compressive states, as well as, BE, BF, CI
and CJ to be in similar tensile states. The theoretical calculations, being similar to the experimental,
help conclude that this is the case since the truss is symmetrical. The graph displays interesting results
for members HI, FG, EF and IJ which had a theoretical force of zero and an experimental force also
close to zero. This behaviour follows the principle that if 2 collinear members form a joint with a third
non-collinear member and that there aren’t any external forces or reactions at that joint, then the non-
collinear member faces zero force. This consideration helps simplify the truss calculations, as it
enables the theoretical calculations to be computed with the zero force members removed.
The minor discrepancies between the experimental and theoretical results on the graph arise due to
systematic errors produced by the digital force meter outputting fluctuating values.

7
 ES196 Statics and Structures:
Strain gauge Experiment Lab Report

The aim of the experiment was to operate strain gauges and measure strain values under different
loading conditions and configurations, then to compute and compare the experimental and
theoretical strains. The graph illustrates a linear relationship between the output voltages and loads
applied to the cantilevered beam across all four bridge configurations. The increasing nature of the
gradients can be a result of increasing tension forces in the strain gauge, which raises the resistance
in the wires of the thin metal film, leading to a linear change in the output voltage. The different
gradients created by the four configurations is a result of different resistances being generated in
the strain gauge. Only three distinct lines can be noticed on the graph, as the half bridge
configurations including opposite arms and adjacent arms produce similar output voltages, which
are roughly double that of the quarter bridge. This matches the theory suggested in the expected
outcome, as the gradients of the half bridge configurations can be observed as roughly double that
of the quarter bridge. Furthermore, the gradient of the full bridge configuration appears to be
quadruple that of the quarter bridge, also matching the expected outcome that when all resistors
vary by the same amount the output voltage is quadrupled. The slight difference in the gradients
and the plots of the two half bridge connections could be due to a systematic calibration error within
the equipment.

8
 ES196 Statics and Structures:
Polariscope Experiment Lab Report

BEFORE AFTER

The aim of the experiment was to examine the distribution of stresses in different objects with
different shapes under the application of a load and polarised light. One of the experiments involves
applying loads to an isotropic polycarbonate material, whereby its photosensitive and double
refractive properties generate a coloured distribution of the stress patterns that can be seen through
an analyser. This allows us to interpret the fringe patterns including stress concentrations within the
polycarbonate material when loads of different intensities are applied. The pictures above display a
before and after image of a hook subjected to tensile forces. The image before loading shows the
specimen to be clear, whereas the second image shows a non-linear distribution of stresses. The
area with the maximum concentration of stresses is where the lines appear to be the closest, which
is at the inner portion of the loop where the hook is attached, whereas the minimum concentration
of stresses, where lines diverge more, is present in the outer and upper portion of the loop. This
distribution is due to the application of tensile stresses along a vertical axis and a lateral deformation
generated because of compressive stresses acting perpendicular to the tensile stresses. The
maximum compressive stresses are created about the neck of the hook, which interacts with vertical
tensile stress, producing a high concentration of lines in that region and converge to create an oval
shape, where the two stresses meet.