THEORY

Bending is a major concept used in the design of many machine and structural
components, such as beams and girders. In Applied Mechanics, bending which is also
known as flexure, characterizes the behavior of a slender structural element subjected
to an external load applied perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the element.

The structural element is assumed to be such that at least one of its dimensions
is a small fraction, typically 1/10 or less, of the other two. When the length is
considerably longer than the width and the thickness, the element is called a beam.
For example, a closet rod sagging under the weight of clothes on clothes hangers is an
example of a beam experiencing bending. On the other hand, a shell is a structure of
any geometric form where the length and the width are of the same order of
magnitude but the thickness of the structure (known as the 'wall') is considerably
smaller. A large diameter, but thin-walled, short tube supported at its ends and loaded
laterally is an example of a shell experiencing bending.

In the absence of a qualifier, the term bending is ambiguous because bending

can occur locally in all objects. To make the usage of the term more precise, engineers
refer to the bending of rods, the bending of beams, the bending of plates, the bending
of shells, and so on.

Bending of an I-beam

When a beam experiences a bending moment it will change its shape and internal
stresses will be developed. The figure below illustrates the shape change of elements
of a beam in bending. Note that the material is in compression on the inside of the
curve and tension on the outside of the curve, and that transverse planes in the
material remain parallel to the radius during bending.
 Shape change of elements of a beam.

Four-Point Bending
The pure bending shown in the figure can be produced by applying four forces to
the beam, two of opposite direction at each end. This configuration is known as ‘four-
point bending’ and produces a uniform bending moment over the center section of the
beam as illustrated in (b) opposite.

In the Euler-Bernoulli theory of slender beams, a major assumption is that 'plane

sections remain plane'. In other words, any deformation due to shear across the
section is not accounted for (no shear deformation). Also, this linear distribution is
only applicable if the maximum stress is less than the yield stress of the material. For
stresses that exceed yield, refer to articleplastic bending. At yield, the maximum stress
experienced in the section (at the furthest points from the neutral axis of the beam) is
defined as the flexural strength
 The Euler-Bernoulli equation for the quasistatic bending of slender, isotropic,
homogeneous beams of constant cross-section under an applied transverse load, q(x)
is ;

d 4 w ( x)
EI = q(x)
d x4

where E is the Young's modulus, I is the area moment of inertia of the cross-section,

and w(x) is the deflection of the neutral axis of the beam.

After a solution for the displacement of the beam has been obtained, the
bending moment, M and shear force, Q in the beam can be calculated using the
relations

Simple beam bending is often analyzed with the Euler-Bernoulli beam

equation. The conditions for using simple bending theory are:

1. The beam is subject to pure bending. This means that the shear force is zero,
and that no torsional or axial loads are present.
2. The material is isotropic and homogeneous.
3. The material obeys Hooke's law (it is linearly elastic and will not deform
plastically).
4. The beam is initially straight with a cross section that is constant throughout
the beam length.
5. The beam has an axis of symmetry in the plane of bending.
6. The proportions of the beam are such that it would fail by bending rather than
by crushing, wrinkling or sideways buckling.
7. Cross-sections of the beam remain plane during bending.
 Bending moments in beam

The classic formula for determining the bending stress in a beam under simple
bending is ;

Where ;

  is the bending stress

 M - the moment about the neutral axis
 y - the perpendicular distance to the neutral axis
 Ix - the second moment of area about the neutral axis x.

In this Applied Mechanics Lab, we are interest in the determination of the

deflection of the bending of beams. Of particular interest is the determination of the
maximum deflection of a beam under a given loading, since the design specifications
of a beam will generally include a maximum allowable value for its deflection. Also
of interest is that the knowledge of the deflections is required to analyze indeterminate
beams.

A prismatic beam subjected to pure bending is bent into an arc of circle and
that, within the elastic range, the curvature of the neutral surface can be expressed as ;

1 M
ρ
= EI

where M is the bending moment, E the modulus of elasticity, and I the moment of
inertia of the cross section about its neutral axis. Denoting by x the distance of the
section from the left end of the beam, we write ;

1 M ( x)
ρ
= EI
 To determine the slope and deflection of the beam at any given point, we first
derive the following second-order linear differential equation, which governs the
elastic curve characterizing the shape of the deformed beam ;
d2 y M ( x)
=
dx 2 EI

If the bending moment can be represented for all values of x by a single function
M(x), as in the case of the beams and loadings, the slope ϴ = dy /dx and the deflection
y at any point of the beam may be obtained through two successive integrations. The
two constants of integration introduced in the process will be determined from the
boundary conditions indicated in the figure. However, if different analytical functions
are required to represent the bending moment in various portions of the beam,
different differential equations will also be required, leading to different functions
defining the elastic curve in the various portions of the beam.

Deflection of a beam deflected symmetrically and principle of superposition

PROCEDURE

1. The dimensions of the mild steel beam were measured and recorded.

2. The length (L) was measured from the wall to the end of the mild steel beam and
the reading was recorded.

3. The lengths (x1 and x2) were measured from the wall to the center of the dial
calipers and the readings were recorded.

4. Hang a weight (W) on the weight-hanger starting from lowest 2N, and then increasing by
increments of 2N.

5. Record weight (W) and measure the deflection δmax at every increment.
RESULTS

Experimental Result

Materials Length Width Thickness

LOAD
Aluminium 998 Materials
19.30 6.52
Brass (N) Aluminium
1005 Brass
20.00 Mild6.00
Steel
0 0 0 0
Mild Steel 999 20.36 4.00
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68
Dimensions in (mm)

Graph of Aluminium Deflection VS Load

1.4
Aluminium Defl ecti on (mm) VS Load (N)
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Graph of Brass Deflection VS Load

Brass Defl ecti on (mm) VS Load (N)

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
 Graph of Mild Steel Deflection VS Load

Mild Steel Defl ecti on (mm) VS Load (N)

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

THEORETICAL
This is a simply supported beam subjected to uniform bending moment.
It can be shown that the central deflection relative to the supports in the arrangement
of the diagram
Maximum deflection between the supports :-

Wal 2
∆=
8 EI
b d3
where I =
12

The theoretical value for modulus of elasticity of :

-Steel : 210 Gpa
-Aluminium: 70 Gpa
-Brass : 100 Gpa

Sample Calculation
a= 0.1m L/2= 0.4m  steel  210GPa E Brass  100GPa E Alum  70GPa

Aluminium:

bd 3 Wal 2
I 
12 8I
(0.0193m)(6.52 10 3 ) (2 N )(0.1m)(0.4m) 2
I 
12 8(70  109 )( 4.458  10 10 )
 4.458 10 10 m 4  0.128mm
Brass:

bd 3 Wal 2
I 
12 8I
(0.02m)( 6.0 10 3 ) (2 N )(0.1m)( 0.4m) 2
I 
12 8(100  109 )(3.6  10 10 )
 3.6 10 10 m 4  0.11mm

Mild Steel:

bd 3 Wal 2
I 
12 8I
(0.02m)( 4 10 3 ) (2 N )( 0.1m)(0.4m) 2
I 
12 8(210  109 )(1.067  10 10 )
 1.067  10 10 m 4  0.18mm

Theoretical results for maximum deflection of beam

 LOAD Materials
(N) Aluminium Brass Mild Steel

0 0 0 0

2 0.13 0.11 0.18

4 0.26 0.22 0.36

6 0.38 0.33 0.54

8 0.51 0.44 0.71

10 0.64 0.56 0.89

12 0.77 0.67 1.07

14 0.897 0.78 1.25

16 1.03 0.89 1.43

DISCUSSIONS
 In this Bending in Beam Experiment, we have used three different types of
beam as our specimen. They are mild steel beam (20.36mm x 4.00mm x 999mm),
aluminum beam (19.3mm x 6.56mm x 998.00mm) and brass beam (20.0mm x
6.00mm x 1005.00mm). The beam is placed on cantilever beam set up and weight is
hung on the both ends of the beam. The weight will cause a deflection on the beam.
The gauge that has been placed on the center of the beam then recorded the maximum
beam deflection.
For mild steel beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.19mm when a
2N load is applied. Then it increases to 0.42mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the
deflections are 0.63mm and 0.84mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections
are 1.05mm and 1.26mm respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.47mm and the last
load of 16N gives a deflection of 1.68mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that
the increment for each load is about 0.21mm to 0.24mm.
For aluminum beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.15mm when
a 2N load is applied. Then it increases to 0.32mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the
deflections are 0.48mm and 0.64mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections
are 0.8mm and 1.06mm respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.12mm and the last
load of 16N gives a deflection of 1.28mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that
the increment for each load is about 0.06mm to 0.26mm.
For brass beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.12mm when a 2N
load is applied. Then it increases to 0.24mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the
deflections are 0.35mm and 0.47mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections
are 0.59mm and 0.7mm respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 0.82mm and the last
load of 16N gives a deflection of 0.94mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that
the increment for each load is about 0.11mm to 0.12mm.

From the experimental result, we can see that mild steel beam experiences the
highest value of beam deflection of 1.68mm while the lowest value of 0.94mm is
experienced by brass beam. Aluminium beam experiences beam deflection of
1.28mm. With the highest value of beam deflection, this shows that mild steel is the
softest material among them three while brass is the hardest since its deflection value
is the lowest. However, we could not jump into that conclusion because their
dimensions are not identical. But for the purpose of comparing, we would like to
ignore the dimensions and assume them to be identical.
Then, from the experimental result, we compare it with the theoretical values
gained by using equation. For mild steel beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases
to 0.18mm when a 2N load is applied. Then it increases to 0.36mm for 4N load. For
6N and 8N, the deflections are 0.54mm and 0.71mm respectively. For 10N and 12N,
the deflections are 0.89mm and 1.07mm respectively. For 14N, the deflection is
1.25mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of 1.43mm. From the deflection
data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.18mm. The theoretical
gap increment is smaller than the gap increment of experimental.
For aluminum beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.13mm when
a 2N load is applied. Then it increases to 0.26mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the
deflections are 0.38mm and 0.51mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections
are 0.64mm and 0.77mm respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 0.897mm and the
last load of 16N gives a deflection of 1.03mm. From the deflection data, we noticed
that the increment for each load is about 0.12mm to 0.13mm. The theoretical gap
increment is greater than the gap increment of experimental.
For brass beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.11mm when a 2N
load is applied. Then it increases to 0.22mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the
deflections are 0.33mm and 0.44mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections
are 0.56mm and 0.67mm respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 0.78mm and the last
load of 16N gives a deflection of 0.89mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that
the increment for each load is about 0.11mm to 0.12mm. The theoretical gap
increment is smaller than the gap increment of experimental.

Graph of deflection versus load is plotted experimentally and theoretically.

From our observation from the graph plotted, the pattern is identical. The theoretical
graph may look smoother than experimental graph, but it is only a slight difference
between them. Form all the six graphs, the load is directly perpendicular to the
deflection of beam. This means that as load increases, the beam deflection increases.
From the theoretical value, we can say that the gap increment for aluminium
beam and brass beam are getting smaller while the gap increment for mild steel beam
is getting bigger compared to the experimental gap increment. From the theoretical
data, the values seemed to be more stable with consistent increment. The mild steel
beam is still the ones that experience the highest deflection value of 1.43mm. Same
goes to brass beam which is still the ones that experience the lowest deflection value
of 0.89mm. Aluminium beam experiences deflection of 1.03mm.
From our observation, the difference of experimental and theoretical data for
brass beam is smaller than aluminum and mild steel beam. The experimental data of
both mild steel and aluminium beam are much more differ with theoretical data
compared to brass data.
Those difference may be caused by errors happened during the experiment.
There are three types of errors that may be occurred. They are human error,
systematic error and random error. Human error may be occurred because of faulty
procedure adopted by us. We could have made an error during scale reading. Our eyes
probably did not perpendicular to the scale of the ruler and Vernier caliper during
measuring the specimen.
Next is systematic error. This type of error arises due to defect in the
measuring device. The steel rule may be a little wear on its end that may lead to
inaccurate measurement. Zero error may be occurred on the Vernier caliper but it can
be corrected by adjusting the device. Random error could occur due to sudden change
in experimental conditions. The specimen has been used for many times that the result
may not like what we expected. The specimen could have rusted due to change in
temperature and humidity. It is an accidental error and is beyond our control.

Conclusion
The calculation of deflections is an important part of structural analysis and
design. Deflections are sometimes calculated in order to verify that they are within
tolerable limits.
 From the experiment, the mild steel has the highest deflection value, followed
by aluminium and then brass. Brass has the lowest deflection since it is the hardest
material among those three while mild steel is the softest.
The objective of this experiment is said to be achieved since we managed to
determine the elastic modulus of the beam specimen by method of deflection of mild
steel, aluminum and brass. We also managed to validate and analyze the experimental
and theoretical data.