EEM 3961 Engineering Laboratory 2

University College of Technology Sarawak

School of Engineering and Technology

UNIVERSITY COLLAGE OF TECHNOLOGY SARAWAK

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

EEM3961
ENGINEERING LABORATORY 2
LABORATORY REPORT

LAB CODE DM1

EXPERIMENT TITLE Deflection of a Beam

TEAM NO Group 2

NAME Dennis Phiong

ID NO BME20090011

DATE OF EXPERIMENT 14/4/2021

DATE OF SUBMISSION 28/4/2021

LECTURER Ms. Taharah Edin

Table of Contents

1 Deflection vs Load ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Theory / Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Apparatus ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
2 Deflection vs Span ............................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Objective ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Theory / Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Apparatus .................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 16
3 Deflection vs Depth ............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Objective ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Theory / Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 17
3.3 Apparatus .................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 23
4 Appendix.............................................................................................................................................................. 24
5 References............................................................................................................................................................ 27
1 Deflection vs Load

1.1 Objective

To establish the relationship between deflection and applied load and determine the elastic modulus
of the beam specimen from the deflection data.

1.2 Theory / Introduction

Beam can be defined as a structural element that primarily resists load applied perpendicular to the
beam’s axis. Beams can be characterized by the manner of support, length, shape of cross-section and the
material used. There are 5 general beam types which are cantilever beam, simply supported beam,
overhanging beam, fixed beam, and continuous beam. For this experiment, a simply support beam is used. It
is a beam which is supported at its both ends. It is able to undergo both shear stress and bending moment [1].

Figure 1 : Sample of Simply Supported Beam

As certain load is applied on the beam, deflection occurs as the load cause the beam to bend and
deflect from its natural position. In structural engineering terms, deflection can be referred as the movement
of beam or node from its original position due to external forces and loads being applied to the member [2].
Figure below illustrate the deflection of a simply support beam with multiple point loads.

Figure 2 : Simply Supported Beam with Single Point Loads

pg. 1
 Deflection of a beam can be determined by several factors. Firstly, the greater the weight of load
applied on the structure, the greater the deflection of the beam would be. Next, the length of distance
between the load to support reaction would affect the degree of deflection too. Nevertheless, the material
used which contribute to the modulus of elasticity of the beam would cause different degree of deflection
too. If a greater modulus of elasticity is used during experiment, the deflection would decrease.
Furthermore, the cross-section size of the beam, which affect the Moment of Inertia would contribute to the
degree of deflection as well [2]. Hence, the value of deflection can be derived as:

𝑀 𝐸
=
𝐼 𝑅

(equation 1)

M = Bending Moment
I = Area Moment of Inertia
E = Modulus of Elasticity
R = Radius of Curvature

By rearranging the equation above, a new equation can be obtained as:

1 𝑀
=
𝑅 𝐸𝐼

(equation 2)

As differential calculus can be used to determine the equation of the elastic curve of a beam, the
curvature at any point on the beam can be found as:
𝑑2𝑦
1 𝑑𝑥 2
= 3
𝑅 2 2
𝑑𝑦
[1 + ( ) ]
𝑑𝑥

(equation 3)

Based on the equation 2 above, the deflection curve can be determined in terms of Cartesian
𝑑𝑦 𝑑2 𝑦
coordinates x and y through the 𝑑𝑥 & 𝑑𝑥 2 . However, the beam is assumed to be homogenous and the
𝑑𝑦
deflection is very small. Hence, the slope of the curve of deflected beam which represented by 𝑑𝑥 is

minimal and can be assumed as 0. With this, a simplified equation can be shown as follows:

𝑑2𝑦
1 𝑑𝑥 2
= 3
𝑅
[1 + (0)2 ]2
pg. 2
 1 𝑑2𝑦
=
𝑅 𝑑𝑥 2

(equation 4)

By combining the equation 2 and 4, the bending moment can be represented as:

1 𝑀 𝑑2𝑦
= =
𝑅 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 2

𝑀 𝑑2 𝑦
=
𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 2

𝑑2 𝑦
𝑀 = 𝐸𝐼
𝑑𝑥 2

𝑀 = 𝐸𝐼𝑦 ′′

(equation 5)

Figure 3 : Situation of Experiment

The experiment is carried out by having a single point load in the middle of the simply supported
beam as shown in Figure 3. Hence, the free body diagram can be constructed as below:

Figure 4 : Free Body Diagram of the Situation of Experiment

pg. 3
 To find the deflection of beam in this situation, a complex calculation was made as shown in the
appendix and the formula used obtained is as follows:

𝐹𝐿3
𝛿=
48𝐸𝐼

(equation 6)

By rearranging the equation 6, a new equation can be formed as:

𝐿3 𝐹
𝐸= ×
48𝐼 𝛿

(equation 7)

𝐹
Where the 𝛿 can be referred as the gradient of deflection curve.

pg. 4
1.3 Apparatus

Beam Specimen
Dial Gauge

Pinned Support 1 Pinned Support 2

Support Frame 1 Support Frame 2

Load Hanger

Figure 5 : Setup of Apparatus

Figure 6 : Beam specimen with different thickness (mm) Figure 7 : Set of weights (1N & 2N)

Hook

Figure 8 : Digital calliper Figure 9 : Close up view of load hanger

Figure 10 : Close up view of Dial Gauge with 0.01mm accuracy Figure 11 : Measuring Tape

pg. 5
1.4 Procedure

1. The two-knife edge supports were bolt to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied with the
apparatus. The distance between the two supports was ensured to be equal to the span of the beam to
be tested.
2. The width and depth of the beam specimen was measured and recorded. Readings were took at 3
different locations for an average reading.
3. The beam specimen was placed on the knife edge support.
4. The load hanger was fixed at the mid-span of the beam.
5. The dial gauge was positioned at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
6. The dial gauge reading was set to zero.
7. A load of 1N was placed on the load hanger.
8. The resulting dial gauge reading was recorded.
9. The load on the load hanger was increased by 1N.
10. Step 8 and 9 were repeated for a few more load increments.
11. The experiment was repeated to obtain another set of readings.

1.5 Results
Beam Specimen Dimension:
Span of tested beam, L = 800mm
Width of beam specimen, b = 25mm
Depth of beam specimen, d = 3.2mm
Moment of inertia of beam specimen, (bd3/12) = 68.267mm4

Table 1.0 Experimental & Theoretical Deflection Due To The Applied Load
Deflection (mm)
Applied Load (N)
Experimental Theoretical
1 0.18 0.78
2 0.39 1.56
3 0.59 2.34
4 0.83 3.12
5 1.01 3.90

pg. 6
1.6 Discussion

Graph of Applied Load Agianst Experimental Deflection

6

5 y = 4.7554x + 0.1467

4
Applied Load, N

3
Experimental Result

2 Linear (Experimental Result)

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Mid-Span Deflection, mm

Based on the graph above, the applied load increase linearly with the mid-span deflection. Hence,
when the applied load increase, the mid-span deflection increases as well. Moreover, the gradient for shown
𝐹
above is 4.7554. By referring to the equation 7, the gradient 4.7554 is illustrated as 𝛿 . Hence, the modulus of

elasticity of the beam can be determined by using the equation 7.

𝐿3 𝐹
𝐸𝑒𝑝 = ×
48𝐼 𝛿

(800𝑚𝑚)3
𝐸𝑒𝑝 = × 4.7554𝑁𝑚𝑚−1
48 × 68.267𝑚𝑚4

𝐸𝑒𝑝 = 743027.6219𝑁𝑚𝑚−1
𝐸𝑡ℎ = 200000𝑁𝑚𝑚−1
Percentage Error between Experimental and Theoretical Results

𝐸𝑒𝑝 − 𝐸𝑡ℎ
=| | × 100%
𝐸𝑡ℎ

743027.6219 − 200000
=| | × 100%
200000

= 271.51%

As shown above, the percentage error is 271.51% , which means the difference between the
experimental and theoretical values is very high. This might cause by several errors were made during the
experiment.

pg. 7
 Firstly, malfunction apparatus was used during the experiment, for instance, the dial gauge might be
defective due to the calibration was not done before the experiment was conducted. Hence, caused zero
error and inaccurate results were taken. To avoid this error, the dial gauge should have calibrated properly
before the experiment was conducted. Next, the beam specimen might have a little deflection on it due to
previous experiment and hence, caused the data obtained to be inaccurate. To overcome this error, the
beam specimen should has straightened and ensure the placement of beam specimen was right.

Second factor contributes to the percentage error might be the environment factor. As the dial gauge
has a very high sensitivity, a little vibration such as air movement would cause the reading to be inaccurate.
To overcome this, experiment should conduct in a calm environment and any external force should be
avoid such as having contact with the table.

Moreover, human error such as parallax error might occur during the experiment and hence,
affected the final reading and accuracy of the data. This error happens when the eye’s level is not
perpendicular to the scale reading of the measuring tape. This might cause the distance between the load to
two the supports are not the same as L/2. With this, the calculation part for the theoretical is not accurate as
well and hence, lead to the high percentage error. To avoid this error, eye’s level should always ensure to
be perpendicular to the reading scale and the experiment shall repeated for 3 times to obtain an average
result.

Furthermore, inaccurate method might contribute to the percentage error as well. For instance, the
beam has been loaded and unloaded many times, which may weaken the beam and hence, giving the
inaccurate results. To avoid this, the load should be added one by one throughout the experiment instead of
removing and adding the load.

Last but not least, the percentage error might cause by the faulty theoretical elastic modulus was
used. This is because the range of elastic modulus of steel at room temperature lies within 190GPa to
215GPa [3]. This this experiment, the elastic modulus of steel beam was assumed to be 200GPa. However,
the value might not be accurate and caused the faulty calculation was made. To avoid this error, the type
and elastic modulus of the steel beam shall confirm with the lab technician before proceeding to the
calculation.

pg. 8
1.7 Conclusion

Based on the result in both the table and graph, the deflection of the beam increases as the applied
𝐿3 𝐹
load increases. The modulus of elasticity of beam specimen can be determine by the equation 𝐸 = × 𝛿.
48𝐼

Furthermore, the errors stated above should always be avoid in order to obtain an accurate result. The
experiment should have carried out with extra care and it should has repeated several times for a more
accurate data to avoid the high percentage error.

pg. 9
2 Deflection vs Span

2.1 Objective

To find the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen.

2.2 Theory / Introduction

𝐹𝐿3
From the theory and equation derived, the mid-span deflection can be determined as, 𝛿 = . As
48𝐸𝐼

shown in the equation, the span of test beam, L is one of the factors that would affect the beam deflection.
Hence, in this experiment, the span of tested beam, L is manipulated. In this case, the power 3 for L is
replaced by n and the deflection equation can be expressed as:

𝐹𝐿3
𝛿=
48𝐸𝐼
𝛿 𝐿𝑛
=
𝐹 48𝐸𝐼
𝛿 1
= × 𝐿𝑛
𝐹 48𝐸𝐼
𝛿
= 𝐶 × 𝐿𝑛
𝐹
1
Where the constant C = 48𝐸𝐼

Next, the deflection equation can be written in log form as shown as:

𝛿
log ( ) = 𝑛 log 𝐿 + log 𝐶
𝐹

The equation above represents a linear equation. The slope of the graph represents the power of the
span and the vertical intercept represents the constant.

In this experiment, the situation of experiment is similar to the previous experiment. The span of the
tested beam is tested with 800mm, 700mm and 600mm.

Figure 12 : Situation of Experiment

pg. 10
2.3 Apparatus

Beam Specimen
Dial Gauge

Pinned Support 1 Pinned Support 2

Support Frame 1 Support Frame 2

Load Hanger

Figure 13 : Setup of Apparatus

Figure 14 : Beam specimen with different thickness (mm) Figure 15 : Set of weights (1N & 2N)

Hook

Figure 16 : Digital calliper Figure 17 : Close up view of load hanger

Figure 18 : Close up view of Dial Gauge with 0.01mm accuracy Figure 19 : Measuring Tape

pg. 11
2.4 Procedure

1. The two-knife edge supports were bolt to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied with the
apparatus. The distance between the two supports was ensured to be equal to the span of the beam to
be tested.
2. The width and depth of the beam specimen was measured and recorded. Readings were took at 3
different locations for an average reading.
3. The beam specimen was placed on the knife edge support.
4. The load hanger was fixed at the mid-span of the beam.
5. The dial gauge was positioned at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
6. The dial gauge reading was set to zero.
7. A load of 1N was placed on the load hanger.
8. The resulting dial gauge reading was recorded.
9. The load on the load hanger was increased by 1N.
10. Step 8 and 9 were repeated for a few more load increments.
11. The experiment was repeated to obtain another set of readings.

2.5 Results
Beam Specimen Dimension:
Width of beam specimen, b = 25mm
Depth of beam specimen, d = 3.2mm
Moment of inertia of beam specimen, (bd3/12) = 68.267mm4

Table 2.0 Experimental Mid-Span Deflection on Applied Load for Span L1, L2 & L3

Experimental Mid-Span Deflection (mm)

Applied Load (N)
Span L1 = 800mm Span L2 = 700mm Span L3 = 600mm
1 0.20 0.12 0.07
2 0.40 0.25 0.16
3 0.60 0.41 0.25
4 0.80 0.54 0.34
5 1.00 0.66 0.42

pg. 12
2.6 Discussion

Graph of Experimental Mid-Span Deflection Against Applied

Load
1.2
Experiment Mid-Span Deflection, mm
1 y = 0.2x

0.8
y = 0.137x - 0.015
0.6 Span L1
Span L2
0.4 y = 0.088x - 0.016
Span L3
0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Applied Load, N

Based on the graph above, deflection of beam increases linearly as the applied load. As observe from
the gradients above, Span L1 has the greatest deflection compared to the other beams. Hence, the greater the
span, the greater the deflection of beam.

Table 2.1
Slope, 𝜹/𝑭
Span, L (mm) log (L) log (𝜹/𝑭)
(mm/N)
800 2.903 0.200 -0.699
700 2.845 0.137 -0.863
600 2.778 0.088 -1.055

pg. 13
 Graph of log (𝜹/𝑾) Against log (L)
0
2.76 2.78 2.8 2.82 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.9 2.92

-0.2

-0.4
Log (𝜹/𝑾)

-0.6 -0.699
y = 2.8485x - 8.9676
-0.8 -0.863

-1 -1.055

-1.2
Log (L)

Based on the graph above,

Slope = 2.8485 ; y-intercept = -8.9676

𝛿
Based on the equation log (𝐹) = 𝑛 log 𝐿 + log 𝐶, the power of the span L is equal to 2.8485 while

the log C is equal to -8.9676.

log 𝐶 = −8.9676
𝐶 = 10−8.9676
𝐶 = 1.077 × 10−9

1
As C = 48𝐸𝐼 , the elastic modulus can be determined by rearrange the equation as:

1
𝐸=
48𝐶𝐼

By using the equation above, the experimental elastic modulus can be calculated.

1
𝐸𝑒𝑝 =
48(1.077 × 10−9 )(68.267)
𝐸𝑒𝑝 = 283355.888

pg. 14
 Percentage Error between Experimental and Theoretical Results

𝐸𝑒𝑝 − 𝐸𝑡ℎ
=| | × 100%
𝐸𝑡ℎ

i. For Power of Span:

2.8485 − 3
=| | × 100%
3

= 5.05%

ii. For Elastic Modulus:

283355.888 − 200000
=| | × 100%
200000

= 41.68%

Based on the calculation above, the percentage error for power of span is 5.05% which is consider as
minimal. On the other hand, the percentage error for elastic modulus is high with the value of 41.68%. The
percentage errors occur might be due to several reasons.

Firstly, malfunction apparatus was used during the experiment, for instance, the dial gauge might be
defective due to the calibration was not done before the experiment was conducted. Hence, caused zero error
and inaccurate results were taken. To avoid this error, the dial gauge should have calibrated properly before
the experiment was conducted. Next, the beam specimen might have a little deflection on it due to previous
experiment and hence, caused the data obtained to be inaccurate. To overcome this error, the beam specimen
should has straightened and ensure the placement of beam specimen was right.

Second factor contributes to the percentage error might be the environment factor. As the dial gauge
has a very high sensitivity, a little vibration such as air movement would cause the reading to be inaccurate.
To overcome this, experiment should conduct in a calm environment and any external force should be avoid
such as having contact with the table.

Moreover, human error such as parallax error might occur during the experiment and hence, affected
the final reading and accuracy of the data. This error happens when the eye’s level is not perpendicular to
the scale reading of the measuring tape. This might cause the distance between the load to two the supports
are not the same as L/2. With this, the calculation part for the theoretical is not accurate as well and hence,
pg. 15
lead to the high percentage error. To avoid this error, eye’s level should always ensure to be perpendicular
to the reading scale and the experiment shall repeated for 3 times to obtain an average result.

Furthermore, inaccurate method might contribute to the percentage error as well. For instance, the
beam has been loaded and unloaded many times, which may weaken the beam and hence, giving the
inaccurate results. To avoid this, the load should be added one by one throughout the experiment instead of
removing and adding the load.

Last but not least, the percentage error might cause by the faulty theoretical elastic modulus was
used. This is because the range of elastic modulus of steel at room temperature lies within 190GPa to 215GPa
[3]. This this experiment, the elastic modulus of steel beam was assumed to be 200GPa. However, the value
might not be accurate and caused the faulty calculation was made. To avoid this error, the type and elastic
modulus of the steel beam shall confirm with the lab technician before proceeding to the calculation.

2.7 Conclusion

In short, the relationship between deflection and span of the beam specimen can be express as the
greater the span of the beam specimen, the greater the deflection as proven from the experiment. Moreover,
the accuracy of experiment is considered high for the power of span while it is considered low for the elastic
modulus. Furthermore, the errors stated above should always be avoid in order to obtain an accurate result.
The experiment should have carried out with extra care and it should has repeated several times for a more
accurate data to avoid the high percentage error.

pg. 16
3 Deflection vs Depth
3.1 Objective

To establish the relationship between deflection and depth and hence determine the elastic modulus
for the beam specimen.

3.2 Theory / Introduction

𝐹𝐿3
As the mid-span deflection equation is known as 𝛿 = and the Moment of inertia of beam
48𝐸𝐼
𝑏𝑑3
specimen, 𝐼 = , it is obvious that the width, b and depth, d of a beam specimen would affect the
12

deflection of a beam. Hence, the equation can be further express as:

𝐹𝐿3
𝛿= × 𝐼 −1
48𝐸

𝐹𝐿3 12
𝛿= ×
48𝐸 𝑏𝑑 3

𝛿 𝐿3 1
= ×
𝐹 4𝐸 𝑏𝑑 3

As in this experiment, the depth, d of a beam will be manipulated, the power of 3 for the thickness of
the beam will be replaced by n, the equation can then further express as:

𝛿 𝐿3 1
= × 𝑛
𝐹 4𝑏𝐸 𝑑

𝛿
= 𝐶 × 𝑑 −𝑛
𝐹

𝐿3
Where the C is a constant = 4𝑏𝐸

Next, the equation can now be written in log form to represent a linear graph as follows:

𝛿
log = log 𝐶 − 𝑛 log 𝑑
𝐹

Similarly, the situation of this experiment is same as the previous experiment as shown in Figure 12.

pg. 17
3.3 Apparatus

Beam Specimen
Dial Gauge

Pinned Support 1 Pinned Support 2

Support Frame 1 Support Frame 2

Load Hanger

Figure 20 : Setup of Apparatus

Figure 21 : Beam specimen with different thickness (mm) Figure 22 : Set of weights (1N & 2N)

Hook

Figure 23 : Digital calliper Figure 24 : Close up view of load hanger

Figure 25 : Close up view of Dial Gauge with 0.01mm accuracy Figure 26 : Measuring Tape

pg. 18
3.4 Procedure

1. The two-knife edge supports were bolt to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied with the
apparatus. The distance between the two supports was ensured to be equal to the span of the beam to
be tested.
2. The width and depth of the beam specimen was measured and recorded. Readings were took at 3
different locations for an average reading.
3. The beam specimen was placed on the knife edge support.
4. The load hanger was fixed at the mid-span of the beam.
5. The dial gauge was positioned at the mid-span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
6. The dial gauge reading was set to zero.
7. A load of 1N was placed on the load hanger.
8. The resulting dial gauge reading was recorded.
9. The load on the load hanger was increased by 1N.
10. Step 8 and 9 were repeated for a few more load increments.
11. The experiment was repeated to obtain another set of readings.

3.5 Results
Beam Specimen Dimension:
Span of tested beam, L = 600mm
Width of beam specimen, b = 25mm

Table 3.0 Experimental Mid-Span Deflection Against Applied Load for Different Thickness of Beam

Experimental Mid-Span Deflection (mm)

Applied Load (N)
Thickness, d1 = 3mm Thickness, d2 = 2.5mm
1 0.07 0.12
2 0.16 0.27
3 0.25 0.42
4 0.34 0.57
5 0.42 0.73

pg. 19
3.6 Discussion

Graph of Experimental Mid-Span Deflection Against Applied

Load For Different Thickness
0.8
Experimental Mid-Span Deflection, mm

0.7 y = 0.152x - 0.034

0.6

0.5

0.4 y = 0.088x - 0.016

Deflection for d1
0.3
Deflection for d2
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Applied Load, N

Based on the graph above, the beam with thickness d2 = 2.5mm has greater beam deflection when
load was applied on it compared to the beam with thickness d1 = 3mm. It is observable that the greater the
thickness of a beam, the lesser the mid-span deflection of a beam. This might because the greater the
thickness of a beam, the greater the elastic modulus of a beam and hence, the beam is able to withstand a
greater load.

Table 3.1

Thickness / Depth, d Slope, 𝜹/𝑭

log (d) log (𝜹/𝑭)
(mm) (mm/N)
3 0.477 0.088 -1.055
2.5 0.398 0.152 -0.818

pg. 20
 Graph of log (δ/F ) Against log(d)
0
0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49

-0.2

-0.4
log (𝜹/𝑭)

-0.6

-0.8

-1
y = -3x + 0.376

-1.2
log (d)

Based on the graph above,

Slope = -3; y-intercept = 0.376

𝛿
Based on the equation log (𝐹) = −𝑛 log 𝑑 + log 𝐶, the power of the thickness is equal to -3 while

the log C is equal to 0.376.

log 𝐶 = 0.376
𝐶 = 100.376
𝐶 = 2.377

𝐿3
As C = 4𝑏𝐸 , the elastic modulus can be determined by rearrange the equation as:

𝐿3
𝐸=
4𝑏𝐶

By using the equation above, the experimental elastic modulus can be calculated.

6003
𝐸𝑒𝑝 =
4(25)(2.377)
𝐸𝑒𝑝 = 908708.456

Percentage Error between Experimental and Theoretical Results

𝐸𝑒𝑝 − 𝐸𝑡ℎ
=| | × 100%
𝐸𝑡ℎ

pg. 21
 i. For Power of Thickness:
3−3
=| | × 100%
3

= 0%

ii. For Elastic Modulus:

908708.456 − 200000
=| | × 100%
200000

= 354.35%

Based on the calculation above, the percentage error for thickness is 0% which means the data is
accurate. On the other hand, the percentage error for elastic modulus is very high with the value of 354.35%.
The percentage errors occur might be due to several reasons.

Firstly, malfunction apparatus was used during the experiment, for instance, the dial gauge might be
defective due to the calibration was not done before the experiment was conducted. Hence, caused zero error
and inaccurate results were taken. To avoid this error, the dial gauge should have calibrated properly before
the experiment was conducted. Next, the beam specimen might have a little deflection on it due to previous
experiment and hence, caused the data obtained to be inaccurate. To overcome this error, the beam specimen
should has straightened and ensure the placement of beam specimen was right.

Second factor contributes to the percentage error might be the environment factor. As the dial gauge
has a very high sensitivity, a little vibration such as air movement would cause the reading to be inaccurate.
To overcome this, experiment should conduct in a calm environment and any external force should be avoid
such as having contact with the table.

Moreover, human error such as parallax error might occur during the experiment and hence, affected
the final reading and accuracy of the data. This error happens when the eye’s level is not perpendicular to
the scale reading of the measuring tape. This might cause the distance between the load to two the supports
are not the same as L/2. With this, the calculation part for the theoretical is not accurate as well and hence,
lead to the high percentage error. To avoid this error, eye’s level should always ensure to be perpendicular
to the reading scale and the experiment shall repeated for 3 times to obtain an average result.

pg. 22
 Furthermore, inaccurate method might contribute to the percentage error as well. For instance, the
beam has been loaded and unloaded many times, which may weaken the beam and hence, giving the
inaccurate results. To avoid this, the load should be added one by one throughout the experiment instead of
removing and adding the load.

Last but not least, the percentage error might cause by the faulty theoretical elastic modulus was
used. This is because the range of elastic modulus of steel at room temperature lies within 190GPa to 215GPa
[3]. This this experiment, the elastic modulus of steel beam was assumed to be 200GPa. However, the value
might not be accurate and caused the faulty calculation was made. To avoid this error, the type and elastic
modulus of the steel beam shall confirm with the lab technician before proceeding to the calculation.

3.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, the deflection of a beam will decrease if the thickness or depth of a beam increase as
𝛿
proven in the experiment. Moreover, the equation log 𝐹 = log 𝐶 − 𝑛 log 𝑑 can used to calculate for the
𝐿3
elastic modulus of the beam specimen by expressing the equation into 𝐸 = 4𝑏𝐶. Furthermore, the errors stated

above should always be avoid in order to obtain an accurate result. The experiment should have carried out
with extra care and it should has repeated several times for a more accurate data to avoid the high percentage
error.

pg. 23
4 Appendix

pg. 24
pg. 25
pg. 26
5 References

[1] Kumar, Y. A. (29 October, 2019). slideshare. Retrieved from Beam and its types:
https://www.slideshare.net/yugaaravind/beam-and-its-types

[2] SkyCiv . (March 26, 2021). Retrieved from What is Deflection?:

https://skyciv.com/docs/tutorials/beam-tutorials/what-is-deflection/

[3] Metals Handbook. Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance Alloys. ASM
International, 1990.

pg. 27