Experiment 5

3-Point Bending Lab Report

MECH 3111 – Mechanics of Material Lab

Steven Abed Daniel Lubis (2021360004)

Submission Date: 15th November, 2023

Mechanical Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Sampoerna University

Fall 2023

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 1

I. Introduction
Bending test is utilized to determine a material’s strength. Applying force to the
specimen and observing its response to applied load is how a bending test is implemented.
An incremental load is applied to a material during a bending test to determine its bending
strength and other crucial characteristics. Typically, the design criteria for beam strength
are dominated by this normal stress; however, when beams get thicker and shorter, the
transverse shear stress takes precedence (Boston University). Due to the load applied,
normal stress, shear stress and bending moment are generated.

Three-point and four-point bending are the two general bending test methods. The
specimen is loaded at one place in the three-point bending test, which is precisely in the
middle of the flat beam where the maximum shear stress and bending moment occurred.
While in four-point bending, the specimen is loaded at 1/3 and 2/3 of the beam length.
This configuration showed an interval where the maximum bending moment is located.

Material’s ductility and elastic modulus can be assessed by observing material

behavior as a response to applied load under bending, more precisely how the material
shall bend or deform under the applied load. This can be observed by the comparison of
the deflection data of the material. Furthermore, elastic Modulus can be obtained by
calculation.

Three-point bending shall be the main topic of this experiment. The three-point-
bend test is a straightforward method for concurrently putting a specimen through tension,
compression, and shear, which is another crucial factor (Chamis).

Several formulas used in the experiment:

1. Beam deflection formula:

𝑃𝐿3
𝛿=
48𝐸𝐼

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 2

Where:

𝛿 = 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 (𝑚)

𝑃 = 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 (𝑁)

𝐿 = 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 (𝑚)

𝐸 = 𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 (𝑃𝑎)

𝐼 = 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎 (𝑚4 )

2. Moment of inertia

1
𝐼= 𝑏ℎ3
12

Where:

𝐼 = 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎 (𝑚4 )

𝑏 = 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 (𝑚)

ℎ = ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 (𝑚)

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 3

II. Objective
a. To utilize the knowledge of the three-point bending test in the mechanical
engineering field of mechanics of materials.
b. To understand the elastic zone in material behavior.
c. To understand the relationship between load and deflection under bending.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 4

III. Material, Tool, and Experimental Method
a. Material:
Flat beam: ST 37

Tools:
- Vernier caliper
- Tape measure
- Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
- Bending test machine: The Hampden Model H-6320 Structures Test System
- Dial indicator

b. Experimental Procedure
1. On the base, place the flat beam. To define a separate pressure area, use the
mounting plates with the steel rod positioned between the base and the beam.
2. Install the ram by attaching it to the base's central mounting hole.
3. Attach the ram to the bottom of the beam's central mounting hole.
4. Attach the high-pressure hose to the hydraulic pump's output connector.
5. Attach the high-pressure hose's opposite end to the ram's return (RET) connection.
6. Attach the hydraulic pump's return hose to the ram's advance (ADV) connection.
7. While maintaining the push rod vertical, position the dial indication pointer as near
to the beam's centerline as you can. Invalid data will arise from skipping this step.
8. Once a modest amount of pressure is indicated on the dial by adjusting the push
rod, zero the dial. (To set the dial to zero, loosen the knob on the side of the dial.)
9. On the hydraulic pump, close the pressure release valve.
10. For load increments of 50 pounds-force (22.7 kilogram-force) per step, measure
the deflection. Apply pressure on the flat beam gradually.
11. For each load increase, record data of the beam's deflection.
12. Release the pressure after logging the 619.30 pound-force (280.86 kilogram-force)
deflection reading.
13. Do steps 9 through 12 two more times. Because of the initial force used to start the
ram moving, you will see differences for the 100 lbs.-F reading.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 5

 IV. Result and Discussion
a. Result

This part would cover general data that was obtained from the three-point bending
test experiment.

Gauge
Kg- Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection
psi Load, N
force (1) mm, (2) mm, (3) mm, average, mm average, m
(kPa)
(300)
46.81 2068.5 459.2061 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.00005
(350)
54.61 2413.25 535.7241 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.00008
(400)
62.41 2758 612.2421 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.103333333 0.000103333
(450)
70.22 3102.75 688.8582 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.00013
(500)
78.02 3447.5 765.3762 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.143333333 0.000143333
(550)
85.82 3792.25 841.8942 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.186666667 0.000186667
(600)
93.62 4137 918.4122 0.2 0.22 0.23 0.216666667 0.000216667
(650)
101.42 4481.75 994.9302 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.246666667 0.000246667
(700)
109.22 4826.5 1071.4482 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.273333333 0.000273333
(750)
117.03 5171.25 1148.0643 0.29 0.29 0.3 0.293333333 0.000293333
(800)
124.83 5516 1224.5823 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.00032

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 6

 (850)
132.63 5860.75 1301.1003 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.353333333 0.000353333
(900)
140.43 6205.5 1377.6183 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.383333333 0.000383333
(950)
148.23 6550.25 1454.1363 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.00042
(1000)
156.03 6895 1530.6543 0.47 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.00046
(1050)
163.84 7239.75 1607.2704 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.00049
(1100)
171.64 7584.5 1683.7884 0.53 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.00052
(1150)
179.44 7929.25 1760.3064 0.56 0.55 0.52 0.543333333 0.000543333
(1200)
187.24 8274 1836.8244 0.6 0.59 0.59 0.593333333 0.000593333
(1250)
195.04 8618.75 1913.3424 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.623333333 0.000623333
(1300)
202.84 8963.5 1989.8604 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.653333333 0.000653333
(1350)
210.65 9308.25 2066.4765 0.69 0.68 0.69 0.686666667 0.000686667
(1400)
218.45 9653 2142.9945 0.73 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.00072
(1450)
226.25 9997.75 2219.5125 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.756666667 0.000756667
(1500)
234.05 10342.5 2296.0305 0.8 0.79 0.79 0.793333333 0.000793333
(1550)
241.85 10687.3 2372.5485 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.823333333 0.000823333

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 7

 (1600)
249.65 11032 2449.0665 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.853333333 0.000853333
(1650)
257.46 11376.8 2525.6826 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.883333333 0.000883333
(1700)
265.26 11721.5 2602.2006 0.92 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.00091
(1750)
273.06 12066.3 2678.7186 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.936666667 0.000936667
(1800)
280.86 12411 2755.2366 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.966666667 0.000966667
Table 1 Data of 3-Point Bending Test

As commonly known, this experiment proved that when more load applied at a three-
point bending condition, the more deflection would occur.

b. Discussion
i. Experiment data
All specimen data provided in Table 1.
Dimension of flat steel beam was represented by Figure 1: 64.1 mm

26 mm

825 mm
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Figure 1 Steel Beam Illustration

Source: Wikipedia

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 8

 ii. Free body diagram, shear force diagram and bending moment diagram of
three-point bending and four-point bending.

c. bending

Figure 2 Free Body Diagram (top), SFD (middle), and BMD

Figure 3 Free Body Diagram (top), SFD (middle), and
(bottom) of 3-Point Bending
BMD (bottom) of 4-Point Bending

Differences:

- In three-point flexural bend testing, the highest or maximum bend stress occured
beneath the loading anvil. The maximum flexural stress was distributed across
the segment of the beam between the loading points in four point bend tests.
- Based on BMD, pure bending was not occurred in 3-point bending, while pure
bending occurred in 4-point bending.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 9

 Location of maximum shear force and bending moment:

- As observed on the SFD, maximum shear force occurred at the middle part of
the beam in 3-point bending. While in the 4-point bending, shear force was
occurred along the beam equally, however not occurred at the middle of the
beam.
- Furthermore, according to the BMD, in 3-point bending, the middle part was
where the beam experienced the maximum bending moment. In 4-point
bending, the middle part was where the beam experienced pure bending.

iii. Load and deflection graph

Load vs Deflection
3500

3000 y = 3,038,797x

2500

2000
LOAD (N)

1500 y = 2,432,848.072x + 397.607

1000

500

0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012
DEFLECTION (M)

Load vs Deflection Linear (Load vs Deflection)

Figure 4 Load vs Deflection Plot

Figure 4 showed the graph of load and deflection which load was represented by
the y-axis and deflection represented by the x-axis. The blue line represented linear
regression was obtained from the Table 1 and yellow line was obtained from setting the
intercept of (0,0). The linear regression had the slope of 2432848.072 while the yellow
line was 3038797.
MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 10
 Furthermore, as showed by the graph in Figure 4, the graph obtained was linear
which indicated that the material was in elastic zone. This was known since the line on
the graph did not form a parabolic shape.

iv. Slope of load and deflection graph

Based on the graph in Figure 4, the slope was approximately 2432848.
Next step, the slope was utilized to calculate the Young’s Modulus using the
𝑃𝐿3
formula of 𝛿 = 48𝐸𝐼

Calculating Young’s Modulus based on the graph (experimental Young’s

Modulus)
𝑃𝐿3
𝛿=
48𝐸𝐼

𝑃𝐿3
𝐸=
48𝛿𝐼

𝑃𝐿3
𝐸=
𝛿48𝐼

2432848 ∙ 𝐿3
𝐸=
48𝐼

2432848 ∙ (0.712)3
𝐸=
(48)(9.39 ∙ 10−8 )

𝐸 ≈ 19.48 ∙ 1010 𝑃𝑎

Based on the calculation, the Young’s Modulus was 194.8 𝐺𝑃𝑎.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 11

v. Comparison: Experimental Value and Theoretical Value of Young’s
Modulus
Calculating Percent Error of Experimental Young’s Modulus and Young’s
Modulus of 200 GPa:
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

194.8 ∙ 109 − 200 ∙ 109

%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
200 ∙ 109

%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 2.6%

Based on the calculation, percentage error obtained was 2.6% compared to the
standard Young’s Modulus of ST37 which was 200 GPa. As observed from the graph
in Figure 4, the equation of the linear regression was y = 2,432,848.072x + 397.607
which had constant value of 397.607. This constant value indicated there was an
anomaly in the experiment. The constant number indicated load detected by dial
indicator device which was represented by the beginning of the graph that was not
exactly at the origin (0,0).

The machine error that resulted in the machine having more support than
anticipated and causing another load to be noticed at the start of the experiment was the
source of this anomaly. In spite of the load being regarded as zero, the support created
a load on the beam.

vi. Comparison: Experimental Values and Theoretical Values of Deflection

The beam's deflection was also caused by the unexpected support. The following
calculation illustrated the discrepancies between the experimental and theoretical data
regarding the beam's deflection due to the unexpected support.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 12

Using the first three data of load from Table 1:

- Using the first data (load of 459.2061 N):

o P = 459.2061 N
o L = 0.712 m
o E = 200 GPa
o I = 9.39 ∙ 10−8 m4
(459.2061)(0.712)3
𝛿=
(48)(200 ∙ 109 )(9.39 ∙ 10−8 )

𝛿 = 0.00018 𝑚

- Using the second data (535.7241 N):

o P = 535.7241 N
o L = 0.712 m
o E = 200 GPa
o I = 9.39 ∙ 10−8 m4

(535.7241 )(0.712)3
𝛿=
(48)(200 ∙ 109 )(9.39 ∙ 10−8 )

𝛿 = 0.00021 𝑚

- Using the third data (load of 612.2421 N):

o P = 612.2421 N
o L = 0.712 m
o E = 200 GPa
o I = 9.39 ∙ 10−8 m4

(612.2421 )(0.712)3
𝛿=
(48)(200 ∙ 109 )(9.39 ∙ 10−8 )

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 13

 𝛿 = 0.00024 𝑚

Below were the percentage errors between the experimental and theoretical
deflections (calculated using the first three deflection data points on Table 1).

- Percentage error between first data of deflections from Table 1 (0.00005 m) and
theoretical value:
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

0.00005 − 0.00018
%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
0.00018

%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 72%

- Percentage error between second data of deflections from Table 1 (0.00008 m)

and theoretical value:

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

0.00008 − 0.00021
%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
0.00021

%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 61.9%

- Percentage error between third data of deflections from Table 1 (0.0001 m) and
theoretical value:

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

0.0001 − 0.00024
%𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
0.00024

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 14

 %𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 58.3%

Experimental Value Theoretical Value Percentage Error

First Data 0.00005 0.00018 72%
Second Data 0.00008 0.00021 61.9%
Third Data 0.0001 0.00024 58.3%
Table 2 Comparison Between Experimental Value and Theoretical Value of Deflection

The calculation results were presented in Table 2 showed that each theoretical and
experimental deflection had a percentage error that was relatively high. This showed
that the beam deflection was clearly far less than theoretical value. As a result, this issue
was given further analyzation. Observing at the graph in Figure 4, the blue line
representing the linear regression and the yellow line representing the (0,0) intercept
were initially farther apart but eventually became closer. This condition demonstrated
that, in comparison to the theoretical deflection, the experiment's deflection started out
very different and ended up being more similar. As a result, it satisfied the previously
determined percentage error.

By analyzing the whole experiment, it was discovered that the impact of the
unexpected support also contributed to the beam deflection error. The presence of
unexpected support prevented the deflection of the beam when the material start to
bend. However, as the experiment continued, the support stopped having an impact on
the beam's deflection; as a result, the percentage error between the experimental and
theoretical values decreased for the deflection.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 15

V. Conclusion
The experiment demonstrated how the load affected the three-point bending
deflection in which the deflection was increased as the load increased. The plot indicated
an anomaly that was highlighted by the slope's constant number. Due to a machine fault
that resulted in unanticipated support, the constant number indicated load that shouldn't
have existed. Furthermore, Young's modulus was reduced in the number of cases as a cause
of unexpected support.

The unexpected support also had an impact on the beam deflection, which led to a
difference in the experimental beam deflection value when compared to the theoretical
value. Initially, the experimental and theoretical values differed significantly, but toward
the end of the experiment, the differences were more precise.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 16

VI. References
Chamis, Christos C. Analysis Of The Three-Point-Bend Test For Materials With
Unequal Tension and Compression Properties , NASA,
ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740010415/downloads/19740010415.pdf.

Boston University, Mechanical Engineering. “Mechanics of Materials: Bending –

Shear Stress .” Boston University Mechanical Engineering Mechanics of Slender
Structures RSS, Boston University, www.bu.edu/moss/mechanics-of-materials-
bending-shear-stress/.

MECH 3111 – MoM Lab | 17