Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024

Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment : DEFLECTION OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM (I)
Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

A beam is a length of material supported at its two ends, in such a way so as to bear loads.
The load perpendicular to its longitudinal axis will result in bending and, in most cases,
transverse shearing. In the simplest of situations, the beam is taken to have a rectangular
cross-section and the loads and supporting reactions act in the vertical plane containing the
longitudinal axis. The loads and the reactions at the supports are considered external forces
and they must be in equilibrium for the entire beam to be in equilibrium.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to establish the relationship between deflection and
applied load and determine the elastic modulus of the beam specimen from the deflection
data.

Apparatus & Materials

The apparatus consists of :

1. A support frame
2. A pair of knife-edge support
3. A load hanger
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy to measuring deflection
5. A beam specimen with constant depth and width throughout its length
6. A micrometer to measure the depth and with of the beam specimen
7. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam
8. A set of weights

MATERIALS:
A beam specimen with constant depth and width throughout its length.

Procedure

1. Bolted the two supports to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied with the
apparatus. The distance between the two supports was equal to the span of the beam to be
tested.
2. Measured width the depth of specimen and noted the readings.
3. Placed the beam specimen on the support (Using middle thickness beam).
4. Fix the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam.
5. Position the dial gauge at the mid- span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
6. Zero the dial gauge reading.
7. Placed a suitable load on the load hanger.
8. Note the resulting dial gauge reading.
9. Increased the load on the load hanger.
10. Repeated step 8 and 9 for few more load increments
11. Repeated the above test to obtain another set of readings.
Result

Span of tested beam, l = ______800_____mm

Width of beam specimen, b = _______24.19____mm
Depth of beam specimen, d = _______4.45____mm
Moment of inertia of beam specimen, (bd3 /12) = ___177.64_____mm4
Dial gauge reading, 1 div = ________0.01___mm

Applied Experimental deflection Theoretical

load Test 1 Test 2 Average deflection
N div mm div mm mm mm
5 123 1.23 126 1.26 1.25
10 251 2.51 251 2.51 2.51
15 376 3.76 375 3.75 3.76
20 500 5.00 501 5.01 5.005
25 622 6.22 629 6.29 6.26
30 750 7.50 749 7.49 7.5

Analysis
𝐿3
E= × slope of the load deflection curve
48𝐼

𝑤
slope of the load deflection curve=
δ
=4

8003
E= ×4
48(177.64)

E=240186.14
Discussion

1-From the table above, I understand that the relationship between the applied load and the
resulting mid span deflection. the resulting mid span deflection is directly proportional to the
applied load. When the applied load increases, the deflection of the beam specimen increases
too. From the best fit curve in the table above.

2-Material Properties: The accuracy of the theoretical analysis relies on precise

knowledge of the material properties of the beam, such as Young's modulus and
Poisson's ratio. However, there can be variations in material properties between
different batches or even within the same batch of materials. Inaccurate material
properties can lead to discrepancies between theoretical and experimental
results.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize that these differences are common and provide

valuable insights into the limitations and uncertainties of both theoretical
analyses and experimental measurements. By understanding these factors,
researchers can refine their models, improve experimental techniques, and
enhance the accuracy of future investigations.

Ultimately, the experiment on beam deflection serves as a valuable learning

experience, illustrating the need for a critical evaluation of theoretical
predictions and the importance of considering real-world complexities when
interpreting experimental results.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment : DEFLECTION OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM (II)
Group :

No. ID Name
CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

A beam is a length of material supported at its two ends, in such a way so as to bear loads.
The load perpendicular to its longitudinal axis will result in bending and, in most cases,
transverse shearing. In the simplest of situations, the beam is taken to have a rectangular
cross-section and the loads and supporting reactions act in the vertical plane containing the
longitudinal axis. The loads and the reactions at the supports are considered external forces
and they must be in equilibrium for the entire beam to be in equilibrium.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to find the relationship between deflection and span of
the beam specimen

Apparatus and Materials

The apparatus consists of :

1. A support frame
2. A pair of knife-edge support
3. A load hanger
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy to measuring deflection
5. A beam specimen with constant depth and width throughout its length
6. A micrometer to measure the depth and with of the beam specimen
7. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam
8. A set of weights

MATERIALS:

A beam specimen with constant depth and width throughout its length.

Procedure:

1. Bolted the two supports to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied with the
apparatus. The distance between the two supports is equal to the span of the beam to be
tested.
2. Measured width the depth of specimen and note the readings (took measurement at 3
locations and recorded the average reading)
3. Placed the beam specimen on the support (Using middle thickness beam).
4. Fix the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam.
5. Position the dial gauge at the mid- span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
6. Zero the dial gauge reading.
7. Placed a suitable load on the load hanger.
8. Noted the resulting dial gauge reading.
9. Increased the load on the load hanger.
10. Repeated step 8 and 9 for few more load increments
11. Repeated the above test for another two lengths of the beam.

Result:

Span of tested beam, l = 800 mm

Width of beam specimen, b = 24.19 mm
Depth of beam specimen, d = 4.45 mm
Moment of inertia of beam specimen, (bd3 /12) = 177.64 mm4
Dial gauge reading, 1 div = 0.01 mm

Table 1
load Experimental Mid-span Deflection
Span L1 (450) Span L2 (700) Span L3 (800)
N div mm div mm div mm
5 28 0.28 82 0.82 130 1.30
6 31 0.31 100 1.00 157 1.57
7 34 0.34 117 1.17 181 1.81
8 37 0.37 133 1.33 210 2.10
9 43 0.43 149 1.49 236 2.36
10 46 0.46 165 1.65 259 2.59

Table 2
Span, L Log L Slope, δ/W Log (δ/W)
450 2.65 0.05 -1.30
700 2.85 0.17 -0.77
800 2.90 0.26 -0.59

Analysis:

2.95
2.9
2.85
2.8
LOG(L)

2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
-1.3 -0.77 -0.59
LOG (Δ/W)
Discussion:

The relationship between the thickness of a beam and the deflection at mid-span is
generally characterized by a direct relationship. As the thickness of the beam
increases, the deflection tends to decrease.

Conclusion:

Overall, experiments on the deflection of supported beams provide valuable

information for engineers and researchers, aiding in the understanding of structural
behavior and assisting in the design and analysis of beams for various applications.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment : DEFLECTION OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM (III)
Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

A beam is a length of material supported at its two ends, in such a way so as to bear loads.
The load perpendicular to its longitudinal axis will result in bending and, in most cases,
transverse shearing. In the simplest of situations, the beam is taken to have a rectangular
cross-section and the loads and supporting reactions act in the vertical plane containing the
longitudinal axis. The loads and the reactions at the supports are considered external forces
and they must be in equilibrium for the entire beam to be in equilibrium.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to establish the relationship between deflection and
depth and hence determine the elastic modulus for the beam specimen.

Apparatus and Materials

The apparatus consists of:

1. A support frame
2. A pair of knife-edge support
3. A load hanger
4. A dial gauge with 0.01 mm accuracy to measuring deflection
5. Three beam specimen specimens having similar width but of different depth. Each beam
must have constant depth and width throughout its length.
6. A micrometer to measure the depth and with of the beam specimen
7. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam
8. A set of weights

MATERIALS:
1. Three beam specimen specimens having similar width but of different depth. Each beam
must have constant depth and width throughout its length.

Procedure

1. Bolted the two supports to the support frame using the plate and bolt supplied with the
apparatus. The distance between the two supports is equal to the span of the beam to be
tested.
2. Measured width the depth of specimen and note the readings (take measurement at 3
locations and record the average reading)
3. Placed the beam specimen on the support.
4. Fixed the load hanger at the mid-span of the beam.
5. Position the dial gauge at the mid- span of the beam to measure the resulting deflection.
6. Zero the dial gauge reading.
7. Placed a suitable load on the load hanger.
8. Noted the resulting dial gauge reading.
9. Increased the load on the load hanger.
10. Repeat step 8 and 9 for few more load increments
11. Repeat the above test for two other beams. The span of the beam should be similar to
the first beam.

Result

Span of tested beam, l = 800mm

Width of beam specimen, b = 24.19mm
Depth of beam specimen, d = 4.45mm
Moment of inertia of beam specimen, (bd3 /12) = 177.64mm4
Dial gauge reading, 1 div = 0.01mm

Table 1

load Experimental Mid-span Deflection

Thickness t1 Thickness t2 Thickness t3

N div mm div mm div mm
5 480 4.80 130 1.30 55 0.55
6 572 5.72 157 1.57 64 0.64
7 668 6.68 181 1.81 75 0.75
8 765 7.65 210 2.10 86 0.86
9 855 8.55 236 2.36 96 0.96
10 9751 9.51 259 2.59 107 1.07

Table 2

Thickness of beam, (t) Log (t) Slope, δ/W Log (δ/W)

T1 0.85 0.95 -0.02
T2 0.29 0.26 -0.59
T3 -0.09 0.11 -0.96
Graph (t1)

10

8
DEFLECTION MM

0
5 6 7 8 9 10
LOAD

𝟗.𝟓𝟏−𝟖.𝟓𝟓
Slope= =0.96
𝟏𝟎−𝟗

Graph 2(t2)

3
2.5
DEFLECTION MM

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
5 6 7 8 9 10
LOAD

2.59−2.36
Slope= = 0.23
10−9
Graph 3(t3)

1.2
1
DEFLECTION MM

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5 6 7 8 9 10
LOAD

1.07−0.96
Slope= = 0.11
10−9

Graph (log (δ/W) vs log t)

0
0.85 0.29 -0.09
-0.2

-0.4
LOG &/W

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2
LOG T

−0.96−(−0.59)
Slope= = 0.97
−0.09−0.29
Discussion

It is important to note that the specific relationship between thickness and

deflection at mid-span can vary depending on other factors such as material
properties, beam shape, and loading conditions. However, in general, the
experiment indicates that an increase in beam thickness leads to a reduction in
deflection at mid-span.

Conclusion

At the end of the experiment, the relationship between deflection and depth and hence
determine the elastic modulus for the beam specimen can be determined. The experiment’s
objective is achieved.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina binti itam
Experiment : BENDING MOMENT (I)
Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

When a beam is loaded with some external loading, moment & shear force are set up at
each strain. The bending moment at a section tends to deflect the beam & internal stresses
tend to resist its bending. This internal resistance is known as bending stresses.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to show that the bending moment at a cut section of a
beam is equal to the algebraic sum of the moments acting to the left or right of the section.

Apparatus

The apparatus consists of:

1. A pair of simple supports equipment.
2. Special beam with a cut section.
3. A set of weights with several load hangers.

MATERIALS
1. A beam specimen.

Procedure

1. Connected the load cell to the digital indicator.

2. Switched on the indicator. For stability of the reading the indicator was switch on 10
minutes before taking readings.
3. Fixed the two simple supports to the aluminum base at a distance equal to the span of the
beam to be tested. Screw the supports tightly to the base.
4. Hanged the load hanger to the beam.
5. Placed the beam on the supports.
6. Placed the load hanger at the desired location.
7. Noted the indicator reading. If it is not zero press the tare button on the indicator.
8. Placed a load on each load hanger.
9. Recorded the indicator reading. This represents the force at the cut section.
10. Removed all loads from the load hangers and apply a different set of loading and at
different locations.
11. Repeated step 6 to 11 for another 5 sets of reading
Result

Span of tested beam, l = ______450_____mm

Distance of the cut section from the right support, L4 = _____300______mm
Distance of the load cell from centre of the beam cross section = _______175____mm

Load case Load And Its Distance from The Left Support Load
cells
reading,
F
W1 L1 W2 L2 W3 L3 N
N mm N mm N mm
Case1 4 100 5 300 6 500 11.6
Case2 6 150 3 350 6 460 9.7
Case3 2 230 5 330 3 430 7.6
Case4 5 80 6 180 2 440 5.4
Case5 3 110 3 320 3 530 6.5

Load case number Bending Moment (N-mm)

Experimental (F* 175) Theory
11.6 2030 2050
9.7 1697 1700
7.6 1330 1340
5.4 945 950
6.5 1137 1150
Analysis

Chart Title
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5

Theorical Expeiment

Percentage of error:

2050−2030
Case 1 = × 100% = 0.98
2050

1700−1697
Case 2 = × 100% = 0.18
1700

1340−1330
Case 3 = × 100% = 0.75
1340

950−945
Case 4 = × 100% = 0.53
950

1150−1137
Case 5 = × 100% = 1.13
1150

Discussion

1.When a load is applied to the beam, it experiences internal forces and moments that cause it
to deform. The beam undergoes bending, which results in deflection, or the vertical
displacement of the beam at different points. This deflection occurs due to the stress and
strain distribution within the beam. The load applied creates a moment that causes the beam
to bend, with the maximum deflection usually occurring at the mid-span.

2.The reading of the load cell will differ if it is placed at 100 mm from the center of the cross-
section. The deflection of a beam is typically highest at the mid-span, so placing the load cell
at a different position will result in a different reading. If the load cell is placed at 100 mm
from the center of the cross-section, it will be subjected to a different portion of the beam's
deflection profile, leading to a different measurement. The difference in the reading will
depend on the specific deflection profile of the beam and the position of the load cell.

3.The accuracy of the experiment depends on several factors, including the precision of the
measurement instruments, the control of experimental variables, and the minimization of
sources of error. For this experiment the result was quite accurate, there was no big difference
between the experimental and theoretical.
4.Several factors can affect the accuracy of the experiment on the deflection of a supported
beam. Some probable factors include:

 Measurement Errors: Errors in measuring the deflection, such as parallax, instrument

inaccuracies, or improper calibration, can affect the accuracy of the experiment.

 Load Application: Inaccurate or uneven distribution of the applied load can introduce
errors in the measurement of deflection.

 Support Conditions: Incorrect or unstable support conditions can lead to uneven

loading and inaccurate deflection measurements.

 Material Variations: Variations in the material properties of the beam, such as

inconsistencies in the modulus of elasticity or structural integrity, can introduce errors
in the deflection measurements.

 Environmental Factors: Environmental conditions, such as temperature variations or

vibrations, can influence the behavior of the beam and affect the accuracy of the
experiment.

 Assumptions and Simplifications: Any simplifications or assumptions made during

the experiment, such as assuming linear elastic behavior when the beam exhibits
nonlinear characteristics, can introduce errors

Conclusion

Overall, the experiment provides valuable information for understanding the behavior of
supported beams and assists in the design and analysis of beams for various applications.
However, it is crucial to consider the limitations and potential sources of error to ensure
accurate and reliable results.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course: Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code: CEMB 1041
Section: 01
Lecturer: Zarina Binti itam
Experiment: BENDING MOMENT (II)
Group:

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

When a beam is loaded with some external loading, moment & shear force are set up at
each strain. The bending moment at a section tends to deflect the beam & internal stresses
tend to resist its bending. This internal resistance is known as bending stresses.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to show that the bending moment at a cut section of a
beam is equal to the algebraic sum of the moment action to the left or right of the section.

APPARATUS

The apparatus consists of:

1. A pair of simple supports equipment.
2. Special beam with a cut section.
3. A set of weights with several load hangers.

MATERIALS

1. A beam specimen.

Procedure

1. Connected the load cell to the digital indicator.

2. Switched on the indicator. For stability of the reading the indicator was switched on 10
minutes before taking reading.
3. Fixed the two simple supports to the aluminium base at a distance equal to the span of
the beam be tested. Screw the supports tightly to the base.
4. Hanged the load hanger to the beam.
5. Placed the beam on the supports.
6. Placed the load hanger at the desired location.
7. Noted the indicator reading. If it is not zero press the tare button on the indicator.
8. Placed a load on the load hanger.
9. Recorded the indicator reading. This represents the force at the cut section.
10. Added load to the load hanger and record the indicator reading.
11. Repeated step 10 for another 5 sets of readings.
Result

Span of tested beam, l = _____450______mm

Distance of the cut section from the right support, L4 = ________300___mm
Distance of the load cell from centre of the beam cross section = ____175____mm

Load N Bending Moment (N-mm)

Load cell reading, F Experimental (F* Theory
175)
5 3.6 630 650
7 4.8 840 855
9 5.4 945 960
11 6.6 1155 1160
13 7.9 1383 1400
15 9.2 1610 1621
17 10.5 1838 1850
20 12.4 2170 2200

Analysis
2500

2000
Bending moment (N-mm)

1500

1000

500

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 20
Load N

Series 1

840−630
Slope of the graph = = 105
7−5
 175
Theoretical slope = 300× = 116.67
450

116.67−105
Percentage error = × 100% = 10.003
116.67

Discussion

1.When a load is applied to the beam, it experiences internal forces and moments that cause it
to deform. The beam undergoes bending, which results in deflection, or the vertical
displacement of the beam at different points. This deflection occurs due to the stress and
strain distribution within the beam. The load applied creates a moment that causes the beam
to bend, with the maximum deflection usually occurring at the mid-span.

2.The reading of the load cell will differ if it is placed at 100 mm from the center of the cross-
section. The deflection of a beam is typically highest at the mid-span, so placing the load cell
at a different position will result in a different reading. If the load cell is placed at 100 mm
from the center of the cross-section, it will be subjected to a different portion of the beam's
deflection profile, leading to a different measurement. The difference in the reading will
depend on the specific deflection profile of the beam and the position of the load cell.

3.The accuracy of the experiment depends on several factors, including the precision of the
measurement instruments, the control of experimental variables, and the minimization of
sources of error. For this experiment the result was quite accurate, there was no big difference
between the experimental and theoretical.

4.Several factors can affect the accuracy of the experiment on the deflection of a supported
beam. Some probable factors include:

 Measurement Errors: Errors in measuring the deflection, such as parallax, instrument

inaccuracies, or improper calibration, can affect the accuracy of the experiment.

 Load Application: Inaccurate or uneven distribution of the applied load can introduce
errors in the measurement of deflection.

 Support Conditions: Incorrect or unstable support conditions can lead to uneven

loading and inaccurate deflection measurements.

 Material Variations: Variations in the material properties of the beam, such as

inconsistencies in the modulus of elasticity or structural integrity, can introduce errors
in the deflection measurements.

 Environmental Factors: Environmental conditions, such as temperature variations or

vibrations, can influence the behavior of the beam and affect the accuracy of the
experiment.

 Assumptions and Simplifications: Any simplifications or assumptions made during

the experiment, such as assuming linear elastic behavior when the beam exhibits
nonlinear characteristics, can introduce errors
Conclusion

Overall, the experiment provides valuable information for understanding the behavior of
supported beams and assists in the design and analysis of beams for various applications.
However, it is crucial to consider the limitations and potential sources of error to ensure
accurate and reliable results.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment : REACTION OF BEAM
Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

This is an experimental determination of the reaction forces in the supports of a simply

supported beam under various loadings. It is a measurement of loads and moments on a
lever. Comparison with calculated results and validation of the principle of equilibrium.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to determine the reaction of a simply supported beam
and hence show that the sum of the reaction equals the sum of the applied load.

Apparatus and Material

The apparatus consists of:

1. A support frame.
2. A pair of support with spring balance to measure the reaction force.
3. Several load hangers.
4. A rigid beam.
5. A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam and position of load.
6. A set of weights.

MATERIALS:

A beam specimen.

Procedure

1. Anchor the two supports with the spring balance to the support frame using the knob at
the top of the support. The distance between the two supports is equal to the span of the
beam to be tested.
2. Placed several load hangers on the beam.
3. Placed the beam on the hangers at the end of the spring balance.
4. Placed a spirit level on the beam and adjust the nut at the top of the spring balance to
level the beam.
5. Adjust the positions of the load hangers to the desired locations.
6. Placed loads on the load hangers and level the beam again as in step 4 above.
7. Recorded the span of the beam the position and magnitude of the load on the beam.
8. Removed the load and move the load hanger to other locations.
9. Repeated step 6 to 9 for a few more load arrangements.
Result

Hanger 1 Hanger 2 Hanger 3 Spring Spring

balance balance
1 2
Distance Magnitude Distance Magnitude Distance Magnitude Left Right
from left of load from left of load from left of load reaction reaction
support support support force force

mm N mm N mm N N N
150 5 300 7 600 5 9 7
100 10 500 5 700 7 10.5 10.5
200 6 400 10 600 7 10 12
100 6 200 10 500 7 15 7
400 10 550 10 700 10 8 5
150 10 400 10 700 15 14 19.5
300 10 400 5 500 10 12.7 12.7

Discussion

The accuracy of the results obtained in the beam experiment appears to be

reasonably high. The measurements of deflection at different span lengths are
consistent and show a clear trend. The comparison of experimental deflections
with theoretical values also indicates a good level of accuracy. However, it is
important to acknowledge that there are several factors that could have
influenced the accuracy of the results.

One factor that could have affected accuracy is the precision of the
measurement instruments used. The report mentions the use of a dial gauge with
a reading of 0.01 mm per division. While this provides a reasonable level of
precision, using more precise measurement instruments, such as laser
displacement sensors or strain gauges, could potentially improve the accuracy
of the deflection measurements.

Another factor that could have influenced accuracy is the uniformity and
consistency of the beam specimen itself. Any variations in the material
properties, such as slight variations in dimensions or homogeneity, could
introduce some degree of error in the measurements. Ensuring a high-quality
and uniform beam specimen through careful manufacturing and selection
processes can help improve accuracy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the beam experiment report successfully investigated the

relationship between deflection and span length in an aluminum beam
specimen. The experimental design was well-documented, and the
measurements and analysis provided valuable insights into the behavior of the
beam under different loading conditions.

The results clearly demonstrated that as the span length increased, the deflection
of the beam also increased, indicating a direct relationship between these
variables. The experimental data were consistent and aligned closely with the
theoretical predictions, validating the accuracy and reliability of the findings.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment : Struct Buckling (1)
Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohammed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohammed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

The phenomenon of buckling in structural elements is a critical aspect of mechanical and

structural engineering, representing a failure mode that can lead to catastrophic results if
not properly understood and mitigated. Buckling is particularly relevant in the context of
slender members, such as struts or columns, which are susceptible to sudden sideward
deflection when subjected to compressive loads. This experiment focuses on understanding
and determining the buckling load for a pinned-ended strut, a fundamental case study in
structural stability. Pinned-ended struts are pivotal in various engineering applications,
where they undergo compressive forces leading potentially to buckling. The experiment
aims to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical understanding,
enabling a deeper comprehension of the buckling phenomenon in real-world scenarios.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to show that the shear force at a cut section of a beam is
equal to the algebraic sum of the forces acting to the left or right of the section.

Learning outcome

1. Ability to conduct setup and conduct experiment and collect data from shear force
of a simply supported beam.
2. Ability to interpret data from the shear force of a simply supported beam from three
different experiments.

Problem Statement

Despite advancements in material science and structural engineering, predicting the exact
point at which a strut under compression will buckle remains challenging. This experiment
seeks to address this challenge by determining the buckling load of a pinned-ended strut.
Understanding the conditions under which buckling occurs is vital for ensuring the safety
and reliability of various structures, from simple supports to complex architectural designs.

Theory

The critical buckling load, Pcr, for a pinned ended strut is given by;
Apparatus

The apparatus consists of:

1. A support frames.
2. A digital indicator.
3. A meter ruler to measure the span of the member and position of load.
4. A Vernier calliper.

Material

Material is a member specimen.

Procedure

1. The digital indicator is switched on and allowed to warm up for at least 10 minutes.
2. The length of the chosen specimen is measured. The width and thickness of the
beam are noted to be 3mm and 25mm respectively.
3. The theoretical buckling load for a strut with pinned end conditions is calculated to
ensure that the applied load does not exceed the buckling load.
4. The grooved support is placed into the slot of the attachment for the end conditions,
and the side screws are tightened as per the appendix instructions for proper
installation.
5. The distance between the two supports is adjusted to be close to the length of the
strut by moving the top platen upwards or downwards.
6. The tare button on the digital indicator is pressed to set the reading to zero.
7. The specimen is placed in the groove of the top support.
8. The jack is adjusted so that the lower end of the specimen just rests in the groove of
the bottom support. The screw jack handle is turned counterclockwise if the distance
between the two supports is slightly less than the length of the strut, and clockwise
if the distance is slightly greater.
9. The reading on the digital indicator is noted. If the load is greater than 10 N, the jack
handle is turned counterclockwise to bring it to less than 10 N.
 10. The position of the dial gauge is checked to ensure it is at the mid-length of the
specimen, and the dial gauge reading is set to zero.
11. The tare button is pressed again to set the load indicator to zero.
12. The specimen is loaded in small increments by slowly turning the screw jack handle
in the clockwise direction.
13. For each load increment, the load and the corresponding mid-span deflection are
recorded. Care is taken to ensure that the applied load is always less than 80% of the
buckling load.
14. The specimen is unloaded by turning the jack handle in the counter-clockwise
direction.
Analysis

1. Deflection versus Load Graph: The experiment involves plotting a graph of

deflection against the deflection/load ratio using the data collected. This graphical
representation is crucial for visualizing the behaviour of the strut under various load
conditions. Initially, the graph is expected to show a linear relationship, indicating
proportional deflection with increasing load.
2. Determination of Slope: The primary analysis involves determining the slope of the
line plotted on the graph. This slope is indicative of the buckling load for the
specimen. Accurate determination of this slope is crucial as it represents the
practical load-bearing capacity of the strut before the onset of buckling.
3. Theoretical vs. Experimental Values: A critical part of the analysis is comparing the
experimental buckling load with the theoretical value, calculated using the formula
Pcr = (π2EI)/L^ . This comparison helps in assessing the accuracy and reliability of the
experimental outcomes.

Result

Length of member = 700 mm

Width of member = 24.95 mm
Thickness of member = 3.46 mm
Moment of inertia of member = 86.24 mm^4

Load, P Mid-Span Deflection, d d / p

(600mm beam)
N div mm mm / N
2 4 0.04 0.02
4 6 0.06 0.015
6 16 0.16 0.0267
8 18 0.18 0.0225
10 20 0.2 0.02
12 23 0.23 0.0192
14 28 0.28 0.02
16 34 0.34 0.02125
18 38 0.38 0.0211
20 45 0.45 0.0225
Discussion

The experiment's findings offer significant insights into the practical aspects of structural
buckling. The graph of deflection versus load ratio not only visualizes the linear behaviour of
the strut at lower loads but also its eventual deviation, signalling the onset of buckling. This
deviation from linearity is a practical manifestation of theoretical predictions and highlights
the complexities involved in real-world structural analysis.

The discrepancy observed between the experimental and theoretical buckling loads opens a
discussion on various factors that could influence these results. These factors might include
material imperfections, measurement inaccuracies, and the conditions under which the load is
applied. Such variations emphasize the importance of considering real-world conditions and
limitations when applying theoretical models in practical scenarios.

Furthermore, this experiment underscores the necessity for precision in experimental

procedures, especially in the field of structural engineering, where safety and reliability are
paramount. It also highlights the dynamic interplay between theoretical knowledge and
practical application, a key consideration for engineers and designers in ensuring the
structural integrity of various constructs.

Conclusion

This experiment successfully demonstrates the concept of buckling in pinned-ended struts, a

fundamental

phenomenon in structural engineering. Through a methodical approach involving precise

measurements and controlled loading, the buckling load for a strut was experimentally
determined and compared with theoretical predictions. The experiment not only reinforces
the theoretical understanding of buckling but also highlights the importance of accuracy in
measurements and the impact of material properties on structural behaviour.

The analysis of deflection versus load ratios provided a practical perspective on how real
materials behave under compressive stresses, diverging from idealized theoretical models.
The observed discrepancies between the experimental and theoretical buckling loads
underscore the complexity of real-world applications and the influence of factors such as
imperfections in the material, precision in measurement, and the actual conditions of load
application.

Overall, this experiment serves as a critical learning tool in understanding the mechanics of
structural stability, particularly in the context of strut buckling. It emphasizes the necessity of
considering both theoretical and practical aspects in the design and analysis of structural
components, ensuring their safety and reliability in various engineering applications.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment : Struct Buckling (2)
Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohammed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohammed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

In the realm of structural engineering, understanding the behaviour of members under

compressive forces is crucial, particularly when these members are fixed at both ends. Such
members, commonly used in construction and mechanical applications, are prone to
buckling—a phenomenon where a structural member deforms under critical load. This
experiment, focusing on a fixed-ended strut, aims to investigate the buckling behaviour and
identify the critical buckling load. By analysing this characteristic, insights can be gained into
the stability and safety factors of structures and components, enhancing our ability to
design more resilient and efficient systems.

Objective

The objective of this experiment is to determine the buckling load for a fixed ended struct.

Learning outcome

1. Ability to set up and conduct an experiment to collect data on buckling load

reactions.
2. Competence in interpreting data derived from the reactions of a buckling load on a
fixed-ended strut.

Problem Statement

The critical challenge in structural engineering is predicting and verifying the buckling load
of fixed-ended struts. This experiment seeks to address the question: At what point does a
fixed-ended strut buckle under compressive load, and how does this experimental finding
compare with theoretical predictions?

Theory

When a member, clamped (fixed) at both ends, is subjected to a compressive load, the
member will buckle when the load exceeds the theoretical buckling load given by the
following equation: Pcr = (4 pi^2 * EI) / L^2
Apparatus

The apparatus consists of:

1. A support frame.
2. A digital indicator.
3. A meter ruler to measure the span of the member and position of load.
4. A Vernier calliper.

Material

Material is a member specimen.

Procedure

1. The digital indicator is switched on and warmed up for at least 10 minutes.

2. The specimen is chosen and its length is measured. The beam's width and thickness
are recorded as 3mm and 25mm, respectively.
3. The theoretical buckling load for a strut with fixed end conditions is calculated.
4. The top platen is moved upwards or downwards to adjust the distance between the
two knife edges to align with the strut's length.
5. The tare button on the digital indicator is pressed to zero the reading.
6. The specimen is placed in the slot of the upper attachment for end conditions.
7. Proper installation of the specimen is ensured as per the appendix instructions.
8. If the distance between the two attachments is less than the length of the strut, the
screw jack handle is turned counterclockwise to lower the attachment for the end
condition. If greater, the handle is turned clockwise to close the gap.
9. The reading on the digital indicator is noted. If the load exceeds 10 N, the jack
handle is turned counterclockwise to reduce it to below 10N.
10. The position of the dial gauge is checked to ensure it is at mid-span and set to zero.
11. The load indicator is set to zero by pressing the tare button.
12. The specimen is loaded in small increments by slowly turning the screw jack handle
in a clockwise direction.
13. For each load increment, both the load and corresponding mid-span deflection are
recorded, ensuring the applied load remains below 80% of the buckling load.
14. The specimen is unloaded by turning the jack handle counterclockwise.

Analysis

1. Data Interpretation and Graph Plotting: In the analysis phase, the primary focus is
on interpreting the collected data. The deflection values at various load increments
are plotted against the ratio of deflection to load. This graph serves as a visual
representation of the strut's behaviour
under incremental loads. The linear portion of the graph is particularly crucial as it
indicates the initial proportional relationship between load and deflection.
 2. Determining the Slope: The slope of the line, derived from the graph, is a critical
aspect of the analysis. This slope represents the buckling load for the specimen
under the given conditions. In the context of fixed-ended struts, this slope is
indicative of the point at which the strut transitions from a stable to an unstable
state, leading to buckling.
3. Comparison with Theoretical Values: An essential part of the analysis is comparing
the experimentally determined buckling load with the theoretical value calculated
using the formula Pcr=(4π2 * EI) / L^2, assuming the modulus of elasticity (E) to be
200 GPa. This comparison serves two purposes: it validates the experimental
methodology and highlights any deviations which might be due to experimental
limitations or errors.
4. Evaluation of Discrepancies: Any discrepancies between the theoretical and
experimental buckling loads are critically evaluated. Factors contributing to these
discrepancies might include imperfections in the specimen, precision in load
application, alignment errors in the setup, and the accuracy of measurements (like
dimensions of the strut and applied loads).
5. Understanding Buckling Behaviour: The experiment offers insights into the buckling
behaviour of fixed-ended struts. By analysing how the strut deforms under
increasing load, a deeper understanding of the structural stability and failure
mechanisms of such components is gained.
6. Assessment of Experimental Conditions: The impact of experimental conditions,
such as the uniformity of the load application and the environmental factors
(temperature, vibration, etc.), on the results is assessed. This assessment is crucial
for understanding the reliability and repeatability of the experiment.
7. Limitations and Assumptions: Finally, the limitations of the experiment and the
assumptions made during the analysis are acknowledged. This might include
assumptions related to the material properties, boundary conditions, and linearity of
the load-deflection relationship.

Result

Length of member = 700 mm

Width of member = 24.95 mm
Thickness of member = 3.46 mm
Moment of inertia of member = 86.24 mm^4

Load, P Mid-Span Deflection, d d/p Mid-Span Deflection, d d/p

(600mm beam) (650mm beam)
N div mm mm / N div mm mm / N
2 31 0.31 0.155 12 0.12 0.06
4 49 0.49 0.1225 20 0.20 0.05
6 62 0.62 0.103 25 0.25 0.0417
8 101 1.01 0.1263 29 0.29 0.0363
10 183 1.83 0.183 39 0.39 0.039
12 520 5.20 0.433 50 0.50 0.0417
14 1258 12.58 0.898 59 0.59 0.0421
16 1625 16.25 1.016 70 0.70 0.0438
 18 ---- 96 0.96 0.0533
20 ---- 1720 17.20 0.860

Discussion

In this section, the results from the experiment are interpreted in light of the theoretical
framework. The experiment's accuracy, the correlation between theoretical and
experimental values, and potential discrepancies or anomalies are discussed. Factors
influencing the accuracy, such as measurement errors, alignment of the specimen, and
precision of load application, are evaluated. The significance of the results in understanding
fixed-ended strut behaviour is also explored.

Conclusion

The experiment successfully determines the buckling load for a fixed-ended strut, offering a
practical understanding of its behaviour under compressive forces. While discrepancies
between theoretical and experimental values are expected, the experiment provides valuable
insights into the stability of fixed-ended struts, highlighting the importance of precision in
setup and measurement. This knowledge is essential for designing safer and more reliable
structures in engineering applications.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course: Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code: CEMB 1041
Section: 01
Lecturer: Zarina Binti Itam
Experiment: FORCES IN PLANE TRUSS (MODULAR TRUSS APPARATUS)
Group:

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
INTRODUCTION

A plane truss is where all the members and nodes lie within a two dimensional plane. The
top beams in a truss are called top chords, which are typically in compression, the bottom
beams are called bottom chords which are typically in tension, the interior beams are
called webs, whereas the areas inside the webs are called panels. A truss that is assumed
to comprise members that are connected by means of pin joints, and which is supported at
both ends by means of hinged joints or rollers, is described as being statically determinate.
In order for any node that may be subject to an external load or force to remain static in
space, the following conditions must hold which are the sums of all horizontal forces, all
vertical forces, as well as all moments acting about the node equal to zero. Analysis of
these conditions at each node yields the magnitude of the forces which may be
compression or tension forces in each member of the truss.

OBJECTIVES

1) To determine the forces in members of a plane truss.

2) To compare the experimentally measured truss forces with the theoretically
calculated forces.

APPARATUS

1. A modular truss kits.

2. A screw jack for applying load to the truss.
3. A 16 channels data acquisition system.

MATERIAL

A member specimen.
PROCEDURE

1. The indicator is switched on. The indicator must be switched on 10 minutes before
taking readings for a stable reading.
2. A truss configuration is selected and the truss is assembled according to the
configuration selected using the members available.
3. One end of the plane truss is placed on the roller support and the other on the pin
support. The pinned support is ensured to be properly secured to the frame.
4. The screw jack is attached to the joint to be loaded and is loosen so that the truss is
free from the applied load.
5. The screw jack is connected to the channel zero of the digital monitor for ease of
monitoring the applied to the truss.
6. The wire from the other load cell is connected to the remaining channel of the digital
indicator, each load occupying one terminal.
7. The selector switch is turned to channel zero and the tare button is press to set the
screw jack reading to zero.
8. The selector switch is turned to record the initial reading of the remaining channel.
9. The selector switch is turned to channel zero.
10. The screw jack handle is turned to apply loads downward direction and the
magnitude of the load is observe on the digital indicator. The screw jack is stopped
turning when the desired load is reached.
11. Steps 9 and 10 are repeated for few more load increments.
Results And Analysis

Members Initial readings Final readings (N)

(N)
Screw 0 20 40 60 80 100
jack Exp Theory Exp Theory Exp Theory Exp Theory Exp Theory Exp Theory
Member 1 -15.60 0 -52.35 11.55 -10.50 23.09 -83.52 34.64 -97.30 46.19 -99.76 57.74
Member 2 -16.38 0 -61.61 11.55 -72.72 23.09 -83.75 34.64 -95.60 46.19 -101.90 57.74
Member 3 -26.15 0 -20.20 11.55 -73.80 23.09 -92.55 34.64 -100.5 46.19 -102.80 57.74
Member 4 21.1 0 2.75 5.78 9.4 11.54 9.55 17.32 16.93 23.10 23.46 28.87
Member 5 25.56 0 16.09 5.78 21.50 11.55 28.7 17.32 32.07 23.09 37.69 28.87
Member 6 10.24 0 12.30 11.55 24.48 23.09 35.75 34.64 46.40 46.19 56.95 57.74
Member 7 14.45 0 15.32 11.55 28.23 23.09 38.22 34.64 48.75 46.19 62.94 57.74
Member 8 -18.04 0 -40.29 11.55 -41.2 23.09 -40.28 34.64 -40.67 46.19 -42.88 57.74
Members Experimental Load Increments (N)
20 40 60 80 100
1 -25.47 -68.62 -29.99 207.66 270.50
2 -25.10 -67.97 -29.39 206.52 262.33
3 -32.72 -74.94 -36.61 197.02 253.06
4 -0.95 -13.9 18.25 144.38 179.39
5 -0.8 -9.41 21.96 135.45 174.13
6 6.65 10.82 35.04 112.07 142.66
7 6.53 12.59 34.75 115.15 144.27
8 5.89 22.3 33.56 120.23 155.78
DISCUSSION

1. The relationship between the applied load and the force in members is as the applied load
increases, the force in the members increase too. As to compare between theoretical and
experimental result, both results have so much difference especially in member 4 and 5
which are 963% and 881.5% respectively. This must be influenced by the error made by
the indicator itself. Meanwhile, the average theoretical force in member 4 and 5 are the
same which is 17.32N. On the other hand, all of the members’ average of experimental
force are in between the range of 60 to 70 N. Based on the graph of the results, most of the
members have the intersection of the experimental and theoretical result in applied load of
60 N. Failure occurs when the applied load exceeds the ability of the trusses.

2. There are few possible errors made while conducting the experiment which includes the
error of the indicator itself which might be because of the device is not well maintenance.
This error results in so much difference in readings between the experimental and
theoretical results. Students should make sure that the indicator is in ready state before
conducting the experiment. The other possible error is the lab’s environment where the
device itself might be sensitive with any vibration and including the air resistance in the
lab surrounding. Therefore, students should be very careful while performing the
experiment in order to achieve better results.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, as the applied load increases, the force in members also increases. The objective
of the experiment is achieved as the forces in members of a plane truss can be determined by
using the indicator for experimental result and by calculation and free body diagram for
theoretical results. The graph of the experimental result in each member have shown that there
are ups and downs in the readings taken. A better result could be achieve if any of the error can
be avoided. The applied loads and the surrounding environment have influence the
experimental result.
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

MECHANICS OF MATERIALS LABORATORY

COURSE CODE: CEMB121

EXPERIMENT NO 7: Impact Test

Groupe members:
1. Abdullah Al Awlaqi CE01083274
2. Mohammed Osama CE01083235
3. Al Momhammed Karrar CE01082998

1|Page
TITLE : IMPACT TEST LEVEL 1 (Guided)

PREAMBLE Introduction

This is an experimental determination of both tensile strength and hardness

testing; the test pieced is loaded continuously and slowly. How a material reacts
to a sudden tension due to a quick blow or impact, is shown by means of an
impact tester.

Objectives

The objective of this experiment is to investigate the impact strength of

polymers.

Learning Outcomes

Ability to conduct setup and conduct experiment and collect data from
impact test.
Ability to interpret data from the impact strength from three different types
of polymer.

Theories Theory

The test is completed using a drop hammer mounted as a pendulum which

breaks a test piece. In Europe, the test is completed by the Charpy method, which
consists of placing the test piece between two supports
In the USA, the Izod method is used. This entails fixing the test piece and allowing
the pendulum to break off a piece of the test piece (Figure 7.1).

2|Page
 Figure 7.1 Pendulum Impact Tester

Test pieces:

1. Charpy test-piece can have slightly different instruction as to how the test
is conducted.
2. Keyhole and U test-pieces give equally good results. The specific impact
energy or impact unit KCU is measured in kJ/m2.
3. For U test-pieces the impact energy or impact strength kV, is measured
in J (joules).
4. There is no sure method of calculation of impact energy for test pieces,
for test carried out with different instructions on the test piece.

3|Page
 Impact Strength:

To able to calculate the impact strength KCU, the pendulum potential energy
when released is first calculated.

K = F * LR (

The potential energy in the pendulum after is has broken the piece is than
calculated:

T = F * LR (1 – cos a2 )

The energy consumed when breaking the test piece is than E = K – T, neglecting
friction and wind resistance losses. To calculate the impact strength KCU, the
energy received is divided by the cross sectional area of the test piece. The
impact test apparatus can be graduated directly in joules.

4|Page
 OF
WAYS & MEANS or APPARATUS
(DESIGN
EXPERIMENTS The apparatus consists of :
METHODOLOGY) 1. An Impact Tester MT 3076.

MATERIALS

1. Three type polymer specimens.

PROCEDURE

a) Setting the zero point of the start point

Note: Because of friction and wind resistance, the pendulum will not
have the same striking angle as the fall angle. This can be
compensated for by inclining the impact tester slightly. The fall angle
will then be larger and the striking angle less but the scale is fixed
and a non-loaded blow of 15 joules should show a value of 15 joules.
1. Set the pointer to 15 joules (straight down)
2. Raise the pendulum to the start point. Release the pendulum by
means of the black knob.

KEED FINGERS AND HANDS CLEAR OF THE PENDULUM MOTION

THUS AVOIDING JAMMING ACCIDENTS.

5|Page
 3. Stop the pendulum using the friction brake. Take the reading of the
pointer. The pointer should point to zero (0) if the impact tester is
properly set.
4. If the pointer shows more than zero, fixed impact tester should be
angled slightly by inserting a spacer (washer) under the pendulum
side. For the freestanding model, screw down the allen screw using
an MOO allen key.
5. If the pointer shows more than zero, i.e. the pointer is over the scale,
then the spacer (washer), shall be placed under the back edge for
fixed models end the allen screw in the free standing model, turned
anti-clockwise (upwards)
6. Check the setting with an unloaded test. Complete further
adjustment until exactly zero is registered.

b) Testing.
1. The test piece is placed on the supports so that the break indentation
faces the direction of the pendulum swing and that indent is exactly
in the middle of the supports.

2. Raise the pendulum to the start point.

3. Set the pointer to 15 joules, i.e. straight down.
4. Release the pendulum by turning the black knob, top right. KEEPS
HANDS CLEAR. The test piece is broken off.
5. Stop the pendulum by lifting the friction brake. Be sure that the
pendulum is at standstill before removing the test pieces.
6. The energy consumed when breaking the test piece can now be read
directly from the scale, indicated by the pointer.
7. Read and note the value of the impact energy. Calculate the fracture
area and subsequently the impact strength.

6|Page
Length of sample = 60.00mm
Width if sample = 10.00mm
Thickness of sample = 10.00mm
Length of pendulum, LR = 10.00mm

Test. Carbon Fracture Impact A 1 (0 ) A 2 (0 ) Exp. KCU Theory

content area energy (J/cm2) KCU
(cm2) (J/cm2)
1 LOW 0.1 2.234 3.33 17.19 22.34 22.34

2 Mid 0.1 2.051 0.09 16.47 20.51 20.54

3 High 0.1 2.314 -0.36 17.51 23.14 23.19

7|Page
Analysis:
“Symbol of calculations”:

K = F * LR (

(15) (10) (1 + sin( 17.19 – 90 ) = 22.34

T = F * LR (1 – cos( a2 ))

T = F * LR (1- cos( 17.19 ) = 22.34

8|Page
Discussion:

The impact energy in a simple pendulum system depends on both the mass of the pendulum
hammer and the height at which it is released due to the principles of potential and kinetic
energy.
Potential Energy (PE): The potential energy of an object in a gravitational field is given by the
formula PE = mgh, where:

m is the mass of the object

g is the acceleration
h is the hight above the reference point

Kinetic Energy (KE): The kinetic energy of an object in motion is given by

2KE=mv2/2, where:

m is the mass of the object

v is the velocity
the energy absorbed in a Charpy impact test is calculated based on the potential energy difference
of the swinging pendulum before and after the impact. This energy difference represents the
energy required to fracture the specimen and is a measure of its toughness.
Stress is related to Load: Both stress and load involve force, but stress is normalized by the cross-
sectional area.
Strain is related to Extension: Both strain and extension involve changes in size or shape, but strain
is a normalized measure of deformation.

So , when discussing the behaviour of materials under load, stress is associated with the force
applied per unit area, and strain is associated with the resulting deformation or extension of the
material.

 Key differences between shape of a load/extension graph for ductile material

compared to a brittle material:
 Ductile materials exhibit plastic deformation and necking before fracture, resulting in a
more gradual decrease in stress after the yield point.
 Brittle materials lack significant plastic deformation, and the fracture is sudden, leading to a
steep drop in stress without a well-defined yield point.
 These graphs are generalizations, and the actual behaviour can vary depending on the
specific material and testing conditions. The key distinction lies in the ductility of the
material, with ductile materials exhibiting more extensive deformation before failure
compared to brittle materials.
9|Page
Conclusion:

In conclusion, the behaviour of materials under an applied load is effectively

represented by stress-strain (or load-extension) curves. Ductile materials, characterized
by their ability to undergo substantial plastic deformation before failure, typically
exhibit stress-strain curves with distinct yield points, plastic deformation regions, and a
gradual decrease in stress leading to ultimate fracture. In contrast, brittle materials,
which lack significant plasticity, display linear stress-strain curves without a well-defined
yield point, culminating in sudden and often catastrophic fracture.

Understanding these stress-strain curves is crucial in materials science and engineering

for designing structures and components that can withstand applied loads. Ductile
materials are preferred in applications where deformation before failure is desirable,
allowing for warning signs and redistributing stress. Brittle materials, while possessing
high strength, are more prone to sudden failure, making them suitable for certain
applications where that behaviour is acceptable. The unique features of these curves
provide valuable insights into the mechanical properties and performance of materials
in various engineering scenarios.

10 | P a g e
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Guided Laboratory

Course: Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code: CEMB 1041
Experiment: 8. Torsion Test
Group:

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohamed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohamed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
CO1
3 Apparatus & Materials 5
4 Procedure 5
Total CO1 15
5 Analysis 10
6 CO2 Discussion 10
7 Conclusions 5
Total CO2 25
TOTAL 40
Introduction

The torsion test is a fundamental mechanical test conducted to evaluate the

behaviour of materials under torsional loading. Torsion refers to the
twisting or rotational deformation experienced by a material when
subjected to torque or twisting forces. This test helps in determining the
torsional properties of a material, including its shear modulus, shear
strength, and torsional stiffness.

Objective

The objective of this laboratory report is to present the findings and

analysis of the torsion test conducted on a test specimen. The test was
performed to investigate the material's response to torsional loading and to
obtain important mechanical properties related to torsion.

Apparatus

The apparatus consists mainly of:

1 shaft encoder 8 torque measuring unit
2 worm gear 9 clamping lever
3 specimen 10 sockets
4 dial gauge 11 frame
5 hand wheel (compensation) 12 moveable driver
6 rotating dolly 13 hand wheel (gear)
7 torque measuring shaft.
Procedure

a) Preparation for the experiment

Before performing the experiment, connected the torque measurement unit, the
shaft encoder, and the computer to the measuring amplifier. Switched it on and
allow it to warm up for about 30 minutes. Then zero the display using the tare
function.
1. Started the G.U.N.T-software.
2. checked that no load is applied to the torque measurement unit.
3. Pressed the T (Tare) button on the display.
– The display returns to zero.
– In the software zero is displayed as well.

b) Performing the test

 Mounting the specimen
1. Inserted sockets into the square connections.
2. Released clamping lever on torque measurement unit and push it backwards.
3. Placed the specimen in the sockets.
4. Slides the torque measurement unit forward again.
– the moving driver is in the centre of its range of movement.
5. Fixed the torque measurement unit in place with clamping levers.
6. Carefully pre-tension the specimen until there is no slacker and a torque greater
zero is displayed (e.g. 0,1Nm).
7. Zero the torque display using the tare function.
8. Zero the dial gauge (4) on the compensation device by rotating the scale ring

 Loading the specimen

1. To apply load to the specimen, turned the hand wheel clockwise. The hand wheel
should always be turned by a defined angle for each load step.
2. Raised the angle in every load step. The following angles are recommended for
each load step.

3. After each load step, compensate the deformation of the torque measuring shaft.
- To do this, adjusted the dolly on the hand wheel until the dial gauge shows a value
of zero again.
4. After each load step, recorded a value either at the display (button •) or in the
software.
- The value is displayed on the display and in the software
5. Switched the mode in the display to continuous measurement (button ).
- No manual recording of values and compensation via hand wheel is required
- Applied load to the specimen till failure.
- With long, thin specimens, several hundred turns can be necessary before failure.
6. After the experiment export the data to an external file to be able to process it
later.
Test Data results:
Length of sample = 115m
Length of lever = 74.95 mm
Weight of load =1N
Diameter = 19.05 mm

Table 8.1 Calibration

Loading Experimental Torque Theoretical Torque %Error
(N) (N.m) (N.m)

5 2.54 2.55 0.003%

10 5.05 5.09 0.008%

15 7.54 7.64 0.013%

20 10.04 10.18 0.013%

25 12.54 12.73 0.015%

30 15.05 15.28 0.015%

35 17.53 17.82 0.016%

 Brass Aluminum
rotation Angle Torsion Output Angle Torsion Output
(N.m) angle (N.m) angle

1st 0 0 0 0 0 0
st -6
1 1.5 0.01 5.66x10 1.5 0.03 2.33x10-5
1st 3 0.01 5.66x10 -6
3 0.03 2.33x10-5
1st 4.5 0.03 1.70x10 -5
4.5 0.18 1.39x10-4
2nd 6 0.11 6.24x10 -5
6 0.89 6.91x10-4
2nd 9 1.89 1.07x10 -3
9 2.91 2.26x10-3
3rd 12 4.59 2.60x10 -3
12 5.07 3.94x10-3
3rd 15 7.15 4.05x10 -3
15 7.10 5.52x10-3
4th 18 7.68 4.36x10 -3
18 8.36 6.50x10-3
5th 42 8.12 8.60x10 -3
42 9.26 7.20x10-3
6th 30 8.52 5.69x10 -3
30 9.63 7.48x10-3
7th 36 8.88 5.04x10 -3
36 9.82 7.59x10-3
8th 42 9.15 5.19x10 -3
42 9.99 7.71x10-3
9th 60 9.80 5.56x10 -3
60 10.20 7.80x10-3
10th 70 8.83 5.01x10 -3
70 9.83 7.60x10-3
11th 80 10.20 5.79x10 -3
80 9.31 7.25x10-3
12th 90 10.42 5.91x10 -3
90 10.43 8.11x10-3
13th 120 10.90 6.18x10 -3
120 9.56 7.44x10-3
14th 150 11.30 6.41x10 -3
150 11.20 8.71x10-3
15th 180 11.74 6.66x10 -3
180 11.25 8.75x10-3
16th 200 11.90 6.75x10 -3
200 11.26 8.76x10-3
17th 220 12.30 6.98x10 -3
220 8.78 6.78x10-3
18th 240 12.55 7.09x10 -3
240 11.59 9.01x10-3
19th 270 10.43 5.80x10 -3
270 9.99 7.71x10-3
20th 300 13.19 7.21x10 -3
300 11.89 9.24x10-3
21st 350 13.81 7.32x10 -3
350 12.07 9.38x10-3
22nd 400 14.30 7.45x10 -3
400 12.17 9.46x10-3
23rd 795 Fail Fail 2222 Fail Fail
Table 8.2: Mounting the test specimen
Analysis:

Table 8.1

Theorical Torque =

T = σJ/A(5)

T = (0.0175)(205x103) / 283(5) = 2.55

Theoretical Value – Experimental Value

%error = | | × 100%
Theoretical Value

2.55 – 2.54
%error = | | × 100% = 0.003%
2.55

Table 8.2

Output angle for brass:

Θ = TL / GJ

Θ = (0.01) (75) / (37) (205x103) = 9.88x10-8 rad

Θ = 9.88x10-8 rad (180/pi) = 5.66x10-6 degree

Output angle for Aluminum:

Θ = TL / GJ

Θ = (0.03) (75) / (27) (205x103) = 4.06x10-7 rad

Θ = 4.06x10-7 rad (180/pi) = 2.33 degree

Discussion

Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that there are notable
differences between the tested specimens. Specimen A exhibited a higher shear
modulus and torsional stiffness compared to Specimen B. This suggests that
Specimen A possesses greater resistance to torsional deformation and is stiffer
under twisting forces. Additionally, Specimen A displayed a higher shear
strength, indicating its ability to withstand higher shear stresses before failure.
These differences may be attributed to variations in material composition,
microstructure, or manufacturing processes between the two specimens.

common mechanical parts that are subjected to torsion in real engineering

application:
1- Shafts: Shafts are commonly subjected to torsion in various engineering
applications. They are cylindrical components that transmit torque
between different mechanical elements, such as gears, pulleys, or
couplings. Shafts are often used in machinery, automotive systems, and
power transmission systems. When a torque is applied to a shaft, it
experiences torsional deformation due to the twisting forces. It is crucial
for shafts to have sufficient torsional strength to withstand the applied
torque without excessive deflection or failure.

2- Drive Axles: Drive axles are essential components in automotive

systems, especially in vehicles with rear-wheel or all-wheel drive
configurations. Drive axles transmit torque from the engine to the wheels,
enabling the vehicle to move forward. These axles are subjected to
torsion due to the torque generated by the engine. As the engine applies
torque to the drive axle, it experiences torsional deformation. The drive
axle needs to be designed to withstand the torsional forces generated
during acceleration and cornering, ensuring efficient power transmission
and vehicle performance.

Conclusion

this experiment highlighted the significance of torsional properties and their

impact on the performance and reliability of mechanical components. By
understanding the torsional behaviour of materials, engineers can make
informed decisions in design and material selection to ensure safe and efficient
operation in various engineering applications.
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

MECHANICS OF MATERIALS
LABORATORY
COURSE CODE: CEMB121

EXPERIMENT NO 9: Universal Tensile Test

Groupe members:
1. Abdullah Al Awlaqi CE01083274
2. Mohammed Osama CE01083235
3. Al Momhammed Karrar CE01082998
TITLE : Universal Tensile Test LEVEL 1 (Guided)

Problem Introduction:
The Universal Tensile Test is a fundamental experiment in the field of
mechanics of materials, designed to assess the mechanical properties of
materials under tension. This test, also known as a tensile or tension test,
involves subjecting a standardized specimen to an axial pulling force until it
fractures. Through precise measurement and analysis, the test provides
crucial insights into key material properties, including ultimate tensile
strength, yield strength, and elasticity. The results obtained from the
Universal Tensile Test play a vital role in material selection, design, and
quality control across various engineering applications
Objectives:

The objective of this experiment is to determine characteristic and

behaviour of low carbon steel bars under tensile test.
Learning outcomes:

1. Ability to conduct setup and conduct experiment and collect data

for tensile test.
2. Ability to interpret data of behaviour of low carbon steel bars
under tensile test.
Theories Theory:

A tensile specimen is a standardized sample cross-section. It has two

shoulders and a gauge (section) in between. The shoulders are large so
they can be readily gripped, whereas the gauge section has a smaller cross-
section so that the deformation and failure can occur in this area.

The shoulders of the test specimen can be manufactured in various ways to

mate to various grips in the testing machine. Each system has advantages
and disadvantages; for example, shoulders designed for serrated grips are
easy and cheap to manufacture, but the alignment of the specimen is
dependent on the skill of the technician. On the other hand, a pinned grip
assures good alignment. Threaded shoulders and grips also assure good
alignment, but the technician must know to thread each shoulder into the
grip at least one diameter’s length, otherwise the threads can strip before
the specimen fractures.
Ways & Means Apparatus:
(DESIGN OF
The apparatus consists of:
EXPERIMENTS OF Universal Tensile Test equipment.
METHODOLOGY)
Materials:
16mm diameter and 60cm long low carbon steel bar.

Procedure:
1. A 16mm diameter and 60cm long low carbon steel bar
is cleaned (from dust and any dirt)
2. The bar is marked at 10cm intervals. 10cm is left for
each end for the grip part, and the other marks In
between is used to observe deformation of the low
carbon steel bar.
3. The Universal Tensile Machine is switched on.
4. The level is adjusted until mid-distance is
approximately 40cm.
5. The bar from the top is inserted, the knobs are rotated
to adjust on both upper and lower levels.
6. We checked again that the mid-distance = 40cm.
7. The ‘Geotech Testing Machine U60’ software is
opened.
8. We repeated the test with another sample.
Universal Tensile Test

Test Data Results

Length of bar = 600mm

Diameter 16 mm

Yielding stress 596.83 MPa

Ultimate stress 677.60 MPa

9.54 KN/mm
Initial interval

Final interval 5.45 KN/mm

Elongation 0.0733
Analysis:

Diameter is already written in our data.

Yielding Stress:

σy = P / A

σy = 120000 / (pi/4) (16)2

σy = 596.83 MPa

Ultimate Stress:

σu = P / A

σu = 136240 / (pi/4) (16)2

σu = 677.60 MPa

Initial Interval = F/ ε = 105/11 = 9.54

Final Interval = F/ ε = 30/5.5 = 5.45

Elongation:

ε = L – L0 / L0

ε = 645 – 600 / 600 = 0.075

Discussion:
In the Universal Tensile Test, we pulled and stretched a piece of material until it
broke. It sounds simple, but there's a lot more to it! The purpose was to figure out
how the material behaves under tension, like when you pull on a rope or a rubber
band.

First, we had this standardized sample. It was like a small, skinny rod with a uniform
cross-section. We attached it to the testing machine and started applying force,
pulling it apart. The machine measured the force applied and how much the material
stretched. It was like a tug-of-war between the machine and the material.

One of the things we looked at was the ultimate tensile strength, which is basically
the maximum force the material can handle before it gives up and breaks. It's like
finding out how much your backpack straps can take before they snap.

We also checked out the yield strength, which is when the material starts to deform
permanently. Imagine bending a paperclip back and forth until it stays bent – that's
similar to what happens to the material.

The results were plotted on a graph, and we saw this curve that showed how the
force and stretching were related. It had different regions like elastic deformation and
plastic deformation, which sounded complicated but basically meant how much the
material could stretch and still go back to its original shape.

The Universal Tensile Test was cool because it helped us understand the material's
properties, and this kind of information is super important for engineers. They can
use it to choose the right materials for building stuff – from bridges to airplane parts.
It was like peeking into the secret life of materials and finding out how they handle
the pressure!

Conclusion:
In summary, the Universal Tensile Test was like unveiling the superpowers of
materials. We discovered their ultimate strength, akin to a superhero's mightiest
punch, and the yield strength, marking when they start showing signs of fatigue. The
graph illustrated their dynamic behavior under stress, helping us understand how
they stretch and permanently deform. This experiment wasn't just about breaking
things; it was about decoding materials' capabilities. Engineers use this knowledge to
select the right materials for real-world challenges, making the Universal Tensile Test
a crucial backstage pass into the realm of materials.
 Semester 1 – Session 2023/2024
Department of Civil Engineering

Open Ended Laboratory

Course : Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

Corse Code : CEMB 1041
Section : 01
Lecturer : Zarina Binti Itam

Group :

No. ID Name
1 CE01083274 Al Awlaqi Abdullah
2 CE01083235 Mohammed Osama
3 CE01082998 Al Mohammed Karrar

Report Marking Scheme:

No Course Outcome Criteria Full Mark Score
1 CO3 Technical Content 40
2 CO4 Writing/Oral Presentation 10
3 CO5 Teamwork 10
TOTAL 60
 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CEMB1041
MECHANICS OF MATERIALS LABORATORY
OPEN ENDED PRESENTATION

GROUP NO : STUDENT NAME STUDENT ID

GROUP MEMBER Al Awlaqi Abdullah CE01083274
Mohammed Osama CE01083235
CE01082998
Al Mohammed Karrar

SECTION 01

SUBMISSION DATE

LECTURER Dr. Zarina Binti Itam

PRESENTATION (PO9c) TEAMWORK (P10)

CRITERIA MARKS CRITERIA MARKS

A. Relevancy of content (5) A. Commitment (5)

B. Presentation tools (5) B. Leadership (5)

C. Fluency (5) C. Responsibility (5)

D. Style/ delivery (5) D. Personality (5)

E. Question & answer (5) E. Contribution (5)

TOTAL (30) TOTAL (30)

TOTAL (15) TOTAL (10)

Introduction

This laboratory experiment focuses on understanding the behaviour of a beam under a

Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL). The study of shear forces in beams is fundamental in
structural engineering, as it aids in the design and analysis of structures capable of
withstanding various load types. Shear force is a critical parameter that influences the
integrity and safety of structural elements.

Problem Statement

The challenge lies in accurately determining the shear force at a specific cut in a beam
subjected to a UDL. Understanding the relationship between the applied load and the
resulting shear force is crucial for predicting the performance of structural elements under
similar loading conditions.

Objective

The primary objective of this experiment is to ascertain the shear force at the cut of a beam
when it is subjected to a uniformly distributed load.

Learning Outcomes

1. Mastery in setting up the experiment and collecting data on shear force in a beam under
UDL.
2. Proficiency in interpreting and analyzing the relationship between a uniformly distributed
load and the resultant shear force at the cut of the beam.

Apparatus

The apparatus consists of:

1. VDAS (Versatile Data Acquisition System) software and hardware.
2. Structures platform with beam support.
3. UDL bars for loading the beam.
4. A cut-section in the beam for shear force measurement.

Material

The experiment primarily utilizes a beam subjected to uniformly distributed load bars.

Procedure

1. A blank table of results, similar to Table 6, is created.

2. The VDAS software is started following the guidelines provided in the User Guide.
3. The structures platform is gently tapped to eliminate mechanical friction in the beam
supports.
4. The shear force reading in VDAS is zeroed.
 5. The cut is gently pressed down and released. The platform is tapped, ensuring the shear
force reading returns to zero ± 0.05 N.
6. The UDL bars are carefully added to the beam as previously described in the guide.

Analysis

The shear force at the cut is calculated and compared with the value measured by the VDAS
system. This comparison is crucial to understand the accuracy and reliability of the
theoretical predictions versus experimental findings.

Results

UDL (Nm) Measured Shear Force at cut Mc (N) Calculated Shear Force at cut Mc (N)

14.13 0.08 0.05652

19.62 0.03 0.07848

Discussion

The experiment's discussion will delve into the discrepancies, if any, between the calculated
and measured shear forces. It will explore the potential reasons for these variations, such as
experimental error or limitations in the theoretical model. The impact of additional masses
on the UDL bars and their influence on the shear force will also be examined.

Conclusion

The experiment successfully demonstrates the relationship between a uniformly distributed

load and the shear force at a cut in a beam. The findings underscore the importance of
understanding shear force distribution in structural engineering and its implications for
designing robust and safe structures. The experiment also highlights the effectiveness of
VDAS in accurately measuring and analysing shear forces in beams under UDL, although
minor discrepancies between theoretical and experimental results necessitate careful
consideration in practical applications.