1
Notre Dame University-Louaize.
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
CEN204
Experiment 1: Beam on two flexible supports
Prepared by:
Elie Ibrahim ID: 20215154
Charbel Matta ID: 20211794
Jad Khoueiry ID: 20211523
Jean-Michel Abou Jaoude ID: 20211772
Submitted to:
Dr. Wissam Haddad
3/5/2024
2
Section Total points Grade
Abstract 15
Introduction 15
Experimental Methods 15
Results and Discussion 25
Conclusions 15
References 10
Appendices 5
Total Grade /100
Grade distribution:
3
Abstract
This experiment investigates the behavior of a simply supported beam under various
loading conditions, divided into two cases. In the first case, the objective is to determine the
support reactions of the beam as a function of load position. Two different loads are applied at
different positions along the beam, the reaction at the supports of the beam is recorded and
experimental measurements are compared with theoretical calculations to assess accuracy.
Results indicate a consistent trend where support reactions decrease as the distance between the
load and support increases. In the second case, the focus shifts to determining the deflection of
the beam when loaded at mid-span, utilizing both steel and aluminum materials. Deflection
measurements are recorded at different positions along the beam, and experimental data are
compared with theoretical predictions. Findings demonstrate that the highest deflection occurs at
the mid-span where the load is applied, with deflection diminishing as the distance from the load
increases.
This experiment includes an analysis of the findings, with the percentages of error being within
acceptable limits indicating the accuracy and the significance of the findings.
4
Table of contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................5
Experimental Methods...............................................................................................6
Experimental Procedure............................................................................................9
Results and discussion.............................................................................................10
Conclusion...............................................................................................................17
References...............................................................................................................18
Appendix.................................................................................................................19
5
Introduction
The experimental investigation of simply supported beams is integral to understanding
structural behavior under load. This experiment focuses on analyzing the deflection and reaction
forces at the supports of a beam subjected to various loading conditions. By comprehensively
examining the behavior of the beam under different loads, insights can be gained into its
structural integrity and performance (Longinos & Widlund, 2023). Such findings are essential in
various engineering applications, including building design, bridge construction, and mechanical
systems. By conducting experiments to investigate these aspects, engineers can make informed
decisions regarding material selection, structural configuration, and load-bearing capacity,
ultimately ensuring the safety and reliability of engineered structures.
Throughout this report, the experimental methodology, data analysis techniques, and
findings regarding simply supported beam behavior will be presented and discussed. Our aim is
to enhance our understanding of structural mechanics and contribute to the advancement of
engineering knowledge and practice.
A brief background in engineering mechanics is required to fully grasp the concepts
utilized during our analysis, however the experiment itself might be understandable without any
engineering background with the procedure’s steps clearly stated in the following part.
6
Experimental Methods
Apparatus:
1. Flexible support
2. Roller support
3. Steel and aluminum beams with A=20x6 mm 2
5. Clamping screws
6. Slider and load hanger
7. 10N and 20N loads
8. Two dial gages
9. Scotch tape
10. Measuring tape
11. Hand level
12. Vernier caliper
7
Theoretical analysis:
Case 1:
In the first case, the goal of the experiment is to find the reaction force at point A when a 10 N
load is placed at different points on the beam, then repeat the process for a 20 N load. In order to
know if the experimental values obtained are acceptable, some theoretical calculations were
made:
Ra(x) = 0 N ( no forces are present in the x direction)
We calculate the moment at B in order to get the reaction force at A:
∑ M B=0
R A (y) ×80=P× ( 80−x )
P (80−x)
R A (y)=
80
∑ Fy = 0 Rb = P - Ra
In order to know if the experimental values are compatible with the theoretical value we find the
¿
% Error=¿ experiment value−theoretical value∨ theoretical value × 100 ¿.
8
We then proceed to do the same calculation for the second part of the first case which consists of
changing the material from steel to aluminum.
Case 2:
For the second case, the goal of the experiment is to find the displacement at different position
on the beam that a 20 N load placed in the middle of it causes. In order to know if the
experimental values obtained are acceptable, some theoretical calculations were made:
P×x 2 2
v= 48 × E × I (3 L −4 x )
E: modulus of elasticity (E steel=200 GPa / E aluminum=70 GPa)
1 3 1 3 4
I: moment of inertia (I= b h = 20 ×6 =360 mm )
12 12
L: length of the beam ( L=800 mm)
v (steel)= P × x ×(5.55 ×1 0−4−1.1574 ×1 0−9 x 2)
v (aluminum)= P × x ×(1.587 × 10−3−3.30688 ×1 0−9 x 2 )
In order to know if the experimental values are compatible with the theoretical values we
¿
find the % Error =¿ experiment value−theoretical value∨ theoretical value × 100 ¿.
9
Experimental Procedure
In the first case, the experiment begins by securing the flexible support and measuring
800 mm to position a roller support utilizing clamping screws to ensure stability. A vernier
caliper is employed to verify the cross-sectional area of the steel (and later aluminum) beam
(20×6 mm²), which is then affixed to the supports using scotch tape to secure its edges. We then
ensure the precise calibration of the dial gauge to obtain accurate deflection measurements
throughout the experimentation process. Load placement follows a systematic approach, with
measurements taken from the middle of the flexible support to the desired position. It's important
to reset both the dial gauge and the load cell to zero after each load placement, maintaining
horizontal beam orientation throughout adjustments. Load application varies at increments from
x=100 mm to x=700 mm using both 10N and 20N loads, with experimental values recorded by
the load cell.
In the second scenario, a similar procedure is applied, but with a 20N load placed at mid-
span (40mm from support), with dial gauge readings recorded at each position to determine
deflection accurately. This procedure is executed for a steel beam and an aluminum one.
10
Results and discussion
Case 1
Using the formulas computed in the previous part, we were able to fill tables for steel and
aluminum beams with the corresponding values, which helped us plot many graphs that are of
interest to us.
BEAM1 Material: Steel Cross Section: 20x6mm2 L: 80cm
F1=10N F2=20N
X (cm)
RA experimental (N) RA theoretical (N) %error RA' experimental (N) RA' theoretical (N) %error
10 10 8.75 14.28571 20 17.5 14.28571
20 8 7.5 6.666667 16 15 6.666667
30 6 6.25 4 13 12.5 4
40 5 5 0 10.6 10 6
50 4 3.75 6.666667 8.2 7.5 9.333333
60 2.7 2.5 8 5.3 5 6
70 1.2 1.25 4 2.7 2.5 8
6.231293 7.755102
Table 1: Case 1 steel beam values
Figure 1: Steel beam, RA versus X, 10 N & 20 N loads, Experimental and Theoretical values.
11
The above figure contains theoretical and experimental values of the reaction of support A at
10N and 20 N for the steel beam. We can realize that, as the load is placed further away from the
support, the support’s reaction decreases. In fact, in a simply supported beam, the majority of the
load is held by the nearest support, which in this case would decrease the reaction at A when we
increment the distance from it. Furthermore, the higher the load applied, the higher the reaction
of the support, which makes sense while summing the forces: a higher reaction would be
required to counter the increased load. This observation was done by comparing the trends for
10N and 20N loads. Errors were kept minimal (6.23% for 10 N and 7.75 for 20 N), meaning that
experimental results align with theoretical findings.
Figure 2: Aluminum beam, RA & RB versus X, under 20 N load, Theoretical Values.
The second graph compares the reaction at B with the reaction at A already analyzed. It shows
clearly that the reaction at each support is linearly dependent of the other: when Ra increases, Rb
decreases, and vice-versa. This correlates with the previously mentioned fact that the further the
load is from the support, the less it feels its impact, which is the opposite for the other support
which feels the weight getting closer, hence increasing its reaction.
12
BEAM1 Material: Aluminium Cross Section: 20 x6 mm2 L: 80 cm
F1 =10N F2 =20N
X (cm)
RA experimental (N) RA theoretical (N) %error RA' experimental (N) RA' theoretical (N) %error
10 9.2 8.75 5.1428571 18.2 17.5 4
20 8 7.5 6.6666667 16.3 15 8.6666667
30 6.5 6.25 4 13.5 12.5 8
40 5.4 5 8 11 10 10
50 4 3.75 6.6666667 8.7 7.5 16
60 2.9 2.5 16 5.9 5 18
70 1.4 1.25 12 2.8 2.5 12
8.3537415 10.952381
Table 2: Case 1 aluminum beam values
Figure 3: Steel beam, Rb versus X, 10 N & 20 N loads, Theoretical values.
Introducing our findings for the aluminum beam under the same conditions as the steel one, we
can deduct from figure 3 that aluminum react in the same way as steel, with the reaction of the
support at B increasing the more the load moves away from support A, while also increasing
when applying a higher load (20 N instead of 10 N).
13
Figure 4: Steel and aluminum beams, RA versus X, under 20N load, Experimental values.
If it was not already obvious, figure 4 is given to endorse the fact that the reaction at the support
is independent of the material. The modulus of elasticity is indeed not found in the formula
relating Ra to the load. A slight deviation is present between the experimental values of Ra
between steel and aluminum, which must be due to errors in the lab, and not any theoretical
issue.
Errors during the experiment with the aluminum beam were also kept under acceptable range
(8.35% for 10 N and 10.96% for 20 N), meaning that experimental results align with theoretical
findings. The inaccuracies in both parts may have arisen from slight deflections in the beams, as
well as human errors resulting in incorrect readings from the dial gauges. Additionally, such
devices are very sensitive to surroundings, with nearby movements being able to affect readings.
Manufacturing errors and equipment aging might also affect results.
14
Case 2
F = 20 N
Deflection , f ( mm)
BEAM 1 Material: Steel BEAM 2 Material: Aluminium
2 2
X (mm) A = 20 x 6 mm L = 800mm A = 20 x 6 mm L = 800 mm
v experimental (mm) v theoretical (mm) % error v experimental (mm) v theoretical (mm) % error
100 1.12 1.087852 2.9551814 3.52 3.1078624 13.26113
200 1.97 2.036816 3.2804141 6.05 5.8188992 3.971555
300 2.65 2.708004 2.1419466 8.13 7.7362848 5.089203
400 2.9 2.962528 2.1106298 8.87 8.4631936 4.806772
500 2.62 2.708004 3.2497736 8.2 7.7362848 5.99403
600 1.96 2.036816 3.7713765 6.02 5.8188992 3.455994
700 1.09 1.087852 0.1974533 3.35 3.1078624 7.79113
2.5295394 6.338544
Table 2: Case 2 steel and aluminum beam values
In the second case, both steel and aluminum beams underwent identical conditions, with the aim
of analyzing the variances in deflection. The percentage error was utilized to verify the accuracy
of the experimental and theoretical results presented in Table 2. Notably, both beams were
subjected to uniform conditions: a concentrated load of 20N and deflection measurements taken
at identical locations.
15
Figure 5: Theoretical values for an Aluminum and steel beam and a 20N concentrated load vs.
distance X from support
Figure 6: Experimental values for an Aluminum and steel beam and a 20N concentrated load vs.
distance X from support
Because of their different compositions, the steel and aluminum beams exhibit a significant
variation in deflection. Steel is stiffer than aluminum because of its much higher modulus of
16
elasticity (210,000 N/mm^2) than aluminum (70,000 N/mm^2). Young's modulus, measures how
resistant a material is to deformation under stress.
The difference is clearly shown in Table 2, but figure 5 and 6 highlights it even more by
comparing the theoretical and experimental values. The greatest deflection occurs in the middle
of both beams, which is also the location of the concentrated load. As a beam's midpoint is
typically its weakest point, it is more prone to substantial displacement and possible deformation.
Errors during the case2 with the aluminum and steel beam were also kept under acceptable range
(2.52% for steel and 6.33% for aluminum), meaning that experimental results align with
theoretical findings. The inaccuracies in both parts may have arisen from slight deflections in the
beams, as well as human errors resulting in incorrect readings from the dial gauges
Conclusion
In summary, this experiment shows the importance of understanding how various metals
17
respond to different loads and the inevitable errors between experimental and theoretical
outcomes. The results demonstrate that the proximity of a load to the support directly impacts the
magnitude of the support's reaction, necessitating greater force to sustain it. While placing a load
at the midpoint of the beam may distribute the load evenly across both supports, it also induces
the greatest deflection, which is ideal in most cases. Hence, investigating both material deflection
and support reactions aids engineers in designing by selecting appropriate materials and planning
for design weaknesses ahead of time.
18
References
Hibbeler, R.C. (2013) Mechanics of materials, 9th edition, prentice Hall, Singapore.
Sections 6.1 & 6.2.
Beam Deflection: Definition, Formula, and Examples. (2023). https://civils.ai/blog/beam-
deflection-definition-formula-and-examples#:~:text=Excessive%20deflection%20can
%20lead%20to,loads%20without%20compromising%20its%20integrity.
19
Appendix
