McGill University

Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics

Solid Mechanics
CIVE-207

Beams Flexure Experiment

Laboratory Write-Up Report
33 Pages

Group 34
Chemen, Uyirendiren 260732722
Earle, Stuart 260735993
Nottegar, Alex 260707220
Zhang, Qitong 260732944
Sabourin, Christophe 260744128
March 16th, 2018
Table of Contents
List of Graphs, Drawings and Figures, Photographs and Videos, Tables …................. p.2

Graphs …........................................................................................................................ p.4

Photographs …............................................................................................................... p.13

Drawings and Figures ………………………..………..................................................p.21

Tables …........................................................................................................................ p.26

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………...….. p.26

Appendix …................................................................................................................... p.28

References ………………………………………………………………………...…. p. 33

1
List of Graphs, Drawings and Figures, Photographs and Videos, Tables

Graphs

Influence of Young’s Modulus of Elasticity

1. Applied load (N) vs. Mid-span deflection, δmid-span, (mm)
2. Applied load (N) vs. Angle of end rotation, θend, (rad)
3. Applied load (N) vs. 48δ0.5LI/L3 (mm2)
4. Flexural stiffness, k, (N∙mm) vs. Moment of inertia, I, (mm4)
Influence of Support Conditions
5. Applied load (N) vs. Maximum deflection, δmax, (mm)
6. Applied load (N) vs. Free-end deflection, δfree-end, (mm)
7. Applied load (N) vs. Angle of rotation, θ, (rad)
8. 1/δmax (mm-1) vs. EI/PL3 (mm-1)
9. Flexural stiffness, k, (N∙mm) vs. Maximum deflection, δmax, (mm)
Photographs
Influence of Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
Mild Steel
1. Mild steel test before adding load
2. Mild steel test at maximum load
Aluminum
3. Aluminum test before adding load
4. Aluminum test at maximum load
Brass
5. Brass test before adding load
6. Brass test at maximum load
Wood
7. Wood test before adding load
8. Wood test at maximum load
Acrylic
9. Acrylic test before adding load
10. Acrylic test at maximum load

2
Influence of Support Conditions
Propped Cantilever (fixed-roller)
11. Propped cantilever test before adding load
12. Propped cantilever test at maximum load
Cantilever (fixed-free)
13. Cantilever test before adding load
14. Cantilever test at maximum load
Fixed Ended (fixed-fixed)
15. Fixed ended test before adding load
Drawings and Figures
Influence of Support Conditions
Propped Cantilever (fixed-roller)
1. Line diagram of beam configuration
2. Elastic curve profile
3. Shear force diagram
4. Bending moment diagram
Cantilever (fixed-free)
5. Line diagram of beam configuration
6. Elastic curve profile
7. Shear force diagram
8. Bending moment diagram
Fixed Ended (fixed-fixed)
9. Line diagram of beam configuration
10. Elastic curve profile
11. Shear force diagram
12. Bending moment diagram
Tables
1. Influence of Young’s modulus of elasticity theoretical vs. experimental values
2. Influence of support conditions theoretical vs. experimental values

3
Graphs
Graph 1

4
 Graph 2

5
 Graph 3

6
 Graph 4

7
 Graph 5

8
 Graph 6

9
 Graph 7

10
 Graph 8

11
 Graph 9

12
Photographs
Influence of Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
Mild Steel

Photograph 1: Mild steel test before adding load

Photograph 2: Mild steel test at maximum load

13
Aluminum

Photograph 3: Aluminum test before adding load

Photograph 4: Aluminum test at maximum load

14
Brass

Photograph 5: Brass test before adding load

Photograph 6: Brass test at maximum load

15
Wood

Photograph 7: Wood test before adding load

Photograph 8: Wood test at maximum load

16
Acrylic

Photograph 9: Acrylic test before adding load

Photograph 10: Acrylic test at maximum load

17
Influence of Support Conditions
Propped Cantilever (fixed-roller)

Photograph 11: Propped cantilever test before adding load

Photograph 12: Propped cantilever test at maximum load

18
Cantilever (fixed-fixed)

Photograph 13: Cantilever test before adding load

Photograph 14: Cantilever test at maximum load

19
Fixed Ended (fixed-fixed)

Photograph 15: Fixed ended test before maximum load

20
Drawings and Figures

Propped Cantilever (fixed-roller)

1Figure 1: Propped cantilever line diagram of beam configuration

2Figure 2: Propped cantilever elastic curve profile

1
Goodno, Gere; 2013.
2
Gere, Timoshenko; 1997.

21
 2Figure 3: Propped cantilever shear force diagram

2Figure 4: Propped cantilever bending moment diagram

Cantilever (fixed-free)

Figure 5: Cantilever line diagram of beam configuration

22
 3Figure 6: Cantilever elastic curve profile

4Figure 7: Cantilever shear force diagram

3
Beer, Dewolf, Johnston; 2002.
4
http://output.to/sideway/default.asp?qno=120800023

23
 4Figure 8: Cantilever bending moment diagram

Fixed Ended (fixed-fixed)

5Figure 9: Fixed ended line diagram of beam configuration

5
http://www.structx.com/Beam_Formulas_016.html

24
Figure 10: Propped cantilever elastic curve profile

5Figure 11: Fixed ended shear force diagram

5Figure 12: Fixed ended bending moment diagram

25
Tables
Table 1: Influence of Young’s Modulus of Elasticity Theoretical vs. Experimental Values
Mild Steel Aluminum Brass Wood Acrylic
T E T T E E T E T E
E
200 178 70 63.5 100 103 12 5.18 2.8 2.90
(GPa)
Pmax
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
(N)
δmax
2.30 2.58 6.41 7.09 5.20 5.02 2.86 6.60 3.53 3.00
(mm)
θmax
0.0172 0.0184 0.0480 0.0710 0.0390 0.0324 0.0570 0.0908 0.106 0.0604
(rad)
Mmax
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 750 750 500 500
(N∙mm)
σmax
- 57.15 - 56.20 - 61.94 - 27.09 - 16.32
(MPa)

Table 2: Influence of Support Conditions Theoretical vs. Experimental Values

Propped Cantilever
Cantilever (fixed-free) Fixed Ended (fixed-fixed)
(fixed-roller)
T E T E T E
Pmax (N) 20 20 20 20 20 20
δmax (mm) 1.07 1.24 4.60 4.76 0.58 0.69
θmax (rad) 0.0138 0.0102 0.0345 0.0487 - -
α - 95.45 - 29.11 - 182.81
Mmax (N∙mm) 1285.2 4000 1000
* Theoretical values obtained from Material Properties Table.

Discussion
Comparison of Experimental vs. Theoretical Results

One can notice that the experimental results for the wood are double what they should be which
can be explained by the fact that the Young's Modulus is halved. This is most likely due to the
wide range of Young's Moduli for different types of wood. Also, there is a lot of variance in wood
from sample to sample due to its organic nature.

For all the different support conditions for mild steel, the theoretical value is lower than the
experimental value. This may be explained by the fact that the beam had been used by previous
teams and had become slightly less resistant to flexure than initially.

26
The experimental angle for acrylic is lower than expected, this can be explained by the fact that
the dial gauges were pushing downward against the beams, lowering the angle. Having the lowest
Young's Modulus, the acrylic's angle should be that which is most affected.

The angle would also have been increased by the dial gauge at the center, for all beams but the
acrylic, the middle gauge should overcome the effect of the edge gauge due to its bigger distance
from the pivot, explaining higher angles for these materials.

Sources of Error

This experiment was carried out by following a precise procedure in order to minimize potential
error. Many sources of error were accounted for by taking the initial deflections of the beams, and
the results were zeroed to these values. Despite this, some sources of error will be acknowledged
and explained here. Those discussed in this section are the defects in beam materials and frequent
use of certain materials.

 Defects in the materials can range from manufacturer mishaps to damages sustained in the
laboratory, and can be very difficult to diagnose. For that reason, material defects has been
included as a primary source of error. In reference to results received in this experiment,
material defects is the outstanding reason for the large difference between the experimental
and theoretical value for the Young’s Modulus of the wooden specimen. As the procedure
was followed in a nearly identical manner for all beams, the main reason for this large
difference can be deduced as a defect in the wood. This is the rational because wood as a
material is cut and sanded to size from trees, which contain knots and ruts, while the other
materials are manufactured to size.
 Frequent use of the particular beams used in this experiment is also a source of error. This
experiment was performed after a series of groups had already completed the same
experiment, thus each beam had already experienced the loading several times. After
several uses, these materials will not perform as adequately as when they were produced.
This means the beams will most likely deflect more than they would have in the first trial,
which can be linked to the values of the experimental Young’s Moduli being slightly less
than the theoretical values for the materials.

27
Appendix

Derivation of Fixed-Fixed elastic curve equation

To calculate elastic curve v(x) and θ(x), we start by dividing the displacement into one force
induced displacement and two moment induced displacements. Suppose vectors going up and right
is positive.
The displacement v induced by a downward force P along x axis is:
𝑃𝑥(3𝐿2 − 4𝑥 2 ) 𝐿
𝑣(𝑥) = − (0 < 𝑥 < )
48𝐸𝐼 2
For x>L/2, substitute x = (L-x) into the equation above we get:

𝑃𝑥(−𝐿2 + 8𝐿𝑥 − 4𝑥 2 ) 𝐿
𝑣(𝑥) = − ( < 𝑥 < 𝐿)
48𝐸𝐼 2
Then M is the same on both side because P acts at the middle point, so we can have v induced by
the left side moment is:
𝑀𝑥(2𝐿2 − 3𝐿𝑥 + 𝑥 2 )
𝑣(𝑥) =
6𝐿𝐸𝐼
The displacement, v, induced by the right side moment is obtained by substitute x with (L-x):
𝑀𝑥(𝐿𝑥 + 𝑥 2 )
𝑣(𝑥) =
6𝐿𝐸𝐼
Then we add all equations up and get:
𝑃𝑥(3𝐿2 − 4𝑥 2 ) 𝑀𝑥(2𝐿2 − 2𝐿𝑥 + 2𝑥 2 ) 𝐿
𝑣(𝑥) = − + (0 < 𝑥 < )
48𝐸𝐼 6𝐸𝐼𝐿 2
𝑃𝑥(−𝐿2 + 8𝐿𝑥 − 4𝑥 2 ) 𝑀𝑥(2𝐿2 − 2𝐿𝑥 + 2𝑥 2 ) 𝐿
𝑣(𝑥) = − + ( < 𝑥 < 𝐿)
48𝐸𝐼 6𝐸𝐼𝐿 2

Then we take the derivatives to get θ(x):

𝑃𝐿2 𝑃𝑥 2 𝑀𝐿 2𝑀𝑥 𝑀𝑥 2 𝐿
𝜃(𝑥) = − + + − + (0 < 𝑥 < )
16𝐸𝐼 4𝐸𝐼 3𝐸𝐼 3𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼𝐿 2
𝑃𝐿2 𝑃𝐿𝑥 𝑃𝑥 2 𝑀𝐿 2𝑀𝑥 𝑀𝑥 2 𝐿
𝜃(𝑥) = − + + − + ( < 𝑥 < 𝐿)
48𝐸𝐼 3𝐸𝐼 4𝐸𝐼 3𝐸𝐼 3𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼𝐿 2

28
Derivation of shear stresses
The maximum load value was constant for each material as no beam failed at a loading of 20 N.
All values below that were experimentally gathered can be seen in original data recording sheets.
The mid-span deflections were experimentally gathered from dial readings. The maximum
deflection was calculated by subtracting the initial deflection from the deflection when the 20 N
load was applied:
𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑑,20 𝑁 − 𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑑,0 𝑁
The end rotation values were also experimentally gathered and the maximum value was calculated
by making the small angle approximation:
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃𝑒𝑛𝑑 = 𝜃𝑒𝑛𝑑
Where 𝜃𝑒𝑛𝑑 is the angle of rotation, calculated from the division of the end deflection by the rigid
arm horizontal distance, which in each case was 50 mm. The full equation for the max angle of
rotation is as follows:
𝛿𝑒𝑛𝑑,20 𝑁 − 𝛿𝑒𝑛𝑑,0 𝑁
𝜃𝑒𝑛𝑑 =
50 𝑚𝑚
The formula used to calculate the Young’s modulus for each material was derived by re-arranging
the deflection equation for a simply – supported beam:
𝑃𝐿3 𝑃𝐿3
𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 48𝐸𝐼 𝐸 = 48𝛿
𝑚𝑖𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐼

Where P is the loading (20 N), L is the span length, and I is the second moment of inertia, which
𝑏ℎ3
for all beams was equal to .
12

The maximum bending moment was derived using beam-analysis of a simply – supported beam,
where the maximum moment would occur halfway along the span and thus be equal to:
𝑃𝐿
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
4
Finally, the maximum flexural stress derived from the equation:
𝑀𝑦
𝜎=
𝐼
Where M is the bending moment, and y is the distance from the neutral axis. In order for the stress
to be maximized, both of these values must be maximized as I is a constant. The equation for the
maximum bending moment for each material is derived above, so we’ll return M as Mmax. The
neutral axis for these rectangular beams is located directly in the middle of the cross-section and
since they are being rotated with the long side parallel to the ground, the maximum distance from
the neutral axis is half of the short side, or the height, h, of the beam. Thus our maximum flexural
stress equation is:

29
 𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 ℎ
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2𝐼

Derivation of max deflection and max slope

To calculate the deflection and slope of the beams theoretically, one must start from the FBD of
the beam as a whole. In the case of the simply supported beam with a load applied at the middle
of the beam, one can deduct that the reaction forces at both ends are 𝐴 = 𝐵 = 𝑃/2.. To derive the
equations for the maximal deflection and slope on the beam, one must look at the FBD of the first
and second half of the beam separately. Respectively the sum of moments in each FBD is:
𝛴𝑀𝐴 = 𝑀 − 𝑃𝑥/2 and 𝛴𝑀𝐴 = 𝑀 − 𝑃𝑥/2 + 𝑃(𝑥 − 𝐿/2) (i)
Because the beam is in equilibrium:
𝑃𝑥
𝑀 = 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0 < 𝑥 < 𝐿/2 and 𝑀 = 𝑃𝑥/2 − 𝑃(𝑥 − 𝐿/2) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐿/2 < 𝑥 < 𝐿 (ii)
2

Since the moment is product of the second derivative of the deflection and the flexural rigidity, we
can integrate once to get:

𝐸𝐼𝜈′ = 𝑃𝑥 2 /4 + 𝐶1 and 𝐸𝐼𝜈 ′ = 𝑃𝑥 2 /4 − 𝑃(𝑥 − 𝐿/2)2 /2 + 𝐶2 (iii)

Integrate once more to get:
𝐸𝐼𝜈 = 𝑃𝑥 3 /12 + 𝐶1 𝑥 + 𝐶3 and 𝐸𝐼𝜈 = 𝑃𝑥 3 /12 − 𝑃(𝑥 − 𝐿/2)3 /6 + 𝐶2 𝑥 + 𝐶4 (iv)
The equations of continuity for the beams are:
𝜈 ′ (𝐿/2)− = 𝜈 ′ (𝐿/2)+ and 𝜈(𝐿/2)− = 𝜈(𝐿/2)+ (v)
By applying these equations, we get that:
𝐶1 = 𝐶2 and 𝐶3 = 𝐶4 (vi)
The boundary conditions for the simply supported beams are:
𝜈(0) = 𝜈(𝐿) = 0 (vii)
Using the boundary conditions in (iv), we get that:
𝐶1 = 0 and 𝐶2 = −𝑃𝐿/16 (viii)
We can deduce and observe that the maximal deflection occurs at the middle of the beam, where
the load is applied. Subbing 𝑥 = 𝐿/2 in (iv) and using the constants (viii), we get that:
𝜈𝑚𝑎𝑥 = −𝑃𝐿3 /48𝐸𝐼 (ix)
Similarly, for the maximum slope, we can observe that it occurs at the ends of the beams. Subbing
𝑥 = 0 in (iii) and using the constants (viii), we get that:

30
 ′
𝜈𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑃𝐿2 /16𝐸𝐼 (x)
For the cantilever beam, we are only interested in the deflection and slope at the middle of the
beam, where the load is applied because no forces act on the rest of the beam. Using a FBD of the
beam from the free end at any arbitrary point, we get that the sum of the moments equals:
𝛴𝑀𝑃 = 𝑀 + 𝑃𝑥 (xi)
Since the beam is in equilibrium:
𝑀 = −𝑃𝑥 (xii)
Since the moment is product of the second derivative of the deflection and the flexural rigidity, we
can integrate once to get:
𝐸𝐼𝜈 ′ = −𝑃𝑥 2 /2 + 𝐶1 (xiii)
Integrate once more to get:
𝐸𝐼𝜈 = −𝑃𝑥 3 /6 + 𝐶1 𝑥 + 𝐶2 (xiv)

The boundary conditions of a cantilever beam are:

𝜈(𝐿) = 0 and 𝜈 ′ (𝐿) = 0 (xv)
Subbing these boundary conditions into (xiv), we get that:
𝐶1 = 𝑃𝑥 2 /2 and 𝐶2 = −𝑃𝑥 3 /3 (xvi)
The maximum moment and slope of a cantilever beam occurs where the load is applied (x = 0) in
this case. Using (xiii) and (xiv) as well as the constants (xvi), we get that:
𝜈𝑚𝑎𝑥 = −𝑃𝐿3 /3𝐸𝐼 and ′
𝜈𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑃𝐿2 /2𝐸𝐼 (xvii)
To calculate the maximum slope and deflection of a propped cantilever beam, we must combine a
simple cantilever and two cantilever beam where one has our load applied to it and the other one
has the reaction force at the end acting on it. To calculate the deflection of a cantilever beam where
the load is not applied at the end, we must add the deflection at the load and the slope times the
remaining length. Assuming the load is applied at point a and beam has length L, we get:
𝜈𝑒𝑛𝑑 = 𝑃𝑎3 /3𝐸𝐼 + 𝑃𝑎2 (𝐿 − 𝑎)/2𝐸𝐼 = 𝑃𝑎2 (3𝐿 − 𝑎)/6𝐸𝐼
To calculate the slope and max deflection, we must first calculate the reaction force at the roller
end. This can be done by adding a the two deflections and setting the sum to 0 as the roller is level
with the other end. The only remaining variable is R:
𝜈 = 0 = −𝑃𝑎2 (3𝐿 − 𝑎)/6𝐸𝐼 + 𝑅𝐿3 /3𝐸𝐼
Isolating R gives 7.41N. Now that we have the forces acting on the beam, we can determine the
slope and max deflection by integrating the equation for the moment twice then using boundary

31
condition 𝜃(𝐿) = 0, 𝜈(0) = 0 as well as continuity equations to calculate the constants.
Resulting equations are:
𝐸𝐿𝜈 = 𝑅𝐿2 /2 − 𝑃(𝑥 − 𝑏)3 + 𝑃(𝐿 − 𝑏)2 𝑥/2 − 𝑅𝐿2 𝑥/2
𝐸𝐼𝜈 ′ = 𝑅𝑥 2 /2 − 𝑃(𝑥 − 𝑏)2 /2 + 𝑃(𝐿 − 𝑏)2 /2 − 𝑅𝐿2 /2
Where b = x = 180mm
For the fixed-fixed beam, there is no slope at the edges. To calculate the maximal theoretical
deflection, we must use the elastic curve equation calculated above and sub x = L/2 which is where
the maximal deflection occurs.

32
References
Gere, James M.; Goodno, Barry J.; Mechanics of Materials, 8th Ed.; Cengage Learning, 2013.
Gere, James M.; Timoshenko, Stephen P.; Mechanics of Materials; PWS Publishing Company,
1997.
Beer, Ferdinand P.; Dewolf, John T.; Johnston, E. Russell; Mechanics of Materials, 3rd Ed.;
McGraw-Hill Education, 2002.
Sideway; http://output.to/sideway/default.asp?qno=120800023; Copyright 2010-2018; Visited
2018/03/15.
StructX; http://www.structx.com/Beam_Formulas_016.html; Copyright 2014-2018; Visited
2018/03/15.
Material Properties Table, Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University, 2018.

33