CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 1

SECOND MOMENT OF AREA

REPORT FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENT CONDUCTED ON 16 MAY 2017

AS PART OF THE UNIT OF STUDY CIVL2201 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS

ABSTRACT

This report details the loading and displacement measurements of a simply supported beam. The
objective was to use the catalogue description, cross-sectional dimensions, and deflections of a simply
supported beam to calculate and compare different values for the second moment of area (I value)
using a 75 x 40 x 3.8 cold-formed steel channel section.
The experimental I value was calculated using the rate of load per deflection (assuming pure bending
deflection), and the calculated value by using the measured cross-sectional dimensions. The nominal,
calculated and experimental I values were found to be 0.0840, 0.0915 and 0.0892 x106mm4
respectively. The mid-span load-deflection curve of the section was linear, revealing that deflections
of a simply supported beam subject to a point load at mid-span increase at a constant rate in the elastic
N
range. For this specific section, the rate of load per deflection was found to be 58.96 .
mm
The second moment of area is a geometric property representing the exact distribution of cross-
sectional area from the centroid. Thus the best estimate to this “true” distribution should be the I value
based on measured cross-sectional dimensions. However, when the theoretical deflections of the beam
using the different I values mentioned were compared to the actual deflection, the calculated I value
was inconsistent with the data. Furthermore, the nominal I value was inconsistent with the rest results
as well. The experimental value was consistently the most accurate; thus appearing to be the most
reliable estimate.
These results reveal the discrepancies that may arise through alternate methods of calculating I values,
and explore which is the most reliable. The different results illustrate the importance of using
conservative nominal values, for otherwise the manufacture of overly flexible or weak members may
compromise the safety of structures.
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 2

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................3

2. Method..........................................................................................................................3
2.1. Equipment and Set-up..........................................................................................................3
2.2. Testing Procedure.................................................................................................................4

3. Results...........................................................................................................................4
3.1. Nominal and calculated I......................................................................................................4
3.1.1. Dimensions..........................................................................................................................4
3.1.2. Calculated I value................................................................................................................5
3.2 Deflection and Experimental I...............................................................................................5

4. Discussion......................................................................................................................7
4.1. Measurements.......................................................................................................................7
4.3. Deflection..............................................................................................................................8
4.4. Assumptions and accuracy.................................................................................................10

5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................12

6. References...................................................................................................................13

Appendices......................................................................................................................14
Appendix A – Calculated Centroid...........................................................................................14
Appendix B – Calculated I value...............................................................................................14
Appendix C – Raw Deflection Data...........................................................................................15
Appendix D – Load-Deflection Curves and Trend Line Regression Analysis..........................15
Appendix E – Figure 4 MATLAB code.....................................................................................17
Appendix E – Figure 6 MATLAB code.....................................................................................18
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 3

1. Introduction
The aim of this report was to calculate the second moment of area of a channel section in various
ways, and conclude which is the best estimate to the true I value of a section.
Understanding different methods for calculating I values and the validity of these results is important
for engineers as I is a key parameter influencing the strength and stiffness of sections. As I is a
geometric property, engineers are able to manipulate sections to alter the value substantially. Unlike
the elastic modulus, an unalterable intrinsic material property, or the length of the beam, which can be
restricted by design criteria, the geometric properties of a certain member can be altered for specific
applications. This promotes design versatility, as different sections can be specifically manufactured
to economically maximise the necessary strength and stiffness.
The section used for the experiment was a DuraGal 75 x 40 x 3.8 cold-formed steel channel section.
The beam was simply supported between a roller and pin support. The cross-sectional dimensions and
total span length were measured, of which the former were used to determine the calculated I value
(Icalc). Different point loads were introduced to the mid-span of the beam, and the deflection of the
beam was recorded. This data was used to calculate an experimental value for I (Iexp). These values
were compared to the nominal I value (Inominal) presented in the DuraGal catalogue and the raw
deflection data in order to determine the most valid estimate to the I value of the section.

2. Method
2.1. Equipment and Set-up
The specimen experimented on was a 2.5m 75 x 40 x 3.8 cold-formed steel channel section (listed as
a DuraGal 75 x 40 x 4 Channel Section). The beam was placed between a roller and pin support so it
was simply supported (see Figure 1). The edges of the beam protruding from the supports were
measured to ensure it was aligned evenly. Three dial gauges were attached to boss-head clamps, and
placed at quarter lengths along the beam directly above the loading hooks. Care was taken to ensure
the stems of the dial gauges were perpendicular to the beam.

Dial gauges at load

hooks

Figure 1: Schematic Detail of Experiment Set Up

CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 4

2.2. Testing Procedure

The exact depth and flange width of the cross-section were measured using a ruler and the thickness
using a digital micrometre. The original readings of the gauges were observed and recorded as the
zero readings. 50lbs was then placed on loading hook 2 (see Figure 1) in 10lb increments using metal
plates. Each time the load was increased, the new dial gauge readings were recorded. The beam was
then unloaded, again in 10lb increments, and at each load the dial gauge readings were recorded.

3. Results
3.1. Nominal and calculated I
3.1.1. Dimensions
The nominal and measured cross-sectional dimensions for the 75 x 40 x 3.8 cold-formed steel channel
section are tabulated below (see Table 1).

Thickness (t) Inside corner radius Depth (d) Width (bf)

(mm) (ri) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Nominal 3.8 4 75 40
dimensions (mm)
Measured 4.34 4 74.5 39.5
dimensions (mm)

The relevant channel section, including the centroid, weak and strong axes, is displayed in Figure 2.
The member was bent about the weak y-axis when tested. This is labelled the y-axis in Figure 2;
however, in the test, the specimen was rotated 900 clockwise relative to the position shows in Figure
2.
Table 1: Nominal and Measured Cross-Section Dimensions

x L = 27.9 (nominal distance to centroid)

Figure 2: Strong (x) and Weak (y) Axis Indicated on Channel Cross-Section
Source: OneSteel, Cold Formed Structural Hollow Sections and Profiles (Fourth Edition)

The actual location of the centroid relative to the centre of the web calculated by dividing the relative
first moment of area about the web of the smaller shapes comprising the channel section by the sum
of these areas (see Appendix A). Values of the nominal and calculated distances from the web are
tabulated below (see Table 2).

Centroid position ( ý ) (mm)

Nominal 27.9
Calculated 27.94
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 5

3.1.2. Calculated I value

Table 2: Nominal and Calculated Vertical Centroid
The calculated centroid was then used to find the calculated I value by employing the parallel axis
theorem:

I y =I y ' + A ý 2

where I y ' is an ascertainable second moment of area calculated about its own y-axis y’, I y is the
second moment of area about the desired axis y, and ý is the distance from the centroid. See Appendix
B for entire calculations. The nominal and calculated I values are tabulated in Table 3.

I y (106mm4)
Nominal 0.0840
Calculated 0.0915

Table 3: Nominal and Calculated I values

3.2 Deflection and Experimental I

The deflection of the channel section was measured at the mid-span of the beam and at approximately
1 and 4 fifths of the length of the beam after imposing 50 lbs loading in 10 lb increments. Oxford
Precision dial gauges were used (see Figure 3). The total deflection was calculated by subtracting the
gauge readings from the Zero Reading (see Appendix C for raw data) (see Table 4).

Figure 3: Oxford Precision Dial Gauge

Applied mass (lb) Applied force Deflection (Hook 1) Deflection (Hook 2) Deflection (Hook 3)
(N) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0 0
10 44.48 0.41 0.77 0.42
20 88.96 0.83 1.53 0.84
30 133.4 1.26 2.3 1.26
40 177.9 1.68 3.07 1.68
50 222.4 2.1 3.73 2.09
 CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 6

40 177.9 1.68 3.07 1.68

30 133.4 1.26 2.31 1.26
20 88.96 0.84 1.54 0.84
10 44.48 0.42 0.84 0.43
0 0 0.01 0 0.01
The load and mid-span (hook 2) deflection curve is displayed below (see Figure 4). The gradient of
this curve represents the rate at which the force increases per deflection. Least squares regression
analysis was used to fit an appropriate trend line to the data (see Appendix D), and the resulting
N
gradient is 58.96 (see Appendix D for Hook 1 and Hook 3 load-deflection curves).
mm

Load-Deflection Curve (Mid-span)

250
225
200
175
150
Force (N)

125
100
75
50
25
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4: Load –Deflection Curve at Mid-span
The type of behaviour indicated by the
load-deflection curve is linear. Hence the deflection of the mid-span is increasing at a constant rate of
one millimetre per 58.96 newtons of force applied, and force is the only independent variable. The
amount of deflection is a function of the elastic modulus (E), the length of the beam (L), and the
second moment of area (I). As E and L are fixed, this implies that the I value is (essentially) constant
throughout.
The mid-span deflection (v) of a simply supported beam under a load P is equal to:

P × L3
v=
48 × E × I
Thus the slope of the graph is represented by the following equation:
dP 48 × E × I N
= =58.96
dv L 3
mm
which is independent of P, as expected. The total length of the simply supported beam between
supports (L) is 2440mm. Thus the experimental value of the flexural rigidity is as follows:
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 7

58.96× 24403 10
E I exp= =1.784 ×10 Nmm2
48
Assuming an elastic modulus of approximately 200GPa yields the experimental value of I:

The nominal, calculated and experimental values of the channel section are tabulated in Table 5.

Nominal Calculated Experimental

I value (x106mm4) 0.0840 0.0915 0.0892

Table 5: Nominal, Calculated and Experimental I values

4.

Discussion
4.1. Measurements
All of the actual cross-section measurements of the beam were within 1.5% of the results than the
expected nominal values, except for the thickness of, which was more than 12% larger than the
nominal value (see Table 6).

Thickness (t) Inside corner radius (ri) Depth (d) Width (bf)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Nominal/Calculate 87.56% 100% 100.7% 101.3%
d

The most probable reason for this discrepancy is human error, and improper use of the measuring
apparatus. An electronic micrometre was attached to the flange of the channel section on both sides of
the beam, and the
Table 6: Ratio of Nominal to Calculated Cross-section Dimensions

measurements were recorded. Electronic micrometres can provide erroneous readings unless used

1.784 ×1010 6
I exp= =0.0892 ×10 mm4
200000
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 8

very carefully. The outside jaws must be exactly perpendicular to object being measured, otherwise
the reading can be substantially larger than the required value (see Figure 5). 1

Δ L1 Δ L2

Figure 5: Comparing correct perpendicular to erroneous reading of electronic micrometer (

Δ L1 < Δ L2 )
4.2
I
values
This larger thickness value is important to recognise, as it will impact the calculated I value for the
channel section. The I value represents the distribution of area of a given shape. Thus if the thickness
is greater, this will (linearly) increase the I value.

Inominal Icalc Iexp

100% 108.9% 106.2%

Table 7: Ratio of Calculated and Experimental Nominal I values

As
expected, the Icalc value is much larger than Inominal for the channel section (see Table 7), and is also
larger than Iexp.
Icalc should align almost exactly to Iexp as they were both derived from the same beam. The most
probable explanation for this discrepancy is still the thickness; the erroneous measurement increased
the I-value to more than it should have been. It could also be due to the assumptions made during the
experiment (see Section 4.4).
The large discrepancy is due to the fact that nominal values are purposefully made conservatively.
This value is the weakest a section should be, so any purchasers can generally be assured of their
appropriateness for structural application. If members did not meet this specification in the majority
of cases, buildings could face safety risks. Furthermore, if strength and stiffness were not assured, it
would be necessary to manually calculate the I value of each member before use, thus wasting

1
Mitutoyo (2012), Quick Guide to Precision Measuring Instruments No. E11003 (2), Mitutoyo Corporation,
Kanagawa, Japan
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 9

resources and creating unnecessary delays in construction. Thus, the difference between the
experimental and nominal results essentially aligns to what was expected.
However, on some occasions sectional dimensions are larger than the nominal dimensions. Nominal
values are a conservative estimate rather than an absolute minimum. These discrepancies are
accounted for by load safety factors; parameters that further increase the minimum requirement of
strength and stiffness when designing structures, to ensure safety and reliability.

4.3. Deflection
The hypothetical deflection of the beam subject to the 50lbs (222.4N) load at mid-span using Inominal,
Icalc and Iexp is plotted in Figure 6 (see Appendix E for MATLAB code).
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 10

Figure 4: Nominal, Calculated and Experimental Deflected Shapes Under 50lbs (222.4N) Load

The deflected shapes of the beam display the relationship between the I value and the deflection; the
more I increases, the less the beam deforms. This is exactly what was expected, as the I value is a
measure of the distribution of area which increases the stiffness of a member. Furthermore, the
theoretical deflection of a simply supported beam at length z along the total length (L) is calculated as
follows:
3
v P L
¿=
P
48 EI
(3 L2 z−4 z3)¿ v ¿=
48 EI( (
3 L2 z−4 z 3 +8 z−
2 ))
where v ¿¿ and v ¿ represent the deflections on the left and right of the beam mid-span ( L2 ). These can
also be incorporated into a single equation using Macauley Brackets. Applications of the different
equations also affirm that increasing the I value decreases the amount of deflection.
The large deflection of the beam (3.7mm) under a relatively small load (222.4N) is due to the
positioning of the channel section. The beam was bending about the horizontal axis; thus the second
moment of area used for calculating deflection and normal bending stresses is determined by the
distribution of area from the horizontal neutral axis. When the channel section is rotated 90 0, so that
the web is vertical, the distance from the neutral axis is much larger and the second moment of area is
increased (see Figure 5). This rotation and smaller I value thus explain the relatively large amounts of
deflection observed.

37.25mm

11.96mm
Neutral Axis

27.54mm
37.25mm

Beam as positioned Beam rotated 900

Figure 5: Vertical Cross-Sectional Distributions of Actual and Rotated Channel Section

4.4. Assumptions and accuracy

The following assumptions were made in the calculation of Iexp:
1. The steel used was homogeneous and isotropic
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 11

2. The elastic modulus of the steel was 200GPa

3. All bending exhibited linear elastic behaviour
4. All deflections were due to pure bending
5. All deformations were small
Assumption 1 is reasonably uncontroversial. It is unlikely that a steel manufacturer would produce a
steel beam that was not at least essentially pure. Though there are small defects and inconsistencies in
any real material, these are unlikely to affect the results to any great extent.
Assumption 2 is likely to have caused the greatest discrepancy between the actual and expect
deflections. A nominal elastic modulus of the steel was not provided for in the DuraGal steel
catalogue, nor was a measured value available. Hence the commonly accepted value of elastic
modulus of (200GPa) was assumed for all calculations. This may be quite different to the real value
due to the specific composition of that steel.
Furthermore, where the deflections are not extremely small, the assumption that all the deformations
are small is less valid. The present deflections were approximately 0.15% of the span; hence, while
still below the regular definition of ‘small’ deflections (when the slope of deflection is negligible
when compared to 1)2, this will still affect the real deflections in ways not accounted for by theory.
Assumption 4 could also have caused considerable error. Assuming pure bending is likely to cause a
discrepancy between theoretical and actual results as it neglects deflections caused by internal shear
forces. Deflections due to shear are generally not important to consider for practical purposes as they
are substantially smaller than deflections due to bending. 3 However, when the length is relatively
short, the contribution is more substantial.4 Thus, the real deflections of the beam should be slightly
larger than the theoretical deflections. This is generally reflected in the results (see Table 8).

Applied Deflection Difference (Hook 1) ( Deflection Difference (Hook 2) Deflection Difference (Hook
force (N) mm ×1 0−3) (mm ×1 0−3) 3) (mm ×1 0−3)
0 0 0 0
44.48 -4.5 15.4 3.6
88.96 1.1 20.9 7.1
133.4 17.0 37 11
177.9 22.3 52.1 14.4
222.4 27.7 -42.8 7.8
177.9 22.3 52.1 14.4
133.4 17.0 47.0 11
88.96 11.1 30.9 7.1
44.48 5.5 85.4 13.6
0 10 0 10
As expected, a majority of the real values are larger than the theoretical values. However, the
deflections at Hook 1 when loaded with 44.48N and Hook 2 when loaded with 222.4N do not
conform to this trend. Furthermore, the second reading of Hook 2 when loaded with 44.48N is larger
than any other difference, and the difference of the final reading of Hook 3 should have been 0. These
major discrepancies are likely due to human error and mistaken readings of the dial gauges. This is
also the most likely reason for the variation in differences, along with the other assumptions

2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Date unknown, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-050-solid-mechanics-fall-
2004/readings/emech10_04.pdf , viewed 3 June 2017
3
Blodgett, O. (1963), Design of Weldments, James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, Michigan, USA,
Section 2.6.1-2.6.2
4
Ibid.
Table 8: Real – Theoretical Deflections (mm x 10-3) (Data Discrepancies Highlighted)
 CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 12

mentioned. However, overall the readings appear to be reasonably accurate, as the largest difference
between real and theoretical values (excluding the large anomalous Hook 2 reading) is only 0.052mm.
Using the results from this experiment, as the Icalc value is invalid due to the erroneous reading, the
best estimate for the I value of the beam was Iexp. This value, derived from the slope of the
experimental readings, is the closest in value to the experimental results (see Figure 6) (See Appendix
F for MATLAB code). Although this experimental data is not entirely reliable, due to assumptions
and inevitable human error, these influences are likely to be quite small. The nominal and calculated
values are too inconsistent with the data to be reliable. Thus, from the current data, Iexp will be the best
estimate.

It is likely that if Icalc was not compromised by the erroneous thickness reading, it would have been the
most accurate estimate to the “true” I value of the beam. Measuring cross-sectional dimensions is a
shorter process than conducting a full experiment, thus making it less susceptible to human error.
Figure 6: Theoretical Deflected Shapes Using Inominal, Icalc and Iexp under 99.8N Load Including Experimental Data (Red Circles)

Furthermore, it does not rely on as many assumptions as Iexp does. The only assumption involved is
that the cross-section remains uniform throughout the beam, and this is minimised by using the
average of the dimensions derived from the right and left edges. It is recommended for new
measurements to be made, or another experiment conducted before a conclusion regarding the most
reliable estimate to the I value is affirmed.
Using the most accurate method to determine I values is important for engineers, as this value will
produce more accurate assessments of deflections and normal bending stresses. However, safety is
more crucial than exact accuracy when determining properties of structural members. Due to the
assumptions listed above, and the inevitable deviations in experimental results, it is more suitable to
categorise members according to a conservative standard, rather than an average value. If a
manufacturer had to ensure all products met this average I value with an extremely small margin of
error (so to reduce risk), it would be unnecessarily laborious and more expensive. Thus, it is not only
safer, but more economical, to use conservative nominal values. These values, accompanied by load
safety factors that must be incorporated into designs, 5 ensure the safety and effectiveness of structures.

5
Standards Australia (1989), Australian Standards AS1170.1: Dead and Live Loads and Load Combinations,
Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 13

5. Conclusion

The three methods conducted to calculate the I value of the beam yielded different results. The
maximum deflection of a simply supported beam with a rotated channel section vertically loaded at
mid-span was found to increase linearly with increasing loads.
As Icalc was compromised during the testing procedure due to a mistaken micrometre reading, and
Inominal is purposefully conservative, Iexp was deemed to be the most reliable estimate to the true I value
of the channel section from this experiment.
The different results and actual errors that occurred illustrate the importance of using conservative
nominal values that are markedly below experimental and calculated I values, and load safety factors.
As the different I values may be compromised due to human error or necessary assumptions; hence an
I value almost always less than the “true” value, coupled with safety parameters, guarantee that
essentially all sections will be as stiff and strong as specified.

6. References

[1] Mitutoyo (2012), Quick Guide to Precision Measuring Instruments No. E11003 (2), Mitutoyo
Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan
[2] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Date unknown, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-050-solid-mechanics-fall-
2004/readings/emech10_04.pdf
[3] Blodgett, O. (1963), Design of Weldments, James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, Michigan,
USA, Section 2.6.1-2.6.2
[4] Standards Australia (1989), Australian Standards AS1170.1: Dead and Live Loads and Load
Combinations, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 14

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Calculated Centroid
The centroid of the steel channel section is calculated by summing the first moment of areas of its
comprising shapes then dividing by the sum of all areas:
Σ A i × ý i
ý=
Σ Ai
The composite shapes are listed below:

4.34mm

31.5mm 8mm
4.34mm
m Horizontal Rectangle
65.82 mm
3.66mm

Rounded Corners (x2)

Vertical Rectangle (x2)

The area of the rounded corners was calculated

by subtracting the inner from the outer circle sector:

82 × π 3.66 2 × π
Arounded corner= −
16 16

The centroid of the y-axis ( ý ¿ (as measured from base of cross section) is thus:
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 15

82 × π 3.662 × π

ý=
2 ( ( 31.5 ×4.34 ) × 15.75 ) + ( 4.34 ×65.82 ) × 37.33+4 (( 16
−
16 )×35.38 )
82 × π 3.662 × π
2 ( 31.5 × 4.34 ) + 4.34 ×65.82+ 4 × ( 16
−
16 )
∴ ý=27.54 mm

Appendix B – Calculated I value

The I value was calculated as follows:

I y =∫ x 2 dA
A

Where x is the distance from the neutral axis.

Employing this definition produces the following values:

Part of Channel Section Iy

Horizontal Rectangle 11.3 ×10 3 mm4
Vertical Rectangle 448.4 mm4
Rounded Corners 763.1mm4
Table 9: I Values of Component Shapes

Hence the total I value is calculated as follows:

I y =2 ( 11.3 ×10 3+31.5 × 4.34 × ( 27.54−15.75 )2 ) + ( 448.4 +65.82× 4.34 × ( 27.94−37.33 )2) +4 ( 763.1+ 9.936 × ( 27

∴ I y =0.0915× 106 mm4

Appendix C – Raw Deflection Data

Applied Applied force Dial Gauge Reading Dial Gauge Reading Dial Gauge Reading
mass (lb) (N) (Hook 1) (mm) (Hook 2) (mm) (Hook 3) (mm)

0 0 1.13 9.73 7.18

10 44.48 0.72 8.96 6.76
20 88.96 0.3 8.2 6.34
30 133.4 -0.13 7.425 5.92
40 177.9 -0.55 6.66 5.5
50 222.4 -0.97 5 5.09
40 177.9 -0.55 6.66 5.5
30 133.4 -0.13 7.42 5.92
20 88.96 0.29 8.19 6.34
10 44.48 0.71 8.89 6.75
0 0 1.12 9.73 7.17

Table 10: Raw Deflection Data

 CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 16

Appendix D – Load-Deflection Curves and Trend Line Regression Analysis

Load-Deflection Curve (Mid-span)

250

200 f(x) = 58.96 x − 1.61

150
Load (N)

Hook 2
Linear (Hook 2)
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Deflection (mm)
 CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 17

Load-Deflection Curve (Hook 1)

250

f(x) = 105.95 x + 0.04

200

150
Hook 1
Load (N)

Linear (Hook 1)
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Deflection (mm)
 CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 18

Load-Deflection Curve (Hook 3)

250

f(x) = 106.45 x − 0.63

200

150
Load (N)

Hook 3
Linear (Hook 3)
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Deflection (mm)
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 19

Appendix E – Figure 4 MATLAB code

% Structural Mechanics CIVL2201 deflection graphs

% Create a clear command window and workspace

clear;
clc;

% Store the amount of load applied to the beam

load = 222.4;

% Store the elastic modulus of the beam

E = 200000;

% Store the total length of the beam between supports

L = 2440;

% Store the nominal, experimental and calculated I values

I_nom = 84000;
I_calc = 91500;
I_exp = 89200;

% Create an array of x values representing the points at Hook1, Hook2 and

% Hook3
x_real = [470, 1220, 1968];

% Create array of y values representing the deflection at these points

y_real = [-2.1, -3.73, -2.09];

% Create arrays of x values between 0 and 1250 and 1251 and 2500.
% These will represent the millimeters along the channel section
x = 0:0.1:2440;
x_left = 0:0.1:1220;
x_right = 1220.1:0.1:2440;

% Create an array of y values for the first half of the beam using the
% equation of the deflection
y_left_nom = -(load/(48*E*I_nom))*(3*L^2*x_left - 4*(x_left.^3));
y_left_calc = -(load/(48*E*I_calc))*(3*L^2*x_left - 4*(x_left.^3));
y_left_exp = -(load/(48*E*I_exp))*(3*L^2*x_left - 4*(x_left.^3));

% Create an array of values of the x_right values minus half the total
% length of the beam
x_diff = x_right - L/2;

% Create an array of y values for the second half of the beam using the
% equation of the deflection
y_right_nom = -(load/(48*E*I_nom))*(3*L^2*x_right - 4*(x_right.^3) + 8*x_diff.^3);
y_right_calc = -(load/(48*E*I_calc))*(3*L^2*x_right - 4*(x_right.^3) + 8*x_diff.^3);
y_right_exp = -(load/(48*E*I_exp))*(3*L^2*x_right - 4*(x_right.^3)+ 8*x_diff.^3);

% Concatenate the y_left and y_right arrays

y_nom = [y_left_nom, y_right_nom];
y_calc = [y_left_calc, y_right_calc];
y_exp = [y_left_exp, y_right_exp];
CIVL2201 – Structural Mechanics: Laboratory Report 2 20

% Plot the graph of the different deflections, labeling the x and y axes
% appropriately. Use a legend to specify the different deflections.
plot(x, y_nom, x, y_calc, x, y_exp, 'LineWidth', 2.5);
title('Deflected shape', 'FontSize', 32);
xlabel('length (mm)', 'FontSize', 26);
ylabel('deflection (mm)', 'FontSize', 26);
legend('Nominal', 'Calculated', 'Experimental');
set(legend, 'FontSize', 20);

Appendix E – Figure 6 MATLAB code

Alterations
The following code should be copy pasted exactly under Appendix D to superimpose the real
deflection points:
% Ensure the next points are plotted on the same graph
hold on;

% Superimpose the real deflection onto this graph

plot(x_real, y_real, '*', 'LineWidth', 3);

The variable ‘load’ (Line 9) must be changed to 99.8.