Table of Content

Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Pre-Test Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Testing Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Results and Observations........................................................................................................................ 3
4.0 Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Result Comparison .............................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Sources of Error................................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A: Pre-Test Analysis....................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix B: Lab Data .................................................................................................................................. 11
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this experiment was to load a wide-flange beam (W150x30) to failure and observe its
behaviour pre and post yielding point. Important aspect of the experiment was to compare the
theoretically expected values for the deflection and ultimate load to the values observed during the test.
The beam was loaded with two point loads as shown below on Figure 1.

P P

Pure Bending

Deflection gauges

Figure 1: Experiment Setup

The above shown loading setup allows for pure bending in the middle section of the beam which would
more accurately represent the bending behaviour of the beam. The loading of the beam was performed
with a hydraulic press equipped with a load cell for measuring the applied load. Deflection gauges
measured deflections at various points along the beam.

2.0 Procedure

This experiment was divided into two sections: pre-test analysis and testing. The pre-testing analysis was
performed prior to the test in order to predict the behaviour of the beam and its failure values.

1|Page
 2.1 Pre-Test Analysis
The pre-test analysis consisted of determining theoretical values for the behaviour of the beam:

1. Determine the class of the beam

2. Determine Py, My, and Δy
3. Calculate Pu and Mu
4. Predict a failure mode
5. Check the need for bearing stiffeners

2.2 Testing Procedure

The testing procedure consisted of the following steps:

1. Ensure the beam has a clear span of 2.4m

2. Position the concentrated loads at 0.7m from either support
3. Secure the beam with chains near the supports without laterally bracing the beam
4. Install deflection gauges at mid span, under both point loads, and lateral to the beam
5. Load the beam, record deflections, and note important observations
6. Unload the beam and record the unloading deflections

Figure 2 below shows the experiment setup.

2400mm
P P
W150x30 700mm 1000mm 700mm Stiffener

Deflection Gauges
Figure 2: Experiment Setup

As shown in the figure above the clear span of the beam was 2.4m with the loads applied at 0.7m and
1.7m from the left support. The clear span of 2.4m was important to obtain in order to achieve full
section capacity and avoid lateral bucking.

2|Page
3.0 Results and Observations
The following section displays the results recorded during this test. Figure 3 below shows a plot of the
applied load (kN) vs observed deflection (mm) at mid span of the beam.

Load, P (kN) vs Mid Deflection (mm)

140.00

Yield Point
120.00

Pu=132.5kN
P=100kN
100.00

80.00

60.00

Δy=14.41mm Δu =46.92mm
40.00

20.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 3: Load, P (kN) vs Mid Deflection (mm)

As it can be seen from Figure 3, the yield point (Py) of the beam occurred around 100kN with a recorded
yield deflection (Δy) of 14.41mm. Beyond the yield point the beam did not gain significant amount of
load carrying capacity but underwent a substantial deformation. The ultimate load was Pu = 132.5 kN
with an ultimate deflection, Δu = 46.92mm. It is worth noting that the loading was stopped at this point
because the mid deflection gauge was maxed out and no further deflections could be recorded. If the
loading had continued the beam might have been able to gain slightly more load carrying capacity
before fully flattening out.

Important observation for this experiment was the malfunctioning of the LVDT device and strain gauges.
All deformations were recorded using mechanical deflection gauges operated by students. Due to the
malfunctioning of the strain gauges a strain reading for this experiment was not recorded.

With only deflection data, the modulus of elasticity could be back calculated from the deflection
equation shown below:

3|Page
 𝑃𝑎
𝐸= (3𝑙 2 − 4𝑎2 )
24∆𝑚𝑖𝑑 𝐼

P = Applied Load

a = distance to load from support

l = clear span

I = moment of inertia

Δ = deflection at mid span

Figure 4: Shear and Moment Diagram (Linsgroup, n.d)

From the above equation, the modulus of elasticity was calculated for several points (50kN-100kN) in
the elastic section of the beam and the average E value was obtained, Eavg= 181,000 MPa.

4.0 Discussion
The following section will compare the obtained test values and the predicted theoretical values;
potential sources of error will also be discussed explaining possible reasons for discrepancy in the
results.

4.1 Result Comparison

Table 1 below displays the theoretical and the recorded values for this experiment.

Table 1: Theoretical and recorded values

Theoretical Recorded
Py 122.4 kN 100 kN
Δy 15.99 mm 14.41 mm
My 85.7 kNm 70 kNm
Pu 136.3 kN 132.5 kN
E 200000 Mpa 180000 Mpa
Mu 95.4 kNm 92.75 kNm
Based on Table 1, the recorded yield load is 18% less than the predicted theoretical value.
However, the yield point for this experiment is taken as the point where the linearity of the load
vs deflection graph is interrupted (see Figure 3). In reality, the yield point of the beam could be
located anywhere in that range of loads.

4|Page
 Using the flexural formula the yield stress of the steel could be back calculated and compared to
the yield stress provided by the manufacturer.
𝑀𝑦 100𝑘𝑁∗0.7𝑚∗78.5𝑚𝑚
𝜎= 𝐼𝑥
= 17.2 𝑥 106 𝑚𝑚4
= 319𝑀𝑃𝑎

The stress at extreme fiber at 100kN is 319MPa which is less than the 393MPa provided by the
manufacturer. Figure 4 below shows the stress values in the beam at different loads.

Load, P (kN) vs Deflection (mm)

130.00
P = 123kN
Fy= 393MPA
125.00 P = 120.5kN
σ= 385MPA

120.00

Δ= 20mm
115.00
P = 110kN
σ= 351MPA Δ= 19 mm

110.00

P = 100kN
105.00
σ= 319MPA
Δ= 16.26 mm
100.00

95.00
Δ= 14.41 mm

90.00
12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Figure 5: Stress values at different loads

According to Figure 5, the yield point of the beam should have been at P=123kN but from the
graph it is clear that the curve at this point is no longer linear therefore the yield point must
have occurred at an earlier load. If strains were recorded and a 2% offset could be performed,
the yield point would most likely be somewhere between 100kN and 123kN which would
decrease the relative error between the experimental and theoretical results.

The recorded ultimate failure load value (Pu) was only 3% off from the predicted theoretical
value (see values in Table 1). If the test was not stopped, the experimental value would have
approached even closer to the theoretical ultimate load value.

The unloading curve of the beam followed the expected linearity where only the elastic
deformation of the beam was recovered. The beam remained permanently deformed by the
plastic deformation gained during the experiment.

5|Page
 The modulus of elasticity was back calculated from the deflection measurements and was
determined to be 180GPa which is 9% less than the expected 200GPa.

Potential errors that might explain the discrepancy in the values are outlined in the next section.

4.2 Sources of Error

Some potential sources of error for this experiment are:

 The largest discrepancy will come from the human inability to perfectly read the deflection
gauges and at the right moment. This will result in a false correlation between a given load
and a deflection reading.
 The deflection gauges are not fully ridged and they might have moved slightly during the
loading procedure which will introduce inaccuracy in the deflection measurements.
 The loading rollers were not parallel with the top flange of the beam which might introduce
slightly eccentric loading and cause small torsional deformations.
 The beam cannot be perfectly centered as assumed in the theoretical calculations.

The combination of all potential sources of error would help explain some of the discrepancy
between the theoretical and experimental load and deflection values for this bean.

5.0 Conclusion
This experiment consisted of loading a wide-flange W150x30 beam and observing its flexural behaviour.
The test determined the yield load, the ultimate load, and deflections associated with both loads. The
experimental yield load was recorded to be 100kN with a mid-span deflection of 14.41mm. The ultimate
load was observed to be 132.5kN. The yield load was slightly deviating from the expected yield load,
however, the ultimate load was in close agreement with the theoretical ultimate load of the beam.

6|Page
Appendix A: Pre-Test Analysis

7|Page
8|Page
9|Page
10 | P a g e
Appendix B: Lab Data

11 | P a g e
recorded by: Hafeez David Matthew Adam Kelly
Load (kN) Deflection (mm)
2P P Δmid Δ@P (left) Δ@P (right) Δmid, lateral (out of plane)
0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 -0.77 0.030
20.00 10.00 1.69 0.88 0.28 0.060
40.00 20.00 3.13 2.03 1.39 0.680
60.00 30.00 4.52 3.21 2.46 0.750
80.00 40.00 5.85 4.31 3.5 0.860
100.00 50.00 7.22 5.40 4.52 0.980
120.00 60.00 8.59 6.48 5.54 1.090
140.00 70.00 9.98 7.57 6.59 1.170
160.00 80.00 11.4 8.70 7.71 1.160
180.00 90.00 12.91 9.98 8.91 1.230
200.00 100.00 14.41 11.30 10.16 1.250
220.00 110.00 16.26 12.88 11.63 1.130
227.00 113.50 17.00 13.45 1.110
235.00 117.50 18.00 14.25 1.100
241.00 120.50 19.00 15.10 13.71 1.100
243.00 121.50 19.50 15.50 14.15 1.100
246.00 123.00 20.00 15.96 14.52 1.110
248.00 124.00 20.50 16.35 1.170
250.00 125.00 21.00 16.71 15.335 1.240
251.00 125.50 21.50 17.05 16.15 1.310
253.00 126.50 22.00 17.42 1.390
254.00 127.00 22.50 17.80 1.470
255.00 127.50 23.00 18.04 1.650
256.00 128.00 23.50 18.06 1.800
257.00 128.50 24.00 18.95 1.820
258.00 129.00 24.50 19.29 17.84 1.850
258.50 129.25 25.00 19.65 1.890
259.00 129.50 25.50 20.02 1.940
260.00 130.00 26.00 20.33 18.96 1.950
260.50 130.25 26.50 20.70 1.970
261.00 130.50 27.00 21.08 19.58 1.990
261.50 130.75 27.50 21.48 1.995
262.00 131.00 28.00 21.85 2.020
262.50 131.25 28.50 22.23 2.030
262.60 131.30 29.00 22.62 2.045
263.30 131.65 29.50 23.01 21.88 2.050
263.30 131.65 30.00 24.05 2.100
263.40 131.70 30.50 24.06 2.100
263.60 131.80 31.00 2.230
263.70 131.85 31.50 2.300
263.90 131.95 32.00 2.060
264.00 132.00 32.50 23.9 2.020
264.20 132.10 33.00 2.000
264.20 132.10 33.50 1.990
264.30 132.15 34.00 25.15 1.950
264.50 132.25 34.50 1.900
264.50 132.25 35.00 2.020
264.50 132.25 35.50 1.920
264.80 132.40 36.00 1.920
265.00 132.50 36.50 1.920
265.10 132.55 37.00 1.915
265.20 132.60 37.50 1.910
265.40 132.70 38.00 1.900
265.50 132.75 38.50 1.895
265.60 132.80 39.00 1.880
265.70 132.85 39.50 1.855
265.80 132.90 40.00 1.830
265.80 132.90 40.50 1.820
266.00 133.00 41.00 1.800
266.10 133.05 41.50 1.770
266.10 133.05 42.00 1.710
266.10 133.05 42.50 1.690
266.10 133.05 43.00 1.600
260.00 130.00 43.50 1.540
262.00 131.00 44.00 1.400
263.50 131.75 44.50 1.320
263.80 131.90 45.00 1.260
264.40 132.20 45.50 1.210
264.50 132.25 46.00 1.150
264.70 132.35 46.50
265.00 132.50 46.92
254.00 127.00 46.92
240.00 120.00 46.52
220.00 110.00 45.28
200.00 100.00 44.14
180.00 90.00 42.91
160.00 80.00 41.66
140.00 70.00 40.41
120.00 60.00 39.03
100.00 50.00 37.69
80.00 40.00 36.13
60.00 30.00 35.56
40.00 20.00
20.00 10.00
34.62
33.34
12 | P a g e
10.00 5.00 32.32
5.00 2.50 31.70
0.00 0.00 29.97