DEFLECTION OF

CURVED BEAMS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS: DEFLECTION OF CURVED BEAMS

NO CONTENTS PAGES
.
1. Theory of Defection of Curved Beam
2. Objectives
3. Methodology/Procedure
4. Results
5. Discussions
6. Conclusions
7. References

THEORY
Castigliano’s theorem can be employed to determine the deflection incurred by a force of
loading in a curved beam. Castigliano’s theorem states that the component in a given
direction of the deflection caused by an external force on an elastic body isequivalent to
the partial derivative of the work of deformation with respect to the component of the force
in the given direction. The work of deformation in this case is a moment induced by a
loading force on the beam. The general expression of Castigliano’s theorem is as follows;

πWR ³ 2WR ³
BEAM 1 : δv = 2 EI δh = EI

πWR ³ WR ² L WR ³ WRL
BEAM 2 : δv 2 EI + EI
δh = 2 EI + EI [ R + L/2 ]

OBJECTIVES
The object of this experiment was to determine the deflections in the horizontal and
vertical directions under loading of a semi-circular beam and a davit by means of
experiment and compare the experimental values of deflection to calculated, theoretical
values

METHODOLOGY/PROCEDURE
 1. The apparatus was set up as shown Figure 1 (a) and Figure 1 (b);

Vertical dial gauge

Load holder Horizontal dial gauge

Semi-circle beam

Loads (N)

Figure 1 (a): Apparatus of Semi-Circle Beam

Vertical dial gauge

Horizontal dial
gauge

Quarter-circle beam

Load holder

Figure 1 (b): Apparatus of Quarter-Circle Beam

2. The dial gauges (vertical and horizontal position) were placed at the beam;
3. Load holder were hanged at the fix beam and the dial gauges were set to 0.00 mm;
 Figure 2: The dial gauges were set to 0.00mm

4. Load 1 N were put on the holder as shown Figure 3;

Figure 3: Load 1 N were put on the holder

5. The horizontal and vertical deflection of the beam were recorded, every indicated
strain will be 0.01 mm;
 Figure 4: The student recorded the dial gauges reading.

6. A 1 N of load was added to the load holder and the horizontal and vertical
deflection were recorded again;
7. Step 6 were repeated until a total weight applied to the load holder is equal to 6 N;
8. A 1 N of load was removed from the load holder and the horizontal and vertical
deflection were recorded again;
9. Step 6 were repeated until a 1 N load were left.

RESULTS
Percentage error of the deflections can be calculated by using the formula given and the
deflection of semi-circle and quarter-circle beams are recorded as shown on Table 1, Table
2, Table 3 and Table 4 below:

theory−experimental
Percentage Error = ×100 %
theory

Beam 1: Semi-circle

Radius of semi-circle beam, R = 145mm

Beam dimension = 24.7 mm x 2.89 mm x 500 mm

E = 210 GPa

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory (mm) x Exp (mm) x Theory (mm)

1 0.19 0.47 0 0.60
2 0.88 0.94 0.72 1.19
3 1.44 1.41 1.34 1.79
4 1.90 1.87 1.82 2.39
5 2.52 2.34 2.58 2.98
6 3.19 2.81 3.34 3.58

Table 1: Deflection of Semi-Circle Beam

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory (mm) x Exp (mm) x Theory (mm)

 1 0.21 0.75 0.12 1.11
2 0.38 1.50 0.22 2.21
3 0.67 2.24 0.41 3.31
4 0.94 3.00 0.53 4.38
5 1.13 3.74 0.70 5.61
6 1.40 4.50 0.86 6.57
Table 2: Def;ection of Semi-Circle Beam in Inverse Weight

Beam 2: Quarter-circle
Radius of semi-circle beam, R = 145mm

Beam dimension = 24.7 mm x 2.89 mm x 200 mm

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory x Exp (mm) x Theory

(mm) (mm)
6 0.85 0.47 0.1 0.60
5 1.30 0.94 0.46 1.19
4 1.75 1.41 1.02 1.79
3 2.42 1.87 2.76 2.39
2 2.88 2.34 3.16 2.98
1 3.19 2.81 3.34 3.58

E = 210 GPa

Table 1: Deflection of Quarter-Circle Beam

W (N) y Exp (mm) y Theory (mm) x Exp (mm) x Theory (mm)

6 0.34 0.75 0.22 1.11
5 0.57 1.50 0.35 2.21
4 0.79 2.24 0.49 3.31
3 1.00 3.00 0.62 4.38
2 1.19 3.74 0.73 5.61
1 1.40 4.50 0.86 6.57

Table 2: Def;ection of Quarter-Circle Beam in Inverse Weight

DISCUSSIONS
The graphs below illustrate how weights in Newton (N) effect the deflection on horizontal
and vertical of semi-circle beam (mm) and a quarter circle beam (mm) can be observed as
shown.

Beam 1: Semicircle

Vertical Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to Weight (N)

7

5
Weight (N)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 1 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to applied load (N)

Vertical Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to inverse in Weight (N)

7

5
Inverse Weight (N)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 2 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to inverse applied
load (N)
From the graphs above, it can be seen that the blue line represents the theoretical values
whilst orange line represents experimental values obtained from the experiment. The
general trend of these graphs for both values were aligned over the applied loads. Graph 1
shows that both values grow steadily even though experimental data have higher
deflections length compared to theoretical values. In contrast, in Graph 2, with inverse
loading apply the deflections experienced a downward trend.

Horizontal Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to Weight (N)

7

5
Weight (N)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

Weight (N) x-theory (mm) x-exp (mm)

Graph 3 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to applied load
(N)

Horizontal Deflection of Semicircle Beam (mm) due to inverse in Weight

(N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

x-theory (mm) Weight (N) x-exp (mm)

Graph 4 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of semicircle beam due to inverse applied
load (N)
In horizontal deflections’ graph, the blue color indicates the theoretical data and orange
color indicates the obtained data. The results observed were expected and have met with
our assumptions that the collected values are bit varies than the calculated. Interestingly, in
Graph 4, experimental data for horizontal deflections superimposed the theoretical.

To conclude, upon reviewing the plotted Graph 1 and Graph 2, the vertical and horizontal
deflections of semicircle beam are in steady increases in function to its applied loadings.
However, in inverse loads cases as in Graph 3 and Graph 4, the line graphs show the
values are decreasing.

Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Vertical Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to Weight (N)

7

5
Weight (N)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 5 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to applied load (N)
 Vertical Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to inverse in
Weight (N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Deflection on y-axis (mm)

y-theory (mm) Weight (N) y-exp (mm)

Graph 6 Graph of the experimental and theoretical vertical deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to inverse applied load
(N)

In Beam 2, the green color shows the theoretical values and red color shows the obtained
results from experiment. The obtained data are divergent with calculated data. The
theoretical data were calculated by using the equation given in theories of deflection on
curved beams. Therefore, it has been seen that the data are different but it still has the same
general trend. The trend is the same as the Beam 1 which when loads are applied, the line
rises upward trend and in inverse loadings, it went downward.

Horizontal Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to Weight (N)

7

5
Weight (N)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

x-theory (mm) Weight (N) x-exp (mm)

Graph 7 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to applied load (N)
 Horizontal Deflection of Quarter Circle Beam (mm) due to inverse in
Weight (N)
7
6
Inverse Weight (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection on x-axis (mm)

x-theory (mm) Weight (N) x-exp (mm)

Graph 8 Graph of the experimental and theoretical horizontal deflection (mm) of quarter beam due to inverse applied
load (N)

Besides, for the horizontal deflections, the quarter beam experienced the same trend of
deflections (mm) with vertical deflections. The values from the experiment have small
changes from one load to another load, either in additional or subtraction on loads. Despite
the fact, it still gave the same results pattern as the theoretical data.
Sample Calculation

Given information from the experiment that have been discovered,

b = 24.7mm = 0.0247m
t/h = 2.87mm = 2.87 x 10-3m
therefore, the moment of inertia, I can be calculated by the following equation;

b h3
I=
12

(2.87 x 10 ¿¿−3)3
¿( 0.0247) ¿
12

¿ 4.866 x 10−11 m4

Beam 1: Semicircle

Sample calculation of theoretical vertical deflection of the semicircle beam at loading

force in weight of 3N:

πW R 3
δ v=
2 EI

π (3)(0.145)3
¿
(2)(210 x 10¿¿ 9)(4.866 x 10¿¿−11)¿ ¿

¿ 1.41 x 10−3 m

¿ 1.41 mm

Sample calculation of theoretical horizontal deflection of the semicircle beam at loading

force in weight of 3N:

2W R3
δ h=
EI

(2)(3)(0.145)3
¿
(210 x 10¿¿ 9)(4.866 x 10¿¿−11) ¿ ¿

¿ 1.79 x 10−3 m

¿ 1.79 mm
Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Given:

L = 250mm = 0.25m

Sample calculation of theoretical vertical deflection of the quarter circle beam at loading
force in weight of 3N:

πW R 3 W R 2 L
δ v= +
4 EI EI

π (3)(0.145)3
¿ ¿¿
¿(7.03 x 10¿¿−4)+(1.54 x 10¿¿−3) ¿ ¿

¿ 2.243 x 10−3 m
¿ 2.243 mm
Sample calculation of theoretical horizontal deflection of the quarter circle beam at loading
force in weight of 3N:

W R3 WRL L
δ v= + [R+ ]
2 EI EI 2

(3)(0.145)3
¿ ¿¿

¿( 4.48 x 10¿¿−4)+(0.011)( 0.27)¿

¿(3.32 x 10¿ ¿−3)m¿

¿ 3.32 mm
Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of vertical
and horizontal deflections weight force of 3N for the semicircle beam and quarter circle
beam. The percentage error is calculated as shown in specified to increase loading case.

theory−experimental
Percentage Error= x 100 %
theory

Beam 1: Semicircle

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of vertical

deflection of weight force of 3N for the semicircle beam

1.41−1.44
Percentage Error= x 100 %
1.41

¿−2.1 %

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of horizontal

deflection of weight force of 3N for the semicircle beam

1.79−1.34
Percentage Error= x 100 %
1.79

¿ 25.1 %

Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of vertical

deflection of weight force of 3N for the quarter circle beam

2.24−0.67
Percentage Error= x 100 %
2.24

¿ 70.1 %

Sample calculation of percentage error of experimental and theoretical values of horizontal

deflection of weight force of 3N for the quarter circle beam

3.32−0.41
Percentage Error= x 100 %
3.32

¿ 87.7 %
CONCLUSIONS

It was acknowledged that the calculation and experimental values of the horizontal and
vertical deflections for both the semi-circular and quarter circular beam were not in
complete agreement. Thus, a percent error analysis was performed to determine the degree
of this discrepancy. Percentage error of the deflections can be calculated by using the
formula given and the percentage are recorded as shown in Table 1 and 2 below.

theory−experimental
Percentage Error= x 100 %
theory

Beam 1: Semi-circle

Weight, W (N) Vertical Deflection, y (%) Horizontal Deflection, x (%)

1 6 59.6 -80.9 100 83.3
2 5 6.38 -38.3 39.5 61.3
3 4 -2.1 -24.1 25.1 43
4 3 -1.6 -29.4 23.8 -15.5
5 2 -7.7 -23.1 13.4 -6
6 1 -13.5 -13.5 6.7 6.7
Table 1 Percentage Error Analysis of Semi-Circle Beam

Beam 2: Quarter Circle

Weight, W (N) Vertical Deflection, y (%) Horizontal Deflection, x (%)

1 6 72 54.7 89.2 80.2
2 5 74.7 62 90 84.2
3 4 70.1 64.7 87.7 85.2
4 3 68.7 66.7 87.9 85.8
5 2 69.8 68.2 87.5 87
6 1 68.9 68.9 86.9 86.9
Table 2 Percentage Error Analysis of Quarter Circle Beam

Based on the results of the error analysis, it was determined that the initial loading of both
beam is where the highest percentage of error happened. In contrast, for quarter circle, the
weight in 2 N, have highest percentage rate for error in vertical and horizontal deflections.
It can be observed from the Table 1 and Table 2 that as the loading increases, the
percentage of error trended downwards whilst as the loading decreases, the percentage of
error trended upwards.
Fascinatingly, for Beam 1, the horizontal deflection in x-axis have great reduction in error
rate when the load applied are either increasing or decreasing. On the other hand, for Beam
2, the vertical and horizontal deflections for inverse loadings have an increment in error
percentage.

Furthermore, during the experiment, some sources of error have been taken in
consideration that caused the faulty for this experiment. One of the sources of error is due
to the sensitivity of the tip of the dial gauge. A slight touch on the apparatus have
interrupted the reading on the dial gauge. Therefore, an improvement to overcome this
fault would be to use digital deflection indicators. By using digital deflection indicators
seemed allow for more accurate values of deflections to be recorded as in percent error or
graph plotting. Besides that, the environment of the laboratory also plays a role in this
experiment. For instances, the table we used to place the apparatus is tilted on one side
which makes it difficult to read the readings and on the same time preventing anything to
bump into the table direction. This was hard to control but we managed to pull it off until
the end of the experiment. In this case, an improvement to eliminate this issue is to set up a
better place for the experiment to be conducted. Last but not least, the fault in readings the
results on dial gauge will be one of the sources as well, as the eyes level are not parallel to
its dial. Therefore, the same remedy stated above that by replacing the dial gauge with
digital deflection indicators is the best solution.

REFERENCES
 DEFLECTION OF
CONTINUOUS
BEAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS: DEFLECTION OF CONTINUOUS BEAM

NO CONTENTS PAGES
.
 1. Theory of Deflection of Continuous Beam 27
2. Objectives 27
3. Methodology/Procedure 29
4. Results 30
5. Discussions 34
6. Conclusions 35
7. References 35

THEORY

Continuous beam is a beam which extends over three or more supports that joined
together. Therefore, the given load on one span will effect on the other spans. Hence the
reaction on the other support can be calculated based on the given load. Different
arrangement of span and load will give a different value of reaction at the support. Typical
reactions at the support of a continuous beam are shown below;

L/2 W W L/2
C

L L
5W/16 22W/16 5W/1
OBJECTIVES

The object of this experiment was to determine the reaction of a two-span

continuous beam.
APPARATUS

This apparatus are the main tools that had been used when doing this experiment:

Name of Apparatus Picture

 A support frame

 3 Nos. reaction support pier

 2 Nos. load hangers

 Beam specimen

 A meter ruler to measure the span of the beam

 A set of weights (5N)

 PROCEDURE

1. The display unit was switched on to be warm up.

2. The reaction piers were clamped to the support frame using
the place and bolt supplied with apparatus and at
predetermine distant between the supports.
3. The beam then was placed between the two cylindrical
pieces of each support. The two screws at the top of each
support were tightened with finger.
4. The load hanger was fixed at the position where the beam is
to be loaded.

5. The load cell was connected from the support pier to the
display unit each load cell occupied one terminal on the
display.

6. Begin with channel 1 the initial reading for each channel

were recorded.

7. A suitable load was placed on the hanger and reading of

each load cell were noted. This represent the reaction at each
pier.

8. The load on the load hanger was increased at suitable

increments and the pier reaction for each increment was
recorded.
DISCUSSIONS
From this experiment what would need to be discussed is an error that was
appeared to the meter that detects load reading. There is a zero error on support of left-
hand, -8.5 errors on middle-hand and 18.3 errors on right-hand. This error must cause of
mechanical problem of that equipment itself.

Next there is also a bit different between the readings were read by the device and
the reading that was obtain by using a formula. This thing might happen because of an
error that was obtained before or mistakenly of calculation using a formula.

Lastly even know there is a big different of result between the theoretical and
experiment but the equipment still can be use because of there is just a slight different of
deflection between this both method. It was 0.7 deflections on theoretical and 0.85 on
experiment.

1. If the material of the beam is changed from mild steel to aluminium, how does this
affect the support reaction?
If the beam material changed from mild steel to aluminium, aluminium has a higher
modulus of elasticity than steel and therefore the reaction at the supports will be lower
when aluminium is used.

2. If a thinner beam is used, how does this affect the support reaction? Give reasons for
your answer.
If a thin beam is used, the effect of an adverse reaction will occur on the support. This
will cause the beam to become brittle and will easily collapse the building. This will
require the high cost of repairing. Otherwise it will endanger the lives users if the
building is built is not safe to use.
3. How does the experimental reactions compare to theoretical?

Experiment Theoretical
 The value is a bit lower than the  The value is a bit higher than the
value that was got using the formula value that was get from the
 The value of M for the experiment is experiment
0.68  Value of M for theoretical is 0.70

4. State the possible factors that might have influenced your results and possible means of
overcoming it.

The reason that influenced the result might be because of the error that already there at
the apparatus and misreading of experimental values by the group members. The errors
can be overcome by:
 Ensuring that a well qualified laboratory assistant guides in the setting up of the
apparatus.
 Careful reading of data from the group embers and confirmation from a second group
members
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusions, the reaction at the two span continuous beam will increases with an
increase in the load. Other factors like the distance of the load from the supports, type of
material and width will also affect the reaction. Some errors might occur in this
experiment. Errors in this experiment can be minimised through:

 Careful reading of data from the group embers and confirmation from a second
group members.
 Ensuring that a well qualified laboratory assistant guides in the setting up of the
apparatus.
 Taking several readings of every load and find the average.

REFERENCES

1. T.H.G. Megson, Structural and Stress Analysis, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014

2. S. S. Rattan, Strength of materials, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2008