Strength of Materials Exp 2
Strength of Materials Exp 2
Strength of Materials Exp 2
EXPERIMENT NUMBER: 02
Table of Content:
Aim: 3
Objective: 3
Standard: 3
Theory: 3
Equipments/Apparatus: 3
Procedure: 4
Result: 5
Graph: 6
Discussion/Analysis: 6
Precautions: 6
Conclusion: 7
Reference: 8
Aim:
To determine the deflection and slope at end of cantilever for Point load and uniform
distributed load (UDL)
Objective:
The objective of this experiment is to verify the use of the basic differential equation
for calculating beam slopes and deflections.
Standard:
HST13 Beam & Cantilever Instruction Manual
Theory:
.A cantilever is a beam whose one end is fixed and the other is free. When determining
the deflection of a cantilever beam, the two most frequent load types are point load (PL)
and uniform distributed load (UDL). A point load is a force given to a concentrated point
on the support, whereas a uniform distributed load is a force applied equally across the
entire length of the support. This weight is dispersed along the whole length of the
support to achieve the least amount of deflection possible.The slope of a deflected
beam at any point is defined as the angle in radians formed by the tangent at that point
with the beam's original axis. It is the angle formed by the initial and deflected positions.
The methods used to derive the deflection and slope of the beam include: Double
integration method, Macaulay’s method and Moment area method. Using the mentioned
methods it can be derived that:
For a point loaded cantilever:
3
𝑊𝐿
Downward deflection y = 3𝐼𝐸
2
𝑊𝐿
Slope θ = 2𝐸𝐼
For a uniform load distribution:
2
𝑤𝑥 2 2
Downward deflection y = 24𝐸𝐼 (6𝐿 − 4𝐿𝑥 + 𝑥 )
3
𝑤𝐿
Slope θ= 6𝐸𝐼
Equipments/Apparatus:
1. HST 1 Universal Frame
2. Dial Gauge
3. Movable Bracket
4. Weights
5. Hanger and Clamp
6. 25 x 3mm Beam
Point load setup(Part 1)
Graph of Table 1
Graph of Table 2
Discussion/Analysis:
The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the deflection and slope of a cantilever
beam under two different load conditions (point load and uniformly distributed force).
The findings show that the estimated and measured values disagree, but the measured
values agree perfectly, indicating that there is a trend in the deflection. One probable
cause of mistake is that we assume the beam is linear, elastic, and so on, which may
not be true in practise.
Precautions:
1. Parallax error was avoided when taking readings from the measuring tape
2. Zero error was avoided by noting the initial reading of the dial gauge
3. The apparatus was placed on a balanced surface
4. Weights were placed gently to prevent oscillation and possible incorrect readings
5. All connections were made to be tight.
Conclusion:
From the experiment and graphs it can be concluded that the slope and deflection are
proportional to the loaded and to each other.
Reference:
1. “Point Load vs. Uniform Distributed Load | Federal Brace,”
www.federalbrace.com.https://www.federalbrace.com/content/306-point-load-vs-
uniform-distributed-load
2. “SCHOOL OF BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING UNIT -I -SLOPE AND DEFLECTION OF BEAMS -SCIA1401.”
Available:
https://sist.sathyabama.ac.in/sist_coursematerial/uploads/SCIA1401.pdf