Beam Reaction Experiment Group 2

Beam Reaction Experiment
Group 2
Table of Contents
1.0. Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.0. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Aims ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.0. Literature Review............................................................................................................................. 5
4.0. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1. Apparatus used for this Experiment ........................................................................................... 11
4.2. Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 13
4.3. Special considerations ................................................................................................................ 14
5.0. Results ............................................................................................................................................ 15
6.0. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 16
7.0. Experimental errors and limitations ............................................................................................... 19
8.0. Precautions ..................................................................................................................................... 19
9.0. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 19
10.0. Health and safety considerations.................................................................................................. 20
11.0. Dissemination of knowledge ........................................................................................................ 20
12.0. Contribution of team members and resource persons .................................................................. 22
13.0. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 22
Group 2
List of Figures.
Figure 1.0
Figure 2.0
Figure 3.0
Figure 4.0
Figure 5.0
Figure 6.0
________________________________________________________________________________ 11
________________________________________________________________________________ 11
________________________________________________________________________________ 12
________________________________________________________________________________ 16
________________________________________________________________________________ 17
________________________________________________________________________________ 18
Group 2
List of Table
Table 1.0 __________________________________________________________________________________ 6
Table 2.0 __________________________________________________________________________________ 8
Table 3.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 10
Table 4.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 15
Table 5.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 15
Table 6.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 15
Table 7.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 16
Table 8.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 17
Table 9.0 _________________________________________________________________________________ 18
Table 10.0 ________________________________________________________________________________ 22
Group 2

1.0. Abstract
In this experiment we will record how the reactions of the supports vary when a load is placed at
different positions in the beam. Also, we are going to observe the reactions when the load is beyond
support with changing positions and lastly with an experiment where we have a fixed load and a load
with varying positions.
Calculation of reactions is crucial for the determination of the bending moment and shear force
diagram. These diagrams are needed to calculate deflection of beam, bending stress and the maximum
load it can support.
2.0. Introduction
2.1. Aims
This experiment is carried out to investigate if the experimental value of a beam reaction experiment
is similar to that of the calculated value. The results are plotted to compare the results.
2.2. Objectives
The objective of this experiment is to use the apparatus to measure the reactions at the supports
different types of beam.
For part one, a load is placed at a distance X from the left support. The distance X is varied along the
length of the beam and the reading of the newton meter are noted.
For part 2, a fixed load is placed at a distance m from the left support, and a load is placed at a varied
distance n from the left support, the reaction of both newton meter are again noted.
For part 3, a fixed load is placed at a distance m from the left support, and a load is placed on the right
of the right support (overhanging beam), the load is placed at n cm from the left support and the
length of n is varied making sure that is remains in the overhanging part of the beam. The values at
the supports are noted.
For all three parts the beam must be horizontal before taking readings.
Group 2
3.0. Literature Review
Beams are long and slender structures on which are subjected to external forces at right angles
to its axis so they are subjected to bending stress from a direction perpendicular to its length. There
are different types of beams namely, beam hanging at one end only, simply supported beams,
continuous beams and cantilever beams. In this experiment we will investigate the reaction on the
supports of beams, hanging at one end and simply supported beams.
Part 1: To investigate the reaction of a simply supported beam loaded with one
concentrated load of 20N
For the first part of the experiment a uniform 75cm beam of weight 46N is simply supported at both
ends and a loads of 20N is placed at a distance X cm from the left support. The length of x is varied
along the length of the beam between the supports and the reaction is recorded. In theory, when
distance X cm increases the reaction at the left support should decrease and reaction at the right
support should increase.
When X = 0 cm, the reaction at the left support should be (20+46/2) = 33N, and the reaction at the
right support should be 13N.
When X = 75 cm, the reaction at the left support should be 13N and reaction at the right support
should be 33N.
Reaction at both end varies linearly with distance X at which the load is placed, when X increase
The length X is varied across the beam and the reactions R1 and R2 are recorded in a table.
W=20N
X cm
SW=26N
R2
R1
L=75cm
Where SW is the self-weight of the beam.
Group 2
Calculations from theory

Using principles of moment:
At equilibrium;
M=0
Taking moments from R1;
clockwise moment = anticlockwise moment
20X + 26x37.5 = 75R2
R2 =
Equation 1.0
Similarly taking moment from R2;

M=0
Clockwise moment = anticlockwise moment
75R1 = 2x37.5 + 20(75-X)
75R1 = 975 + 1500-20X
Equation 2.0
We use these equations and replace the values of X to obtain theoretical values of R1 and R2.
Experiment number
X/cm
R2/N
R1/N
1
2
3
4
37.5
7.5
25.0
65.0
23.00
15.00
19.67
30.33
23.00
31.00
26.33
15.67
Table 1.0
Group 2
Part 2: To investigate the reactions of a simply supported beam with 2 concentric loads
A fixed load is placed at a distance 20 cm from the left support and another load is placed at a
distance n from the left support, the distance n is varied from the left support to the right support.
In theory when the value of n is increased from 0 cm to 75 cm the reaction at support R3 will decrease
linearly, with the maximum reaction at R3 being 37.67N when n = 0cm. And the reaction at R4 will
increase linearly with maximum reaction at R4 being 28.33 N when n = 75cm.
W2=10N
n cm
W1=20N
SW=26N
R4
R3
m= 20cm
Length= 75cm
Calculations from theory:

At equilibrium;
M=0
From R3;
Group 2
26x37.5 + 20x20 +10n= 75xR4
Equation 3.0
At equilibrium;
M=0
From R4;
clockwise moment=anticlockwise moment
75XR3=26x37.5+ 10(75-n) + 55x20
Equation 4.0
Experiment number
1
2
3
4
n/cm
32.5
40.0
55.0
67.5
R3/N
33.33
32.33
30.33
28.67
R4/N
22.67
23.67
26.67
27.33
Table 2.0
Group 2
Part 3: To find reactions when one load is beyond the RH support.

In part 3 the fixed weight 20N remains at a distance 20 cm from the left support and a load of 10N is
placed beyond the right support at a distance of n cm from the left support. The length of n is varied
but kept beyond the right support.
From theory when the distance n increases the reaction R3 should decrease whereas the reaction R4
increases.
W2=10N
n cm
M=20cm
SW=26N
R3
W1=20N
R4
75cm
Calculations from theory:

At equilibrium;
M=0
From R3;
26x37.5 + 20x20 +10n= 75xR4
Equation 5.0
Group 2
To calculate R3, we use
Fy=0
10+-26+-20+R4+R3=0
=
Equation 6.0
Experiment number
1
2
3
4
n/cm
85
90
95
105
R3/N
29.33
25.67
25.00
23.67
R4/N
26.67
30.33
31.00
32.33
Table 3.0
10
Group 2
4.0. Methodology
4.1. Apparatus used for this Experiment
1. Beam Apparatus
Figure 1.0
2. 1400mm beam
3. Four 1kg cast iron weights
4. A spirit level
The spirit level
It is used to check if a surface is horizontal.it consists of a horizontal transparent tube with 2 markings
and a bubble. If surface is horizontal the bubble must be between the 2 marks as shown:
Figure 2.0
If surface is not horizontal then bubble is not between the 2 marks.
11
Group 2
Checking for errors in level.
Place the level on a flat surface and make a mark to show where the level is sitting.
Note the exact position of the bubble in the vial.
Turn the level over to the other side and place it against the mark you made.
Check the exact position of the bubble in the vial again.
If the bubble has returned to the same place, the level is accurate. If it didnt, then it may be
inaccurate. Always double check by repeating the process above.
5. 2 spring balances with adjusting screws

6. Weight hangers
7. 4 rectangular sliders to hook spring balances and weight hangers with beam
Figure 3.0
12
Group 2
4.2. Procedure
The experiment is done in three parts:
Part 1
The 2 spring balances are hooked into position on the supports.
The beam is then simply supported through sliders on the 2 spring balances.
The beam is levelled and the reactions due to self-weight are recorded.
A concentrated load is hooked between the supports on another slider.
The reactions due to this concentrated load at different positions x mm (from the left support),
is investigated.
Part 2
The setup is kept the same as in part 1.
The load is unhooked and a second slider with its weight hanger is inserted on the beam. The
latter is levelled and the reactions due to self-weight are recorded.
The simply supported beam is then loaded with two concentrated loads, one at a fixed
position m mm from the left support and the other was placed at different positions n mm
from the left support to find the respective reactions.
Part 3
One of the supports is moved closed to the other one.
The beam is then hooked again and 2 sliders with weight hangers are inserted; 1 between the
supports and 1 beyond the right support.
The beam is levelled again and the reactions due to self-weight are recorded.
The hangers are loaded; 1 load between each support at a fixed position m mm from the left
support and another load was placed at different positions n mm (measured from the left
support) beyond the right support in cantilever.
The respective reactions were recorded at the supports.
13
Group 2
4.3. Special considerations:
We ensured that the beam is levelled before moving mass and after moving mass and taking
readings and make necessary adjustments.
Before taking readings and checking the level, we waited for the beam to stabilise (beam
makes displacements when disturbed)
Readings were taken by at least 2 persons to minimise gross errors.
The initial weight of beam is measured and recorded. It is equal to sum of readings of the
newton meters (23.0N +23.0N=46.0N)
14
Group 2
5.0. Results
Part 1: To investigate the reaction of a simply supported beam loaded with one concentrated
load of 20N
Experiment number
x/cm
R1/N
R2/N
1
2
3
4
5
37.5
7.5
25.0
65.0
55.0
23.0
32.0
27.0
15.5
18.5
23.0
14.0
19.0
30.5
28.0
Table 4.0
Experiment number
n/cm
R1/N
R2N
1
2
3
4
32.5
40.0
55.0
67.5
35.0
33.5
31.0
29.5
23.5
24.5
26.5
28.5
Table 5.0
Experiment number
n/cm
R3/N
R4/N
1
2
3
4
85.0
90.0
95.0
105.0
35.0
33.5
31.0
29.5
23.5
24.5
26.5
28.5
Table 6.0
15
Group 2
6.0. Discussion
Part 1: To investigate the reaction of a simply supported beam loaded with one concentrated
load of 20N
Experiment
number
X/cm
1
2
3
4
5
37.5
7.5
25
65
55
Experimental Experimental
R1/N
R2/N
23
32
27
15.5
18.5
23
14
19
30.5
28
Theoritical
R1/N
Theoritical
R2/N
23.00
31.00
26.33
15.67
18.33
23.00
15.00
19.67
30.33
27.67
Table 7.0
Figure 4.0
From the graph we can deduce that the experimental values are reliable, there is a small difference
between the value of the experimental and theoretical values of the experiment, and the maximum
difference between the values is 1N. Both graphs show the same trend. We can conclude the results
are reliable as they are close to what we expected.
16
Group 2
Experiment
number
n/cm
1
2
3
4
32.5
40
55
67.5
Experimental Experimental Theoritical Theoritical

R3/N
R4/N
R3/N
R4/N
35
33.5
31
29.5
23.5
24.5
26.5
28.5
33.33
32.33
30.33
28.67
22.67
23.67
25.67
27.33
Table 8.0
36
34
Reactions N/g
32
30
Experimental R3/N
28
Experimental R4N
TheoreticalR3/N
26
Theoretical R4/N
24
22
20
25
35
45
55
65
Distance from left support
Figure 5.0
Both the experimental and theoretical values follow the same trend. However, there is a significant
and almost same difference between the experimental and theoretical values. The maximum
difference between the values is 1.77N. There was a constant error which was present all throughout
this experiment which would cause the experimental reading to deviate constantly from the theoretical
value; this could be due to a defect in the 1Kg load used.
17
Group 2
Experiment
number
n/cm
1
2
3
4
85
90
95
105
Experimental Experimental Theoritical Theoritical

R3/N
R4/N
R3/N
R4/N
35
33.5
31
29.5
23.5
24.5
26.5
28.5
29.33
25.67
25
23.67
26.67
30.33
31
32.33
Table 9.0
36
34
Reactions N/g
32
30
Experimental R3/N
Experimental R4/N
28
Theoretical R3/N
26
Theoretical R4/N
24
22
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Distance from left support (cm)
Figure 6.0
The trend in of the experimental and theoretical values of the experiment is almost the same, however
there is a large percentage of error between the experimental and theoretical values. An error in the
weight used could explain the large difference in readings. The experiment should be repeated with
the mass to be used weighted before use.
18
7.0.
Group 2
Experimental errors and limitations

1) The centre of mass of the beam may not be exactly at the middle of the beam.
2) The pointer on the newton meter was large and the readings were small.
3) The mass of the glide on which the hanger is attached is not included in the calculations.
4) The spirit level was not accurate enough.
5) The beam is made of steel which volume varies greatly with temperature so as the length.
6) The loads are large which prevent it from being placed near the support to obtain very small
reading of m or n.
7) Movement of air around cause the setup to vibrate.
8) The mass of the loads are not exact.
8.0. Precautions
1. The newton meter should be vertical so as to prevent formation of horizontal components of
forces, set square could be used.
2. The beam should be horizontal to prevent formation of horizontal components of forces.
3. The spirit level should be checked before use.
4. The maximum weight of the newton meter should not be exceeded to prevent damage.
5. The beam should be straight and not bend.
6. Precaution should be taken when loading and removing the loads to prevent any loads to fall.
7. The 2nd load used in part 3 (the one which is not fixed) should not exceed the fixed load far
too much as it can overturn the beam.
9.0. Recommendations
1. The pointer should be smaller and the reading on the newton meter should be bigger or a
digital newton meter could be used for more precise and accurate results.
2. The mass of the glider should be used in the calculations.
3. The spirit level should be more sensitive.
4. A newton meter with a higher maximum weight could be used to determine reaction using
heavier masses.
5. For all three part more the reading of the balance should be taken in more than 4 position to
obtain accurate and more reliable results.
6. The loads used could be weighted before being used.
19
Group 2
7. The experiment is carried away from fans and windows.
10.0. Health and safety considerations
Heavy masses should be handled carefully. Bucket of sand on floor can be used to avoid
masses falling on feet.
Gloves to be used when handling beam. Pointed ends can cause injuries.
11.0. Dissemination of knowledge

The graphs of part 1 and part 2, show very small deviations between the theoretical and the actual
values. This is mainly because of small errors. The reactions R1 and R2, varies linearly with load.
This shows that the reactions of a constant load between its supports vary linearly with distance.
In part 1, the gradient is calculated as shown:
M of R1= (23-18.33)/ (37.5-55) =-0.267.
M of R2= (23-27.67)/ (37.5-55) =+0.267
The +ve and ve signs shows that as we increase distance from R1 we have a reduction in reaction
atR1 and an increase in reaction at R2.
The gradient being equal in magnitude shows that the decrease in reaction at R1 is equal to the
increase in reaction at R2.
At x =0,
The max reaction at R1 is y int=23+0.267x37.5=33.00N
The min reaction atR2 is y int=12.99N
At max value of x=75.0cm.
The max R1=12.99N
The min R2= 33.00N
In part 2, the setup is similar but with addition of a constant fixed load on the beam.
20
Group 2
M of R3= (33.33-28.67)/ (32.5-67.5) = -0.133

M of R4= (22.67-27.33)/ (32.5-67.5) = +0.133
-VE sign at R3 and +VE sign at R4 shows decrease in reaction at R3 and increase in reaction at R4.
The equal magnitude of gradient shows decrease in R3=increase in R4.
At x =0,
Max reaction at R3=37.65
Max reaction at R4= 29.00
Min reaction atR3=27.68 and R4=38.98
The addition of a constant fixed load has cause changes in the graphs.
Compared to case1 case2 has graphs of smaller magnitude of gradient but a higher maximum and
minimum reactions.
In Part 3,
In the graph we can see a very large difference between the theoretical and the experimental values.
This could have been due to the apparatus error (in the Newton meter) which was not suitable for
overhanging loads.
In the graph we can see as distance of W2 increases:
There is a general decrease trend in the reaction at R3 in both experimental and theoretical
values
There is a general increase in the reaction at R4 in both experimental and theoretical values.
Because of the large scattering of points and lines not straight it is difficult to show
mathematical relationships that exist between the reactions.
21
Group 2
12.0. Contribution of team members and resource persons
Task
Student
Abstract,
Introduction and
conclusion
Rujub M.Afzar
& Lionel
Gikonyo
Literature review
and discussion
Saif Rhyman
Saib and
Kavish
Sockalingum
Abhishek
Methodology and Jagessur and
results
Anusha
Bheenuck
Limitations
Rujub M.Afzar
Recommendations Saif
Health&Safety
Anusha
measures
Dissemination of
knowledge
Abhishek
Contribution of
team members & Lionel Gikonyo
Resource person
Kavish&
Compilation
Anusha
Table 10.0
We would like to thank to the laboratory technician Mr Gokhool who has given us precious advices.
We have been able to do the practical successfully with his help. We would also like to thank our
lecturer Mr. Nunkoo who has been guiding us throughout our practicals.
13.0. Conclusion
Based on the results of the experiments performed above in three parts, the theoretical values are
obtained from calculations. Hence, within the limit of experimental uncertainty, the values compared
are the same; meaning that the experiments were reliable and almost accurate except for some errors
that were always present.
22

Beam Reaction Experiment Group 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beam Reaction Experiment Group 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beam Reaction Experiment