Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
REPORT
Subject Code Code & Experiment Title Course Code Date Section / Group Name Members of Group BFC 21201 SPAN DEFLECTION (DOUBLE INTERGRATION METHOD) 2 BFF/1 03/10/2011 2 MUHAMAD ASYRAF BIN AB MALIK (DF100108) 1.MUHAMMAD IKHWAN BIN ZAINUDDIN (DF100018) 2.AHMAD FARHAN BIN RAKAWI (DF100142) 3.IDAMAZLIZA BINTI ISA (DF100128) 4.AINUN NAZHIRIN BINTI ABD JALIL (DF100076) EN MOHAMAD HAIRI BIN OSMAN 10 OCTOBER 2011
Comment by examiner
Received
We, hereby confess that we have prepared this report on our effort. We also admit not to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge that everything mentioned in the report is true.
___________________________ Student Signature Name : MUHAMAD ASYRAF AB MALIK Name ___________________________ Student Signature : IDAMAZLIZA ISA
1.0
OBJECTIVE Main propose of our experiment is to determine the relationship between span and deflection.
2.0
INTRODUCTION A beam must possess sufficient stiffness so that excessive deflections do not have an adverse effect on adjacent structural members. In many cases, maximum allowable deflections are specified by Code of Practice in terms of the dimensions of the beam, particularly the span. The actual deflections of a beam must be limited to the elastic range of the beam, otherwise permanent distortion result. Thus in determining the deflections of beam under load, elastic theory is used. In this experiment double integrations method is used to give the complete deflected shape of the beam.
3.0
THEORY
d2y P L M x - x EI 2 dx 2 2 dy PLx Px 2 Vx x EI A dx 4 4 PLx 2 Px 3 y x - x EIy Ax B 8 12 When x o; dy 0 , A 0 PL3 PL3 When x L/2; y 0; B 32 96 PL3 B 48 PL3 When x 0; Ymak (mid sp an; c) 48EI PL2 x L/2; v mak (at sup p ort) 16EI where E can be obtained from the backboard I bd 3 12
b d
4.0
APPARATUS
5.0
PROSEDURE 1. The moveable knife edge supports had been positioned so that they are 400mm. 2. The chosen beam had placed on the support. 3. The hanger and the digital dial test indicator had placed at mid span. The Digital Reading had been zeroed. 4. Incremental load had been applied and the deflection recorded for each increment in the table below. 5. The above step repeated using span of 300mm and 500mm.
6.0
RESULT Specimen Beam : Steel Youngs Modulus, E Steel = 207 GN/m2 = 207 x 109 Nm-2
Second moment of area, I rectangle b = 18.97 mm d = 3.15 mm = bd3 12 =(18.97 x 10-3)(3.15 x 10-3)3 12 = 4.941 x 10-11 mm4
Experiment 1 : Span = 500mm : 0.5m No. Mass*(N) Deflection (experimental) (mm) 1. 2. 3. 0.981 1.962 2.943 0.26 0.52 0.81 Theoretical Def. ( YMak) ) - 0.249 - 0.498 0.748 4.417 % 4.417 % 8.289 % % Different
Experiment 2 : Span = 400mm : 0.4m No. Mass*(N) Deflection (experimental) ( Ymax) (mm) 1. 2. 3. 0.981 1.962 2.943 0.17 0.29 0.43 Theoretical Def. (Ymax) (mm) - 0.128 - 0.255 - 0.383 32.813 % 13.37 % 12.272 % % Different
Experiment 3 : Span = 300mm : 0.3m No. Mass*(N) Deflection (experimental) (mm) 1. 2. 3. 0.981 1.962 2.943 0.08 0.14 0.18 Theoretical Def. ( YMak) ) -0.054 -0.108 -0.162 44.82 % 29.62 % 11.11 % % Different
Ymax
7.0
ANALYSIS
Experiment 1 : Span = 500mm : 0.5m MASS (N) DEFLECTION (( YMak) ) DIFFERENT (%)
Ymax
PL3 48EI
Ymax
PL3 48EI
Ymax
PL3 48EI
MASS (N)
0.981
-0.128mm
x 100
x 100
-0.383mm
Experiment 3 : Span = 300mm : 0.3m MASS (N) DEFLECTION (( YMak) ) = - 0.981 (300)3 48( 10.25 x 106) = - 0.054 mm 0.981
-0.054mm
x 100
x 100
2.943
-0.162mm
10
8.0
DISCUSSION Comment on the different between the theatrical and experimental result. From experiment 1 and the span is 500mm we get the different between the theoretical and experiment 1 result for 0.981N=4.417%, 1.962N=4.417% and 2.943N=8.289%. Then, for experiment 2 with the span is 400mm we get for 0.981N=32..813%, 1.962N=13.37% and 2.943N=12.272%.. Finally, for experiment 3 with the span is 300mm we get for 0.981N=44.82%, 1.962N=29.62% and 2.943N=11.11%. Based on this different show that our experiment is accurate and success for experiment 1 because our different value is quite small. It can be because we followed the procedure without any error while doing it. But experiment 2 and 3 not accurate and both has a big different of theory and experimental. This can be some errors due to equipment experiment or environmental interference.
9.0
EXTRA QUESTION 9.1 Calculate the deflection when x = L/3 (experiment 1, no 3). Check the result by placing the digital dial at this position. P L/3-x A X X L/3 MB = 0 = RA (L) P( 2L/3 ) :- RA = P(2L/3) L = 2P/3
11
2L/3 MX = 0 = RA (L/3 x ) - Mx-x Mx-x = RA (L/3 RA( x ) = 2P/3(L/3) - 2P/3(x) = 2PL/9 2Px/3
X=0,
dy = 0 dx
A=0
X=L/3 , Ymax = PL3 - PL3 + B 81 B = -2PL3 243EI = - 2(2.943) (500)3 243( 10.25 x 106) = - 0.295mm 243
12
9.2
Experiment 2 : Span = 400mm : 0.4m Specimen Beam : Steel Vmax = EI dy = PL3 + A dx Vmax = PL2 16 EI = 1.962 (400)2 16( 10.25 x 106) = 1.914 x 10-3 mm 16
10.0
CONCLUSION
We can conclude that the experimental value and the theoretical value are not exactly same. We can see that there are small and big different values. It means that, our experiment (span deflection) is not success. From the result, the value for theoretical deflection is negative. This is because our experiment is in tension condition.
Besides that, we are able to know how much the span can support the load and have a maximum deflection level until it reached to failure mood. Although wise, we can design the safety factor from this action.
13
11.0
REFERENCES
Mechanics of materials / Ferdinand P. Beer, John T. DeWolf Mechanics of materials / Madhukar Vable Mechanics of materials / James M. Gere, Barry J. Goodno Mechanics of materials / Ansel C. Ugural
14