9.

Discussion

In this Bending in Beam Experiment, we have used three different types of beam as our
specimen. They are mild steel beam (20.70mm x 4.40mm x 1000.00mm), aluminum beam
(20.10mm x 6.56mm x 1000.00mm) and brass beam (20.0mm x 6.60mm x 1000.00mm). The
beam is placed on cantilever beam set up and weight is hung on the both ends of the beam. The
weight will cause a deflection on the beam. The gauge that has been placed on the center of the
beam then recorded the maximum beam deflection.

For mild steel beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.24mm when a 2N load is
applied. Then it increases to 0.49mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the deflections are 0.75mm
and 1.01mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections are 1.25mm and 1.55mm
respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.77mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of
1.97mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.20mm
to 0.30mm.

For aluminum beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.23mm when a 2N load
is applied. Then it increases to 0.44mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the deflections are 0.70mm
and 0.96mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections are 1.21mm and 1.47mm
respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.72mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of
2.01mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.21mm
to 0.29mm.

For brass beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.16mm when a 2N load is
applied. Then it increases to 0.35mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the deflections are 0.52mm
and 0.70mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections are 0.87mm and 1.05mm
respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.22mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of
1.38mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.16mm
to 0.19mm.

From the experimental result, we can see that aluminum beam experiences the highest
value of beam deflection of 2.01mm while the lowest value of 1.38mm is experienced by brass
beam. Mild steel experiences beam deflection of 1.97mm. With the highest value of beam
deflection, this shows that aluminum is the softest material among them three while brass is the
hardest since its deflection value is the lowest. However, we could not jump into that conclusion
because their dimensions are not identical. But for the purpose of comparing, we would like to
ignore the dimensions and assume them to be identical.

Then, from the experimental result, we compare it with the theoretical values gained by
using equation. For mild steel beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.26mm when a
2N load is applied. Then it increases to 0.54mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the deflections are
0.80mm and 1.07mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections are 1.33mm and 1.55mm
respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.77mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of
1.98mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.21mm
to 0.28mm. The theoretical gap increment is smaller than the gap increment of experimental.

For aluminum beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.24mm when a 2N load
is applied. Then it increases to 0.55mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the deflections are 0.89mm
and 1.12mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections are 1.43mm and 1.67mm
respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 1.81mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of
2.15mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.14mm
to 0.34mm. The theoretical gap increment is greater than the gap increment of experimental.

For brass beam, from zero, the gauge reading increases to 0.13mm when a 2N load is
applied. Then it increases to 0.25mm for 4N load. For 6N and 8N, the deflections are 0.38mm
and 0.50mm respectively. For 10N and 12N, the deflections are 0.63mm and 0.75mm
respectively. For 14N, the deflection is 0.88mm and the last load of 16N gives a deflection of
1.00mm. From the deflection data, we noticed that the increment for each load is about 0.12mm
to 0.13mm. The theoretical gap increment is smaller than the gap increment of experimental.

Graph of deflection versus load is plotted experimentally and theoretically. From our
observation from the graph plotted, the pattern is identical. The theoretical graph may look
smoother than experimental graph, but it is only a slight difference between them. Form all the
six graphs, the load is directly perpendicular to the deflection of beam. This means that as load
increases, the beam deflection increases.

From the theoretical value, we can say that the gap increment for mild steel beam and
brass beam are getting smaller while the gap increment for aluminum beam is getting bigger
compared to the experimental gap increment. From the theoretical data, the values seemed to be
more stable with consistent increment. The aluminum beam is still the ones that experience the
highest deflection value of 2.15mm. Same goes to brass beam which is still the ones that
experience the lowest deflection value of 1.00mm. Mild steel beam experiences deflection of
1.98mm. From our observation, the difference of experimental and theoretical data for mild steel
beam is smaller than aluminum and brass beam. The experimental data of both aluminum and
brass beam are much more differ with theoretical data compared to mild steel data.

Those difference may be caused by errors happened during the experiment. There are
three types of errors that may be occurred. They are human error, systematic error and random
error. Human error may be occurred because of faulty procedure adopted by us. We could have
made an error during scale reading. Our eyes probably did not perpendicular to the scale of the
ruler and Vernier caliper during measuring the specimen.

Next is systematic error. This type of error arises due to defect in the measuring device.
The steel rule may be a little wear on its end that may lead to inaccurate measurement. Zero error
may be occurred on the Vernier caliper but it can be corrected by adjusting the device. Random
error could occur due to sudden change in experimental conditions. The specimen has been used
for many times that the result may not like what we expected. The specimen could have rusted
due to change in temperature and humidity. It is an accidental error and is beyond our control.
Conclusion

The calculation of deflections is an important part of structural analysis and design.

Deflections are sometimes calculated in order to verify that they are within tolerable limits.

From the experiment, the aluminum has the highest deflection value, followed by mild
steel and then brass. Brass has the lowest deflection since it is the hardest material among those
three while aluminum is the softest.

The objective of this experiment is said to be achieved since we managed to determine

the elastic modulus of the beam specimen by method of deflection of mild steel, aluminum and
brass. We also managed to validate and analyze the experimental and theoretical data.