The paper "Applied Stress Analysis" is a great example of a report on engineering and construction. Width (b) = 0.0211m and depth (d) = 0.0034 m, and Length of the beam is 400mm Mass (g) Load (N) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (m) 0 0 0 0 100 0.9806 0.33 0.274184926 200 1.9612 0.62 0.548369852 300 2.9418 1.03 0.822554777 400 3.9224 1.37 1.096739703 500 4.903 1.73 1.370924629 Table 1.0 Results for the First Set of Experiment 1 Figure 1.1: A Plot of Actual Deflection and Theoretical Deflection versus Load In the second set of experiment 1, a beam whose length is 200mm is used. The results for both actual and theoretical deflections are as shown in Table 1.2 and a plot of the same is shown in Figure 1.3 Mass (g) Load (N) Actual Deflection (mm) Theoretical Deflection (mm) 0 0 0 0 100 0.9806 0.05 0.034273116 200 1.9612 0.11 0.068546231 300 2.9418 0.14 0.102819347 400 3.9224 0.21 0.137092463 500 4.903 0.29 0.171365579 Table 2: Results for Set 2 of Experiment 1 Figure 1.3: A Plot of Actual Deflection and Theoretical Deflection versus Load (L = 200mm) Discussion From the graphs in Figures 1.2 and 1.3, it can be concluded that changes in both actual and theoretical deflections are proportional to load and that deflection is proportional to the length of the beam.
The first set of experiment was conducted using the length of 400mm whereas set two was conducted by use of a 200mm length.
From the results, it is clear that the theoretical values for deflection in the 400mm beam are four times as more as those for the experiment conducted using 200mm long beam. In terms of length, 400mm is twice more than 200mm. Table 1.0 and 1.1 shows that there is a difference between theoretical & actual values, and this gets more clear for masses above 200g. Inset two of experiment 1, there is more difference between the actual and theoretical differences. Primarily the differences are due to human errors such as rounding off of figures, poor adjustment of lengths between the supports, and inaccurate settings on the meter. Conclusion Thus, experiment 1 illustrates the relationship between deflection and load application.
Further, there is a difference between the actual and the theoretical values. The differences could be due to human or random errors. Further, it can be deduced that deflection is a function of length because it increases with an increase in length. Experiment 2: Characteristics of Cantilever Beams when a Point Load is Applied Aim Primarily, this experiment is meant to assist in the understanding of some of the characteristics of cantilever beams once a point load is applied and continually increased.
The experiment also shows the relationship drawn between deflections and the load. How Measurement was carried out Before application of any load, the meter for displaying the deflection was adjusted to zero. The point of load was positioned away from the left part of the Cantilever beam by a distance of 200mm. The loads were then applied from a minimum of 100g to a maximum of 500g and at an increasing interval of 100g. The values displayed on the meter for each experiment are recorded in Table 2.0 Calculation Method Used The deflection of the cantilever is given by the equation: Where; E = the material’ s Young Modulus.
In this case, aluminum is used and therefore, E = 69GPa W = Load (N) but W = m. g with g = 9.806 m/s2,and is mass L = the distance from the point of support I = The Moment of Inertia, I = bd3/12 m4 Through the application of the right method for measurements, Table 2.0 below was obtained: