Applied Mechanics Lab – MEC 424/AHA/MCM Rev.

01-2014

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN MEKANIKAL
___________________________________________________________________________

Program : Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) Mechanical (EM220/EM221)

Course : Applied Mechanics Lab
Code : MEC 424
Lecturer : MISS NAJWA SYAKIRAH
Group : EMD4M4B1/2
___________________________________________________________________________

MEC 424 - LABORATORY REPORT

TITLE : PURE BENDING IN BEAM

No NAME STUDENT ID SIGNATURE

1 AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN 2020878878
2 MUHAMAD SAQIEF BIN HALMI 2019207048
3 MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI 2019257314
4 MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL 2019207678
ABIDIN
5 MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD 2019207148
MUSTAFFA

LABORATORY SESSION : 23/6/2021

(DATE)

REPORT SUBMISSION : 30/6/2021

(DATE)
*By signing above you attest that you have contributed to this submission and confirm that all work you have contributed to this
submission is your own work. Any suspicion of copying or plagiarism in this work will result in an investigation of academic
msconduct and may result in a “0” on the work, an “F” in the course, or possibly more severe penalties.

Marking Scheme

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
1
2
3
4
5
 Applied Mechanics Lab – MEC 424/AHA/MCM Rev. 01-2014

ABSTRACT

Bending is a process in which materials, such as metal, are deformed and their shapes are
changed from their original forms. The method of deflection is observed during the lab
experiment to calculate the elastic modulus (E) of the beam specimen. Mild steel, aluminium,
and brass are three main types of beams that have been used. The objective of this experiment
was to see how far the specimen could deflect when a load (W) was applied. The specimen is
subjected to a stress that exceeds its yield strength but falls short of its ultimate tensile strength.
When the load was applied continuously, the value of the deflection was measured with a dial
gauge. All the experiment's measurements were recorded and later compared to their theoretical
values to determine the percentage error. As a result, we can enhance our method to obtain better
results in the future.

This experiment was discovered by deflection measurement, and an analysis of the

relationship between deflection and material properties will be presented, as well as a theoretical
and experimental comparison of the materials based on their strength and deflection. Every
different type of materials had their own properties and young Modulus (E) such as, aluminium
with 69 GPa (E), brass with 97 GPa (E) and mild steel with 210 GPa (E). Aluminium has the
lowest young Modulus value, demonstrating that it is softer than mild steel and brass. The load
applied to the beam is proportional to the beam's deflection. Bending is a versatile process that
allows for the creation of a variety of shapes. This experiment is being carried out in order to
gain a better understanding of the theory and how to apply it in real life.
 Applied Mechanics Lab – MEC 424/AHA/MCM Rev. 01-2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3
THEORY.................................................................................................................................................. 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................ 5
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 6
DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 33
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES AND RAW DATA ....................................................................................................... 39
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Materials dimensions ..................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Experimental Result....................................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Comparison between experimental value and theoretical value .................................... 6
Table 4 : Dimension of the beam and moment of inertia .......................................................... 12
Table 5: Deflection of beam for each material .......................................................................... 12
Table 6 : Table of percentage error for each material ................................................................ 14
Table 7 : Modulus elasticity of each beams ............................................................................... 16
Table 8 : Experimental result ..................................................................................................... 16
Table 9 : Table of percentage error ............................................................................................ 17
Table 10 : Dimension of specimen ............................................................................................ 19
Table 11 : Result of experiment ................................................................................................. 19
Table 12 : Data obtained from experiment. ............................................................................... 27
Table 13 : Dimension of sample beam ...................................................................................... 39
Table 14 : Data obtained from experiment. ............................................................................... 39

1
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Illustration of a beam before and after the deflection................................................... 4

Figure 2: Setup Sample of beam for experiment ......................................................................... 5
Figure 3 : Graph of Load vs deflection for Aluminium ............................................................... 7
Figure 4 : Graph of Load vs deflection for Brass ........................................................................ 7
Figure 5 : Graph of Load vs deflection for Mild Steel ................................................................ 8
Figure 6: Comparison graph of Load vs deflection for all materials ........................................... 8
Figure 7 : Graph of Deflection of Beam(mm) vs Load (N) ....................................................... 14
Figure 8 : Graph deflection of beam against load ...................................................................... 17
Figure 9 : Graph load versus deflection of beam for aluminium ............................................... 20
Figure 10 : Graph load versus deflection of beam for brass ...................................................... 20
Figure 11 : load versus deflection of beam for mild steel.......................................................... 21
Figure 12 : Dimension of sample beam ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 13 : Graph of Load vs Deflection for Aluminium .......................................................... 23
Figure 14 : Graph of Load vs Deflection for Brass ................................................................... 24
Figure 15 : Graph of Load vs Deflection for Mild Steel............................................................ 24

2
 INTRODUCTION

Bending describes the behaviour of a slender structural element subjected to an external

stress that is applied perpendicular to the element's longitudinal axis. The beam is exposed to
pure bending at the middle portion in this experiment, which means the bending moment is
constant and the shear force is zero. The highest deflection in the beam's mid span will be
measured. The elastic modulus of the beam will be determined by deriving from the flexural
formula of E=MR/I. Not to mention, the Young Modulus, E, can be determined from bending
by deriving the flexural formula to further suit method of deflection. Thus, the method of
deflection will be employed in order to find whether can the Young Modulus, E can be
determined from flexural formula. Then, the obtained value will be validated against the
theoretical value of E for each material to assess accuracy of readings.

3
 THEORY

Assumption in theory of bending is that the material of the beam is stressed within the
elastic limit and obeys Hooke’s law. The material for the beam is perfectly homogenous. Also,
the value of young’s modulus for the material of each beam is same in tension and compression.

Figure 1: Illustration of a beam before and after the deflection

The above picture is an illustration of a beam before and after the deflection with the force
applied on it is shown, where:
R = Radius of curvature of beam
L = Length of the beam
y = Deflection of the beam
W = Weight of the load,
d = Distance

Due to pure bending, the beam will deflect into the shape of an arc of a circle radius, R where
𝐿
the formula is 𝑅 2 = (𝑅 − 𝑦)2 + (2)2
𝐿2
The above formula can be simplify to 𝑅 = 8𝑦
𝐸𝐼
The radius of curvature R of the beam is given as 𝑅 = 𝑀

Equation for moment, M is 𝑀 = 𝑊𝑑.

𝑏ℎ3
Equation for moment of inertia, I is 𝐼 = 12

Hence the equation used is as below:

𝑊 𝑑𝐿3
𝐸 = ( )( )
𝑦 8𝑙

4
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

List of Apparatus
1. Mild Steel, Aluminum and Brass
2. The cantilever beam setup
3. Dial gauge
4. Load / Weight
5. Tape measure.
6. Load holder
7. Vernier caliper
8. Hanger

Procedure
• Measure and record all the necessary part of the beam width, thickness by using Vernier
caliper and use steel ruler to measure length.
• Set the dial gauge at the center of the beam and put the hanger on the beam.
• Measure and record the lengths (𝑥1 and 𝑥2 ) from the wall to the center of the dial
calipers.
• Hang a weight (W) on the weight-hanger starting from lowest 2N, and then increasing
by increments of 2N.
• Record W and measure the deflection 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 at every increment.

Figure 2: Setup Sample of beam for experiment

5
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878

RESULTS

Table 1: Materials dimensions

Materials Length, (mm) Width, (mm) Thickness, (mm)

Aluminium 0.998 0.0193 0.00652
Brass 1.005 0.02 0.006
Mild Steel 0.999 0.02036 0.004

Table 2: Experimental Result

LOAD Deflection of Beam (mm)

Materials
(N) Aluminuim Brass Mild Steel
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68

Table 3: Comparison between experimental value and theoretical value

Materials Slope, θ Experimental E, GPa Theoretical E, GPa

Aluminium 12.500 k 56.08 69
Brass 17.021 k 94.56 97
Mild Steel 9.524 k 175.40 21

6
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878
Graphs:

Figure 3 : Graph of Load vs deflection for Aluminium

Figure 4 : Graph of Load vs deflection for Brass

7
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878

Figure 5 : Graph of Load vs deflection for Mild Steel

Figure 6: Comparison graph of Load vs deflection for all materials

8
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878
Sample Calculations:

Aluminium

Slope, θ

𝑤2 − 𝑤1
𝜃=
𝑦2 − 𝑦1

8−0
𝜃=
0.00064 − 0

𝜃 = 12.5 𝑘

Moment of inertia, I

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

0.0193 × 0.006523
𝐼=
12

𝐼 = 4.458 × 10−10 𝑚4

Experimental Young Modulus, 𝐸𝑒𝑥𝑝

𝜃 × 𝑥 × 𝐿2
𝐸=
𝐼×8

12.5𝑘 × 0.1 × (0.4)2

𝐸=
4.458 × 10−10 × 8

𝐸 = 56.08 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Percentage error

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

56.08 𝐺 − 69 𝐺
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
69 𝐺

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 18.72 %

9
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878
Brass

Slope, θ

𝑤2 − 𝑤1
𝜃=
𝑦2 − 𝑦1

8−0
𝜃=
0.00047 − 0

𝜃 = 17.021 𝑘

Moment of inertia, I

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

0.02 × 0.0063
𝐼=
12

𝐼 = 3.6 × 10−10 𝑚4

Experimental Young Modulus, 𝐸𝑒𝑥𝑝

𝜃 × 𝑥 × 𝐿2
𝐸=
𝐼×8

17.021𝑘 × 0.1 × (0.4)2

𝐸=
3.6 × 10−10 × 8

𝐸 = 94.56 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Percentage error

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

94.56 𝐺 − 97 𝐺
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
97 𝐺

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 2.52 %

10
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878
Mild Steel

Slope, θ

𝑤2 − 𝑤1
𝜃=
𝑦2 − 𝑦1

8−0
𝜃=
0.00084 − 0

𝜃 = 9.524 𝑘

Moment of inertia, I

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

0.002036 × 0.0043
𝐼=
12

𝐼 = 1.086 × 10−10 𝑚4

Experimental Young Modulus, 𝐸𝑒𝑥𝑝

𝜃 × 𝑥 × 𝐿2
𝐸=
𝐼×8

9.524𝑘 × 0.1 × (0.4)2

𝐸=
1.086 × 10−10 × 8

𝐸 = 175.40 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Percentage error

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

175.40 𝐺 − 210 𝐺
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
210 𝐺

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 16.48 %

11
NAME : MUHAMAD SAQIEF BIN HALMI
STUDENT ID: 2019207048

RESULTS

Table 4 : Dimension of the beam and moment of inertia

Materials Length Width Thickness Moment of Inertia

Aluminium 998 19.30 6.52 445.7782245

Brass 1005 20.00 6.00 360

Mild Steel 999 20.36 4.00 108.5866667

Table 5: Deflection of beam for each material

Deflection of Materials(mm)

Load(N) Aluminium Brass Mild Steel

0 0 0 0

2 0.15 0.12 0.19

4 0.32 0.24 0.42

6 0.48 0.35 0.63

8 0.64 0.47 0.84

10 0.8 0.59 1.05

12 1.06 0.7 1.26

14 1.12 0.82 1.47

16 1.28 0.94 1.68

12
NAME : MUHAMAD SAQIEF BIN HALMI
STUDENT ID: 2019207048
Sample calculation

For Aluminium: For Brass:

Load= 2N Load= 2N

Moment of Inertia, I Moment of Inertia, I

3
𝑏ℎ 𝑏ℎ3
𝐼= 𝐼=
12 12
(0.0193)(6.52 × 10−3 )3 (0.020)(6.00 × 10−3 )3
𝐼= 𝐼=
12 12
𝐼 = 4.46 × 10−10 𝑚4 𝐼 = 3.60 × 10−10 𝑚4

Elastic Modulus, E Elastic Modulus, E

𝑊 𝑑𝐿2 𝑊 𝑑𝐿2
𝐸 = ( )( ) 𝐸 = ( )( )
𝑦 8𝐼 𝑦 8𝐼
2𝑁 (0.1)(0.4)2 2𝑁 (0.1)(0.4)2
𝐸=( −3
)( ) 𝐸=( )( )
0.15 × 10 8(4.46 × 10−10 0.12 × 10 −3 8(3.60 × 10−10
𝐸 = 59.790 𝐺𝑃𝑎 𝐸 = 92.593 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Calculate for each load for Aluminium and Calculate for each load for Brass and we
we will get: will get:
Average value of E for Aluminium = Average value of E for Brass =
55.888GPa 94.225GPa

For Mild Steel:

Load= 2N

Moment of Inertia, I
𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12
(0.0236)(4.00 × 10−3 )3
𝐼=
12
𝐼 = 1.26 × 10−10 𝑚4

Elastic Modulus, E

𝑊 𝑑𝐿2
𝐸 = ( )( )
𝑦 8𝐼
2𝑁 (0.1)(0.4)2
𝐸=( )( )
0.19 × 10−3 8(1.26 × 10−10
𝐸 = 167.01 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Calculate for each load for Mild Steel and

we will get:
Average value of E for Mild Steel =
177.722GPa

13
NAME : MUHAMAD SAQIEF BIN HALMI
STUDENT ID: 2019207048

Percentage error, Aluminium = Percentage error, Brass =

(|𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙|) (|𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙|)
× 100% × 100%
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
(|55.888−69|) (|94.225−97|)
= × 100% = × 100%
69 97
=19.003% =2.861%

Percentage error, Mild Steel =

(|𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙|)
× 100%
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
(|177.722−210|)
= × 100%
210
=15.371%

Table 6 : Table of percentage error for each material

MATERIALS ALUMINIUM BRASS MILD STEEL

E, theoretical 69 97 210
E, experimental 55.888 94.225 177.722
Percentage of 19.003 2.861 15.371
Error, %

Deflection of Beam(mm) vs Load(N)

1.8
1.6
1.4
Deflection (mm)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Load (N)

Aluminium Brass Mild Steel

Figure 7 : Graph of Deflection of Beam(mm) vs Load (N)

14
 NAME : MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI
STUDENT ID: 2019257314
RESULTS

1. Find moment of inertia, 𝐼 and modulus elasticity, 𝐸 for each material.

a) Aluminium

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

(19.30 × 10−3 )(6.52 × 10−3 )3

𝐼=
12
𝐼 = 4.46 × 10−10 𝑚4

𝑊 𝑑𝐿2
𝐸 = ( )( )
𝑦 8𝐼
2 0.1(0.4)2
𝐸=( ) ( )
0.15 × 10−3 8(4.46 × 10−10 )
𝐸 = 59.79 𝐺𝑃𝑎

b) Brass
𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

(20 × 10−3 )(6 × 10−3 )3

𝐼=
12
𝐼 = 3.6 × 10−10 𝑚4
𝑊 𝑑𝐿2
𝐸 = ( )( )
𝑦 8𝐼
2 0.1(0.4)2
𝐸=( ) ( )
0.12 × 10−3 8(3.6 × 10−10 )
𝐸 = 92.59 𝐺𝑃𝑎

c) Mild Steel
𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

(20.36 × 10−3 )(4 × 10−3 )3

𝐼=
12
𝐼 = 1.09 × 10−10 𝑚4

15
 NAME : MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI
STUDENT ID: 2019257314
𝑊 𝑑𝐿2
𝐸 = ( )( )
𝑦 8𝐼
2 0.1(0.4)2
𝐸=( ) ( )
0.19 × 10−3 8(1.09 × 10−10 )
𝐸 = 193.14 𝐺𝑃𝑎

2. Table of load and materials

Table 7 : Modulus elasticity of each beams
Materials
Load (N)
Aluminum Brass Mild Steel
Deflection Modulus Deflection Modulus Deflection Modulus
of beam elasticity of beam elasticity of beam elasticity
(mm) (GPa) (mm) (GPa) (mm) (GPa)
2 0.15 59.79 0.12 92.59 0.19 193.14
4 0.32 56.05 0.24 92.59 0.42 174.75
6 0.48 56.05 0.35 95.24 0.63 174.75
8 0.64 56.05 0.47 94.56 0.84 174.75
10 0.80 56.05 0.59 94.16 1.05 174.75
12 1.06 50.77 0.70 95.24 1.26 174.75
14 1.12 56.05 0.82 94.85 1.47 174.75
16 1.28 56.05 0.94 94.56 1.68 174.75

3. Plot graph deflection of beam vs load

Table 8 : Experimental result

Load aluminium brass mild steel

0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68

16
 NAME : MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI
STUDENT ID: 2019257314

Deflection of beam against load

1.8
1.6
Deflection of beam (mm)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Load (N)

aluminium brass mild steel

Figure 8 : Graph deflection of beam against load

4. Find average modulus elasticity for:

a) Aluminium = 55.86 GPa

b) Brass = 94.22 GPa

c) Mild Steel = 177.05 GPa

5. Table of percentage error:

Table 9 : Table of percentage error

Load (N) Theoretical value of Experimental value of

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) Modulus of Elasticity (Gpa)
Aluminum 69.00 55.86
Brass 97.00 94.22
Mild Steel 210.00 177.05
|experimental−theoretical|
Percentage error = ( theoretical
) × 100

Aluminium:
| 55.86 - 69|
Percentage error =( 69
)× 100

= 19.04%

17
NAME : MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI
STUDENT ID: 2019257314
Brass:
| 94.22 - 97|
Percentage error =( 97
)× 100

= 2.87%

Mild Steel:
| 177.05 - 210|
Percentage error =( 210
) × 100

= 15.69%

18
NAME : MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL ABIDIN
STUDENT ID: 2019207678

RESULTS

Table 10 : Dimension of specimen

Materials Length Width Thickness

Aluminium 998 19.3 6.52

Brass 1005 20 6
Mild Steel 999 20.36 4

𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒, 𝐿 = 0.4𝑚

𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 , 𝑥 = 0.1 𝑚

Table 11 : Result of experiment

Deflection of Beam (mm)

LOAD Materials
Mild
(N) Aluminium Brass
Steel
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68

19
NAME : MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL ABIDIN
STUDENT ID: 2019207678

Load vs deflection of beam for aluminium

18
16
14
12
Load, N

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Deflection, mm

Figure 9 : Graph load versus deflection of beam for aluminium

Load vs Deflection of Beam for Brass

18
16
14
12
Load, N

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Deflection, mm

Figure 10 : Graph load versus deflection of beam for brass

20
NAME : MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL ABIDIN
STUDENT ID: 2019207678

Load vs Deflection of Beam for Mild Steel

18
16
14
12
Load, N

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Deflection, mm

Figure 11 : load versus deflection of beam for mild steel

𝑊 16.00 − 0.00
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 , ∅𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒖𝒎 = = = 12500.0
𝑌 0.00128 − 0.00000
𝑊 16.00 − 0.00
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 , ∅𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒔 = = = 17021.3
𝑌 0.00094 − 0.00000
𝑊 16.00 − 0.00
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 , ∅ 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒅 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒆𝒍 = = = 9523.8
𝑌 0.00168 − 0.00000

𝐸(𝐼8)
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 , ∅ =
𝑥𝐿2
𝑥𝐿2
𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸 = (∅) ( )
8𝐼

𝑥𝐿2 0.1(0.4)2
𝐸𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑢𝑚 = (∅) ( ) = 12500 ( ) = 56.079 𝐺𝑃𝑎
8𝐼 8( 4.458 × 10−10 )

𝑥𝐿2 0.1(0.4)2
𝐸𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 = (∅) ( ) = 17021.3 ( ) = 94.563 𝐺𝑃𝑎
8𝐼 8( 3.600 × 10−10 )

𝑥𝐿2 0.1(0.4)2
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = (∅) ( ) = 9523.8 ( ) = 175.392 𝐺𝑃𝑎
8𝐼 8(1.086 × 10−10 )

21
NAME : MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL ABIDIN
STUDENT ID: 2019207678
Percentage error
𝑬𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 − 𝑬𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓(%) = | | × 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝑬𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚
56.079 − 69.000
𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑢𝑚 = | | × 100% = 18.73 %
69.000
94.563 − 97.000
𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 =| | × 100% = 2.51 %
97.000
175.39 − 205.00
𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = | | × 100% = 14.44 %
205.00

22
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148
RESULTS

x x

Figure 12 : Dimension of sample beam

Load vs Deflection of Aluminium

18

16

14

12
Load (N)

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Deflection (mm)

Figure 13 : Graph of Load vs Deflection for Aluminium

23
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148

Load vs Deflection of Brass

18

16

14

12
Load (N)

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Deflection (mm)

Figure 14 : Graph of Load vs Deflection for Brass

Load vs Deflection of Mild Steel

18

16

14

12
Load (N)

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Deflection (mm)

Figure 15 : Graph of Load vs Deflection for Mild Steel

24
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148

Experimental Sample Calculation

𝑀𝑅
𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 ∶ 𝐸 =
𝐼
𝐸 𝑀
=
𝑅 𝐼
𝐸8𝑦 𝑊𝑥
=
𝐿2 𝐼
𝐸8𝐼 𝑊
= = 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒
𝐿2 𝑦
𝑊 𝑥 𝐿2
𝐸=
𝑦𝐼8

For Aluminium,
Distance from support to the load, x = 0.1 m
Length between beam support, L = 0.4 m
Thickness, h = 0.00652 m
Width, b = 0.0193 m

𝑏ℎ3 (0.0193)(0.00652)3
𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎, 𝐼 = = = 4.458 × 10−10
12 12
(𝑊2 − 𝑊1 ) (8 − 4)
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒, ∅ = = = 12500
(𝑦2 − 𝑦1 ) (0.00064 − 0.00032)
𝑥 𝐿2 (0.1)(0.4 )2
𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸 = ∅ × = 12500 × = 56.079 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐼8 (4.458 × 10−10 )(8)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
56.079 − 73.1
=| | × 100% = 23.28 %
73.1

For Brass,
Distance from support to the load, x = 0.1 m
Length between beam support, L = 0.4 m

25
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148
Thickness, h = 0.006 m
Width, b = 0.02 m

𝑏ℎ3 (0.02)(0.006)3
𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎, 𝐼 = = = 3.6 × 10−10
12 12
(𝑊2 − 𝑊1 ) (12 − 8)
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒, ∅ = = = 17391.304
(𝑦2 − 𝑦1 ) (0.0007 − 0.00047)
𝑥 𝐿2 (0.1)(0.4 )2
𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸 = ∅ × = 17391.304 × = 96.618 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐼8 (3.6 × 10−10 )(8)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
96.618 − 101
=| | × 100% = 4.34 %
101

For Mild Steel,

Distance from support to the load, x = 0.1 m
Length between beam support, L = 0.4 m
Thickness, h = 0.004 m
Width, b = 0.02036 m

𝑏ℎ3 (0.02036)(0.004)3
𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎, 𝐼 = = = 1.086 × 10−10
12 12
(𝑊2 − 𝑊1 ) (10 − 6)
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒, ∅ = = = 9523.810
(𝑦2 − 𝑦1 ) (0.00105 − 0.00063)
𝑥 𝐿2 (0.1)(0.4 )2
𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸 = ∅ × = 9523.810 × = 175.392 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐼8 (1.086 × 10−10 )(8)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
175.392 − 200
=| | × 100% = 12.30 %
200

26
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148
Table 12 : Data obtained from experiment.

Experimental
Theoretical Elastic Percentage Error
Elastic Modulus
Modulus (GPa) (%)
(GPa)

Aluminium 56.079 73.1 23.28

Brass 96.618 101 4.34

Mild Steel 175.392 200 12.30

27
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878

DISCUSSIONS

Based on the results of the experiment, we were able to obtain the value of Young
Modulus, E using the method of deflection. The experimental value of E obtained for
aluminium was 56.08 GPa using the deflection method. However, the theoretical value of E
for aluminium was 69 GPa which the experimental value deviates a bit. Next, we also managed
to obtain the experimental value of E for brass, which was 94.56 GPa, while the theoretical
value for E for brass was 97 GPa which is quite close. After that, the experimental value of E
for mild steel was determined to be 175.4 GPa which is quite close to its theoretical value
which is at 210 GPa.

Other than that, the percentage errors between the experimental value of E and the
theoretical value of E were calculated. For aluminium, the percentage error between the
theoretical value and the experimental value of its Young Modulus was 18.72%. Additionally,
the percentage error between the theoretical value and the experimental value of brass was
2.52%. In addition, the percentage error between the theoretical value and the experimental
value for mild steel was also determined to be 16.48%.

Based on the results calculated, we can see that the percentage error of the Young’s
Modulus for aluminium was around 18.72% which is a bit high and is quite possibly due to
some errors present during the experiment. These errors could range from human error or to
parallax error in which affects the data greatly. It is possible these errors that caused
disrepancies in our readings and led to this high percentage error. From there, we can also see
that the percentage error of the Young’s Modulus for brass was 2.52% which is acceptable
since it is below 10% percentage error. This can only mean that during the data gathering
process, there were less errors involved thus leading to a more accurate reading. Besides that,
the percentage error of theoretical and experimental value of E for mild steel was 16.48% was
the second highest but still can be accepted. These deviations of the readings could only lead
to one reason which is errors during the experiment was conducted. Thus, explaining why there
are disrepancies in our readings.

Furthermore, there are other methods that we can use to determine the E of materials
which is the tensile test method where the specimen is placed under tensile stress and the
deformation is recorded to calculate its value of E.

28
NAME : MUHAMAD SAQIEF BIN HALMI
STUDENT ID: 2019207048

DISCUSSIONS

Based on the experiment conducted by the lab assistant, we manage to determine all
the values of elastic modulus, E for each material used in our experiment which is Aluminium,
Brass and Mild Steel. The average elastic modulus, E for aluminium obtained from the
experiment is 55.888GPa while the theoretical value of elastic modulus, E for aluminium is 69
GPa. Next, for brass, the experimental value of elastic modulus, E obtained was 94.225GPa
from calculation and the theoretical value of elastic modulus, E was 97 GPa. Aside that, the
last material tested was mild steel and the obtained value of elastic modulus, E experimentally
was 177.722GPa and it is slightly different from its theoretical value which is 210GPa. The
value of the elastic modulus, E obtained when being compared using the formula of percentage
error can be considered acceptable. It is because the value of percentage error for each material
is less than 20% which were 19.003%, 2.861% and 15.371% respectively.

The percentage error can be minimized by carefully conducting the experiment and
avoid the human error and instrumental error. For example, when the observer made an error
in judgement when reading the scale or during calculation. Next, for instrumental error can
occurred when a dial gauge was used to record the deflection of beam during the placement of
load, the dial gauge can be worn off because it was being used for many times. All these errors
resulting in some error when taking the data and when the data being used during calculation
it might alter the value of elastic modulus, E causing increment in percentage error.

The other test that can be used in determining the elastic modulus of a material is tensile
testing. It is one of the most fundamental type of mechanical test that can be perform on a
material. The method of testing is used to determine the sample’s behavior under an axial
stretching load. Other than that, we can determine the young’s modulus using Searle’s method
which basically we calculate the slope of the stress-strain curve.

29
NAME : MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI
STUDENT ID: 2019257314

DISCUSSIONS

In this experiment, we used three different type of beam which is aluminium, brass and
mild steel. We can calculate the deflection of the beam based on the loads applied to it. We
may deduce from the statistics that the beam's deflection is proportional to the load. According
to the results of the experiment, mild steel has the maximum deflection of 1.68mm when a 16N
load is applied, whereas aluminium has a deflection of 1.28mm and brass has a deflection of
0.94mm. Using the moment of inertia and the modulus elasticity formula, we can compute the
values of modulus elasticity for the three types of beams based on the data. When we compute
modulus elasticity, we find that aluminium has the lowest value at 55.89 GPa, followed by
brass at 94.22 GPa, and mild steel at 177 GPa.
Because of the disparity between theoretical and experimental values, the
percentage error for the three beams was 19 percent for aluminium, 2.87 percent for brass, and
15.71 percent for mild steel. This could be the result of a mistake made during the experiment.
There are only a few possible errors in this experiment. For instance, an apparatus mistake
could occur if the dial gauge is imprecise or does not balance on the horizontal surface of the
beam. It's also possible that the beam was already distorted when the experiment started. We
can avoid this error by repeating the experiment to obtain a more accurate average value.
Another mistake that could occur during the experiment is if the eye is not perpendicular to the
dial gauge. To avoid this, we must ensure that the eye level is perpendicular to the dial gauge
to obtain an accurate reading.

30
NAME : MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL ABIDIN
STUDENT ID: 2019207678

DISCUSSIONS

The knowledge I gained from this experiment is that we can calculate the elastic
modulus, E, of three different types of beams: aluminium, brass, and mild steel. When
comparing the theoretical and experimental calculations, we discovered that the value of
aluminium's elastic modulus, E, is slightly different.

The theoretical elastic modulus of aluminium, E, is 69 GPa, while the average elastic
modulus of aluminium, is 56.079 GPa. The percentage errors for aluminium's elastic modulus,
are 18.73%, which is less than 20%, and hence can be regarded acceptable. After that, the
theoretical elastic modulus of brass, is 97 GPa, while the average elastic modulus of brass, is
94.56 GPa. The elastic modulus of brass has a percentage error of 2.51 percent, which is close
to zero and can be called successful. Finally, the theoretical elastic modulus of mild steel, is
210 GPa, while the average elastic modulus of mild steel, is 175.39 GPa. The elastic modulus,
E, of mild steel has a percentage error of 14.44 percent, which is still acceptable.

When measuring the beam with a Vernier calliper, there may be some parallax and
accuracy inaccuracies. When taking the measurement, the person's eyes may not be properly
aligned, resulting in parallax error. A dial gauge was utilised to record the deflection of the
beam during load installation. Because the dial gauge has been worn too many times, there may
be zero inaccuracy. This could lead to inaccuracies in recorded values. All of these disturbances
and mistakes may have an impact on the elastic modulus, E. Tension (or compression) test and
natural frequency test are two further tests that can be performed to measure the elastic
modulus, E, of materials. The tension test is based on Hooke's law, which is quite similar to
this experiment and is also known as the s tension test.

31
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148

DISCUSSIONS

From the tabulated data of deflection across 3 different types of material, the flexural
formula is being used to determine the value of elastic modulus. By calculating the slope of
plotted graph of deflection against load, we can experimentally find the elastic modulus for
those materials. For aluminium, experimental elastic modulus is 56.079 GPa, while its
theoretical value is 73.1 GPa. By comparing both values, the percentage is error about 23.28%.
Next, for brass, experimental elastic modulus is 96.618 GPa, while its theoretical value is 101
GPa. By comparing both values, the percentage is error about 4.34 %. Futhermore, for mild
steel, experimental elastic modulus is 175.392 GPa, while its theoretical value is 200 GPa. By
comparing both values, the percentage is error about 12.30 %.

Based on the calculation, we could see that percentage error for experimental modulus
of elasticity are varies from 4.34 % to 23.28 %. Those percentage error may be the result from
various experimental error that occurred when conducting the experiment. First, parallax error
may occur in every experiment that needs manual measurement or reading. That is why we are
advised to do every measurement two or three times and take the average between those value
to ensure our reading is more accurate. Besides, due to the lack of vernier caliper calibration,
zero error might occur. If the measurement tools do not show absolute zero when it is totally
closed, manual calculation should be done to tolerate the error either to add or substract that
particular value. Next, when it comes to put the test specimen into its place during the
experiment, the specimen might become slipped from the beam support. The slippage occurs
will give a series of wrong data that will occasionally results in inaccurate mechanical
properties. Moreover, systemic error may be a good cause of experimental data inaccuracy.

32
NAME : AMERUL IZWAN AFIQ BIN AMIRUDDIN
STUDENT ID: 2020878878

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental approach used in this experiment was the deflection approach to
determine the values of Young Modulus, E for three types of materials. The key result of the
experiment was the experimental value of E for all three materials was able to be determine by
the means of calculation using the load and deflection readings. From the results gained, it can
be implied that the flexural formula is correct and that the Young Modulus, E of the material
can be determined with pure bending test. Next, there are some suggestions that can be made
to further enhance this experiment for future studies which are increasing the type of materials
and give more explanation for the derivation of flexural formula. This suggestion can be done
to further increase understanding about the formula while providing more variant results and
understanding with different type of material. In summary, the experimental value of young
modulus, E was able to be determined using method of deflection and that the objective had
been achieved.

33
NAME : MUHAMAD SAQIEF BIN HALMI
STUDENT ID: 2019207048

CONCLUSIONS

From the results, we can conclude that among these three specimens used in the
experiment, Brass is the strongest material. This shown by the lowest beam deflection
compared to other material. Mild steel is the weakest material due to the maximum deflection
occurred during this experiment. The difference in experimental value of Young’s Modulus
and theoretical value happened due to the errors discussed before. However, the experiment
can be considered success due to the difference in value is not that much.

In conclusion, I have been able to understand how to apply the pure bending formula
in elastic beam theory. It can be concluded that the deflection in beam is proportional to the
load applied on the beam. In addition, we managed to achieve the objectives of the experiment
which is determining the elastic modulus(E) of beam by using the method of deflection of mild
steel, aluminium and brass and we validated the data between the experimental and theoretical
value.

34
NAME : MUHAMAD HULAIF ADLI BIN ZULKIFLI
STUDENT ID: 2019257314

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we can see that, when compared to aluminum and mild steel, brass beam
is the strongest. Aside from that, there is a tiny variation in experimental and theoretical values
due to several errors that occurred during the experiment, such as environmental error, which
occurs when an uncontrollable variable, such as room temperature or wind, causes an error
during the experiment. As a result, to achieve the greatest results, mistake should be minimized.
Finally, we can state that this experiment was a success because we were able to meet the
experiment's goal of determining the elastic modulus, E, for all three beams, aluminum, brass,
and mild steel.

35
NAME : MOHAMAD ZUBAIR BIN MOHD ZAINOL ABIDIN
STUDENT ID: 2019207678

CONCLUSIONS

To sum up everything that has been stated so far, deflection of the beam occurs when
load is given to the beam in one of two ways, evenly distributed along the beam or at a single
location. In addition to using the formula to calculate the elastic modulus (E), the slope acquired
from the graph can also be used to calculate E values. The difference between Etheoretical and
Eexperimental values could be due to an error committed during the experiment. If errors would
occur during the design of a beam, a factor of safety and comprehensive testing should be
considered in order to develop a beam that is as close to perfection as possible.

36
NAME : MUHAMAD IMRAN BIN AHMAD MUSTAFFA
STUDENT ID: 2019207148

CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, we could state that the data obtained from the experiment conducted
is not accurate as we found that it differs slightly from the theoretical one. However, this
experiment can be considered as succeed and our objective are achieved as the highest
percentage error obtained is just 23.28 %, which is below than 30 %. Based on the experimental
data, at the highest load, the most deflection is occurred on the mild steel, which is about 1.68
mm, while the least deflection is occurred on the brass which is 0.94 mm. However, we still
expecting several experimental errors occurred should be improved for more accurate and
reliable result. To achieve a better result, some precautions should be taken such as try to use
a digital instrument compared to conventional dial gauge. Next, the apparatus being used in the
experiment may have defects as it has been used for a long period of time. Then, it should be
serviced or replaced with a new one. In fact, there are a lot of advance method to determine the
modulus of rigidity with a great accuracy such as stress-strain curve method, Resonant
Frequency Damping Analyzer and ultrasonic pulse echo technique, but most of them are very
expensive and require a good skill of handling that advance equipment.

37
 REFERENCES

1. Young’s Modulus - Tensile and Yield Strength for some common Materials. (2003).
Engineering ToolBox.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html
2. Brass Mechanical Properties | E-Z LOK. (n.d.). EZ LOK. Retrieved June 29, 2021, from
https://www.ezlok.com/brass-properties
3. Schoolphysics ::Welcome:: (n.d.). Schoolphysics. Retrieved June 29, 2021, from
https://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-
19/Properties%20of%20matter/Elasticity/text/Elastic_moduli_and_Young_modulus/ind
ex.html
4. Pure Bending. (n.d.). University of Nebraska. Retrieved June 30, 2021, from
http://emweb.unl.edu/NEGAHBAN/Em325/11-Bending/Bending.htm
5. Collins, D. (2019b, November 30). Stiffness and deflection: mechanical properties of
materials. Linear Motion Tips. https://www.linearmotiontips.com/mechanical-
properties-of-materials-stiffness-and-deflection/
6.

38
 APPENDICES AND RAW DATA

Table 13 : Dimension of sample beam

Materials Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm)

Aluminium 998 19.30 6.52

Brass 1005 20.00 6.00

Mild Steel 999 20.36 4.00

Table 14 : Data obtained from experiment.

Deflection of Beam (mm)

Load (N)
Aluminium Brass Mild Steel
0 0 0 0
2 0.15 0.12 0.19
4 0.32 0.24 0.42
6 0.48 0.35 0.63
8 0.64 0.47 0.84
10 0.8 0.59 1.05
12 1.06 0.7 1.26
14 1.12 0.82 1.47
16 1.28 0.94 1.68

39