STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS EXPERIMENTAL REPORT

MODULE A
DEFLECTION OF BEAM
(STATICALLY INDETERMINATE STRUCTURE)

GROUP 3

1. Ridha Amalia Idhar 1506789190

2. Dizhaldy Ratulangie I 1506789083
3. Nadila Rahmariana 1506789165
4. Ressa Kusuma 1106847035

Date of Experiment : Saturday, 15th April 2017

Experiment Assistant : Alfred
Date of Approval : Friday, 28th April 2017
Score :
Assistant Signature :

LABORATORY OF STRUCTURE AND MATERIAL

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING FACULTY
UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
DEPOK 2017
 I. OBJECTIVE
This experimental work is intended to
1. Determine the amount of deflection at a specified point of a statically
indeterminate beam loaded by a concentrated/point load
2. Compare the experimental results and theoretical calculation

II. THEORY
The deflection and tilt or rotation angle of a determinate static structure loaded
in certain conditions can be determined by using one of three methods below:
1. Unit Load Method

Figure A.1. Unit load method in a simple beam

!
∆𝑐 = (𝑀. 𝑚. 𝑑𝑥) 𝐸𝐼
!

where:
M = moment due to point load W
m = moment due to unit point load at point C

!
𝜃𝑐 = (𝑀. 𝑚. 𝑑𝑥) 𝐸𝐼
!

where:
M = moment due to point load W
m = moment due to unit point load at point C
2. Moment Area Method

Figure A.2. Moment area method in a simple beam

Note: The area of M/EI works as load

𝜃! = change of slope/rotation angle due to load in between point A and C
∆𝑐 = A1A (A1 is shaded area in Figure A.2 above)
= value of deflection in point C
= static moment from M/EI at point A

3. Conjugated Beam Method

The Moment Area and Conjugated Beam Method are indeed closely
related. The Moment Area Theorems refers physically to the geometric of
the elastic curve while the Conjugated Beam concept makes use of the
analogy between rotation angle/sloe and shear forces and between
deflection and bending moment

Figure A.3. Conjugated beam theory in a simple beam

 where:
∆c = bending moment at point C due to M/EI = deflection at C
(=PL3/48EI)
𝜑! = RA’ = shear force at A = slope/rotation angle at A (=PL2/16EI)
𝜑! = RB’ = shear force at B = slope/rotation angle at A (=PL2/16EI)

4. Integration Method
One method in finding the value of deflection and slope/rotation angle is
integration method, which is also known as the elastic theory. The formula
in finding the value of deflection and rotation angle using this method is
written as follow:
General formulation : 𝑑 ! 𝑦 𝑑𝑥 ! = −(𝑀𝑥 𝐸𝐼)
Rotation : 𝑑𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = − 1 𝐸𝐼 𝑀𝑥 𝑑𝑥 + 𝐶! = tan 𝜃
Deflection :𝑌= − 𝑀𝑥 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 + 𝐶! . 𝑥 + 𝐶!

III. APPRATUS/MACHINE
2 – HST. 1301 End Support Brackets
1 – HST. 1302 Roller Support Brackets
1 – HST. 1303 Roller Fixture
1 – HST. 1304 Clamp Plate
3 – HST. 1305 Hanger Clamps
3 – HST. 1306 Hanger Links
3 – HST. 1307 Large Hanger
3 – HST. 1309 Knife Edge Hanger
1 – HST. 1310 Double Pulley Bracket
1 – HST. 1311 Knife Edge Stirrup and Cord
1 – HST. 1312 Small Hanger
2 – HST. 1313 Knife Edge
 Figure A.4. Experimental model for plastic flexture condition

Figure A.4. illustrates a typical arrangement for plastic bending of beams with
built-in ends. For this specially designed roller fixture supplied, permits lateral
movement at one end of the beam under load. The beam may be tested with an
intermediate roller support as shown or alternatively supported at each end
only. Provision is made also for testing the beams in a rest on simple supports
using knife-edge rollers.

Figure A.5. Experimental model for deflection of an indeterminate structure

Figure A.4. illustrates experimental model for indeterminate structures with

elastic beam that can be supported by any kind of end support type. It is
possible to set up one support that allows lateral movement. In order to make
an indeterminate structure model, it is possible to set the end support either as
roller end or as fixed-end support. Possible variants to make indeterminate
structure models are a system of beam structure with two fixed support ends; a
beam with fixed support and roller support end objected to certain conditions
of loading.

Figure A.6. Experimental model for cantilever structure with uniform load

Figure A.6. illustrates a cantilever structure under uniform load. One possible
variant that can be applied is rotation angle and deflection due to point load,
etc.

Figure A.7. Experimental model for beam with two end supports objected to upward
position

Figure A.7. illustrates the application of upward point load application in an

indeterminate structure. Possible variants for this experimental, such as
 demonstrating the rotation angle/slope and deflection in support and due to
hanged load or uniform load, etc.
Arrangements as mention before can be varied to adjust to the needs of
experimental works. These arrangements are made to demonstrate the use if
this type of equipment for various applications. For experimental work in
which large displacement monitoring are needed, it is recommended the use of
the tool for long-span (long travel gauge) HAC 6 series.

IV. PROCEDURE
EXPERIMENT 1 Determining deflection at point A and B of a beam with
two fixed-supported ends under point load application
at mid-span.

Figure A.8. Experimental 1

1. Set two support ends to fulfill the condition of two fixed-end supports.
2. Measure the dimensions of steel plate used as beam (b and h) and length L.
3. Set up dial gauge in distance of ¼ L and ¾ L from fixed-end support C to
read the deflection at A and B.
4. Load P at mid-span (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 N) and read the dial gauges at A
and B (variation of loading depends on laboratory assistant).

EXPERIMENT 2 Determining deflection at point A and B of a beam with

two fixed-supported ends under point load application
at mid-span
 Figure A.9. Experimental 2

1. Set two support ends to fulfill the condition of two fixed-end supports.
2. Measure the dimensions of steel plate used as beam (b and h), the length L,
and length of a and b.
3. Set up dial gauge at a distance from fixed-end support C and D to read the
deflection at A and B.
4. Load P at mid-span (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 N) and read the dial gauges at A
and B (variation of loading depends on laboratory assistant).

EXPERIMENT 3 Determining deflection at point A and B of a beam with

roller support end and fixed-supported end under point
load application at mid-span

Figure A.10. Experimental 3

1. Set two support ends to fulfill the condition of two fixed-end support and a
roller end support.
2. Measure the dimensions of steel plate used as beam (b and h) and the
length L.
 3. Set up dial gauge in distance of ¼ L and ¾ L from fixed-end support C to
read the deflection at A and B.
4. Load P at mid-span (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 N) and read the dial gauges at A
and B (variation of loading depends on laboratory assistant).

V. OBSERVATION
EXPERIMENT 1
Table A.1. Data observation for first experiment

Loading (mm) Unloading (mm) Average (mm)

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B
1 10 0.34 0.3 0.365 0.32 0.3525 0.31
2 20 0.68 0.59 0.715 0.61 0.6975 0.6
3 30 1.02 0.89 1.035 0.91 1.0275 0.9
4 40 1.35 1.19 1.37 1.21 1.36 1.2
5 50 1.7 1.49 1.7 1.49 1.7 1.49

EXPERIMENT 2
Table A.2. Data observation for second experiment

Loading (mm) Unloading (mm) Average (mm)

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B
1 10 0.56 0.14 0.595 0.15 0.5775 0.145
2 20 1.14 0.29 1.16 0.3 1.15 0.295
3 30 1.735 0.44 1.755 0.45 1.745 0.445
4 40 2.32 0.59 2.33 0.6 2.325 0.595
5 50 2.9 0.75 2.9 0.75 2.9 0.75

EXPERIMENT 3
Table A.3. Data observation for third experiment

Loading (mm) Unloading (mm) Average (mm)

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B
1 10 0.37 0.41 0.39 0.43 0.38 0.42
2 20 0.89 1.2 0.925 1.25 0.9075 1.225
3 30 1.41 2.02 1.44 2.06 1.425 2.04
4 40 1.945 2.87 1.965 2.89 1.955 2.88
5 50 2.47 3.71 2.47 3.71 2.47 3.71
VI. DATA CALCULATION
 Table A.9. Result of data calculation for first experiment

Practicum Theory Relative Error

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B
1 10 0.3525 0.31 0.363 0.363 2.89% 14.60%
2 20 0.6975 0.6 0.726 0.726 3.93% 17.36%
3 30 1.0275 0.9 1.09 1.09 5.73% 17.43%
4 40 1.36 1.2 1.45 1.45 6.21% 17.24%
5 50 1.7 1.49 1.81 1.81 6.08% 17.68%
Average 4.97% 16.86%

δA and δB versus P
2
1.8
1.6
δA and δB (mm)

1.4
1.2 Apracticum
1
0.8 Bpracticum
0.6 Atheory
0.4
Btheory
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
P (N)

Figure A.25. Graph of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B versus P for first experiment

Table A.10. Result of data calculation for second experiment

Practicum Theory Relative Error

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B
1 10 0.5775 0.145 0.6375 0.1886 9.41% 23.12%
2 20 1.15 0.295 1.271 0.3772 9.52% 21.79%
3 30 1.745 0.445 1.907 0.5658 8.50% 21.35%
4 40 2.325 0.595 2.543 0.7545 8.57% 21.14%
5 50 2.9 0.75 3.178 0.9431 8.75% 20.48%
Average 8.95% 21.58%
 δA and δB versus P
3.5
3
2.5
δA and δB (mm)
2 Apracticum
1.5 Bpracticum
1 Atheory
0.5 Btheory
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
P (N)

Figure A.26. Graph of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B versus P for second experiment

Table A.11. Result of data calculation for third experiment

Practicum Theory Relative Error

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B
1 10 0.38 0.42 0.6426 0.9776 40.87% 57.04%
2 20 0.9075 1.225 1.285 1.955 29.38% 37.34%
3 30 1.425 2.04 1.928 2.933 26.09% 30.45%
4 40 1.955 2.88 2.571 3.91 23.96% 26.34%
5 50 2.47 3.71 3.213 4.888 23.12% 24.10%
Average 28.68% 35.05%

δA and δB versus P
6

5
δA and δB (mm)

4
Apracticum
3
Bpracticum
2
Atheory
1 Btheory
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
P (N)

Figure A.27. Graph of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B versus P for third experiment

VII. ANALYSIS
i. EXPERIMENT ANALYSIS
The experiment was done to determine the amount of
deflection at a specified point of a statically indeterminate beam loaded
by a concentrated/point load and to compare the experimental results
and theoretical calculation. This experiment was divided into three
section of experiment, where each experiment has different objective,
procedure, and condition of the beam.
The first experiment was determined the deflection at point A
and B of a beam with two fixed-supported ends under point load
application at mid-span. The procedure started with practicant set both
support to be fixed support and measured the length of beam (L) and
dimension of the steel plate (b and h). After that, practicant set the dial
gauge in distance of ¼ L and ¾ L from fixed-end support C and D to
read the deflection at A and B. After that, at the mid-span, practicant
loaded load from 10 to 50 N and read the dial gauges at A and B.
The second experiment was determined the deflection at point
A and B of a beam with two fixed-supported ends under point load
application at mid-span. The procedure of the experiment was same as
the first experiment; however, practicant set the gauge A and B in
different length from both fixed end. Practicant set A to be 30 cm from
C and B to be 15 cm from D.
The third experiment was determined the deflection at point A
and B of a beam with roller support end and fixed-supported end under
point load application at mid-span. The procedure was also same as the
first experiment; however, the difference was we set C to be roller
support.
All of this experiment was done with same variation of load
from 10 N to 50 N at mid-span of the beam. Practicant did this with
loading and unloading the load in order to get the average of reading
gauge from A and B.
 ii. RESULT ANALYSIS
To compare the theory and experiment in order to compare
them, practicant should calculate both in every experiment. To calculate
the theory of deflection, practicant used unit load method. This method
was being chosen by practicant due to the internal force due to external
load and virtual load 1 unit could be determined and the method was
applicable for every variant of load. In calculating the deflection theory,
the Etheory already known so that it became easier to calculate the
deflection. To calculate the value of Epracticum, practicant made the graph
of P versus deflection in every point. Then, by using trendline,
practicant got the equation that will be equated with the deflection in
theory. By equated both value, the practicant could get the value of
Epracticum. After knowing the value of Epracticum and Etheory and deflection
in theory and practicum, practicant could calculate the relative error for
both Modulus Young and deflection.
Table A.12. Result of 𝛿 A, 𝛿 B, and E for first experiment

Practicum Theory Relative Error E

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B A B
Theory
1 10 0.3525 0.31 0.363 0.363 2.89% 14.60% 2 × 10!!
(N/m2)
Practicum 2.142 × 2.437 ×
2 20 0.6975 0.6 0.726 0.726 3.93% 17.36%
(N/m2) 10!! 10!!
Relative
3 30 1.0275 0.9 1.09 1.09 5.73% 17.43% 7.12% 21.86%
Error
4 40 1.36 1.2 1.45 1.45 6.21% 17.24%
5 50 1.7 1.49 1.81 1.81 6.08% 17.68%
Average 4.97% 16.86%

Table A.13. Result of 𝛿 A, 𝛿 B, and E for second experiment

Practicum Theory Relative Error E

No P (N)
𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B 𝛿A 𝛿B A B
Theory
1 10 0.5775 0.145 0.6375 0.1886 9.41% 23.12% 2 × 10!!
(N/m2)
Practicum 2.188 × 2.515 ×
2 20 1.15 0.295 1.271 0.3772 9.52% 21.79%
(N/m2) 10!! 10!!
Relative
3 30 1.745 0.445 1.907 0.5658 8.50% 21.35% 9.41% 25.74%
Error
4 40 2.325 0.595 2.543 0.7545 8.57% 21.14%
5 50 2.9 0.75 3.178 0.9431 8.75% 20.48%
Average 8.95% 21.58%
 Table A.14. Result of 𝛿 A, 𝛿 B, and E for third experiment

Practicum Theory Relative Error E

No P (N)
A B A B A B A B
Theory
1 10 0.38 0.42 0.6426 0.9776 40.87% 57.04% 2 × 10!!
(N/m2)
Practicum 2.555 × 2.569 ×
2 20 0.9075 1.225 1.285 1.955 29.38% 37.34%
(N/m2) 10!! 10!!
Relative
3 30 1.425 2.04 1.928 2.933 26.09% 30.45% 27.76% 28.43%
Error
4 40 1.955 2.88 2.571 3.91 23.96% 26.34%
5 50 2.47 3.71 3.213 4.888 23.12% 24.10%
Average 28.68% 35.05%

From these results above, these are the data for deflection and
Modulus Young in theory and practicum, comparison between them,
and relative error between theory and practicum. For experiment
number 1, it could be seen that the value of 𝛿 A practicum to theory is
not too far compared to 𝛿 B, which could be seen also from the graph.
Whereas, the deflection of A and B should be same due to the distance
of A and B from the nearest fixed support are same. For experiment
number 2, the value of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B in practicum are not too far from the
theory, which could be seen in the graphic, as there is little gap between
theory and practicum. For experiment number 3, it could be seen that
𝛿 A and 𝛿 B theory and practicum are not too far from each other.
However, the gap between the theory and practicum are bigger than gap
in the first and second experiment. Looking at the value of relative error
and the graphic could prove this.
Then, by doing this practicum, it could be analyzed that
distance of A and B from nearest support are affected the value of
deflection. From experiment 1, as the distance same for A and B from
nearest support, the value of deflection should be same. From
experiment 2, as distance A is bigger than distance B, which A is 35 cm
and B is 15 cm, the value of deflection at point A will be bigger than
value of deflection at distance B. However, those analyses just applied
for fixed-fixed support. For experiment 3, as the distance between A
and B from nearest support are same as experiment 1, the value of
 deflection at point A and B are different due to supports are fixed and
end support.
Then, by doing experiment with fixed-fixed and fixed-roller
end support, it could be analyze that different support affected
deflection in different way. When both of the supports were fixed
support, the value of deflection in A and B will be same due to same
distance of A and B from their nearest fixed support. However, when
one of the supports is roller-end support, the deflection near the roller-
end support should be bigger than deflection near fixed end support. It
should be bigger as ¾ compared to fixed support. This could happen
due to the different of stiffness. When one of the ends of beam is roll
support, the stiffness will be 3EI/L, and when both end of beam is fixed
support, the stiffness will be 4EI/L. Then, due to deflection is equal to
load over stiffness; deflection near roll support would be bigger than
fixed support. This is also proven by looking at the value of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B
theory and practicum in experiment 3. Even though A and B have same
distance from their nearest support, the support nearest both of them are
different. Furthermore, the value of deflection would be different.

iii. ERROR ANALYSIS

Even though, the practicant already tried to do the best in
order to reduced the error, there were still several error that happened in
this experiment. First error is, from the result, it could be seen that the
relative error in experiment 1 and 2 are not too big and in experiment 3
is quite big and bigger than experiment 1 and 2. The error could be
happen due to inadvertence of the practicant during the experiment. The
practicant might touch the beam several times so that the value of gauge
changed or practicant might misreading the gauge of deflection in A
and B. The second error is the value of deflection of A and B in
experiment A should be same due to same distance of A and B from
nearest fixed support. This might happen due to the measurement of
distances that were not exactly same of A and B or due to misreading of
the gauge.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The experiment was done to determine the amount of deflection at a
specified point of a statically indeterminate beam loaded by a
concentrated/point load and to compare the experimental results and
theoretical calculation. For first experiment, value of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B in theory and
practicum are not too far with average of relative error of 4.97% and 16.86%,
which are smallest compared to others experiment. The values of theory
Young Modulus compared to the practicum are also not too different in A and
B with relative error of 7.12% and 21.86%, which are smallest compared to
others experiment. For second experiment, the value of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B are not to
far also with relative error of 8.95% and 21.58%, which are bigger compared
to first experiment. The values of theory Young Modulus compared to
practicum result relative error of 9.41% and 25.74% in A and B. For third
experiment, the value of 𝛿 A and 𝛿 B for theory and practicum are having a
bigger gap compared to other practicum with relative error of 28.68% and
35.05%. The values of theory Young Modulus compared to practicum are
having relative error of 27.76% and 28.43% in A and B.

IX. REFERENCES
• Pedoman Praktikum Analisa Struktur, Laboratorium Struktur dan
Material, Departemen Teknik Sipil, Fakultas Teknik Universitas
Indonesia: Depok, 2013

X. APPENDIX

Figure A.28. Measuring the distance of B Figure A.29. Set the roll support
Figure A.30. Added load to the beam Figure A.31. Beam for experiment 2