De La Salle University Manila

LBYCVT2 - Theory of Structures Laboratory

STR !"#!R$M!%T - Ben&in' Stress in a Bea(
ST)R!" %o* +
,rou- %o. 5
Me(bers. Lonzaga, Nunez, Palilio
$* /b0ectives of the !1-eri(ent.
To determine the stress and strain at various points of an inverted T-beam
section due to two point loading.
To locate the neutral axis based on measured strains and compare with theor.
To verif the elastic flexure formula.
$$* #roce&ure.
o The dimensions of the beam were ta!en at the ends and at the center and
the averages were ta!en.
o The initial values of strain when P " # were ta!en.
o The load cell was turned to appl a load P to the beam. Two trials were
ta!en with load P$ " $%5 and two trials were ta!en with P% " %5#.
o The strains were recorded and calibrated b the strain gauges connected to
the computer.
#22 #22
a 3 45 ((
L 3 64 ((
a 3 45 ((
$$$* Data an& Results
Table 7* )ctual Di(ensions of the Bea( Section*
Material. Left Section Mi&&le
Section
Ri'ht Section )vera'e
B 8((9 4:*6 4:*6 4:*6 4:*6
; 8((9 46*< 46*< 46*< 46*<
D 8((9 +*2 +*2 +*2 +*2
T 8((9 +*2 +*2 +*2 +*2
Table 2* !1-eri(ental Data an& Results . #7
Trial 7
#7
Trial 2
#7
)vera'e
#7
Strain
,au'e
i at # 3 5 f at # 3 #7 f i i at # 3 5 f at # 3 #7 f i f i
$ -0.2 -132.3 -132.1 -0.3 -131.6 -131.3 -131.7
% -0.4 -92.3 -91.9 -0.6 -92.5 -91.9 -91.9
& -0.7 -94.1 -93.4 -0.9 -93.4 -92.5 -92.95
' -0.7 -14.9 -14.2 -0.6 -14.9 -14.3 -14.25
5 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
( -0.4 27.3 27.7 -0.7 28 28.7 28.2
) -0.7 27.4 28.1 0.1 27.8 27.7 27.9
* -0.6 59.2 59.8 0 59.4 59.4 59.6
+ -0.5 59.2 59.7 0.5 59.7 59.2 59.45
Table 4* !1-eri(ental Data an& Results . #2
D
;
B
T
Trial 7
#2
Trial 2
#2
)vera'e
#2
Strain
,au'e
i at # 3 5 f at # 3 #7 f i i at # 3 5 f at # 3 #7 f i f i
$ -0.3 -262.4 -262.1 0.9 -265 -265.9 -264
% 0.1 -183.7 -183.8 0.6 -186.9 -187.5 -185.65
& 0 -187 -187 0 -189 -189 -188
' -0.1 -30.9 -30.8 -0.6 -33 -32.4 -31.6
5 0 -1.5 -1.5 0 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5
( 0.8 54.4 53.6 -1.5 52.7 54.2 53.9
) 0.7 55.1 54.4 -1.8 54.7 56.5 55.45
* 0.5 117.9 117.4 -1.9 116.8 118.7 118.05
+ 0.3 119.1 118.8 -2.3 119.1 121.4 120.1
=i'ure 7* $nfor(ation on ,au'es foun& on e>ui-(ent
$V* Theory
,omputing for -.
V* Data )nalysis an& Conclusions.
Table ?* Co(-arison of Results
Location #7
8%9
M
8%-((9
Y
8((9
!1-t

!1-t

Theory

a (%.5 %$*)5 25.96 -$&$.) +.#*) &.++(

b (%.5 %$*)5 17.96 -+%.'%5 (.&)) %.)(5
c (%.5 %$*)5 2.96 -).#)5 '.**% #.'5(
d (%.5 %$*)5 5.74 %*.#5 $.+&5 #.**'
e (%.5 %$*)5 12.14 5+.5%5 '.$#) $.*(+
Location #2
8%9
M
8%-((9
Y
8((9
!1-t

!1-t

Theory

a $%5 '&)5# 25.96 -%(' $.*%% ).++&

b $%5 '&)5# 17.96 -$*(.*%5 $%.*+$ 5.5&#
c $%5 '&)5# 2.96 -$(.55 $.$'% #.+$$
d $%5 '&)5# 5.74 5'.()5 &.))& $.)()
e $%5 '&)5# 12.14 $$+.#)5 *.%$( &.)&*
a/ 0raw to scale 1at least $. %/ the plot of the strain vs 2 and locate the
neutral axis graphicall. ,ompare with the theoretical neutral axis.
The theoretical nuetral axis is computed to be at $%.$' mm from the bottom but from
the experiment we came to a problem when our gauge ' and 5 are not having a close
value of # but instead had a value close to $5 and &#. 3hen a trendline was developed
we were able to come up with a an answer close to the theoretical one.
b/ ,ompare the experimental normal stresses and compare with the
theoretical bending stresses obtained from the elastic flexure formula.
!1-t8#79

Theory8#79

!1-t8#29

Theory8#29

+.#*) &.++( $.*%% ).++&

(.&)) %.)(5 $%.*+$ 5.5&#
'.**% #.'5( $.$'% #.+$$
$.+&5 #.**' &.))& $.)()
'.$#) $.*(+ *.%$( &.)&*
The experimental and the theoretical values of the normal stresses showed
a big difference in values. The showed values with percent difference of
5# to )#4 which is not within the range of acceptable values.
c/ 0iscuss the possible cause of differences between experiment and theor.
Possible causes of differences between the experiment and the theor ma
be due to the e5uipment or human errors in setting up the e5uipment. 6lso
the possibilit of a variable that was supposed to be ta!en into
consideration was forgotten.
d/ 7tate our conclusions in relation to the ob8ectives of the experiment
The ob8ectives of the experiment were completed with the exception that
the values that were gathered were far from the theoretical values. The
neutral axis was !nown to be around $% mm and the normal stresses were
far from the theoretical and the experimental values that ma have been
caused in a problem with how the e5uipment was set upped b the group.