UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH

PROGRAM KEJURUTERAAN AWAM

Program : Bachelor of Engineering with Honours (Civil Engineering)

Course : Structure Lab
Code : KA24201
Lecturer : Dr. Sheikh Mohd Iqbal bin S. Zainal Abidin
Group : B1

KA24201 - LABORATORY
WORK
TITLE : S3: DEFLECTION IN BEAM & CANTILEVER

No NAME STUDENT ID SIGNATURE

1. AYRA ARLYNTIA AZLAN BK24110001
2. NUR FATHIN SYAQILLA BINTI SUMARDDINO BK24110021
3. NAHIDZRUL GHADAFI BIN AZMEE BK24110019
4.
ELMER JUDD JULIPAH BK24110111

LABORATORY SESSION : 14 May 2026

(DATE)

REPORT SUBMISSION : 4 June 2026

(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 misconduct
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 Total
1
2
3
4
5

0
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
NO. TITLE PAGES NO.
1.0 Abstract 2
2.0 Introduction 3
3.0 Theory 4-5
4.0 Experimental Procedure 6-8
5.0 Results
5.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001) 9-18
5.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021) 19-32
5.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee (BK24110019) 33-44
5.4 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111) 45-52
6.0 Analysis Data
6.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001) 53-57
6.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021) 58-62
6.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee (BK24110019) 63-67
6.4 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111) 68-72
7.0 Discussions
7.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001) 73-75
7.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021) 76
7.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee (BK24110019) 77-79
7.4 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111) 80-82
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001) 83
8.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021) 84
8.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee (BK24110019) 85
8.4 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111) 86
9.0 References 87-89
10. 0 Teamwork 90
11.0 Appendices 91

1
 1.0 ABSTRACT

The elastic behaviour and deflection properties of beams under external loading
circumstances were examined in this lab experiment. There were two primary experiments in
the study. While Experiment B evaluated the behaviour of a simply supported beam under
various load and length circumstances, Experiment A looked at the deflection of a cantilever
beam employing various materials. The goals were to compare experimental and theoretical
data, assess the link between applied load and beam deflection, and confirm that beam
deflection theories are applicable. Actual deflection measurements were noted and
contrasted with theoretical values obtained from classical beam equations. The findings
showed that beam deflection rose in direct proportion to load and beam length. Because
aluminium has a lower modulus of elasticity than tougher materials, it showed more
deflection. The comparison of theoretical and experimental values revealed comparatively
minimal percentage errors, suggesting that engineering theory and practical observations are
in good agreement. Small differences were ascribed to material flaws, support conditions,
and measurement constraints. Overall, the experiment demonstrated the significance of
material qualities, shape, and loading conditions in determining structural performance and
successfully validated the basic concepts of structural mechanics.

2
 2.0 INTRODUCTION

A fundamental pillar of structural engineering is understanding how beams deform under

various loading conditions. In the design of safe, functional, and durable load-bearing
systems, engineers must meticulously manage beam behavior, particularly its tendency to
bend or deflect under applied strain. Effective deflection control is critical to ensuring the
structural integrity and serviceability of buildings, bridges, and mechanical components.
Excessive deformation, often caused by materials with inadequate stiffness, can compromise
a structure's safety and lead to failure, making the minimization and management of
deflection a primary engineering objective (Amiouny et al., 1993).

This study investigates te phenomenon of elastic beam deflection across two primary
configurations: cantilever and simply supported beams. When a force is applied, internal
stresses are generated within the material, causing the beam to bend. The magnitude and
profile of this deflection are governed by the applied load, beam geometry, span conditions,
and the material's inherent characteristics, most notably its modulus of elasticity (Hibbeler,
2017). Accurately identifying a material's Young's modulus is a critical prerequisite for
predicting its mechanical response under stress (Sales et al., 2025). Structurally, the support
conditions dictate the deflection profile. A cantilever beam, which is fixed at one end and free
at the other, experiences its maximum deflection at the free end. Conversely, a simply
supported beam, resting on supports at both ends, typically exhibits maximum deflection at
its mid-span when subjected to a central point load.

While robust analytical models and equivalent beam methods are widely used to compute
structural displacements (Xue & Su, 2018), physical experimentation remains indispensable.
Theoretical calculations often assume idealized conditions; however, real-world applications
are subject to variables such as measurement inaccuracies, imperfect mounting conditions,
and inherent material flaws. Furthermore, standard analytical models may require
adjustments to account for complex real-world behaviors, such as shear effects (Kim & Kim,
2021) or material creep and slip over time (Lei et al., 2022). Therefore, practical laboratory
testing is vital to validate established beam theories and to comprehensively grasp the real-
world limitations of theoretical models.

The core issue addressed in this study is how variations in material stiffness, load magnitude,
and span length influence beam deflection. To explore this, the experiment seeks to answer
three primary questions. First, it investigates how the deflection of cantilever beams differs
across various materials—specifically aluminum, brass, and steel—under identical loading
conditions. Second, it examines the quantitative effect of incrementally increasing the load
on the deflection of a simply supported beam. Finally, the study explores how altering the
span length of a simply supported beam influences its deflection when subjected to a
constant load. To answer these questions and demonstrate the mechanical reaction of
structural components, two main sets of laboratory experiments will be conducted utilizing
the principles of structural mechanics, calibrated weights, digital deflection indicators, and
specialized beam apparatus. Experiment A evaluates the deflection of cantilever beams made
of steel, brass, and aluminum when subjected to gradually increasing point loads.
Meanwhile, Experiment B focuses on simply supported beams and is divided into two phases.
The first phase observes how deflection varies with increasing load on a beam of constant
length, while the second phase examines how varying the span length affects deflection
under a constant load. Through these structured assessments, this study aims to bridge the
gap between theoretical deflection models and practical structural behavior.

3
 3.0 THEORY

A key aspect of mechanics of materials is understanding how structural components respond

when subjected to loads. One important response is deflection, which refers to the
displacement or bending of a structural element under an applied load. In beam analysis,
studying deflection is essential because excessive bending can affect the safety, stability, and
functionality of a structure. Therefore, understanding how beams deflect under different
loading conditions and support arrangements is crucial in structural design to ensure that
structures are both safe and serviceable.

3.1 Deflection of a Cantilever Beam

A cantilever beam is a rigid structural member that is fixed at one end and free at the
other. When a point load is applied at the free end, the beam tends to bend downward due
to the bending moment produced along its length. This deflection is greatest at the free end,
where the load is applied. The maximum deflection of a cantilever beam subjected to a point
load (P) at its free end can be determined using the following formula:
δ = PL³ / 3EI
Where:
● δ = maximum deflection at the free end
● P = applied point load
● L = length of the cantilever
● E = modulus of elasticity of the material
● I = moment of inertia of the beam's cross-sectional area

In this experiment, the behaviour of different materials under the same loading conditions is
investigated. Although the beams have the same load, length, and cross-sectional geometry,
they may experience different amounts of deflection because each material has its own
modulus of elasticity (E). The modulus of elasticity represents the stiffness of a material.
Therefore, materials with higher stiffness will produce smaller deflections under the same
applied load. This experiment allows the stiffness of each material to be compared based on
its deflection response.

4
3.2 Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam

A simply supported beam is a structural member that is supported at both ends and is
free to bend when subjected to an applied load. When a point load is placed at the centre of
the beam span, the beam experiences its maximum deflection at the midpoint. This occurs
because the bending effect is greatest at the centre under this loading condition. In this
case, the deflection, (δ), can be calculated using the following formula:
δ = PL³ / 3EI
Where:
● δ= maximum deflection at mid-span
● P= applied point load
● L= span length between supports
● E= modulus of elasticity
● I= moment of inertia
This experiment allows the effect of span length on beam deflection to be observed. Based
on the deflection formula, deflection is proportional to the cube of the beam length, (L^3).
This means that even a small increase in the span length can cause a large increase in
deflection. Therefore, beam length is an important factor that must be considered in
structural design, especially for long-span structural components.
By studying beam deflection under different conditions, such as material type in cantilever
beams and span length in simply supported beams, the basic principles of structural
mechanics can be understood more clearly. This also helps to show how material properties
and geometric factors influence the behaviour of beams under load.

5
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Apparatus List

The experiments were performed using the Deflection of Beams and Cantilevers
Apparatus, which consists of the following components:
1. Backboard with integrated metric scale
2. Digital dial test indicator (0.01 mm resolution)
3. Knife-edge load hangers
4. Knife-edge beam supports
5. Sliding brackets and locking thumb nuts
6. Aluminium, brass, and steel beams (uniform cross-section)
7. Vernier caliper
8. Calibrated masses (100 g – 500 g)
9. Clamp sets

Figure 4.1: Diagram Of Apparatus Used During Lab Experiment

6
Figure 4.2: Beam Apparatus Setup for Measuring Deflection Of Cantilever And Simply
Supported Beam

Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever Beam

1. The width and depth of the aluminium beam were measured using a
vernier caliper and recorded. This step was repeated for the brass and
steel beams.
2. The aluminium beam was then inserted into the cantilever clamp on the
backboard, ensuring it extended exactly 200 mm from the fixed end to
the free end.
3. The digital dial test indicator was slid to align vertically below the loading
point at the free end of the beam and locked into position using the
thumb nut.
4. The frame was lightly tapped to eliminate any looseness in the setup, and
the dial indicator was calibrated to zero.
5. A hanger with a 100 g mass was attached to the end of the beam. Once
stable, the deflection reading from the digital dial indicator was recorded.
6. Steps 4 and 5 were repeated for 200 g, 300 g, 400 g, and 500 g masses,
each time recording the corresponding deflection.
7. The entire procedure (Steps 2 to 6) was repeated for the brass and steel
beams using the same 200 mm setup and mass increments.

Experiment B(i): Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam (Varying Load)

1. The support clamps were positioned to create a simply supported span of
400 mm, with knife-edge supports placed precisely at each end.
2. The aluminium beam was placed on the supports, ensuring the ends
were aligned with the 0 mm and 400 mm markings on the backboard.
3. The digital dial test indicator was positioned at the mid-span (200 mm)
and locked in place.
4. The frame was lightly tapped, and the digital indicator was calibrated to
zero before loading.
5. A 100 g mass was applied at mid-span using the knife-edge hanger, and
once stable, the deflection was recorded from the dial indicator.
6. Steps 4 and 5 were repeated with increasing loads of 200 g, 300 g,
400 g, and 500 g, and the corresponding deflection values were
recorded.

7
 Experiment B(ii): Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam (Varying Length)
1. The beam span was initially set to 200 mm by adjusting the knife-edge
supports accordingly. The digital test indicator and load hanger were
centered on the span.
2. The frame was tapped to ensure mechanical stability, and the digital test
indicator was calibrated to zero.
3. A 300 g load was applied at mid-span, and the resulting deflection was
recorded.
4. Steps 1 through 3 were repeated for beam lengths of 300 mm, 400 mm,
and 500 mm, each time ensuring the load and dial indicator remained
centered.
5. The procedure was carried out for aluminium to obtain a full set of
deflection values across all lengths and material.

\\

8
 5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001)

Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever

Fixed Length = 200mm

Material Aluminium

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 69 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I = 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Percentage error
(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.86 0.89 3.37

200 1.78 1.78 0

300 2.74 2.68 2.23

400 3.61 3.57 1.12

500 4.45 4.46 0.22

Table 5.1.1 Results for Experiment A (Aluminium)

Moment Of Inertia Calculation:

9
Calculation For Aluminium (Cantilever Beam):

Percentage Error:

10
Fixed Length = 200 mm

Material Steel

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 207 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I = 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Percentage error
(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.32 0.30 6.67

200 0.61 0.59 3.39

300 0.93 0.89 4.49

400 1.35 1.19 13.45

500 1.69 1.49 13.42

Table 5.1.2 Results for Experiment A (Steel)

Calculation For Steel (Cantilever Beam):

11
Percentage Error:

12
Fixed Length = 200 mm
Material Brass

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 105 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I: 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Deflection Percentage error
(mm) (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.63 0.59 6.78

200 1.18 1.17 0.85

300 1.75 1.76 0.57

400 2.34 2.34 0

500 2.93 2.93 0

Table 5.1.3 Results for Experiment A (Brass)

Calculation For Brass (Cantilever Beam):

13
Percentage Error:

14
Experiment B: Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam
Part i: Fixed Beam Length Variable Load
Type of Material: Aluminium
Fixed Length: 400 mm
Mass Actual deflection Theoretical deflection Percentage error (%)
(g) (mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0

100 0.44 0.45 2.22

200 0.86 0.89 3.37

300 1.27 1.34 5.22

400 1.67 1.78 6.18

500 2.08 2.23 6.73

Table 5.1.4: Results for Experiment B (i) - Aluminium

Simply Supported Beam Formula:

15
Calculation For Aluminium (Simply Supported Beam):

16
Percentage Error:

17
 Part ii: Fixed Beam Load Variable Length

Type of Material: Aluminium

Fixed Load: 200 g
Length (mm) Length³ (m³) Deflection (mm)

0 0 0

200 0.012 0.17

300 0.039 0.55

400 0.086 1.20

500 0.171 2.39

Table 5.1.5: Results for Experiment B (ii) – Aluminium

Calculation For L3 :

18
5.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino
(BK24110021)

Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever

Fixed Length = 200 mm
Material Aluminium

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 69 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I: 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Deflection Percentage error
(mm) (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.86 0.89 3.37

200 1.78 1.78 0

300 2.74 2.68 2.23

400 3.61 3.57 1.12

500 4.45 4.46 0.22

Table 5.2.1 Results for Experiment A (Brass)

Calculation of Inertia:

19
Calculation for Deflection of a Cantilever:

20
Percentage Error:

21
Fixed Length = 200 mm

Material Steel

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 207 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I = 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Percentage error
(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.32 0.30 6.67

200 0.61 0.59 3.39

300 0.93 0.89 4.49

400 1.35 1.19 13.45

500 1.69 1.49 13.42

Table 5.2.2 Results for Experiment A (Steel)

Calculation for Deflection of a Cantilever:

22
23
Percentage Error:

24
Fixed Length = 200 mm
Material Brass

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 105 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I: 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Deflection Percentage error
(mm) (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.63 0.59 6.78

200 1.18 1.17 0.85

300 1.75 1.76 0.57

400 2.34 2.34 0

500 2.93 2.93 0

Table 5.2.3 Results for Experiment A (Brass)

25
Calculation for Deflection of a Cantilever:

26
Percentage error:

27
Experiment B: Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam

Part i: Fixed Beam Length Variable Load

Type of Material: Aluminium
Fixed Length: 400 mm
Mass Actual deflection Theoretical deflection Percentage error (%)
(g) (mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0

100 0.44 0.45 2.22

200 0.86 0.89 3.37

300 1.27 1.34 5.22

400 1.67 1.78 6.18

500 2.08 2.23 6.73

Table 5.2.4: Results for Experiment B (i) - Aluminium

Calculation for Deflection of a Cantilever:

28
29
Percentage error:

30
Part ii: Fixed Beam Load Variable Length

Type of Material: Aluminium

Fixed Load: 200 g
Length (mm) Length³ (m³) Deflection (mm)

0 0 0

200 0.012 0.17

300 0.039 0.55

400 0.086 1.20

500 0.171 2.39

Table 5.2.5: Results for Experiment B (ii) – Aluminium
Calculation for Length³ :

31
32
Calculation for Length³ :

5.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee

(BK24110019) Experiment A: Deflection of
a Cantilever

Material Aluminium

Width, b: 18.90 mm
E Value: 69 x 10
^9 N/m^2

I = 4.25 x 10 ^-11 m^4 Depth, d: 3.00 mm

Mass (g) Actual Deflection Theoretical Percentage Error

(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)

0 0 0 0

100 0.86 0.89 3.37

200 1.78 1.78 0

300 2.74 2.68 2.23

400 3.61 3.57 1.12

500 4.45 4.46 0.22

Table 5.3.1: Results for Experiment A - Aluminium

Calculation: Aluminium

33
34
35
 Material Steel

E = 207 x 10^9 Nm^-2 Width, b: 18.90 mm

I = 4.25 x 10 ^-11 m^4 Depth, d: 3.00 mm

Mass (g) Actual Deflection Theoretical Percentage Error

(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)

0 0 0 0

100 0.32 0.30 6.67

200 0.61 0.59 3.39

300 0.93 0.89 4.49

400 1.35 1.19 13.45

500 1.69 1.49 13.42

Table 5.3.2: Results for Experiment A - Steel

Calculation: Steel

36
37
 Material Brass

E = 105 x 10 ^9 Nm^-3 Width, b: 18.90 mm

I = 4.25 x 10 ^ -11 m^4 Depth, d: 3.00 mm

Mass (g) Actual Deflection Theoretical Percentage Error

(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)

0 0 0 0

100 0.63 0.59 6.78

200 1.18 1.17 0.85

300 1.75 1.76 0.57

400 2.34 2.34 0

500 2.93 2.93 0

Table 5.3.3: Result for Experiment A - Brass
Calculation: Brass

38
39
Experiment B: Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam

Part i: Fixed Beam Length Variable Load

Type of Material: Aluminium
Fixed Length: 400 mm
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Percentage Error
(mm) deflection (mm) (%)

0 0 0 0

100 0.44 0.45 2.22

200 0.86 0.89 3.37

300 1.27 1.34 5.22

400 1.67 1.78 6.18

500 2.08 2.23 6.73

Table 5.3.4: Results for Experiment B (i) - Aluminium
Calculation: Aluminium

40
41
42
 Part ii: Fixed Beam Load Variable Length

Type of Material: Aluminium

Fixed Load: 200 g
Length (mm) Length³ (m³) Deflection (mm)

0 0 0

200 0.012 0.17

300 0.039 0.55

400 0.086 1.20

500 0.171 2.39

Table 5.3.5: Results for Experiment B (ii) – Aluminium

Calculation For L3

43
44
 5.4 ELMER JUDD JULIPAH(BK24110111)

Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever

Fixed Length = 200 mm

Table 5.4.1 Results for Experiment A (Aluminium)

Material Aluminium

Width b : 18.90 mm
E Value: 69 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d : 3.00 mm
I: 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Deflection Percentage error
(mm) (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.86 0.89 3.37

200 1.78 1.78 0

300 2.74 2.68 2.23

400 3.61 3.57 1.12

500 4.45 4.46 0.22

Moment Of Inertia Calculation:

45
Calculation For Aluminium (Cantilever Beam):

Percentage Error:

46
Fixed Length = 200 mm
Table 5.4.2 Results for Experiment A (Steel)

Material Steel

Width b: 18.90 mm
E Value: 207 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d: 3.00 mm
I = 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Percentage error
(mm) Deflection (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

100 0.32 0.30 6.67

200 0.61 0.59 3.39

300 0.93 0.89 4.49

400 1.35 1.19 13.45

500 1.69 1.49 13.42

Calculation For Steel (Cantilever Beam):

47
Percentage Error:

Fixed Length = 200 mm

Table 5.4.3 Results for Experiment A (Brass)

Material Brass

Width b: 18.90 mm
E Value: 105 × 109 𝑁𝑚−2
Depth d: 3.00 mm
I: 4.25 × 10−11 𝑚4
Mass (g) Actual deflection Theoretical Deflection Percentage error
(mm) (mm) (%)
0 0 0 0

48
 100 0.63 0.59 6.78

200 1.18 1.17 0.85

300 1.75 1.76 0.57

400 2.34 2.34 0

500 2.93 2.93 0

Calculation For Brass (Cantilever Beam):

Percentage Error:

49
 Experiment B: Deflection of a Simply Supported Beam
Part i: Fixed Beam Length Variable Load
Type of Material: Aluminium
Fixed Length: 400 mm
Table 5.4.4: Results for Experiment B (i) – Aluminium
Mass Actual deflection Theoretical deflection Percentage error (%)
(g) (mm) (mm)
0 0 0 0

100 0.44 0.45 2.22

200 0.86 0.89 3.37

300 1.27 1.34 5.22

400 1.67 1.78 6.18

500 2.08 2.23 6.73

Simply Supported Beam Formula:

50
Calculation For Aluminium (Simply Supported Beam):

Percentage Error:

51
 Part ii: Fixed Beam Load Variable Length

Type of Material: Aluminium

Fixed Load: 200 g
Table 5.4.5: Results for Experiment B (ii) – Aluminium
Length (mm) Length³ (m³) Deflection (mm)

0 0 0

200 0.012 0.17

300 0.039 0.55

400 0.086 1.20

500 0.171 2.39

Calculation For L3 :

52
6.0 ANALYSIS DATA
6.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001)
Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever Beam (Fixed Length)

Figure 6.1.1 : Experiment A (Cantilever) Aluminium Deflection vs Applied Mass

In the aluminium cantilever experiment, the deflection of the beam increased

progressively with each additional 100 g load, starting from 0 mm at 0 g and reaching
4.46mm at 5.00g. The graph shows that the deflection is directly proportional to the
applied mass, which is the exoected behaviour of cantilever beams. The actual results
are in excellent agreement with the theoretical values with percentage errors varying
between 0% (lowest) and 3.37% (maximum peak). This minimal variance across the
dataset indicates high precision in the measurements and confirms a consistent
elastic response throughout the loading range. The deviations found are very small
and are acceptable in the lab, probably due to a very slight parallax in manual gauge
calibration, or a minor micro shift in the position of the hanging weights down the
beam. In conclusion, the good correspondence between the data series definitely
gives proof of the well-determined, linear, and elastic behavior of the aluminium
cantilever under static point loading.

53
 Figure 6.1.2 : Experiment A (Cantilever) Steel Deflection vs Mass

The deflection of the steel cantilever beam showed a linear rise with increasing mass,
changing from 0 mm at 0 g to 1.49 mm at 500 g. The trend demonstrates a strong
linear relationship that is directly governed by the material's high stiffness and
Young's modulus. The experimental values align closely with the theoretical
predictions, with calculated percentage errors ranging from a minimum of 6.67%.
However, the variance increases up to a maximum of 13.45% at the higher loading
intervals. This larger difference is due to the fact that the actual deflection starts to
increase at higher loads than the theoretical deflection. This behavior is usually seen
in a laboratory setup when the bending moment exceeds a certain amount, causing
micro-rotation or a small degree of slippage at the fixed clamped support, thus
allowing a small amount of unintended displacement. Even with this small support
flexibility at maximum loads, the data shows a consistent and predictable response
which is rigid, as expected from steel.

54
 Figure 6.1.3 : Experiment A (Cantilever) Brass Deflection vs Applied Mass

In the brass cantilever setup, the beam revealed a consistent and progressive
deflection from 0 mm with no load to 2.93 mm with a load of 500 g. The actual
deflection values were very close to the theoretical deflection values, with the highest
variation only at the minimum load. There was also a 0% error rate at loads 400g
and 500g. The rest of the calculated error rates were minimal, ranging from 0% to
6.78%. This shows that the brass beam is in line with the cantilever theory where
deflection is directly proportional to the applied mass. The minor deviations are still
within acceptable range and could be due to measurement accuracy or slight
differences in material properties.

55
Experiment B(i):Deflection Of Simply Supported Beam (Fixed Length)

Figure 6.1.4 : Experiment B(i) (Simply Supported) Aluminium Deflection vs Mass

In the case of the simply supported aluminum beam with a fixed length of 400mm,
the measured deflection also showed a steady increase from 0.00 mm to 2.23 mm as
the applied weight rose to 500 g. This trend is highly consistent with the expected
mechanical behavior where deflection is directly proportional to the applied load.
Throughout the loading sequence, the actual deflection values remained slightly
lower than the theoretical predictions, with the percentage error expanding from a
minimum of 2.22% to a maximum of 6.73% at the peak load. This progressive
divergence indicates minor experimental constraints, such as friction or slight nesting
at the knife-edge supports although the beam closely mimics ideal conditions under
lighter loads. Overall, the strong correlation across the data recorded successfully
confirms the load-deflection relationship of simply supported beams.

56
Experiment B(ii):Deflection Of Simply Supported Beam (Fixed Mass)

Figure 6.1.5 : Deflection vs Length³ for Aluminium (Fixed Load)

Deflection profiles shown by aluminium with a constant 200 g have been graphically
illustrated, showing correlation with the cube of beam length. The trend
demonstrates a distinct linear relationship when deflection is plotted directly against
Length3 effectively transforming the expected cubic curve into a straight diagonal
line. This clear linear alignment confirms that the structural deflection of the beam is
directly proportional to the cube of its span length, precisely validating the underlying
theoretical principles of beam mechanics. The experimental data points adhere tightly
to this linear path with negligible deviation across the entire range, indicating high
precision in the experimental execution and confirming consistent elastic behavior as
the span varies.

57
 6.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021)
Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever

Figure 6.2.1 Deflection VS Applied Mass (Aluminium)

As the applied mass grew from 0 g to 500 g, the aluminum cantilever beam showed a distinct
and gradual increase in deflection. While the predicted values climbed from 0 mm to 4.46 mm,
the recorded actual deflection increased from 0 mm to 4.45 mm. This remarkably tight
agreement shows how closely the experimental observations adhered to the Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory's presumptions. The graph shows a nearly identical trend between the theoretical and real
curves, suggesting that the aluminum specimen stayed within its elastic range during the loading
procedure. The experimental setup's dependability was confirmed by the percentage error, which
stayed comparatively low, ranging from 0% to 3.37%. Hooke's Law was satisfied and the beam
behaved elastically based on the approximately linear relationship between applied mass and
deflection. Slight errors in load placement, dial gauge readings, and support rigidity can be the
cause of small discrepancies between measured and theoretical values. Larger deflections were
anticipated and seen since aluminum has a lower modulus of elasticity than steel. When material
characteristics and beam geometry stay constant, the data consistency shows that beam
deflection is directly proportional to the applied load. As a result, the findings offer solid
experimental support for cantilever beam theory and validate the applicability of theoretical
formulas for forecasting elastic structural behavior under static loading circumstances.

58
 6.2.2 Deflection VS Applied Mass ( Steel)

Due to its much higher modulus of elasticity, the steel cantilever beam showed the least amount
of deflection of all the materials evaluated. The actual deflection increased from 0 mm to 1.69
mm as the applied load grew from 0 g to 500 g, whereas the theoretical values went from 0 mm
to 1.49 mm. The graph confirms that the beam stayed within the elastic region by demonstrating
a strong linear relationship between load and deflection. The graph's slope is significantly smaller
when compared to aluminium, indicating steel's better rigidity. The biggest variances happened
at higher loads, with percentage errors ranging from roughly 3% to 13%. This pattern implies
that as the beam underwent more bending moments, little experimental factors grew increasingly
significant. Slight movement at the fixed support, flaws in the beam specimen, or measurement
errors brought on by reading extremely tiny displacements are also potential reasons.
The general trend is still in line with theoretical predictions in spite of these differences. The
strong agreement between theoretical and empirical results shows that steel beam behaviour
may be accurately predicted by classical beam theory. The results highlight the significance of
material stiffness in structural design even further. Steel is frequently chosen for constructions
where serviceability and deformation control are important factors since it undergoes noticeably
fewer deflections under equivalent loads.

59
 6.2.3 Deflection VS Applied Mass (Brass)
The brass cantilever beam's moderate modulus of elasticity was reflected in its behavior, which
was halfway between that of steel and aluminum. From 0 mm at zero load to 2.93 mm at 500 g,
deflection increased gradually. Throughout the trial, the real and theoretical numbers were
strikingly comparable, with percentage errors ranging from 0% to 6.78%. There was no
percentage inaccuracy at loads of 400 g and 500 g because the theoretical and real values were
the same. Cantilever beam theory is validated by the graph's extremely linear connection
between load and deflection, which shows persistent elastic behavior. Small reading mistakes and
instrument sensitivity could be the cause of the slight variations seen at lower loads. The
resulting deflection values naturally are between those materials since brass is less stiff than steel
but more stiff than aluminum. The findings show how Young's modulus directly influences beam
stiffness and confirm the impact of material characteristics on structural performance.
The significant amount of agreement between theoretical and experimental data suggests that
beam theory's underlying assumptions were mostly met. Overall, the brass specimen offered
more proof that, when the beam stays within the elastic range and geometric characteristics stay
constant, cantilever beam deflection stays precisely proportionate to applied stress.

60
 6.2.4 Experiment B (Aluminium Deflection VS Mass)
As the applied mass increased, the deflection of the simply supported aluminum beam with a
fixed span of 400 mm increased gradually. Theoretical deflection values grew from 0 mm to 2.23
mm, whereas actual deflection values went from 0 mm to 2.08 mm. The graph demonstrates an
effective positive linear connection between deflection and load, suggesting that the beam
exhibited elastic behavior throughout testing. The percentage errors showed a fairly high
agreement with theoretical predictions, ranging from 2.22% to 6.73%. The measured response
may have been influenced by small experimental conditions, as the actual values were
consistently slightly lower than the theoretical values. Possible reasons include problems related
to monitoring minor deflections, friction at the supports, and small errors in load placement. The
theoretical load-deflection relationship for simply supported beams is strongly validated by the
general trend in spite of these factors. The findings show that, when geometry and material
characteristics stay constant, increasing the applied load's magnitude leads in a proportionate rise
in beam displacement. In structural analysis and design, this behavior is essential. The results
further emphasize how crucial it is to anticipate beam deflection precisely since excessive
deformation might compromise structural functionality even when stresses are within safe
bounds.

61
 6.2.5 Deflection VS Length For Aluminium (Fixed Load)
With a constant load of 200 g, the last study looked at how beam length affected deflection. The
results demonstrated that as the beam length increased from 200 mm to 500 mm, deflection
increased significantly. Plotting the data against Length³ revealed a nearly linear relationship,
supporting the theoretical idea that beam deflection is proportionate to the cube of span length.
At 200 mm length, deflection was only 0.17 mm; at 500 mm length, it was 2.39 mm. This
significant rise shows how beam stiffness rapidly reduces with increasing span length. The graph
shows that span length has a greater impact on deflection than load alone and offers convincing
evidence in favour of theoretical beam equations. The data points' close alignment suggests
reliable measurement techniques and consistent experimental execution. Experimental
constraints like support conditions and reading accuracy may be the cause of slight departures
from perfect linearity. However, theoretical expectations are well supported by the general
pattern. Because long-span beams need to be carefully designed to avoid excessive deflection,
these discoveries are very significant in structural engineering. The findings highlight the need for
engineers to take geometric dimensions and loading circumstances into account when creating
structures that meet strength and serviceability standards.

62
6.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee
(BK24110019) Experiment A: Deflection of
Cantilever

Figure 6.3.1 : Experiment A (Cantilever) Aluminium Deflection vs Applied Mass

The graph shows the relationship between applied mass and cantilever beam deflection
for aluminium. Both the actual and theoretical deflection values increased as the applied
mass increased from 0 g to 500 g. The actual deflection increased from 0 mm to 4.45
mm, while the theoretical deflection increased from 0 mm to 4.46 mm. At 200 g, both
actual and theoretical deflections were equal at 1.78 mm. The maximum recorded actual
deflection was 4.45 mm at 500 g.

63
 Figure 6.3.2 : Experiment A (Cantilever) Steel Deflection vs Mass

The graph presents the actual and theoretical deflection values for the steel cantilever
beam under different applied masses. The actual deflection increased from 0 mm at 0 g
to 1.69 mm at 500 g, while the theoretical deflection increased from 0 mm to 1.49 mm
over the same loading range. The measured values remained higher than the theoretical
values for all loading conditions except at 0 g. The maximum actual deflection recorded
was 1.69 mm at 500 g.

64
 Figure 6.3.3 : Experiment A (Cantilever) Brass Deflection vs Applied Mass

The graph illustrates the comparison between actual and theoretical deflection values for
the brass cantilever beam. Both sets of values increased progressively with increasing
mass. The actual deflection increased from 0 mm to 2.93 mm, while the theoretical
deflection increased from 0 mm to 2.93 mm. At 400 g and 500 g, the actual and
theoretical values were identical at 2.34 mm and 2.93 mm respectively. The maximum
deflection recorded was 2.93 mm at 500 g.

65
 Experiment B(i):Deflection Of Simply Supported Beam (Fixed Length)

Figure 6.3.4 : Experiment B(i) (Simply Supported) Aluminium Deflection vs Mass

The graph shows that both the actual and theoretical deflections increased as the applied
mass increased from 0 g to 500 g. The theoretical deflection increased from 0 mm at 0 g
to 2.23 mm at 500 g, while the actual deflection increased from 0 mm to 2.08 mm over
the same range.

At 100 g, the actual and theoretical deflections were 0.44 mm and 0.45 mm, respectively.
At 200 g, the values increased to 0.86 mm and 0.89 mm. At 300 g, the deflections were
1.27 mm and 1.34 mm, respectively. At 400 g, the actual deflection reached 1.67 mm,
compared to the theoretical value of 1.78 mm. Finally, at 500 g, the actual and theoretical
deflections were 2.08 mm and 2.23 mm, respectively.

The actual deflection values were consistently slightly lower than the theoretical values
throughout the experiment. The percentage error increased gradually from 2.22% at 100
g to 6.73% at 500 g.

Experiment B(ii):Deflection Of Simply Supported Beam (Fixed Mass)

66
 Figure 6.3.5 : Deflection vs Length³ for Aluminium (Fixed Load)

The graph shows that the deflection increased as the value of Length³ increased while the
load was kept constant at 200 g.

When the beam length was 200 mm (Length³ = 0.012 m³), the measured deflection was
0.17 mm. At 300 mm (Length³ = 0.039 m³), the deflection increased to 0.55 mm. For a
beam length of 400 mm (Length³ = 0.086 m³), the deflection was 1.20 mm. The highest
deflection of 2.39 mm was recorded at 500 mm (Length³ = 0.171 m³).

The results indicate a clear increase in deflection with increasing Length³, with deflection
rising from 0 mm to 2.39 mm across the measured range. This trend is consistent
throughout all recorded data points.

67
 6.4 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111)

Experiment A: Deflection of a Cantilever Beam (Fixed Length)

Figure 6.4.1: Experiment A (Cantilever) Aluminium Deflection vs Applied Mass

In the aluminium cantilever beam experiment, the deflection increased progressively with each
additional 100 g load. The deflection started at 0 mm when no load was applied and reached
4.46 mm at the maximum applied load. The graph shows a directly proportional relationship
between the applied mass and the beam deflection, which is consistent with the expected
behaviour of a cantilever beam under static point loading.
The experimental results showed excellent agreement with the theoretical values, with
percentage errors ranging from 0% to a maximum of 3.37%. This small variation indicates that
the measurements were precise and that the aluminium beam responded elastically throughout
the loading range. The minor differences between the experimental and theoretical values are
acceptable in laboratory work and may be caused by slight parallax error during gauge reading,
minor calibration inaccuracies, or small shifts in the position of the hanging weights along the
beam.
In conclusion, the close agreement between the experimental and theoretical results
confirms that the aluminium cantilever beam behaved in a linear and elastic manner under the
applied static point load.

68
 Figure 6.4.2: Experiment A (Cantilever) Steel Deflection vs Mass

The deflection of the steel cantilever beam increased linearly as the applied mass increased, from
0 mm at 0 g to 1.49 mm at 500 g. This trend shows a strong linear relationship between load
and deflection, which is influenced by the high stiffness and Young’s modulus of steel. Since steel
has a higher modulus of elasticity, it is expected to produce smaller deflections compared to less
stiff materials under the same loading conditions.
The experimental results were generally close to the theoretical values, with percentage
errors ranging from 6.67% to a maximum of 13.45% at higher loads. The larger variation at
higher loading intervals may be due to the experimental deflection increasing slightly more than
the theoretical prediction. This could occur because of minor rotation, slight slippage, or small
movement at the fixed clamp support when the bending moment becomes larger. Such support
flexibility can cause additional displacement that is not considered in the theoretical calculation.
Overall, despite the small differences between the experimental and theoretical results, the
steel cantilever beam showed a consistent and predictable response. The results confirm that
steel behaves as a stiff material with relatively low deflection under static point loading.

69
 Figure 6.4.3: Experiment A (Cantilever) Brass Deflection vs Applied Mass

In the brass cantilever beam experiment, the beam showed a consistent and progressive increase
in deflection as the applied load increased. The deflection began at 0 mm when no load was
applied and reached 2.93 mm at a load of 500 g. This indicates that the brass beam responded
predictably under static point loading.
The experimental deflection values were very close to the theoretical values, with the
largest variation occurring only at the lowest load. At higher loads, particularly at 400 g and 500
g, the percentage error was 0%, showing excellent agreement between the experimental and
theoretical results. Overall, the calculated percentage errors were small, ranging from 0% to
6.78%.
These results confirm that the brass cantilever beam follows the expected cantilever beam
theory, where deflection is directly proportional to the applied load. The minor differences
between the experimental and theoretical values are acceptable in laboratory work and may be
caused by slight measurement errors, reading inaccuracies, or small variations in the actual
material properties of the brass beam.

70
Experiment B(ii): Deflection of Simply Supported Beam (Fixed Mass)

Figure 6.4.4: Experiment B(i) (Simply Supported) Aluminium Deflection vs Mass

For the simply supported aluminium beam with a fixed span length of 400 mm, the measured
deflection increased steadily from 0.00 mm to 2.23 mm as the applied load increased up to 500
g. This trend is consistent with the expected behaviour of a simply supported beam, where
deflection increases proportionally with the applied load.
Throughout the experiment, the experimental deflection values were slightly lower than
the theoretical values. The percentage error ranged from a minimum of 2.22% to a maximum of
6.73% at the highest load. This gradual increase in error may be due to minor experimental
limitations, such as friction at the supports, slight misalignment, or small inaccuracies in the
positioning of the beam on the knife-edge supports. Under lower loads, the beam closely
followed the ideal theoretical behaviour.
Overall, the strong correlation between the experimental and theoretical results confirms the
expected load-deflection relationship for a simply supported aluminium beam. The results show
that the beam behaved in a consistent and predictable manner under increasing static loads.

71
Experiment B(ii): Deflection of Simply Supported Beam (Fixed Mass)

Figure 6.4.5: Deflection vs Length³ for Aluminium (Fixed Load)

The deflection profile of the aluminium beam under a constant load of 200 g was graphically
presented to show its relationship with the cube of the beam length, (L^3). The results indicate a
clear linear trend when deflection is plotted against (L^3). This means that the expected cubic
relationship between beam length and deflection is transformed into a straight-line graph.
This linear pattern confirms that the deflection of the beam is directly proportional to the cube of
its span length, which supports the theoretical principles of beam mechanics. The experimental
data points closely follow the linear trend with only negligible deviation throughout the tested
range. This shows that the experiment was carried out with good accuracy and that the
aluminium beam maintained a consistent elastic response as the span length was varied.

72
7.1 DISCUSSIONS
7.2 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001)

Experiment A

The results of the cantilever beam experiment demonstrated the ability to accurately
predict the bending behaviour of metal materials under a static load with engineering
equations. From the results, it can be seen that if the material is elastic, the amount of
deflection in the beam will increase in direct proportion to the load applied. The
variation in deflection of the materials also indicates that the stiffness of a material, as
measured by Young's Modulus (E), is the primary factor in determining how stiff a
material can be.

All three materials had a linear relationship between load and deflection as stated in the
𝑃𝐿3
cantilever beam equation: 𝛿 = 3𝐸𝐼. From this equation, it is seen that deflection increases
with the load and decreases with the stiffness of the material. The order of stiffness for
steel, brass and aluminum also corresponds to the known values of the Young's Modulus
from the engineering literature (Hibbeler, 2018). Steel, with its high modulus of
207 GPa, exhibited the least deflection (1.69 mm), while aluminum, with a modulus of
69 GPa, showed the most deflection (4.45 mm), under maximum load of 500g. These
results align with research that report that materials with higher stiffness deform less
(Green, 2006).

The key source of error was most likely due to mechanical discrepancies in the setup
rather than operator error. First, the variance is heavily driven by support flexibility at
the clamp; because steel is highly stiff so hanging heavier loads creates a massive
bending moment right at the support, causing the physical clamping jaws to undergo
microscopic rotation. This tiny tilt at the root propagates down the beam, making the
free end drop lower than the perfectly rigid support model. Finally, because steel is so
rigid, its total deflection is incredibly small, maxing out at just 1.69 mm; when the base
measurement is this small, any standard physical variance, such as minor internal spring
resistance from the dial gauge plunger will represent a large fraction of the total
reading, mathematically inflating the percentage error without indicating poor
experimental execution (Beléndez Vázquez et al., 2003).

Overall, the outcomes were in line with theory predictions. The clear ranking of
materials by stiffness is useful when determining what materials to use for certain
usages such as aircraft wings and beam materials where it is essential to minimize
deformation.

73
Experiment B(i)

In this experiment, the aluminum beam was simply supported and centrally loaded. The
measured deflections of aluminium were 0.45mm and 2.23mm at 100g and 500g,
respectively. This matched closely with the theoretical formula of mid-span deflection for a
𝑃𝐿3
simply supported beam, 𝛿 = 48𝐸𝐼 since it showed percentage errors in the range of 2% to
7%. These results are consistent with established studies that states metallic alloys like
aluminum display a highly predictable, linear elastic relationship between applied load and
vertical displacement when structural stresses remain well below their yield strength (Gere &
Goodno, 2017). The clear linear trend observed in this single-material test confirms that the
beam obeys Hooke's Law throughout the loading sequence.

The slight variation in percentage error, which increased as the load increased to 500g,
represents an expected outcome due to the idealized assumptions of the theoretical model.
While the mathematical formula assumes perfectly frictionless, unconstrained pin-and-roller
supports, the physical laboratory apparatus introduces unavoidable boundary friction at the
knife-edges. As the aluminum beam sags under heavier loads, this friction restricts the beam
ends from sliding inward smoothly, creating a minor, unintended axial tensile force
(membrane action) that artificially stiffens the member and causes actual readings to deviate
slightly from ideal theory.

Ultimately, evaluating aluminum alone under these conditions is highly significant for civil
engineering; it validates that standard structural analysis formulas are dependable tools for
satisfying Serviceability Limit States (SLS). This ensures that real-world elements like floor
joists or simple beams are properly sized to prevent excessive deflection and structural
sagging under operational live loads (Designing Buildings, 2022).

Experiment B(ii)

For this phase of the experiment, the aluminum beam was tested under a fixed load of 200 g
across varying span lengths to isolate how geometry affects structural sag. The findings
mean that a beam's deflection is incredibly sensitive to its span length because the length
parameter is cubed in the structural mechanics equations, minor increases in the distance
between supports cause a massive, non-linear jump in sagging.

The results were very close to the theoretical principle of mid-span deflection being directly
proportional to the cube of its span length. The raw data when plotted as a function of
length showed a cubic curve that swept upward with length. However, when the data was
plotted as a function of Length3, the curve became a straight diagonal with a very high
degree of accuracy, which confirmed classical flexural mechanics principles (Gere & Goodno,
2017).

The major mathematical assumption in this approach is that the point load will always stay at
its center and the length of the span will be measured with perfect uniformity between each
of the support points at every step. With the actual equipment, manual adjustments in the
physical supports between steps can be easily made to cause alignment errors of minor
proportions.

The slight deviations on the graph around the trendline are due to these minor alignment
errors. In the adjustment of the dial gauge plunger and/or of the hung load, the plunger or
the load itself is always displaced off the true mid span by few millimeters, resulting in a
horizontal displacement of the plunger or the load, which means that the vertical distance

74
measured will always be slightly less than the theoretical value of the mid span, thus
producing some data deviations.

The close clustering of the data points around the linearized graph of the Length3 axis was
well expected and verified that the physical characteristics of the aluminum span are very
similar to the mathematical parameters used in structural engineering.

This cubic relationship underlines a huge implication in the civil engineering field of structural
layout designing. The most mathematically efficient design of a bridge or floor system for
minimizing structural deflection is to minimize unsupported spans or install intermediate
columns. The effect of shortening the span is much more effective in controlling sag than
increasing the thickness of the structural members or using more expensive and stiffer
materials (Hibbeler, 2018).

75
 7.3 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021)
Experiment A:

The cantilever beam experiment's outcomes closely matched theoretical expectations,

proving the validity of classical beam theory. Because higher loads produced larger bending
moments at the fixed end, the deflection increased as the load increased. The increase in
bending moment directly translated into greater elastic deformation because the beam
geometry was constant. The graph's linear trend verifies that the material followed Hooke's
Law and functioned within its elastic range. The generally well-controlled experimental
settings are indicated by the minimal percentage mistakes. However, a number of factors
could have contributed to small differences. It's possible that the fixed support wasn't
completely rigid, allowing for small rotations that raised the recorded deflections. Readings
may also be impacted by measurement uncertainty related to the dial gauge, especially at
lower loads. Actual behavior may have differed from optimum theoretical assumptions due to
material flaws and manufacturing-related residual stresses. The exercise further emphasizes
how crucial material stiffness is. Higher modulus of elasticity materials are better able to
withstand deformation than lower modulus materials. Because excessive deflection can
impact serviceability, aesthetics, and user comfort even in the absence of structural failure,
this idea is essential to structural design. Therefore, while choosing materials, engineers
must take stiffness and strength needs into account. All things considered, the experiment
effectively illustrated the connection between load, material characteristics, and cantilever
beam deflection while supporting theoretical ideas covered in structural mechanics.

Experiment B:
The experiment with the simply supported beam gave important information about how span
length and loading affect structural behavior. The elastic beam hypothesis was validated in
Part (i) by the linear increase in deflection with load. As the applied load rose, the beam's
deflection increased proportionately because it stayed inside the elastic region. The
comparatively small percentage mistakes imply that beam response was correctly predicted
by theoretical formulae. The substantial impact of beam length on structural stiffness was
demonstrated in Part (ii). Span length has a cubic connection with deflection, in contrast to
load, which has a linear effect. As a result, a slight increase in beam length resulted in a
significant increase in displacement. The graph clearly showed this behavior, with the curve
getting steeper at increasing spans. Because long-span buildings need to be carefully
designed to control excessive deflections, such discoveries are extremely useful in
engineering practice. Deviations from ideal behavior could be explained by a number of
experimental constraints. It's possible that support circumstances weren't entirely
straightforward, which led to more constraint. Errors can also be caused by small errors in
the equipment used for load application and measurement. Furthermore, genuine specimens
may have minor flaws, although theoretical calculations assume homogeneous materials and
perfectly straight beams. The experiment illustrates the need of serviceability standards in
structural design. Excessive deflection can compromise functioning and safety even when
stresses stay below permissible limits. As a result, while designing beams, engineers need to
consider both strength and deformation performance. The outcomes highlight the practical
significance of stiffness issues while offering compelling evidence in favor of theoretical
concepts.

76
7.4 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee

Experiment A

In this experiment, the primary objective was to determine the deflection of a cantilever
subjected to an increasing point load for different materials. The deflections of a
cantilever beam with a concentrated vertical force at the free end are a fundamental
problem in both the theory of elasticity and the elementary mechanics of materials
(Sales et al., 2025). The data gathered provides a direct comparison between the actual
deflection, which is the real-world measurement recorded by the digital dial test
indicator, and the theoretical deflection calculated using standard structural formulas.
The percentage error quantifies the deviation between our physical model and the
mathematical ideal. By observing how much the free end of a 200 mm beam bent
downwards as mass was incrementally added from 0 g to 500 g, we can effectively
evaluate the stiffness and structural behavior of both aluminium and steel.

The fundamental takeaway from the data is the inverse relationship between a
material's Young's Modulus ($E$) and its deflection under load. Aluminum alloys are
relatively light materials that generally possess a lower elastic modulus and higher
ductility compared to steel, meaning they deform more readily under the same applied
tension or bending moment (Merayo Fernández et al., 2020). When comparing the two
materials under the maximum 500 g mass, the aluminium beam, which possesses an E
value of 69 x 10^9 N /m^2, experienced an actual deflection of 4.45 mm. In contrast,
the steel beam, featuring a significantly higher E value of 207 x 10^9 N/m^2, deflected
by only 1.69 mm under the same 500 g load. Because steel is roughly three times stiffer
than aluminium, it effectively resisted the bending moment much better, resulting in
substantially less deflection.

While the aluminium beam closely followed theoretical predictions, exhibiting a highly
accurate maximum error of only 3.37% at 100 g, the steel beam's data reveals
noticeable discrepancies. The percentage error for steel climbed to 13.45% at the
heavier 400 g load and remained high at 13.42% for the 500 g load. More importantly,
the actual deflection for steel was consistently higher than the theoretical prediction,
such as recording 1.69 mm of actual deflection compared to the 1.49 mm theoretical
expectation. Several physical factors likely caused this deviation. Theoretical formulas
strictly assume the cantilever is perfectly fixed, dictating that there is absolutely zero
rotation or displacement at the supported cross-section (Xue & Su, 2018). However, the
rigid clamps that mount on the backboard and hold the beam may have yielded slightly
under heavier loads. Because steel is highly stiff, the applied load transfers more directly
to the clamp, and any microscopic slipping or rotation effectively adds length to the
beam, causing it to deflect more than the mathematics predict. Additionally, if the
equipment setup was slightly misleveled, the applied load would not act perfectly
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam, altering the sheer force and skewing
the readings. Furthermore, if the sliding bracket holding the digital dial test indicator
was not locked exactly at the 200 mm mark, the measured deflection would naturally
deviate from the theoretical calculations.

To yield more accurate data in future iterations of this lab, several procedural
refinements should be implemented. A precision spirit level should be used to ensure
the backboard, the beam, and the clamp are perfectly horizontal and vertical before
zeroing the dial indicator. Additionally, it is crucial to ensure the rigid clamps are
tightened to a uniform and sufficient torque to minimize the risk of micro-rotations at
the fixed end. Finally, operators must double-check that the load hanger, the 200 mm
77
mark on the backboard scales, and the tip of the digital dial test indicator are perfectly
collinear before applying the initial mass.

Ultimately, this laboratory exercise scales directly up to real-world civil engineering

applications, such as designing cantilevered balconies, overhangs, or canopy roofs. The
data proves that structures rarely behave exactly like the perfect mathematical models
drawn up in estimation software. The observation that our steel beam deflected roughly
13% more than anticipated highlights exactly why engineers must apply robust Factors
of Safety in their designs. In the field, supports are never perfectly rigid, materials
contain internal inconsistencies, and execution is rarely flawless. Understanding how to
predict, identify, and account for these real-world deflections ensures that constructed
environments remain safe, serviceable, and structurally sound under heavy, varying
loads.

Experiment B Part i and ii

In this experiment, the primary objective was to investigate the structural behavior of a
simply supported aluminium beam under two distinct testing conditions: a fixed beam
length with a variable applied load (Part i), and a fixed point load with a variable beam
length (Part ii). The actual deflection distance of a structural member under a specific
load can be calculated mathematically and compared against real-world mechanical
measurements taken via a digital test indicator. By thoroughly analyzing both sets of
data, we can verify the fundamental principles governing structural flexure and pinpoint
the physical limitations of our theoretical models.

In Part (i), the aluminium beam was set to a fixed span of 400 mm while subjected to
an incrementally increasing mass from 0 g to 500 g. The results demonstrate a distinct,
linear proportional relationship between the applied load and the resulting deflection.
The special case of elastic deflection at the midpoint of a beam, supported by two
simple supports and loaded precisely at its center, is governed by the formula delta =
WL3/48EI. Because the length, Young's Modulus, and Moment of Inertia remain entirely
constant throughout this phase, the deflection scales directly with the applied load. The
maximum actual deflection recorded was 2.08 mm under the 500 g load, yielding a
relatively low percentage error of 6.73% when compared directly to the theoretical
expectation of 2.23 mm.

Conversely, Part (ii) held the load constant at 200 g while increasing the beam's span
from 200 mm to 500 mm to evaluate the severe influence of length on structural
stiffness. The data reveals a highly non-linear relationship between length and
deflection, directly confirming the L3 variable present in the theoretical deflection
formulas utilized for beams with simple end supports (Amiouny et al., 1993). As the
span increased by a factor of 2.5 (from 200 mm to 500 mm), the actual deflection
increased drastically by a factor of over 14 (from 0.17 mm to 2.39 mm). This highlights
a critical structural concept that even modest increases in a beam's unsupported length
will result in exponentially larger mid-span deflections.

Despite the general accuracy and low percentage errors observed, slight discrepancies
are evident, particularly in Part (i) where the actual measured deflection was
consistently lower than the theoretical prediction (e.g., 1.67 mm actual vs. 1.78 mm
theoretical at 400 g). These deviations can be attributed to physical constraints within
the apparatus that are not accounted for in elementary theoretical equations. Standard
linear formulas assume that simply supported beams rest on perfectly frictionless pinned
and roller supports. However, actual structural deflections frequently deviate from pure
78
flexural elastic theory due to secondary mechanical interactions, such as shear effects
and physical constraint friction, which can artificially alter a beam's effective stiffness
(Kim & Kim, 2021). Furthermore, minute manufacturing tolerances in the aluminium
beam's thickness or width would dynamically alter its true second moment of area.
Interfacial physical restraint at the mechanical supports introduces additional variables
that must be considered when analyzing the total mechanical properties and resistance
of the structural element (Lei et al., 2022).

The principles verified in this laboratory exercise are foundational to actual civil and
structural engineering design, particularly concerning floor joists, bridge decking, and
simply supported roof purlins. Because deflection increases dramatically with the third
power of the span, engineers cannot safely design horizontal spans based solely on
material strength and sheer load capacity. Building codes dictate strict serviceability limit
states, frequently restricting the maximum allowable deflection to a predetermined
fraction of the total span to ensure continued structural integrity. Grasping these
geometric and load-based relationships ensures that engineers specify adequately
robust cross-sections, effectively preventing bouncy floors, cracked plaster ceilings, and
compromised overall serviceability.

79
 7.5 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111)

Experiment A
The results of the cantilever beam experiment showed that engineering equations can be
used to predict the bending behaviour of metallic materials under static loading with
reasonable accuracy. Based on the experimental data, the deflection of the beam increased
proportionally as the applied load increased, as long as the material remained within the
elastic region. The differences in deflection among the materials also show that material
stiffness, represented by Young’s Modulus, 𝑬, plays an important role in determining the
resistance of a material to bending.
All three materials showed a linear relationship between load and deflection, which agrees
with the cantilever beam deflection equation:
𝑷𝑳𝟑
𝜹=
𝟑𝑬𝑰

From this equation, deflection increases as the applied load, 𝑷, increases, but decreases
when the material has a higher modulus of elasticity, 𝑬. The stiffness ranking of steel, brass,
and aluminium also agrees with the known Young’s Modulus values found in engineering
literature (Hibbeler, 2018). Steel, which has a high modulus of approximately 207 GPa,
produced the lowest deflection of 1.69 mm. In contrast, aluminium, with a lower modulus of
approximately 69 GPa, showed the highest deflection of 4.45 mm under the maximum load
of 500 g. This supports the general principle that materials with higher stiffness experience
less deformation under the same loading condition (Green, 2006).
The main source of error was likely caused by mechanical limitations in the experimental
setup rather than major operator error. One possible factor is the flexibility of the clamped
support. Since steel is a very stiff material, the application of heavier loads creates a larger
bending moment near the fixed support. This may cause a very small rotation or movement
at the clamping jaws. Although this movement is minor, it can affect the free-end deflection
of the beam and cause the measured value to be slightly higher than the theoretical value,
which assumes a perfectly fixed support.
Another possible source of error is related to the small deflection values recorded for steel.
Since the maximum deflection of steel was only 1.69 mm, even a small experimental
variation, such as slight resistance from the dial gauge plunger or minor reading fluctuations,
could represent a relatively large percentage of the total deflection. This can increase the
percentage error mathematically without necessarily indicating poor experimental
performance (Beléndez Vázquez et al., 2003).
Overall, the experimental results were generally consistent with theoretical predictions. The
clear difference in deflection between steel, brass, and aluminium confirms the influence of
material stiffness on beam behaviour. These findings are important in engineering design
because material selection must consider stiffness and deformation limits, especially in
applications such as structural beams, machine components, and aircraft structures where
excessive deflection must be minimized.

Experiment B(i)
In this experiment, an aluminium beam was tested under a simply supported condition with
a central point load applied at mid-span. The recorded deflection values were 0.45 mm at
100 g and 2.23 mm at 500 g. These experimental results showed good agreement with the
theoretical mid-span deflection formula for a simply supported beam:
𝑃𝐿3
𝛿=
48𝐸𝐼
80
The percentage errors obtained were relatively small, ranging from approximately 2% to 7%.
This indicates that the experimental values were close to the theoretical predictions. The
results also support the expected behaviour of aluminium as a metallic material, where the
relationship between applied load and deflection remains linear as long as the beam is
loaded within its elastic limit. This means that the aluminium beam followed Hooke’s Law
throughout the experiment, as the deflection increased proportionally with the applied load.
The small increase in percentage error at higher loads can be explained by the difference
between the ideal theoretical assumptions and the actual laboratory setup. In theory, the
supports are assumed to be perfectly frictionless and allow free movement of the beam
ends. However, in the real experiment, slight friction may occur at the knife-edge supports.
As the beam bends under heavier loads, this friction can slightly restrict the natural
movement of the beam ends. This may create a small additional resistance, causing the
actual deflection readings to differ slightly from the theoretical values.
Overall, the experiment confirms that the aluminium beam behaved in a predictable and
elastic manner under central loading. The close agreement between the experimental and
theoretical results shows that standard beam deflection equations are reliable for estimating
the behaviour of simply supported beams. This is important in civil engineering design
because controlling deflection is necessary to satisfy serviceability requirements. In practical
structures such as floor beams, joists, and other load-bearing members, excessive deflection
must be prevented to ensure safety, comfort, and long-term structural performance.

Experiment B(ii)
In this phase of the experiment, the aluminium beam was tested under a constant load of
200 g while the span length was varied. This was done to study how the geometry of the
beam, particularly its length, affects vertical deflection. The results show that beam
deflection is highly sensitive to span length because length is raised to the power of three in
the beam deflection equation. Therefore, even a small increase in the distance between
supports can cause a large increase in deflection.
The experimental results were closely aligned with the theoretical principle that the mid-span
deflection of a simply supported beam is directly proportional to the cube of its span length.
When the raw data was plotted against the beam length, the graph formed a cubic curve
that increased rapidly as the span became longer. However, when the deflection was plotted
against 𝐿3 , the graph produced a straight-line relationship. This confirms the classical theory
of flexural behaviour in beams, where deflection increases according to the cubic effect of
span length (Gere & Goodno, 2017).
The main assumption in this analysis is that the point load remains exactly at the centre of
the beam for every span length tested. It is also assumed that the distance between the
supports is measured accurately and consistently throughout the experiment. However, in
the actual laboratory setup, the supports had to be adjusted manually for each span length.
This may have introduced small alignment errors, especially if the load or dial gauge was not
positioned exactly at the true mid-span.
The slight deviations observed around the trendline may be due to these minor experimental
limitations. For example, if the dial gauge plunger or the hanging load was displaced by a
few millimetres from the centre, the measured deflection would not fully represent the exact
theoretical mid-span deflection. As a result, small differences between the experimental and
theoretical values may occur. These deviations are acceptable because they are mainly
caused by the practical limitations of the apparatus rather than major errors in the
experiment.
Overall, the close grouping of the data points on the linearized 𝐿3 graph confirms that the
aluminium beam behaved consistently with the assumptions used in structural mechanics.
The experiment successfully demonstrates that span length has a major influence on beam
deflection and that the relationship between deflection and 𝐿3 is valid for a simply supported
81
aluminium beam under a central point load.
This cubic relationship has an important application in civil engineering design. In structures
such as bridges, floor systems, and beams, reducing the unsupported span is one of the
most effective ways to control deflection. Adding intermediate supports or columns can
significantly reduce sagging because shortening the span has a strong effect on deflection.
In many cases, this approach can be more efficient than simply increasing the size of the
beam or selecting a more expensive material with higher stiffness (Hibbeler, 2018).

82
8.1 CONCLUSIONS
8.2 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001)
The elastic flexural properties of metal beams were investigated in this laboratory
experiment by measuring the deflection at the tip of a cantilever beam made of steel,
brass, and aluminum with incremental loads placed at the end of the beam and a simply
supported aluminum beam loaded with different forces and beam lengths. The
experimental results were able to successfully validate classical beam mechanics, with a
clear linear relationship between the applied mass and vertical deflection with both
experimental setups, thus demonstrating that the materials were still within their elastic
range. Steel had the highest Young's Modulus and the most for cantilever bending under
a maximum load of 500g was for aluminum, at 4.46 mm.
The raw deflection data for this configuration with a fixed load of 200g showed an
upward-curving cubic trend as the span increased, but when the deflection data were
plotted against Length3 it was a nice straight line and a good fit to a straight line,
establishing that deflection is directly proportional to the cube of the beam's length. The
bottom line of these results is that the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam equations and
Hooke's law are very useful tools for design of real-life civil engineering infrastructure.
The results highlight that deflection is proportional to the cube of the unsupported span
to be controlled by structural designers; reduce material costs and meet Serviceability
Limit States (SLS) by reducing the unsupported spans or by introducing intermediate
columns. To follow up on this work, future tests could be expanded to investigate
different non-rectangular shapes such as hollow tubes, I-beams or T-sections to see
how flexibility varies with cross sectional shape, and add dynamic and cyclic loading
conditions to see how deflection patterns change as the load [Link] order to keep
the laboratory environment safe for future testing, certain safety measures need to be
strictly adhered to. Heavy slotted weights may fall from hangers, so all students will
need to wear mandatory personal protective equipment, such as steel-toed safety boots
and protective eyewear.
In addition, weights should always be dropped onto the hangers slowly and gently and
should never be dropped onto a beam specimen causing a dynamic shock load sufficient
to bend the beam permanently or crush the delicate plungers on the dial gauge.

83
 8.3 Nur Fathin Syaqilla binti Sumarddino (BK24110021)

The behavior of cantilever and simply supported beams under external loading was
effectively investigated in this lab study. Evaluating beam deflection characteristics and
comparing experimental observations with theoretical predictions based on structural
mechanics principles was the main goal. The experiment's goals were effectively met,
according to the findings. The cantilever beam in Experiment A showed a definite
proportionality between applied load and deflection. With comparatively minor percentage
errors, the experimental values closely matched theoretical calculations. This shows that the
specimen stayed within the elastic range during testing and validates the beam deflection
formulas. Additionally, the experiment confirmed the importance of flexible rigidity and
material stiffness in regulating structural deformation. Both span length and loading had a
major impact on beam behavior in Experiment B. Due to the cubic relationship between span
length and deflection, the variable-length experiment indicated a significantly more
noticeable rise in deflection as load rose, whereas the fixed-length investigation showed a
nearly linear increase. These findings demonstrate the crucial impact that beam geometry
plays in structural performance and are in line with theoretical predictions. The overall
consistency between the theoretical and actual data showed that classical beam theory offers
accurate predictions for real-world engineering applications. Unavoidable experimental
factors including measurement uncertainty, support circumstances, material flaws, and minor
mistakes in load placement might be faulted for the typically small variations between
observed and estimated values. The results highlight how crucial it is for structural engineers
to comprehend beam behavior. In addition to structural safety, deflection control is crucial
for long-term durability, serviceability, and occupant comfort. To guarantee satisfactory
performance, adequate material selection, precise section property assessment, and
adherence to design requirements are required. The experiment improved knowledge of how
loads, material qualities, and geometric features affect structural reaction and offered real-
world validation of theoretical ideas. Overall, the study showed how useful beam theory is
and emphasized how crucial it is for the analysis and design of dependable, safe, and
efficient engineering structures.

84
 8.4 Nahidzrul Ghadafi bin Azmee (BK24110019)

This experiment successfully determined the deflection of cantilever beams subjected to an

increasing point load across different materials, alongside investigating the structural behavior of
a simply supported aluminium beam under variable loads and lengths. For the cantilever beams,
the data demonstrated that deflection increased linearly with the applied mass. Under the
maximum 500 g load, the aluminium cantilever beam deflected by 4.45 mm, whereas the stiffer
steel beam deflected by only 1.69 mm.

Testing the simply supported aluminium beam at a fixed length yielded a maximum actual
deflection of 2.08 mm under a 500 g load. Furthermore, when applying a fixed 200 g load across
varying beam lengths, the results confirmed a highly non-linear relationship. Increasing the span
from 200 mm to 500 mm caused the deflection to drastically increase from 0.17 mm to 2.39 mm.

Ultimately, the experimental results successfully verified the fundamental principles of structural
flexure. The data clearly confirmed the inverse relationship between a material's Young's Modulus
and its deflection, as well as the exponential impact of beam length on overall structural stiffness.
While minor deviations from theoretical formulas occurred due to real-world physical constraints
and friction at the mechanical supports, the overall findings effectively met the theoretical
expectations and project targets.

85
 8.5 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111)

This laboratory experiment investigated the elastic flexural behaviour of metal beams by
measuring their deflection under different loading conditions. The first part of the experiment
involved cantilever beams made of steel, brass, and aluminium, where incremental loads were
applied at the free end of each beam. The second part involved a simply supported aluminium
beam tested under different applied loads and varying span lengths. Overall, the experimental
results successfully supported the principles of classical beam mechanics, as both experimental
setups showed a clear relationship between applied load and vertical deflection. This indicates
that the materials remained within their elastic range throughout the experiment.
For the cantilever beam test, the results showed that material stiffness had a significant effect on
deflection. Steel, which has the highest Young’s Modulus among the three materials, produced
the smallest deflection, while aluminium showed the largest deflection under the same loading
condition. At the maximum load of 500 g, the aluminium beam recorded the highest cantilever
deflection, reaching approximately 4.46 mm. This confirms that materials with lower stiffness
experience greater bending when subjected to the same load.
For the simply supported aluminium beam tested under a constant load of 200 g, the raw
deflection data showed an upward-curving trend as the span length increased. This pattern
agrees with the theoretical expectation that beam deflection increases rapidly with span length.
When the deflection values were plotted against 𝐿3 , the graph produced an almost straight-line
relationship. This confirms that the deflection of a simply supported beam is directly proportional
to the cube of its unsupported span length.
The findings from this experiment show that Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and Hooke’s Law are
useful and reliable tools in structural and civil engineering design. The results also highlight the
importance of controlling unsupported span length, as deflection is highly sensitive to changes in
span. In practical structural design, reducing unsupported spans or adding intermediate supports
such as columns can help limit excessive deflection, reduce material usage, lower construction
costs, and satisfy Serviceability Limit State requirements.
For future work, the experiment could be expanded by testing beams with different cross-
sectional shapes, such as hollow sections, I-beams, or T-sections. This would help determine how
the shape and second moment of area affect beam flexibility. In addition, dynamic and cyclic
loading tests could be carried out to study how beams respond to repeated or moving loads,
which are more representative of real structural conditions.
To ensure safety during future laboratory testing, proper safety procedures must be followed.
Since heavy slotted weights can fall from the hangers, students should wear suitable personal
protective equipment, including safety footwear and protective eyewear. The weights should also
be placed on the hangers slowly and carefully. They should not be dropped onto the beam, as
sudden impact loading may cause permanent deformation of the specimen or damage sensitive
equipment such as the dial gauge plunger.

86
 9.0 REFERENCES

N TITLE
O
.

2. Introduction
0 • Amiouny, S. V., Bartholdi III, J. J., & Vande Vate, J. H. (1993). Minimizing
deflection and bending moment in a beam with end supports. Mechanics of
Structures and Machines, 21(2), 167–184.
[Link]
• Hibbeler, R. C. (2017). (Note: This citation was included in your original draft
text; you will need to add the full publication details (e.g., book title, publisher) to
your final reference list).
• Kim, S.-W., & Kim, K.-H. (2021). Prediction of deflection of reinforced concrete
beams considering shear effect. Materials, 14(21), 6684.
[Link]
• Lei, Q., Wang, P., & Nan, H. (2022). Study on mechanical properties of simply-
supported composite beams considering creep and slip. Applied Sciences, 13(1),
193. [Link]
• Sales, C. D. S., Grandinetti, F. J., Castro, T. S., & Soares, Á. M. d. S.
(2025). Materials Young's modulus identification using genetic algorithms.
Preprints. [Link]
• Xue, Y., & Su, Z. (2018). Application of method of equivalent replacement beam
for displacement computation of statically indeterminate structures. Proceedings of
the 2018 8th International Conference on Manufacturing Science and Engineering
(ICMSE 2018). [Link]

7. Discussions
0

7.1 Ayra Arlyntia Azlan (BK24110001)

• Beléndez Vázquez, T., Beléndez, A., & Neipp, C. (2003). Numerical and
Experimental Analysis of a Cantilever Beam: A Laboratory Project to Introduce
Geometric Nonlinearity in Mechanics of Materials. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 19(6), 885–892.
[Link]
_Analysis_of_a_Cantilever_Beam_A_Laboratory_Project_to_Introduce_Geometric_
Nonlinearity_in_Mechanics_of_Materials

• Designing Buildings. (2022). Limit state design - Designing Buildings Wiki.

[Link]

• Gere, J. M., & Goodno, B. J. (2017). Mechanics of Materials (9th ed.). Cengage
Learning.

• Green, S. M. (2006). (ii) Deformation of materials. Current Orthopaedics, 20(1), 9–

15. [Link]

• Hibbeler, R. C. (2018). Mechanics of Materials (10th ed.). Pearson Education

87
7.2 Nur Fathin Syaqilla Binti Sumarddino (BK24110021)

• Lab 3: Beam. (2024). Studocu. [Link]

sultan-salahuddin-abdul-aziz-shah/civil-engineering/lab-3-beam/78773411

• ECS268 Lab 3: Deflection of simply supported and cantilever beams. (2024).

Studocu. [Link]
mara/structural-and-material-laboratory/ecs268-lab-3-deflection-of-simply-
supported-and-cantilever-beams/115374176

• Nimje, Y. (2015, May 14). Deflection of simply supported beam and cantilever
[PowerPoint slides]. SlideShare. [Link]
of-simply-supported-beam-and-cantilever/47682761

• The Engineering ToolBox. (2009). Cantilever beam calculations: Formulas, loads &
deflections. [Link]

7.3 Nahidzrul Ghadafi Bin Azmee (BK24110019)

• Amiouny, S. V., Bartholdi III, J. J., & Vande Vate, J. H. (1993). Minimizing
deflection and bending moment in a beam with end supports. Mechanics of
Structures and Machines, 21(2), 167–184.
[Link]
• Kim, S.-W., & Kim, K.-H. (2021). Prediction of deflection of reinforced concrete
beams considering shear effect. Materials, 14(21), 6684.
[Link]
• Lei, Q., Wang, P., & Nan, H. (2022). Study on mechanical properties of simply-
supported composite beams considering creep and slip. Applied Sciences, 13(1),
193. [Link]
• Merayo Fernández, D., Rodríguez-Prieto, A., & Camacho, A. M. (2020). Prediction
of the bilinear stress-strain curve of aluminum alloys using artificial intelligence and
big data. Metals, 10(7), 904. [Link]
• Sales, C. D. S., Grandinetti, F. J., Castro, T. S., & Soares, Á. M. d. S. (2025).
Materials Young's modulus identification using genetic algorithms.
[Link]
• Xue, Y., & Su, Z. (2018). Application of method of equivalent replacement beam for
displacement computation of statically indeterminate structures. Proceedings of the
2018 8th International Conference on Manufacturing Science and Engineering
(ICMSE 2018). [Link]

7.4 Elmer Judd Julipah (BK24110111)

• ASTM International. (2022). ASTM E8/E8M-22: Standard test methods for tension
testing of metallic materials. ASTM International.

• Beer, F. P., Johnston, E. R., DeWolf, J. T., & Mazurek, D. F. (2020). Mechanics of
materials (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.

• Beléndez, T., Neipp, C., & Beléndez, A. (2003). Numerical and experimental
analysis of a cantilever beam: A laboratory project to introduce geometric
nonlinearity in mechanics of materials. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 19(6), 885–892.

88
• Designing Buildings Wiki. (2022, December 28). Limit state design. Designing
Buildings Wiki.

• Engineering ToolBox. (n.d.). Young’s modulus of elasticity: Values for common

materials. Engineering ToolBox.

• Gere, J. M., & Goodno, B. J. (2017). Mechanics of materials (9th ed.). Cengage
Learning.

• Hibbeler, R. C. (2018). Mechanics of materials in SI units (10th ed.). Pearson.

• Young, W. C., Budynas, R. G., & Sadegh, A. M. (2011). Roark’s formulas for
stress and strain (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.

89
10.0 Teamwork

Figure 10.7: Team Discussion About S1 and S4 Calculations

90
11.0 APPENDICES

No Equipment Name Description Model

1. Deflection of Beams and Integrated TecQuipment

Cantilevers Frame backboard with TD1007 or similar
metric scale and
support

2. Digital Dial Test Indicator 0.01 mm Mitutoyo 2109S-10

resolution, sliding (example in lab
bracket mount manual)

3. Knife-Edge Load Hanger Holds calibrated N/A

weights at specific
beam points

4. Knife-Edge Supports Movable, for N/A

simple support
configuration

5. Aluminium Beam 200 mm length, Provided

width 18.90 mm,
depth 3.00 mm

6. Steel Beam 200 mm length, Provided

width 18.90 mm,
depth 3.00 mm

7. Brass Beam 200 mm length, Provided

width 18.90 mm,
depth 3.00 mm

8. Vernier Caliper Precision Mitutoyo 500

measurement tool series
for width and
depth

9. Calibrated Masses 100 g, 200 g, 300 Laboratory class

g, 400 g, 500 g weights

10. Clamps and Thumbnuts To secure beams N/A

and dial indicator

91