Report on the work

Practices of material resistance

Done on 11/03/2021

Measurement of Materials Resistance

Flexion

School year: 2022/2023

Produced by:
Framed by:

Fatima Zahra OGRI

Mrs. ITIMAD
Fatima Ezzahra Azirar
Nouhayla Chakboub
Hicham Khechab
 SUMMARY:

Introduction
Description of the equipment …………………………..….;
The operating procedure ...
I. Part 1:……………………………………………....;
2. Objective of the experiment……………………….…;
3. Experimental protocol.................;
4. Conclusion……………………………………………….;
II. Part 2 :………………….…………………….……..;
2. Objectif de l’expérience ……………………...….;
3. Experimental protocol.................;
4. Conclusion
III. Part 3 :…………………….……………………….. ;
2. Objective of the experiment ………………………….
3. Experimental protocol
4. Conclusion.......................................;

Conclusion
Annexes

[1]
 Introduction:

Din the context of the practical work of the

RDM, we are tasked with understanding in
experience the term of the bending that presents
the deformation of a material under action
of a charge.
Pmainly, this lab aims to learn
how to estimate the deformation in order to calculate the
module of elasticity of a constituting material
a beam, through the simple bending test
and analyze its variation compared to the
different sizes:

The nature of materials;

Types of supports;
The geometry of the beam;

[2]
 Description of the material:

The device for conducting a bending test on a given beam is

consisted of:

Sliding rail allowing to vary the length of the tested beam (1).
A graduated ruler printed at the top of the panel allows for a
quick and precise positioning of the digital display of the deformation(2),
Two supports allowing to set the limits of the tested beam at
choice, that is to say to make recesses or supports
simple(3).
Different loading masses allowing the application of a force
point load (having a given intensity) on the beam(4).
A comparator that allows for the calculation of displacements or deflections of
the tested beam(5).
Beams of different lengths, dimensions, and materials.
The caliper is a measuring tool used to evaluate different
dimensions (external, internal and depths)(1).

(5)

(4) 3 (2)
(1)

(6)

(7)

Figure 1: The simple bending apparatus

[3]
 The operating procedure:

1. Choose an undeformed beam;

2. Place the two supports separately and ensure that they are locked.
3. Mount the beam on the two supports and secure its length L;
4. Check with a dial gauge that the beam is perfectly
right and horizontal (place the gauge on the left support and the
reset, then move it on the second press and check that the
the lecture is still zero, if not, then adjust the height of
edges of the blades of the load cell down to ground level);
5. Suspend the weight hook at the position of the load F;
6. Position the digital comparator and set it to zero;
7. Apply the weights F to the hooks gently.
8. Read the deformation using the digital comparator.

Figure 2: The operating procedure:

[4]
 I. Part 1

Objectif de l’expérience ;

Experimental protocol;

Conclusion:

[5]
[Link] 1:
Objective of the experiment;

This experience aims to analyze the variation of the deformation according to

type of materials (aluminum, brass, steel) and to determine which one is the most
rigid.

Experimental protocol;
Operating procedure:
We are assembling a beam with a length of 130 cm
resting on two simple supports with a variable load
applied in its environment. We vary the masses in order to measure through
the deflection value of the arrow for three beams of different
materials (aluminum, brass, steel).

Figure 3: Montage1 (simply supported beam with concentrated force in the middle):

[6]
 II. Part 1:
Experimental protocol;

Results:
P(Kg) F(N) Ymax (mm) E(Gpa) calculated

Steel The Laiton Steel AL Brass

0.4 4 3.95 9.75 7.62 -2.97 times 1011-1.20*1011-1.54*1011
0.7 7 6.58 12 .61 13.23
-3.12*1011-1.63 times 1011-1.55*1011
1 10 9.85 15.06 10.45 -2.98*1011-1.95*1011-2.81*1011
2 20 20.15 23.77 22.95 - 2.91 * 10-2.47
11 times 1011-2.56*1011
Average of E
-2.99 times 1011-1.81*1011-2.12*1011

Table 1: Calculation of the elasticity modulus:

With: So: With:

IGZ= Bh3/12
E=-(FL3)/ (48YcIGZ) 1.56 times 10-10m4

[7]
 Experimental protocol;

Diagram 1: The deformation as a function of the load:

Y=f(F)
25

20

15
Steel
10 AL
Brass
5

0
4 7 10 20
The charge F in N

Diagram 1: Ymax=f(F)

Interpretation:
According to the results, it is observed that:
An aluminum beam is more deformable than a beam in
brass or steel.
A steel beam less deformable than the others
materials that are in the experiment.

Conclusion :

In conclusion, rigidity is an essential property that

influence on the deformed. According to the experience, it is observed that steel is the
the most rigid material that resists bending the most.

[8]
 II. Part 2

Objectif de l’expérience ;

Experimental protocol;

Conclusion :

[9]
I. Part 2:
Objective of the experiment;
This experiment aims to analyze the variation of the deformation in
function of the beam geometry.

Experimental protocol;

Operating procedure:

We make the same assembly as in part 1, of a beam.

steel of length 130 cm resting on two simple supports with
a variable load applied in the medium. We vary the masses in order to
to subsequently measure the value of the arrow for three beams in
steel and different geometries (I).

Results: (calculation of the moment of inertia)

B H Ii
I1(Steel1) 1.5 0.3 3.38 times 10-11
I2(Steel2) 1.5 0.4 8 times 10-11
I3(Steel3) 1.5 0.5 15.6-10

Table 2: Calculation of Ii:

10
 Experimental protocol;
Results: (calculation of the deformation)

P(Kg) F(N) Ymax (mm) E(Gpa) calculated

I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3
0.4 4 18.63 7.47 7.01 -2.91*1011-3.06 times 1011-1.67 times 1011
0.7 7 23.96 9.7 8.43 -3.96*1011-4.13*1011-2.44*1011
1 10 27.37 11.18 9.95 -4.95*1011-5.12*1011-2.95*1011
2 20 30.34 16.36 14.12 -4.46*1011-6.99*1012-4.16*1011
Average of E
-4.07 times 1011-2.06*1012-2.81 times 1011

Table 3: Calculation of the elasticity modulus:

Diagram 2: Deformation as a function of the load:

Ymax=f(F)
35

30

25

20
I1
15
I2
10
I3
5

0
4 7 10 20
F and N

Diagram 2: Ymax=f(F)

[11]
 Experimental protocol;
Interpretation:
According to the results, we observe that:
The beam (1) is more deformable than beams (2) and (3).
The beam (3) less deformable than the others of different
geometries that are in the experience.

Conclusion :

We can conclude that the more the beam is characterized by a geometry

important of greater height and width more than the material resists to the
deformation.

[12]
 III. Part 3

Objective of the experiment;

Experimental protocol;

Conclusion :

[13]
I. Part 3:
Objectif de l’expérience ;
This experience aims to analyze the effect of types of supports.
(boundary conditions) on the deformed.

Experimental protocol;
Operating mode:
We are doing the same mounting as in part 1:
of a steel beam with a length of 130 cm, with a thickness of 0.5
cm and 1.5 cm wide resting on two simple supports
with a variable load applied in the middle.

And we make another assembly using other types of supports:

of a steel beam with the same characteristics

geometric on a fixed support and a simple support with
a variable load applied in the medium.

Figure 4: Montage2 (beam freely fixed with concentrated force at

environment) :

[14]
 Experimental protocol;
Results:
F(N) Ymax (mm) E(Gpa) calculé Ymax (mm) E(Gpa)
P(Kg) calculated
Steel Steel
Free Embedding Two simple supports

0.4 4 7.47 -1.93*1012 3.95 -2.97*1011

0.7 7 9.7 -2.61*1012 6.58 -3.12 times 1011
1 10 11.18 -3.23 times 1012 9.85 -2.98*1011
2 20 16.36 -4.41*1012 20.15 -2.91 times 1011
Average of E Average of
E
-3.05 times 1012 -2.99 times 1011

Table 4: Calculation of the elasticity modulus:

With:
For free installation So: With:

IGZThis appears to be an incomplete or misspecified input. Please provide a full text for translation.3/12
E=-(FL3)/ (3YcIGZ)
1.56 times 10-10m4

Diagram 3: The deformation as a function of the load:

[15]
 Experimental protocol ;
Diagram 3: The deformation as a function of the load:
25

20.15
20
16.36

15
11,18 Ymax (mm) Encased-
9.7 9.85
10 7.47
6.58 Ymax (mm) supports
simple
3.95
5

0
4 7 10 20
The load in N

Diagram 3: Ymax=f(F)

Interpretation:
According to the results, we observe that:
Generally, the deflection for a cantilever beam is
greater compared to that of a simply supported beam.

Conclusion :

We can deduce that the boundary conditions are also a factor.

indispensable that influences the deformed.

[16]
 Conclusion:

AAt the end of the simple bending lab, we have

noted that the rigidity of the material, the geometry
of the beam and the boundary conditions are
essential parameters that influence the
value of the deformed.
Fromafter the results of this experiment, we

concludes that:
Steel is the most rigid and most
bending resistant.
The quadratic moment of the beam is
the larger, the less distorted it is.
The deformation of a cantilever beam
is larger compared to that of a
simply supported beam.

17
 Annexes:

Figure 1 The simple bending apparatus

Figure 2 The operating procedure

Figure 3 Montage1 (simply supported beam with concentrated force

in the middle

Figure 4 Montage2 (beam freely fixed with force)

concentrated in the middle

Table 1 Calculation of the modulus of elasticity

Table 2 Calculation of the Ii

Table 3 Calculation of the modulus of elasticity

Table 4 Calculation of the modulus of elasticity

Diagram 1 Ymax=f(F)

Diagram2 Ymax=f(F)

Diagram 3 Ymax=f(F)

[18]