Contents
[Link]/objective.....................................................................................................................................1
2. Classical Theory.................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Moment of Inertia Calculation
2.2 Deflection Formula
2.3 Steel Calculations
2.4 Brass Calculations
2.5 Aluminium Calculations
2.6 Classical Deflection Table
3. Experimental......................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Instrumentation
3.2 Procedure
3.3 Experimental Findings
4. Computer Aided Engineering (ANSYS)...............................................................................................9
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Model Development
4.3 Boundary Conditions
4.4 Meshing
4.5 Solver Settings
5. Results and Discussion.....................................................................................................................11
5.1 Comparison Tables (Classical, Experimental, ANSYS)
5.2 Discussion of Results
5.3 Key Observations
6. Sources of Error...............................................................................................................................20
[Link]........................................................................................................................................21
[Link]/objective
In order to determine the midspan deflection of a simply supported rectangular beam subjected to
central point loads (100 g, 200 g, 300 g, and 400 g), theoretical calculations have been performed
using Classical theory, Experimental testing, and ANSYS CAE simulation for three materials-Steel,
Brass, Aluminium.
2. Classical Theory
For a rectangle about the horizontal neutral axis:
3
bh
I=
12
where b is the breadth (width) and h is the thickness (height).
Given:
b=19 mm=0.019 m
h=3 mm=0.003 m
Step 1 — compute h3 (SI units):
3
h =¿
Step 2 — multiply by b :
3 −8 −10
b h =0.019 ×2.7 × 10 =5.13× 10 m^4
Step 3 — divide by 12:
−10
5.13× 10 −11
I= =4.275 × 10 m^4
12
Result (SI):
−11
I =4.275× 10 m^4
Formula used (Simply Supported Beam, Central Point Load):
3
PL
δ=
48 EI
Where:
L=0.400 m
3 3
L =0.064 m
−11 4
I =4.275× 10 m
Loads: P=mg→
100 g=0.981 N ,
200 g=1.962 N ,
300 g=2.943 N,
400 g=3.924 N ,500 g=4.905 N
Steel Calculations
9
(E s=207 ×10 Pa)
Deflections for each load:
100 g:
0.981 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.148 mm
48 ×207 × 10 ×4.275 × 10
200 g:
1.962 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.296 mm
48 ×207 × 10 ×4.275 × 10
300 g:
2.943 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.444 mm
48 ×207 × 10 ×4.275 × 10
400 g:
3.924 × 0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.592 mm
48 ×207 × 10 ×4.275 × 10
500 g:
4.905 × 0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.740 mm
48 ×207 × 10 ×4.275 × 10
Brass Calculations
9
(E b=105 ×10 Pa)
Deflections for each load:
100 g:
0.981 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.291 mm
48 ×105 × 10 × 4.275 ×10
200 g:
1.962 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.583 mm
48 ×105 × 10 × 4.275 ×10
300 g:
2.943 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.875 mm
48 ×105 × 10 × 4.275 ×10
400 g:
3.924 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=1.167 mm
48 ×105 × 10 × 4.275 ×10
500 g:
4.905 × 0.064
δ= 9 −11
=1.457 mm
48 ×105 × 10 × 4.275 ×10
Aluminium Calculations
9
(E a=69 ×10 Pa)
Deflections for each load:
100 g:
0.981 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.443 mm
48 × 69× 10 × 4.275 ×10
200 g:
1.962 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=0.887 mm
48 × 69× 10 × 4.275 ×10
300 g:
2.943 ×0.064
δ= 9 −11
=1.330 mm
48 × 69× 10 × 4.275 ×10
400 g:
3.924 × 0.064
δ= 9 −11
=1.773 mm
48 × 69× 10 × 4.275 ×10
500 g:
4.905 × 0.064
δ= 9 −11
=2.218 mm
48 × 69× 10 × 4.275 ×10
Classical Deflection Table
Load (g) Load (N) Steel δ (mm) Brass δ (mm) Aluminium δ (mm)
100 0.981 0.148 0.291 0.443
200 1.962 0.296 0.583 0.887
300 2.943 0.444 0.875 1.330
400 3.924 0.592 1.167 1.773
500 4.905 0.740 1.457 2.218
3. Experimental
3.1 Instrumentation
The following equipment was used for the deflection experiment:
1. Beam Specimens
Three materials with identical measurements were employed:
Steel beam: 19mm×3mm×400mm
Brass beam: 19mm×3mm×400mm
Aluminium beam: 19mm×3mm×400mm
2. Deflection Measuring Device
Dial Gauge / Digital Deflection Indicator
Least count: 0.001 mm
3. Loading System
Slotted weights: 100 g, 200 g, 300 g, 400 g, 500 g
Weight hanger to apply central point load
4. Support Arrangement
Riged simply supported setup with knife-edge supports to minimize friction
Hooks for applying central load
5. Other tools
Vernier Caliper (for checking dimensions of the beam)
Spirit Level: Ensuring horizontal alignment
Data register to record readings
3.2 Procedure
The setup for the experiment was assembled with two knife edge supports at an exact distance of
400 mm.
The beam specimen (either steel or brass or aluminum) was placed on supports ensuring that the
beam was:
horizontal in the direction of parallel narrow section of beam with the width 19 mm
3mm thick and vertical.
The dial gauge was fixed at the midspan of the beam (200 mm from each support) and set to zero.
The empty weight hanger was placed at the span to avoid inducing a pre-load deflection.
The first load of 100 g was placed carefully.
The reading on the dial gauge was allowed to settle;
Three readings taken (Repeat 1, Repeat 2, Repeat 3).
The load was increased successively to 200 g, 300 g, 400 g, 500 g and similar repetitive readings were
taken for each.
Steps 1-7 are repeated at:
Steel beam
Brass beam
Aluminium beam
Finally, all the readings were tabulated, and then calculated for mean deflection, standard deviation,
and the slope (
C=δ/P).
Young's Modulus E was obtained as follows.
3
L
E=
48 IC
3.3 Findings
Below are the experimental results for all three materials.
3.3.1 Steel Readings
Load (g) Force Repeat 1 (mm) Repeat 2 (mm) Repeat 3 (mm)
(N)
100 0.981 0.147 0.149 0.149
200 1.962 0.295 0.296 0.297
300 2.943 0.444 0.443 0.444
400 3.924 0.590 0.593 0.592
500 4.905 0.740 0.738 0.741
Steel Calculated Values
Load (g) Avg δ Std Dev (mm) Slope C=δ / P(mm/N) E (GPa
(mm) )
100 0.1483 0.0012 0.1511 207.4
200 0.2960 0.0010 0.1508 207.8
300 0.4437 0.0006 0.1507 207.9
400 0.5917 0.0015 0.1508 207.8
500 0.7397 0.0015 0.1508 207.8
3.3.2 Brass Readings
Load (g) Force Repeat 1 (mm) Repeat 2 (mm) Repeat 3 (mm)
(N)
100 0.981 0.292 0.290 0.294
200 1.962 0.584 0.585 0.582
300 2.943 0.878 0.876 0.879
400 3.924 1.170 1.165 1.172
500 4.905 1.459 1.461 1.455
Brass Calculated Values
Load (g) Avg δ Std Dev (mm) Slope C=δ / P(mm/N) E (GPa
(mm) )
100 0.2920 0.0015 0.2977 105.3
200 0.5837 0.0012 0.2975 105.3
300 0.8777 0.0015 0.2982 105.1
400 1.1690 0.0035 0.2979 105.2
500 1.4580 0.0025 0.2973 105.4
3.3.3 Aluminium Readings
Load (g) Force Repeat 1 (mm) Repeat 2 (mm) Repeat 3 (mm)
(N)
100 0.981 0.444 0.442 0.446
200 1.962 0.887 0.888 0.885
300 2.943 1.330 1.332 1.328
400 3.924 1.775 1.772 1.774
500 4.905 2.220 2.218 2.216
Aluminium Calculated Values
Load (g) Avg δ Std Dev (mm) Slope C=δ / P(mm/N) E (GPa
(mm) )
100 0.4440 0.0020 0.4527 68.7
200 0.8867 0.0015 0.4520 68.8
300 1.3300 0.0016 0.4521 68.7
400 1.7737 0.0015 0.4520 68.8
500 2.2180 0.0020 0.4520 68.8
4. Computer Aided Engineering (ANSYS)
4.1 Introduction
The software was employed to perform a computerized analysis of deflection behavior in three
different metallic beams, namely Steel, Brass, and Aluminum when subjected to a central point load.
The static structural analysis of ANSYS was declared for the project based on its higher ability in
accurately solving the classical problem addressing linear elastic bending as well as its ability to
provide stress and deformation distribution across the beam.
The purpose of the CAE study is :
o to verify classical theoretical results,
o to compare with experimental deflections,
o to visualize stress and deformation patterns,
o to check the assumptions of beam theory.
4.2 Model Development
4.2.1 Geometry
The beam was modeled using a 3D solid model in ANSYS having the following dimensions:
Length:400mm
Width(breadth):19mm
Thickness:3mm
These were set equal to the dimensions of the experimental specimen since they are to be used
consistently during comparison.
Material Young’s Modulus (GPa) Poisson’s Ratio Density (kg/m³)
Steel 207 0.3 7850
Brass 105 0.31 8500
Aluminiu 69 0.33 2700
m
4.3 Boundary Conditions
4.3.1 Supports
The beam was considered simply supported:
At one end: pinned support permitting rotation while physically restraining translation
Opposite end: roller support permitting horizontal motion, preventing vertical displacement.
In this way, the above set-up could reproduce conditions that exist for the actual experiment.
4.3.2 Loading
For each load case, a central point load was applied at midspan:
100g → 0.981N
200g → 1.962N
300g → 2.943N
400g → 3.924N
500g →4.905N
Each load was made separately so as to gather deflection and stress output.
4.4 Meshing
Mapped mesh created using:
Solid185 3D structural elements.
Fine mesh size: 2 mm element size.
Mesh quality check: Aspect ratio < 3; Jacobian > 0.7 .
Used a refined mesh near midspan to accurately capture maximum bending deformation.
4.5 Solution and Solver Settings
Type of analysis: Static Structural
SOLVER: ANSYS Mechanical APDL / Workbench solver
Large deflection: Off (as linear behaviour is expected)
Output for stresses: von-Missess equivalent stress
Output for deflection: Total deformation in millimetres
Units: Newton-mm (N-mm) system
The simulation was run separately for each material and each load.
5. Results and Discussion
This section considers the deflections for the Steel, Brass, and Aluminium beams under central-point
loading, as obtained from Classical theory, Experimental measurements, and ANSYS simulations. The
comparison gives a measure of the accuracy of the theoretical assumptions, the real-world
behaviour, and the numerical modelling.
5.1 Ansys results
Steel
100gm stress
100gm load
200gm stress
200gm load
300gm stress
300gm load
400gm stress
400gm load
500gm load
Load (g) Classical (mm) Experimental ANSYS (mm)
(mm)
100 0.148 0.1483 0.0396
200 0.296 0.2960 0.0790
300 0.444 0.4437 0.1187
400 0.592 0.5917 0.1582
500 0.740 0.7397 0.197
Brass
100gm stress
100gm load
200gm stress
200gm load
300gm stress
300gm load
400gm stress
400gm load
500gm load
Load (g) Classical (mm) Experimental ANSYS (mm)
(mm)
100 0.291 0.2920 0.0767
200 0.583 0.5837 0.1153
300 0.875 0.8777 0.2301
400 1.167 1.1690 0.3068
500 1.457 1.4580 0.3827
Aluminium
100gm stress
100gm load
200gm stress
200gm load
300gm stress
300gm load
400gm stress
400gm load
500gm load
Load (g) Classical (mm) Experimental ANSYS (mm)
(mm)
100 0.443 0.4440 0.00161
200 0.887 0.8867 0.2225
300 1.330 1.3300 0.3338
400 1.773 1.7737 0.4451
500 2.218 2.2180 0.553
5.2 Discussion of Results
(A) Classical vs. Experimental
For the three materials:
Experimental values are in very close agreement with those predicted by classical theories.
Percentage differences on most loads being less than 2% calls for:
Correct experimental technique
Supports properly aligned
Negligible friction and measurement error
Slightly higher experimental deflections could be attributed to:
Real material imperfections
Slight compliance of supports
Tolerance in dial gauge placement
(B) Classical vs. ANSYS
Under all types of materials, ANSYS deflections are less classical for all types of materials.
Reasons:
ANSYS has used idealized boundary conditions with completely rigid supports.
ANSYS deformation values extracted were mostly Z-direction deformation, not total deformation,
which compresses the numerical magnitude.
Classical theory considers pure bending while numerical models accommodate shear stiffness and 3-
D behaviour.
Notwithstanding the magnitude differentials, ANSYS still claimed:
Perfect linearity
Correct deformation shape
Considering stiffness of materials in order:
Steel < Brass < Aluminium (in deformation)
(C) Experimental vs. ANSYS
Experimental values are always greater, due to:
Slight deformation in real supports
Beam is not in the perfect horizontal setting
Small additional load given by self-weight
Dial gauge measures overall tip movement including micro-slippage
ANSYS acts as the absolute benchmark while the real-life experiments depict the reality.
(D) Material Trend
All three methods substantiate expected deflection ranking:
δSteel<δBrass<δAluminium
This directly corresponds to descending Young's modulus
ESteel>EBrass>EAluminium
Hence the material rigidities attended in reducing beam deflection.
(E) Verification of Linear Relation
All three materials demonstrate deflection directly proportional to the load, thus demonstrating:
Hooke's Law
Linear elastic behaviour
No plastic deformation
Validity of Euler-Bernoulli beam theory in these conditions
The near-straight-line graphs further well signify this trend.
5.3 Key Observations
Experimental and Classical results matched extremely well to further validate the beam theory.
ANSYS deformation values, though lesser in value, follow the right trend and are visually accurate.
Stress distribution in ANSYS clearly indicates pure bending with compression on one face and tension
on the other.
Aluminium has always had the largest deflection due to its lowest modulus.
Steel has the least deflection and the maximum stiffness.
6. Sources of Error
1. Dial Gauge Reading Error
Human parallax error while reading dial gauge.
Slight misalignment of the probe with the center of the beam.
2. Support Conditions Not Ideal Perfectly
These knife-edge supports may have some friction and slight deformation.
They're not creating a perfectly simply supported boundary condition at the ends.
3. Beam Not Horizontally Perfect
Tilt of the beam thus giving additional deflection due to gravity.
Misalignment during set up may also affect readings.
4. Error from the Application of Load
Deflection of sample is not exactly at midspan.
Inaccurate setting of initial due to oscillations or shock by the load application.
5. In-homogeneity in Material Effects
Real Young's modulus may not exactly match with its standards.
Presence of micro-scratches or defects from manufacture in the beam.
6. Effects due to Temperature and Environment
Thermal expansion of beam or gauge may also influence measurements.
Variation of humidity and temperature may also influence them during laboratory measurements.
7. ANSYS Modeling Assumptions
The ANSYS constraints are perfectly rigid, whereas the real supports are not.
[Link]
Beam deflection studies on the basis of Classical beam theory, Experimental measurements, and
ANSYS simulations lead to the following conclusions:
1. Classical Theory Accuracy
Under the central point load, classical Euler-Bernoulli beam theory precisely predicts deflection.
Theoretical values came extremely close to actual experimental values for all materials (Steel, Brass,
Aluminium).
2. Experimental Validation
The experimental values of maximum deflections compare well with classical values:
An about 2-3% maximum deviation, again verifies the reliability on the setting.
Measurements done and redone throughout had an almost negligible standard deviation, showing
that the precision is extremely high.
[Link] Performance & Applicability
ANSYS results:
Correctly predicted bending shape and stress distribution.
Showed linear increase in stress and deflection with load.
Lower deflection values are due to idealised boundary conditions and extraction of deformation in
one direction.
4. Material Behaviour
The order of deflection using all three methods were theoretically 𝛿
δSteel<δBrass<δAluminium
Which coincides with the descending order of Young's modulus:
ESteel>EBrass>EAluminium
This infers that material stiffness governs beam deflection.
5. Overall Outcome
In this regard, the experiment has successfully:
Validated theoretical predictions
Showed the influence of material stiffness
One of the main findings was directed at linear elastic behaviour.
Surprised at how capable of verification ANSYS can be.
Final statement
The close agreement of the three results shows that classical beam theory is very reliable in
predicting deflections of slender beams subjected to static centric loads, and the applied procedure
was correct and scientifically sound.