STRUCTURAL MECHANICS T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

---------& DYNAMICS 3---------

MECHANICS
ABSTRACT ................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 2
2. THEORY ................................................................. 2
2.1 ORIENTATION OF PRINCIPAL AXIS ...................... 2
2.2 GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES ..................................... 2

Experiment 1: 2.2.1 Product Moment of Inertia ........................... 2

2.2.2 Location of Centroid ..................................... 2
2.2.3 Area Moment of Inertia ................................ 2
2.3 DEFLECTION OF BEAMS ....................................... 2
3. APPARATUS .......................................................... 3
4. METHODOLOGY ................................................. 3
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP ....................................... 3

Asymmetric Bending 4.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE............................... 3

5. RESULTS ................................................................ 3

of Beams 5.1 THEORETICAL RESULT ........................................ 3

5.2 MEASURED DATA ................................................ 3
6. ANALYSIS .............................................................. 3
7. DISCUSSION .......................................................... 4
8. APPENDIX .............................................................. 4
8.1 RAW DATA .......................................................... 4
8.1.1 Deflections .................................................... 4
8.1.2 Dimensions ................................................... 4
8.2 ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................... 4

A BSTRACT

0900 – 1200
This report aims to investigate the derivation of the
orientation of the principal axes of a cantilever beam
TUESDAY 14TH NOVEMBER 2017
under asymmetric loading, comparing with a theoretical
value.

Deflection data was generated by rotating an end, point

loaded cantilever beam of an unequal angles section,
Group 22:
which is equivalent to an angled loading causing Jessica Li
asymmetric bending. The data was tabulated and analysed
with the aid of a MATLAB generated graph, which also Ivan Chan
produced sinusoidal fitted models for the data. Isla Du Boulay
It was shown that the data successfully matched the Emil Hansen
theoretical sinusoidal nature of the pattern of the
relationship between deflection and angle of applied load.
The result from experimental data compared well with
the theoretical value – however, large errors were involved
in a set of data that indicates further improved precision
is essential. It is suggested that improvements on the
physical robustness of the experimental set-up be made. J E S S I C A L I – S 1605860
1
 1. I NTRODUCTION dimensions. Figure 2b: showing the elemental areas and
integration bounds for Section 2.2.1. Figure 2c: showing the
dimensions relevant for Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.

Understanding and analysis of the principles of non-ideal, or 2.2.1 PRODUCT MOMENT OF INERTIA
asymmetric bending is crucial for the proper design of a vast As before and with reference to Figure 2b, the product moment
range of machinery and built structures, as only very rarely, of inertia may be defined as,
do real-life cases presents itself as simple bending. Bending of 𝐼;: = 𝑥𝑦𝑑𝐴 = 𝐼;:F + 𝐼;:5
beams are asymmetric when the applied load is not on the ;HI
cross sectional area’s axis of symmetry, or when no symmetry 𝑒 1 5 5
𝐼;:5 = 𝑥𝑦𝑑𝐴 = 𝑥 𝑒𝑑𝑥 = 𝑒 𝑐
exists. This then requires the establishment of a principal axes ;HJ 2 4
;HN
whereby shear stresses are 0, allowing well established 𝑎 𝑎5 5
𝐼;:F = 𝑥𝑦𝑑𝐴 = 𝑦 𝑎𝑑𝑦 = (𝑏 − 𝑒 5 )
theories for simple bending (load applied through axis of ;HO 2 4
symmetry) to be applied along this axis. The principle axes are
at a unique orientation with respect to a standard axis system 𝟏 𝟐 𝟐
∴ 𝑰𝒙𝒚 = 𝒂 𝒃 − 𝒆𝟐 + 𝒄𝟐 𝒆𝟐
such as x-y. 𝟒

Thus, the aim of this report is to explore an experimental 2.2.2 LOCATION OF CENTROID
method of finding the principal axes by investigating the 𝑒 𝑑
Y
XHF 𝑦X 𝐴X
𝑐𝑒 + + 𝑒 (𝑎𝑑)
horizontal and vertical deflections resulting from external 𝑦W = Y =2 2 = 𝟏𝟗. 𝟓𝟎𝐦𝐦
asymmetric loading, through rotation of the beam. This is then XHF 𝐴X 𝑐𝑒 + 𝑎𝑑
compared with a theoretical calculation from the cross 𝑐 𝑎
section’s geometric properties, in order to explore its
Y
XHF 𝑥X 𝐴X
𝑐𝑒 + (𝑎𝑑)
𝑥W = = 2 2 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟗𝟐𝐦𝐦
Y
suitability. Note that only loading through the centroid has XHF 𝐴X 𝑐𝑒 + 𝑎𝑑
been investigated, omitting possibilities of torsion or twisting.
2.2.3 AREA MOMENT OF INERTIA
The area moment of inertia about the x axis for a rectangular
`ab
2. T HEORY section given by 𝐼;; = 𝑦 5 𝑑𝐴 = F5 . Combined with the
Parallel Axis Theorem where 𝐼;; = 𝐼II + 𝐴ℎ5 , the area moment
of inertia of the cross section may be summed as that of two
rectangles, given below
2.1 Orientation of Principal Axis
Y
The unknown principal axis, u- 𝑤X ℎX e 5
v, will be a rotation of 𝜃 of an 𝐼;; = + 𝐴X 𝑦X −𝑦W ,
12
XHF
arbitrary axis system x-y. The Y
co-ordinate transform relating ℎX 𝑤X e 5
𝐼:: = + 𝐴X 𝑥X −𝑥W
the two axis systems is, 12
XHF

𝑢 = 𝑥 cos 𝜃 + 𝑦 sin 𝜃 5
𝑐𝑒 e 𝑒 5 𝑎𝑑 e 𝑑
𝑣 = 𝑦 cos 𝜃 − 𝑥 sin 𝜃 ⇒ 𝐼;; = + (𝑐𝑒) −𝑦W + + (𝑎𝑑) + 𝑒 −𝑦W
Figure 1: Arbitrary axis 12 2 12 2
system x-y compared to
The product moment of inertia, 2.3 Deflection of Beams
the principal axis u-v
𝐼/0 , is defined and given as
below. For the principle axis u-v, 𝐼/0 = 0.

𝐼/0 = 𝑢𝑣𝑑𝐴
1
𝐼/0 = 𝑥𝑦(cos 5 𝜃 − sin5 𝜃) − (𝑥 5 − 𝑦 5 ) cos 𝜃 sin 𝜃 𝑑𝐴
2
𝐼:: − 𝐼;;
𝐼/0 = sin 2𝜃 − 𝐼;: cos 2𝜃
2
𝐼:: − 𝐼;; Figure 3a: rectangular beam in simple loading. Figure 3b: in
⇒ sin 2𝜃 = 𝐼;: cos 2𝜃
2 titled loading. Figure 3c: titled/asymmetric loading about
−𝟐𝑰𝒙𝒚
∴ 𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝟐𝜽 = principal axis u-v.
𝑰𝒙𝒙 − 𝑰𝒚𝒚
It can be shown that for a vertically point loaded cantilever
2.2 Geometric Properties beam by force P (Figure 3a), the vertical defection is,
𝑷𝑳𝟑
𝜹=
𝟑𝑬𝑰𝒙𝒙
For loading through the centroid at an angle and/or not an any
symmetrical axis, the load is resolved into horizontal and
vertical components along the principle axis, as in Figure 3c.
This gives the following horizontal and vertical deflections,

𝑷 𝐜𝐨𝐬 𝜶 − 𝜽 𝑳𝟑 𝑷 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝜶 − 𝜽 𝑳𝟑
𝜹𝑯 = , 𝜹𝒗 =
Figure 2a: diagram of cross section showing the measured 𝟑𝑬𝑰𝒙𝒙 𝟑𝑬𝑰𝒙𝒙

2
 3. A PPARATUS
1. Cast iron cantilever beam of ‘L’ shaped (unequal angle)
cross section.
2. Bearing to allow rotation of the beam
3. Protractor to allow measurement of beam rotation
4. A loading ring, weights and a hook to bear the weights
that will apply the force on the cantilever
5. 2 dial gauges attached on stands and clamps to measure
horizontal and vertical deflection
4. M ETHODOLOGY
4.1 Experimental Set-up
Attach the cantilever beam to a bearing at one end, ensuring
that the cross sectional area is upright at the 0° position of the
‘L’ shape. The protractor is also connected to the bearing at its
centre, allow the beam to rotate along it’s longitudinal axis at
a measureable increment.
Locate the centroid as in SECTION 2.1, as the theoretical
derivations assume applied weight acts through the centroid.
Attach a loading ring around this point, and put a weighted
hook on the loading ring. This will act as the applied force that
causes the deflections of the cantilever.
With 2 sets clamps and stands, attach the dial gauges. Adjust
and place them vertically at 0° and horizontally at 90° around
the loading ring at the free end. The deflection measurements
will be read off these two gauges.
4.2 Experimental Procedure
1. The various dimensions of the cross sectional area were
taken 3 times each at different points around the ring
with venire callipers as in Figure 2a
2. A large, arbitrary load was attached to the free end of the
cantilever beam, causing a sizeable deflection
3. The deflections at the starting 0° position were noted. The
bearing screws were lightly loosened to allow rotation of
the beam to the 20° position, given by the protractor. After
this, the screws were tightened to ensure no minor further
movements at the desired position, and the new horizontal
and deflection values were noted.
4. Step 4 was repeated for the rotational angles 0° to 360° in
20° increments, to obtain deflection measurements.
5. R ESULTS
5.1 Theoretical Result
Using values of 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑 and 𝑒 with derived formulas for 𝐼;: ,
𝐼;; and 𝐼:: , it can be shown that 𝐼;: = 70933mmv , 𝐼;; =
268131mmv , and 𝐼:: = 159434mmv . Thus, the theoretical
orientation of the principal axis can be calculated to give,
𝟏 −𝟐𝑰𝒙𝒚
𝜽= 𝐭𝐚𝐧z𝟏 = −𝟐𝟔. 𝟑°
𝟐 𝑰𝒙𝒙 − 𝑰𝒚𝒚
5.2 Measured Data
Figure 4: MATLAB graph of measured horizontal and vertical
deflections, with their respective curves of best fit
The collected data was fitted to sine curves by MATLAB, via
the curve fitting app cftool. The vertical deflection data
all had an offset that was modelled by the average of its values,
at -0.84mm. The trigonometric coefficients are in radians, with
𝛼 in angles. The curves of best fit equations were given to the
95% confidence level as,
𝜹𝑯 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟐 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟖𝟑𝜶 − 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎𝟏𝟗
𝜹𝑽 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟏𝟕 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟕𝟓𝟏𝜶 + 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟒
6. A NALYSIS
As in Section 2.3, it was expected that 𝜹𝑯 ∝ cos 𝑥 and 𝛿ƒ ∝
sin 𝑥 (where 𝑥 = 𝛼 − 𝜃 ) – i.e., the data should follow a
trigonometric pattern with a phase difference of 90°. Figure 4
demonstrates that the data fits very precisely to a sine curve,
and by lining max/min points with zeros, it is clear that the
horizontal and vertical deflections curves are indeed set apart
by roughly 90°.
This trigonometric dependency means that (1) there will be no
horizontal deflection (𝛿„ = 0) when the 𝑥 = (𝛼 − 𝜃) = 90° due
to the cosine dependence, and that (2) 𝛿ƒ = 0 when 𝑥 =
0 or 𝛼 = 𝜃. Applying this to the fitted models’ equations in
Section 5 gives,
(1) 𝛿„ = 0 when 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟖𝟑𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎𝟏𝟗 ⇒ 𝜶 = 𝟓𝟕. 𝟎° and
𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟖𝟑𝜶 − 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎𝟏𝟗 = 𝝅 ⇒ 𝜶 = 𝟐𝟓𝟓°.
(2) 𝛿ƒ = 0 when 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟕𝟓𝟏𝜶 + 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟒 = 𝝅 ⇒ 𝜶 = 𝟏𝟓𝟑° and
𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟕𝟓𝟏𝜶 + 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟒 = 𝟐𝝅 ⇒ 𝜶 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐°.
From (2), as 𝛼 = 𝜃 , it suggests that the orientation of the
principal axis is at 𝜽 = 𝟏𝟓𝟑° = −𝟐𝟕° (as these describe the
same axial line, only 153° refers to the angle to the positive
region of the line and vice versa) and 𝜽 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐° = −𝟐𝟖°. From
(1) where (𝛼 − 𝜃) = 90°, 𝜽 = −𝟑𝟑. 𝟎° and 𝜽 = 𝟏𝟔𝟓° = −𝟏𝟓°.
From the graph, 4 values for the orientation of the principal
axis have been obtained, at −𝟏𝟓°, −𝟐𝟕°, −𝟐𝟖°, −𝟑𝟑°. The
measured deflections gives an average value of the principal
axis being rotated 𝟐𝟓. 𝟖° anticlockwise from the selected
reference axis x-y, at a random uncertainty of ±𝟒. 𝟓°.
3
 7. D ISCUSSION 8. A PPENDIX

The theoretical sine/cosine nature of the deflections were
highly evident and precise in correlation, as in Figure 4.
8.1 Raw Data
8.1.1 DEFLECTIONS
The principle axes were theoretically predicted as in Section 𝛼, Angle of Rotation/ Measured Horizontal Measured Vertical
5.1, to be −26.3° rotated anticlockwise from the x-y axes. Applied Load (°) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Experimental data showed that on average, the principal axes 0 -0.13 -0.74
were rotated at −25.8° anticlockwise, a 1.9% difference. The 20 -0.10 -0.71
experimental result has a very large random uncertainty at 40 -0.07 -0.70
±4.5°, or ±17.4% which suggests that the final determination 60 0.00 -0.67
of the location was accurate but lacking in precision. The large 80 0.06 -0.67
random uncertainty was completely due to the 2 results
100 0.14 -0.70
derived from the horizontal deflection, at −33° and −15°,
120 0.18 -0.73
varying by over its lower value. The vertical deflection gave
140 0.21 -0.79
−27° and −28°, which gives an average of −27.5° at only
160 0.21 -0.86
±3.6% random uncertainty. This implies that the results from
180 0.20 -0.94
the vertical deflection is much more precise (and thus more
reliable) over that from the horizontal deflection. 200 0.17 -0.98
220 0.12 -1.05
The horizontal values were off by 6.7° and 11.3°, suggesting 240 0.05 -1.06
a systematic error impacting all data points and prolonging the 260 -0.02 -1.02
period of the wave, leading to the different offset values. As 280 -0.08 -1.01
the horizontal and vertical readings were taking within the 300 -0.15 -0.94
same experiment, errors in the actual rotation of the beam may 320 -0.17 -0.88
be eliminated as the vertical deflection data was not impacted 340 -0.16 -0.83
to the same extent. Figure 4 shows the horizontal wave is 360 -0.16 -0.75
centred at 0mm and taking an average of the horizontal Table 1: Measured horizontal and vertical deflections at the
deflection values in Table 1 shows there is only a small offset given rotational orientation of the cross section. Reading
by 0.016mm. This eliminates the likelihood of an intrinsic uncertainties were ±1° and ±0.01mm
calibration fault within the dial gauge. Thus, the systematic
error most likely resulted from the relative fixture of the 8.1.2 DIMENSIONS
horizontal dial gauge to the vertical – i.e., it is likely that they Dimension Three points of Average Random Reading
were not spaced at 90° exactly. This means that there was an variables reading (mm) (mm) uncertainty Uncertainty
extra angle that was unaccounted for by the analysis in Section 6.38
6. Another source of error is the possibility of the protractor 0.11mm; 0.01mm;
𝑎 6.72 6.56
moving slightly during the rotation of the beam or the 1.68% 0.15%
6.57
unscrewing of the bearing, since it is attached to the rotating 62.62
bearing itself. This would impact all the subsequent results 0.24mm; 0.01mm;
𝑏 62.75 62.47
from the point of fault, and is likely to also be responsible for 0.38% 0.02%
62.03
the small discrepancy in the vertical deflection results.
50.62
0.22mm; 0.01mm;
𝑐 50.72 50.47
Furthermore, the load was assumed to be applied through the 0.44% 0.02%
50.07
centroid of the cross section. Section 2.2.2 shows that the
centroid position is not actually on the cross section itself, 55.72
0.27mm; 0.01mm;
resulting in the weight being applied through a loading ring 𝑑 56.03 55.66
0.49% 0.02%
centred at this point but attached to the beam. This and the 55.23
large size of the hook itself for the weights makes it very likely 6.88
0.05mm; 0.01mm;
that the load was not actually applied to the centroid causing 𝑒 6.72 6.80
0.74% 0.15%
minor twisting or additional forces; or that the loading ring at 6.80
the very end may change the actual transferred load. Table 2: Tabulated measurements that were taken 3 times at
different points on the cross section
The measuring instruments used were very precise with very
low reading and random uncertainties, as in Section 8.1.2. The
only slightly sizable uncertainties would be from the 8.2 Assumptions
protractor at ±1°, impacting the smaller angles with a reading 1. The theoretical formulas had the underlying assumption
uncertainty of ±5% and ±2.5% for 20° and 40°. This is that the loading occurred through the centroid of the cross
supported by the presence of a few small outliers for both section, as a loading ring was positioned and located the
vertical and horizontal deflections between 0° to 60°. The set- centroid. The beam was deemed sufficiently rigid enough
up of the experiment could have benefitted from being made for any twisting to be negligible.
more secure (such as a secure fixing of the protractor), to 2. Friction of the rotating bearing were assumed negligible
reduce unaccounted errors. This suggests also that despite the as any resulting friction would be very small compared to
precise measuring instruments, the whole experiment could the large load applied, which were in the kilo-newtons
have benefitted from being repeated to improve reliability. scale.