Deflection of box section - result Discrepancies

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around discrepancies in calculated versus experimentally observed deflection of a beam made from mild steel box section under various loading conditions. The focus is on understanding the reasons behind the significant difference in results, specifically for a cantilever beam subjected to individual loads.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster presents a deflection calculation for a cantilever beam under a specific load, yielding a deflection of 0.86 mm, which contrasts sharply with a measured deflection of 6.77 mm.
  • One participant points out that the original poster is not dealing with a pure moment load but rather an applied shear load, which complicates the analysis.
  • This participant suggests that the original poster may need to use integration methods to accurately determine deflection, as the provided reference may not apply to their specific case.
  • Another participant recalls that calculating deflection involves integrating the shear load multiple times and applying boundary conditions, although they express uncertainty about the details.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate method for calculating deflection, with no consensus on the correct approach or the source of the discrepancy in results.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the loading conditions and the application of the relevant formulas. The discussion highlights the complexity of the problem and the potential need for more detailed analysis.

Mech King
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I have a beam deflection problem. I haven’t looked at deflections for a while now and I can't understand why my solution is a million miles out fro the results I have seen through testing.

Problem:

I have a beam made from 100x40x3mm mild steel box section which is 2100mm in length. See attached figure for free body diagram of the loading on the beam. Please note the loads P1, P2 and P3 are applied individually and then removed before applying another load, so there is only one load on the beam at anyone time.

The beam is welded to the supports underneath the beam (labeled “support reactions”)

The beam is loaded against its widest face and hence I have used the “second moment of area” value as given from the data sheet in its Y axis.


Relevant formulas:

E=200,000 N/mm2 for steel
I = 361000 mm^4


Solution:

My first load case is the individual force P1 applied to the left hand side of the beam:

P1=22,017N

Cantilever moment load (as per Shigley’s Mech eng Design book):

Ymax = (M*L^2)/2EI
Ymax = [(22017*177.5^2)*177.5^2]/(2*E*I)
Ymax = 0.86 mm

Query of Solution:

I have had this problem tested and the deflection of the beam was 6.77mm. My results are showing a figure which is about 8 times too small?
Could somebody please help me understand where I am going wrong?
I have a similar problem with the remaining two load case scenarios set out in the free body diagram, for loads P2 and P3 also, but I wanted to clear up this scenario here before progressing.
What do you think?
 

Attachments

  • Beam deflection loading case.jpg
    Beam deflection loading case.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 562
Engineering news on Phys.org
Well, you don't have a pure moment load. You have an applied shear load, which will then cause a moment.

I assume you're looking at the Appendix, Table A-9.4 Cantilever - moment load. If you notice, it shows the reaction force at the fixed support [tex]R_1 = 0[/tex]. You will surely have a reaction. I don't see any cases in there which match yours. You may have to do this the ol' fashioned way, through integration. Are you familiar with shear/moment diagrams and analytic methods for calculating these things?
 
Hi Minger,

Thanks for the reply.

I am familliar with these methods but haven't looked at them since university so I am a little rusty. I will give it a shot this weekend and show you the results. I am guessing you are familliar with therse methods?

Cheers
 
I also haven't done exactly that in quite some years. From what I remember though, it's as simple as integrating the shear load 4 times and applying the correct boundary conditions as the constants of integration. I may be mistaken though...
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K