Investigative Report on the Flexural Response of Different Beam Types

This report presents a practical investigation into the flexural behavior of various beam types, including timber, laminated timber, steel, under-reinforced concrete, and over-reinforced concrete beams, when subjected to 4-point bending tests. The objective was to experimentally observe and describe the beams' responses, focusing on failure modes such as yielding, cracking, and crushing. The experimental procedure involved measuring the dimensions of each beam, setting up the 4-point bending apparatus, and applying increasing loads while observing the beams' behavior. The results section details the observations for each beam type, including the deflection, strain, and failure characteristics. The timber beam showed a linear elastic behavior followed by cracking, while the laminated timber beam exhibited similar behavior but with a higher ultimate failure point. The steel beam underwent elastic and plastic phases before fracturing. The under-reinforced beam showed ductile behavior with cracking before crushing, whereas the over-reinforced beam displayed brittle behavior with fewer flexural cracks. The conclusion summarizes the key observations, highlighting the differences in behavior based on the material composition and reinforcement. The report includes references to relevant literature on the subject.

1
REPORT TITLE:
A PRACTICAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE FLEXURAL RESPONSE ON
DIFFERENT TYPES OF BEAMS AT AND DURING FAILURE.
OBJECTIVE:
The main objective of this report was to experimentally investigate and describe the flexural
behavior of multiple beams when tested in the laboratory under 4 point bending. The
observations will be made by observing several failure modes including yielding, cracking or
crushing behaviors.
APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT:
 Timber beam
 Timber beam which has been laminated.
 Metal beam (steel)
 Beam made of concrete and that has little reinforcement
 Beam made of concrete and that has much reinforcement
 4-point bend testing machine

2
PROCEDURE:
 Each of the beams’ widths and thicknesses were measured and recorded
 The loading block was set on the 4-point bend apparatus and gripped at the upper and
lower gripping heads respectively.
 The first beam (timber beam) among the five was placed in position at the center of the
machine with its upper surface to the side.
 The machine was then operated to grip the top of the beam surface. It was ensured that
there was full contact between the specimen and the apparatus.
 The necessary parameters on the testing apparatus were fixed including setting the
pointers at the zero mark.
 When everything was determined to be okay, the machine was switched on to start the
test.

3
 Immediately the apparatus started applying force, the beam was observed with increasing
loading.
 Readings were taken on the amount of loading as the process continued until the beam
failed.
 The same procedure was repeated for the other four beams which were: laminated timber,
steel, under-reinforced, and over-reinforced beams.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

4
Timber Beam:
The four-point bending test is such that two transverse vertical loads are applied to a simply
supported horizontal beam such that a constant bending moment is obtained in between the two
inner load positions (Kim et al, 2008). The upper loads thus thrusts the beam downwards against
the static roller supports. For the timber member, some deflection was observed which increased
gradually with the increase in loading. As such, the strain increment on the beam was observed
within a certain linear elastic range, after which cracks started to occur. Loading is done using
the two loading cells that have high units of force. Strain gauges were used to measure this
deflection on the timber beam. The loading was done at a steady rate which ensured a smooth
application of weight. Thereafter, a load deformation graph which enabled the visual observation
for the different phases such as elasticity, plastic limit, cracking, and finally failure during the
testing.

5

6
According to the graph that was obtained, the deformation behavior for the timber beam was
linear till failure occurred. The distribution of strain as seen from the graph was linear until
failure occured. This is illustrated in the photo below:

7
LAMINATED TIMBER BEAM
The same procedure was carried out on the laminated timber beam and observations made. It was
noted that the behavior of the two was almost similar but the only difference is that the ultimate
failure for the laminated beam occurred at a higher value as compared to the timber member.
Also, the strain recorded per unit loaded was minimal in the laminated member as compared to
the former. As such, similar graphs were obtained for this case as above.
STEEL BEAM
In the case of the steel beam, the procedure for loading was taken and observations made. The
steel beam underwent deflection whereby the strain was recorded until a maximum yield point
was reached. Steel undergoes two phases which are: the elastic phase and the plastic phase
before failure finally occurs. In regard to this, a graph was drawn that showed the relationship
between the flexural load against the flexure extension which is shown below.

8
From 0-250 N – (A-B) Steel behaved in an elastic manner
From 250-400N – Steel underwent plastic phase
From 400- Steel was strain hardening
At point D- There was failure/fracture of the steel
UNDER-REINFORCED BEAM
The under-reinforced beam is a concrete reinforced beam that contained a slightly lower quantity
of reinforcement per unit cross-section area. As such, it has more concrete surface area and relies
more on the strength of concrete than that of the reinforcement. The same procedure for loading
was applied on the beam and observations made. In this case, the concrete behaved in a ductile
manner as it is not elastic and since it was in large amount the reinforcement did not have an
effect on it. As such, the beam failed by cracking first and then it crushed at an instant on gradual
application of the loading without notable or significant deflection. There were clear, large, open
flexural cracks. The beam showed ductile behavior due to steel yielding. The load vs deflection
curve that was obtained for this beam is as shown below:

9
Using a conservative coefficient and a realistic coefficient, the moment that caused cracking is
determined. Also, the ultimate moment Mult was determined from sectional analysis (where fsy
= 550 MPa, bar is 10 mm diam) (Kim et al, 2008) The values obtained from these two
procedures were used to record the load vs deflection graph.
OVER-REINFORCED BEAM
This beam is taken through the same procedure as the under-reinforced one and the observations
noted. In the case of the over-reinforced beam, the amount of reinforcement in that member is
quite substantial hence the beam behaves in a brittle behavior since the reinforcement does not
yield. The concrete here is thus the weaker link in this case since the bar diameter is large. There
were fewer flexural cracks observed in this case.
CONCLUSION
There are several observations that were made as a result of the observations made in these tests.
To begin with, the under-reinforced beam reached the ultimate stress limit at a lower value as
compared to the over-reinforced beam. Also, it was evident that different beams behaved
differently depending on the material they were composed of.

10
REFERENCES
Attarnejad R, Amirebrahimi M A & Fahrabadi K H, Application of elasto-plastic theories in
modelling the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams, paper presented 15thASCE Engineering
Mechanics Conf, Columbia University, (2002), 1-7
Gilbert, J. A and C. L. Carmen. "Chapter 8 – Flexure Test." MAE/CE 370 – Mechanics of
Materials Laboratory Manual. June 2000
Kim, Y., Gordon Wight, R., and Green, M. (2008). Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams with
Prestressed CFRP Sheets: Using Nonmetallic Anchor Systems. J. Compos. Constr. 12, 44–52
Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., and Dolan C. W.,Edition, (2006), “Design of Concrete Structure”,
McGraw
-Hill Education (Asia),Singapore.