Objectives & Theory
Core Objectives
- Determine reaction forces, max bending stress, and shear stress.
- Compare experimental reactions with theoretical values.
- Analyze shear force & bending moments under concentrated loads.
Key Equations
For a simply supported beam with load $F$ at distance $x$ from Support A:
Interactive Derivations
Visualizing the mechanics behind the math.
Imagine the beam is made of many thin layers (laminae). When bent, the layers fan out. The Neutral Axis (NA) stays the same length.
- Top layers compress (shorter)
- Bottom layers elongate (longer)
- Strain ($\epsilon$) $\propto$ Distance ($y$)
1. σ = E · ε = -E(y/ρ)
2. ∫ σ · y dA = M // Moment Equilibrium
3. ∫ -E(y²/ρ) dA = M
4. Since ∫ y² dA = I // Area Moment of Inertia
To balance the changing bending moment ($dM/dx$), horizontal shear forces must exist between layers.
"Imagine a stack of papers. Bend them, and they slide over each other. That sliding is Shear."
1. ΔF = (dM)·Q / I // Force diff on cut area
2. Shear Flow q = dF/dx = (dM/dx)·Q/I
3. Shear Stress τ = q / t
Virtual Simulation
Log in to interact with the experiments and record your data.
Post-Lab Assessment
4 QuestionsLogin to take the Quiz
MEQ491 Laboratory Report Rubric
Self-audit your report before submission. Scroll horizontally to view details.
| Item | Excellent (9-10) | Good (7-8) | Satisfactory (5-6) | Poor (3-4) | Very Poor (0-2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Appearance & Organisation | All sections in correct order, well formatted, very readable. Pages/diagrams intact, neat layout. Minor spelling/grammar slips only. Front cover completed; tape/ring bound with custom cover. Single PDF. | Sections ordered; formatting generally good. Readable, no torn pages. Some spelling issues. Missing one front-page detail. Tape/ring bound. | Sections present but rough formatting. Some torn pages. Multiple errors. Missing two non-title details. Stapled without binding or cover missing branding. | Sections out of order, messy formatting, torn inserts. Frequent errors, white-out used. Missing >2 details. Stapled poorly. | Meets most “Poor” conditions or absent submission. |
| 2. Objectives & Theory | All objectives clearly rephrased in original sentences. Detailed paragraph linking to prior knowledge. Incorporates relevant external research. | Objectives identified though phrasing could be clearer. Prior knowledge included. Partial paraphrasing. | Objectives partly identified/loosely stated. Heavy reliance on manual text. Some prior knowledge. | Objectives unclear or missing. Minimal relevant prior knowledge. Theory copied verbatim. | Content absent. |
| 3. Apparatus & Procedures | Complete equipment list with labelled diagrams. Numbered, step-by-step procedure (own words). Safety tips highlighted; safety report with photo included. | Vital items listed. Procedure mostly paraphrased, diagrams where needed. Safety report attached (missing photo). | Partial equipment list. Steps unclear, unnumbered, or copied. Required diagrams absent. | Equipment missing. Procedure unusable/confusing. No diagrams. | Content absent. |
| 4. Results, Calculations & Graphs x2 | Accurate, well-organised data showing trends. Figures numbered/captioned. Units present; complete calc walk-through with examples. | Correct data but trends less obvious. Minor figure issues; units included. Few calcs missing. | Some data missing/disorganised. Figures incomplete; units occasionally missing. Several calcs absent/incorrect. | Most data missing/unreliable. Figures poorly constructed. Calcs largely absent/wrong. | Content absent. |
| 5. Discussion x2 | Answers every question clearly. Explains trends, links to theory. Discusses errors, impacts, and mitigation. | Misses one question; remaining answers clear. Minor gaps in interpretation. Notes errors. | Misses two questions or inconsistent. Partial understanding. Errors mentioned without depth. | Misses multiple questions. Little/incorrect interpretation. No meaningful error discussion. | Content absent. |
| 6. Conclusions | Summarises data underpinning conclusions. States if objectives achieved, comments on validity. Addresses errors and proposes improvements. | Missing one “Excellent” element. | Missing two “Excellent” elements. | Missing three or more elements. | No conclusion provided. |
| 7. References | >9 sources (journals/books/media). 30% recent (<5 yrs). Formatted as specified. | 6-8 sources from varied media. Manual formatting observed. | 3-5 sources drawn from two media types. Formatting not fully compliant. | 1-2 sources cited. Formatting ignored. | No references. |