370. I take two pine rods, each 48" × 1" × 1", perfectly similar in all respects, cut from the same piece of timber, and therefore probably of very nearly identical strength. With a fine tenon saw I cut each of the rods half through at its middle point. I now place one of these beams on the supports 40" apart, with the cut side of the beam upwards. I suspend from it the tray, which I gradually load with weights until the beam breaks, which it does when the total weight is 81 lbs.
If I were to place the second beam on the same supports with the cut upwards, then there can be no doubt that it would require as nearly as possible the same weight to break it. I place it, however, with the cut downwards, I suspend the tray, and find that the beam breaks with a load of 31 lbs. This is less than half the weight that would have been required if the cut had been upwards.
371. What is the cause of this difference? The fibres being compressed together on the upper surface, a cut has no tendency to open there; and if the cut could be made with an extremely fine saw, so as to remove but little material, the beam would be substantially the same as if it had not been tampered with. On the other hand, the fibres at the lower surface are in a state of tension; therefore when the cut is below it yawns open, and the beam is greatly weakened. It is, in fact, no stronger than a beam of 48" × 0"·5 × 1", placed with its shortest dimension vertical. If we remember that an entire beam of the same size required about 140 lbs. to break it ([Art. 366]), we see that the strength of a beam is reduced to one-fourth by being cut half-way through and having the cut underneath.
372. We may learn from this the practical consequence that the sounder side of a beam should always be placed downwards. Any flaw on the lower surface will seriously weaken the beam: so that the most knotty face of the wood should certainly be placed uppermost. If a portion of the actual substance of a beam be removed—for example, if a notch be cut out of it—this will be almost equally injurious on either side of the beam.
373. We may illustrate the condition of the upper surface of the beam by a further experiment. I make two cuts 0"·5 deep in the middle of a pine rod 48" × 1" × 1". These cuts are 0"·5 apart, and slightly inclined; the piece between them being removed, a wedge is shaped to fit tightly into the space; the wedge is long enough to project a little on one side. If the wedge be uppermost when the beam is placed on the supports, the beam will be in the same condition as if it had two fine cuts on the upper surface. I now load the beam with the tray in the usual manner, and I find it to bear 70 lbs. securely. On examining the beam, which has curved down considerably, I find that the wedge is held in very tightly by the pressure of the fibres upon it, but, by a sharp tap at the end, I knock out the wedge, and instantly the load of 70 lbs. breaks the beam; the reason is simple—the piece being removed, there is no longer any resistance to the compressive strain of the upper fibres, and consequently the beam gives way.
374. The collapse of a beam by a transverse strain commences by fracture of the fibres on the lower surface, followed by a rupture of all fibres up to a considerable depth. Here we see that by a transverse force the fibres in a beam of 48" × 1" × 1" have been broken by a strain of 140 lbs. ([Art. 366]); but we have already stated ([Art. 353]) that to tear such a rod across by a direct pull at each end a force of about four tons is necessary. The breaking strain of the fibres must be a certain definite quantity, yet we find that to overcome it in one way four tons is necessary, while by another mode of applying the strain 140 lbs. is sufficient.
375. To explain this discrepancy we may refer to the experiment of [Art. 28], wherein a piece of string was broken by the transverse pull of a piece of thread in illustration of the fact that one force may be resolved into two others, each of them very much greater than itself. A similar resolution of force occurs in the transverse deflection of the beam, and the force of 140 lbs. is changed into two other forces, each of them enormously greater and sufficiently strong to rupture the fibres. We need not suppose that the force thus developed is so great as four tons, because that is the amount required to tear across a square inch of fibres simultaneously, whereas in the transverse fracture the fibres appear to be broken row after row; the fracture is thus only gradual, nor does it extend through the entire depth of the beam.
376. We shall conclude this lecture with one more remark, on the condition of a beam when strained by a transverse force. We have seen that the fibres on the upper surface are compressed, while those on the lower surface are extended; but what is the condition of the fibres in the interior? There can be no doubt that the following is the state of the case:—The fibres immediately beneath the upper surface are in compression; at a greater depth the amount of compression diminishes until at the middle of the beam the fibres are in their natural condition; on approaching the lower surface the fibres commence to be strained in extension, and the amount of the extension gradually increases until it reaches a maximum at the lower surface.
LECTURE XII.
THE STRENGTH OF A BEAM.
A Beam free at the Ends and loaded in the Middle.—A Beam uniformly loaded.—A Beam loaded in the Middle, whose Ends are secured.—A Beam supported at one end and loaded at the other.