A useful check is to compare a fixed (built-in) beam with the more familiar simply supported beam under the same uniformly distributed load \( W \). For a simply supported beam, the well-known maximum deflection is \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{48EI} \). Fixing both ends restrains rotation there, which makes the beam stiffer and reduces the deflection by a known factor of 4 compared to the simply supported case, giving \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{192EI} \). Let's test the options against this relationship.
- \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{48EI} \): This is exactly the simply supported beam value; using it for a fixed beam would ignore the additional stiffness provided by the fixed-end restraints, so it is too large for this case.
- \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{96EI} \): This is only twice as stiff as the simply supported case, but fixed-end restraint is known to reduce deflection by a factor of 4, not 2, so this undercounts the effect of both ends being fixed.
- \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{192EI} \): This is exactly one-quarter of the simply supported deflection \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{48EI} \), consistent with the standard result that clamping both ends of a beam under a UDL reduces the maximum deflection by a factor of 4.
- \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{384EI} \): This value corresponds to a beam fixed at both ends with a central point load, not a uniformly distributed load, so it belongs to a different loading case.
Comparing against the simply supported beam case with the known stiffening factor confirms the fixed beam's maximum deflection under a UDL is \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{192EI} \).
Therefore, the correct answer is \( \dfrac{Wl^3}{192EI} \).