27/10/2020 (TUESDAY)

PEC2215E2
PUAN ZANARIAH BINTI ABD RAHMAN

2019630618
2019689776
2019631134
2019452146
TABLE OF CONTENT

NO CONTENT PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. OBJECTIVE 2

3. APPARATUS 3

4. PROCEDURE 3

5. RESULT ANALYSIS 4–9

6. DISCUSSION 10

7. CONCLUSION 11

8. REFERENCE 12

9. APPENDICES 13

1
INTRODUCTION
In static, a structure is statically indeterminate when the static equilibrium equations are
insufficient for determining the internal forces and reactions on that structure. In order to
analyse the indeterminate structure, consideration in the materials properties and compatibility
in deformation are taken to solve statically indeterminate. A statically indeterminate frame can
be determined by using the following formula:
DOI = (3m +r) – (3j+c)
Where ;
m = member
r = reaction
j = joint
c = internal hinge

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this experiment is to validate the reactions of indeterminate frame determined
in theoretical structural analysis with respect to experimental result.

2
APPARATUS
Portal frame apparatus, portal frame, load cell, load hanger, digital indicator and measuring
tape.

PROCEDURE

1. The load cell is connected to the digital indicator.

2. The indicator is switched on. The indicator must be switched on 10 minutes before
taking the readings for stability of the readings.
3. A load hanger is placed at the location where the load is to be applied (beam,
overhanging beam and column at the portal frame apparatus).
4. The indicator reading is noted. The tare button is pressed so that the indicator reading
is zero.
5. A load is placed on the load hanger.
6. The indicator reading is recorded. This represents the horizontal reaction of the pinned
support.
7. The load on the load hanger is increased. For every increment, the horizontal reaction
is being recorded.
8. Step 7 is repeated for another 4 load increments.

3
RESULT ANALYSIS

W
300 mm

600 mm W

100 mm W
445 mm
295 mm
222 mm

Va Vb

Figure 1.1
Height of portal frame = 445 mm
Length of portal frame = 600 mm
Thickness of frame, h = 8 mm
Width of frame, b = 25 mm
Second moment of area, I = bh3/12 = (25)(8)3/12 = 1066.67 mm4
Modulus of elasticity, E =200 x 103 N/mm2
Horizontal reaction at support B , H = - (LP/A)
LP = WaL1(a-L3)/2EI
A = L12(2L1+3L3)/3EI
a = distance of load from support
L1 = Height of portal frame , L3 = Length of portal frame
A = [(445)2(2(445)+3(600))] / [3(200x103)(1066.67)] = 0.8323

4
i) Beam
LPBeam = W x [300(445)(300-600)] / [2(200x103)(1066.67)]] = - 0.0939W
HBeam = - (LP/A) = - [-0.0939W/0.8323] = 0.1128W

Point Load (N) Experimental Thrust (N) Theoretical Thrust (N)

Test 1 5 0.5 0.564

Test 2 10 1.1 1.128
Test 3 15 1.6 1.692
Test 4 20 2.2 2.256
Test 5 25 2.7 2.82

Error = [ (0.564 – 0.5) / 0.564] x 100% = 11.35%

ii) Overhanging Beam

LPO.Beam = W x [100(445)(100-600)] / [2(200x103)(1066.67)]] = - 0.0521W
HO.Beam = - (LP/A) = - [-0.0521W/0.8323] = 0.0626W

Point Load (N) Experimental Thrust (N) Theoretical Thrust (N)

Test 1 5 0.5 0.313

Test 2 10 1.0 0.626
Test 3 15 1.6 0.939
Test 4 20 2.1 1.252
Test 5 25 2.6 1.55

Error = [ (0.313 – 0.5) / 0.313] x 100% = -59.74%

5
 W
300 mm

600 mm W

445 mm 100 mm W
295 mm
222 mm

Ha Hb
Va Vb

Figure 1.2
Frame reactions
MB (+clockwise) = 0
-W(300) – W(100) – W(222) + Va(600) = 0
Va(600) = 622W
Va = 1.037W
Fy ↑+ = 0
Va – W – W + Vb = 0
1.037W - 2W + Vb= 0
Vb = 0.963W
Fx →+ = 0
Hb – W = 0
Hb = W

6
Cut section (0<x<295)
Assume column is horizontal;

W
Vx
222 mm
0.963W

Hx Mx W

Figure 1.3
Mx (+clockwise) = 0
-Mx + (W(X-222)) – Wx = 0
-Mx + Wx - Wx – 222W = 0
Mx = -222W
Fy ↑+ = 0
-Vx – W + W = 0
Vx = 0
Fx →+ = 0
Hx – 0.963W = 0
Hx = 0.963W

Point Load (N) Experimental Thrust (N) Theoretical Thrust (N)

Test 1 5 3.6 4.815

Test 2 10 7.1 9.63
Test 3 15 10.6 14.45
Test 4 20 14.2 19.26
Test 5 25 17.6 24.08

Error = [ (4.815 – 3.6) / 4.815] x 100% = 25.23%

7
GRAPH

25−20
Slope (Theoretical) = 2.82−2.256 = 8.9

25−5
Slope (Experimental) = = 9.09
2.7−0.5

25−5
Slope (Theoretical) = 1.55−0.313 = 16.2

25−15
Slope (Experimental) = 2.6−1.6 = 10

8
 25−5
Slope (Theoretical) = 24.08−4.815 = 1.04

25−5
Slope (Experimental) = = 1.43
17.6−3.6

9
DISCUSSION

Based on the experiment that has been conducted, the reactions of indeterminate
frame in structural analysis with respect to experimental result can be determined. All the data
and result has been calculated. Five applied load are used in this experiment which is 5N,
10N, 15N, 20N and 25N to the beam, overhanging beam, and frame.

From the result of the experiment, a graph of load verses horizontal thrust are drawn.
From the calculation, we can see the values of the displacement at the roller support are
slightly different between experimental and theoretically. The largest percentage error
difference is 59.74% for overhanging beam. For beam, the percentage of error is 11.35%.
Meanwhile, 25.23% error happened in frame. By referring the graph that have been plotted
which is load against horizontal thrust (beam), we can see when the number of load is
increases, the horizontal thrust (beam) value will also increases. From this hypothesis, the
number of load is directly proportional to the horizontal thrust (beam) values.

As part of the experiment, the theoretical values for the displacement at the roller
support is determined by drawing the free body diagram and finding the reaction of the support
by using the equilibrium equations. There are some factors that may affected the result. For
inaccuracy reading from the digital indicator reading, the error that might be affected the result
when the repeated adjustment of putting weight will occur the error of reading. Wind load also
may affect the readings of indicator reading.

Besides, there are some human errors that affected the result such as parallax error
which is the observer’s eye is not squarely aligned with the pointer and scale, the reading
might be slightly different. Other than that, the result of carelessness which allows to the
inaccurate measurement and results. For example, inaccurate measurement of the beam
span, Lb and height of column, Hc. The length of the beam, L is supposed to be measured
from the centre of the screw of the beam to the other side of the beam. Measuring using a
measuring tape where the sensitivity of the apparatus is small, it could not measure the beam
span accurately. Hence, producing an inaccurate result. All these factors should be avoided
and corrected if discovered. Therefore, common errors done by human could affect the
readings as well as the theory which would be inappropriate value to be obtained from
experiment.

10
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

Portal frame construction is a method of building and designing structure that are
primarily used steel or steel-reinforced precast concrete as the material. Portal frames are a
type of structural frame that are characterized by a beam supported at either end by columns.
However, the joints between the beam and the column are rigid so that the bending moment
in beam is transferred to the columns. These connections between columns and beams are
designed to be moment-resistant. This means that the size of the beam can be reduced or the
span can be increased. This makes portal frame a very efficient construction technique to use
for wide span buildings. Therefore, frame construction is typically seen in barns, warehouse
and other places that are large and has open spaces. Generally, portal frames are used for
single-story buildings but they can be used for low rise buildings with several floors where they
can be economic if the floors do not span right across the building.

Based on the experiment that has been conducted, we have successfully achieved the
objectives of this experiment which is to validate the reaction of indeterminate frame
determined in theoretical structural analysis with respect to experimental result. After we
finished the experiment, we get that horizontal deflection is increase and the load is applied
continuously based on the graph horizontal thrust (N) versus load (N) that we construct.
Besides, we also successfully able to find the reactions of indeterminate frame by using
superposition method and also able to describe the principal of superposition approach.

During this experiment, there have a few errors occur that will influence the result. As
we all know, the errors on the experiment are human error and also systematic errors. A
human error is caused by unknown and unpredictable changes in the experiment. For
example, parallax error where it is caused by wrong position of our eyes when taking reading.
Last but not least, systematic error is the error in experimental observations that usually come
from the measuring instruments. For example, zero error in vanier caliper.

For recommendations, to minimize these types of error for the future lab experiment,
a few measures can be considered. To get the best readings, the apparatus must be inspected
prior to the experiment to ensure there are no malfunction or physical damages on the
apparatus as it is important for the apparatus to operate well and reduce errors and give out
precise readings. For parallax error, we have to make sure that we put our eyes level on the
right positions when take reading. Thus, we can conclude that the experiment is successful.

11
REFERENCES
1. David J. Grieve. (1st March 2004). Buckling of Slender Struts. Retrieved from
http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/desnotes/buckling.html
2. Bob McGinty. (2013). Column Buckling. Retrieved from
http://www.continuummechanics.org/columnbuckling.html
3. Kurt Gramoll. (n.d). Mechanics Theory- Column Buckling. Retrieved from
https://www.ecourses.ou.edu/cgi-
bin/ebook.cgi?doc=&topic=me&chap_sec=09.2&page=theory
4. Mohd Samsudin Abd Hamid. (Indeterminate Frame, 2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvjj2ZZ9K4&feature=youtu.be
5. Designing Buildings Wiki, (Portal Frame, 2020)
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Portal_frame#:~:text=Portal%20frames%
20are%20a%20type,is%20transferred%20to%20the%20columns

12
APPENDICES
1.0 – The structures element in indeterminate structure

2.0 – The data set used in the result analysis calculation

13