Civil Engineering Lab Report on Light Structures

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
LIGHT STRUCTURE LABORATORY

LABORATORY REPORT
GEOTECHNICS AND STRUCTURE LABORATORY
BFC 31901
SECTION : 13
GROUP : 6
STUDENTS’ NAME : 1. OOI MEI THENG AF180272
& MATRIC NO. 2. TAN YONG YU AF180241
3. TEE KAI CHUN AF180254
4. VIVIAN TYE WEN WEI AF180246
5. YAP HAU QUAN AF180255
LECTURER : TS. DR. FAISAL BIN SHEIKH KHALID
DATE OF : 1ST JULY 2021
SUBMISSION
LAB STRUCTURE COGNITIVE RUBRIC
STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CLUSTER
Name of Group Members Section: 13 Matric No.:
1. OOI MEI THENG AF180272

2. TAN YONG YU AF180241
100 Marks
CRITERIA / Mark
Very Poor = 1 Poor = 2 Moderate = 3 Good = 4 Very Good = 5 w Marks
DOMAIN LEVEL Scale
Fundamental Theory The fundamental theory of lab
The fundamental theory of The fundamental theory of The fundamental theory of
[20] The fundamental theory of topic is presented and
lab topic is partially lab topic is partially lab topic is presented and
- Introduction lab topic is not presented discussed. The discussion is 4.0
presented and poorly presented and moderately discussed accordingly with
- Literature review and discussed related to real cases with
discussed discussed references
references
Methodology is described with
Methodology is moderately
Methodology is not Methodology is described proper experimental and
Methodology is not described without proper
Methodology [25] correctly described, wrong with proper experimental and analysis procedure in 5.0
described experimental and analysis
experimental procedure analysis procedure accordance to specific
procedure
standard
Result, Data Analysis
& Discussions [40]
- Scientific Good data analysis with
A lot of mistakes in data Some mistakes in data Excellent data analysis with
terminology & Incorrect data analysis reliable justifications for
analysis with poor analysis with moderate strong justifications for 8.0
Accuracy without discussion complex engineering
justifications justifications complex engineering problem
- References, problem
citations &
formatting
The conclusions are well
The conclusions are The conclusions reflect the
The conclusions did not written and reflect all the
Conclusion [15] No conclusion provided moderately written, some objectives and the overall 3.0
reflect the objectives objectives. The overall
points reflect the objectives summary is provided
summary is provided
TOTAL MARKS (100)
1
LAB STRUCTURE PSYCHOMOTOR RUBRIC

10 Marks
CRITERIA / Mark
DOMAIN LEVEL Scale
Unable to show the Less leaderships skills, Moderate leaderships Ability to show good Ability to show very good
Demonstrate
leadership skills, there is there is no task (e-LABskills, but students are able leaderships skills with good leaderships skills with
leadership skills (20) 5 4
no task (e-LAB work) work) distribution to distribute their task (e- task (e-LAB work) structured task (e-LAB work)
– P1
distribution LAB work) distribution distribution
Ability to show very good
Skill of Laboratory Unable to apply the basic Less technical skill using Moderate technical skill Ability to show good
technical skill and
Work (20) – P2 technical skill using laboratory tools using laboratory tools, but technical skill using 4 4
competency using
laboratory tools still acceptable laboratory tools
laboratory tools
Able to perform Able to perform moderate Able to perform good Able to perform very good
Unable to perform
Accuracy (20) – P3 calculation and calculation and calculation and calculation procedure and
accurate calculation and 4 4
measurement, but not measurement, the measurement, complete measurement, very high
measurement
accurate accuracy is acceptable and accurate accuracy
Technical
Poor lab. testing SOP Moderate lab. testing SOP Good lab. testing SOP and Excellent lab. testing SOP
Competency and Unable to deliver a SOP
and application of code of and application of code of application of code of and application of code of
Decision Making for lab. testing and false 4 8
practise, as well as in practise, as well as in practise, as well as in practise, as well as in
(40) – P4 in making decision
decision making decision making decision making decision making
TOTAL MARKS (100)
2
LAB STRUCTURE AFFECTIVE RUBRIC

10 Marks
CRITERIA / DOMAIN Mark
LEVEL Scale
Unable to show the Good participation in Very good commitment

Teamwork (35) – A1 Less participation in Moderate participation
teamwork spirit (no group during e-LAB and participation as well
(e-meeting / group during e-LAB in group during e-LAB 5 4
participation) in group work, shows the as helpful in group during
e-discussion) work work
during e-LAB work commitment e-LAB work
Unable to show Ability to show good Ability to show very good

Less awareness on Moderate awareness
Safety (20) – A2 awareness on safety in awareness on safety in awareness on safety in 4 4
safety in the report on safety in the report
the report the report the report
Very poor professional Poor professional Moderate professional Very good professional
Good professional
Discipline (20) – A1 attitude and time attitude and time attitude and time attitude, time
attitude and time
(e-meeting / management during management during management during management with high 4 4
management during the
e-discussion) the meeting with the meeting with the meeting with motivation during the
meeting with lecturer
lecturer lecturer lecturer meeting with lecturer
Discipline (10) – A1 X is how many student attend the lab session Please insert the value of X =
e-class (Class 5 8
attendance) Y is the total lab session that students must attend Please insert the value of Y =
TOTAL MARKS (100)
3
STRUCTURE
LABORATORY
LABORATORY REPORT
Course Code BFC 31901
Department Civil Engineering
Title Indeterminate Truss

TABLE OF CONTENT
NO. TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
1. 2
INTRODUCTION
2. 4
OBJECTIVES
3. 4
LITERATURE REVIEW
4. 5
METHODOLOGY
5. 7
RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS
6. 15
DISCUSSION
7. 16
CONCLUSION
8. 17
REFERENCE
ABSTRACT
This laboratory report is a report on the study of indeterminate truss. The objective of this
laboratory testing is to observe the effect of redundant member in structure and to understand the
method of analyzing a statically indeterminate cantilever truss. A 250N load is applied on the right
corner of the truss at point F. The strain readings for each member are recorded for analysis.
Experimental result and theoretical result are calculated using joint method and are compared. The
experimental force for members 1, 2, 4, and 5 have greater value than the theoretical force.
However, the experimental force for members 3, 6, 7 and 8 have smaller value than the theoretical
force. We were able to analyse the indeterminate truss and find the force of redundant member.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a statically indeterminate truss, static equilibrium alone cannot be used to calculate member
force. If we were to try, we would find that there would be too many “unknowns” and we will not
be able to solve the calculations. Instead, we will use a method known as the flexibility method,
which uses an idea known as strain energy. The mathematical approach to the flexibility method
will be found in most structural text books.
Basically, the flexibility method uses the idea that energy stored in the frame would be the
same for a given load whether the frame is redundant or not. In other word, the external energy =
internal energy. In practice, the loads in the frame are calculated in its “released” form (that is,
without the redundant member) and then calculated with a unit load in place of the redundant
member and remaining members. The load for redundant member is given by:
𝑓𝑛𝑙
P = −∑
𝑛2 𝑙
The remaining member force are then given by :
Member force = Pn + f
Where,
P = load of redundant member (N)
l = length of members
n = load in each member due to unit load in place of redundant member (N)
2
F = force in each member when the frame is released (N)
Figure 2 shows the force in the frame due to the load of 250 N. You should be able to calculate
these values from Experiment titled: Force in a Statically Determinate truss.
Figure 3 shows the loads in the member due to the unit load being applied to the frame. The
redundant member is removed from the truss so it became statically determinate truss as shown
Figure 2.
3
2.0 OBJECTIVE
1. To observe the effect of redundant member in structure and to understand the method of
analyzing a statically indeterminate cantilever truss.
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

A truss is a structure composed entirely of two-force members; that is, the members that have
two equal and opposite forces applied at two points. Thus, since the members do not exert any
torque on each other at the joints, they are considered to be pin connected. However, welded and
riveted joints may be considered to be pinned joints if the member is so long compared with its
lateral dimensions that the connection can exert little restraint against rotation.
The forces carried by the members of a statically determinate truss may be determined by
passing sections through certain members and applying the equations of statics. The method of
joints consists of choosing these sections so that they completely surround a single joint. If the
sections that are chosen do not surround a single joint, the procedure used is referred to as the
method of sections. This method is especially useful if it is desired to determine the load in only
certain members. In many cases, a combination of the method of joints and the method of sections
may be advantageous in the analysis of a given truss. According to Janusz Rebielak, more complex
forms of the flat trusses are statically indeterminate systems, and in order to define the forces
values, one should apply specific methods, taking into account different stiffness of components
creating these systems (Janusz Rebielak, 2014).
Determinate structures are analyzed just by the use of basic equilibrium equations. By this
analysis, the unknown reactions are found for the further determination of stresses. Example of
determinate structures are: simply supported beams, cantilever beams, single and double
overhanging beams, three hinged arches, etc. Redundant or indeterminate structures are not
capable of being analyzed by more use of basic equilibrium equations. Along with the basic
equilibrium equations, some extra conditions are required to be used like compatibility
conditions of deformations etc to get the unknown reactions for drawing bending moment and
shear force diagrams. Examples of indeterminate structures are: fixed beams, continuous beams,
fixed arches, two hinged arches, portals, multi storey frames, etc.
4
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 APPRATUS & MATERIALS
Figure 1: Frame of Truss
Figure 2: Digital Force Display
Figure 3: Digital Indicator Reading
Figure 4: Digital Strain Display
5
4.2 PROCEDURE
1. The thumbwheel on the ‘redundant’ member up to the boss and hand was tighten and wind.
Do not use any tools to tighten the thumbwheel.
2. Pre-load of 100N was applied downward, the load cell was re-zero and digital indicator was
carefully adjusted to zero.
3. A load of 250N was carefully applied and the frame was checked whether is stable and
secure.
4. The load was returned to zero (leaved the 100N preload). The digital indicator was
rechecked and re-zero. Never apply loads greater than those specified on the equipment.
5. The loads were applied in the increment shown in Table1, the strain readings and the digital
indicator readings were recorded.
6. The strain reading was subtracted to the initial (zero) strain reading) and table 2 was
completed.
7. The equipment members’ force at 250N was calculated and filled into Table 3.
8. A graph of Load vs Deflection from Table 1 was plotted on the same axis as Load vs
Deflection when the redundant was ‘removed’.
9. Redundant truss calculation was made much simpler and easier if the tabular method is used
to sum up all of the “Fnl” and “n2l” which shown in Table 4.
10. The values required for all the terms was filled by referring to Table 4.
11. Table 3 was filled based on the calculated value in Table 4.
6
5.0 RESULT & DATA ANALYSIS
Table 1: Strain reading and Frame Deflection
Strain Reading Digital

Load indicator
(N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Reading
(mm)
0 170 250 -15 -9 90 -3 58 50 -0.055
50 178 252 -25 -15 96 -9 73 61 -0.066
100 202 255 -35 -33 103 -12 86 65 -0.075
150 218 256 -34 -42 106 -22 96 70 -0.088
200 225 250 -49 -46 112 -28 108 75 -0.107
250 240 259 -66 -71 115 -41 115 81 -0.122
Table 2 : True Strain Reading
Strain Reading
Load(N)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 8 2 -10 -6 6 -6 15 11
100 32 5 -20 -24 13 -9 28 15
150 48 6 -19 -33 16 -19 38 20
200 55 0 -34 -37 22 -25 50 25
250 80 9 -51 -62 25 -38 57 31
7
Table 3: Measured and Theoretical Forces (ignore redundant member)
Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

1 474.94 250
2 53.43 -250
3 -302.77 -250
4 -368.08 -500
5 148.42 0
6 0 0
7 338.39 353.55
8 184.04 353.55
Table 4 : Table for calculating the forces in the Redundant Truss
Member Length f n fnl n2l Pn Pn+f

1 1 250 -0.707 -175.75 0.5 124.88 374.88
2 1 -250 -0.707 175.75 0.5 124.88 -125.12
3 1 -250 0 0 0 0 -125.12
4 1 -500 -0.707 353.5 0.5 124.88 -375.12
5 1 0 -0.707 -0.707 0.5 124.88 124.88
6 1.414 0 1 0 1.414 -176.63 -176.63
7 1.414 353.55 0 0 0 0 353.55
8 1.414 353.55 1 500 1.414 -176.63 176.92
Total 852.793 4.828
8
Table 5 : Measured and Theoretical Forces of all members including redundant member
Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

1 474.94 374.88
2 53.43 -125.12
3 -302.77 -125.12
4 -368.08 -375.12
5 148.42 124.88
6 -225.59 -176.63
7 338.39 353.55
8 184.04 176.92
9
CALCULATION
EXPERIMENTAL FORCE
Member 1 𝐹 = 𝐸𝐴𝜀
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(80)
= 474.94
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(9)
= 53.43
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(−51)
= −302.77
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(−62)
= −368.08
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(25)
= 148.42
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(−38)
= −225.59
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(57)
= 338.39
= (2.1 × 105 )(28.27 × 10−6 )(31)
= 184.04
10
THEORETICAL FORCE
250N
500N A B
500N
C
E D
∑MA = 0 ∑Fy = 0 ∑Fx = 0

250(2) - HE = 0 VA = 250N HA = -500N
HE = 500N
Joint Method
Joint E
FEA
∑Fy = 0
FEA = 0
∑Fx = 0
500N
FED FED = -500N (C)
11
Joint A
∑Fy = 0
250N 250 = FAD sin 45
500N
FAB FAD = 353.55 (T)
∑Fx = 0
FAD
500 = FAD cos45 + FAB
FAB =500-353.55cos45
FAE =250N (T)
Joint B
∑Fy = 0
FBD + FBC sin 45 = 0
250N
FBD = -353.55sin45
FBD = -250N (C)
FBC
∑Fx = 0
250 = FBC cos45
FBD FBC = 353.55N (T)
Joint C
FCB
∑Fx = 0
353.55cos45 + FCD = 0
FCD FCD = -250N (C)
250N
12
From Table 4, the force of redundant member (6) is
𝑓𝑛𝑙
𝑃 = −∑
𝑛2 𝑙
852.793
=−
4.828
= −176.63𝑁
Calculation for the Forces in the Redundant Truss

Member 1
Given;
Length, L = 1
Force, F = 250N
Load in each member due to unit load in place of redundant member, n = - 0.707N
Area, A = πd²/4 = π(6)²/4 = 28.27 mm² = 0.283cm²
Fnl = (250)(- 0.707)(1) = -176.75 N.cm
n2l = (0.707)2(1) = 0.5 cm
Pn = (-176.63)(-0.707) = 124.88
Pn + f = 124.88 + 250 = 374.88 N = Theoretical Force (N)
Theoretical forces for other members are calculate in the same way and tabulated in Table 4 and
Table 5.
13
GRAPH OF LOAD VS DEFLECTION
Load vs Deflection
300
250
200
Load (N)
150
100
50
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Deflection (mm)
Graph 1: Load vs Deflection
14
6.0 DISCUSSION
Experimental forces and theoretical forces have been calculated by using formula and
method of joint respectively. In table 3, the measured and theoretical forces which the redundant
number is ignored have been recorded. It can be seen that the value for experimental force and
theoretical forces are varied from each other for the same members. The experimental force for
members 1 to 5 have greater value than the theoretical force. However, the experimental force for
member 7 and member 8 have smaller value than the theoretical force. This may be caused by
some invisible inevitable load. The positive values for forces obtained in theoretical force indicated
that the members are in tensioned position while the negative value indicated that the member are
in compressed position. There is a member with 0 reading in both experimental force and
theoretical force which indicated it is a zero-member force. In table 5, the measured and theoretical
forces of all members including redundant member have been recorded. The experimental force
for members 1, 2, 4, and 5 have greater value than the theoretical force. However, the experimental
force for members 3, 6, 7 and 8 have smaller value than the theoretical force. The difference of
reading in experimental force and theoretical force could be the result of some error on equipment
and the invisible forces.
Since the experimental force and theoretical force varied from each other for most of the
members it means that the experimental force is far from the theoretical force. This is very
dangerous because when it happens on site, it may result in some accident and eventually lead to
extremely cost of the project.
15
7.0 CONCLUSION
In the conclusion, the effect of the redundant member in structure and understand the
method of analysing a statically indeterminate cantilever truss. The flexibility method is one of the
ways that able to determine the force when there is an unknown in the structure. The relation of
the load and deflection are directly proportional, which mean increase in load will increase the
deflection of the structure. The value for experimental force and theorical forced are slightly
difference in each member, hence the experiment carried may contain error or mistake.
16
8.0 REFERENCES
Rebielak, J. (2014). A two-stage method for an approximate calculation of statically indeterminate trusses.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 8(5).
17
LIGHT STRUCTURE
LABORATORY
LABORATORY REPORT
Department Structure And Material Engineering
Tiltle Space Frame

TABLE OF CONTENT
NO. TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. OBJECTIVES 3
3. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
4. METHODOLOGY 5
5. RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS 6
6. DISCUSSION 28
7. CONCLUSION 28
8. REFERENCE 29
ABSTRACT
This is laboratory report on space frame. The objective of this laboratory test is to verify
member forces obtain from experiment with tension coefficient method. There are two parts in
this laboratory testing. For part 1, a load 22.5N is selected as to be placed on D while decreasing
the distance a. For part 2, the distance of a is constant at 350mm. The dynamometer readings
for s1, s2 and s3 are recorded for both testing. The result showed comparison between the
theoretical and the experimental results and there is not much different for the two lines. Both
lines showed that as more loads were applied, the value of force was also increase.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
If the member of a truss system is situated not in a two dimensional plane, then the truss
is defined as a space frame truss. In other words, space truss has components in three, axis x,
y and z. Consider a member with node A (𝑋𝐴 , 𝑌𝐴 ) and B (𝑋𝐵 , 𝑌𝐵 )
Assume the force in the member is 𝑇𝐴𝐵 (+ve tension) and length 𝐿𝐴𝐵
𝑇
Definition of tension coefficient (t), 𝑡𝐴𝐵 = 𝐿 𝐴𝐵
𝐴𝐵
At A, the horizontal component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 𝑖𝑠 =
𝑡𝐴𝐵 𝐿𝐴𝐵 cos 𝜃

𝑇𝐴𝐵 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 = = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 𝐿𝐴𝐵 (𝑋𝐵 − 𝑋𝐴 )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
= 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑋𝐵 − 𝑋𝐴 )
With the same method, the vertical component at A is :
= 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑌𝐵 − 𝑌𝐴 )
At B, the horizontal component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑋𝐴 − 𝑋𝐵 )
Vertical component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑌𝐴 − 𝑋𝐵 )
Using statics write the equation for each joint using the coordinate value and solve for 𝑡
Convert it into force using :
𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 𝐿𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 √(𝑋𝐵 − 𝑋𝐴 )2 + (𝑌𝐵 − 𝑌𝐴 )2
2
A space frame is a truss-like, lightweight rigid structure made up of geometrically
connecting struts. With minimal internal supports, space frames may span huge expanses. A
three-dimensional structure is referred to as a space frame. It is made up of linear pieces that
are positioned to transmit weight. It can take the shape of a flat or curved surface. Steel and
timber are two of the most common materials utilized for space frames. To create a big open
area, it was created without any intervening columns.
2.0 OBJECTIVE
- To verify member forces obtain from experiment with tension coefficient method
2.1 LABORATORY SCOPE
1. Verification using tension coefficient method

2. Weight of load ranging from 10-50N are selected for the testing
3
The construction of space frame constructions is gaining popularity across the world.
The basic goal of architectural and structural engineering is to create a big, open area with all
required amenities and safety. Despite the introduction of new building techniques, materials,
& processes, space frame remains the best option for meeting all needs.
For the development of a space frame structure system, several scholars presented ideas,
methodologies, and experimental findings. Because of its attractive look and ability to cover a
big area without any mid-support impediment, space frame systems have gained popularity in
the last several decades. Around 1990, Alexander Graham Bell and Buckminster Fuller created
the space frame separately. Transmission line towers, airport hangers, stadiums, exposition
halls, and swimming pools are all built with space frame constructions (Lakshmikandhan,
2010). They have the capacity to withstand and transfer symmetrical and focused loads. These
constructions can readily handle services such as lighting and air conditioning.
Space frames are a type of structure that is very ambiguous. The critical compression
members, which induce rapid and gradual brittle failure, are primarily responsible for the
instability of space constructions. Certain measures, such as laying a concrete slab on the top
chord members, inserting mechanical devices, and supplying heavier sections, which can help
prevent compression members from buckling. Among these solutions is the use of a concrete
slab over the top chord, which increases compression capacity and improves space frame
structure performance. (Madi U.R, 1987)
4
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 PROCEDURE
Part 1
1. Load of 22.5N is selected

2. Distance of a=500mm is selected and load hanger is placed on D
3. Distance b, c and d are recorded in table
4. The dynamometer readings for S1, S2 and S3 are recorded
5. The selected load is put on the hanger at D and the dynamometer readings are recorded
for S1, S2 and S3.
6. Step 2-4 are recorded with different value of a=400mm, 300mm and 200mm
Part 2
1. Distance a is fixed at 350mm

2. The load hanger is placed at D
3. Distance b, c and d are measured and the dynamometer readings for member S1, S2
and S3 are recorded
4. A load of 5N is put on the hanger and the dynamometer readings for member S1, S2
and S3 are recorded
5. Step 2-4 are repeated using load of 10N, 15N, 20N and 25N
6. Theoretical values are calculated
7. A graph of force against load for theoretical and experimental result is plotted.
Figure 1: Space frame
5
5.0 RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS
Table 1
Dimension (mm) Dynamometer Reading Force (N)
S1 S2 S3 Experiment Theory
a b c d
Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
500 471 300 360 0.3 2.2 0.3 1.5 6 13.5 1.9 1.2 7.5 12.5 12.5 25.1
400 493 247 360 0.3 10 0.3 8 6 18.5 9.7 7.7 12.5 15.3 15.3 30.9
300 517 184 360 0.6 12 0.6 14 6 22.5 11.4 13.4 16.5 21.3 21.3 41.2
200 540 66 360 1 18.5 1 19.5 8 30 17.5 18.5 22 31.3 31.3 61.5
Load : 22.5 N
Table 2
Dimension (mm) Dynamometer Reading Force
Load (N)
(N) S1 S2 S3 Experiment Theory
a b C d
Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
1 5.5 4.3 8.0 3.8 3.8 7.9

5 350 497 264 360 6.5 1.2 5.5 4.5 12.5
10 350 507 228 360 1 8 1.2 8.5 4.5 14.5 7.0 7.3 10.0 9.4 9.4 19.5
1 11.0 11.8 16.0 12.0 12.0 23.8

15 350 519 194 360 12 1.2 13 4.5 20.5
1 16.0 19.3 25.5 17.1 17.1 31.8

20 350 525 155 360 17 1.2 20.5 4.5 30
1 22.0 23.8 31.5 21.2 21.2 39.4

25 350 527 118 360 23 1.2 25 4.5 36
6
5.1 CALCULATION
Part 1
a) Load = 22.5N
Dimension a = 500 mm
Dimension b = 471mm
Dimension c = 300mm
Dimension d = 360mm
Member Lx (mm) Ly (mm) Lz (mm) L (mm) t F
S1 471 -180 200 542.44 0.023 12.48
S2 471 180 200 542.44 0.023 12.48
S3 471 0 -300 558.43 -0.045 -25.13
Load -22.5
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √4712 + (−180)2 + 2002

= 542.44𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √4712 + 02 + 3002
= 558.43𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
471 ts1 + 471 ts2 + 471 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
Σ Fz = 0
200 ts1 + 200 ts2 - 300 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(3)
7
Substitute ts1 = ts2 into (1) and (3)
471 ts2 + 471 ts2 + 471 ts3 = 0
942 ts2 + 471 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
200 ts2 + 200 ts2 - 300 ts3 = 22.5

400 ts2 - 300 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

942 ts2 = -471 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2
Substitute (4) into (5)

400 ts2 – 300(-2) ts2 = 22.5
ts2 = 0.0225
Substitute ts2 into (4)

ts3 = -2 (0.023)
= -0.0450
8
b) Load =22.5N
Dimension a = 400mm
Dimension b = 493mm
Dimension c = 247mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 493 -180 153 546.68 0.028 15.31
S2 493 180 153 546.68 0.028 15.31
S3 493 0 -247 551.41 -0.056 -30.88
Load -22.5
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √4932 + (−180)2 + 1532

= 546.88 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √4932 + 02 + 2472
= 551.41 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
493 ts1 + 493 ts2 + 493 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
9
Σ Fz = 0
153 ts1 + 153 ts2 - 247 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(3)

493 ts2 + 493 ts2 + 493 ts3 = 0
986 ts2 + 493 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
153 ts2 + 153 ts2 - 247 ts3 = 22.5

306 ts2 - 247 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

986 ts2 = -493 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

306 ts2 – 247(-2) ts2 = 22.5
ts2 = 0.028

ts3 = -2 (0.028)
= -0.056
10
c) Load = 22.5N
Dimension a = 300mm
Dimension b = 517mm
Dimension c = 184mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 517 -180 116 559.59 0.038 21.26
S2 517 180 116 559.59 0.038 21.26
S3 517 0 -184 548.77 -0.075 -41.16
Load -22.5
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5172 + (−180)2 + 1162

= 559.59 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5172 + 02 + 1162
= 548.77 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
517 ts1 + 517 ts2 + 517 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
11
Σ Fz = 0
116 ts1 + 116 ts2 - 184 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(3)

517 ts2 + 517 ts2 + 517 ts3 = 0
1034 ts2 + 517 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
116 ts2 + 116 ts2 - 184 ts3 = 22.5

232 ts2 - 184 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

1034 ts2 = -517 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

232 ts2 – 184(-2) ts2 = 22.5
ts2 = 0.0375

ts3 = -2 (0.038)
= -0.0750
12
d) Load = 22.5N
Dimension a = 200mm
Dimension b = 540mm
Dimension c = 66mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 540 -180 134 559.59 0.056 31.34
S2 540 180 134 559.59 0.056 31.34
S3 540 0 -66 548.77 -0.112 -61.46
Load -22.5
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5402 + (−180)2 + 1342

= 584.77 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5402 + 02 + 662
= 544.02 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
540 ts1 + 540 ts2 + 540 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
13
Σ Fz = 0
134 ts1 + 134 ts2 - 66 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(3)

540 ts2 + 540 ts2 + 540 ts3 = 0
1080 ts2 + 540 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
134 ts2 + 134 ts2 - 66 ts3 = 22.5

268 ts2 - 66 ts3 = 22.5 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

1080 ts2 = -540 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

268 ts2 - 66(-2) ts2 = 22.5
ts2 = 0.056

ts3 = - 2(0.056)
= -0.112
14
Part 2
a) Load = 5N
Dimension a = 350mm
Dimension b = 497mm
Dimension c = 264mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 497 -180 86 535.54 0.007 3.75
S2 497 180 86 535.54 0.007 3.75
S3 497 0 -264 562.77 -0.014 -7.88
Load -5
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √4972 + (−180)2 + 862

= 535.54 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √4972 + 02 + 2642
= 562.77 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
497 ts1 + 497 ts2 + 497 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
Σ Fz = 0
86 ts1 + 86 ts2 - 264 ts3 = 5 ___________(3)
15
497 ts2 + 497 ts2 + 497 ts3 = 0
994 ts2 + 497 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
86 ts2 + 86 ts2 - 264 ts3 = 5

172 ts2 - 264 ts3 = 5 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

994 ts2 = -497 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

172 ts2 – 264(-2) ts2 = 5
ts2 = 0.007

ts3 = -2 (0.007)
= -0.014
16
b) Load = 10N
Dimension a = 350mm
Dimension b = 507mm
Dimension c = 228mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 507 -180 122 551.66 0.017 9.38
S2 507 180 122 551.66 0.017 9.38
S3 507 0 -228 555.91 -0.035 -19.46
Load -10
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5072 + (−180)2 + 1222

= 551.66 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5072 + 02 + 2282
= 555.91 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
507 ts1 + 507 ts2 + 507 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
17
Σ Fz = 0
122 ts1 + 122 ts2 - 228 ts3 = 10 ___________(3)

507 ts2 + 507 ts2 + 507 ts3 = 0
1014 ts2 + 507 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
122 ts2 + 122 ts2 - 228 ts3 = 10

122 ts2 - 228 ts3 = 10 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

1014 ts2 = -507 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

122 ts2 – 228(-2) ts2 = 10
ts2 = 0.017

ts3 = -2 (0.017)
= -0.035
18
c) Load = 15N
Dimension a = 350mm
Dimension b = 519mm
Dimension c = 194mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 519 -180 156 571.05 0.021 11.99
S2 519 180 156 571.05 0.021 11.99
S3 519 0 -194 554.07 -0.043 -23.83
Load -15
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5192 + (−180)2 + 1562

= 571.05 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5192 + 02 + 1942
= 554.07 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
519 ts1 + 519 ts2 + 519 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
19
Σ Fz = 0
156 ts1 + 156 ts2 - 194 ts3 = 15 ___________(3)

519 ts2 + 519 ts2 + 519 ts3 = 0
1038 ts2 + 519 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
156 ts2 + 156 ts2 - 194 ts3 = 15

312 ts2 - 194 ts3 = 15 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

1038 ts2 = -519 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

312 ts2 – 194(-2) ts2 = 15
ts2 = 0.021

ts3 = -2 (0.021)
= -0.042
20
d) Load = 20N
Dimension a = 350mm
Dimension b = 525mm
Dimension c = 155mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 525 -180 195 588.26 0.029 17.06
S2 525 180 195 588.26 0.029 17.06
S3 525 0 -155 547.40 -0.058 -31.75
Load -20
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5252 + (−180)2 + 1952

= 588.26 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5252 + 02 + 1552
= 547.40 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
525 ts1 + 525 ts2 + 525 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
21
Σ Fz = 0
195 ts1 + 195 ts2 - 155 ts3 = 20 ___________(3)

525 ts2 + 525 ts2 + 525 ts3 = 0
1050 ts2 + 525 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
195 ts2 + 195 ts2 - 155 ts3 = 20

390 ts2 - 155 ts3 = 20 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

1050 ts2 = -525 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

390 ts2 – 155(-2) ts2 = 20
ts2 = 0.029

ts3 = -2 (0.029)
= -0.058
22
e) Load = 25N
Dimension a = 350mm
Dimension b = 527mm
Dimension c = 118mm
Dimension d = 360mm
S1 527 -180 232 588.26 0.036 21.18
S2 527 180 232 588.26 0.036 21.18
S3 527 0 -118 547.40 -0.072 -39.41
Load -25
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5272 + (−180)2 + 2322

= 603.29 𝑚𝑚
𝐿 = √𝐿𝑥 2 + 𝐿𝑦 2 + 𝐿𝑧 2
𝐿 = √5272 + 02 + 2322
= 575.81 𝑚𝑚
For F = t x L
Σ Fx = 0
527 ts1 + 527 ts2 + 527 ts3 = 0 ___________(1)
Σ Fy = 0
-180 ts1 + 180 ts2 = 0
180 ts1 = 180 ts2
ts1 = ts2 ___________(2)
23
Σ Fz = 0
232 ts1 + 232 ts2 - 118 ts3 = 25 ___________(3)

527 ts2 + 527 ts2 + 527 ts3 = 0
1054 ts2 + 527 ts3 = 0 ___________(4)
232 ts2 + 232 ts2 - 118 ts3 = 25

464 ts2 - 118 ts3 = 25 ___________(5)
From equation (4)

1054 ts2 = -527 ts3
ts3 = -2 ts2

464 ts2 – 118(-2) ts2 = 25
ts2 = 0.036

ts3 = -2 (0.036)
= -0.072
24
25
26
27
6.0 DISCUSSION
The graph of force against load for the theoretical and experiment result has been plotted.
From the graph S1 that have been plotted, we can see that for the graph, the comparison
between the theoretical and the experimental results is there is not much different for the two
lines. When more loads were applied, the value of force was also increase.
It is same as the graph S2, but there is a little difference between the theoretical and the
experimental results which the theoretical value inclined more sharply. The value of force is
increase due to the increasing of load.
Therefore, for the graph S3, the value of theoretical force inclined more sharply than
experimental value which compare with graph S2. When more loads were applied, more force
will increase.
The reason of discrepancy in the results maybe cause by the spring that used was not
elastic anymore after being stretched for many times of doing experiment, it might have a
mistake during taking the results. Besides, it may vary from theoretical value due to
experimental apparatus used was not in good condition.
7.0 CONCLUSION
From the experiment, we had verified member forces obtain from experiment with
tension coefficient method. The higher the load applied, the higher the value of forces. From
this experiment, the value of S1 and S2 was almost the same compared to the value of S3 which
is different form the theoretical data. The values of theoretical and experimental graph are just
a little bit different for S1 and S2 only. From S1 and S2 graph, it shown the gradient are almost
the same while S3 graph the theoretical forced inclined more than the experimental value
possibly caused by distance and angle influences.
28
8.0 REFERENCES
Lakshmikandhan, K. N., Senthil, R., Jayachandran, A. S., Sivakumar, P., & Ravichandran, R.
(2010). Parametric Studies on the Behavior of Steel and Composite Space
Structures. International Journal of Space Structures, 25(3), 169-183.
Madi, U. R. (1987). An Investigation into the Design Parameters of Double Layer Space Frame
Grids. International Journal of Space Structures, 2(4), 215-222.
29
STRUCTURE
LABORATORY
LABORATORY REPORT
Department Civil Engineering
Title Plastic Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENT
NO. TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
1. 2
INTRODUCTION
2. 4
OBJECTIVES
3. 5
LITERATURE REVIEW
4. 6
METHODOLOGY
5. 8
RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS
6. 11
DISCUSSION
7. 11
CONCLUSION
8. 12
REFERENCE
ABSTRACT
This is laboratory report on plastic analysis of a beam. The objective of this laboratory test is to
find the form factor and to investigate the load deflection relationship for a beam to the point
plastic collapse. A specimen of 750 mm long and dimension of 8mm x 8mm is used. The force is
recorded for every increase of 3mm deflection. The graph of Force vs Deflection is plotted. From
the graph plotted, as the deflection increased, the force increased as well. The relationship of
deflection and load is directly proportional to each other. The experimental form factor obtained
is 1.69, which is beyond the textbook form factor, 1.5.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During the design process for beams it would not be unreasonable for one to assume that
no part of the beam should experience a stress greater than that allowable for the working material.
However, it can be found that a beam will withstand much larger forces before collapse than simple
elastic theory predicted. In the analysis, as the stress increased further the plasticity spread inwards
until an entire cross section of structure has yield point. At the yield point, the steel attains its
maximum possible moment capacity called the plastic moment, Mp. The development of the hinge
caused a redistribution enables the structure to carry more loads after first hinge has formed. The
second plastic hinge forms at the next most critical stage. On further increase in stress, the bending
moments at the section of the two plastic hinges remain constant at their plastic moments and it
keep increasing until the third plastic hinge forms. The process of the formation of successive
plastic hinges continues until collapse of structure. 1 The purpose of plastic analysis is to determine
the collapse load or ultimate load. Plastic analysis considers the behavior of structure in plastic
limit before the structure collapse.
1.1 THEORY
When a beam is bend around the neutral axis, the stress through the beam section varies
with the distance from the neutral axis, from the greatest at the extreme fibres (𝒚𝒚= maximum) to
zero at neutral axis (𝒚𝒚=𝟎𝟎).
If the beam is subjected to an increasing bending moment, the stress will build up through
the section to a maximum at the extreme fibres. This means that although the outer parts of the
2
beam may well have yielded and are behaving plastically, the inner parts may still be behaving
elastically and resisting load.
If the bending moment continues to increase, the plastic portion will move further into the
beam leaving a smaller elastic core. This called the partially plastic condition. The beam will
continue to resist the bending moment although with an increasing rate of deflection as the plastic
portion moves further toward the neutral axis (See diagram below).
Eventually the elastic portion will far enough into the beam and the beam will be “fully”
plastic. It will form a plastic hinge and be unable to resist any further bending moment (shown
below). The ratio of the “fully” plastic bending moment to the “just” plastic moment is called form
factor. The form factor is entirely dependent on the shape of the beam and not on the size, material
or fixing condition.
3
For simply supported beam,
𝑊𝐿
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑀𝑝 =
4
𝜎𝑦 𝐼
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑒, 𝑀𝑦 =
𝑦
𝐼 = 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑦 = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑥𝑠
Experimental form factor =Mp / My where the textbook value is 1.5
2.0 OBJECTIVES
1. To find the form factor

2. To investigate the load deflection relationship for a beam to the point plastic collapse
1. Form factor of the beam of dimension 8 mm x8 mm and 750 mm long

2. Deflection relationship for a beam to the point plastic collapse
4
Plastic analysis is the method through which the actual failure load of a structure is
calculated. This failure load can be significantly greater than the elastic load capacity. In plastic
analysis and design of a structure, the ultimate load of the structure is regarded as the design
criterion. The term plastic has occurred since the ultimate load is found from the strength of steel
in the plastic range. This method is rapid and provides a rational approach for the analysis of the
structure.
Plastic analysis and design have its main application in the analysis and design of statically
indeterminate frames. Plastic analysis has been used traditionally to assess the collapse behavior
of structures on the basic of yielding of cross-sections under proportionally increasing loading.
There are materials that may not be able to sustain plastic moment throughout the loading history
because of lack of ductility in the materials. In this case, it may be necessary to limit the plastic
rotation in the plastic hinges instead of allowing for indefinite plastic rotation capacity. In other
cases, instead of increasing the loading, it may be more realistic to increase some prescribed
displacements proportionally, such as foundation settlements, in order to realize the effect of
settlements on failure behavior of the structure (M. Bill Wong, 2009). This plastic method has
been used extensively by engineers for the design of steel structures, continuous beam, and simple
portal frames.
Analysis of stress, deflection, and distortion determinations within the limit of

proportionality of the material of a structure have been satisfactorily made. Designs are also made
assuming that the structural members behave elastically. We have been providing a factor of safety
based on yield stress. But strictly providing a factor of safety based on yield stress is not a
consistent indication of the factor of safety with respect to the ultimate capacity of a member. In
other words, if yield point is attained at a single point, it does not mean a state of collapse of the
member. Due to plastic deformations and strain hardening of the material particles which were
less stressed will be brought into action, so that the structure is able to resist greater loads. In
modern designs the above principle is followed and the method of design on this principle is called
collapse method of design or plastic design.
5
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 APPARATUS & MATERIAL
Figure 1: Structures Test Frame and connects to the Structures Automatic Data Acquisition Unit
and Software.
Figure 2: Specimen Beam
6
4.2 PROCEDURE
1. The specimen beam is measured to calculate the second moment inertia for the specimen.
2. The clamp plates are removed and the specimen beam is placed across the chucks of the
unit.
3. The length of the specimen beam is measured.
4. The roller mechanism is pushed outwards to its stop.
5. The pin is put though the load cell fork.
6. The load cell is winded down until the pin just touches the specimen beam; zero both the
load cell and the indicator
7. The reading of the force required to wind the load cell down that cause a measured
deflection 3mm is recorded and tabulated.
8. The load cell is continued to be winded down in 3mm step until there is no or very little
increase in load for each increment of defection.
7
5.0 RESULT & DATA ANALYSIS (Simply Supported Beam)
𝑴𝒑
Deflection (mm) Force (N) Mp (× 𝟏𝟎𝟑 ) ⁄𝑴𝒚
0 0 0 0
3 25 5.0 0.18
6 65 13.0 0.47
9 93 18.6 0.67
12 111 22.2 0.80
15 130 26.0 0.94
18 152 30.4 1.10
21 175 35.0 1.26
24 198 39.6 1.43
27 215 43.0 1.55
30 230 46.0 1.66
33 235 47.0 1.69
36 235 47.0 1.69
Simply Supported Beam (L=800mm)
For Force 235N :
Maximum bending moment,
𝑊𝐿
𝑀𝑝 = 4
235(800)
𝑀𝑝 = 4
𝑀𝑝 = 47 × 103 𝑁𝑚𝑚
8
Second Moment of Area,
𝑏ℎ3
𝐼= 12
8(8)2
= 12
= 341.3𝑚𝑚4
Bending Moment at yield of the extreme force,
𝜎𝑦 𝐼
𝑀𝑦 =
𝑦
325(341.3)
𝑀𝑦 = 4
𝑀𝑦 = 27.73 × 103 𝑁𝑚𝑚
𝑀𝑝
Experimental form factor =
𝑀𝑦
47×103
= 27.73×103
= 1.69 > 1.5, 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
9
Graph 1 : Force vs Deflection (Simply Supported Beam)
10
6.0 DISCUSSION
The graph of Force vs Deflection is plotted. From the graph plotted, as the deflection
increased, the force increased as well. It stops when the test is stopped when there is very little to
no increase in load for each increment of deflection.
When force applied on beam, beam deflects. As the deflection increase and force increase,
the bending moment increased. When bending moment increase, the plastic portion will move
towards the neutral axis of beam. Eventually the elastic portion will far enough into the beam and
the beam will be “fully” plastic. It will form a plastic hinge and be unable to resist any further
bending moment. That is when the beam fail. This mechanism is important for the design of
structure.
The experimental form factor obtained is 1.69, which is beyond the textbook form factor,
1.5. This is because of errors occurred that caused slight difference from theoretical form factor.
The advantages of considering the extra available strength due to plastic beam theory when
designing structure are that to ensure safety of the beam structure. This theory allows us to
determine the collapse load or the ultimate load a beam can withstand. Hence, design based on the
value can ensure safety and stability of structure designed.
7.0 CONCLUSION
In the conclusion, we can conclude that the deflection is directly proportional to the force then
reach a constant. We can assume that in a plastic analysis the resulting of the strain distribution is
linear about the neutral axis and the resulting of the stress distribution is nonlinear and is dependent
on the beams material.
11
8.0 REFERENCES
Dr. Collin Caprani, (2010), Plastic Analysis Structural Engineering, adapted from
https://www.colincaprani.com/files/notes/SAIII/Plastic%20Analysis%201011.pdf
M. Bill Wong (2009), Plastic Analysis and Design Steel Structures, adapted from
https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v6GW8jYq5q8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3
&dq=plastic+analysis+structures&ots=aGHnR-
Gh47&sig=rESJOuZuCh_O28bVPORmLYO2pyM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=plastic
%20analysis%20structures&f=false
12
APPENDIX B
(green cover page) LABORATORY REPORT(CLO 1 - PLO4, C2) OPEN ENDED LABORATORY
LABORATORY TOPIC : ________________________________________________
Influence line of statically determinate structure GEOTHECHIC AND STRUCTURE LABORATORY
GROUP MEMBERS: MATRIC NO. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

1. ______________________________________________
OOI MEI THENG ________________
AF180272 FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
2. _______________________________________________
TAN YONG YU _______________
AF180241
3. _______________________________________________ _______________
TEE KAI CHUN AF180254
4. _______________________________________________
VIVIAN TYE WEN WEI _______________
AF180246
5. _______________________________________________ _______________
YAP HAU QUAN AF180255 SECTION: _____________
13
LABORATORY REPORT RUBRIC (CLO 1 - PLO4, C2) CLO 1 – Converted to 30 Marks-

Criteria Mark W Marks
1= Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Moderate 4=Good 5= Very Good
Scale
The fundamental theory of
Fundamental Theory The fundamental theory of lab
The fundamental theory of The fundamental theory of lab The fundamental theory of lab lab topic are presented and
[20] topic are presented and
- Introduction
lab topic are not presented topic are partially presented topic are partially presented
discussed accordingly,
discussed that relates to 4.0 /20
and discussed and poorly discussed and moderately discussed real case, references
- Literature review references provided
provided
Methodology are described
Methodology are moderately
Methodology are not correctly Methodology are described with proper experimental &
Methodology Methodology are not described without proper
[20] described
described, wrong experimental
experimental and analysis
with proper experimental & analysis procedure 4.0 /20
procedure analysis procedure according to specific
procedure
standard
Result, Data Analysis &
Discussions
[40] Very good in data analysis
Many mistakes in data Good in data analysis with
Including elements: Incorrect data analysis Some mistakes in data analysis with strong justifications
- Scientific Terminology & without discussions
analysis with poor
with moderate justifications
reliable justifications for
for complex engineering 8.0 /40
justifications complex engineering problem
Accuracy problem
- References, citations
and formatting
The conclusions are well
The conclusions are moderately The conclusions are reflected
Conclusions The conclusions are not written and reflected to all
[10]
No conclusions
reflected to objective
written, some points are to objective and provide
objectives, provide overall 2.0 /10
reflected to objective overall summary
summary
Having tremendous value in
Weak OEL design and The OEL design and
Very little achievement on the OEL design and
OEL achievement organization and with organization is moderately The design of OEL is well
OEL design and organization organization, and perfectly
[10] agreement made against the
towards the outcomes of the
achievement but closely in-line organized and in-line to the
achieved all criteria to 2.0 /10
whole achievement of to the need on the achievement requirement of the laboratory
laboratory fulfill the main aim of
laboratory of laboratory
laboratory
/100
PROPOSSAL PRESENTATION (CLO3-PLO5, A2) & OPEN ENDED
LABORATORYEQUIPMENT HANDLING (CLO2-PLO2, P4) GEOTECHNIC AND STRUCTURE LABORATORY
GROUP MEMBERS: MATRIC NO. ATTENDANCE MARK DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

1. ______________________________
OOI MEI THENG ___________
AF180272 FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
2. ______________________________
TAN YONG YU ___________
AF180241
3. ______________________________
TEE KAI CHUN ___________
AF180254
4. ______________________________
VIVIAN TYE WEN WEI ___________
AF180246
5. ______________________________
YAP HAU QUAN ___________
AF180255 SECTION: _____________
13
CLO 3
PROPOSAL PRESENTATION ( CLO 3 - PLO5, A2)
-Converted to 10 Marks-
Criteria 1= Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Moderate 4=Good 5= Very Good Mark Scale W Marks
Unable to show the Very good commitment and
Good participation in group
teamwork spirit (no Less participation in group Moderate participation in participation as well as
Teamwork [35]
participation) in group during lab work group during lab work
during lab work, shows the
helpful in group during lab 7.0 /35
commitment
during lab work work
Ability to show good awareness on safety during
Unable to show awareness Less awareness on safety Moderate awareness on safety
Safety [35]
on safety during lab work during lab work during lab work
awareness on safety during lab work, always remind 7.0 /35
lab work other group members on
safety
Very good attitude and
Very poor attitude and not
Poor attitude and not wearing Moderate attitude but wearing Good attitude and wearing wearing suitable attire
Discipline [20] wearing suitable attire
suitable attire during lab work suitable attire during lab work suitable attire during lab work during lab work, always 4.0 /20
during lab work
shows high motivation
Attendance
(Individual Marks) [10]
Total week Attended: X Total week per semester: Y X/Y * 10M /10
/100
CLO 2
EQUIPMENT HANDLING (CLO 2 - PLO2, P4)
-Converted to 10 Marks-
Criteria 1= Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Moderate 4=Good 5= Very Good Mark Scale W Marks
Demonstrate leadership Unable to show the Less leaderships skills, there Moderate leaderships skills, but Ability to show good
leaderships skills with
skills [20] leadership skills, there is no is no task (lab work) students are able to distribute leaderships skills with good
structured task (lab work) 4.0 /20
task (lab work) distribution distribution their task (lab work) task (lab work) distribution
distribution
Unable to apply the basic Moderate technical skill using
Skill of Work Less technical skill using Ability to show good technical technical skill and
[20]
technical skill using
laboratory tools
laboratory tools, but still
skill using laboratory tools competency using 4.0 /20
laboratory tools acceptable
laboratory tools
Unable to deliver creativity Able to deliver creativity in Able to deliver good ideas and Able to deliver original
Innovative in Delivering Able to deliver creativity in
Idea [40]
in solving basic and
solving basic problem
solving complex problem creativity in solving complex ideas and creativity in 8.0 /40
complex problem moderately problem solving complex problem
Able to perform very good
Unable to perform accurate Able to perform calculation Able to perform moderate Able to perform good
calculation procedure and
Accuracy [20] calculation and and measurement, but not calculation and measurement, calculation and measurement,
measurement, very high 4.0 /20
measurement accurate the accuracy is acceptable complete and accurate
accuracy
/100
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA
LIGHT STRUCTURE LABORATORY
OPEN ENDED LABORATORY

REPORT
GEOTECHNICS AND STRUCTURE

LABORATORY
(BFC 31901)
TABLE OF CONTENT
NO. TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
3. METHODOLOGY 9
4. RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS 12
5. DISCUSSION 21
6. CONCLUSION 22
7. REFERENCE 23
ABSTRACT
Influence lines are able to determine the indirect or direct load that cause on a structure. In this
laboratory report, there are two objectives, which are to investigate the existence of internal
shear force and moment influence line developed in beam based on external loading applied
and to determine the reaction force of influence line developed at the support of beam. The
scope of this experiment is focus on bending moment and shear force which acting on the
structure by constructing influence line for each case and determine its critical loading on the
section. For both parts, the experimental results are close to theoretical results.
1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Influence lines are able to determine the indirect or direct load that cause on a structure. The
influence line usually applies on the structures which contain of variable load such as travelling
vehicle or human (Karnovsky, 2010). The critical load can be determined using influence line
which cause by variable loads. It is presented by a graph to show the variation of the magnitude
of the certain function of a structure such as axial force in members, shear force, bending
moment and support reaction (Libretext, 2021). The bending moment is defined as the
algebraic sum of all the moments acting on beam or a frame. Shearing force is the algebraic
sum of all the transverse forces which acting on frame or side section of a beam.
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The main goal and objectives of this laboratory experiment:
i. To investigate the existence of internal shear force and moment influence line
developed in beam based on external loading applied.
ii. To determine the reaction force of influence line developed at the support of beam.
The scope of this experiment is focus on bending moment and shear force which acting on
the structure by constructing influence line for each case and determine its critical loading on
the section.
1.3.1 Specific Theory
This experiment examines how moment varies at a cut section as a unit load moves from one
end another shows in Figure 1.1. From the figure, moment influence equation can be written.
Figure 1.1
2
Reaction on support,
RA = (1-x)/L
RB = x/L
For a unit load between 0 ≤ x ≤ a,
(𝐿−𝑥)𝑎
𝑀𝑥 = – 1 (𝑎 – 𝑥) (equation 1.1)
𝐿
For a unit load between 0 ≤ x ≤ (L-a),
𝑥𝑏
𝑀𝑥 = – (𝑥 – 𝑎) (equation 1.2)
𝐿
When the beam is loaded between A and C as shown in Figure 1.2, the moment at the ‘cut’ can
be calculated using equation 1.1. If the beam is loaded between B and C, the moment at the
‘cut’ can be calculated using the influence line shows in equation 1.2.
If the beam is loaded as shown in Figure 1.2, the moment at the ‘cut’ can be calculated
using equation 1.3
Figure 1.2: Moment influence line for the ‘cut’ section
3
Moment at ‘cut’ section = 𝐹1𝑦1 + 𝐹2𝑦2 + 𝐹3𝑦3 (equation 1.3)
(y1, y2, and y3 are coordinates derived from the influence line in terms of x1, x2, x3, a, b
and L)
1.3.2 Configuration of The Specimen
Configuration of the beam specimen used in this experiment set in four different loads which
is 150g, 225g and 450g. The loads were converted from Gram, g to Newton, N unit and the
loads are located in three different distance cases from left support.
1.3.3 Type of Testing
Type of test that have been conducted is shear force and bending moment influence
lines in beam test.
1.3.4 Standard Code of Practice
Standard code of practice used in this laboratory experiment is BS EN 5400.
1.3.5 Type of Instrumentation
Shear force in beam machine
To demonstrate and investigate the shear forces within a structure by use of a loaded beam
designed to move in shear only.
4
Bending moment in beam machine
To demonstrate and investigate the bending moments and forces within a structure. The
experiment hardware is a simply supported beam ‘cut’ by a pivot.
1.4 Significance of Laboratory
(i) To understand how to conduct the force and bending moment machine.
(ii) To understand existence of internal shear force and moment due the moving load
effect in beam more practically.
(iii) To learn how to determine the shear force and bending moment influence line of
statically determinate structure by using formula.
5
Shearing forces are unaligned forces pushing one part of a body in one specific
direction, and another part of the body in the opposite direction. When the forces are colinear
(aligned into each other), they are called compression forces. An example is a deck of cards
being pushed one way on the top, and the other at the bottom, causing the cards to slide.
Another example is when wind blows at the side of a peaked roof of a house - the side walls
experience a force at their top pushing in the direction of the wind, and their bottom in the
opposite direction, from the ground or foundation. William A. Nash (1998) defines shear force
in terms of planes : “If a plane is passed through a body, a force acting along this plane is
called a shear force or shearing force.” The shear force at any cross-section of a horizontal
beam is the algebraic sum of the vertical projection of all forces (including reaction) to the left
of the given cross-section (where in the sum, the projection of a force is positive if the direction
is upward and negative if the projection of a force is negative according to Sharma D.P (2010).
Figure 1: free body diagram of the beam
Influence line represents the variation of either the reaction, shear, moment, or
deflection at a specific point in a member, as a concentrated force moves over the member.
Influence lines are important for the design of a structure that resists large live loads moving
along the spans such as bridges and cranes according to Russell C. Hibbler (2009). Common
functions studied with influence lines include reactions (forces that the structure’s supports
must apply for the structure to remain static), shear, moment, and deflection (deformation).
Influence lines are important in designing beams and trusses used in bridges, crane
rails, conveyor belts, floor girders, and other structures where loads will move along their span.
The influence lines show where a load will create the maximum effect for any of the functions
studied. Bridge weigh-in-motion (BWIM) provides an alternative to conventional static weigh
station for obtaining vehicle axle weights (Andrew Lansdell and others, 2017). Existing BWIM
algorithms assume the vehicles being measured are traveling at a constant speed. This is a
6
reasonable assumption for short-span highway bridges but will yield large error for railroad
bridges and bridges subjected to speed varying traffic. BWIM technology to improve the
estimation accuracy on axle weights when measuring a vehicle traveling at nonconstant speed.
Figure 2: Stimulation of Bridge Weigh-In-Motion Technology
There is a new method of shear force measurement using fiber Bragg grating (FBG) as
the sensing element. In this sensor, the FBG is embedded in such a way that the applied shear
strain is transformed as an equivalent axial strain in the embedded fiber. The basic sensor
design consists of layers of carbon composite material (CCM) and deformable layer with an
embedded FBG at a very small angle. With this embedding technique, a linear variation of the
reflected Bragg wavelength shift with the applied shear force is observed according to R.Suresh,
S.C. Tjin and N.Q. Ngo (2003). The sensor was tested with an applied force of 40 N. A good
sensitivity of 81 pm/N is found for this sensor, which is suitable for most engineering
applications. Failure test of the sensor shows that the sensor can withstand a maximum shear
force of 67 N. Shear force measurement is an important issue in many engineering applications
such as structural health monitoring, where the measurement of relative movement due to
unequal expansion between different structural components is an important parameter. An
equally important area of application of shear force sensor is in robotics, where tactile sensing
is required to provide complete information on normal force, shear force and hardness of the
object for robotic arm.
7
Figure 3: Schematic of the experiment set-up used for testing the sensor.
8
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Flow chart of producing Influence Line
A one-unit weight
moving load is used
A point is chosen wherever

the reaction, moment, shear
or deflection is required
The moving load is applied at

various points, and statics concepts
are utilized to calculate the reaction,
shear, moment and deflection at a
point.
The values of reaction, shear,

moment, or deflection are plotted
along the length of the beam, and the
point under consideration is
calculated
A straight line is obtained for a

statically determinate construction,
even if the slope of the line may
change as the load passes over the
points
9
3. 1 PROCEDURE
Part 1:
1. The digital forces meter reads zero with no load

2. A hanger weighing between 150 and 300g was placed at the first grooved hanger
support on the left support, and digital forces readings were recorded in the table.
3. The procedure repeated to the next grooved hanger until to the last groove hanger at
the right-hand support.
Part 2:
1. Three load hangers with any load weighing between 50 and 400g placed on it and
positioned at any location between the supports.
2. The table records the location and digital forces show readings.
3. The procedure is repeated with the other three locations.
10
Apparatus
Figure 1 : Apparatus for Bending Moment
Figure 2: Apparatus for Shear Force
11
4.0 RESULT & DATA ANALYSIS
12
PART 1
Position Of Hanger Exp. Theoretical
From Left Hand Reaction Reaction
Case
Support (m) force (N) Force (N)
150 225 450 RA RB RA RB
1 0.06 0.12 0.18 4.6 3.4 5.4 2.6
2 0.06 0.18 0.36 1.9 6.1 3.5 4.5
3 0.07 0.06 0.12 6.3 1.7 6.6 1.8
Experimental Reaction Force:
Case 1
ΣMA = 0
1.4(0.06) + 2.2(0.12) +4.4(0.18) -RB(0.34) = 0
RB = 3.4N
RA + RB = 1.4 + 2.2 + 4.4
RA = 4.6N
Case 2
ΣMA = 0
1.4(0.06) + 2.2(0.18) +4.4(0.36) -RB(0.34) = 0
RB = 6.1N
RA + RB = 1.4 + 2.2 + 4.4
RA = 1.9N
Case 3
ΣMA = 0
2.2(0.06) +4.4(0.12) - 1.4(0.07) -RB(0.34) = 0
RB = 1.7N
RA + RB = 1.4 + 2.2 + 4.4
RA = 6.3N
13
Influence Line (Theoretical)
Case 1
Reaction at support B:
𝑌1 1.0 𝑌2 1.0 𝑌3 1.0

= = =
0.18 0.44 0.12 0.44 0.06 0.44
Y1 = 0.4 Y2 = 0.3 Y3 = 0.1
RB = 1.4(0.1) + 2.2(0.3) + 4.4(0.4)
= 2.6 N
Reaction at support A:
𝑌1 1.0 𝑌2 1.0 𝑌3 1.0

= = =
0.38 0.44 0.32 0.44 0.26 0.44
Y1 = 0.9 Y2 = 0.7 Y3 = 0.6
RA = 1.4(0.9) + 2.2(0.7) + 4.4(0.6)
= 5.4 N
Checking force
ΣFy = 0
5.4 + 2.6 = 1.4 + 2.2 + 4.4
8.0 = 8.0
14
Case 2
𝑌1 1.0 𝑌2 1.0 𝑌3 1.0

= = =
0.36 0.44 0.18 0.44 0.06 0.44
Y1 = 0.8 Y2 = 0.4 Y3 = 0.1
RB = 1.4(0.1) + 2.2(0.4) + 4.4(0.8)

= 4.5 N
𝑌1 1.0 𝑌2 1.0 𝑌3 1.0

= = =
0.38 0.44 0.26 0.44 0.08 0.44
Y1 = 0.9 Y2 = 0.6 Y3 = 0.2
RA = 1.4(0.9) + 2.2(0.6) + 4.4(0.2)

= 3.5 N
Checking force
ΣFy = 0
3.5 + 4.5 = 1.4 + 2.2 + 4.4
8.0 = 8.0
15
Case 3
𝑌1 1.0 𝑌2 1.0 𝑌3 1.0

= = =
0.12 0.44 0.06 0.44 0.07 0.44
Y1 = 0.3 Y2 = 0.1 Y3 = 0.2
RB = 1.4(0.2) + 2.2(0.1) + 4.4(0.3)

= 1.8 N
𝑌1 1.0 𝑌2 1.0 𝑌3 1.0
= = =
0.51 0.44 0.38 0.44 0.32 0.44
Y1 = 1.2 Y2 = 0.9 Y3 = 0.7
RA = 1.4(1.2) + 2.2(0.9) + 4.4(0.7)

= 6.6 N
Checking force
ΣFy = 0
6.6 + 1.8 = 1.4 + 2.2 + 4.4
8.4 = 8.0
16
PART 2
Position Of Hanger
Experimental Theoretical
From Left Hand
Case Force (N) Moment Moment
Support (m)
(Nm) (Nm)
150 225 450
1 0.06 0.12 0.18 5.8 1.84 1.83
2 0.06 0.18 0.36 10.4 3.31 3.29
3 0.07 0.06 0.12 3.8 1.20 1.21
F1 = (150/1000) x 9.81
= 1.4 N
F2 = (225/1000) x 9.81
= 2.2 N
F3 = (450/1000) x 9.81
= 4.4 N
a/L = 0.3/0.44
= 0.681
b/L = 0.14/0.44
= 0.318
17
Case 1
Experimental moment at cut section (Nm) = Digital force reading x 0.125
= 5.8 x 0.318
= 1.84 Nm
Moment at cut:
𝑌1 0.68 𝑌2 0.68 𝑌3 0.68

= = =
0.06 0.44 0.12 0.44 0.18 0.44
Y1 = 0.10m Y2 = 0.19m Y3 = 0.29m
Theoretical moment at cut section (Nm)
= F1Y1 + F2Y2 + F3Y3
= 1.4(0.1) + 2.2(0.19) + 4.4(0.29)
= 1.83 Nm
18
Case 2
= 10.4 x 0.318
= 3.31 Nm
Moment at cut:
𝑌1 0.68 𝑌2 0.68 𝑌3 0.68

= = =
0.06 0.44 0.18 0.44 0.36 0.44
Y1 = 0.10m Y2 = 0.29m Y3 = 0.57m
= F1Y1 + F2Y2 + F3Y3
= 1.4(0.1) + 2.2(0.29) + 4.4(0.57)
= 3.29 Nm
19
Case 3
= 3.8 x 0.318
= 1.20 Nm
Moment at cut:
𝑌1 0.68 𝑌2 0.68 𝑌3 0.68

= = =
0.07 0.44 0.06 0.44 0.12 0.44
Y1 = 0.11m Y2 = 0.10m Y3 = 0.19m
= F1Y1 + F2Y2 + F3Y3
= 1.4(0.11) + 2.2(0.10) + 4.4(0.19)
= 1.21 Nm
20
5.0 DISCUSSION
Three cases are carried out and analysed in this laboratory report, three cases having
different position of load from the left-hand support. For part 1, the reaction force at support A
and support B are determined theoretically and experimentally. The results are then compared
and discussed. The influence line of RA and RB are drawn and the unit value is multiplied with
force applied at each position to obtain the reaction force at supports. For three cases,
experimental reaction force is closed to theoretical reaction force, especially in case 3, the
difference in value is minor. From influence line, we know that as RA decrease, RB increase.
The value can be checked using equilibrium equation.
The experimental results are slightly different from theoretical results are due to human
error and instrument sensitivity as the reading of the instrument may differ with minor changes
to the surrounding. To ensure there is minimum error, the digital
For part 2, influence line of moment at cut is determined. From table below, the
percentage difference between theoretical result and experimental result are less than 1% for
all cases. This has showed that the experiment is conducted carefully with high accuracy.
Position Of Hanger
Theoretical Percentage
From Left Hand Experimental
Case Force (N) Moment Different
Support (m) Moment (Nm)
(Nm) (%)
150 225 450
1 0.06 0.12 0.18 5.8 1.84 1.83 0.54
2 0.06 0.18 0.36 10.4 3.31 3.29 0.60
3 0.07 0.06 0.12 3.8 1.20 1.21 0.83
21
6.0 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, both objectives were achieved which are to determine the reaction force of
influence line developed at the support of beam (part 1) and to investigate the existence of
internal shear force and moment influence line developed in beam based on external loading
applied (part 2). The reaction force, moment and shear force and its influence line can be
identify. The study of influence line is important in the study of beam, bridges, truss and other
structural element to examine the force and moment at length.
22
7.0 REFERENCE
Andrew Lansdell, Wei Song and Brandon Dixon, 1 December 2017, “Development and testing
of a bridge weigh-in motion method considering nonconstant vehicle speed”
Influence Lines for Statically Determinate Structures. (2021, March 5). Retrieved June 19,
2021, from https://eng.libretexts.org/@go/page/17615
Karnovsky, I. A., & Lebed, O. (2010). Advanced methods of structural analysis. Springer
Science & Business Media.
R.Suresh*, S.C. Tjin & N.Q. Ngo, 18 November 2003, “Shear force sensing by strain
transformation using non-rectilinearly embedded fiber Bragg grating (FBG)”
Russell C. Hibbeler, 2009, Structural Analysis, 7th Edition
Sharma. D.P, 2010, Engineering Mechanic, adapted from

https://books.google.com.my/books?id=Ras1wqwuxT0C&printsec=frontcover&sourc
e=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
William A. Nash, 1 July 1998, Schrum’s Outline of Theory and Problems of Strength of
Materials. McGraw-Hill Professional.
23

Civil Engineering Lab Report on Light Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Engineering Lab Report on Light Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

LIGHT STRUCTURE LABORATORY

Name of Group Members Section: 13 Matric No.:

1. OOI MEI THENG AF180272

TOTAL MARKS (100)

Name of Group Members Section: 13 Matric No.:

1. OOI MEI THENG AF180272

TOTAL MARKS (100)

Name of Group Members Section: 13 Matric No.:

1. OOI MEI THENG AF180272

Unable to show the Good participation in Very good commitment

Unable to show Ability to show good Ability to show very good

TOTAL MARKS (100)

Course Code BFC 31901

Department Civil Engineering

Title Indeterminate Truss

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1: Frame of Truss

Figure 2: Digital Force Display

Figure 3: Digital Indicator Reading

Figure 4: Digital Strain Display

Table 1: Strain reading and Frame Deflection

Strain Reading Digital

Table 2 : True Strain Reading

Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

Table 4 : Table for calculating the forces in the Redundant Truss

Member Length f n fnl n2l Pn Pn+f

Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

∑MA = 0 ∑Fy = 0 ∑Fx = 0

Calculation for the Forces in the Redundant Truss

Graph 1: Load vs Deflection

Course Code BFC 31901

Department Structure And Material Engineering

Tiltle Space Frame

NO. TITLE PAGE

5. RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS 6

At A, the horizontal component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 𝑖𝑠 =

𝑡𝐴𝐵 𝐿𝐴𝐵 cos 𝜃

With the same method, the vertical component at A is :

At B, the horizontal component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑋𝐴 − 𝑋𝐵 )

Vertical component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑌𝐴 − 𝑋𝐵 )

Convert it into force using :

𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 𝐿𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 √(𝑋𝐵 − 𝑋𝐴 )2 + (𝑌𝐵 − 𝑌𝐴 )2

2.1 LABORATORY SCOPE

1. Verification using tension coefficient method

1. Load of 22.5N is selected

1. Distance a is fixed at 350mm

Figure 1: Space frame

1 5.5 4.3 8.0 3.8 3.8 7.9

1 11.0 11.8 16.0 12.0 12.0 23.8

1 16.0 19.3 25.5 17.1 17.1 31.8

1 22.0 23.8 31.5 21.2 21.2 39.4

𝐿 = √4712 + (−180)2 + 2002

200 ts2 + 200 ts2 - 300 ts3 = 22.5

From equation (4)

Substitute (4) into (5)

Substitute ts2 into (4)

𝐿 = √4932 + (−180)2 + 1532

Substitute ts1 = ts2 into (1) and (3)

153 ts2 + 153 ts2 - 247 ts3 = 22.5

From equation (4)

Substitute (4) into (5)

Substitute ts2 into (4)