Structural Rocking Beam Lab Report

ENCE 444 Section 0101 - Nick Webb

Table of Contents:
Table of Contents: 2
1 | Scope of Testing: 3
1.1 | Objectives of Testing: 3
1.2 | Scope of Testing: 3
2 | Test Set-Up Overview: 4
2.1 | Specimen Design: 4
2.2 | Loading System: 5
2.3 | Instrumentation: 5
2.4 | Data Acquisition System and Plan: 6
3 | Test Procedure: 6
3.1 | Loading Protocol: 6
3.2 | Data Monitoring and Checking During Testing: 6
3.3 | Test Implementation: 7
4 | Analytical Prediction: 7
4.1 | Calculated Model Parameters Using Principles of Engineering: 8
4.2 | Calculated Response Using Simplified Model: 8
4.2a | Gap-Opening Force: Pgo 8
4.2b | Initial Stiffness of Beam | K0 9
4.2c | Secondary Stiffness of Beam | K2 9
4.2d | Load Corresponding to Clearance Closure | Procking/Pcc 9
4.2e | Deflection at Gap Opening | δgo 9
4.2f | Deflection at Clearance Closure | δcc 10
4.2g | Failure Method 1: Buckling of Plate A | PLB 10
4.2h | Failure Method 2: Yielding of Plate A | PAy 10
4.2i | Failure Method 3: Bolt Slipping Failure | PBF 10
4.2j | Failure Method 4: Bolt Bearing Failure | PBB 11
5 | Test Results and Data Analysis: 12
5.1 | Data Checking and Verification: 12
5.2 | Identification of Structural Parameters and Important Properties: 13
5.3 | Comparison of Experimental Response with Estimated and Measured Parameters: 13
6 | Summary: 14
7 | References: 15
1 | Scope of Testing:
1.1 | Objectives of Testing:
In the analysis of the rocking beam system, multiple methods of failure of the fuse plate
were investigated using three different structural engineering models. The methods of failure that
were analyzed were buckling of the fuse plate, yielding of the fuse plate, bolt slipping, and bolt
bearing failure. The engineering models used to investigate the four failure modes included the
analytical model, numerical model, and the experimental model. These models provide the load
capacities of each failure method which can be used to determine the sequence of the failure
methods: the method of failure with the lowest load capacity will fail first.
From the models, additional values beyond the load capacity of each failure method can
be determined. In this experiment, it was also important to find the vertical load required to open
the gap between the rocking beam and the end plate, Pgo. The deflection at the end of the rocking
beam when this force is applied can also be found, δgo. Another important value was P cc, the
vertical load required to close the 0.25” clearance beneath the bottom of the fuse plate. With
these values we were able to calculate the initial stiffness of the beam, K0, and the secondary
stiffness of the beam, K2.
To determine these values experimentally, quasi-static testing was completed. In our
experiment our loads varied overtime, slowly increasing to failure. However, because the load
was applied slowly, any inertial effects from abrupt loading changes are negligible, unlike in
dynamic loading.

1.2 | Scope of Testing:

The scope of testing discussed in this report involved the testing of the two rocking beam
set-ups discussed in detail in Section 2.1. The only difference between the test specimen was that
one test involved a 9” fuse plate and the second test involved a 7” fuse plate. Both of these fuse
plates were analyzed using an analytical model, numerical model, and experimental model. The
analytical model was calculated using knowledge from prior coursework about structural
analysis and making assumptions and simplifications of our test specimen. The analytical model
results are discussed in Section 4 of this report. The numerical model was created by our
professor, Dr. Yunfeng Zhang, with the results distributed to the student lab groups.
The experimental model was fabricated by each lab group during lab sessions. This
fabrication process included drilling the bolt holes, installing strain gauges, and securing the test
specimen to the rocking beam set up in accordance with the design drawings in Section 2.1 of
this report. Following the fabrication and test set-up, the rocking beam test commenced
following the procedure outlined in Section 3 of this report. In order to collect data during the
experimental testing, strain gauges and displacement sensors. This instrumentation is discussed
in more detail in Section 2.3.
Following the completion of the three models for each test specimen, a thorough analysis
of the results was completed. This analysis compared deflections and loads at important events in
addition to analyzing the stiffness of the rocking beam initially and after gap-opening. The
comparison of model results is in Section 5.3 of this report.

2 | Test Set-Up Overview:

2.1 | Specimen Design:

Figure 1: Plate A Design Drawings

 Figure 2: Rocking Beam Set-Up

2.2 | Loading System:

For the experimental models of both the 7” and 9” plate the same loading system was
utilized. The machine applying the loading was a SATEC 400 kips servo-hydraulic test machine.
The load capacity of 400 kips far surpasses the expected load capacity of the rocking beam
set-ups. The test machine serial # is I-series 400BTE/483280 and the calibration service date was
May 7, 2010. The load applied to the rocking beam is measured by the test machine and
translated to an electrical signal to be displayed on the lab computer and stored. The
displacement at different points in time is also tracked and stored through the use of a linear
potentiometer.

2.3 | Instrumentation:
The strain gauges installed onto the two fuse plates were both the same product
manufactured by Vishay. The strain gauges were EA-06-250BF-350/L. This model number
translates to an EA gauge series, 06 S-T-C number, gauge length of 250 Mil = 0.250”, a BF
gauge pattern, and a resistance of 350 ohms. The strain gauges installed were quarter bridge
because only one active strain gauge was used for each test specimen. As a result of this, there is
no temperature compensation for the strain gauge coming from a dummy strain gauge.
The location of the strain gauges varied between the 7” and 9” plate. On the 7” plate the
center of the strain gauge was located 4.5” from the bottom of the plate. On the 9” plate the
center of the strain gauge was located 5.5” from the bottom of the plate. Proportionally, the
distances from the bottom are approximately the same percentage of the total plate length.
However, both strain gauges were located in the center of the plate in the horizontal direction.

2.4 | Data Acquisition System and Plan:

The data acquisition system (DAQ) is used to translate the analog voltage signal from the
strain gauges into a digital signal that can be interpreted, displayed, and stored by computers and
other electronics. This process is called the analog to digital conversion (ADC).
The data acquisition system used in these experiments was a Pacific Instruments model #
6000 series data acquisition system with 16-bits. The DAQ utilized a sampling rate of 10 Hz,
meaning that a reading was taken every 0.1 seconds.

3 | Test Procedure:
3.1 | Loading Protocol:
In the experimental testing a loading procedure was developed to reduce the risk of
accidents in the lab due to improper test set-up or other malfunction. The loading procedure first
increased the load to 3 kips, a value well below expected failure load. After, the specimen was
loaded to 3 kips, the specimen was then unloaded back to 0 kips. After a few seconds and enough
time to stop the test if any irregularities or safety concerns are found, the loading increases again
at a constant rate until failure. In this experiment loading and unloading through all phases
occurred at a rate of 3 kips/min = 50lbs/second.

3.2 | Data Monitoring and Checking During Testing:

As discussed in Section 3.1, the established loading protocol provided the opportunity for
the test specimen to be adjusted and altered if set-up improperly. The output of the load vs.
displacement curves can be reviewed live as the loading occurs in order to see if the specimen is
behaving as expected. If there are any abnormal spikes or plateaus before the expected load for
gap opening or between gap opening and clearance closure, it is likely that the experiment set-up
was faulty in some way. This puts experimenters at risk of objects that are either improperly
secured or objects that are misplaced becoming dislodged from the rocking beam specimen if
loading were to increase substantially.
While reviewing the load vs. displacement curve of the rocking beam, it is also a good
idea to check that any strain gauges installed are working properly. If the strain gauges were not
connected to the electrical wires or otherwise are not working, we are not able to redo the
experiment after loading to failure without creating another test specimen from scratch. That
process would be expensive and time consuming so it is a good idea to ensure that strain gauge
data is being collected while the test specimen is still being loaded elastically without permanent
deformation.
3.3 | Test Implementation:
In addition to ensuring that data is being collected and that no abnormalities are occurring
during the experiment, we can also collect the data on the failure modes and other important
values throughout the testing time frame. Overall, the load testing took around 5-10 minutes per
group depending on the failure load, not including fabrication and set-up. While testing occurred,
the load vs. displacement graph was providing data live. This allowed our group to determine
when various failure events occurred in addition to the load and displacement associated with
those events. The important values collected live was the displacement when backlash occurred,
δ0; the gap-opening force, Pgo, and the corresponding displacement, δgo; the applied load when
the ¼” clearance below fuse plate was closed, Pc.c.; and the loads at which the various failure
methods occurred. Note that these values can also be determined and confirmed later using the
data, however, collecting the values live allows the experimenters to visually confirm that the
various events have occurred, such as gap opening, clearance closure, and failure. The loads at
the various events can also be used to determine the sequence of the failure modes, with the
failure values with the lowest load capacities failing first.

4 | Analytical Prediction:
In this section, the following values are calculated analytically for both the 7” fuse plate
test specimen and the 9” plate test specimen. The analytical model free body diagram is
discussed in Section 4.1 while the calculated values based upon that diagram are discussed in
Section 4.2. Note that where a value is not explicitly stated to apply to only one of the two test
specimens it applies to both and the geometry of the fuse plate did not matter for the given
calculation.
4.1 | Calculated Model Parameters Using Principles of Engineering:

Figure 3: Analytical Model Free Body Diagram after Gap Opening

Values used in Section 4.2:

Dimensions of rocking beam set-up:
b = 18”
a = 6”
e = 19.5”
L = 24”

Dimensions of PT Rod:
LPT = 31.1”
dPT = ⅝”

Dimensions of Rocking Beam: (Source: Engineers Edge)

dW4x13 = 4.16”
Ix = 11.3 in.4
tf = 0.345”
tw = 0.28”
AW4X13 = 3.83 in.2

4.2 | Calculated Response Using Simplified Model:

4.2a | Gap-Opening Force: Pgo
ΣMpp = 0
PgoL = F PTd’

Pgo = FPT(d’/L)
● FPT = Force in PT rods
● d’ = distance from bottom of rocking beam to PT rods = 3/4d = ¾(8.32”) = 6.24”
● L = length of rocking beam = 24”

FPT = EPTAPTεPTnrods
● EPT = Elastic Modulus of Steel = 29,000 ksi
● APT = area of 1 PT rod which has a diameter of ⅝”
● εPT = initial strain of PT rods = 590 microstrain
FPT = (29,000 ksi)(π/4*(⅝”)2)(0.000590)(2 rods)
FPT = 10.50 kips

Pgo = FPT(d’/L)
Pgo = (10.50 kips)(6.24”)/(24”) = 2.73 kips

4.2b | Initial Stiffness of Beam | K0

K0 = (1/Kflexural + 1/Kshear)-1
● Kflexural = 3EsIrocking beam/L3
○ Irocking beam = 2[IW4x13+A(dW4x13</2)2] = 2[11.3+3.77(4.16/2)2] = 55.2 in4
○ Kf = 3(29,000)(55.2)/(243) = 347.4 kips/in
● Kshear = GsAv/L
○ Gs = Es/[2(1+ν)] = 29000/[2(1+.3)] = 11,153 ksi
○ Av = A webbing = 2[(dW4x13-2tf)(tweb)] = 2[(4.16-2*0.345”)(0.28”)] = 1.94 in2
○ Kv = (11,153)(1.94)/(243) = 903.1 kips/in
K0 = (1/374.4 + 1/903.1)-1 = 250.8 kips/in

4.2c | Secondary Stiffness of Beam | K2

KDS = =n(Np/Ns)kd = 2(1/16)(435.0) = 54.38 kips/in
Kr = n(EA/L)r = 2(29000)(π(⅝)2/(4*31.1) = 571.9 kips/in
K2 = (d’/(L))2(1/KDS + 1/Kr)2 = (6.24”/24”)2(1/54.38 + 1/571.9)-1 = 3.36 kips/in

4.2d | Load Corresponding to Clearance Closure | Procking/Pcc

Procking = Pgo + K2*L/b*clearance
Procking = 2.73 kips + 3.36*(24/19.5)*0.25 = 3.76 kips

4.2e | Deflection at Gap Opening | δgo

δgo = Pgo/K0 = (2.73 kips/250.8 kips/in) = 0.011”
4.2f | Deflection at Clearance Closure | δcc
δcc = δgo + (Procking - Pgo)/K2 = 0.011” + (3.76 kips - 2.73 kips)/3.36 = 0.318”

4.2g | Failure Method 1: Buckling of Plate A | P LB

PLB = (π2EsIf/Lf2)/(L/b)
● If = (wtA3/12) = (3)(3/16)3/12 = 0.001648
● Lf = 7” for 9” plate and 5” for 7” plate
PLB, 9” plate = (π2(29000)(0.001648)/(7)2)/(24/18) = 7.22 kips
Ptotal,LB 9” plate = Procking + PLB = 3.76 kips + 7.22 kips = 10.98 kips

PLB, 7” plate = (π2(29000)(0.001648)/(5)2)/(24/18) = 14.15 kips

Ptotal,LB 7” plate = Procking + PLB = 3.76 kips + 14.15 kips = 17.91 kips

4.2h | Failure Method 2: Yielding of Plate A | P Ay

PAy = (b/L)(fyAPl. A ) = (18/24)(41ksi)[(3/16)(3)] = 17.3 kips
Ptotal, Ay = Procking + PAy = 3.76 kips + 17.3 kips = 21.06 kips

4.2i | Failure Method 3: Bolt Slipping Failure | PBF

PBF = (b/L)NBF
● NBF = Fcr*nb*ns
● nb = number of bolts = 2
● ns = number of shear planes = 2
● Fcr = bolt slip force = μ*N = μ*function(torque)
○ μ = friction coefficient = 0.3
● Torque7” = 40 ft lbs
● Torque9” = 120 ft lbs

To find N we use the Bolt Torque chart for A325 Bolts:

 Figure 4: Bolt Torque Chart for A325 Bolts (Source: ASTM)

½” bolts were used for both fuse plates on plain surfaces. We can use interpolation to find the
minimum tension force, N, based off of the supplied torque. For interpolation we will use the
fact that a 0 torque supplies 0 tension force and from Figure 4 that 100 ft-lbs of torque supplies a
12 kips tension force.

N = Torque*12/100
N7” = 40*12/100 = 4.8 kips
Fcr, 7” = μ*N7” = 0.3*4.8 kips = 1.44 kips
NBF, 7” = Fcr, 7”*nb*ns = (1.44 kips)(2)(2) = 5.76 kips
PBF, 7” = (b/L)NBF = (18/24)(5.76 kips) = 4.32 kips
Ptotal, BF 7” = Procking + PBF 7” = 3.76 kips + 4.32 kips = 8.08 kips

N = Torque*12/100
N9” = 120*12/100 = 14.4 kips
Fcr, 9” = μ*N9” = 0.3*14.4 kips = 4.32 kips
NBF, 9” = Fcr, 9”*nb*ns = (4.32 kips)(2)(2) = 17.28 kips
PBF, 9” = (b/L)NBF = (18/24)(17.28 kips) = 12.96 kips
Ptotal, BF 9” = Procking + PBF 9” = 3.76 kips + 12.96 kips = 16.72 kips

4.2j | Failure Method 4: Bolt Bearing Failure | PBB

PBB = (b/L)Nbb
Nbb = nb*Fbb
Fbb = fy*db*tw
Fbb = (41)(0.5)(3/16) = 3.84 kips
Nbb = 2*3.84 kips = 7.69 kips
PBB = (18/24)(7.69 kips) = 5.77 kips
Ptotal, BB = Procking + PBB = 3.76 kips + 5.77 kips = 9.53 kips

5 | Test Results and Data Analysis:

5.1 | Data Checking and Verification:

Value for 7” plate Analytical Experimental

K0 250.8 kips/in 14 kips/in

K2 3.36 kips/in 4.94 kips/in

Pgo 2.73 kips 2.1 kips

Procking 3.76 kips 2.9 kips

δgo 0.011” 0.15”

δcc 0.318” 0.3”

Buckling of Plate A 17.91 kips 18.5 kips

Yielding of Plate A 21.06 kips N/A

Bolt Slipping 8.08 kips 5.2 kips

Bolt Bearing Failure 9.53 kips N/A

Figure 5: Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Values for 7” Plate A

Value for 9” plate Analytical Numerical Experimental

K0 250.8 kips/in 226.0 kips/in 16.15 kips/in

K2 3.36 kips/in 3.20 kips/in 4.5 kips/in

Pgo 2.73 kips 2.650 kips 2.1 kips

Procking 3.76 kips 3.64 kips 3.0 kips

δgo 0.011” 0.012” 0.13”

δcc 0.318” 0.321” 0.186”

 Buckling of Plate A 10.98 kips 12.4 kips 11.3 kips

Yielding of Plate A 21.06 kips N/A N/A

Bolt Slipping 16.72 kips N/A 8.8 kips

Bolt Bearing Failure 9.53 kips N/A N/A

Figure 6: Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Values for 9” Plate A

5.2 | Identification of Structural Parameters and Important Properties:

There are many important structural parameters and important properties of the rocking
beam systems analyzed. Each of these properties falls under the category of the four key
structural properties: strength, stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation. Strength is the load
capacity of the material, typically found for yield strength and ultimate strength. Stiffness is the
resistance of the material to deflection and is the slope of load vs displacement curves. Ductility
is the ability of a material to deform plastically without failure. Finally energy dissipation is the
area enclosed by the load vs displacement curve when a structure is loaded and then unloaded.
In this experiment, all of our important parameters and behaviors related to the strength
and stiffness of the materials. For example, all of the failure modes calculated in Section 4.2h-j
are values of material strength. In fact, all of the force values calculated, those with a P_, are
related to the strength. We also calculated stiffnesses, K0 and K2, which were then combined with
the various strength values to get deflections.
Comparing the results of the 7” plate and the 9” plate, we can see that the length of the
fuse plate actually only affects the buckling load of the plate. While the effective length of the 7”
plate was only 71% of the effective length of the 9” plate, the total buckling load increased
significantly from Ptotal,LB 9” plate = 10.98 kips. Ptotal,LB 7” plate = 17.91 kips. Similarly, we can see that
the torque used to tighten the bolts only affects the bolt slipping failure mode load capacity.
However, tripling the torque from 40 ft-lbs to 120 ft-lbs increased the total bolt slipping load
from 8.1 kips to 16.7 kips.
5.3 | Comparison of Experimental Response with Estimated and Measured Parameters:
In our analytical and experimental models for both the 7” and 9” plate there is a large
discrepancy between the value of the initial stiffness, K0. For the 7” plate, the analytical value of
K0 was 250.8 kips/in and experimental value of only 14 kips/in., representing an 18-fold
decrease. Similarly, in the 9” plate, the stiffness dropped from around a value of 250 kips/in in
the analytical and numerical model to a value of only 16.15 kips/in. Because the K2 values are
relatively consistent across models, even being higher for the experimental model, it seems likely
that there is a significant deflection error caused by initial backlash or another factor that causes
the experimental model to reach a relatively high deflection value quickly as it approaches Pgo.
Besides the initial stiffness, K0, and the deflection at Pgo, the remaining values are
relatively consistent across models. Note that the experimental and numerical models do not
have all values for failure because the failure modes with an N/A were not reached due to
catastrophic failure of the specimen before reaching the required load.

6 | Summary:
From these experiments, we can see the different types of failure modes of steel columns
when in a system involving other components such as bolts. In addition to the failure methods,
we learned how to measure the loads, strains, and deflections of structural systems so that we are
able to create our own experiments. This lab also highlights the ability to program the failure
modes of the structure. For example, in Section 5.2 I highlighted how the length of the fuse plate
only affected the buckling load and how the applied torque to the bolts connecting the L brackets
and the fuse plate only changed the value of the bolt slipping failure mode. Using this
information, we can iterate the design of our structure to achieve a desirable failure mode
sequence to avoid risk of sudden structural failure such as buckling.
This lab also highlighted the impossibility of perfect construction and fabrication and the
need to account for tolerances when designing structural systems. In the fabrication of both our
7” and 9” plate, the distance between the bolt holes were 1/32” - 1/16” off. This could have been
caused by faulty initial measurements, failure to properly line up the drill press, not properly
securing the fuse plate to the drill press, or a combination of those and other things. We are also
using an average value for the yield stress of steel = 41,000 psi which may be different from
specimen to specimen and even vary slightly within a single fuse plate due to imperfect
fabrication by the manufacturer.
In this lab, the load application location almost certainly varied between the true design
value centered on the rocking beam and being slightly off-center, slightly rotated, slightly too far
forward, etc. Furthermore, the load application magnitude in analytical models is treated as a
point load, however, in our experiment we instead utilize a small area to distribute the load over.
Sensors also provide imperfect data due to poor installation and the inability to sample infinitely
many times per second. Sensors such as strain gauges are also susceptible to changes in value
due to factors outside of the intended measured quantity of change in length such as thermal
expansion.
To improve this lab, one thing that I would do is create a jig to ensure the proper
placement of the fuse plate. Relying on the markings on the beam felt unreliable as my group
mates consistently were unsure whether the plate was properly aligned. It was especially difficult
because setting up the test specimen properly required aligning the fuse plate along two
directions and aligning the rotation.
7 | References:
ASTM A325 powered by Portland Bolt. ASTM A325. (n.d.). Retrieved December 17, 2021,
from https://www.a325bolts.com/torque-chart/
Engineers Edge, L. L. C. (n.d.). Structural A36 steel wide flange I beam section properties table
sizes W4 to W12 -&nbsp; Engineers Edge. Engineers Edge - Engineering and
Manufacturing Solutions. Retrieved December 17, 2021, from
https://www.engineersedge.com/standard_material/Steel_ibeam_properties.htm