LAB 6b: TWO-HINGED ARCH

INTRODUCTION
The two hinged arch is a statically indeterminate structure of the first degree. A
typical two-hinged arch is shown in Figure 1. The horizontal thrust is the redundant reaction
and is obtained by the use of strain energy methods. Two hinged arch is made determinate by
treating it as a simply supported curved beam and horizontal thrust as a redundant reaction.
The arch spreads out under external load. Horizontal thrust is the redundant reaction is
obtained by the use of strain energy method.

Figure 1: Two-hinged Arch

The horizontal thrust is given by: 𝑯=𝟓𝑾𝑳(𝒌𝟒−𝟐𝒌𝟑+𝒌)/(𝟖𝒉)

Where: 𝑊= applied load

𝐿= length of span

ℎ= height of arch

𝑘𝐿= distance from support to point load

OBJECTIVE

To study two-hinged arch for the horizontal thrust of the roller end for given system of
loading and to compare the same with those obtained analytically.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
In the case of two-hinged arch, we have four unknown reaction, but there are only
three equations of equilibrium available. Hence, the degree of statically indeterminacy is one
for two-hinged arch.

PROCEDURE

1. The indicator was switched on. For stability of the reading the indicator must be
switch on 10 minutes before taking readings.

2. The two supports were fixed tightly to the support frame. The span of the arch was
measured.

3. The ‘Tare’ button was pressed to set the dial indicator reading to zero.

4. A load was placed on the load hanger at the arch.

5. The indicator reading was recorded.

6. The applied load was increased and step 4 and 5 were repeated.

7. The experiment was repeated to get an average of two readings.

DATA & CALCULATION

Load, W Horizontal Thrust (N)

Experimental Theoretical
Test 1 Test 2 Average
5+5 4.8 4.9 4.85 4.91
5+10 7.3 7.4 7.35 6.95
10+10 9.4 9.5 9.45 9.82
10+15 11.9 12.0 11.95 11.86
15+15 14.1 14.1 14.10 14.74
15+20 15.9 15.9 15.90 16.77
20+20 18.8 18.7 18.75 19.65
20+25 20.7 20.7 20.70 21.69
25+25 22.2 22.2 22.20 24.56
25+30 22.4 22.4 22.40 26.60
Table 1: Data Collection for Horizontal Thrust

Ha Vs Load
30

25

20

15

10

0
5+5 5+10 10+10 10+15 15+15 15+20 20+20 20+25 25+25 25+30

Graph 1: Graph of HA vs Load

Sample Calculation

Span of arch, L = 1m
Height of Arch, h = 0.34m
kL= Distance from support to point load

k1L= 0.5m
k1(1) = 0.5m
k1 = 0.5m

k2L = 0.75m
k2(1) = 0.75m
k2 = 0.75m

H = 5WL(k14-2k13+k1)/(8h) + 5WL(k24-2k23+k2)/(8h)
H = [5(5)(1) [(0.54-2(0.5)3+0.5]/8(0.34)] + [5(5)(1) [(0.754-2(0.75)3+0.75]/8(0.34)]
H = 2.040 + 2.89
H = 4.93
DISCUSSION
Based on the result, we compare the experimental results that we get with the
theoretical results. For example, test1 for point load, the experimental value is 4.85N while
the theoretical value is 4.91N as show in table. For point load, the percentage error are
0.012%. We can see that experimental result is quite different from theoretical result which is
may be caused by error. The point load will be move with different distance from the pinned
support. Thus, this are the main reason of percentage error for point load The type of arch
material may also affect the distribution of load on its body. The relationship between the
applied load and horizontal thrust is directly proportional as show in graph. So, we can
conclude the horizontal value will have affected due to the type of load.

CONCLUSION (TWO HINGED)

As conclusion, we can analyse that the higher the horizontal thrust value, the higher
the load applied based from the graph of Horizontal Thrust (N) versus (N).
The error of the reading may occur due to parallax error that might be affected during
conduction the experiment such as the experimenter forgot to tare the dial indicator first to
zero value.
Bridge structure that has vibes of this experiment is Sydney harbour Bridge, Australia. The
design of this bridge is cantilever and capable of handling heavier loads. The load is applied
under the arch between the support. The deep water of Sydney Harbour Bridge made
temporary supports impractical, so the steel arch was assembled by building out from each
bank.

REFERENCES
1. Jospeh W. Balet. (2015). Analysis of Classic Arches: Three Hinged, Two Hinged, and
Hingeless, of Steel, Masonry, and Reinforce, 2.
2. http://pghbridges.com/articles/haer/pantherhollow__PA489/pantherhollow_HAER489
a.html