LAB 6a: THREE-HINGED ARCH

INTRODUCTION

An arch may be looked upon as a curved girder, either a solid rib or braced, supported
at its ends and carrying transverse loads which are frequently vertical. Since the transverse
loading at any section normal to the axis of the girder is at an angle to the normal face, an
arch is subjected to three restraining forces (thrust, shear forces, bending moment). Depend
on the number of hinged, arches may be divided into four types which are three-hinged arch,
two-hinged arch, single- hinge arch and fixed arch (hingeless arch). A typical three-hinged
arch is shown in Figure 1. A three hinged arch is statically determinate structures while others
three are statically indeterminate.

The horizontal thrust is given by:

𝑊𝑘𝐿
𝐻𝐴 =
2𝐻

where;

W = Applied Load
L = Length of Span
h = Height of Arch
kL = Distance from Support to Point Load
OBJECTIVE
To study three-hinged arch for the horizontal thrust of the roller end for a given system of
loading and to compare the same with those obtained analytically.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
In the case of three-hinged arch, we have three hinges: two at the support and on eat the
crown thus making it statically determinate structure. There are four reaction components in
the three-hinged arch. One more equation is required in addition to three equations of static
equilibrium for evaluation the four reaction components. Taking moment about the hinge of
all the forces acting on either side of the hinge can set up the required equation.

PROCEDURE
1. Simple support and roller support to the support frame was fixed at a distance equals
to the span of the arch.
2. The roller support had been anchored such that the pulley was located on the inside of
the arch.
3. The wire rope at roller end of arch was took and passed over the pulley attached to the
roller support.
4. Load hanger at the end of wire rope was placed at a selected location of the arch.
5. The dead load was offset by placing sufficient load on the load hanger at the end of
the wire rope so that the arch was levelled.
6. Sufficient load was added on the load hanger at the end of the wire rope to level the
arch.
7. The magnitude of applied load and the load of roller support was recorded.
8. The applied was increased and repeat step 6 to 8
9. The experiment was repeated two times to get the average readings of measured
values.

DATA & CALCULATION

Span of arch, L = 1.0 m

Thickness of arch, D = 0.0076 m

Width of arch, B = 0.04025 m

Distance of load from pinned support, kL = 0.25 m for Load, W2

= 0.50 m for Load, W4

Height of arch, h = 0.23 m

 Load, W (N) Horizontal Thrust (N)

W2 W4 Experimental Theoretical

Test 1 Test 2 Average

0 5 9.9 9.9 9.9 5.44

5 5 12.6 12.5 12.55 8.15

5 10 17.8 18.0 17.9 13.59

10 10 20.7 20.8 20.75 16.30

10 15 26.3 26.3 26.3 21.74

15 15 29.1 29.3 29.2 24.45

15 20 34.6 34.8 34.7 29.89

20 20 37.6 37.9 37.75 32.61

20 25 43.2 43.4 43.3 38.04

25 25 46.0 46.2 46.1 40.76

Table 1: Data Recorded for Horizontal Thrust

Sample Calculation

𝑊𝑘𝐿
Horizontal Thrust, 𝐻𝑎 =
2ℎ

For W2 = 0 N, W4 = 5 N;

Ha1 = [(0x0.25x1)/2x0.23] + [(5x0.5x1)/2x0.23]

= 5.44 N
 Horizontal Thrust,Ha (N) VS Load,W (N)
50

Horizontal Thrust,Ha (N)

40

30

20

10

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Load,W (N)

Experimental Theoretical

Graph 1: Graph of Horizontal Thrust vs Load

DISCUSSION
In this experiment, the distance of two points loads W2 and W4 from pinned support
that we used are 0.25 m and 0.50 m respectively. Based on the data that have been recorded,
we compare the experimental results that we get with the theoretical results. For examples
from the first reading, the experimental value is 9.9 N while the theoretical value is 5.44 N as
shown in the table. The comparison between theoretical values and experimental values, both
have quite big differences in term of values which is caused by the errors. Most of the
experimental data is higher than the value of theoretical data. The steps of handling this
experiment can cause the data higher or lower based on how we put the load to the hanger.
So, we must put the point loads carefully and symmetrically to avoid the error that can affect
the data. The type of arch material may also affect the load on its body. The relationship
between the applied load and horizontal thrust is directly proportional as shown in the graph
Ha versus W. So, we can conclude the horizontal value will have affected due to the type of
load.
CONCLUSION (THREE HINGED)
In this experiment, we able to achieve the relationship between the horizontal thrust at
the support and the applied load. From the data obtained, we can see that the horizontal thrust
increase as the applied load increase. Therefore, we can conclude that the relationship
between the horizontal thrust at the support and the applied load are directly proportional.
One of the precautions that need to be taken is always keep the dial indicator reading to 0 N
before proceeding with any test. The bridge is the structure that uses the arch framework the
most since the arch structure has more benefits on bridge structures that need a higher degree
of resistance. The Ravenna Park Bridge in USA uses the application of three hinged arch
where it eliminates secondary stress caused by temperature changes, shifting in supports, and
other causes.

REFERENCES

• SLIVNIK, LARA (2012): A Prefabricated Cast Iron Three-Hinged Arch Bridge in Ljubljana.
Presented at: Fourth International Congress on Construction History, Paris, 3-7 July
2012, pp. 235-242.
• XU, JUN / LV, KAIYUAN / MA, CHENG / CHEN, WEIZHEN / YANG,
JIANXI (2016): Rehabilitation of old three-hinged steel arch bridges - A case study of Ling
Bridge. In: Stahlbau, v. 85, n. 8 (August 2016), pp. 543-551.
https://doi.org/10.1002/stab.201610407
• VEIHELMANN, KAREN / HOLZER, STEFAN M. (2016): Die Verwendung von Gelenken im
Massivbrückenbau - Zur Geschichte des Dreigelenkbogens. In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau,
v. 111, n. 2 (February 2016), pp. 99-112.
https://doi.org/10.1002/best.201500039