UNIVERSITI

TEKNOLOGI
MARA

LabReport: CES511 – STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

KAMPUS PULAU PINANG

CES511 –STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

LAB EXPERIMENT: TWO & THREE HINGED ARCH (CO2:PO5)
SEMESTER : OCT – FEB 2022 DATE OF LAB : 18 OCTOBER 2021
GROUP : PEC221 5E1 LAB LEVEL OEL : 1
LECTURER : MADAM NOOR SYAFEEKHA BINTI MOHAMAD SAKDUN
CO2: Organize laboratory work on structural elements and materials.
PO5: Ability to utilize appropriate techniques, resources and modern engineering and IT tools in predicting and modelling
of complex civil engineering problems with an understanding of the limitations.

CRITERIA
NO STUDENT ID NAME
1 2 3 4 TOTAL
1. 2020879202 MUHAMMAD QAYYUM BIN MOHD BOKARI
2. 2020458896 NUR AIN FASIHAH BINTI ABDULLAH
3. 2020884642 NUR NABILA BINTI ABDULLAH ZAWAWI
4. 2020869454 NUR SYUHADA BINTI SALLEH
5. 2020899416 NURUL IZZAH BINTI MOHD ZAIN

PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE RUBRIC

PERFORMANCE
SCALE
Developing Functional Proficient Advanced
0 1 2 3 4 5

Often requires Generally able to

Ability to design and Unable to design/ instructor to design / design / identify basic
conducted a identify the basic idea / identify basic idea / idea / task of the
1 research- based task of the experiment. task of the experiment. experiment.
experiment (P1-P2)
Helps are required to Helps are required with Able to conduct the
conduct the whole refinement in several experiment with
experiment. major details and minimal guide from
conduct the experiment. the instructor.

Successfully
Cannot complete tasks Low ability to complete Successfully complete Successfully complete Successfully complete Successfully complete
2 performs experiment procedures experiment procedures experiment
experiment without and standard tasks and standard experiment
procedures. procedures. with moderate with minimal independently. independently.
guidance based on supervision. supervision.
level of
Openness
(P3-P4)

Ability to
manipulate the data Incorrect Incomplete Minimal with 1 Almost all of the All of the results have
leading to findings interpretation of interpretation of trends sentence describing the results have been been correctly
trends and comparison and comparison of data main finding of the correctly interpreted interpreted, with only 1
3 (P5-P6)
of data indicating a indicating a lack of experiment. but without sufficient sufficient support of
lack of understanding understanding of support of important important trends or
of results. results. trends or data data comparisons.
comparisons.
Ability to adapt the Show excellent
obtained result with Failed to show any No ability to adapt the Show effort to give Display effort to Display effort to
idea at all result with any suitable reasonable justification understand the understand the finding understanding between
logical justification
justification. but incorrect finding with major with minimum flawed the results to adapt
4 (P5-P6)
flawed interpretation interpretation with logical justification

Instruction to Students
1. Two (2) weeks duration is given for each lab report submission.
2. Any plagiarism found or not properly cited, the group will be penalized and marks will bededucted.
INTRODUCTION

The two hinged arc is a statically indeterminate structure of the first degree. A typical two-
hinged arch is shown in Figure 1.0. 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 the external load. Horizontal thrust is the redundant
reaction is obtained by use of strain energy method.

Figure 1.0: Typical Two-Hinged Arch

The horizontal thrust given by:

Hᴀ = 5WL (k⁴ - 2k³ + k) / 8h

NUR NABILA

OBJECTIVE

To study two 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.

APPARATUS

1. Span
2. Arch
3. Point load
4. Load hanger
5. Digital indicator

NUR NABILA
 Figure 2.0: Two-hinged Arch

PROBLEM STATEMENT

In the case of two-hinged arch, we have four unknown reactions, but there are only three
equations of equilibrium available. Hence, the degree of statically indeterminacy is one for
two hinged arch. NUR NABILA

PROCEDURES

1. The indicator was switched on 10 minutes before taking readings for stability of the
reading.
2. The two supports were fixed tightly to the support frame and the span of the arch was
measured.
3. The ‘Tare’ button was pressed to set the dial indicator reading to zero.
4. Then, load was placed on the load hanger at point A as shown in the figure 3.0.
5. Wait until the digital indicator was stabled then reading was recorded.
6. The applied load was increased, and step 4 & 5 were repeated.
7. The experiment was repeated to get an average of two readings.

A
0.32m

1.0 m

Figure 3.0 Show the actual measurement.

NURUL IZZAH
DATA AND ANALYSIS

SET 3

Table 1.1: Measurement of the Arch for Set 3

Measurement Value (m)

Span of arch, L 1.00
Height of arch, h 0.32
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.26
1, k1
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.63
4, k4

Table 1.2: Experimental and Theoretical Horizontal Thrust Value for Set 3
Point Load, W1 Load, W4 Horizontal Thrust (N)
(N) (N) Theoretical
W1 W4
Test 1 5 5 4.80 2.24 2.81
Test 2 10 10 9.30 4.48 5.61
Test 3 15 15 13.80 6.72 8.42
Test 4 20 20 18.30 8.96 11.23
Test 5 25 25 22.00 11.20 14.03

SET 4

Table 1.3: Measurement of the Arch for Set 4

Measurement Value (m)

Span of arch, L 1.00
Height of arch, h 0.32
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.26
1, k1
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.39
2, k2
 Table 1.4: Experimental and Theoretical Horizontal Thrust value for set 4

Point Load, W1 Load, W2 Horizontal Thrust (N)

(N) (N) Theoretical
W1 W2

Test 1 5 5 4.80 2.24 2.88

Test 2 10 10 9.30 4.48 5.75
Test 3 15 15 13.70 6.72 8.63
Test 4 20 20 18.40 8.96 11.50
Test 5 25 25 22.10 11.20 14.38
Sample Of Calculation:

SET 3, W1

Actual horizontal thrust, H:

H=

H=

H = 2.24N

SET 3, W4

Actual horizontal thrust, H:

H=

H=

H = 2.81N

SET 4, W1

Actual horizontal thrust, H:

H=

H=

H = 2.24N
SET 4, W2

Actual horizontal thrust, H:

H=

H=

H = 2.88N

Graph:

Graph 1.1: Horizontal Thrust vs Load for Set 3

Horizontal Thrust vs Load

25
Horizontal thrust (N)

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load (N)

Experiment W1 W4
 Graph 1.2: Horizontal Thrust vs Load for Set 4

Horizontal Thrust vs Load

50

Horizontal thrust (N)

40

30

20

10

0
5 10 15 20 25
Load (N)

Experimental W1 W2

MUHAMMAD QAYYUM

DISCUSSION

According to the data acquired, the horizontal thrust of a two-hinged parabolic arch
increases as the applied load increases. The supplied structural arch is statically
determined, with one end pinned and the other supported by a roller.

The distance between the pinned support and point load 1 is 0.26 m, while the
distance between the pinned support and point load 4 is 0.63 m. With a starting load of 5N
and an increment of 5N, the arch height is 0.32m.

For example, based on data acquired in set 3, the horizontal thrust is 4.8N when
we applied 5N of load at point load 1 and point load 4, which are positioned 0.26m and
0.63m from the pinned support, respectively, and 9.4N when we applied 10N of force at
the same point load. This means that the horizontal thrust can be affected by the weight
of the load.

Based on data gathered in set 3, we applied 15N of force at point load 1 and point
load 4, which are 0.26m and 0.63m from the pinned support, respectively. The horizontal
thrust is 13.8N. Based on data from set 4, the horizontal thrust is 13.70N when we apply
15N of stress at points 1 and 2, which are 0.26m and 0.39m from the pinned support,
respectively. This indicates that as the distance from the support increases, so does the
magnitude of horizontal thrust. The horizontal thrust values at both supports are affected
by the location of the load applied to the arch.

We can plot the graph using the experimental and theoretical data we've gathered.
The horizontal thrust and the load have a straight proportional connection. When a result,
as the weight increases, the horizontal thrust increases as well.

By using percentage error, we may verify the correctness of the experimental result
in relation to the theoretical value. The goal of a percentage error is to determine the
difference between an experimental number and a theoretical value. Percentage error is
calculated by taking the difference between an experimental and theoretical value, dividing
it by the theoretical value, and multiplying it by 100 to change to percentage.

NUR AIN FASIHAH

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have identified two results which is experimental and theoretical

that we need to make a comparison. By using a formula, we can calculate the theoretical
value and the experimental value that we considered the two hinged arch for the horizontal
thrust of the roller end.

The relationship between the load and the horizontal thrust can analyzed by
plotting the graph. It showed that the applied load on the arch and the horizontal thrust is
directly proportional in both experimental and theoretical. So that, the higher the applied
load on the arch, the higher the horizontal thrust at the support. Based on the data
obtained, we compare the experimental values to the theoretical value. For example,
based on table 1.2 and table 1.4, the experimental value in Test 1 for point load W4 in Set
3 is 4.8N while for the theoretical value is 2.81N meanwhile the experimental value in Test
1 for point load W2 in Set 4 is 4.8N while for the theoretical value is 2.88N.

Besides, there might be some error due to the experiment that might be affected.
For example, parallax error which is the experimenter forgot to ensure the dial indicator
first turn to zero value. This will lead to miscalculation that may result in an increase in the
percentage error. Therefore, the problem is resolved by carrying out the experiment and
analyzing the data provided. Finally, the objective of the experiment which is to investigate
the two hinged arch for the horizontal thrust of the roller end was achieved successfully.

NUR SYUHADA
INTRODUCTION

An arch may be located 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 force
and bending moment. Depending upon the number of hinges, arches may be
divided into four classes which is three hinged arch, two hinged arch, single hinged
arch and fixed arch (hingeless arch). A three hinged arch is statically determinate
structure while the rest three arches are statically indeterminate. In bridge
construction, especially in railroad bridges, the more used arches are two hinged
and the fixed end ones.

NUR NABILA

Figure 4.0: Three-hinged Arch

The horizontal thrust given by:

Hᴀ = WkL / 2h

OBJECTIVES

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.

NUR NABILA
APPARATUS

1. Three hinge arch consist three support

2. Span
3. Load hanger
4. Digital indicator
5. Load
6. Point load
7. Uniformly distributed load (UDL)

Figure 5.0: Three Hinged Arch

NUR NABILA

PROBLEM STATEMENT

1. In the case of three hinged arch, three hinged: two at the support and one at the
crown thus making it statically determinate structure.
2. There are four reaction components in the three-hinged arch.
3. One more equation is required in addition to three equations of static equilibrium
for evaluating the four reaction components
4. Taking moment about the hinge of all the forces acting on either side of the hinge
can set up the required equation.
NUR NABILA
PROCEDURES

1. The digital indicator was switched on at least for 10 minutes before taking readings
for stability of the reading.
2. The ‘Tare’ button was pressed to set the dial indicator reading to zero.
3. The span and the height of the arch from span to crown was measured using ruler.
The thickness of arch also measured using digital tripper.
4. The supports were fixed tightly to the support frame.
5. Then, Point Load was placed on the load hanger at 2 points in order to get the
horizontal forces or reaction.
6. The length from support to the load that we applied were measured.
7. Then, Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) also applied at the arch by using UDL
apparatus.
8. Wait until the digital indicator was stabled then reading was recorded.
9. The experiment was repeated for at least 5 times to get an accurate result.

NURUL IZZAH

DATA AND ANALYSIS

Point Load, Set 2

Table 1.1: Measurement of The Arch for Set 2

Measurement Value (m)

Span of Arch, L 1.00
Height of arch, h 0.23
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.25
2, k2
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.75
6, k6
 Table 1.2: Experimental and Theoretical Horizontal Thrust Value for Set 2
Point Load, W2 (N) Load, W6 (N) Horizontal Thrust (N)
Experimental Theoretical
Test 1 5 5 5.20 10.87
Test 2 10 10 10.70 21.73
Test 3 15 15 16.60 32.61
Test 4 20 20 21.90 43.48
Test 5 25 25 27.10 54.35

Uniform Distributed Load, Set 2

Table 1.3: Measurement of The Arch for Set 2

Measurement Value (m)

Span of Arch, L 1.000
Height of arch, h 0.230
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.125
1, k1
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 0.500
4, k4

Table 1.4: Experimental and Theoretical Horizontal Thrust Value for Set 2
Point UDL (N) Load, W1 Load, W4 (N) Horizontal Thrust (N)
(N) Experimental Theoretical
Test 1 9.6 5 5 14.30 12.01
Test 2 9.6 10 10 21.20 18.81
Test 3 9.6 15 15 28.10 25.60
Test 4 9.6 20 20 34.50 32.39
Test 5 9.6 25 25 41.30 39.18
SAMPLE CALCULATION

Point Load, Set 2

Actual horizontal thrust, H:

H=

H=

H = 2.72 + 8.15
H = 10.87N

Uniform Distributed Load, Set 2

Actual horizontal thrust, H:

H=

H=

H = 1.36 + 5.43 + 5.22

H = 12.01N

GRAPH

Graph 1.1: Horizontal Thrust vs Load for Point Load

Horizontal Thrust vs Load

60
Horizontal thrust (N)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load (N)

Experimental Theoretical
 Graph 1.2: Horizontal Thrust vs Load for Uniform Distributed Load

Horizontal Thrust vs Load

45
40

Horizontal thrust (N)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load (N)

Experimental Theoretical

MUHAMMAD QAYYUM

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this experiment is to determine the three-hinged arch for the
horizontal thrust of the roller end for a certain loading system and compare it to those
determined theoretically. We used data from point load set 2. The distance for point load
2 is 0.25m, while the distance for point load 6 is 0.75m. The load in test 1 began at 5N and
increased by 5N each test until it reached test 5, which had a load of 25N.

The horizontal thrust for the experimental value indicated in the table and the horizontal
thrust for the theoretical value were computed using the lab manual's formula which is:

𝑤𝑘𝑙
ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 =
2ℎ

Our group also picked set 2 as our data for the combination load. The UDL for all
five tests is 9.6N, whereas the point load increases by 5N with each test, starting with 5N
at test 1. The distance from point load 1 to the support is 0.125m, whereas the distance
from point load 4 to the support is 0.5m. The following is the formula that was used to
compute the theoretical horizontal thrust:

𝑤𝑘𝑙 𝑤𝑙²
ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = +
2ℎ 8ℎ
 After some calculations, we could see that the theoretical and experimental values
for horizontal thrust are differs, because the theoretical value is the value that we obtain
by conducting the experiment, whereas the experimental value is the value that has
already been determined under ideal conditions. As a result, a percentage error must be
estimated, given that certain mistakes happened throughout the experiment.

The graph is constructed in order to determine the relationship between theoretical

and experimental horizontal thrust and point load. The horizontal thrust value is directly
proportional to the point load, as shown in both graphs. These graphs show a theoretical
value that is greater than the experimental value. The horizontal thrust for UDL is greater
than the horizontal thrust for point load, as shown in both graphs. The horizontal thrust
increases as a result of the presence of UDL.

NUR AIN FASIHAH

CONCLUSION

From the experiment, we can conclude that the relationship between the applied
load and the horizontal thrust is directly proportional. The higher the applied load, the
higher the value of the horizontal thrust that we can identify from both experimental and
theoretical. It can be proof by analyzing the data obtained for example, from the data
collected, the experimental value in Test 1 for point load W6 in Set 2 is 5.2N while for the
theoretical value is 10.87N meanwhile the experimental value for Test 2 for point load W6
in set 2 is 10.7N while for theoretical value is 21.73N.

The three hinged arch were usually applied in the structure design for bridge
because there is equally distributed load from the bridge deck and moving weight from the
vehicles. The pinned support can counteract the bending moment caused by the applied
load at the ends which have horizontal and vertical thrust.

In conduct this experiment, the possible error that may occur is due to human error
which is by not reset the digital indicator to zero. It will be affected the value of the
experiment. Furthermore, when taking the length of the span and the height of the arch,
the parallax error may occur due to inaccurate positioning of the eye when taking a
reading. Lastly, the objective of the experiment can be achieved by repeating the
experiment with different applied loading.

NUR SYUHADA
REFERENCES

1. M.K.Pant, Second Edition 2014, Open-Ended Manual for Structural Engineering

Laboratory (ver 1.0 Instruction for Student),Universiti Teknologi Mara Pulau
Pinang, Fundamentals of Structural Analysis.
2. Russell Hibbeler, 10 th Edition 2017, Arch and Cable, Structural Analysis.
3. Recorded video (two-hinged arch),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypalk3suTI
4. Recorded video (three-hinged arch),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKqqzz1rcA8&t=36s