ENS6149 Structural Analysis

Laboratory Report Submission

Cover Sheet

Experiments Conducted in this Lab

Experiment 1: Forces in a Statically Determinate Cantilever Truss

Experiment 2: Forces in a Statically Indeterminate Cantilever Truss

Experiment 3: A Point Load Moving Across a Two-Pinned Arch

Experiment 4: A Point Load Moving Across a Fixed Arch

Student Name & ID Contribution Signature

Sushmita Debnath Swarna

Experiment 1,
Student ID: 10552385 Introduction

Shashidhar Poladi
Experiment 2
Student ID: 10398511
Gloria Nangoa
Experiment 3
Student ID: 10516904 Conclusion

Nadeesh Priyashan Arangalage Don

Experiment 4
Student ID: 10490566

i
 ENS6149 Structural Analysis

Laboratory Report Submission

Submitted to

Dr Alireza Mohyeddin Kermani

Senior Lecturer

Edith Cowan University

Date: 10th May, 2021

Submitted by
Group G01

Name Student ID
Sushmita Debnath Swarna 10552385
Shashidhar Poladi 10398511
Gloria Nangoa 10516904

Nadeesh Priyashan Arangalage Don 10490566

ii
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Experiment 1: Forces in a Statically Determinate Cantilever Truss ........................................................ 2
1.1 Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Theory ........................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Description of the Apparatus ........................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Calculation .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5.1 Determination of Experimental Forces .................................................................................. 6
1.5.2 Determination of Theoretical Forces ..................................................................................... 8
1.6 Graphs ......................................................................................................................................... 11
1.6.1 Element 3: Recorded Strain (µε) vs. Load (N) and True Strain (µε) vs. Load (N) ................. 11
1.6.2 Element 8: Recorded Strain (µε) vs. Load (N) and True Strain (µε) vs. Load (N) ................. 12
1.6.3 Deflection (mm) vs. Load (N) ............................................................................................... 13
1.7 Question and Answers ................................................................................................................ 13
1.8 Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 18
Experiment 2: Statically Indeterminate Cantilever Truss ..................................................................... 19
2.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Experimental Data....................................................................................................................... 20
2.3 Graphs ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1 Deflection (mm) Vs Load (N) ................................................................................................ 21
2.4 Calculation .................................................................................................................................. 22
2.4.1 Determination of Experimental forces ................................................................................ 22
2.5 Questions and Answers............................................................................................................... 24
Experiment 3: A Point Load Moving Across a Two-Pinned Arch........................................................... 25
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Results of the Experiment ........................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Calculation.................................................................................................................................. 27
3.4 Calculation of theoretical values................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Graphs ......................................................................................................................................... 28
3.6 Lab Report Answers .................................................................................................................... 29
3.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 32
Experiment 4: A Point Load Moving Across Fixed Arch ........................................................................ 33
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 33
4.2 Results of the Experiment ........................................................................................................... 34

iii
 4.3 Method of Calculation ................................................................................................................ 35
4.4 Calculation .................................................................................................................................. 35
4.5 Graph .......................................................................................................................................... 37
4.6 Questions and Answers............................................................................................................... 39
4.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 40
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 41
References ............................................................................................................................................ 42

iv
List of Figures
Figure 1:The experimental framework attached in the universal frame. ................................ 4
Figure 2: The free-body diagram of the cantilever truss ................................................................ 8
Figure 3: FBD of Point D .............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 4: FBD of Point E............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: FBD of Point C............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: FBD of Point A ............................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7: Recorded Strain vs. Load and True Strain vs. Load (Element 3) ............................ 11
Figure 8: Recorded Strain vs. Load and True Strain vs. Load (Element 8) ............................ 12
Figure 9: Deflection (mm) vs. Load (N) ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Forces on the Members and the Reaction Exerted by them .................................. 15
Figure 11: Free-body Diagram of the Roller Joint ........................................................................... 16
Figure 12: Structure used for the Statically Indeterminate Cantilever Truss ...................... 19
Figure 13: Deflection (mm) Vs Load (N) ............................................................................................. 21

Figure 1 Simplified sketch of body diagram……………………………………………………………..30

Figure 15 Bending Moment diagram………………………………………………………….……………..30

v
List of Tables
Table 1: Strain Readings and Frame Deflections ............................................................................... 5
Table 2: True Strain Readings ................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3: Experimental and Theoretical Forces in the Cantilever Truss ................................. 10
Table 4: Comparison of the experimental and theoretical values ............................................ 14
Table 5: Strain Readings and Frame Deflections ............................................................................. 20
Table 6: True Strain Readings ................................................................................................................. 21
Table 7: Experimental Force vs. Theoretical Force ........................................................................ 23

vi
Introduction
Laboratory experiments play a vital role in learning about different structures and
understand how they work and behave in the real-world situation. It is important
because most often the nature of different structures in actual situations are different
than what we learn in the theory. In many cases different assumption in solving the
problem theoretically are not valid in real working conditions. So, performing
experiments in the laboratory can help one to learn about these variations and
understand the real nature of materials and structures while applying the theoretical
knowledge. This also strengthens ones’ bookish knowledge and enables them to explore
new ideas and improve the scope of the topic through future research.

The lab experiments we have performed for this unit is divided into two sections. Section
1 is comprised of Experiment 1 and 2 which is related to the analysis of a truss in
determinate and indeterminate state. Section 2 consists of Experiment 3 and 4 and here
we would study the reactions exerted by an arch under load in different supports.

In experiment 1, the forces in the members of a determinate cantilever truss will the
determined and the values will be compared with the theoretical force values. Normally
in determination of a truss theoretically we have some assumptions about the truss
structure, which cannot be satisfied in the real life scenarios. This experiment will help
us to examine how these changed conditions affect the truss and the members within. In
experiment 2, we would also do the same analysis but with an indeterminate truss. This
experiment will not only help us to realise the behaviour of an indeterminate truss in real
conditions but also enable us to compare the differences of a determinate and
indeterminate truss. This will help us improving our knowledge about the different
trusses and their working principles and help us making better decisions in the future
application of our knowledge.

In experiment 3, the nature of the horizontal reaction forces exerted by an arch supported
by pinned joints will be analysed under a moving load. The theoretical reaction forces will
be calculated and the compared to the data generated form the actual experiment. Finally,
in experiment 4, we would examine another arch with fixed joint supports and analyse
the horizontal reactions and the bending moment exerted on the fixed supports. This
experiment will help us understand how the reaction forces behave under loading in the
actual situations and strengthen our theoretical knowledge about different supports.

1
Experiment 1: Forces in a Statically Determinate Cantilever
Truss

In this experiment we examine a statically determinate truss using pin joint theory. The
truss is made statically determinate by disengaging the redundant member.

1.1 Objectives
The objectives of this experiment are-

1. Examining the strains, stresses, forces and deflections in a statically determinate

cantilever truss.
2. Determining the actual forces in the truss members from the strain values and the
theoretical forces using joint method of truss analysis.
3. Comparing the actual and theoretical forces in the truss members.
4. Observing the relationship of strain and deflection with load applied in the truss.

1.2 Theory
A truss is a structure constructed by joining supporting members end to end. While
designing the members and the joints of a truss, it is important to determine the force
developed in each member under an applied load. In this regard, there are two
assumption associated with the structure of the truss:
1. The members in the truss are joined by smooth, frictionless pins. This means the
joints are unable to withstand moment. (Hibbeler, 2012)
2. All the loadings are applied in the joints. No bending moment is applied on the
members. (Hibbeler, 2012)
Because of the assumptions each member of a truss acts as an axial force member. That
means, the members are only subjected to either tensile or compressive force.

Determinacy in a Truss
A truss is called statically determinate if the forces in all the members along with the
reaction forces can be determined using only the equilibrium equations (Hibbeler, 2012).
The determinacy in a truss depends on the number of members or axial forces, number
of reaction forces and the number of joints in the truss. In each joint, we can apply two
equations of equilibrium which are – ΣFx = 0 and ΣFy = 0. So, if the number of all the

2
member forces and reaction forces is equal to twice of the number of joints in the truss,
the forces can be calculated by only analysing the equations of equilibrium. So, a truss is
statically determinate if-
b + r = 2j
Where,
b = Number of members or branches
r = Number of reaction forces
j = Number of joints

Young’s Modulus
The Young’s Modulus is the ratio between the stress and strain implied in a member
σ
Young’s Modulus, E = (Nm-2)
ε
Here,
F
Stress, 𝜎 = (Nm-2)
A
F = Force applied in a member (N)
A = Cross-sectional area of the member (m2)
ε = Strain displayed

By using this relationship between strain and stress, we can find the force acting in a
member from the strain observed in them.

1.3 Description of the Apparatus

In this experiment, we analyse the stress, strain and forces in the members of a cantilever
truss. The experiment is conducted using a fixed framework fitted into a universal test
frame which is visualised in Figure 1. The top and base of one side of the framework is
mounted with the test frame. The top support allows pivoting only (pinned support) and
the bottom support allows both pivoting and rolling (rolling support). One member of the
framework can be disconnected by rotating a thumbwheel nut making the framework
statically determinate. Load can be applied at one end of the framework using a screw-
thread and electronic load-cell. The load-cell is connected to a digital force display which
shows the value of the load applied through the load-cell during the experiment. The

3
deflection of the framework is found using digital indicator mounted at the top of the
framework (Redundant Truss, 2021).

Figure 2:The experimental framework attached in the universal frame (Lab Instructions).

To measure the strains of each member under load, special sensors called strain gauges
are attached. These gauges’ measure strains by using the change in electrical resistance
when stress is applied on the members. Since the gauges are bonded with the truss
members, with the elongation or compression of the members, the gauge attached with
them also varies in length

4
1.4 Data Collection
The strain values in each member of the truss recorded under different loadings are given
below-

Table 1: Strain Readings and Frame Deflections

Strain in Member (µε) Digital

Load Indicator
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Reading
(mm)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 10.9 -10.9 -11.3 -22.0 0.2 0.0 15.5 15.0 -0.035
100 18.2 -17.8 -18.2 -36.4 0.5 0.0 25.6 24.7 -0.052
150 27.9 -27.6 -27.6 -56.1 0.5 0.0 39.1 38.0 -0.067
200 39.2 -38.7 -39.3 -78.9 0.5 0.0 55.4 53.3 -0.088
250 47.9 -47.4 -47.8 -96.8 0.4 0.0 67.9 65.2 -0.104

Since the actual strain readings are very close to zero, the true strain values are
identical to the actual readings-

Table 2: True Strain Readings

Strain in Member (µε)

Load
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 10.9 -10.9 -11.3 -22.0 0.2 0.0 15.5 15.0
100 18.2 -17.8 -18.2 -36.4 0.5 0.0 25.6 24.7
150 27.9 -27.6 -27.6 -56.1 0.5 0.0 39.1 38.0
200 39.2 -38.7 -39.3 -78.9 0.5 0.0 55.4 53.3
250 47.9 -47.4 -47.8 -96.8 0.4 0.0 67.9 65.2

5
1.5 Calculation
1.5.1 Determination of Experimental Forces
The forces in each member applied during the experiment can be determined from the
strain and the Young’s Modulus of the material. In this calculation, we analyse the
member forces when 250N load is applied on the truss.

Young’s Modulus for steel, Esteel = 210 × 109 Nm-2

Rod diameter, D = 6 ×10-3 m

𝜋D2
Cross-sectional area, A =
4

𝜋×(6×10−3 )2
= m2
4

= 28.27 × 10-6 m2

From the equation of Young’s Modulus, we find that-

σ
Esteel =
ε
F F
or, Esteel = [∵ σ = ]
Aε A

or, F = EsteelAε
For an applied load of 250N, the force in each member can be calculated from their
strain values.

For Member 1-

Strain, ε = 47.9 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (47.9 × 10-6)

= 284.37 N

For Member 2-

Strain, ε = -47.4 × 10-6

6
F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-47.4 × 10-6)

= -281.40 N

For Member 3-

Strain, ε = - 47.8 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-47.8 × 10-6)

= -283.77 N

For Member 4-

Strain, ε = - 96.8 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-96.8 × 10-6)

= -574.67 N

For Member 5-

Strain, ε = 0.4 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (0.4 × 10-6)

= 2.37 N

For Member 7-

Strain, ε = 67.9 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (67.9 × 10-6)

= 403.1 N

For Member 8-

Strain, ε = 47.9 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (47.9 × 10-6)

= 387.07 N

7
1.5.2 Determination of Theoretical Forces
We calculate the theoretical forces in the truss by using the joint method of truss analysis.
This method is suitable where all the forces in the truss members have to be determined.
We apply the equilibrium equations and evaluate them in the truss joints with two or less
unknown forces.

The free-body diagram of the reactions on the cantilever truss is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3: The free-body diagram of the cantilever truss

First of all, we calculate the reaction forces-

Taking moments about Point B-

+∑ MB = 0 -250 × (2 × 0.24) - RAX × 0.24 = 0

Or, RAX = -500 N

+ ∑ FX = 0 RAX + RBX = 0

Or, RBX - 500 N = 0

Or, RBX = 500 N

8
 +∑ FY = 0 -RAY - 250 = 0

Or, RAY = -250 N

Now, we can calculate forces in the truss members by using joint method of truss
analysis.

Point D (Figure 3):

+∑ FY = 0 FDE sin45° - 250= 0

Or, FDE = 353.55 N

+ ∑ FX = 0 - FDC - FDE cos45° = 0

Or, FDC = -353.55N × cos45°

Or, FDC = -250 N Figure 4: FBD of Point D

Point E (Figure 4)-

+ ∑ FX = 0 - FEA + FDE sin45° = 0

Or, FEA = 353.55N × sin45°

Or, FEA = 250 N

+∑ FY = 0 - FEC - FDE cos45° = 0 Figure 5: FBD of Point E

Or, FEC = - 353.55N × cos45°

Or, FEC = - 250 N

Point C (Figure 7)-

+∑ FY = 0 FEC + FCA sin45° = 0

Or, FCA sin45° = - FEC

Or, FCA sin45° = 250 N

Or, FCA = 353.55N Figure

Figure6: FBD of Point C

9
 + ∑ FX = 0 FDC - FCB - FCA cos45° = 0

Or, FCB = FDC - FCA × cos45°

Or, FCB = -250N - 353.55N × cos45°

Or, FCB = -500N

Point A (Figure 6)-

+∑ FY = 0 -RAY - FAB - FCA sin45° = 0

Or, FAB = -RAY - FCA sin45°

Or, FAB = 250N - 353.55N × sin45°

Or, FAB = 0N

Figure 7: FBD of Point A

Now, we tabulate the experimental and theoretical forces below-

Table 3: Experimental and Theoretical Forces in the Cantilever Truss

Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

1 284.37 250.00
2 -281.40 -250.00
3 -283.77 -250.00
4 -574.67 -500.00
5 2.37 0.00
7 403.10 353.55
8 387.07 353.55

10
1.6 Graphs
1.6.1 Element 3: Recorded Strain (µε) vs. Load (N) and True Strain (µε) vs. Load
(N)

For element 3 in the truss, we have plot the Recorded Strain (µε) and True Strain (µε)
values against Load (N) in Figure 8-

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250

-11.3
-10

-18.2

-20
-27.6
Strain (µε)

-30

-39.3
-40
-47.8

-50

-60
Load (N)

Recorded Strain True Strain

Figure 8: Recorded Strain vs. Load and True Strain vs. Load (Element 3)

The application of load on the truss causes a compressive stress on element 3. Due to this
compressive load, the length of the element decreases and the strain value becomes
negative. From the graph we find, with the increase in load, the strain value increases
linearly in the negative direction. The graphs of the recorded and true strains coincide
since the actual strain caused by the preload was close to zero.

11
1.6.2 Element 8: Recorded Strain (µε) vs. Load (N) and True Strain (µε) vs. Load
(N)
Now we plot the Recorded Strain (µε) and True Strain (µε) values against Load (N) for
element 8 in Figure 9-

70 65.2

60
53.3

50

38
Strain (µε)

40

30 24.7

20 15

10
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Load (N)

Recorded Strain True Strain

Figure 9: Recorded Strain vs. Load and True Strain vs. Load (Element 8)

For element 8, a tensile force is induced when the truss is under load. This creates a
positive strain which increases linearly from zero with the load. This result is quite
expected since the ratio between strain and stress is constant under the Yield Strength.
Like the previous element, the recorded and true strains are identical because the actual
strain under the preloading condition was nearly zero.

12
1.6.3 Deflection (mm) vs. Load (N)
The graph of the deflection of the truss against applied load is given in Figure 10-

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250

-0.02
-0.035

-0.04
Deflection (mm)

-0.052

-0.06 -0.067

-0.08 -0.088

-0.104
-0.1

-0.12
Load (N)

Deflection

Figure 10: Deflection (mm) vs. Load (N)

From the deflection vs. load graph, we find that as the load increases, the deflection of the
truss increases in the negative or downward direction. The truss deflects downwards
with the load which causes the deflection value to increase negatively. From the graph, it
can also be said that the deflection changes linearly with the load applied.

1.7 Question and Answers

1. Compare to the experimental and theoretical results in Table 3.

By observing the experimental and theoretical forces in Table 3, we find that the
experimental values are more than the theoretical forces. We have compared the two
results by calculating the percent error in the experimental forces and tabulated them in
Table 4. To calculate their percentage of deviation, we apply the following formula-

Experimental Force − Theoretical Force

% Error = × 100 %
Theoretical Force

13
Table 4: Comparison of the experimental and theoretical values

Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N) % Error

1 284.37 250.00 13.75%
2 -281.40 -250.00 11.14%
3 -283.77 -250.00 11.90%
4 -574.67 -500.00 14.93%
5 2.37 0.00 N/A
7 403.10 353.55 14.01%
8 387.07 353.55 9.48%

From the percent error values, we can see that the experimental force is deviated from
the theoretical force by 9-15%. In all the members, the experimental force is more than
the theoretical value.

The cause behind the increased force can be presumed from the nature of the force acting
on the member. In theory, we assume that the members are only subjected to axial force.
But in actual cases, lateral forces are applied to the members up to some degree, which
imposed additional strains on the members. Since we used this combined strain to
calculate the experimental forces, the results from the experimental forces were more
than the theoretical forces.

2. From your results and the theoretical member forces, identify which members
are in compression and which are in tension. Explain your choice.

By observing the experimental and theoretical values of force in the members, we find
that in both cases, member 1, 7, 8 has a positive force and member 2, 3, 4 has a negative
force acting on them. From this result we can say that member 1,7 and 8 is under tensile
force and member 2,3 and 5 are in compression. In member 5 theoretically no force
should be applied, but in experiment a positive force of 2.34N has been applied in it, which
is negligible comparing to forces acting on other members.

14
The reason behind the sign convention of the forces can be explained from the method of
joints used to determine the forces. In the method of joints, we analyse the reaction forces
on the joints applied by the members connected. At the beginning of calculation, we
assume that all the forces are acting in the outward direction from the joint. So a positive
force value means that the force is acting outward and negative value indicated the force
is acting in the inward direction to the joint.

Figure 11: Forces on the Members and the Reaction Exerted by them

The reaction forces on the joint by the members with the force acting on them is
visualised in Figure 11. A positive or outward reaction indicates that the member is being
pulled on both end, which exerts a tensile force on the member (member 1 and 7). On the
other hand, when a negative or inward reaction force is applied on the joint by the
member, it indicates that the acting force on the member is compressing itself (member
2). This is why we can understand whether a member is under tension or compression
by the sign of the reaction forces exerted on the joints.

15
3. Explain the reading of member 5.

By applying the method of joints to find out the forces acting on the truss members, we
found that the force acting on member 5 is zero. In the experiment, we saw that while the
truss was under load, only 2.37N force was acting on it, which is close to zero. So, it is
evident that member 5 is a zero-force member. This can be explained by observing the
reaction forces acting on the joint connected to the member. The bottom end of member
5 is linked to a roller support which provides one reaction perpendicular to the surface
at the point of contact. The free-body diagram of the roller joint is given below-

Figure 12: Free-body Diagram of the Roller Joint

Here, Rroller is the reaction force exerted by the roller and F4 and F5 is the force acting on
member 4 and 5 respectively. The roller only exerts a horizontal reaction force which is
balanced by the horizontal member 4. Since the truss structure is stable, the summation
of the vertical forces in the joint is zero. To satisfy the vertical equilibrium equation ΣFy =
0 in the joint, the force in member 5 must be zero.

There is another way to explain the zero-force condition of member 5. We know if there
are three members connected in a joint where two of the members are collinear and the
joint does not have any additional load or reaction on it, the third member becomes a
zero-force member. If we imagine that the reaction force is an axial force applied by a
horizontal truss member, we can consider that there are two collinear members in the
joint and member 5 becomes the non-collinear member in the joint. So, because of the
horizontal reaction force applied by the roller joint, member 5 becomes a zero-force
member.

16
4. Are the strain gauges’ effective transducers for the measurements of forces in
the framework?

For this experiment we used electric resistance transducers to measure the strains of the
truss members under loading. From the comparison of the experimental and theoretical
forces, we see that the experimental forces are more in value and in consistent per cent
variation from the theoretical forces. Since the experimental forces are calculated from
the strains of their respective members, it is evident that the measured strain by the
strain gauges is more than the expected value under perfect condition. But the increase
in strain is reasonable since the there are multiple sources of variations from the
theoretical value such as- the joints and supports are not completely frictionless,
presence of non-axial force etc. Due to these reasons the measured strain should be
higher than the theoretical value. By comparing the two values we found that the per cent
variation of the experiment is nearly the same. Since the gauge measurement is deviated
equally from the theoretical values, it can be said that the gauges has correctly measured
the strains in the members. Also from the lab instruction manual we have learned that on
each member there are four strain gauges to compensate for the factors effecting
accuracy such as variations in temperature. So it can be concluded that the strain gauges
are effective transducers for this framework.

5. Does the framework comply with pin joint theory even though the joints are
not truly pin jointed?

According to the pin joint theory, we assume that the pins connecting the members are
frictionless and not able to resist moment applied on them. But in reality we cannot
satisfy such frictionless condition. Very small amount of friction is almost impossible to
avoid due to several factors such as, the type of lubrication used, self-weight of the
members etc. These factors can be reason behind the deviation in the experimental values
from the theoretical ones in the experiment. But by comparing the two values we see that
the deviation between them is consistent and not very large. So, from the experimental
values, we can get an idea about the theoretical values, but they are not absolutely
accurate because the assumptions in theory were not valid in the experimental
conditions. So, we can conclude that, the framework does not completely comply with the
pin-joint theory.

17
1.8 Discussion
In this experiment we have determined the forces acting on the members of a cantilever
truss and compared them to the theoretical values. For measuring the experimental force
values, the strains for each member under load was collected and then the force was
calculated for each member from their strains and Young’s Modulus of the material. To
find the theoretical values the joint method of truss determination was used on each
joints.

After determining the theoretical and experimental data, both were compared by the
percent error between them. It was found that in all the members, the experimental data
was more by 9-15%. This variation can be explained from the actual conditions in
performing the experiment. In theory there are several assumptions made in truss
analysis which are not possible to be entirely satisfied in the real-world conditions. These
conditions can be assumed as the source of deviations in the experimental values. Some
of the sources of variation are-

• The pins connecting the members are not completely frictionless.

• There might be some lateral forces acting on the members.
• The supports on the truss might not act as perfect rollers or pins.

Due to these unavoidable conditions, the experimental results were not the same as the
theoretical results. It is not possible to completely avoid these variations in real-life
conditions. But there are a few things which can be done to reduce the effect of these
deviations. For example, properly lubricated joints can reduce the effect of frictions and
the pins should be changed regularly. To overcome the effect of bending due to lateral
forces, we can use rigid materials so that the effect of lateral forces is not much prominent
in the experiment. By applying these modifications in the experimental setup, a much
closer result to the theoretical values can be achieved.

The experiment has also taught us the effect of loading in the truss, in the actual working
situation. We have learned that in a real-life scenario, the effect of loading in a truss does
not always follow the theoretical conditions. So while designing or analysing a truss in
reality, we should always consider these sources of variations. This will enable us to make
the right decision in our design and operation and also ensure the safety of others.

18
Experiment 2: Statically Indeterminate Cantilever Truss

In a structure if the equilibrium equations are insufficient to determine the reactions and
internal forces then that structure is known as statically indeterminate. If this happens in
a truss, then it is known as Statically Indeterminate truss.

We have the following equation for the statically indeterminate truss.

b + r > 2j
Where,
b = Number of members or branches
r = Number of reaction forces
j = Number of joints

The following figure is the structure used for the Statically Indeterminate Cantilever
Truss

Figure 13: Structure used for the Statically Indeterminate Cantilever Truss

19
2.1 Objectives
The objectives of this experiment are
• Examining the strains, stresses, forces and deflections in a statically indeterminate
cantilever truss.
• Determining the actual forces in the truss members from the strain values and the
theoretical forces.
• Comparing the actual and theoretical forces in the truss members.
• Observing the relationship of strain and deflection with load applied in the truss.

2.2 Experimental Data

Table 5: Strain Readings and Frame Deflections

Digital
Strain in Member (µε) Indicator
Load Reading
(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

50 10.9 -4.1 -7.2 -11.6 3.5 -4.9 10.7 5.2 -0.018

100 27.1 -9.1 -17.8 -27.9 8.8 -12.5 25.7 12.1 -0.03

150 41.5 -14.1 -27.6 -42.7 13.4 -19.1 39.4 18.6 -0.043

200 55.0 -18.4 -36.7 -56.2 17.7 -25.8 52.3 24.6 -0.056

250 69.1 -22.7 -46.0 -70.3 22.2 -32.3 65.2 31.3 -0.071

20
Table 6: True Strain Readings

Strain in Member (µε)

Load
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

50 10.9 -4.1 -7.2 -11.6 3.5 -4.9 10.7 5.2

100 27.1 -9.1 -17.8 -27.9 8.8 -12.5 25.7 12.1

150 41.5 -14.1 -27.6 -42.7 13.4 -19.1 39.4 18.6

200 55.0 -18.4 -36.7 -56.2 17.7 -25.8 52.3 24.6

250 69.1 -22.7 -46.0 -70.3 22.2 -32.3 65.2 31.3

2.3 Graphs
2.3.1 Deflection (mm) Vs Load (N)

Y-Values
0.08
0.071
0.07

0.06 0.056

0.05 0.043
Deflection
(mm)

0.04
0.03
0.03
0.018
0.02

0.01
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Load (N)

Figure 14: Deflection (mm) Vs Load (N)

21
For the graph between deflection and load for the indeterminate structure, the slope will
be increasing and linear. The same graph for determinate structure is similar but the
deflection values are higher in determinate structure when compared to indeterminate
structure.

2.4 Calculation
2.4.1 Determination of Experimental forces
In this experiment, we analyse the member forces when 250N load is applied on the truss.

Young’s Modulus for steel, E steel = 210 × 109 Nm-2

Rod diameter, D = 6 ×10-3 m

𝜋D2 𝜋×(6×10−3 )2
Cross-sectional area, A = = m2 = 28.27 × 10-6 m2
4 4

From the equation of Young’s Modulus, we find that-

σ F F
E steel = or, E steel = [∵ σ = ] or, F = E steel A ε
ε Aε A

For an applied load of 250N, the force in each member can be calculated from their
strain values.

For Member 1-

Strain, ε = 69.1 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (69.1 × 10-6) = 410.22 N

For Member 2-

Strain, ε = -22.7 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-22.7 × 10-6) = -134.76 N

For Member 3-

Strain, ε = -46.0 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-46.0 × 10-6) = -273.08 N

For Member 4-

Strain, ε = -70.3 × 10-6

22
F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-70.3 × 10-6) = -417.35 N

For Member 5-

Strain, ε = 22.2 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (22.2 × 10-6) = 131.79 N

For Member 6-

Strain, ε = -32.3× 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (-32.3 × 10-6) = -191.75 N

For Member 7-

Strain, ε = 65.2 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (65.2 × 10-6) = 387.07 N

For Member 8-

Strain, ε = 31.3 × 10-6

F = (210 × 109 Nm-2) × (28.27 × 10-6 m2) × (31.3 × 10-6) = 185.81 N

Table 7: Experimental Force vs. Theoretical Force

Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

1 410.22 372.5
2 -134.76 -124.1
3 -273.08 -248.2
4 -417.35 -372.4
5 131.79 124.1
6 -191.75 -175.5
7 387.07 350.8
8 185.81 175.4

23
2.5 Questions and Answers
1. If we compare the determinate and indeterminate structures, we can compare that
the forces acting in both the structures we can say that the determinate structure
has the higher forces when compared to indeterminate structure. The reason for
this is due to the additional member in the determinate structure. Because of that
extra member the stiffness of the structure is lesser when compared to
indeterminate structure. When compared in defection and bending in both the
structures, the deflection and bending is higher in the determinate structure when
compared to indeterminate structure. The loads in the indeterminate structure will
be redistributed if any of the member fails and resulting in higher safety to that of
determinate structure. So we can conclude that the indeterminate structure is safer
and economical when compared to determinate structure.
2. In the indeterminate structure we will add an extra member for stability. This
addition of extra member creates a lot of complications and also an increase of cost.
The addition of an extra member increases the complexity of the structure and also
the member force should be calculated separated which makes it more complex.
So the better option is to use the determinate structure instead of indeterminate
structure which will eliminate most of the complications and its most preferred.

24
Experiment 3: A Point Load Moving Across a Two-Pinned
Arch
3.1 Introduction
Aim: The experiment aims to determine the effects of a load on the horizontal reaction
when a uniform load is applied at different positions across the arch.

The Two-pinned arch structure is statistically indeterminate and is permanently pinned

on the left side of the support and can rotate freely against a load cell.

Table 8 (Tecquipment, Student Guide STR17 , 2020)

3.2 Results of the Experiment

By applying a 500g load at different positions across the arch, the effects of the load on
the horizontal reaction were examined.

Table 9 Results for Two-Pinned Arch Experiment

Experimental Percentage of Error

Distance from the Calculated Horizontal
Horizontal (%)
left (mm) Reaction Value (N)
Reaction Value (N)

50 1.5 1.5 0

25
100 2.8 2.8 0

150 3.9 3.9 0

200 4.5 4.6 2.1

250 4.7 4.8 2

300 4.4 4.6 4.3

350 3.8 3.9 2.5

400 2.8 2.8 0

450 1.5 1.5 0

Table 10 Horizontal reaction influence values

Calculated Percentage of Error

Experimental
Horizontal (%)
Fraction of span Horizontal Reaction
Influence Value
Influence Value
(N)

0.1 0.31 0.3 3.2

0.2 0.58 0.58 0

0.3 0.79 0.78 3.5

0.4 0.93 0.91 1.3

0.5 0.98 0.95 3

0.6 0.93 0.90 3.2

0.7 0.79 0.78 1.2

0.8 0.58 0.57 1.7

26
 0.9 0.31 0.31 0

3.3 Calculation
The following equation is used to calculate the Horizontal reaction at B:

5𝑊𝑥 3
𝐻𝐵 = 3
(𝐿 + 𝑥 3 − 2𝐿𝑥 2 )
8𝑟𝐿

Where, HB = Horizontal reaction at B (N)

W = Load (N)

L = Span of the arch

x = Distance from left-hand side

r = Rise of the arch (m). (Tecquipment, Student Guide STR17 , 2020)

3.4 Calculation of theoretical values

5𝑊𝑥 3
𝐻𝐵 = (𝐿 + 𝑥 3 − 2𝐿𝑥 2 )
8𝑟𝐿3

- x = 50 mm , we have:

5 x 4.90 x 0.05
𝐻𝐵 = (0.53 + 0.053 − 2x 0.5x 0.052 ) = 1.5 N
8 x 0.1 x 0.53

- x = 100 mm , we have:
5 x 4.90 x 0.1
𝐻𝐵 = 8 x 0.1 x 0.53 (0.53 + 0.13 − 2x 0.5x 0.12 ) = 2.8 N

By repeating the following calculation processes, the values of the Horizontal reaction at
B for various positions on the arch were determined.

27
Additionally, the Horizontal influence value was determined by the formula:

𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑁)
Influence value = 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑁)

1.5
When the load is 50 mm from the left, Influence value = 4.9 = 0.3

By repeating the following calculation processes, the values of the Horizontal reaction at
B for various positions on the arch were determined.

3.5 Graphs

Plot of the Horizontal Reaction value against the

distance from HA
6 4.8
4.6 4.6
Horizontal Reaction Value

5 3.9 3.9
4 2.8 2.8
3
1.5 1.5
2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance from HA

Experimental Horizontal Reaction Value (N)

Calculated Horizontal Reaction Value (N)

28
The reactions are symmetric about the crown of the arch

Plot of the Fraction of span vs the Horizontal

Reaction influence values
1.2
Horizontal Influence Values

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fraction of Span

Calculated Horizontal Influence Value (N)

Experimental Horizontal Reaction Influence Value

Interpretation: The plot obtained is a parabolic arch

3.6 Lab Report Answers

1- Where would you place a load to achieve the maximum horizontal reaction?
The load should be placed at the center to achieve the maximum horizontal reaction.

2- Do the formulae provided accurately predict the behavior of the arch?

Yes, the prediction regarding the behavior of the arch is accurate.

Further work:

29
Figure 15 Simplified sketch of body diagram

Figure 16 Bending moment diagram

𝛴𝑀𝐴 = 0

0.25 × 4.9 − 𝑅𝐵 × 0.5 = 0

𝑅𝐵 = 2.45 𝑁

∑𝐹𝑦 = 0 ; 𝑅𝐴 − 4.9 + 2.45 = 2.45 𝑁

𝐿
∫𝑂 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥
𝐻= 𝐿
∫𝑂 𝑦 2 𝑑𝑥

4𝑟
With 𝑦 = (𝑙𝑥 − 𝑥 2 )
𝑙2

0.5 0.25 4𝑟 0.25 4ℎ

∫𝑂 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = ∫𝑂 0.25𝑥 [ 𝑙2 (𝑙𝑥 − 𝑥 2 )] 𝑑𝑥 + ∫𝑂 0.25𝑥 [ 𝑙2 (𝑙𝑥 − 𝑥 2 )] 𝑑𝑥

30
 0.5 0.25 4𝑟
∫𝑂 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = 2∫𝑂 0.25𝑥 [ 𝑙2 (𝑙𝑥 − 𝑥 2 )] 𝑑𝑥

0.5 4𝑟 0.25
∫0 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 =2 x 𝑙2
∫𝑂 0.25𝑥(𝑙𝑥 − 𝑥 2 ) 𝑑𝑥

0.5 4𝑟 0.25
∫0 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 =2 x 𝑙2
∫𝑂 0.25𝑥(𝑙𝑥 − 𝑥 2 ) 𝑑𝑥

0.5 4x0.1 0.25

∫0 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 =2 x 0.52
0.25 ∫O (𝑙x 2 − x 3 ) dx

0.5 256×0.5×0.252 −1
∫0 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = 3.2 ( 1024
)

0.5
∫0 𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = 0.5748

0.5
4r 0.5 2
∫ 𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = 2 x 2 ∫ (lx − x 3 ) 𝑑𝑥
2
𝑂 l O

0.5
4r 0.5 2
∫ 𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = 2 ∫ (lx − x 3 ) 𝑑𝑥
2
𝑂 l O

0.5
2
4x0.1 2 32 × 0.5 × 0.52 − 1
∫ 𝑦 𝑑𝑥 = [ ] ( )
𝑂 0.52 64

0.5
∫𝑂 𝑦 2 𝑑𝑥 = 0.12

𝐻 = 4.79

25 𝜔𝑙
Standard formula 𝐻 = 128 ℎ

H= 4.785 N

Therefore, the calculated values and experimental values are equal

Bending moment at the center :

M = 2.45x4.9 – 4.79x0.1 = 1.09 N.m

31
3.7 Conclusion
Based on the results, the smallest percentage error for the Horizontal reaction is 0%
while the highest percentage error is 4.3%. We can conclude that the experiment was
successful since the calculated values were approximatively equal to the theoretical ones.
Maneuvers such as hanging the loads often caused the beam to shake which can explain
the minimal errors encountered.

The Two-Pinned Arch’s structure is statistically indeterminate to one degree. The method
of least work can help determine the value of the Horizontal reaction, which is considered
redundant. The Two-Pinned Arch can be used to bridge long spans. Some benefits of this
connection are that it allows the structure to rotate, thus move freely.

32
Experiment 4: A Point Load Moving Across Fixed Arch
4.1 Introduction
The lab experiment is done to study how the horizontal reaction and fixing moment
behave once applied constant fixed weight through the arch in various positions and
secant assumption is used. The equipment Fixed Arch STR11 is used for this experiment.

This setup has two supports, and one of the side (right) is fixed by preventing rotations
and displacements. And the other support (left) is fixed to the arch by restraining moment
arm. This structure is statically indeterminate because it is a fixed arch, hence flexibility
method will be used to analyse the structure.

Figure - Experimental setup - Fixed Arch STR11 (Tecquipment, 2021)

33
4.2 Results of the Experiment
In this experiment, a 500g constant load will be applied through the arch with 50mm
spacing.

Figure - Experimental layout (Tecquipment, Student Guide STR17 , 2020)

The effect of Fixing moment and Horizontal reaction will be investigated with the
distance through arch.

Table - Experimental results

Distance Actual fixing Actual horizontal

Load Moment force
from left moment reaction
g mm N Nm N
500 50 2.9 -0.146 0.8
500 100 3.0 -0.148 2.4
500 150 1.7 -0.083 4.2
500 200 0.0 -0.002 5.4
500 250 -1.5 0.074 5.8
500 300 -2.3 0.114 5.4
500 350 -2.3 0.114 4.2
500 400 -1.6 0.078 2.5
500 450 -0.6 0.028 0.9

34
4.3 Method of Calculation
Following equations will be used to determine fixing moments and horizontal reactions,
and these equations are derived from the secant assumption.

2 15Wa2 b2
Wab (3L−5b)
MA = and HB= : (Tecquipment, Student Guide STR17 , 2020)
2L3 4rL3

Where,

HB = Horizontal reaction at B (N)

MA = Fixing moment at A (Nm)

W = Load (N)
L = Span of the arch
a = Distance of the load from the left-hand side
b = Distance of the load from the right-hand side
r = Rise of the arch. (Tecquipment, Student Guide STR17 , 2020)

4.4 Calculation
Lets calculate theoritical values for fixing moment and horizontal values,
When 50mm distance from left,
2
Wab (3L−5b)
Fixing moment, MA =
2L3
4.90×50×4502 (3×500−5×450)
=
2×5003

MA = - 0.149 Nm

15Wa2 b2
Horizontal reaction, HB =
4rL3
15×4.90×502 ×4502
=
4×10×5003

HB = 0.74 N
By continuing the same calculating procedure, theoretical values are calculated.

35
Table – Theoretical values

Theoretical fixing Theoretical

Load Distance from left
moment horizontal reaction

g mm Nm N
500 50 -0.149 0.74
500 100 -0.157 2.35
500 150 -0.090 4.05
500 200 0.000 5.30
500 250 0.077 5.75
500 300 0.118 5.30
500 350 0.116 4.05
500 400 0.078 2.35
500 450 0.028 0.74

Summary of the experimental data,

Table – Summary of the experimental data

Theoretical Actual Theoretical

Distance Moment Actual fixing
Load fixing horizontal horizontal
from left force moment
moment reaction reaction

g mm N Nm Nm N N
500 50 2.9 -0.146 -0.149 0.8 0.74
500 100 3.0 -0.148 -0.157 2.4 2.35
500 150 1.7 -0.083 -0.090 4.2 4.05
500 200 0.0 -0.002 0.000 5.4 5.30
500 250 -1.5 0.074 0.077 5.8 5.75
500 300 -2.3 0.114 0.118 5.4 5.30
500 350 -2.3 0.114 0.116 4.2 4.05
500 400 -1.6 0.078 0.078 2.5 2.35
500 450 -0.6 0.028 0.028 0.9 0.74

36
4.5 Graph
The graph will be plotted for horizontal reaction vs. distance for both theoretical and
actual data. Distance will be demonstrated by X axis and it is measured through the arch
from left; horizontal reactions will be demonstrated by Y axis.

T HE O RE T I CA L, E XPE RI ME NT A L HO RI Z O NT A L RE A CT I O NS VS
DI ST A NCE
Actual horizontal reaction Theoritical horizontal reaction

4
HORIZONTAL REACTION

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DISTANCE FROM LEFT

Figure - Theoretical, Experimental horizontal reactions vs Distance

37
The graph will be plotted for fixing moment vs. distance for both theoretical and actual
data Distance will be demonstrated by X axis and it is measured through the arch from
left and fixing moments will be demonstrated by Y axis.

T HEO RE T I CA L , E XPE RI ME NTA L FI XI NG MO ME NT VS

D I STA N C E
Actual fixing moment Theoritical fixing moment

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05
FIXING MOMENT

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
DISTANCE FROM LEFT

Figure - Theoretical, Experimental fixing moment vs. Distance

38
4.6 Questions and Answers
1. Where would you place a load to achieve the maximum horizontal reaction? Do
the formulae provided accurately predict the behaviour of the arch? Does the
maximum fixing moment occur at the same point?
• The centre of the arch.
• When considering the fixing moments and horizontal reactions, experimental and
calculated values were approximately same through the arch except 450mm point
from the left. It may be human error when comparing the values. Therefore, it can
be expressed that provided formulae approximately predict the arch. To give an
exact answer we have to conduct this experiment in a space tube.
• No, the maximum fixing moment is 0.157 Nm and it occurred at 100mm.

2. What do you think would happen to the horizontal reaction and fixing moment
if the support were to move outward in proportion to the horizontal reaction?
If you are unsure, load the arch at the crown and carefully move the right-hand
support outward by 2 to 3 mm.
• It remains constant.

3. Because the arch is statically indeterminate, self-stressing could occur. Give one
cause of the self-stressing?
• Self-weight of the arch.

4. On what sort of ground would it be preferable to construct a bridge based on a

fixed arch?
• As experienced by this experiment, it can be said that both ends of the arch should
be rest on a levelled plane. Also, all the reactions are acting at the supports of the
arch. Therefore, the soil of the ground should be cohesive and low friction angle
with a rigid foundation.

39
4.7 Conclusion
The experiment has done for a pointed moving load across fixed arches. As the fixed arch
is an indeterminate structure the forces are acting at the supports of the arch, and it has
a lower deflection. From this experiment, it has investigated the behaviour of a fixed arch
when loading across the arch and this can be applied for practical applications when
constructing bridges specially fixed arch bridges. Fixed arch bridges can be implemented
for shorter spans and where the ground is dense.

40
Conclusion
The preparation of the present lab report has helped us all four engineering student
hold a better grasp of the Truss analysis experiment in both determinate and
determinate state and the analysis of the movement if a point load moving across a two-
pinned arch and a fixed arch. From the Experiment 1 regarding the Truss Analysis
experiment we can conclude that the additional member in the determinate structure
causes the structure to have a higher forces, higher deflection and bending compared to
the indeterminate structure. In the same perspective, the indeterminate structure
would be more appropriate as it is safe and economical. Relating to the Second
Experiment, we can conclude that the Two-pinned arch and Fixed arch structure are
both statistically indeterminate but the latest has a lower deflection and is more
suitable for bridges with shorter span; while the two-pinned arch structure is more
suitable for bridges with longer span because of its degree of freedom.

41
References
Hibbeler, R. C. (2012). Structural Analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Redundant Truss. (2021). Retrieved from Tecquipment: https://www.tecquipment.com/redundant-

truss

Tecquipment. (2020). Student Guide STR17 . Tecquipment.

Tecquipment. (2021, 05 03). Retrieved from https://www.tecquipment.com/fixed-arch

42