SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Year 2 Laboratories CIVE 233

TQT
Torsion and Buckling

Technical Note
Surname (Family Name):
Other Names:
Student ID Number: 201320272
Programme: Civil engineering (BEng/Meng)
Lab group number: C1
Tutor: Greg Beattie
Demonstrator’s Name:
Date of experiment: 4th of November 2019
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233
STUDENT DECLARATION:

I confirm that I have:

 Read and understood the University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

(Students should familiarise themselves with Appendix L of the
University’s Code of Practice on Assessment which also provides the
definitions of academic malpractice and the policies and procedures
that apply to the investigation of alleged incidents.);
 Acted honestly, ethically and professionally in conduct leading to this
assessment;
 Not copied material from another source, nor committed plagiarism,
nor fabricated data when completing this work;
 Not colluded with any other student in the preparation and production
of this work.

Students found to have committed academic malpractice are liable to receive a mark of
zero for the assessment or the module concerned. Unfair and dishonest academic
practice will attract more severe penalties, including possible suspension or termination
of studies.

2
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233
Table of Contents

1 SUMMARY: 4

2 RESULTS: 5

2.1 TORSION: 5

2.2: BUCKLING 6

3 GRAPHS 6

4 CALCULATIONS: 9

5 DISCUSSION: 14

5.1 TORSION: 14

5.2 BUCKLING: 14

6 CONCLUSION: 15

3
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

1 Summary:
Beams are one of the most elements used in buildings nowadays and as civil engineers
having knowledge about beams and the way they react is so important to prevent
buildings from collapsing as if the applied load is not acting right the beams might
twist or bend. Helping students learn about both Torsion and Buckling of Struts
principles is the main aim of this lab. Two tests were performed in this lab by students
which were buckling and torsion tests. Along with writing down the results,
measuring the theory and differentiating between the results.
For the first experiment which was torsion; the centre of shear of a channel section,
their calculations and bending in the beams was examined and determined. The
observation of bending and twist in the beams were a reason of shear force
distribution. 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° were the four turning angles cases. There were 3
arranged machines. (2 kg) were applied in each angle case with 10 different positions.
The readings were recorded from the right and left gauge readers as well as
calculating the average
On the other hand, three individual struts were examined which were fixed ends, pin-
fixed and pinned ends in the buckling part. The extent length, depth, and height of the
struts were measured before recording the data. The behaviour of each struts was
analysed as it changes when adding any load. Euler buckling formula was used to get
the theoretical values which were compared to the experimental values. Critical
buckle was reached while applying loads on the struts until it reached the maximum.
Finally, both calculated and experimental results for both tasks should be compared
and identified using possible reasons.

Figure 1:buckling and torsion tests

4
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

2 Results:
2.1 Torsion:
Deflection at loading points (mm)
Gaug 𝛂 = 0°
es 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
𝛅L -4.01 -3.38 -2.74 -2.1 -1.47 -0.83 -0.2 0.44 1.08 1.71
𝛅L
𝛅L
avg -4.01 -3.38 -2.74 -2.1 -1.47 -0.83 -0.2 0.44 1.08 1.71
𝛅R 1.7 1 0.4 0.2 -0.8 -1.5 -1.9 -2.7 -3.3 -4.2
𝛅R
𝛅R
avg 1.7 1 0.4 0.2 -0.8 -1.5 -1.9 -2.7 -3.3 -4.2
Table 1: Deflection at loading
points 𝛂 = 0°

Deflection at loading point

Gaug 𝛂 =30°
es 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
𝛅L 0.50 0.22 -0.15 -0.50 -0.63 -1.70 -1.42 -1.74 -2.09 -2.45
𝛅L 0.42 0.20 -0.14 -0.43 -0.65 -0.14 -1.40 -1.64 -2.05 -2.43
𝛅L
avg 0.46 0.21 -0.15 -0.47 -0.64 -0.92 -1.41 -1.69 -2.07 -2.44
𝛅R -3.30 -3.00 -2.60 -2.20 -1.95 -1.50 -1.10 -0.70 -0.33 0.50
𝛅R -3.25 -2.95 -2.58 -2.20 -1.97 -1.51 -1.15 -0.72 -0.39 0.80
𝛅R
avg -3.28 -2.98 -2.59 -2.20 -1.96 -1.51 -1.13 -0.71 -0.36 0.65

Table 2:Deflection at loading points

𝛂 = 30°

Deflection at loading point

𝛂 = 60°
Gauges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
𝛅L 0.77 0.46 0.17 -0.18 -0.30 -0.56 -0.90 -1.15 -1.46 -1.82
𝛅L 0.76 0.49 0.14 -0.17 -0.34 -0.47 -0.87 -1.15 -1.47 -1.75
𝛅L avg 0.77 0.48 0.16 -0.18 -0.32 -0.52 -0.89 -1.15 -1.47 -1.79

5
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233
𝛅R -2.44 -2.08 -1.75 -1.35 -1.00 -0.73 -0.43 -0.03 0.25 0.60
𝛅R -2.50 -2.10 -1.74 -1.30 -1.15 -0.23 -0.40 -0.10 0.22 0.59
𝛅R avg -2.47 -2.09 -1.75 -1.33 -1.08 -0.48 -0.42 -0.07 0.24 0.60
Table 3:Deflection at loading points
𝛂 = 60°

Deflection at loading points (mm)

Gauges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2.4 1.8
𝛅L 2 9 1.37 0.77 0.23 -0.32 -0.87 -1.25 -1.94 -2.35
2.4 1.8
𝛅L 5 5 1.38 0.79 0.22 -0.33 -0.85 -1.28 -1.93 -2.4
2.4 1.8 1.37 0.22
𝛅L avg 3 6 5 0.78 5 -0.325 -0.86 -1.265 -1.935 -2.375
𝛅R -4.1 -4.4 -3.8 -1.9 -1.36 -0.63 0.03 0.72 1.39 2.06
-
𝛅R -4.1 -4.4 -2.8 1.01 -1.3 -0.61 0.02 0.72 1.4 2.4
- 0.02
𝛅R avg -4.1 -4.4 -3.3 1.45 -1.33 -0.62 5 0.725 1.395 2.23
Table 4:Deflection at loading points
𝛂 = 90°

2.2: Buckling
Experimental Strut Buckling Critical Load Actual Load
Layout length Load (Pe) N (Pcr) N (N)
Pinned-ends 430 54 54 46
Pinned-fixed 400 61.7 124.8 106
Fixed-fixed 373 74.79 299.18 181
Table 5:Buckling results

3 Graphs

6
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

𝛂 =0°
3

0
Deflection

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Left
-1 Right
-2

-3

-4

-5
Positions

Figure 2: Deflection at = 0°

𝛂 =30°
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.50
Deflection

-1.00 Left
-1.50 Right
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00
-3.50

Positions

\Figure 3:Deflection at = 30°

7
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

𝛂 =60°
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection

-0.50
Left
-1.00
Right
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00

Positions

Figure 4:Deflection at = 60°

𝛂 =90°
3
2
1
Deflection

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

Positions

Left Right

Figure 5:Deflection at = 90°

8
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

theoretical and actual critical buckling values

350

300
Theoretical and Actual

250

200 Theoretical Critical Buckling

load
150 Actual Critical Buckling load

100

50

0
1 2 3

Strut Number

Figure 6:buckling graph

4 Calculations:

9
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

Figure 7:buckling calculation

10
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

Figure 8:Horizontal and vertical deflection

11
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

Figure 9:Torision calculations

12
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

Figure 10:Torsion calculations

13
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233
Theoretical Deflection
Degrees Actual Deflection (mm)
(mm)
0° 1.1 1.15
30° 1.125 0.9
60° 0.5 0.4
90° 0.225 0.15
Table 6: Values of deflection in centre of shear
Degrees Actual exx (mm) Theoretical exx (mm)
0° 110 71.54
30° 137.5 71.54
60° 120 71.54
90° 127.5 71.54
Table 7: Location of centre of
shear.

5 Discussion:
5.1 Torsion:
In the torsion test there were 4 angles points that were tested 0°, 30°, 60° and 90°.
The maximum deflection was at an angle 30° which was approximately 1.1 mm on the other
hand 0.225 mm was the least centre of shear deflection at 90° the location of the centre of
shear might be the reason of that. There are so many possible reasons that can be part of
changing the deflection values such as the beam shape, the applied force distribution across
the beam and deflection value at the centre of the shear may be impacted because of the
rotations. As it can be seen in (table 6 ), within all the tests that were done the case with angle
90° had the least test errors and the difference was really close to the actual value which was
0.075mm, unlike the cases with 60° and 30° had more errors than the case with 90° as the
values of deflection were 0.075mm ,0.1mm and 0.225mm respectively. Errors are likely to
occur during any experiment and there are two types of errors either human or systematic
errors. Common errors are expected such as using the gauge readers as it is not as accurate as
it would be in a digital reader as well as the load placement which does not hang accurately to
the peg. And this might be the main reason for the case with angle 30° which had the most
errors in both the location of shear centre and the value of deflection however, the location of
shear centre was not accurate in all the tests that were done. Contrary to the case with angle
0° as the values were already given in the lab script and the theoretical values were really
close to the actual values.

5.2 Buckling:
Buckling in this case was tested in three different situations where there is the pined-pined,
pined-fixed and the fixed-fixed. as discussed previously, the buckling depends on the most
supported area where if the area has strong support, that is where the buckling is situated. due
to testing, the fixed-fixed had the highest value of 181N, making the focus and support the
highest on the beam. The pined-pined, however, due to minimum support, is had less
buckling with a value of 46N.This test has lower errors than the previous one which was
torsion as the calculated values were close. However, the fixed-fixed test had a huge error in
comparing between the other two cases and that which has difference about 1/3 of the actual

14
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233
value. There was human errors in this test like any other experiment as well such as the errors
from data reading or not reading the dimensions correctly. Along with the beams which were
not stiff as they should be because of the Plenty past uses. To sum up the experiment should
be repeated more than 3 time to prevent any errors and new equipment should be provided so
that the result will be more accurate

6 Conclusion:
 both buckling and torsion data were calculated in the experiment
 The case with angle 30° has the maximum deflection due to the centre position of the
shear force which was 0.225mm
 Fixed-fixed end has the most buckling value which was 181N, however the pined-end
has the least buckling values which was 46N
 Some of the buckling errors were from the Plenty past uses as it is not stiff as it
should be
 The experiment should be repeated more the 3 time to prevent errors from happening

15