STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY REPORT

MODULE C

THREE SPAN CONTINUOUS BRIDGE

GROUP : 4

Ridha Amalia I 1506789190

Dizhaldy Ratulangie I 1506789083
Giovanni Abel C 1406547023
Nadila Rahmariana 1506789165

Date of Experiment : April 15th 2017

Assistant : Saskia Nadilla
Date of Approval :
Score :
Signature :

STRUCRURE AND MATERIAL LABORATORY

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
2017
 I. Objectives

This experimental work is intended to assess the accuracy of mathematical analysis of tree span
continuous bridge with a realistic shape. The influence lines of support reactions from theoretical
and experimental values are to be compared.

II. Theory

A bridge is a construction which is built to pass a mass or traffic of a barrier (rivers, highways,
dams, roads, railways and others).

Definition of the three-span continuous bridge is a structure that has 3 (three) spans and 4 (four)
piers (it can be seen in Figure C.1). in the analysis of continuous three-span bridge in this
module, it will be used “Clapeyron method” (Three Moment Equation).

III. Tools and Apparatus

1. HST.1901 Perspex Model Bridge in Spandrel Shaped
2. HST.1902 Bridge Piers with Sliding Bearings, Reaction Measurement and Levelling
Compensator
3. HST.1903 Bridge Piers with Pinned Bearing, Reaction Measurement and Levelling
Compensator
4. HST.1904 Dial gauge assembly
5. HST.1905 Rolling load (50N and 25N)
6. HST.1906 L.H. End Bracket
7. HST.1907 L.R. End Bracket

IV. Procedures

It is assumed that the bridge has been correctly set up as descried before check that the cantilever
clamps are loose and that the base parts of the clamp are clear of the reaction measuring
cantilevers, and that the compensator dials read the same as their dial gauge.

Place 50N cylindrical loads on the bridge at the left abutment and adjust the compensator to read
the same as the dial gauge. The other three piers should be adjusted if necessary, but they should
theoretically register zero reactions. Move the load by interval of 12.5cm, 25cm, 56.25cm from
the left side of the bridge, and at each position re-level the piers by making the compensator dials
read the same as their dial gauges. Always level the pier nearest the load first then work away
left and right, returning to the pier nearest the load. It will be found that levelling a pier will alter
the others, but by repeatedly working round as directed, the adjustment will rapidly converge.
When all four piers are leveled, read off the reaction.

V. Data Processing

The data obtained from the experiment are:

P = 25 N
No. x (cm) Total (N)
RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)
1 0 10.28 9.92 -0.24 0 19.96
2 12.5 10.39 19.58 -0.5 0 29.47
3 25 0.5 20.96 0.13 0 21.59
4 56.25 0 19.36 1.27 0 20.63
5 87.5 0 5.18 20.18 0.75 26.11
6 100 0 -0.06 20.7 10.63 31.27
7 112.5 0.08 -0.45 10.33 20.23 30.19
Average 25.60286

P = 50 N
No. x (cm) Total (N)
RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)
1 0 25.86 30.21 -10.89 0 45.18
2 12.5 10.55 45.17 -10.42 0 45.3
3 25 10.26 49.7 -0.71 0 59.25
4 56.25 0 30.79 30.47 0 61.26
5 87.5 0 6.03 50.29 0 56.32
6 100 0 -5.7 50.89 10.55 55.74
7 112.5 0 -5.89 30.21 35.65 59.97
Average 54.71714

To find the theoretical result, we can calculate the moment at each joints first using Clapeyron’s
method. From the equations (on attachment), we found:
 P = 25 KN P = 50 KN
x (cm) MB MC MB MC
(Ncm) (Ncm) (Ncm) (Ncm)
0 0 0 0 0
12.5 38.38 13.71 76.75 27.41
25 0 0 0 0
56.25 154.19 154.19 308.39 308.39
87.5 0 0 0 0
100 13.71 38.38 27.41 76.75
122.5 0 0 0 0

And from the calculation of the moments of each joints, we can calculate and analyze the
reaction on each supports. Then we can compare the support reaction obtained from experiment
and theoretical for each load.

P = 25N

x (cm) RA(N) RB(N) RC(N) RD(N)

0 25 0 0 0
12.5 10.96 14.96 -1.38 0.55
25 0 25 0 0
56.25 -6.17 18.67 18.67 -6.17
87.5 0 0 25 0
100 0.55 -1.38 14.96 10.96
122.5 0 0 0 25

P = 50N

x (cm) RA(N) RB(N) RC(N) RD(N)

0 50 0 0 0
12.5 21.93 29.74 -2.76 1.1
25 0 50 0 0
56.25 -12.34 37.34 37.34 -12.34
87.5 0 0 50 0
100 1.1 -2.76 29.74 21.93
122.5 0 0 0 50
 P = 25 N
x (cm) RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)
Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab
0 25 10.28 0 9.92 0 -0.24 0 0
12.5 10.96 10.39 14.96 19.58 -1.38 -0.5 0.55 0
25 0 0.5 25 20.96 0 0.13 0 0
56.25 -6.17 0 18.67 19.36 18.67 1.27 -6.17 0
87.5 0 0 0 5.18 25 20.18 0 0.75
100 0.55 0 -1.38 -0.06 14.96 20.7 10.96 10.63
122.5 0 0.08 0 -0.45 0 10.33 25 20.23

RA theory vs RA lab for 25N

30
25
20
15
RA (N)

10 Theory
5 Lab
0
-5 0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-10
x (cm)

RB theory vs RB lab for 25N

30
25
20
15
RB (N)

Theory
10
Lab
5
0
0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-5
x (cm)
 RC theory vs RC lab for 25N
30
25
20
15
Theory
RC

10
lab
5
0
0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-5
x (cm)

RD theory vs RD lab for 25N

30
25
20
15
Theory
RD

10
5 Lab
0
-5 0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-10
x (cm)

P = 50 N
x (cm) RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)
Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab
0 50 25.86 0 30.21 0 -10.89 0 0
12.5 21.93 10.55 29.74 45.17 -2.76 -10.42 1.1 0
25 0 10.26 50 49.7 0 -0.71 0 0
56.25 -12.34 0 37.34 30.79 37.34 30.47 -12.34 0
87.5 0 0 0 6.03 50 50.29 0 0
100 1.1 0 -2.76 -5.7 29.74 50.89 21.93 10.55
122.5 0 0 0 -5.89 0 30.21 50 35.65
 RA theory vs RA lab for 50N
60
50
40
30
theory
RA

20
10 lab
0
0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-10
-20
x (cm)

RB theory vs RB lab for 50N

60

50

40
RB

30
theory
20
lab
10

0
0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-10
x (cm)
 RC theory vs RC lab for 50N
60
50
40
30
theory
RC

20
10 lab
0
0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-10
-20
x (cm)

RD theory vs RD lab for 50N

60
50
40
30
theory
RD

20
10 lab
0
0 12.5 25 56.25 87.5 100 122.5
-10
-20
x (cm)

Relative error:

P = 25 N

x (cm) RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)

0 59% 0% 0% 0%
12.5 5% 31% 64% 100%
25 0% 16% 0% 0%
56.25 100% 4% 93% 100%
87.5 0% 0% 19% 0%
100 100% 96% 38% 3%
122.5 0% 0% 0% 19%
Average relative error = 30%
P = 50N

x (cm) RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)

0 48% 0% 0% 0%
12.5 52% 52% 278% 100%
25 0% 1% 0% 0%
56.25 100% 18% 18% 100%
87.5 0% 0% 1% 0%
100 100% 107% 71% 52%
122.5 0% 0% 0% 29%
Average relative error = 40%

VI. Analysis
1. Experiment Analysis

This experiment was conducted to assess the accuracy of mathematical analysis of tree span
continuous bridge, and compare the experimental and theoretical result. We began the
experiment by adjusting all the dial gauges to zero, it was meant to make the dial reading to be
more precise. Then we started from 25N load first, we put the load at x=0cm or on the A point
then we read all gauges which show the reaction force on each support, the small scale indicate
the tens and the scale on the outside are the decimals, the direction of the dial when rotating
represents the value is positive or negative. We continue the experiment with the same procedure
by changing the distance(x) of the load to 0 cm (above the support reaction A), 12.5 cm, 25 cm
(above the support reaction B), 56.25 cm, 87.5 cm (above the support reaction C), 100 cm, and
112.5cm (above the support reaction D) from the left side of the bridge (point A). After reading
each dial gauges, we take note for each reaction forces. After that, we change the load to 50N
and did the same procedures for 25N load.

2. Graph Analysis

From the data, we have 8 graph that shows the comparison of the theoretical and experimental
values for each load. From the graphs, we can see that the values are mostly differs but from the
direction and shape are relatively same. Which indicates the difference of the value is not too
big. The graph which has the biggest differences in comparison is graph RB, and the graph
which has the smallest differences in comparison is graph RD.
 3. Result Analysis

In this experiment, we obtained the value of support reactions at point A,B,C, and D for each
25N and 50N load. To find the theoretical value, we need to use Clapeyron’s method. The total
reaction should be equals to the force working on the structure. After that we compared the
theoretical and experimental values of support reaction:

P = 25 N
x (cm) RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)
Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab
0 25 10.28 0 9.92 0 -0.24 0 0
12.5 10.96 10.39 14.96 19.58 -1.38 -0.5 0.55 0
25 0 0.5 25 20.96 0 0.13 0 0
56.25 -6.17 0 18.67 19.36 18.67 1.27 -6.17 0
87.5 0 0 0 5.18 25 20.18 0 0.75
100 0.55 0 -1.38 -0.06 14.96 20.7 10.96 10.63
122.5 0 0.08 0 -0.45 0 10.33 25 20.23
Table 1. Support reaction comparison for 25 N load

Source : Practitioner

P = 50 N
x (cm) RA (N) RB (N) RC (N) RD (N)
Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab Theory Lab
0 50 25.86 0 30.21 0 -10.89 0 0
12.5 21.93 10.55 29.74 45.17 -2.76 -10.42 1.1 0
25 0 10.26 50 49.7 0 -0.71 0 0
56.25 -12.34 0 37.34 30.79 37.34 30.47 -12.34 0
87.5 0 0 0 6.03 50 50.29 0 0
100 1.1 0 -2.76 -5.7 29.74 50.89 21.93 10.55
122.5 0 0 0 -5.89 0 30.21 50 35.65
Table 2. Support reaction comparison for 50 N load

Source : Practitioner

For 25N load, the average relative error is 30% and the average relative error for 50N is 40%. It
could be seen from the difference of the theory and lab values which are not significant. And we
can also conclude that the support reaction of 50N are the twice amount of the support reaction
for 25N load with the same distance. The biggest error for 25N load experiment is at x = 56.25
cm where the theoretical RC is 18.67N while the experimental RC is 1.27N, for 50N experiment
is at x = 122.5 cm where the theoretical RC is 0 while the experimental RC is 30.21N. Because
the gap is too big, this error might cause by the bridge that was not place precisely on the dial so
it affect the dial.

4. Error Analysis

Some error might happen during the experiment:

• Parallax error might happen when practitioner read the dial that might increase the
inaccuracy of the data obtained.
• Human error might also happen when practitioner place the load, we might did it not
carefully so it affected the dial or we might place it not exact on the chosen points (the
distance might change).
• Instrumental error might also happen because there was a gap between the bridge and the
dial needle (mostly on point D) that caused the dial could not calculate the force well.

VII. Conclusion
• The average relative error for 25N load is 30% and for 50N load is 40%. And the biggest
relative error is on RC for P=50N at 12.5cm which is 278%.
• From the graphs we can also conclude that the difference between theoretical and
experimental values are not too significant from the shape of the lines.
• The support reaction for 50N load are twice amount of 25N load with the same distance.
• The distance is also affect the load distribution, the closer the load with the support the
bigger the reaction would occur.

VIII. References

Experimental Guidelines for Structural Analysis. Laboratory of structure and material.

Department of Civil Engineering. Faculty of Engineering. University of Indonesia. Depok:2013.
IX. Appendix

Picture 1. Dial Gauge to read the reaction forces

Source: Practitioner
 Picture 2. Placing the load on the bridge model Picture 3. Reading the scale showed on the dial

Source: Practitioner Source: Practitioner

X. Potential Hazards

This experiment use some loads up to certain value. Pay attention in placing the load! They
could potentially danger run the risk of contusion or bruise hands or finger if they are not used
properly.