You are on page 1of 7

University of Manitoba Mech 2222 Experiment 1 Forces in single plane trusses

Group 5a members : Ahmad Hammouz Tyler Devlin Matthew Lagunera Kelsie Sweryda Jinyao Guo Date the experiment was performed : January 16th 2012 Date the lab reported was submitted : January 31st 2012

In this experiment, our objectives were to apply and observe the effects of static equilibrium on a simple truss, and compare physically measured forces in each member of the truss with their expected values from a mathematical analysis. We expect that our measured values and calculated values would be slightly different due to systematic and random errors, which are indicated in the data discussion. The truss was set up using an SE112 Mounting Frame; we attached the beams of our bars to the structure, and linked everything together using connectors and node disc as our pins . We then connected an FL151 multi-channel measurement amplifier to each beam in the truss. The FL151 amp is used to detect the mechanical force applied to each member, and convert the mechanical signal into an electric signal, and display the force (tensile or compressive) of each member on the computer using the SE1X0 software. We performed this experiment twice, first putting the truss in tensile loading using a simple load application device attached to node B *(Case 1), and applying 200[N] (down/tensile) to the structure. We then manually recorded the force in each member as indicated on the computer. We then unloaded the truss (Case 2) and recorded the new unloaded force in all members that did not return to 0[N], so as to be able to keep track of all systematic errors, and calculate an adjusted force to try and minimize these errors. We then changed the point of application of the force to node C * (Case 3) and the direction of application, and put the truss into compressive loading of 200[N] using the same load application device. Once again we manually recorded forces in each member as indicated by the computer. Unloading the truss (Case 2 repeated), we recorded the new unloaded force, so we could calculate our adjusted force, exactly the same as in the previous step.
*Nodes B and C as indicated on the truss free-body diagram on our mathematical analysis of the truss.

Simple trusses are common engineering structures that are composed of many straight bars/members, when all of these members are connected they are a rigid body that form a pattern of triangles. The analysis of a truss is based on applying methods of static equilibrium, which is that the sum of all forces in the structure equal zero. Therefore, the sum of forces in the X and Y directions equals zero, and the sum of all moments is equal to zero. In a mathematical analysis of a truss, the reaction forces at each support are determined using static equilibrium, and applying Newton s third law, this is the effect of all external forces on the structure. Each member in the truss must then be analyzed separately by substructuring/dismantling the truss and analyzing what are called the internal forces, which are the forces that hold each separate part of the truss together. These internal forces are present in each member in either the form of a compressive force (pushing toward the center of the member) or as a tensile force (pulling away from the center of the member).

Experimental Procedure:
The system was set up as in figure 1, where we applied a 200N force to point B (case1) , unloaded the force (case2) , and then we applied a 200N force to point C (case3) , and eventually unloaded point C (case 4), and manually recorded the data from the computer at each step.

Data Collection:
Table 1: includes measured forces in truss members 1-10 for all four cases:
Bar No. Measured Force in bar [N]: Case 1 Measured Force in bar [N]: Case 2 Measured Force in bar [N]: Case 3 Measured Force in bar [N]: Case 4 1 -225 2 395 1 2 -168 4 397 0 3 1 1 409 1 4 0 1 -411 -1 5 1 1 -7 0 6 237 -4 8 0 7 -83 3 -8 0 8 0 1 -382 -1 9 101 -1 6 -2 10 167 0 -392 -4

Analytical Methodology (cont ):

(See attached calculations part) Table 2: includes calculated forces in truss members 1-10 for all four cases
Bar No. Calculated Force in bar [N]: Case 1 Calculated Force in bar [N]: Case 2 & 4 Calculated Force in bar [N]: Case 3 1

-173.9 0 346.4

0 0 346.4

0 0 -400

0 0 0

265 0 0

-99.6 0 0

0 0 -400

115 0 0

200.75 0 -400

0 346.4

Data Discussion:
This experiment went as expected; all recorded values were very similar to the analytical solutions for the truss, however they were not exactly the same. The reasons for a discrepancy in our measured values to our calculated values could come from a number of errors as follows; y The load was not exactly 200N in each part of the experiment. In part (a), the load was 199N and in part (b), the load was -201N. These values can lead to a larger difference between the measured force and calculated force. An improvement to this is to spend more time obtaining a more precise load. y There can be some loose connections within the truss, leading to inaccurate values of each member. There can also be environmental effects on the laboratory room, which affect the measuring device, again leading to inaccurate measured values. y The bar could have been calibrated incorrectly, leading to inaccurate measured values. y There can also be error in the measuring system, FL 151. This is a systematic error in that, it will always occur during repeated trials. y Some of the locking pins of the truss can exert forces on the members, thus resulting in the unloaded force not being equal to zero. y There can also be slight deformation within the truss after multiple loading and unloading trials, which can also result in the unloaded force not being equal to zero.

Error Analysis:
The equation used to calculate the error force in each member is: Error Force =| 1 ((Measured force Unloaded Force)/Calculated Force)|x100% Ex. Case 1, in Bar No. 1: Error Force = |1 ((-225[N] 2 [N])/(-231.35[N]))|x100% = 1.880268 % Ex. Case 3, In Bar No. 2: Error Force = |1 ((397[N] 0 [N])/(346.4[N]))|x100% = 14.60739 % Table 3: (Case 1) shows the Calculated, Measured, Unloaded and Adjusted force in truss members 1-10. It also contains the error of force in each member, and the Avg. Force in the entire truss:
200[N]Tensile Force(Down) Case 1 Bar No. 1 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 -1 0 5 1 0 1 0 6 237 265 7 -83 -99.6 8 0 0 1 -1 0 9 101 115 -1 102 11.3 10 167 200.75 0 167 16.812 Measured Force in -225 -168 bar [N] Calculated Force in -231.4 -173.9 bar [N] 2 4 Unloaded Force [N] -227 -172 Adjusted Force [N] Error of Force (%) 1.8803 1.0641 Avg. Error

-4 3 241 -86 0 9.0566 13.655


Table 2 (Case 3) shows the Calculated, Measured, Unloaded and Adjusted force in truss members 1-10. It also contains the error of force in each member, and the Avg. Force in the entire truss.
200[N]Compressive Force(Up) Case 3: 1 2 3 Bar No. Measured Force in 395 397 409 bar [N] Calculated Force in 346.4 346.4 346.4 bar [N] 1 0 1 Unloaded Force [N] 396 397 410 Adjusted Force [N] Error of Force (%) 13.741 14.607 17.78 Avg. Error 4 -411 -400 -1 -412 2.5 5 -7 0 0 -7 0 6 8 0 0 8 0 7 -8 0 0 -8 0 8 -382 -400 -1 -383 4.75 9 6 0 -2 4 0 10 -392 -400 -4 -396 3 9.39694

This lab introduces the use of strain gauges to measure loading forces in a truss. We compared our calculated values with the measured values and found that the error % was on average of almost 9% for the whole system. Therefore, we could say that our experiment was successful due having a low average error (9%). The cause of an error could be because the unloaded forces on some of the bars didn t equal zero. Also the exerted load not equalling the calculated load could explain why our calculated values are different than the measured values. From comparing the measured and calculated results the team concludes that measuring every truss design is not always necessary. Only a calculation of truss designs should be required when determining which design would be essential for certain projects. But for safety a measurement of the chosen design should be applied before it is constructed.