School of Energy, Geoscience,

Infrastructure & Society

GROUP COURSEWORK
SUBMISSION FORM

STUDENT NAME: STUDENT ID NUMBER:

Hoo Yuen Fong H00348000

Chang Ee Xen H00348089

Fong Kah Rick H00348051

PROGRAMME:(eg MA Accountancy and Finance;

MEng Civil Engineering
MSc International Business Management)

COURSE NAME: Analysis of Determinate Structures

COURSE CODE: D28DS

COURSEWORK TITLE:
Three-Pinned Arch Laboratory Report

Coursework hand-in deadline

12 November 2021
(date specified for hand-in)

All students are advised to keep a duplicate copy of all work submitted for reference.

DECLARATION:

I confirm that the work submitted is my own or that it reflects my contribution to a group submission. The
submission is expressed in my own/the group’s words. Any uses made within this work of the writing of other
authors or of any existing source is properly acknowledged, and a list of references used is included. The University
Ethical Code of Practice and the Schools' guidelines on plagiarism as contained within the SML handbook have been
understood and followed.
SIGNATURE OF EACH MEMBER:
Rick, YF, Eexen

DATE: 11 November 2021

Introduction
Arches are major structural elements. The Romans were first to use them in bridge construction

and for roof supports, mainly in semi-circular form. Generally these arches carried mainly

compressive loads and were therefore constructed from stone blocks where the joints were either

dry or used weak mortar. Today arches are usually made of steel or of reinforced or pre-stressed

concrete and can both support both tensile as well as compressive loads. They are used to

support bridge decks and roofs, and vary in span from a few metres in a roof support system to

several hundred metres in bridges. Arches are constructed in a variety of forms. Their

components may be straight or curved, but generally fall into two categories. The first is the

three-pinned arch which is statically determinate, whereas the second, the two-pinned arch is

statically indeterminate. This laboratory exercise deals with the three-pinned arch, and see how it

interacts with various types of loads.

Objective
● To study the relationship between the distance of point load being placed from point A

and horizontal reaction (thrust)

● To study the relationship between UDL and horizontal reaction

Overview of the Experiment
In this experiment, we use a standard, general purpose, TQ Testing Frame and TQ Experimental

Equipment (STR9). Figure 1 shows the frame and the experimental equipment.

Figure 1 - The Experimental Apparatus

Figure 1 shows the Three-Pinned Arch experiment. It consists of two supports and two

symmetrical bridge halves joined by a pin at the crown. The left-hand half is permanently pinned

to its support (the pin allowing rotational movement only). The right hand side can rotate and
slide up to an electronic load cell. The load cell reacts and thus measures the horizontal reaction

produced by the arch.

During the experiments, never apply excessive loads to any part of the equipment.

Carefully zero the force meter using the dial. Gently apply a small load with a finger to the

crown of the arch and release. Zero the meter again if necessary. Repeat to ensure the meter

returns to zero.

Apparatus and material

TQ Testing Frame, TQ Experimental Equipment (STR9), a point load of 0.3 kg, two UDL bars

of 0.190 kg, two UDL bars of 0.194 kg

Experiment 1: A Point Load Moving Across a Three-Pinned

Arch
Independent variable: Distance of load from point A, x

Dependent variable: Horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵

Constant variable: Weight of load, W, rise of the arch, r

Figure 2 - Experimental Layout

Theory
𝑊𝑥
To analyse the results, for the left-hand side of the arch an equation, 𝐻𝐵 = 2𝑟
is used while for

𝑊(𝐿−𝑥)
the right-hand side of the arch an equation, 𝐻𝐵 = 2𝑟
is used.

Where 𝐻𝐵is horizontal reaction at B, W is point load, L is the span of the arch, x is the distance

from the left hand side (point A) and r is the rise of the arch.

Both of these equations are used to calculate the horizontal reaction at point B.
 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑁)
𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑁)
, this equation is used to calculate the horizontal reaction

influence value, which is the proportion of the displayed horizontal reaction to the load becomes

𝑥
at each position and 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝐿
equation is used to calculate span fraction.

To calculate the % error for both horizontal reaction and horizontal reaction influence value, a %

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 |

error is used % 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = || 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 |.

Procedures

1. The apparatus was set up as shown in figure 1.

2. Force meter reading was ensured to be zero.

3. Point load of 0.3 kg was placed in the far left-hand grove on the arch rail.

4. The reading shown on the force-meter was observed and the result was recorded.

5. Steps 2 to 4 were repeated with moving the mass along the top of the arch rail at each

position in Table 1.

6. All the results were observed, recorded and tabulated.

Results

Rise of the arch, r = 0.1 m

Mass of point load = 0.3 kg

Distance from point Displayed horizontal Calculated horizontal % error

A, x (mm) reaction, 𝐻𝐵(N) reaction, 𝐻𝐵(N)

0 0.0 0.00 0.00

50 0.6 0.74 18.92

100 1.3 1.47 11.56

150 2.1 2.21 4.98

200 2.9 2.94 1.36

250 3.6 3.68 2.17

300 2.9 2.94 1.36

350 2.2 2.21 0.45

400 1.5 1.47 2.04

450 0.8 0.74 8.11

500 0.1 0.00 0.00

Table 1 - Results for experiment 1
 Figure 1 - Graph of Horizontal Reaction Against Distance From A

Fraction of span Experimental Calculated horizontal % error

horizontal reaction reaction influence
influence value value

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.1 0.20 0.25 20.00

0.2 0.44 0.50 12.00

0.3 0.71 0.75 5.33

0.4 0.99 1.00 1.00

0.5 1.22 1.25 2.40

0.6 0.99 1.00 1.00

0.7 0.75 0.75 0.00

0.8 0.51 0.50 2.00

0.9 0.27 0.25 8.00

 1.0 0.03 0.00 0.00
Table 2 - Horizontal reaction influence values

Figure 2 - Graph of Horizontal Reaction Influence Value Against Fraction of Span

Discussion

By observations of the graph plotted, the value of horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵increases when distance

of the 300g load from A increases until the midpoint of the arch, at 𝑥 = 250𝑚𝑚. Beyond that,

𝐻𝐵 starts decreasing when distance from A increases until the end of the arch at 𝑥 = 500𝑚𝑚.

Moreover, in order to achieve maximum horizontal reaction, the load should be placed at

𝑥 = 250𝑚𝑚as the magnitude of the horizontal reaction is the highest at that point in accordance

with our observations and calculations. The formula provided is fairly accurate at predicting the

behaviour of the arch as the majority of the theoretical values have a percentage error of around

0.4% to 2.5%, while a small minority of values have a percentage error of up to 18%.
The name given to the resulting plot is a parabolic curve.

Utilization of a three-pinned arch offers a number of advantages over other types of structures. A

three-pinned arch is a stable structural configuration. Due to the presence of a third pin, and

abutments at the end of the arch supporting the horizontal thrust produced, it has little to no

internal bending moment and shear force at the pins compared to a simple beam structure

covering the same span and bearing the same load (Megson, 2005), thus the reactions at the

supports, 𝐻𝑎, 𝐻𝑏, 𝑉𝑎 and 𝑉𝑏can be calculated using equilibrium equations as it is a statically

determinate structure, this makes analysis for the structure much easier. Moreover, a three-pinned

arch is a more economical design as it reduces the costs since less material is needed to be built

to support loading compared to beam structures of the same span (Udoeyo, 2020). The additional

connection at the mid-span also allows the structure to alter itself to expansions and contractions

as temperature changes. All in all, a three-pinned arch offers more convenience in terms of

analysis and calculating reactions, it is also a more flexible structure that is tolerant of slight

motions caused by external factors.

Lastly, if the shape of the arch is altered, but the rise and span is kept the same as in the

experiment, it will not affect the horizontal reaction as the equations from theory are still valid.

𝑊𝑥
For example, taking the equation 𝐻𝐵 = 2𝑟
, the only factor affecting the magnitude of 𝐻𝐵 is the

distance of the load from point A and the rise of the arch. Hence, the shape of the arch will not

affect the reactions provided the rise and span are not changed.
Experiment 2: A Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) on a

Three-Pinned Arch
Independent variable: Mass of UDL, m

Dependent variable: Horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵

Constant variable: Span of the arch, L, rise of the arch, r

Figure 3 - Experimental Layout

Theory

To calculate the horizontal reaction for a UDL over the entire span of the arch, the following
2
ω𝐿
formula is used, 𝐻𝐵 = 8𝑟
Procedures

1. The apparatus was set up as shown in figure 3.

2. A 0.190 kg UDL short bar of load was placed on the right-hand deck of the bridge and a

0.194 kg UDL long bar of load was placed on the left-hand deck.

3. The bars were adjusted so that there was no overhang at the ends of the decks.

4. The horizontal reaction and the total mass of the UDL bars were recorded.

5. Steps 2 to 4 were repeated with adding two remaining UDL bars on top of the already

placed bars.

6. All the results were observed, recorded and tabulated in table 3.

Results

Span of the arch, L = 0.5 m

Rise of the arch, r = 0.1 m

Mass of UDL, m Length of UDL, Value of UDL Displayed Calculated

(kg) l (m) (N/m) horizontal horizontal
reaction, 𝐻𝐵(N) reaction, 𝐻𝐵(N)

0.384 0.5 7.534 2.3 2.35

0.768 0.5 15.068 4.4 4.71

Table 3
Discussion

By using the equation in the theory, it was found out that the theoretical results were very close

to the experimental results with about 4.4% of error, thus making it a reliable theory to predict

the behaviour of the arch with an uniformly distributed load (UDL). The type of load that bridge

structures usually carry are in the form of UDL as bridges are commonly used for car

transportation and many cars travel on the same bridge at the same time. While point load can be

exerted on bridge structures and can be analysed, it is safer to assume that the load exerted on the

bridge structures is in the form of UDL as UDL has the same behaviour and more unique

behaviour that point load does not carry. Therefore, by interpreting and analysing the bridge

structures under the influence of UDL, this can prevent the bridge structures from experiencing

any over compression or over tension and thus prevent the bridge structures from collapsing.

Based on the equation in the theory, the horizontal reaction is inversely proportional to the rise of

the arch, so when the rise is smaller, the horizontal reaction will be larger, while when the rise is

larger, the horizontal reaction will be smaller.

On the other hand, there are many sources contributing to the error that resulted in this

experiment. One of the sources of error is when placing the point load of 0.3 kg on the grove on

the arch rail, the load might be placed outside of the grove, thus the distance from A to the load

will not be accurate, therefore causing some error when recording the horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵.

The percentage error for this source of error most likely to be around 20%. Moreover, the

experimenter could have accidentally touched the instrument, causing error in the values or even

inaccurately taken the reading, possibly by mistake. The force meter also might not have been

properly calibrated and set to zero. Hence, resulting in imprecise values, these errors will
possibly have an estimated percentage error of around 5-10%. The other source of error could be

the internal error in the apparatus. The apparatus used in the experiment might have some error

when they were manufactured from the factory as well as inaccurately calibrated, hence the

apparatus will contribute some error to the experiment. Since instrumentals error cannot be

avoided, the percentage error will not be as significant and most likely to be around 5%.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in experiment 1, the horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵increases as the distance between

point A and the point load increases before the mid-span; beyond the mid span, the horizontal

reaction, 𝐻𝐵decreases as the distance between point A and the point load increases. The

percentage error obtained from the results are around 0 to 20%. While in experiment 2, the

horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵increases as the mass of UDL increases and results show a percentage

error around 4.4%. Based on the results obtained, it does support the prediction of the equation

given in the theory towards the behaviour of an arch under UDL as the horizontal reaction, 𝐻𝐵is

directly proportional to the UDL placed.

References

Megson, T.H.G (1995) Structural and Stress Analysis, Second Edition. 2nd edn.

Butterworth-Heinemann

Udoeyo, F (2020) Structural Analysis. North Board Press. Available at:

https://temple.manifoldapp.org/read/structural-analysis/section/61f2514c-18fb-4c5f-9638-1dbd1

0dac3ba (Accessed: 11 November 2020)

Construction Cost (no date) How to calculate hinged support, normal thrust and shear of a three

hinged circular arch. Available at:

https://www.constructioncost.co/calculate-hinged-support-normal-thrust-and-shear-of-a-three-hi

nged-circular-arch.html (Accessed: 11 November 2020)