Department of Civil Engineering

KIA2007 Laboratory A (Structures and Materials)

Session 2021/2022 Semester 2

Practical 8 (b) Plastic Behaviour of a Beam

Lecturer : Dr. Mohd Fazaulnizam Bin Shamsudin

Group : 11

Laboratory Date : 29th March 2022

Report Submission Date : 12nd April 2022

Group members :

No. Name Student Number Identification Number

1 Chan Koon Sean U2003851/1 011010010397
2 Brian Ong Zhe U2003864/1 010519081011
3 Lim Pooi Yen U2003869/1 011123101340
4 Nurhafizudin Bin Farizal U2003879/1 010327130659
5 Yeap Chee Kitt U2003888/1 010419070083

1
Table of Content:

8.2.1 Introduction...……………………………………………………………………………..2
8.2.2 Objective………………………………………………………………………………….4
8.2.3 Materials and Apparatus………………………………………………………………….4
8.2.4 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………5
8.2.5 Calculations and results…………………………………………………………………..8
8.2.6 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………17
8.2.7 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………20

2
8.2 Practical 8 (b): Plastic Behaviour of a Beam
8.2.1 Introduction

A beam consists of ductile material that enable plastic hinges to form under bending. In this
experiment, a steel beam with rectangular cross-section is being considered. The ideal stress-strain
is shown in Figure 1(b). Within the elastic limit, the stress-strain relationship is linear until the
yielding point. Even when the strain increases after the yielding point, the stress stays constant.
When the applied bending moment is gradually increased from zero, both stress and strain at the
section vary linearly. As soon as yield stress, 𝑓_𝑦 is obtained at the outer fibre, the stress
distribution depicted in Figure 1(c) exists. The related yield moment is 𝑀_𝑦 = 𝑓_𝑦 𝑧 ,where z is
the cross section's elastic modulus.

If the applied bending moment is greater than the yield moment, the strain at the outer fibre
increases to exceed the yield strain, 𝜀_𝑦 while the stress remains at the yield stress, 𝑓_𝑦. Figures
1(d) and 1(c) depict the stages of yield stress development in the section. The segment is deemed
to have reached full plasticity when the stress distribution seen in Figure 1(c) is obtained. The
corresponding bending moment is the full plastic moment, and for a rectangular cross-section,
𝑀_𝑝 = (𝑏𝑑^2)/4 𝑓_𝑦 .The yield bending moment for a rectangular cross section is 𝑀_𝑦 =
(𝑏𝑑^2)/6 𝑓_𝑦 .

The ratio between the plastic moment and the yield moment is used to calculate the shape factor
for this sort of section., ie 𝑀_𝑝/𝑀_𝑦 = 1.5 . A hinge action is stated to have occurred at the

3
segment when the plastic moment does not increase any further. The hinge rotates, yet the bending
moment through this hinge is maintained at its full plastic moment value.

8.2.2 Objective

To demonstrate the formation of plastic hinges and to determine the collapse load of a beam.

8.2.3 Materials and Apparatus

Steel Plate

Fixing plate with captive screws

Roller support

Load (2N,5N,10N,20N)

Meter Rule

Load Hanger

Cushion

4
8.2.4 Procedure

Part 1

1. The simply supported beam was set up and the length of beam is measured using meter
rule. (Figure 1)

Figure 1

2. The midpoint of beam was marked and a ribbon was placed on it to hang the load hanger.
3. The distance between the bottom of the hanger without load to the floor was measured with
a meter rule as initial reading.

5
4. A load of 5N was placed and the deflection of beam was determined by measuring the
distance from bottom of hanger to the floor. (Figure 2a and 2b)

Figure 2a Figure 2b

5. Step 4 was repeated until the total load reached 30N.

6. Afterwards, 2N load was placed each time and deflection was recorded. This step was
continued until the beam collapsed.

6
Part 2

1. The crutched cantilever beam was set up by fixing one side with screw and another end
was supported.
2. The 1/3 of the beam from the fixed end was marked and a ribbon was placed on it to hang
the load hanger. (Figure 3)

Figure 3

3. The distance between the bottom of the hanger without load to the floor was measured with
a meter rule as initial reading.
4. A load of 20N was placed and the deflection of beam was determined by measuring the
distance from bottom of hanger to the floor. (Figure 4)

Figure 4

5. Step 4 was repeated by adding 1 more time of 20N, 1 time of 10N, 2 times of 5N and
subsequent of 2N loads until the beam collapsed.

7
8.2.5 Result and Calculation

Simply Supported Beam

Effective Length: 80cm (800mm)

Width of beam, b: 11.88mm

Thickness of beam, d: 2.81mm

Load hanger: 512.2 x 9.81/1000 = 5.025N

Initial displacement: 61.2cm (612mm)

Deflection = Initial displacement – displacement

Table

Load (N) Displacement (cm) Deflection (cm)

0 61.2 0
5 59.7 1.5
10 58.1 3.1
15 56.1 5.1
20 54.3 6.9
25 failed failed

Theoretical Value

Yield strength, fy: 548.2MPa

Plastic Load, Wp = ((𝑏𝑑^2)/𝐿)𝑓𝑦

= (((1.188) (0.281)^2)/80)54820

= 64.28 N

8
Maximum Plastic Moment, Mp max = WpL / 4

= (64.28) (0.80)/4

= 12.856 Nm

Experimental Value

Load against Deflection

35

30

25
Load(N)

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection (cm)

From graph, fp = 24N

Plastic load, Wp = 24+5.025

= 29.025N

Maximum plastic moment, Mp max = WpL/4

= (29.025) (0.80)/4

= 5.805 Nm

Percentage of error = (Theoretical Value -Experimental Value) / Theoretical Value x 100

9
Percentage error of Plastic Load = (64.28 – 29.025)/64.28 x 100

= 54.85%

Percentage error of End moment = (12.856 – 5.805)/12.856 x 100

= 54.85%

10
Cantilever Beam
Effective Length: 80cm (800mm)

Width of beam, b: 12.07mm

Thickness of beam, d: 2.87mm

Load hanger: 512.2 x 9.81/1000 = 5.025N

Initial displacement: 62cm (620mm)

Deflection = Initial displacement – displacement

Load (N) Displacement (cm) Deflection (cm)

0 62.0 0
20 60.2 1.8
40 57.2 4.8
50 51.2 10.8
55 47.2 14.8
60 44.6 17.4
62 44.3 17.7
64 43.0 19
66 42.8 19.2
68 42.5 19.5
70 42.4 19.6
72 42.1 19.9
74 41.8 20.2
76 41.5 20.5
78 41.3 20.7
80 failed failed

11
Theoretical Value

Yield strength, fy = 483.59 MPa

Plastic Load, Wp = ((𝑏𝑑^2)/𝐿)𝑓𝑦

= (((1.207) (0.287)^2)/80)48359

= 60.10 N

End Moment, Mp = WpL/4

= (60.10) (0.80)/4

= 12.02 Nm

First plastic hinge at fixed support, Mp = (5/27) Wp1L

12.02 = (5/27) Wp1 (0.80)

Wp1 = 81.135N

Wp2 = (15 Mp )/2L

= (15 (12.02))/2(0.80)

= 112.69 N

12
Experimental Value

Deflection against Load

120

100

80
Load (N)

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (cm)

Fp1 = 50 N

Fp2 = 80N

Plastic Load:

Wp1 : 50 + 5.025 = 55.025N

Wp2 : 80 + 5.025 = 85.025N

Percentage of error = (Theoretical Value – Experimental Value) / Theoretical Value x 100

(81.135 – 55.025) / 81.135 x 100 = 32.18%

(112.69 – 85.025) / 112.69 x 100 = 24.55%

13
14
Appendix B

15
16
8.2.6 Discussion

Chan Koon Sean (U2003851/1)

When the beam is simply supported, it collapsed when 25N of load is applied. The highest load it
can withstand was 20N with maximum deflection of 6.9cm. According to theoretical value, the
expected maximum plastic moment was 12.856Nm. However, the experimental value showed
that the maximum plastic moment was 5.805Nm. The percentage error was 54.85% which is
considered moderate.

When the experiment was carried out by using cantilever beam, it collapsed at 80N. The
maximum load that can be withstood was 78N with maximum deflection of 20.7cm. Based on
theoretical value, the end moment was 12.02Nm. First plastic hinge was formed at point A with
the load Wp1 = 81.135N. The second plastic hinge was formed at loading point which is point B
with load Wp2 = 112.69N. Based on the graph plotted and the experimental value, the values of
plastic load are 55.025N and 85.025N. The percentage of error was 32.18% and 24.55%, which
are consider moderate.

The errors that caused inaccuracy in readings was because of our eyes are not perpendicular to
the meter ruler while recording the readings.

Brian Ong Zhe (U2003864/1)

In Part 1 which used simply supported beam was able to withstand 20N of load with a deflection
of 6.9cm before it collapsed when it was given 25N load. There were two trials done as the first
collapsing of the simply supported beam when 25N load given was thought to be the slipping of
the beam from the free end support. The second trail was done, and the beam collapsed as well
when 25N load was applied to the beam. From the graph plotted, the plastic load obtained was
29.025N while for the theoretical value the plastic load obtained was 64.28N which was higher
than the experimental result. The percentage of error between the experimental and theoretical
values was 54.85% which can be considered high.

17
In part 2, cantilever beam was introduced. It took 80N loading to collapse the cantilever beam.
Two plastic hinges were formed as the load was placed at of length of the beam which was 25cm
from the fixed end support. The first plastic hinge formed at the support while the second plastic
hinge formed at the loading point of the beam. The loads that caused the formation of first plastic
hinge and of second plastic hinge were 55.025N and 85.025N respectively. Both values were
obtained through a graph plotted from the data of the experiment. On the other hand, the loads
obtained from theoretical calculation were 81.135N for first plastic hinge and 112.69N for second
plastic hinge. Both loads of theoretical calculation were greater than the loads of experimental
obtained. The percentage of error for first plastic hinge was 32.18% while 24.55% for the second
plastic hinge. Both errors are considered as moderate as the percentages are not that high. Cushions
had been placed underneath the weight to avoid the dropping of weight onto the floor during
collapse. Our group member were always ready to keep distance ourself if an accident occur. We
also included the weight of hanger which is 5.025N in the collapse load.

Lim Pooi Yen (U2003869/1)

Generally, the formation of plastic hinge represents the deformation of a part of the beam where
plastic bending occurs. The bending moment where the outermost fibre reached yield stress is the
yield moment whereas the bending moment where the entire beam section reaches yield stress and
form plastic hinge is the plastic moment.

After analysing the data obtained from the experiment, for both simply supported and cantilever
beam, based on the graph of load against deflection (stress-strain diagram) for both simply
supported beam and cantilever beam, it is proven that the relationship between load (stress) and
deflection (strain) of the beam is linear up to the plastic load (within elastic region) at which the
beam failed. Beyond the plastic load point, the relationship between stress and strain is not linear
(plastic region).

The experimental plastic load where the simply supported beam collapse is 29.025 N. Since the
simply supported beam is subjected to an increasing point load at mid-span, by examining the
shape of bending moment diagram, the formation of a plastic hinge under the point load can be

18
visualised. In the experiment, the beam section yields and plastic hinge forms at the mid-span
when a plastic bending moment of 5.805 Nm acted on the beam.

Wp

Plastic hinge

Based on the graph of load against deflection of cantilever beam, there are two plastic loads
experienced by the beam. The first plastic load experienced by the beam is 55.025N and the first
plastic hinge is formed at the fixed support. The second plastic load is 85.025 N, forming the
second plastic hinge at the point of loading, which is 1/3 of the span from the fixed end. The beam
collapsed when the second plastic hinge was formed.

There are errors in this experiment because the experimental and theoretical values for the plastic
loads of the beams are different. This may be due to the large increment of loads being applied
when the beam almost collapse. Smaller increment in loads should be applied to ensure that the
minimum weight for the beam to collapse was being recorded. Besides that, the deflection values
might have errors because the beam was slowly moving downwards after the load was applied.
Measurements should be taken after the beam had completely stop deflecting downwards.

Nurhafizudin bin Farizal (U2003879/1)

For the simply supported beam, the load is being placed at the midpoint of the beam while the
crutched cantilever beam, the load is being placed at the 1/3 of the beam. Both of the beam is then
subjected to load where there will an increasing of load until the beam breaks or fail. For the simply
supported beam, the beam failed at 25N while the crutched cantilever beam failed at 80N. Both

19
the graphs shows that the beam have a plastic region where the graph is not linear and the elastic
region when the graph is at linear.

For the simply supported beam, the experimental value for the maximum plastic moment was
5.805Nm while the expected maximum plastic moment which based on the theoretical was
12.856Nm. The percentage different is 54.85%. For the crutched cantilever beam, the experimental
plastic load is for the first plastic hinge to occur is when the load is 55.025N while the second
plastic hinge occur is when the load at 85.025N. The percentage error for the first hinge is 32.18%
while the second hinge is 24.55%. The percentage for both experiment is quite high as this is due
to the error during conducting the experiment. This will make the value for the experiment and
theoretical different.

Yeap Chee Kitt (U2003888/1)

The experiment is carried out using the simply supported beam and crutched cantilever beam to
test the plastic behaviour of different types of beams. The load applied and deflection of beam is
recorded from time to time and graph is plotted using these data. For simply supported beam, the
experimental value of plastic load is 29.025N, while the theoretical value is 64.28N having a
percentage difference of 54.85% which is very high. For crutched cantilever, the first plastic hinge
occurs when 55.025 N load is applied, while the second plastic hinge occurs when the load reaches
85.025 N. The experimental value has a percentage difference of 32.18% (1st hinge) and 24.55%
(2nd hinge) with the theoretical value. Through the result, we can see that the heavier the load, the
more the deflection until the beam collapse.

The percentage of error for both simply supported beam and crutched cantilever are quite high.
This may be caused by errors during the experiment. The most common error is the parallax error
when observing the reading of deflection. Besides, the rusty load causes the weight to be slightly
inaccurate. Precaution steps should be taken to avoid errors. The observer’s eyes must be
perpendicular to the scale of metre rule. Other than that, the experiment must be repeated few times
to get the average readings which is more accurate.

20
8.2.7 Conclusion

Chan Koon Sean (U2003851/1)

In conclusion, there is only one plastic hinge will be formed in simply supported beam at the
loading point while there are 2 plastic hinges formed in cantilever beam at fixed end and loading
point. As the steel bars collapse, it did not break apart at the plastic hinge and this showed that
steel bars have high tensile strength.

Brian Ong Zhe (U2003864/1)

To conclude, simply supported beam will form only one plastic hinge whilst cantilever beam will
form two plastic hinges. Although there were big differences in both theoretical and experimental
values, but the percentage of error still falls on acceptable range. Precaution steps should be
considered to minimize the errors.

Lim Pooi Yen (U2003869/1)

Based on the experiment, for simply supported beam analysis, the beam collapsed when a plastic
load of 29.025 N was applied and the plastic moment at the beam section is 5.805 Nm. This shows
that for a determinate beam such as a simply supported beam, the formation of one plastic hinge
will cause the beam to collapse. In the case of crutched cantilever beam, the beam did not collapse
when the first plastic load, 55.025 N was applied. The beam failed when the second plastic load,
85.025 N was applied at 1/3 of span from fixed end. It is concluded that an indeterminate beam
such as a propped cantilever beam will collapse after the formation of two or more plastic hinges.

21
In the structural design and analysis, factor of safety is applied to ensure that the load imposed
must be way below the plastic load. Precaution must be taken to avoid the structural member from
reaching plastic moment and yield. This is because it is dangerous when there is no big changes in
stress applied but the deformation of member increases. The members might also fail any time
after the yield point is reached.

Nurhafizudin bin Farizal (U2003879/1)

Based on the experiment, the maximum plastic moment for the simply supported beam is 5.805Nm.
For the crutched cantilever beam, the first hinge occurs at 55.025N and the second hinge is at
85.025N. Both of the percentage error is quite high as this is due to the several error when
conducting the experiment. However, the objective of the experiment has been proved during the
experiment even though there are many percentages error.

Yeap Chee Kitt (U2003888/1)

In conclusion, the collapse load for the simply supported beam is 29.025 N while the crutched
cantilever beam forms the first plastic hinge when 55.025N load is applied and collapses during
load = 85.025N. To compare, the results show that the crutched cantilever beam can withstand
higher load than a simply supported beam. The formation of plastic hinges can be determined too
through the graph drawn. The percentage differences between the experimental values and
theoretical values are high and this may be caused by the observer’s errors and instrumental errors.
Therefore, precautions steps should be taken to increase the accuracy of results. Lastly, the
objective od the experiment is achieved.

22