SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Year 2 Laboratories

TQT
Deflection and Stress

Technical Note
Surname (Family Name): AlMohannadi
Other Names: Ahmad
Student ID Number: 201320274
Programme: Civil and Structural Engineering (BEng/MEng)
Lab group number: C2
Tutor: Kristian Krabbenhoft
Demonstrator’s Name: Greg
Date of experiment: 04/11/2019
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.
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

1. Summary

1.1 Introduction

Compressive members will be investigated since they can be seen in many structures too. Unlike
tension members who can only fail if the ultimate tensile stress is exceeded, compressive members
can either fail due to rapture form direct stress, or elastic mode of Buckling which is what will the lab
focus on. If a compressive beam experienced Buckling it will continue to displace without carrying
any more load, until its stiffness reaches zero and then it has no use as a structural member.

Beams are members that are used in most structures nowadays in the framework of a floor plan or
between support. As engineers it is important to understand the concepts of beams and deflections
in order to design beams with the right dimensions, material to withstand the forces applied. One
type of forces applied, is Torsion where the beam suffers from twisting and bending when the load is
not acting symmetrically. The amount of bending depends on the position of load and the load
distribution within the open section beam.

1.2 Aim

The lab is divided into two tasks, Task 1 is about the concept of buckling, where struts will be setup
in three different cases: Pinned ends, pin-fixed and fixed ends. Investigating how will each strut react
to load applied depending on the conditions created and comparing the theoretical values found
through Euler buckling formula and the experimental values.

On the other hand, Task 2, is about investigating the behaviour of different angled open section
beams when experiencing twisting and bending due to shear force distribution, in four different
cases: which are at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90°. The shear centre of each beam will be calculated using
experimental data.

1.3 Procedure

For Task 1, Three different struts were used to experiment on different length struts, before any
data was taken the dimensions of the strut were recorded and then load was applied until no more
load can be applied, thus critical buckling is reached. For the second task, there were 4 conditions, in
each condition 2kg were added on separate position which were in a distance of 20 mm between
each other. When the load is added a reading on the left and right gauges readers was recorded and
then averages were calculated.

1.4 Key Findings

• A compressive member set in Fixed-Fixed ends conditions is most suitable, since it experiences
less buckling deformation.
• When a beam is set on a 30° angle, it suffers the most deflection due to the position of centre of
shear.
• There is a level of inaccuracy in the Buckling lab, since the struts used have already experienced
buckling and deformation making it lose some of its stiffness.
• There is a level of inaccuracy in the Torsion task, since human error is present while reading the
gauges.

3
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

2. Theoretical Calculations
2.1 Theoretical Buckling Calculations

4
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

2.2 Calculating Theoretical Ixx and IYY

5
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

2.3 Calculating the value of Theoretical ‘e’ at both axis

2.4 Calculating the value of Theoretical Horizontal, Vertical deflection and Shear
centre

6
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

3. Experimental Calculations

Task 1: Buckling

3.1 Table showing experimental and Theoretical Buckling loads for each Case

Experimental Layout Strut Length Buckling Load (Pe) N Critical Load (Pcr) N Actual Load (N)
Pinned-Ends 430 54 54 46
Pinned-Fixed 400 61.7 128.56 106
Fixed-Fixed 373 74.79 299.18 181

3.2 Graph comparing Actual and Theoretical Critical Buckling Values

Comparing Theoretical and Actual Critical Buckling Values

350

300

250
Critical Buckling Load (N)

200

150

100

50

0
Pinned-Ends Pinned-Fixed Fixed-Fixed
Strut conditions

Theoretical Critical Buckling load Actual Critical Buckling load

7
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

Task 2: Torsion
3.1 Case 1: open section beam at 0°
3.1.1 Table showing left and right readings at 0°

Deflection at loading point

Gauges 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

3.1.2 Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

3

0
Deflection (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-1 Left
Right
-2

-3

-4

-5
Positions

8
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

3.2 Case 2: open section beam at 30°

3.2.1 Table showing left and right readings at 30°

Deflection at loading point

Gauges 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

3.2.2 Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

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

9
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

3.3 Case 3: open section beam at 60°

3.3.1 Table showing left and right readings at 60°

Deflection at loading point

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

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

3.3.2 Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

1.00

0.50

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.50
Deflection

-1.00 Left
Right
-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

-3.00
Positions

10
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

3.4 Case 4: open section beam at 90°

3.4.1 Table showing left and right readings at 90°

Deflection at loading point

Gauges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

𝛅L 2.42 1.89 1.37 0.77 0.23 -0.32 -0.87 -1.25 -1.94 -2.35

𝛅L 2.45 1.85 1.38 0.79 0.22 -0.33 -0.85 -1.28 -1.93 -2.4

𝛅L avg 2.43 1.86 1.375 0.78 0.225 -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

𝛅R avg -4.1 -4.4 -3.3 -1.45 -1.33 -0.62 0.025 0.725 1.395 2.23

3.4.2 Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

Graph representing left and right reading of against positions

3

0
Deflection

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

-3

-4

-5
Positions

11
 TQT Technical Note // CIVE233

4. Discussion
4.1 Task 1: Buckling

The first task is about the concept of buckling, where struts will be setup in three different cases:
Pinned ends, pin-fixed and fixed ends. Investigating how will each strut react to load applied
depending in their respective conditions. It can be seen from the data collected that theoretically
the case of Fixed ends struts managed to bear the largest buckling load applied (299.18 N), followed
by Pin-Fixed (128.56 N) and Pinned ends (54 N). When calculating, the actual values it can be seen
that it follows the same principle where the Critical Buckling for the Fixed ends (181 N) is the
highest, compared to Pin-Fixed (106 N) and Pinned ends (46 N). Thus, it can be concluded that
setting up a compressive beam on Fixed ends will ensure a stronger resistance to loads applied,
therefore it is recommended that that set up is used in structures. Looking deeper at the results, the
Fixed ends case is 5 times stronger than Pinned ends, while Pin-Fixed ends is 2.3 times stronger than
pinned ends, it is worth to note that the shorter the strut the less bulking it experiences since the
Fixed ends had only a 375 mm strut whereas the Pinned ends one was 430 mm. It is evident that the
actual values are much lower than the theoretical values recorded, due to various reasons but
mainly because the fact that the struts were used in previous experiments, thus they have already
experienced buckling and are already a bit deformed meaning the struts lost some of its stiffness
therefore they won’t be able to carry as much load. Whereas, the theoretical values show the results
under ideal conditions.

4.2 Task 2: Torsion

The second task is about investigating the behaviour of different angled open section beams when
experiencing twisting and bending due to shear force distribution, in four different cases: which are
at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90°. From the data obtained it can be seen that the angle with highest vertical
deflection is at 30° with a value of (1.125mm), followed by 0° with a value (1.1 mm). The 90° angle
had the smallest deflection with a value of (0.15mm). Such values are obtained due to the
distribution of shear stress within the beam, which changes depending on the angle the beam is set
on, in addition the position of the centre of shear for each beam, which affects the value of
deflection. The most accurate values were obtained through the first case where the beam is set on
0°, especially since the data was given in the lab script. On the other hand, when the beams were set
on 30° there was a difference of approximately 0.225 mm which shows a level of inaccuracy, thus
the test should be done again.

4.3 Error
Both tasks were vulnerable to human and experimental errors causing inaccuracy in the data
collected. In the Buckling lab, the struts used were not new meaning they were used in previous
experiment making them lose their stiffness thus they won’t be able to carry as much load. In
regards, The Torsion task there’s human errors in reading the gauges values, and in some cases,
people could be leaning on the tables which can disrupt the displacement values in the gauges.

5. Conclusion
• A compressive member set in Fixed-Fixed ends conditions is most suitable, since it experiences
less buckling deformation.
• When a beam is set on a 30° angle, it suffers the most deflection due to the position of centre of
shear.
• There is a level of inaccuracy in the Buckling lab, since the struts used have already experienced
buckling and deformation making it lose some of its stiffness.
• There is a level of inaccuracy in the Torsion task, since human error is present while reading the
gauges.

12