TORSION AND SHEAR MODULUS

Experiment 1

CVE 3201 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS 2

Student: Lecturer: Program:

Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem (I07006326) Dr. Lee Sun Chai BCEGI

Objective
Part 1 To investigate the shear modulus and torsion stress of steel, brass and aluminum Part 2 To determine the shear modulus and torsional stress of steel, brass and aluminium.

Theory
The torsion and shear modulus test would be done on 3 different specimens. The normal stress in the case of bending and the shear stress in the case of torsion vary linearly from the center of the specimen outward. The deformation is elastic and non-linear if plastic deformation is encountered.

Schematic Diagram

Results and Calculations

Part1 Investigate the relationship between torsional moment and torsional angel Load N 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 Torsional Moment Nmm 250 750 1250 1750 Table 1 Torsional Angle
0

0.092 0.548 1.078 1.71

Investigate the relationship between torsional moment and torsional angel Clamping Length mm 300 400 500 600 Table 2 Torsional Angle
0

0.873 0.905 0.932 1.76

Estimate the shear modulus and torsional stress Diameter d mm Load F N 7.5 12.5 17.5 7.5 brass 8 12.5 17.5 aluminiu m 7.5 12.5 17.5 Torsional Moment Mv Nmm 750 1250 1750 750 1250 1750 750 1250 1750 Torsional Stress N/mm2 7.460 12.434 17.408 7.460 12.434 17.408 1 46 95 196 195 319. 5 465 Torsional angle 2 73 91 189 183.5 333 435 238 420 535 3 56 95 194 189. 5 329. 5 455 220 420 564 avrg 58.33 93.67 193.00 189.33 327.33 451.67 230.67 436.67 555.67 G 1099.154 1140.877 775.166 338.648 326.463 331.233 277.965 244.723 269.239 332.114

Material

Shear modulus N/mm2 Gavrg

steel

1005.06

7.460 234 12.434 470 17.408 568 Table 3

263.975

Calculations
Taking the first readings from table 1

Taking the first readings from table 3 Steel Diameter = 8mm

Discussion and Observations for Part 1 and Part 2

-From the graph of torsional moment versus torsional angel, we observe that it is a straight line passing through the origin. This is seen by the equation

From this the slope of the graph should be same as

for steel bar used. O

- For clamping length and torsional angel it is a straight line passing through the origin. In the experiment some values for torsional angel was wrong. But the best straight line showed that the clamping length is proportional to the torsional angel. When the clamping length increased the torsional length increased.

-What is the relationship between Torsional Moment, Clamping Length and Torsional Angle for part 1? Theoretically from the following equation,

We can see that the torsional angel is proportional to length and the torsional moment. The relationship is that they are proportional to each other. when the clamping length increases the angel increases with it. Same result for moment and angel. This is also seen from the graph plotted. The increase in force for torsional moment causes an increase in the torsional angel. The more the force the more is the distortion in the member due to torsion. And when the length between the supports is increase from 300mm to 600mm the distortion in the member due to torsion also increase.

- What is the relationship between material and shear modulus strain? The shear modulus of the material depends on the torsional angel of the material. The torsional angel is how much the member is distorted due to torsion when a torsional moment is applied. In the experiment we used three materials. From these three steel has a stronger intermolecular bonding compared to brass or aluminum. Brass follows steel and the least strong bond is in aluminium. Meaning aluminium can be easily deformed compared to steel or brass. The equation,

shows that the lower that the torsional angel is inversely proportional to the shear modulus. In the experiment the torsional angel for steel is the lesser compared to the rest. The highest shear modulus was obtained for steel followed by brass and aluminum. This shows that the shear modulus depends on the material properties.

Conclusion
From part 1 it showed that there is a relationship between the clamping length (length between supports), torsional angel and the torsional moment applied for a material. The results showed that increase in the length and moment increased the torsional angel. In part 2, from testing different materials, we obtained that steel has a higher shear modulus compared to brass and aluminium. This shows that torsional deformation of steel is less compared to brass and aluminium.

TORSION AND SHEAR MODULUS

Experiment 1

CVE 3201 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS 2

Student: Lecturer: Program:

Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem (I07006326) Dr. Lee Sun Chai BCEGI

Objective
Part 1 To comprehend the action of shear force in a beam for different load positions Part 2 To comprehend the action of shear force in a beam for different loading at the selected position.

Theory
When a beam is subjected to a traverse loading, internal strain and stresses are created in the beam. In order to determine these stresses we consider the internal forces and the moments in the beam. The internal force developed is called shear force and is denoted as V, acting perpendicular to the beam. The figure below illustrates these forces. The transvers loading creates a internal force inside. The cut section of the beams shows the shear force denoted as V.
W

RA

RB

Figure 1
V

RA

Figure 2

Theoretically the shear force V can be found out by finding the support reactions and resolving figure two in the vertical direction. In this experiment we will try to find out the ratio of theoretical shear force calculated using the method shown above and with the experiment shear force calculated using the shear force machine. Schematic diagram of the machine is shown below with where the point loads are applied to calculate the shear in the beam.

Schematic Diagram

Table and Results

Part 1 load on W3 hanger (400mm from B) Spring balance force Exp. Shear (VE) Theoretical shear (VT) Ratio (VE) / (VT) N N N N Table1 0 0 0 0 10 15 15 4.444 3.375 20 30 30 8.889 3.375

load on W2 hanger (300mm from A) Spring balance force Exp. Shear (VE) Theoretical shear (VT) Ratio (VE) / (VT)

N N N N Table 2

0 0 0 0 0

10 26.66 26.66 6.667 3.999

20 52 52 13.333 3.9

load on W2 hanger (100mm from A) Spring balance force Exp. Shear (VE) Theoretical shear (VT) Ratio (VE) / (VT)

N N N N Table 3

0 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 8.889 0

20 5 5 17.778 0.281

Part 2 Load (N) at positions W2 0 0 2 10 Balance force (N) 0 14 14 35 Table 4 Shear V (N) VE 0 14 14 35 VT 0 3.167 3.833 9.167 Ratio (VE) / (VT) 4.421 3.652 3.818

W1 0 5 5 5

W3 0 12 10 10

Calculations
Taking first reading of table1 for part 1 W2=10N Experiment Shear force,

Theoretical Shear force at C,

Taking first reading of table4 for part 2 W1=5N,W2=0,W3=12 Experiment Shear force at C,

Theoretical Shear force at C,

Average ratio for table1,

Average ration for table2,

Average ration for table3, Average ration for table4,

Discussion and Observations for Part 1 and Part 2

-When the load was doubled in Part 1 of the experiment, did the shear force double? Theoretically by calculation we know that when the force is double the shear force at point C will also double. This is shown by the calculations above. Experimentally the shear force also doubles when we double the force. When we doubled from 10N to 20N the experimental shear force also doubled from 15N to 30N. this shows that the experimental shear is proportional with the theoretical shear. Although the ratio obtained is not 1. The ratio not being one is due to experimental error caused by the spring. This maybe due to the stifness of the spring.

b) How well did the experimental results agree with the theoretical values? Use the average of the ratios Experiment VE/ Theory VT. Although the ratio is not 1 or close to 1 still the average ratio we obtained is between 3.5 to 4. This shows that the experiment and the theoretical shear force obtained was almost the same. This can be assumed if we assume that the spring balance showed an error reading multiplied by 3.

In table three of part 1. The experimental results obtained is completely out of proportion. This is due to human error in taking the reading.

Conclusion
From part 1 of the experiment we found out that the average ratio is between 3.5 and 4. The ratio obtained is not 1. Even if it is not 1, the ratio for all results is almost same. Meaning the experiment showed that the theoretical shear force was almost same as the experimental shear force. The ratio being 3.5 and not 1 is because of human error in taking the initial readings of the spring. Little variations in the results obtained is due to experimental errors in taking the correct reading for the spring balance. Although we used a liquid horizontal to make sure if the surface is horizontal some error is due to the surface not being horizontal. The apparatus has been used for a long time. This will also account for a part of the error. the errors could be reduced by performing the experiment procedure carefully.

BENDING MOMENT IN BEAMS

Experiment 3 CVE 3201 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS 2

Student: Lecturer: Program:

Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem (I07006326) Dr. Lee Sun Chai BCEGI

Objective
Part 1 To comprehend the action of moment resistance in a beam Part 2 To measure the bending moment at a normal section of a loading beam and to check its agreement with theory

Theory
Bending is a major concept used in the design of many machines and structural components. Beams are usually long and straight prismatic members and the load applied on to it are perpendicular to its axis. Such transverse loading causes bending and shear in the beams.

Schematic Diagram

Results and calculations

Part 1 Bending at C for a loading on each of the load hanger. Balance Reading(N) /Net Force(N) for load at W1 W2 W3 16 20 24 0 4 8 16 26 40 0 12 24 16 22 28 0 6 12 Exp. Bending Moment, ME (Nmm) 0 0 0 Theor. Bending Moment, MT (Nmm) 0 0 0 Ratio (VE) / (VT) W1 0 0.9 0.9 W2 0 0.9 0.9 W3 0 0.9 0.9

Load (N) 0 10 20

600 1800 900 667 2000 996 1200 3600 1800 1334 4000 1992 Table 1

Part2 Bending moment at C for a superpostition of loading Loading Balance Reading Net Force (N) (N) (N) 0 18 0 W2=5 24 6 W1=W3=10,W2=5 38 20 Table 2 Bending Moment (Nmm) 0 900 3000

Bending moment at C for various loading Loading Balance Reading (N) (N) 0 18 W2=5,W3=12 36 W1=W3=10,W2=2 35 Table 3

Net Force (N) 0 18 17

Bending Moment (Nmm) 0 2700 2550

Calculations
For part 1 Taking first reading with 10N at W1 Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

10N at W2 Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

10N at W3 Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

For part 2 5N at W2 Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

10N at W1 and W3, 5N at W2 Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

W2 =5N and W3=12N Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

W1=5N,W2=10N,W3=2N Experiment Bending Moment,

Theoretical Bending Moment at C,

Observations
-When the load was doubled in Part 1 of the experiment did the bending moment double ? Theoretically when the load is doubled the bending moment also has to double. Theoretical calculations prove this. Experimentally from the data obtained, when the load was doubled the bending moment also doubles. -Compute the average figure which expresses the comparison between the experimental and theoretical bending moment (use either a ratio or a percentage error). -The average ration of experimental bending moment to theoretical bending moment is 0.9. For all the data the ratio is the same. This shows that the experimental data obtained is almost same as the theoretical values. Proving that the bending moment found out theoretically is the same as the internal bending moment actually occurring in the member. We configured the apparatus three times with different loadings and the bending moment diagram were drawn from the values we collected. We did not encounter any problems during the experiment. The errors obtained can be assumed as, due to human error and the stiffness of the spring used to calculate the experimental moment.

Conclusion
From part 1 of the experiment we found out that the ratio of experiment to theoretical bending moment is 0.9. This is almost same as 1. We can conclude that the experiment results obtained proves that the theoretical calculations of bending moment are same as the actually internal moment occurring in a member.

BENDING OF BEAMS AND COEFFICIENT OF ELASTICITY

Experiment 4

CVE 3201 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS 2

Student: Lecturer: Program:

Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem (I07006326) Dr. Lee Sun Chai BCEGI

Objective
Part 1 To investigate the relationship between load, span, width, height and deflection of a beam, placed on two bearer and affected by a concentrated load at the centre. Part 2 To ascertain the coefficient of elasticity for steel, brass and aluminium.

Schematic Diagram

Results
Part 1 Investigate the relationship between load and deflection of the test specimen. Deflection #1 Deflection #2 Deflection #3 Average Load (N) (mm) (mm) (mm) deflection (mm) 5 21.5 21.5 21 21.3 10 46 50 46.5 47.5 15 64.5 60 71 65.2 20 93.5 85.5 91.5 90.2 Investigate the relationship between span and deflection of the test specimen. Deflection #1 Deflection #2 Deflection #3 Average Span (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) deflection (mm) 300 8 6 5 6.3 400 12.5 9 13.5 11.7 500 15 23.5 25.5 21.3 600 46 50 46.5 47.5 Investigate the relationship between width and deflection of the test specimen. Test Specimen Deflection #1 Deflection #2 Deflection #3 Average Width (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) deflection (mm) 76.5 78.5 80 78.3 52 48.5 53 51.2 42 40 45 42.3 30.5 39 39.5 36.3 Investigate the relationship between the height and deflection of the test specimen. Test Specimen Deflection #1 Deflection #2 Deflection #3 Average Height (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) deflection (mm) 121 119.5 115 118.5 42 40 45 42.3 16.5 13 15.6 15.0 2 2.5 1 1.8

Part 2 Determine the coefficient of elasticity for steel, brass and aluminium. Material & Diameters (mm) Steel D= Brass D=
Aluminium D=

Load, F (N) 5 10 15 5
10 15 5 10 15

Moment Flexural (Nmm) 937.5 1562.5 2187.5 937.5

1562.5 2187.5 937.5 1562.5 2187.5

Flexural Stress ( ) 18.65 31.08 43.52 18.65

31.08 43.52 18.65 31.08 43.52

Deflection (mm)

Coefficient of Elasticity ( ) 2023.8 2260.4 2157.4 2187.9 973.8 1001.7 998.8

1020.9 698.6 695.2 961.8

31 34 64 55 95.5 86 68 67.5
132 194 95 185 202 129 195 92 185 202

31 53 85 64
127 182 91 189 202

32 57.3 88.8 66.5

129.3 190.3 92.7 186.3 202

785.2

Calculations
Taking the first reading, For circular cross section,

Determination of flexural moment

Determination of flexural stress

Deflection formula given,

Therefore, elasticity can be found,

Discussion and Observations

When the load is increased the deflection increases. From the formula,

we can see that when the load is directly proportional to the deflection. This was also seen when we drew the graph for the load against deflection. The graph produced a straight line passing through the origin. The slope of the graph should be equal to L 3/48EI. This identifies and proves that the theoretical formula. From the graph of span against deflection, the curve shows that as span increases, deflection also increases. The graph gives a third degree curve. This is because deflection is directly proportional to length3. The experimental result and the theoretical formula are identical. From the graph of width against deflection, it is showing that as the width decreases, the deflection is increasing which this result identifies the formula given. From the graph of height against deflection, the curve shows the deflection increases as the height decreases which this result is also identical. From high to low, steel has the higher coefficient of elasticity which it has been found to be 2157.4 , followed by brass, 998.8 , and then aluminium which is 785.2 . In steel the molecular bond is stronger compared to aluminium or brass. hence for the high coefficient of elasticity. The higher the value of k, the lower the deflection. The following formula shows this.

Conclusion
From this experiment, the relationships between load, span, width, height and deflection of a beam has been investigated. The results we gained are identical with the formula of deflection which shows,

The elastic coefficient of the materials, steel, brass and aluminium has been found out. We found out that the ductile material has a higher coefficient of elasticity. Thus steel has is more ductile.

ROOF TRUSS
Experiment 5

CVE 3201 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS 2

Student: Lecturer: Program:

Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem (I07006326) Dr. Lee Sun Chai BCEGI

Objective
To investigate the relationship between the measured forces in a loaded frame experimentally and theoretically.

Results
Load (N) Frame member Initial reading Loaded reading Deflection (loadedinitial) Calibration (N/mm) Force in member (N) (deflection*c alibration) 10 20 AB 45 45 0 22.8 45 44.9 0.1 22.8 45 44.7 0.3 22.8 45 44.7 0.3 22.8 45 45 0 22.8 45 44.9 0.1 22.8 30 40 10 20 BC 45 44.8 0.2 22.8 45 44.8 0.2 22.8 64 63.9 0.1 21.1 64 64 0 21.1 30 40 10 20 AC 64 64 0 21.1 64 64 0 21.1 30 40

2.28

6.84

6.84

0 Table 1

2.28

4.56

4.56

2.11

Member AB BC AC

10 N 0 0 2.11

Experiment 20 N 30 N 2.28 6.84 2.28 4.56 0 0

40 N 6.84 4.56 0 Table 2

10 N 7.071 7.071 5

Theory 20 N 30 N 14.14 21.21 14.14 21.21 10 15

40 N 28.28 28.28 20

Calculations
Length AB = 45 cm Length BC = 45 cm Length AC = 64 cm <ABC = 90 <BAC = 45 <BCA = 45 N

Discussion
What is the relationship between the experimental and theoretical values obtained? The experimental values obtained are not same as the theoretical values. The experiment was a failure as the data obtained had no relationship with the theoretical force in members. Theoretically the force in the members must double as the load W is doubled. But the data shows that there is no only a slight increase in the member force. Will it be any changes to the angles of the frame with the loading? Yes as the load increases, deflection also increases that it would cause a change in angle. What are the precautions that should be taken in this experiment to ensure its accuracy? During the measurement of the length, the points where we read have to be fixed on the same point when taking initial reading and the loaded reading.

Conclusion
This experiment was a failure as the experimental results does not have any match with the theoretical force. There was a force noted for all members and when load doubled the force in member AB doubled, but the experimental force is not same as the theoretical force.

CONTINOUS BEAM
Experiment 6

CVE 3201 STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS 2

Student: Lecturer: Program:

Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem (I07006326) Dr. Lee Sun Chai BCEGI

Objective
To determine the support reactions and central moment for a simply supported continuous beam. Compare the experimental data and theoretical values.

Theory
In this experiment, we investigate the support reactions and central moments for a simply supported continuous beam when the loads are applied at different positions of the beam. The recorded readings are then compared with the theoretical results obtained through calculations. It is essential how certain sections of a structure behave under applied loads, force and pressure. This information will be taken as reference in the analysis of larger scale and more sophisticated structure. Structures that are commonly seen and used such as cranes, bridges, vehicle chassis, fly-over, railways etc.

Schematic Diagram

Results

W1 = 20N at 200mm and W2 = 40N at 600mm, at 0mm, 400mm and 1000mm Spring Balance Initial Reading Final Reading Actual Reading 1 2 14 12 2 12 37 25 3 3 24 21 Table 1

W1 = 20N at 100mm, W2 = 50N at 600mm and W3 = 30N at 900mm, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 1000mm Spring Balance Initial Reading Final Reading Actual Reading 1 2 18 16 2 12 49 37 3 4 50 46 Table 2

W1 = 40N at 400mm and W2 = 30N at 900mm, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 800mm Spring Balance Initial Reading Final Reading Actual Reading 1 3 9 6 2 10 33.3 23.3 3 7 47 40 Table 3 W1 = 50N at 200mm and W2 = 30N at 600mm, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 800mm Spring Balance Initial Reading Final Reading Actual Reading 1 1 26 25 2 14 48 34 3 7.5 48 40.5 Table 4

20N uniformly distributed, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 800m Spring Balance Initial Reading Final Reading 1 4 19.5 2 8 24.5 3 5 13 Table 5

Actual Reading 15.5 16.5 8

Calculations
W1 = 20N at 200mm and W2 = 40N at 700mm, at 0mm, 400mm and 1000mm Theoretical Reactions

Therefore by moment distribution method the reactions and the moments at the support are, AB BA BC CB Df 0 0.6 0.4 0 FEM -1000 1000 -3000 3000 Distribution 1200 800 Carryover 600 400 Final Moment -400 2200 -2200 3400 Reaction 5.5 14.5 18 22 Total Reaction 5.5 32.5 22

W1 = 20N at 100mm, W2 = 50N at 600mm and W3 = 30N at 900mm, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 1000mm Theoretical Reactions

Therefore by moment distribution method the reactions and the moments at the support are, AB BA BC CB Df 0 0.6 0.4 0 FEM -1125 375 -4861.11 4305.556 distribution 2691.667 1794.444 carryover 1345.83 897.22 Final Moment 220.83 3066.67 -3066.67 5202.77 Reaction 6.781 13.21 34.77 45.22 Total Reaction 6.781 47.98 45.22

W1 = 40N at 400mm and W2 = 30N at 900mm, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 800mm Theoretical Reactions

Therefore by moment distribution method the reactions and the moments at the support are, AB 0 0 BA BC 0.57 0.43 0 0 CB CD 1 0 0 -3000

Df FEM

distribution Carry Over Distribution Carry Over Final Moment Reaction Total Reaction

3000 1500 -855 -645 -427.5 -427.5 3.206 3.375 -855 855 -3.206 -9.64 -12.85 3000 -3000 9.6375 30 39.6375

W1 = 50N at 200mm and W2 = 30N at 600mm, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 800mm Theoretical Reactions

Therefore by moment distribution method the reactions and the moments at the support are, AB 0 -2500 BA BC 0.57 0.43 2500 -1500 1250 -1282.5 -967.5 -641.25 -1858.75 26.6 26.6 1217.5 -1217.5 23.4 8.04 31.44 4000 -4000 20 21.96 41.96 BC CD 1 0 1500 -4000 2500

Df FEM distribution Carry Over Distribution Final Moment Reaction Total Reaction

20N uniformly distributed, supports at 0mm, 400mm and 800m Theoretical Reactions

Df FEM Distribution Carryover Final Moment Reaction Total Reaction

AB 0 -666.67 100 -566.67 9.25 9.25

AB 0.6 666.67 200

BC 0.4 -1000 133.32

CB 0 1000 66.67 1066.67 10.33 10.33

866.7 -866.7 10.75 9.67 20.42

Discussion
The difference between the theoretical and the experimental values can be explained by, Inaccuracy during the beam adjustment: while adjusting the spring balance to keep the beam in horizontal position, this can be course of the different because the spring was adjusted under the observation of naked eyes; therefore it does not guaranty accuracy. Deflected beam: it is also observed the beam that was being used in this experiment was not in shape. The beam was deflected and this has caused inaccurate readings.

Conclusion
The theoretical supports reactions calculated is very close to the experimental reactions.