Running head: LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 1

Lab Report on Warren Girder

Firstname Lastname

Name of Institution
 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 2

Introduction

Warren girders are structures applied in construction of simple bridges and in making

cantilevered cranes. The experiment determined how forces in members of warren girder relates

and varies with the central variable action. The figure below shows the model of the warren

girder that was used for the investigation (Olsson & Dahlblom, n.d.).

Objectives

To determine and evaluate loadings obtain from experiment using a warren girder and making a

comparison using the theoretical forces computed with mathematical methods of joints and

section

To investigate the effect of redundant member in a warren girder and making analysis of the

truss girder

The Experiment

The pin Jointed Frame gives room for the detection of forces, which determine whether a given

member is determinate or statically indeterminate.

A Warren Girder structure was used in the experiment where electronic load cell was used to

apply forces to structural members. Strain gauges estimate the applied load and showed the

reading as the experiment progressed (Spillers, n.d.).

The sensors are used to gather data on the forces members, which later categorized them as

either compression or tensional forces. The strain gauge stretches or compresses the same

amount according to the nature of forces applied within the members. The digital strain output
 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 3

was in micro strain (x10). Member strain can be converted to forces by using the strain, the area

of load application and the elastic (Young’s) modulus of each member forces.

Procedure

1. The apparatus were set properly as per the manual

2. The member designation and member diameters were appropriately annotated in their

various table. The diameters were measured using micrometer screw gauge.

3. A load of 100N was applied in the loading direction while the load cell was zero loaded.

4. A load of 500N was applied while checking if the frame was stable and in a secure state.

The load was thereafter returned to zero value while zero loading the load cell again. The

digital dial gauge was zeroed, as it was used to give measurement of the deflection at

joints

5. The load was then applied in an incremental of 100N and the strain and deflection in each

member was recorded in in appropriate table.

6. The load was returned to zero as the experiment came into completion
 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 4

The experimental Data

Table 1 Member Diameter ( mm)

Member Number

AD AE AF BD CF DE EF

Diameter 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98

(mm)

Strain reading and frame deflection

Table 2 : Strain reading and frame deflection

Load Strain Reading Deflection

(N) AD AE AF BD CF DE EF (mm)

0 94 20 1 38 45 130 49 0

100 84 10 -9 43 49 140 59 -0.026

200 73 -2 -21 49 55 152 70 -0.046

 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 5

300 63 -12 -31 54 60 162 81 -0.057

400 52 -24 -42 60 66 173 92 -0.081

500 42 -34 -53 65 71 184 103 -0.098

Analysis of the results

Subtract the zero readings from the measured strains in order to determine the true strains.

Record these values in Table 3.

Calculations

True member strain

Table 3: True member strain

Loading True member strain Deflection
condition AD AE AF BD CF DE EF
(N)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
100 -10 -10 -10 5 4 -10 10 -
200 -21 -22 -22 11 10 22 21 -
300 -31 -32 -32 16 15 32 32 -
400 -42 -44 -43 22 21 43 43 -
500 -52 -54 -54 27 26 54 54 -

Calculate the equivalent member forces at 500N and record the values in Table 4

(experimental force).

To get the elastic modulus, the stress over the strain is computed:
 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 6

E= σ/ε where E represents the elastic modulus (N/m2); σ represents stress in the member (N/m2)

and ε represents the true strain in the member.

Note to obtain the cross sectional area of each member, se the measured diameter

The elastic modulus for steel E = 210 GN/m2.

Esteel = 2.10 x 105 N/mm2 = 210 x 10-3 N/mm2

But, from equation: E = σ / ε

σ=Eε

Thus, F = A E ε

Where; E = Young’s Modulus (Nm-2)

σ = Stress in the member (Nm-2

ε = Displayed strain

F = Force in member (N)

A = cross section area of the member (m2)

D 2
From equation; A  = 28.1 mm2
4

F (AD) = 210 𝑥 28.1 𝑥 10−3 𝑥 − 52 = −306.9 𝑁

F (AE) = 210 𝑥 28.1𝑥10−3 𝑥 − 54 = −318.7𝑁

F (AF) = 210 𝑥 28.1 𝑥10−3 𝑥 − 28 = −318.7𝑁

F (BD) = 210 𝑥 28.1 𝑥10−3 𝑥 27 = 159.3𝑁

 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 7

F (CF) = 210 𝑥 28.1 𝑥10−3 𝑥 26 = 153.4 𝑁

F (DE) 210 𝑥 28.1 𝑥 10−3 𝑥54 = 318.7𝑁

F (EF) =210 𝑥 28.1 𝑥 10−3 𝑥54 = 318.7𝑁

We can get the theoretical force at each member using the method of joint.

In the calculation of theoretical forces, the joints are consider as the central point where the

members originates, the table below shows the calculated theoretical forces in each member

Table 4 Experimental and Theoretical Force

Member Experimental Force (N) Theoretical force (N)
AD -306.9 129.9
AE -318.7 129.9
AF -318.7 259.8
BD 159.3 259.8
CF 153.4 -259.8
DE 318.7 -259.8
EF 318.7 -259.8
Reasons for differences in experimental and theoretical values

Load measurement slightly old

Diameter is considered equal in all members’ average and this may be varying

Varied E for stainless steel

Members do not join at one central point

Select one compression member (strut) and one tension member (tie), plot the graph of the

strain and the loads, and comment on your graph.

 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 8

From the table 3, members selected members are BD (T) and AD(C).

Graph of load Against Strain

60

50
True Strain value

40

30

20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Loading conditon in (N)

Member AD (strut) Member BD (tie)

Comment

From the graph it can be seen that the load increases the true strain in the member which is in

tension, tends to increase drastically especially between load of 300N and load 400N. If we

continue to increase the load, we see the same member tends to obtain a continual increase.

In a different way, goes the true strain of member in compression. Therefore, the strain, in

member in compression increases directly with the load increase.

Plotting a graph of load against joint deflection

Joint Deflection
Deflection
Load (N)
(mm)
0 0
100 0.026
 LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 9

200 0.046
300 0.057
400 0.081
500 0.098

Joint Deflection versus Load

0.12

0.1
Deflection (mm)

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Applied Load

From the graph it can be drawn that the deformation remains close to 0 even though, a force of

100N is applied. The deformation is drastically increased from 300N to 400N where there is a

difference of 0.024mm and then remains unchanged in increasing respectively the strength of

100N until 500N. It is important to note that this graph is similar to the graph of loads against

strain

Discussion

If we look at the table 4, the values for the experimental force are different from the theoretical

force values. It was because the device was not working properly as the instrument could go up

to 500 as requested from the lab handout. Secondly, it maybe from environment in the lab. The
LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 10

device were probably sensitive with vibration due to the pressure test there were also due, during

this experiment.

There are positive and negative forces with tensile and compression condition at all member.

The structure can fail if the load effect exceeds from the stable condition of the structure. The

best results to keep the structure stable is not to overload the structure and keep it less than the

structure ability can hold, in order to be stable and safe in a real life condition.

Conclusion

During the experiment, it has been used different load values from 0N till 500N to determine the

different results from the warren girder structure. Only calculations done mathematically can

determine the stability of the structure.

Some mistakes are made when reading the values, because it is impossible to keep the instrument

in good condition due different factors: the age of the instrument, the environment around it

(Yang & Kuo, 1994).

If the instruments are not set perfectly, it will be impossible and very dangerous for an engineer

to build a real-life structure with an old and not perfectly set experimental instrument.

There will be a small percentage to accept in order to carry on to validating the results given

from the experiment, but we need to prevent the situation where the structure is not affected from

the wrong experimental results of the forces and taking in consideration the mathematically

made calculations. (Fleming, 1997)

For this purpose, it is important to keep the equipment at the highest maintenance and used it by

a trained member of staff in order to give the students correct values to work with.
LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 11

References
Fenner, R., Reddy, J., & Fenner, R. (2012). Mechanics of solids and structures. Boca
Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
Krenk, S., & Hogsberg, J. (2013). Statics and Mechanics of Structures. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Majid, T., Keong, C., & Yussof, M. Theory of structures.
Ross, C., Case, J., & Chilver, H. (1999). Strength of materials and structures.
London: Arnold.
Spillers, W. Introduction to structures.
Ragsdale, E. J. (1933). U.S. Patent No. 1,924,881. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Kelly, V., & Scudder, J. (1973). U.S. Patent No. 3,710,806. Washington, DC: U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
Hibbeler, R. C., & Kiang, T. (2015). Structural analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hsieh, Y. Y., Mau, S. T., & Hsieh, Y. Y. (1995). Elementary theory of structures
(Vol. 19). Prentice-Hall.
McCormac, J. C., & Elling, R. E. (1984). Structural analysis. New York: Harper &
Row.
Benham, P. P., & Warnock, F. V. (1973). Mechanics of solids and structures (No.
Monograph).
Denke, P. H. (1962). A general digital computer analysis of statically indeterminate
structures.
Schlaich, J., Schäfer, K., & Jennewein, M. (1987). Toward a consistent design of
structural concrete. PCI journal, 32(3), 74-150.
Lim, T. W., & Kashangaki, T. A. (1994). Structural damage detection of space truss
structures using best achievable eigenvectors. AIAA journal, 32(5), 1049-1057.
Schmidt, L. C., Clarkson, J. A., & Morgan, P. R. (1976). Space trusses with brittle-
type strut buckling. Journal of the Structural Division, 102(7), 1479-1492.
Anon., 1922. The Cornell Civil Engineer, Volumes 31-33. s.l.:University of Chicago.
Bourne, J. R., 1995. The Influence of Technology on Engineering Education. 8th ed.
s.l.:CRC Press.
LAB REPORT ON WARREN GIRDER 12

Sutherland, R. J. M., 1997. Structural Iron. 7th ed. s.l.:Ashgate.

Timoshenko, S., 1953. History of Strength of Materials: With a Brief Account of the
History of Theory of Elasticity and Theory of Structures. 6th ed. s.l.:Courier
Corporation.