Ship Structures I

Lab. report: Energy methods for elastic impact

Group 11: Shett, Miranda & Zapata

Index, # of pages, figures,
tables, and, Executive 10 A summary must give you a whole idea of your work. 8
summary
Quality of Aesthetics, organization of Leave some space between paragraphs, to differentiate parts
Written report 10 8
material & length of report in the report.

Composition: sentences and

5 Organize your paragraphs, avoiding long sentences. 4
paragraphs, and, Ortography

Theoretical Theoretical introduction and

15 15
introduction and hypothesis
experimental
Methodology, variables and
design 15 Good hypothesis. 14
estimation of values
Theoretical calculations and
summary of experimental 10 Include evidence of some of your registeres vs time. 8
results

Analysis of Discussion of results 10 Good idea to summarize slopes to compare. 9

results and
conclusions R2 of regressions, and, mean and st. Dev. Between
Statistical analysis 10 8
repetitions.

Conclusions and
15 Do not be afraid to reach conclusions.No recommendations. 9
Recommendations

83

Hours: 15
 ESCUELA SUPERIOR
POLITÉCNICA DEL LITORAL

COLLEGE OF MARITIME ENGINEERING, AND, BIOLOGICAL,

OCEAN AND NNRR SCIENCES

SHIP STRUCTURES I

LABORATORY REPORT # 2

IMPACTO LOAD ON BEAMS

DANIEL MIRANDA MORÁN

GÉNESIS SHETT PINOS
STALIN ZAPATA APONTE

GUAYAQUIL-GUAYAS-ECUADOR

NOVEMBER 2017

0
Index
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2
Hypothesis ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Theoretical introduction ................................................................................................................ 2
Experimental Design ..................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis of results: ........................................................................................................................ 3
Conclusions and Recommendations: ............................................................................................ 5
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................. 5
Annexes ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1

Executive Summary
The experiment was conducted based
on the second chapter of the course
"Methods of Energy", where we used a
beam clamped in one end and another
cantilever where it was applied a
dynamic force, which generated
dynamic vertical displacements. We
How was
were used a data acquisition system
the
(InstruNet), where deformations were
impact
registered by two strain gages placed
produced? one near the clamped and another close
to where the deflection was caused. The
purpose of this experiment is to verify
the relationship between dynamic force
and static force, by means of the slope
which is the impact factor 𝐶 = 1 +
2ℎ
√1 + ∆ ; where Δest is the static
𝑒𝑠𝑡
displacement obtained by the
deformation of the clay.
Hypothesis
The theoretical dynamic factor is equal
to the slope obtained from the graph
dynamic force vs weight of the
experiment.
Objective
To check the expression for the
dynamic load of the elastic impact of a
falling body on a cantilever beam.
Theoretical introduction
This experiment is based in a statically
determinate case, then use the
equilibrium equation is:
𝑑2 𝑀(𝑥)
= 𝑝(𝑥) = 0 (Ec.1)
𝑑𝑥 2
(L., 2017)
Solving the equation, obtaining this
distribution of bending moment:
𝑀(𝑥) = 𝐹𝑥 − 𝐹𝐿 = 𝐹(𝑥 − 𝐿) (Ec. 2)
2
The load applied at the end is
considered as a boundary condition, this
load will be applied at a certain time,
this being a dynamic load:
2ℎ
𝐹𝑑 = 𝐹𝑒 ∗ (1 − √1 + ∆𝑒𝑠𝑡) (Ec. 3)
(Popov, 1980)
Where Fe is the static force
h: height where the load is released
Δest.: is the initial deflection system
with static load
Applying the principle of Energy
conservation:
𝑊𝑒 = 𝑈 (Ec.4)
From this expression, get that:
𝑊𝑒 = 𝑈𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑈𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒 (Ec.5)
Finally, the necessary formulation to
obtain dynamic vertical displacement is:
𝐹𝐿3 3 𝐻 2
∆= 3𝐸𝐼 (1 + 5 (1 + 𝜐) ( 𝐿 ) ) (Ec. 6)
But H/L is depreciable so is
approximate to zero.
𝐹𝐿3
∆= 3𝐸𝐼 (Ec. 7)
(L., 2017)
Where: F is the dynamic force and the
displacement is ∆𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐
Experimental Design
After a title always include an
introductory sentence.
Comment: in this experiment we obtained a
deflection due the due to a dynamic force
applied, this weight is released from rest to
a certain height.
For the design of the experiment it is obtain the slope it was necessary to perform
required to demonstrate that the slope several tests for a constant variable and thus
between 𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 𝑣𝑠 𝐹𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡 experimental is equal change the constant values.
2ℎ
to the impact factor 𝐶 = 1 + √1 + ∆ ,
𝑒𝑠𝑡 Analysis of results:
in which the theoretical values were
obtained with the following formulation:
2ℎ
𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 = 𝑤 ∗ (1 + √1 + ∆ ) (Ec. 7)
𝑒𝑠𝑡
𝐹𝐿3
∆𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 3𝐸𝐼
(Ec. 8)
The estimated values before the
experiment:
𝐹 = 0.25 𝐾𝑔𝑓
𝐿 = 35 𝑐𝑚
𝐸 = 4.6𝐸 − 3
Figure 2.-dynamics force vs weight (theoretical)
𝐼 = 0.7 ∗ 10𝐸6
Getting values: 𝐹𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎=0.14 𝐾𝑔𝑓 Pendiente teo. Pendiente exp. S.G.1 %pendiente[kg/kg]
∆𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑜 =9.48 𝑐𝑚 W1 vs Fd1 4,0059 12,011 199,83%
∆𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑜 =1.11 𝑐𝑚 W1 vs Fd2 3,5085 6,6471 89,46%
W1 vs Fd3 3,2061 5,2104 62,52%
Method 1
Using the first method, the experimental
Experimentally, we obtained unit
dynamic forces were determined, it was
deformations that the InstruNet program observed that in the two strain gages
recorded during the application of dynamic different slopes were obtained due to
forces. Then for the experimental calculus unwanted vibrations and to the non-
we used the equation of bending stress: homogeneity of the beam in the placed sites
𝑀(𝑥)𝑦̅
𝜎𝑥 = − 𝐼
(𝐸𝑐. 9)
And 𝜎𝑥 = 𝐸𝜀 (Hooke’s Law)
𝑀(𝑥) = 𝐹(𝑥 − 𝐿) (Bending moment)
Finally:
𝜀 𝐼𝐸
𝐹𝑑𝑦𝑛 = (𝐸𝑐. 10)
(𝑥 − 𝐿)𝑦̅
Method 2
The formulation used is applied in most
cases for springs so the approximations to
be obtained will be similar for the case of
beams. Figure 3.-dynamics force vs weight (exp)
𝑃𝐿3
Δ= (𝐸𝑐. 11) Pendiente teo. Pendiente exp. S.G.1 %pendiente[kg/kg]
48 𝐸𝐼 W1 vs Fd1 4,0059 0,2985 92,55%
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑘Δ max (𝐸𝑐. 12) W1 vs Fd2 3,5085 0,3329 90,51%
W1 vs Fd3 3,2061 0,1989 93,80%
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎 = 𝑘Δsta (𝐸𝑐. 13)
Thus: Figure 4.-Percentage of errors of the slope
Δ𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑃𝑠𝑡 ∗ ( ) (𝐸𝑐. 14) It is noted that this formulation applied a
Δ𝑠𝑡𝑎
(Russell, 2011) relationship that has fewer experimental
This is a generalized approach to the variables, which decreases the percentage
experiment to be performed, in order to error of the slopes.

3
 Table: Deflections that are generated from
weight 1 to different heights and lengths.

H1 H2 H3
Δ1[c m] 3,2 2,9 2,6
Δ2 [c m] 3,1 3 2,6
Δ3 [c m] 3,2 2,8 2,5
L1
Promedio 3,17 2,90 2,57
Varianza s^2 0,003 0,010 0,003
Desviacion S 0,058 0,100 0,058
Δ1[c m] 3,9 3,35 2,7
Δ2 [c m] 3,8 3,3 3
Δ3 [c m] 3,4 3,35 2,95
FIGURE 5.- DYNAMIC FORCE VS WEIGHT (theoretical) W2 L2
Promedio 3,70 3,33 2,88
Varianza s^2 0,070 0,001 0,026
Desviacion S 0,265 0,029 0,161
Δ1[c m] 3,1 3 2,9
Δ2 [c m] 3,25 3,2 3,15
Δ3 [c m] 3,2 3 2,9
L3
Promedio 3,18 3,07 2,98
Varianza s^2 0,006 0,013 0,021
Desviacion S 0,076 0,115 0,144

Table: Deflections that are generated from

weight 2 to different heights and lengths.

FIGURE 6.- DYNAMIC FORCE VS WEIGHT (experimental) H1 H2 H3

Very Δ1[cm] 3,1 3,22 2,9
large pendiente teo. pendiente exp. %pendiente[kg/kg] Δ2 [cm] 3,5 3,2 2,91
W1 vs Fd1 4,0059 10,235 155,50% Δ3 [cm] 3,6 3,244 3,4
differen- L1
W1 vs Fd2 3,5085 7,3151 108,50% Promedio 3,40 3,22 3,07
ces W1 vs Fd3 3,2061 3,407 6,27% Varianza s^2 0,070 0,000 0,082
between Desviacion S 0,265 0,022 0,286
Figure 7.-Percentage of errors of the slope Δ1[cm] 3,6 4,2 4,05
tests. Δ2 [cm] 4,4 4 4,25
In the second method to calculate the Δ3 [cm] 4,6 4,25 3,8
W3 L2
Promedio 4,20 4,15 4,03
experimental dynamic forces, the Varianza s^2 0,280 0,018 0,051
percentages of relatively high errors with Desviacion S 0,529 0,132 0,225
respect to the first method were obtained, Δ1[cm] 3,7 3,55 3,5
Δ2 [cm] 3,9 3,8 3,4
the difference of results is due to the
Δ3 [cm] 4 3,9 3,72
dispersion of data obtained in the L3
Promedio 3,87 3,75 3,54
experimental displacements, which will Varianza s^2 0,023 0,033 0,027
cause the error to propagate throughout the Desviacion S 0,153 0,180 0,164

calculations
Table: Deflections that are generated from
H1 H2 H3 weight 3 to different heights and lengths.
Δ1 [c m] 1,9 1,2 1,4
Δ2 [c m] 1,7 1,5 1,3
L1
Δ3 [c m] 1,7 1,5 1,2 Due to the errors that were presented in the
Promedio 1,77 1,40 1,30
Varianza s^2 0,013 0,030 0,010
experiment, high variances were obtained
Desviacion S 0,115 0,173 0,100 for the 81 tests carried out due to non-
Δ1 [c m] 2 1,6 1,6
Δ2 [c m] 2,1 1,7 1,45 homogeneity, or due to measurement
Δ3 [c m] 2 1,6 1,6
W1 L2
Promedio 2,03 1,63 1,55 equipment errors.
Varianza s^2 0,003 0,003 0,008
Desviacion S 0,058 0,058 0,087
Δ1 [c m] 2,3 2,15 1,9
Δ2 [c m] 2 1,8 1,6
Δ3 [c m] 1,9 1,8 1,6
L3
Promedio 2,07 1,92 1,70
Varianza s^2 0,043 0,041 0,030
Desviacion S 0,208 0,202 0,173

4
 Conclusions and Record of data of the
vertical displacements in
Recommendations: Excel (Alcivar), Record
of unit deformations in
The dynamic load formulation could not be InstruNet (Marin) and
verified because after a certain time the Moment in which the
beam was permanently deformed due to the load is launched
(Miranda).
Do not be weight released, Hooke's law was not
afraid of fulfilled.
conclude!
It was found that the dynamic forces are
larger than the static forces due to the
dynamic coefficient

Each group should work with its own beam

because measures that advance the tests
tend to exceed the elastic limit, leaving the
beam permanently deformed. Team STADAGE

The embedment of the beam should be

Dynamics force due to strain gages
tighter because when the greater weight
calculated with the Ec.10
was applied to a higher height the beam
tended to move in the z direction.
Fdin exp[Kg] STRAIN GAGE2
W L1 L2 L3
Bibliography 0,066 1,58 1,16 1,12
L., D. J. (2017). Estructuras Navales I. 0,066 1,40 1,05 0,96
Notas de clases. Guayaquil. 0,066 1,25 0,93 0,85
0,124 2,48 1,72 1,48 F
Popov, E. P. (1980). Introduction Solids
0,124 2,29 1,44 1,52 dinamica
Mechanic . En E. P. Popov.
0,124 2,08 1,46 1,39 teo.
California, EUA.
0,174 2,85 1,75 1,74
Russell, H. C. (2011). Mecanica de 0,174 2,71 1,81 1,49
Materiales, Octava Edicion. 0,174 2,53 1,72 1,36
PEARSON.
Fdin exp[Kg] STRAIN GAGE 1
W L1 L2 L3
Annexes 0,066 0,32 0,36 0,30
0,066 0,34 0,26 0,29
Deflection of the clay
just in the impact due to 0,066 0,25 0,25 0,26
the load 0,124 0,48 0,44 0,37 F
0,124 0,44 0,40 0,38 dinamica
0,124 0,40 0,37 0,34 teo.
0,556 0,56 0,50 0,42
0,556 0,56 0,49 0,39
0,147 1,17 0,46 0,33

5
It was expected that the experimental forces
in strain gages 1 and 2 are equal but due to
the measurement factors were obtained in
the calculations different results

W L1 L2 L3
0,066 0,38 0,33 0,29
0,066 0,37 0,32 0,29
0,066 0,36 0,31 0,28
0,124 0,62 0,54 0,49 Give me evidence of
F dinamica
0,124 0,61 0,53 0,48 some of your
teo.
0,124 0,59 0,51 0,47 registers vs time.
0,174 0,82 0,71 0,65
0,174 0,80 0,70 0,64
0,174 0,78 0,68 0,62

W L1 L2 L3
0,066 1,17 0,42 0,15
0,066 0,92 0,34 0,14
0,066 0,86 0,32 0,12
0,124 1,87 1,07 0,49
F dinamica
0,124 1,71 0,96 0,47
exp.
0,124 1,52 0,83 0,46
0,174 2,19 1,16 0,52
0,174 2,08 1,15 0,50
0,174 1,98 1,11 0,47
Dynamics force due to strain gages
calculated with the Ec.14

By means of the equation that is based on

the equation of the book of Hibbeler, in the
results it could be noticed that as we
increase the length of the beam the force
decreases depending on both weight and
height, and this could be proved.

Employed Hours: 15 hours

6
Wi [Kg] Li [m] Hi [m] E[kg/cm^2] I[cm^4] Δest t[cm] Δdin t[cm] Fdin t[Kg] Δest exp t[cm] %Δest [cm] Δdin exp[cm] %Δdin [cm] F din exp(kg) %Fdin[kg] με[cm/cm] SG2 με[cm/cm] SG2 Fdin exp[Kg] SG1 Fdin exp[Kg] SG2
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,37 8,68 0,38 0,1 73,11% 1,77 79,64% 1,17 86,56% -346,169 -779,195 0,32 1,58
0,379 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,37 8,29 0,37 0,1 73,11% 1,40 83,12% 0,92 88,86% -360,471 -691,147 0,34 1,40
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,37 7,64 0,36 0,1 73,11% 1,30 82,98% 0,86 88,77% -267,725 -616,775 0,25 1,25
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,77 12,77 0,33 0,32 58,69% 2,03 84,08% 0,42 96,72% -386,462 -575,013 0,36 1,16
0,066 0,484 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,77 12,22 0,32 0,32 58,69% 1,63 86,64% 0,34 97,24% -277,158 -518,267 0,26 1,05
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,77 11,28 0,31 0,32 58,69% 1,55 86,25% 0,32 97,17% -260,012 -457,378 0,25 0,93
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 1,31 16,95 0,29 0,91 30,67% 2,07 87,81% 0,15 99,12% -328,862 -464,419 0,30 1,12
0,577 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 1,31 16,24 0,29 0,91 30,67% 1,92 88,20% 0,14 99,14% -313,928 -395,742 0,29 0,96
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 1,31 15,01 0,28 0,91 30,67% 1,70 88,67% 0,12 99,18% -283,087 -352,217 0,26 0,85
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,70 12,09 0,62 0,21 69,95% 3,17 73,81% 1,87 84,53% -509,507 -1224,044 0,48 2,48
0,379 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,70 11,57 0,61 0,21 69,95% 2,90 74,93% 1,71 85,20% -465,828 -1129,550 0,44 2,29
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,70 10,67 0,59 0,21 69,95% 2,57 75,95% 1,52 85,80% -422,487 -1025,843 0,40 2,08
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 1,46 17,93 0,54 0,43 70,45% 3,70 79,36% 1,07 94,05% -467,362 -849,157 0,44 1,72
0,124 0,484 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 1,46 17,18 0,53 0,43 70,45% 3,33 80,60% 0,96 94,40% -420,367 -711,693 0,40 1,44
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 1,46 15,88 0,51 0,43 70,45% 2,88 81,85% 0,83 94,77% -389,260 -718,662 0,37 1,46
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 2,47 23,97 0,49 0,81 67,15% 3,18 86,72% 0,49 97,97% -403,087 -609,857 0,37 1,48
0,577 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 2,47 22,99 0,48 0,81 67,15% 3,07 86,66% 0,47 97,96% -419,363 -628,067 0,38 1,52
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 2,47 21,31 0,47 0,81 67,15% 2,98 86,00% 0,46 97,86% -370,193 -575,675 0,34 1,39
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,98 14,49 0,82 0,27 72,47% 3,40 76,53% 2,19 84,87% -593,894 -1406,967 0,56 2,85
0,379 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,98 13,87 0,80 0,27 72,47% 3,22 76,77% 2,08 85,03% -593,667 -1337,683 0,56 2,71
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 0,98 12,80 0,78 0,27 72,47% 3,07 76,02% 1,98 84,55% -1250,920 -1250,920 1,17 2,53
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 2,04 21,59 0,71 0,63 69,15% 4,20 80,54% 1,16 94,63% -529,870 -864,083 0,50 1,75
0,174 0,484 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 2,04 20,70 0,70 0,63 69,15% 4,15 79,95% 1,15 94,46% -521,505 -892,267 0,49 1,81
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 2,04 19,17 0,68 0,63 69,15% 4,03 78,96% 1,11 94,19% -492,170 -849,777 0,46 1,72
0,925 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 3,46 29,00 0,65 1,3 62,43% 3,87 86,67% 0,52 98,22% -456,943 -719,713 0,42 1,74
0,577 0,842 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 3,46 27,85 0,64 1,3 62,43% 3,75 86,53% 0,50 98,20% -431,864 -614,743 0,39 1,49
0,708 7,00E+05 4,60E-03 3,46 25,86 0,62 1,3 62,43% 3,54 86,31% 0,47 98,17% -363,862 -563,727 0,33 1,36

Table of summary of the experiment

7
8
9