UNIVERSITI

TEKNOLOGI
MARA

Lab Report: CES511 – STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

KAMPUS PULAU PINANG

CES511 –STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

LAB EXPERIMENT: TWO & THREE HINGED ARCH (CO2:PO5)
SEMESTER : OCT - FEB 2021 DATE OF LAB : 19.10.2020
GROUP : PEC2215D1/D2 LAB LEVEL OEL : 1
LECTURER : NOOR SYAFEEKHA BINTI MOHD SAKDUN
CO2: Organize laboratory work on structural elements and materials.
PO5: Ability to utilize appropriate techniques, resources and modern engineering and IT tools in predicting and
modelling of complex civil engineering problems with an understanding of the limitations.

CRITERIA
NO STUDENT ID NAME 1 2 3 4 TOTAL
1. 2019451776 NUR BATRISYIA BINTI KHAIRIL NIZAM
2. 2019608182 NUR SABRINA BINTI SHAHARUL
3. 2019608216 NORNAJIHAH BINTI KHAIRUL
4. 2019654008 IFFAH AMALIA BINTI ARIFFIN
5. 2019819066 FATIN HAMIMAH BINTI MOHD TARMIDI

PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE RUBRIC

PERFORMANCE SCALE
NO. CRITERIA
Developing Functional Proficient Advanced
0 1 2 3 4 5
Independently
Often requires Generally able to designed / identified
Has a very low ability Independently
Ability to design and Unable to design/ to design/ identify the instructor to design / design / identify basic designed / identified
the idea / task of the
conducted a identify the basic idea / identify basic idea / idea / task of the experiment with
basic idea / task of the idea / task of the
1 research- based task of the experiment. task of the experiment. experiment. additional supporting
experiment. experiment.
references.
experiment (P1-P2)
Helps are required to Helps are required to Helps are required with Able to conduct the Able to conduct a
conduct the whole refinement in several experiment with Show an outstanding
conduct the whole research-based
ability in conducting
experiment. experiment. major details and minimal guide from experiment.
research-based
conduct the experiment. the instructor. experiment.

Successfully
Cannot complete tasks Low ability to complete Successfully complete Successfully complete Successfully complete Successfully complete
2 performs experiment
and standard tasks and standard experiment procedures experiment procedures experiment
experiment without with moderate with minimal independently.
procedures. procedures. independently.
guidance based on supervision. supervision.
level of
Openness
(P3-P4)

Ability to
All of the results have
manipulate the data Incorrect Incomplete Minimal with 1 Almost all of the All of the results have been interpreted
leading to interpretation of interpretation of trends sentence describing the results have been been correctly correctly, with sufficient
3 findings (P5-P6) trends and comparison and comparison of data main finding of the correctly interpreted interpreted, with only 1 support of important
of data indicating a indicating a lack of experiment. but without sufficient sufficient support of trends or data
lack of understanding understanding of support of important important trends or comparisons
of results. results. trends or data data comparisons.
comparisons.
Ability to adapt the Show excellent
obtained result Failed to show any No ability to adapt the Show effort to give Display effort to Display effort to
idea at all result with any suitable reasonable justification understand the understand the finding understanding between
with logical the results to adapt with
4 justification (P5- justification. but incorrect finding with major with minimum flawed
flawed interpretation interpretation logical justification
P6)

Instruction to Students
1. Two (2) weeks duration is given for each lab report submission.
2. Any plagiarism found or not properly cited, the group will be penalized and marks will be deducted.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE
1. TWO HINGE ARCH

1.1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.2 OBJECTIVES 3

1.3 APPARATUS 4

1.4 PROCEDURES 5

1.5 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 6

1.6 DISCUSSION 10

1.7 CONCLUSION 11

2. THREE HINGE ARCH

2.1 INTRODUCTION 12

2.2 OBJECTIVES 13

2.3 APPARATUS 13

2.4 PROCEDURES 15

2.5 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 16

2.6 DISCUSSION 20

2.7 CONCLUSION 21

3. REFERENCES 22

2
1. TWO HINGED ARCH

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The two hinged arch is a statically indeterminate structure of the first degree. A typical
two-hinged arch is shown in Figure 1 known as the shape of parabola. The horizontal thrust
is the redundant reaction and is obtained by the use of strain energy methods. Two hinged
arch is made determinate by treating it as a simply supported curved beam and horizontal
thrust as a redundant reaction. The arch spreads out under external load. Horizontal thrust
is the redundant reaction is obtained by the use of strain energy method.

Figure 1.1 Typical two-hinged arch

The horizontal thrust is given by;

𝟓 𝒘 𝑳(𝒌𝟒 − 𝟐𝒌𝟑 + 𝒌)
𝑯=
𝟖𝒉

1.2 OBJECTIVES

This experiment is carried out to study the two hinged arch for the horizontal thrust of the
roller end for a given system of loading and to compare the same with those obtained
analytically.

3
 1.3 APPARATUS

Apparatus Function

1. Two-hinged arch Subject of experiment.

2. Hanger for load

To place the load.

3. Load
To act as loading to the arch.

4
 Apparatus Function
4. Steel ruler
To measure the distance.

Table 1.3.1 List of apparatus

1.4 PROCEDURES

i. The indicator is switch on. The indicator must be switch on 10 minutes before taking
readings for the stability of the reading.
ii. The two supports are fixed tightly to the support frame. The span of the arch is
measured.
iii. The ‘Tare’ button is press to set the dial indicator reading to zero.
iv. A load of 5N was placed on the first point of load hanger at the arch.
v. The indicator reading is recorded.
vi. The applied load is increased with load 10N, 15N, 20N and 25N, and step (iv) and (v)
are repeated.
vii. The experiment is repeated to another distances of point of load

5
1.5 RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Figure 1.5.1 typical two-hinged arch

Measurements Value (m)

Span of arch, L 1.0
Height of arch, h 0.32
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 1 0.26
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 2 0.39
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 3 0.51
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 4 0.63
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 5 0.76

6
 DATA OBTAINED

Load, W1 Load, W5 Horizontal Thrust (N)

Point Percentage Error (%)
(N) (N) Experimental Theoretical
Test 1 5 5 4.2 4.35 3.45
Test 2 10 10 8.2 8.69 5.64
Test 3 15 15 12.1 13.04 7.21
Test 4 20 20 16.1 17.39 7.42
Test 5 25 25 20.2 21.73 7.04
Table 1.5.1: Distance of load from pinned support at A; 𝒌𝟏 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟔 𝒎 𝒌𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟔 𝒎

Load, W2 Load, W4 Horizontal Thrust (N)

Point Percentage Error (%)
(N) (N)
Experimental Theoretical
Test 1 5 5 5.4 5.7 5.26
Test 2 10 10 10.4 11.37 8.53
Test 3 15 15 15.4 17.05 9.68
Test 4 20 20 20.5 22.73 9.81
Test 5 25 25 22.3 28.41 21.51
Table 1.5.2: Distance of load from pinned support at A; 𝒌𝟐 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟗 𝒎, 𝒌𝟒 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑 𝒎

7
GRAPH

Horizontal thrust,H (N) Vs. Load,W (N)

Experimental Theoretical

25

20
Horizontal thrust, H (N)

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load, W (N)

Graph 1.5.1: Horizontal thrust, H (N) vs. Load, W (N) for Set 1

Horizontal thrust,H (N) Vs. Load,W (N)

Experimental Theoretical

30

25
Horizontal thrust, H (N)

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load, W (N)

Graph 1.5.2: Horizontal thrust, H (N) vs. Load, W (N) for Set 2

8
Sample theoretical calculation:

1. Set 1 – test 1
Where;
𝑘1 = 0.26 𝑚
𝑘5 = 0.76 𝑚

5 𝑤1 𝐿(𝑘1 4 − 2𝑘1 3 + 𝑘1 ) 5 𝑤2 𝐿(𝑘5 4 − 2𝑘5 3 + 𝑘5 )

𝐻= +
8ℎ 8ℎ
5(5)(1)[0.264−2(0.26)3+0.26] 5(5)(1)[0.764−2(0.76)3 +0.76]
= +
8(0.32) 8(0.32)

= 4.35 𝑁

2. Set 2 – test 1
Where;
𝑘2 = 0.39 𝑚
𝑘4 = 0.63 𝑚

5 𝑤1 𝐿(𝑘2 4 − 2𝑘2 3 + 𝑘2 ) 5 𝑤2 𝐿(𝑘4 4 − 2𝑘4 3 + 𝑘4 )

𝐻= +
8ℎ 8ℎ
5(5)(1)[0.394 −2(0.39)3 +0.39] 5(5)(1)[0.634−2(0.63)3 +0.63]
= +
8(0.32) 8(0.32)

= 5.70 𝑁

3. Percentage error (Set 1 – test 1)

𝐵𝑖𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100 %
𝐵𝑖𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

4.35 − 4.2
= × 100 %
4.35
= 3.45 %

9
1.6 DISCUSSION

Based on the collected data, it shows that the relationship of two hinge parabolic arch in the
horizontal thrust increase when the applied load is increase. For this experiment, it is
determinate structure which have pinned and roller support at each end.

The experiment have been conducted with the distance of point load from the pin
support at A for set 1 is x1=0.26m and x2=0.76m while for set 2 is x1=0.39m and
x2=0.63m with the same weight of load for each distance which is 5N, 10N, 15N, 20N and
25N for both set. For the height of arch and the span length is 0.32m and 1.00m. From
table 1.5.1 and table 1.5.2, the experimental and the theoretical values for horizontal thrust
increased with the increment of the applied load.

The position of the applied load on the arch affects the value of horizontal thrust at both
supports. The line of the graph represents all the data obtained from the experiment and
theoretical. From the graph, the relationship between the horizontal thrust at the support
and the applied load for both experimental values is directly proportional.

The accuracy of the experimental result with respect to theoretical values can be
checked by using percentage error. The purpose of a percentage error is to know how close
the experimental value to a theoretical value. Table 1.5.1 and table 1.5.2 shows that the
majority percentage errors for both set are less than 10 percent. The percentage error
occurred is quite small; considered as okay. There are several errors that may affect the
experiment and data collecting. Firstly the digital indicator may suffer an error and cannot
detect the remaining load that acted on the arch. Next, the digital indicator is very sensitive
to the vibration and disturbance; hence make sure the hanger is free from any vibration
before taking the value from the digital indicator.

10
1.7 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the relationship between the horizontal thrust at support is directly

proportional to the applied load. The higher the value of load, the higher the value of
horizontal thrust at support.

For the bridge structure, the application of the two hinged structure has pinned
connection at the base. The pinned based allowed the structure to move freely and balance
for the thermal expansion and contraction due to outdoor temperature since its base is able
to rotate. Even so, this can cause additional stresses to the structure; therefore the two-
hinged arch is also statically indeterminate, although not to the degree of fixed arch. The
two hinged arch in building bridges also is to save cost but never actually endanger the
quality if the bridge itself because if the load is bearable by the bridge, then the two hinged
arch bridge is one of the best method to be use in the construction world.

In reinforced concrete construction, the principle of the arch is used so as to benefit

from the concrete’s strength in resisting compressive stress. Where any other form of stress
is raised, such as tensile or torsional stress, it has to be resisted by carefully placed
reinforcement rods. Since it is a pure compression form, the arch is useful because many
building materials, including stone and unreinforced concrete can resist compression but
are weak when tensile stress is applied to them.

11
2. THREE HINGED ARCH

2.1 INTRODUCTION

An arch may be looked upon as a curved girder, either a solid rib or braced, supported at its
ends and carrying transverse loads which are frequently vertical. Since the transverse
loading at any section normal to the axis of the girder is at an angle to the normal face, an
arch is subjected to three restraining forces; thrust, shear force and bending moment.
Depending upon the number of hinges, arches may be divided into four classes which are
three hinged arch, two hinged arch, single hinged arch and fixed arch (hinge less arch). A
three hinged arch is statically determinate structures while the rest three arches are
statically indeterminate. In bridge construction, especially in railroad bridges, the more
used arches are two-hinged and the fixed end ones.

Figure 2.1 Three-hinged arch

Horizontal thrust is given by;

𝒘𝒌𝑳
𝑯=
𝟐𝒉

12
 2.2 OBJECTIVES

To study three-hinged arch for the horizontal thrust of the roller end for a given system of
loading and to compare the same with those obtained analytically.

2.3 APPARATUS

Apparatus Function
1. Three-hinged arch
Subject of experiment.

2. Hanger for load

To place the load.

13
3. Load
To act as loading to the arch.

4. Steel ruler
To measure the distance.

Table 2.3.1 List of apparatus

14
 2.4 PROCEDURES

i. The simple support and the roller support were fixed to the support frame at a distance
equals to the span of the arch i.e. 1000mm.
ii. The roller support must be anchored such that the pulley was located on the inside of
the arch.
iii. The wire rope at the roller end of the arch was took and passed it over the pulley
attached to the roller support.
iv. A load hanger was placed at the end of the wire rope and at a selected location of the
arch.
v. The dead load was offset by placing the sufficient load on the load hanger at the end of
the wire rope so that the arch is level.
vi. A load on the load hanger was placed on the selected location at arch.
vii. Sufficient loads were added on the load hanger at the end of the wire rope to level the
arch.
viii. The magnitude of the applied load and the load at the roller support were recorded.
ix. The applied load was increased and steps (vi) to (ix) were repeated.
x. The above experiment repeated for another two tests to obtain average reading of the
measured values.

15
2.5 RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Figure 2.5.1 Lab apparatus

Measurements Value (m)

Span of arch, L 1.0
Height of arch, h 0.23
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 1 0.125
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 2 0.250
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 3 0.375
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 4 0.500
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 5 0.625
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 6 0.750
Distance from pinned support to Point Load 7 0.875

𝑤1 𝑘1 𝐿 𝑤2 𝑘2 𝐿
𝐻= +
2ℎ 2ℎ

16
 DATA OBTAINED

Load, W1 Load, W5 Horizontal Thrust (N)

Point Percentage Error (%)
(N) (N) Experimental Theoretical
Test 1 5 5 5.4 8.15 33.74
Test 2 10 10 10.9 16.30 33.13
Test 3 15 15 16.3 24.46 33.36
Test 4 20 20 21.7 32.61 33.46
Test 5 25 25 27.3 40.76 33.02
Table 2.5.1: Data for Point Load – Set 1

Load, W1 Load, W4 UDL, Horizontal Thrust (N) Percentage

Point
(N) (N) (N) Experimental Theoretical Error (%)
Test 1 5 5 9.6 14.3 12.01 16.01
Test 2 10 10 9.6 21.2 18.80 11.32
Test 3 15 15 9.6 28.1 25.60 8.90
Test 4 20 20 9.6 34.5 32.39 6.12
Test 5 25 25 9.6 41.3 39.18 5.13
Table 2.5.2: Data for Combination Load – Set 1

GRAPH

Horizontal thrust,H (N) Vs. Load,W (N)

Experimental Theoretical

45
40
Horizontal thrust, H (N)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load, W (N)

Graph 1.5.1: Effect of Point Load for Set 1

17
 Horizontal thrust,H (N) Vs. Load,W (N)
Experimental Theoretical

45
40
Horizontal thrust, H (N)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load, W (N)

Graph 1.5.2: Effect of Combination Load for Set 2

Sample theoretical calculation:

1. Point load – test 1

𝑤1 𝑘1 𝐿 𝑤5 𝑘5 𝐿
𝐻= +
2ℎ 2ℎ

Where;

𝑘1 = 0.125 𝑚
𝑘5 = 0.625 𝑚

(5)(0.125)(1.0) (5)(0.625)(1.0)
= +
2(0.23) 2(0.23)
= 8.15 𝑁

18
2. Combination Load – test 1

𝑤1 𝑘1 𝐿 𝑤4 𝑘4 𝐿 𝑞𝐿2
𝐻= + +
2ℎ 2ℎ 8ℎ

Where;

𝑘1 = 0.125 𝑚
𝑘4 = 0.500 𝑚

(5)(0.125)(1.0) (5)(0.5)(1.0) (9.6)(1.02 )

𝐻 = + +
2(0.23) 2(0.23) 8(0.23)
𝐻 = 12.01 𝑁

3. Percentage Error (Combination load – test2)

𝐵𝑖𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100 %
𝐵𝑖𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

21.2 − 18.8
= × 100 %
21.2
= 11.32 %

19
2.6 DISCUSSION

Based on the experiment that had been conducted, the three hinge arch for the horizontal
thrust of the roller end for given system of loading can be determined. On the real structure
of the arch, the three hinge arch are statically determinate which has four reaction that has
pinned support for both end and a hinge on the highest point on the structure of the arch. It
means that the degree of statically indeterminacy is two.

The experiment had been conduct with two different test of load based on difference of
distance between the pin support and the point of where the load was pointed on this three
hinge arch by using point load. Firstly, the arch was test by using point load at a distance
0.125 m and 0.625 m from support A with increment of load constantly about 5N for both
distances. Based on the table, the experimental values of the horizontal thrust for three
hinged arch were increased with respect to the increment of the applied load. For example,
the horizontal thrust at 5N applied load for both distances is 5.4N and increase when
applied at 25N which is 27.3N of horizontal thrust.

Next, the arch was tested by using uniformly distributed load of 9.6N at a distance of
0.250 m and 0.500 m with a constantly increment of 5N load for both distance from
support A. The experimental values of the horizontal thrust for three hinged arch also
increase when the applied load is increase. For test 1, 5N load have been applied at both
distance and the result for horizontal thrust is 14.3N while for test 5, when the applied load
for both distance are 25N, the result shows are 41.3N for the horizontal thrust.

Based on the results, a graph has been plotted and it shows that the applied load versus
the horizontal thrust is directly proportional. Since it is directly proportional, it can be
prove that the experiments are well conducted. However, the percentage errors for point
load are quite big. It is because some errors may occur during collecting the data. To avoid
from the errors, the digital reading must be at zero before placed the load on the load
hanger and carefully placed the load since the digital indicator are very sensitive.

20
2.7 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the three hinged arch experiment shows that the horizontal thrust is directly
proportional to the applied load, which basically means the value of horizontal thrust
increases as the applied load also increases. Based on this relationship, it can be concluded
that both experimental and theoretical values of horizontal thrust can be accepted as the
data collected has obeyed such relationship.

The application for the concept of three hinged arch in structural analysis is usually
related to long span structure that is well known to carry transverse loading efficiently. One
of the examples is bridges. Bridges are often constructed as three hinged arch. This type of
construction is particularly suitable when compression-proof building materials are
available. Horizontal thrust occurs in the arch at the supports. It permits much lower
bending moments in the arch than in the case of a beam with two supports of the same
span. Table below shows the differences between two hinged arch and three hinged arch.
Determination of arch can be referred by its suitability.

Differences of Two Hinged Arch and Three Hinged Arch

Two hinged arch Three hinged arch

 Statically indeterminate to first  Statically determinate
degree
 Might develop temperature stresses  Increase in temperature causes
increases in central rise. No stresses
 Structurally more efficient  Easy to analyse. However, the central
hinge may involve additional
expenditure
 Will develop stresses due to  No stresses due to support sinking
sinking of supports

21
 Figure 2.7.1 the application of three hinged arch on bridge

3. REFERENCES

3.1 Geisler, C. D. (1934). Analysis of a rigid frame concrete arch bridge. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
3.2 Arch - Structural Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved November 01, 2020, from
https://www.brainkart.com/article/Archs---Structural-Analysis_4576/

22