School of Civil Engineering

Forces in Members of a pin – jointed plane

Frame
CE 211 LABORATORY No. 1

Kennedy Fisause, Newton Ehud Yangharry Introduction to Structure by G.

3/21/24
and Dokta Urame Wantepe
CE 211 introduction to Structures, Lecturer: Ms. Grace Wantepe,

1. Kennedy Fisause 23302336

2. Newton Ehud Yangharry 23301444 Lab Conducted on: 07th March 2024
3. Dokta Urame 22300416 Lab due on: 21st March 2024
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Theory ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Materials and Methods ...................................................................................................................... 4
Results and Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 5
Discussions.......................................................................................................................................... 9
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Peer Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 14
References ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Page 1 of 15
Introduction
The laboratory titled ‘Forces in members of a frame’, intents to measures the forces
in each member of the pin – jointed plane frame including the support reactions for
the frame loaded during the experiment. It is evident that any loading causes force
to be transmitted along every member of the frame or any structural component. A
structural member is utilized only when they are strong and stiff in which they can
withstand any loads without moving or collapsing. Therefore, the purpose of the
experiment is to determine how the applied force are distributed amongst each
structural member. Besides, each reaction at the support can be calculated and
analyzed. The lab appreciates that fact that not all the experimental values may need
to be coincides with the theoretical results. It is therefore, the primary objective is to
use structural analysis method by way of method of joints and method of sections to
determine the force in each member.

The frame employed were illustrated in figure below.

Figure 1: pin jointed plane

frame

Theory
Forces in each member of the frame can be determined only for statistically
determined systems. As stated by (Young, 1992), ‘the frame is statistically
determinate if the number of equations of equilibrium are equal to the number of
unknown forces and reactions’, which is given by the equation

𝟐𝒋 = 𝒎 + 𝒓 …………………… Eq (1)

Where;
j is the number of joints,
m is the number of member and
r is the number of reactions
In order to determine the reactions and member forces, the three equations of
equilibrium must be utilized. They are sum of vertical forces, sum of horizontal forces
and sum of moments at a point must be equals to zero.

Page 2 of 15
 ∑ 𝑭𝒚 = 𝟎 ………………… Eq (2.1)

∑ 𝑭𝒙 = 𝟎 ……………….. Eq (2.2)
∑𝑴 = 𝟎 ……………….. Eq (2.3)

Force is defined as a way of push, pull, twist, bend or shear on an object. Force has
magnitude, direction and a definite line of action. Moment as given by (Ales, 2023) is
simply defined as product of force and perpendicular distance. According to Newton
second law, A body will accelerate in the direction of the unbalanced force.
Therefore, the fundamental of structure is it can be supported so that movement of
the member is prevented.
There are basically three types of structural support which are roller, pin and fixed
supports which they have one, two and three reactions respectively (Hibeler, 2016).
Frame and truss are examples of structural members. Frames are composed of
vertical and horizontal members. Plane frames are made of members that are
assumed to be pinned at their ends. Truss is a structure composed of members
joined together at their ends (Wantepe, 2024). There are three types of trusses;
perfect truss, imperfect truss and redundant truss.
The assumption for perfect truss is as follows;
o All members are connected by frictionless pins
o All members are connected at joints
o All loads act on joints only
o All members of truss are taken as weightless
o All members of truss are straight
There are two methods to analyzed the forces in the members of truss and frame.
They are;
i. Analytical methods: Includes, method of joints and method of sections
ii. Graphical methods: Includes, triangular and parallelogram methods.
For analytical methods, a Free Body Diagram (FBD) must be drawn to analyze
external forces and support reactions. Forces in the members can be Tensile (if their
calculated value is positive) and Compressive (if their calculated value is negative)
In order to calculate the unknown angles and length, the trigonometry formulas were
employed. This is as follows:
✓ Trigonometry ratio tan 𝜃 = 𝑂/𝐴 ……. Eq (3.1)
✓ Pythagoras theorem 𝑐 = √(𝑎2 + 𝑏 2 ) ……. Eq (3.2)
sin 𝐴 sin 𝐵
✓ Sine rule = ……. Eq (3.3)
𝑎 𝑏

✓ Cosine rule 𝑎 = √(𝑏 2 + 𝑐 2 − (2𝑏𝑐 cos 𝜃)) ……. Eq (3.4)

Page 3 of 15
Stress on each member were calculated using the formula
𝐹
𝜎=𝐴 ……. Eq (4)

Where, 𝜎 = 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝐹 = 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒, 𝐴 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

Materials and Methods

Prior to the lab, the set up was done by the technician as illustrated in figure 2.1. The
apparatus employed were triangular pin jointed plane frame, spring balance, hanger,
loads, meter ruler. The following figures were picture of apparatus used in the lab.

Figure 2.1 Set up the plane frame Figure2.2 The load hanger Figure2.3 the meter rule

Firstly, the length of each member of the frame were measured and recorded using
meter rule. The length was measured right at the center of the pin joints. Using the
hanger, the loads were added onto the frame. A series of increasing loads were
added starting at 10 N. After 10 N load applied, the reading on the spring balance
were observed and recorded. The incremented load of 10 N were added and that
was repeated until the final loading of 70 N. All reactions and members load were
observed and recorded onto the lab sheet.

Page 4 of 15
Results and Analysis
Experimental Values
Member Applied Load (N) Stress N/mm2
10 20 30 40 50
1 - AB 10 18 25 35 44 6.72
2 - AD 32 45 55 70 75 14.11
3 - BD 15 20 28 35 41 7.08
4 - CD 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 1: Shows the mean stress values from experimental vales

Table 1 shows experimental values. The stress calculated were shown in detail in
appendices. It was evident from table 1, the member AB and BD were reacted in line
with the applied load. However, the member AD, were heavily induced with greater
member force because it was exposed directly to both external loads 𝐴𝑦 and 𝐷𝑦 . That
means the member AD was over loaded and over stressed. The table 1, assumes
that ‘the greater the load, the greater the member stressed’.
Theoretical Values.
Member Applied Load (N) Stress N/mm2
10 20 30 40 50
1 - AB 10.8 21.6 32.4 43.1 53.9 8.38
2 - AD 14.7 29.4 44.1 58.8 73.5 11.23
3 - BD 12.7 25.3 37.8 50.5 63.0 9.64
4 - CD 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 2: shows the average stress values from the theoretical calculations

Table 2, simply displays the theoretical results as obtained in appendices section

using method of joints. The two table were alit bit similar but there’s differences exist
between the two values. The elaboration of the differences exits is deliberated in the
discussion section.

Page 5 of 15
The graph displaying applied load on each member related to table 1.

Member Force vs. Load

75
80 70
70
55
60
Member Force

45 44
50 41
32 35
40
28
25
30 20
15 18
20 10
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Applied load

Load

Figure 3: Display Experimental Member force vs. Applied load

From figure 3, there were four members, but only three members were displayed.
The fourth member is under zero force. Therefore, it was not showing.

The graph below displaying applied load on each member related to table 2.

Member Force vs. Load

80
70
60
Member Force

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Applied load

Load

Figure 4: Shows Theoretical member force vs. load

From figure 4, it was the same as it figure 3. However, figure 4 is the theoretical
values obtained through the method of joints. The member force and the applied
load display a perfect linear trend.

Page 6 of 15
The illustration below shows the relationship stress vs. load

STRESS VS. LOAD

16
14
12
10
STRESS

8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
LOAD

Figure 5: Shows the relationship between stress vs. load

According to figure 5, the scatter diagram shows a positive correlation for stress vs.
load. The line of best fit indicates a linearity of the measured stress versus the
applied load. The four points indicate the four members which have undergone
stress.
Figure 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3 Comparison of member force between the experimental and
theoretical

Comparing Member force vs. load (member AB)

60

50
Member Force AB

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Applied Load

Series1 Series2

Figure6.1 : Display differences between experimental and theoretical values for member AB.

Figure 6.1, shows differences in values for member AB. Initially both values were
almost same but varies as load increases. Both increase linearly but theoretical has
bigger values.

Page 7 of 15
 Comparing Member force vs. load (member AD)
80
70
Member force AD

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Load

Series1 Series2

Figure 6.2 Display differences between experimental and theoretical values for member AD.

Figure 6.2, shows differences in values for member AD. Initially both values were
different but going towards the same value as load increase. Both increase linearly
but theoretical has bigger values.

Comparing member force BD vs. load

70
60
50
Member BD

40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Load

Series1 Series2

Figure 6.3 : Display differences between experimental and theoretical values for member BD.

Figure 6.3, shows differences in values for member BD. Initially both values are
almost same but varies as load increases. Both increase linearly but theoretical has
bigger values then practical values.

Page 8 of 15
Discussions
The objective of this experiment is to measure the forces in members of the pin –
jointed plane frame. The frame is regarded as two – dimensional truss because of
members of the truss is in one plane. As part of the lab objective is to compare
values of experimental and theoretical values of member forces. The experimental
was already taken during the experiment readings whilst the theoretical values were
calculated using the equation (2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) with the aid of other equations used
in appendices.
By comparing values of the calculated and experimental results, it was noted that
there was some inaccuracy due to errors. The results were inconsistent. The errors
were justified as both random and systematics errors. It was systematic due to
incorrect calibrations of the apparatus, which was evident because, during the
experiment one joints reading were overstressed and couldn’t produce any reading
at all. The error was random due to the person taking the reading may not look at the
scale perpendicularly. Other reasons relating to inconsistency may be due to old
apparatus or maintenance were not done. Since, the laboratory has some aging
apparatus and equipment’s. The apparatus being employed is sensitive to loads,
since there were several participants near the framed structure which someone
might accidently cause vibration and movement during the experiment. The vibration
and movements caused some additional undesirable readings.
The lab really broadens the understanding of calculating member force and reactions
due to loading structures. The lab also helps in further understanding of calculating
member force and reaction using analytical methods. Upon comparing the
theoretical and experiment results, there were not much differences. Whatever,
theory lesson is seemed to be in reality in real life field experience and it can be
utilized later in industry or workforce.
Besides, “the greater the load, the greater the particular member be under stress”.
That was proven in figure 5, showing the relationship of stress versus load. Thus,
objective of the lab is achieved.
Since errors are inherent, for future experiment, the apparatus must be set up
properly and calibrated by lab technicians and the eye sight of person taking the
reading must be exactly in line with the scales. Also, there must not be overcrowding
around the frame structures to cause unwanted vibrations and movement

Page 9 of 15
Conclusion
To conclude, the pin jointed plane frame is useful when it comes to do structural
analysis of the internal loads, member force and also stress and deformation. After
this experiment, it was evident that the experimental values and theoretical results
were seems to be alike. There were slight differences. The slight differences were
instrumental and human errors. These errors can be adjusted in future experiments
by careful readings and measurements as well as adjusting zero error. The member
force against applied load were displaying a linear relationship as shown in figure 3
and 4 including stress versus load in figure 5, which suggest that the aim of the lab is
achieved.

Page 10 of 15
Appendices

Using method of joints, theoretical force member and reactions can be calculated

Find the length BD from the ∆𝐴𝐵𝐷, using cosine rule.

𝑎 = √(𝑏 2 + 𝑐 2 − (2𝑏𝑐 cos 𝜃)) → 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐵𝐷 =

√(1.022 + 0.692 − (2 ∗ 1.02 ∗ 0.69 cos 𝜃)) = 0.75 𝑚

Now find ∅ using sine rule
sin ∅ sin 47.2
= → ∠∅ = 42.6°
0.69 0.75

𝑥
cos 𝜃 = 0.69 → 𝑥 = 0.45 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 1.02 − 0.45 = 0.55 𝑚

𝐴𝑦 𝐴𝑦
i) ∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0: 𝐴𝐷 sin 𝜃 − 𝐴𝑦 = 0 → 𝐴𝐷 = = sin 47.2
sin 𝜃

10
𝐴𝐷10 = sin 47.2 = 13.6 𝑁
20
𝐴𝐷20 = sin 47.2 = 27.3 𝑁
30
𝐴𝐷30 = sin 47.2 = 40.9 𝑁
40
𝐴𝐷40 = sin 47.2 = 54.5 𝑁
50
𝐴𝐷50 = sin 47.2 = 68.1 𝑁

ii) Taking moments @ B → ∑ 𝑀𝐵 = 0

𝐴𝐷 sin 47.2 (0.55) − 𝐴𝑦 (1.02) − 𝐷𝑦 (0.55) = 0

𝐴𝐷 sin 47.2(0.55)−𝐴𝑦 (1.02)
𝐷𝑦 = 0.55

Page 11 of 15
 13.6 sin 47.2(0.55)−10(1.02)
𝐷𝑦10 = = 8.6 𝑁
0.55
27.3 sin 47.2(0.55)−20(1.02)
𝐷𝑦20 = = 17.1 𝑁
0.55
40.9 sin 47.2(0.55)−30(1.02)
𝐷𝑦30 = = 25.6 𝑁
0.55
54.5 sin 47.2(0.55)−40(1.02)
𝐷𝑦40 = = 42.8 𝑁
0.55
68.4 sin 47.2(0.55)−50(1.02)
𝐷𝑦50 = = 42.8 𝑁
0.55

Note: ∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0 → 𝐷𝑦 = −𝐵𝑦

iii) ∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 0: 𝐴𝐵 = 𝐴𝐷 cos 𝜃 = 𝐴𝐷 cos 47.2

𝐴𝐵10 = 13.6 cos 47.2 = 9.2 𝑁

𝐴𝐵20 = 27.3 cos 47.2 = 18.5 𝑁
𝐴𝐵30 = 27.8 cos 47.2 = 27.8 𝑁
𝐴𝐵40 = 54.5 cos 47.2 = 37.0 𝑁
𝐴𝐵50 = 68.1 cos 47.2 = 46.3 𝑁

Where 𝐵𝑦 = −𝐷𝑦

8.6
𝐵𝐷10 = sin 42.6 = 12.7 𝑁
17.1
𝐵𝐷20 = sin 42.6 = 25.3 𝑁
25.6
𝐵𝐷30 = sin 42.6 = 37.8 𝑁
34.2
𝐵𝐷40 = sin 42.6 = 50.5 𝑁
42.8
𝐵𝐷50 = sin 42.6 = 63.0 𝑁

The stress was calculated using equation (4)

𝐹
𝜎 = 𝐴 , Where, 𝜎 = 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝐹 = 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒, 𝐴 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
Area was calculated as 𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 2 , since each member has the diameter of 5 mm.
5 2
𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 2 = 𝜋 (2) = 19.63 𝑚𝑚2
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑠

For experimental values

Page 12 of 15
 𝐹 132
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐴𝐵 = 𝜎𝐴𝐵 = 𝐴 = 19.63 = 6.72 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝐹 277
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐴𝐷 = 𝜎𝐴𝐷 = 𝐴 = 19.63 = 14.11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝐹 139
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐷 = 𝜎𝐵𝐷 = 𝐴 = 19.63 = 7.08 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

For theoretical values

𝐹 161.8
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐴𝐵 = 𝜎𝐴𝐵 = 𝐴 = 19.63 = 8.38 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝐹 220.5
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐴𝐷 = 𝜎𝐴𝐷 = 𝐴 = 19.63 = 11.23 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝐹 189.3
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐵𝐷 = 𝜎𝐵𝐷 = 𝐴 = 19.63 = 9.64 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

Page 13 of 15
Peer Evaluation

Title of Team Exercise: Group 6_CE 211_LAB 1 TEAM EFFORT EVALUATION

Agreed Team Allocation to the team

members as a percentage Based on

Team Member level of contribution

Kennedy Fisause 33.33%

Newton Yangharry Ehud 33.33%

Dokta Urame 33.33%

Team Member Team member email address

Kennedy Fisause 23302336kefi@student.pnguot.ac.pg

Newton Yangharry Ehud 23301444neya@student.pnguot.ac.pg

Dokta Urame 22300416dour@student.pnguot.ac.pg

All team members contributed equally to make Lab report 1 come into fruition.

Page 14 of 15
References
Ales, S. (2023). EN 122 Engineering Mechanics. Lae, PNG: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
PNG UOT.

Hibeler, R. (2016). STATICS, Engineering Mechanics (4th Edt ed.). London, England: Pearson. Retrieved
03 17, 2024

Wantepe, G. (2024, March Wednesday). Introduction to Structure, Force analysis methods. Lecture
notes, p. 4.

Young, B. W. (1992). Essential Solid Mechanics. Lae, PNG: Department of Civil Engineering, PNG UOT.

Page 15 of 15