3

MoMLab COGNITIVE RUBRIC

STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CLUSTER
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Name of Group Members : SECTION : 6 Matric No.:
1 MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHAKIR BIN HUSSIN DF220167
2 MUHAMMAD FARIK BIN ABDUL HALIM DF220112
3 MUHAMMAD HAZEQ ZIKRY BIN MUHAMAD AF220091
REZA
4 MUHAMMAD MU’AZ BIN HAIRASALEH _CF230152
5 MUHAMMAD FARIS BIN MAT LUDIN CF230225 30 Marks [CLO1, PLO4]
Very Poor = 1 Poor = 2 Moderate = 3 Good = 4 Very Good = 5
QUESTION / Incomplete calculations, Able to perform mediocrity Able to perform sufficient Able to perform good Able to perform excellent
Marks
DOMAIN LEVEL critical analysis and/or calculations, critical analysis calculations, critical calculations, critical calculations, critical and/or
discussions and/or discussions analysis and/or discussions analysis and/or discussions discussions
a(i) – C1
MoMLab 1

a(ii) – C1
a(iii) – C2
a(iv) – C2
a(v) – C2
25
a(i) – C1
MoMLab

a(ii) – C2
2

a(iii) – C2
a(iv) – C2
20
a(i) – C1
MoM
Lab 3

a(ii) – C2
a(iii) – C2
15
a(i) – C2
MoM
Lab 4

a(ii) – C2
a(iii) – C2 15
OE 1
OEQ

OE 2
OE 3 15
REPORT FORMAT/
WRITING SKILL 10
TOTAL MARKS
(100 M)

MoMLab Semester II Session 2023/2024 - AFK

 MoMLab 1 (CLO 1): Shear Force and Shear Stress in Beam

1. In this experiment, you will determine the shear force and shear stress of
the beam at the cut-section. Carry out the following instructions, referring
to Figure 1.1.

Pinned
Support

SHEAR FORCE IN BEAM

Figure 1.1
 (a). Place the hangers at any positions along the beam. Please consult with
your respective lecturer for the total number of hangers to be used in this
experiment. You are allowed to use any configurations of mass on each
hanger without exceeding WTOTAL < 300 g.

(i) Sketch the idealized model and free body diagram of the beam.
Fill Table 1.1 with the proposed mass configurations. Modify the
table if necessary for any additional information.

Idealized Model:
Force Digital Meter
Pinned Support Pinned Support

W1 W2
Cut-Section

140 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 140 mm

Free Body Diagram:

Cut section

Fx 1 Fx 2

Fy 1 W1 W2 Fy 2

140 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 140 mm

 Table 1.1

Vx (N)
Load at cut-section
Cases W1 (N) W2 (N) W3 (N) Calculations Laboratory

1 0.49 0.98 0.59 - 0.75 - 0.8

2 0.79 0.69 0.39 - 0.31 - 0.3
3 0.49 0.79 0.98 - 0.90 - 0.7

(ii) Calculate shear force at cut-section for each load cases, and
complete Table 1.1 from the findings of laboratory test.
(C2, PLO 4)

Load Case 1:
Load Case 2:
Load Case 3:
(iii) Discuss the outcomes from question 1a(ii) in terms of the relationship
between the external forces and shear forces obtained. You may use any type
of graphical illustrations in your discussions.
(C2, PLO 4)

The results obtained from question 1a(ii) demonstrate that, in all load
scenarios, estimated shear forces are consistently greater than those measured
in the laboratory. Many reasons, including material variability, experimental
mistakes, and theoretical model simplifications, might be blamed for this
discrepancy. Despite these differences, a discernible pattern can be seen: when
external loads drop from load case 1 to load case 3, shear forces
correspondingly decrease. Despite some discrepancy between estimated and
actual values, this implies a clear link between external loads and shear forces.

We must enhance the method we test them if we hope to increase accuracy.

This requires extreme caution while using our lab's tools and processes. Every
time we conduct a test, we must ensure that the same procedures are followed
and that our equipment is checked on a regular basis. In order to learn more,
we need also carefully examine the variables that have the most impact on our
outcomes and collaborate with specialists from various fields. We can ensure
that our results are more accurate by taking these steps.
(iv) Calculate and sketch shear stress distribution at the cut-section for any load
cases. Use the beam cross section 20 mm of width and 3 mm of thickness.
(C2, PLO 4)
(v) Describe how shear stress works, why it's significant in design, and how it
may be decreased without reducing the external loading applied on the
beam.

When pressures push components of a material sideways against one

another, shear stress results. It is important to design because it prevents
structures from collapsing under stress and maintains their stability. For
instance, it illustrates a material's ability to withstand shear stresses, which
aids engineers in selecting the appropriate materials and ensuring the
stability of buildings.

In order to increase safety and decrease shear stress without weakening the
force on a beam, the beam's shape can be changed to more evenly distribute
the stress additional supports can be added along the beam to further
distribute the force; stronger materials that are better able to withstand
sideways forces can be used; or additional load-bearing capacity can be
added to the structure. These actions will make the structures safer and more
dependable without weakening them
 FACULTY OF ENGINEERING & BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

MECHANICS OF MATERIAL LABORATORY

SUBJECT CODE BFC21201

EXPERIMENT TITLE BENDING MOMENT IN BEAM

SECTION 6
2.0 LAB2: Bending Moment and Bending Stress in Beam

In this experiment, the bending moment and bending stress of the beam at the cross section
are determined at the cut-section. The hangers are set at the sites with mass configuration and
load scenarios comparable to the e-LAB 1 technique, as shown in figure 2.1

Figure 2.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The study of bending moments in beams is crucial in understanding the structural behavior
of materials under various loading conditions. Bending moment is a key factor in the structural
analysis of beams. This lab focuses on unraveling the intricacies of bending moments,
exploring how they arise in response to applied loads, and understanding their role in
determining the behavior of materials.

Beams are structural elements that support loads and transfer them to the supports, and
bending is one of the primary modes of deformation in beams. Bending moments play a key
role in analyzing and designing structures, ensuring their safety and stability

1.1 OBJECTIVES

1. To examine how bending moment varies with an increasing point load

2. To examine how bending moment varies at the cut position of the beam for varios
loading condition.

1.2 THEORY

The theory of bending moments in a beam is a fundamental aspect of structural engineering

and mechanics. Bending moments are crucial in understanding how beams respond to applied
loads and are essential for designing structures that can withstand these loads while maintaining
stability and safety
2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 EQUIPMENT

1. Bending moment in beam apparatus

2. Hook
3. Weight
4. Ruler

2.2 PROCEDURE

Part 1
1. Check the Digital Force Display meter and let it read zero with no loads
2. Place 3 hanger that are not more than 300g altogether
3. Convert the mass into load in Newton (multiply by 9.81) and the force reading
into bending moment (Nm) using the following expression:
bending moment at a cut (Nm) = Displayed Force x 0.125
4. Calculate the theoretical bending moment at the cut and complete table.

Part 2
1. Check the Digital Force Display meter zero with no load.
2. Place 3 hanger that are not more than 300g altogether
3. Convert the force reading into bending moment (Nm) using: Bending moment at
a cut (Nm) = Displayed Force x 0.125
4. Calculate the support reaction (RA and RB) and calculated the theoretical bending
moment at the cut
3.0 RESULT AND CALCULATION

𝑀𝑥 (Nmm) at
Load 𝑀1 (g) 𝑊1 (N) 𝑀2 (g) 𝑊2 (N) 𝑀3 (g) 𝑊3 (N) cut-section
cases calculation laboratory Error (%)
1 50 0.49 60 0.98 60 0.59 0.1028 0.1 3%
2 80 0.79 40 0.69 40 0.39 0.0826 0.3 30%
3 50 0.49 100 0.79 100 0.98 0.1248 0.1 10%

Calculation example

0.1028−0.1
error= ∗ 100 = 7%
0.1028
4.0 DISCUSSION

In this experiment, we aimed to compare the bending moments in a beam under three different
loading cases, using both theoretical calculations and laboratory measurements. Our goal was
to see how closely the calculated values matched the experimental results and to understand
any differences.

The results showed varying levels of consistency between the theoretical and experimental
values. For the first loading case, the calculated bending moment was very close to the
experimental value, with only a 3% error. This suggests that our theoretical model was quite
accurate for this scenario, and any small differences could be due to minor measurement errors
or slight differences in the experimental setup compared to the theoretical assumptions.

In contrast, the second loading case showed a significant error of 30%, indicating a large
difference between the calculated and experimental values. This suggests there might have
been issues with the experimental setup or significant deviations from the theoretical
assumptions.

For the third loading case, the error was 10%, which is higher than the first case but still within
a reasonable range for engineering experiments. This moderate error suggests there were some
minor experimental errors or theoretical assumptions that did not fully match the real-world
conditions. These could include simplifications made during the calculations that didn't capture
all the complexities of the actual experiment.

Overall, this experiment highlights the importance of precise experimental techniques and
careful consideration of theoretical assumptions. While theoretical calculations give us a good
starting point, experimental validation is crucial to understand real-world behavior. The
varying errors across the three loading cases show that theoretical models can be accurate, but
they need to be validated and adjusted based on experimental data. Improving both the
theoretical models and experimental methods will help increase the accuracy and reliability of
future results.
5.0 CONCLUSION

This experiment aimed to compare the theoretical calculations of bending moments in a beam
with experimental values obtained in a laboratory setting under three different loading
conditions. We found varying degrees of consistency between the calculated and experimental
values, with percentage errors of 3%, 30%, and 10%, respectively.

The small error in the first loading case indicates that our theoretical model and experimental
setup were well-aligned. However, the significant error in the second loading case suggests
potential issues that maybe comes from our faults in calculated the theoretical. The moderate
error in the third loading case suggests that there are typical uncertainties present in
experimental work, but the results are still within an acceptable range.

Overall, this experiment shows the necessity of precise experimental techniques and the
importance of validating theoretical models with experimental data. While theoretical
calculations provide a solid foundation, real-world conditions often introduce complexities that
require careful consideration and adjustment. Future studies should focus on refining both
theoretical models and experimental methods to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the
results.
 ‭1.0 Introduction‬

‭ he analysis of structure is a very important part in civil engineering. This it's‬

T
‭involved in the analysis and observation of how the state of the structure reacts to different‬
‭loads. The study of deflection is one of the parts of structural analysis and it is very important‬
‭for implications for the performance and safety of a structure. For this project, we use‬
‭Double integration method to determine the deflections in a simply supported beam within‬
‭different values of loads.When a load is applied to a beam, the beam experiences internal‬
‭stresses and deformations, causing it to bend or curve from its original shape. This bending‬
‭can be quantified by measuring the vertical distance between the deformed beam and its‬
‭initial position at any point along the beam's length‬

‭2.0 Objective of the study‬

‭●‬ T ‭ o determine the deflections in a simply supported beam within different values of‬
‭loads‬
‭●‬ ‭To determine the different of the experimental data and the theoretical data from lab‬
‭experiment‬
‭●‬ ‭To analyse relationship between the different of material used affect the deflection‬
‭value‬

‭3.0 Apparatus and Procedure‬

‭3.1 Apparatus‬

‭●‬ ‭Digital gauge‬

‭●‬ ‭Mass hanger‬

‭●‬ ‭Mass‬

‭●‬ ‭Beam sample (steel,brass,aluminium)‬

 ‭3.2 Procedure‬

‭1.‬ ‭Set the digital gauge to zero‬

‭2.‬ O
‭ ne of the samples is placed according to the type of material, starting from the steel‬
‭sample‬

3‭ .‬ S‭ tart hanging the three mass using hanger(with a predetermined weight), at‬
‭4.‬ ‭the specific points, as shown as figure below‬

‭5.‬ ‭Record the data from digital gauge‬

‭6.‬ ‭Repeat the same step above, with different types of material (brass and aluminium)‬
‭4.0 Result and analysis‬
 ‭ rom the conducted experiments, we found that the values differed between the‬
F
‭experimental data and the calculation data, where the percentage difference in data from steel‬
‭is 497.01%, from brass is 309.45% and from aluminium is 22.28%.‬

‭ ased on this different show that our experiment data for deflection with the theoretical‬
B
‭result is slightly accurate for the experiment using aluminium because the different value is‬
‭lower than experiment that using steel and brass material, which is 22.28% meanwhile for‬
‭experiment using steel and brass material are not very accurate because the different value are‬
‭high in value, which are above 100%.. The experiment that using aluminium can get an‬
‭accurate result because we follow the procedure one by one without any errors. For‬
‭experiments that use steel and brass material the result is not very accurate because there can‬
‭be some errors due to equipment experiment or environmental interference.‬

‭5.0 Conclusion‬

‭ rom the experiment on Beam Deflection using the Double Integration Method, we‬
F
‭observe that the experimental values do not exactly match the theoretical values. There are‬
‭noticeable differences, both minor and significant, between the calculated deflections and the‬
‭experimental results. The theoretical deflection values are negative, indicating tension‬
‭conditions during the experiment. This experiment also allows us to determine the‬
‭load-bearing capacity of the span and the maximum deflection each specimen can endure‬
‭before failure. Additionally, we can derive and design the safety factor based on these‬
‭findings.‬
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING & BUILT ENVIRONMENT

MECHANICS OF MATERIAL LABORATORY

LABORATORY PAPER INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT CODE BFC21201

EXPERIMENT TITLE BUCKLING OF
COMPRESSION MEMBER
SECTION 6
LAB 4: Buckling of Compression Member

This experiment will determine the critical buckling load (Pcr) of aluminium strut. This
experiment is carried out by using this

Buckling strut test of aluminium material is based on the following parameters

• 3-end restraint conditions

• 3 lengths of strut as below:

a) 320 mm – 1 unit

b) 370 mm – 1 unit

c) 420 mm – 1 unit

1.0 OBJECTIVE

• To examine how shear force varies with an increasing point load

• To examine how shear force varies at the cut position of the beam for various loading
condition
2.0 LEARNING OUTCOME

• The application the engineering knowledge in practical application

• To enhance technical competency in structural engineering through laboratory

application.

• To communicate effectively in group

• To identify problem, solving and finding out appropriate solution through laboratory
application

3.0 INTRODUCTION

Buckling of a compression member is a critical concept in structural engineering, referring to the

sudden and unstable failure of a structural component subjected to high compressive stress.
When a compression member, such as a column, is subjected to an axial load, it may deform and
bend due to instability before reaching its material strength limit. This phenomenon, known as
buckling, depends on several factors, including the member’s length, cross-sectional shape,
material properties, and the type of supports and constraints applied. Understanding and
predicting buckling behavior is essential to ensure the safety and reliability of structures, as it
helps engineers design components that can withstand compressive loads without sudden failure.
4.0 THEORY

• To predict the buckling load Euler buckling formula is used. The critical value in Euler
Formula is the slenderness ratio, which is the ratio of the length of the strut to its radius
of gyration (L/K).

• The Euler formula become inaccurate for struts with L/K ratio of less than 1.125 and this
should be taken into account in any design work.

• Euler buckling formula for pin struts :

Pcr = π2 EI/L2

Where;

Pcr = Euler buckling load (N)

E =Young’s Modulus (Nm-2)

I = Second moment of area (m4)

L = length of strut (m)

5.0 APPARATUS

• Test frame

• Screwdriver

• Level bubble ruler

• Allen key

• Ruler
6.0 PROCEDURE

Part 1

1. Fit the bottom chuck to the machine and remove the top chuck (to give two pinned ends).
Select the shortest strut, number 1, and measure the cross section using the vernier provided and
calculate the second moment of area, I,for the strut. (bd3/12)

2. Adjust the position of the sliding crosshead to accept the strut using the thumbnut to lock
off the slider. Ensure that there is the maximum amount of travel available on the handwheel
threat to compress the strut. Finally tighten the locking screw.

3. Carefully back- off the handwheel so that the strut is resting in the notch but not
transmitting any load. Re Zero the force meter using the front panel control.

4. Carefully start to load the strut. If the strut begins to buckle to the left, “flick” the strut to
the right and vice versa (this reduces any error associated with the straightness of the strut). Turn
the handwheel until there is no further increase in load (the load may peak and then drop as it
settles in the notches).Record the final load in Table 1. Repeat with strut numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5
adjusting the crosshead as required to fit the strut.
Part 2

1. To study the effect of end conditions, follow the same basic procedure as in part 1, but
this time remove the bottom chuck and clamp the specimen using the cap head screw and plate to
make a pinned-fixed end condition.

2. Record your result in Table 2 and calculate the values of 1/ L2 for the struts.

3. Fit the top chuck with the two cap head screws and clamp both ends of the specimen to
make a fixed-fixed end condition. Calculate the new values of 1/L2.
7.0 DATA AND CALCULATION

Table 4.1 shows the calculation for critical buckling load for each size and end restrain
conditions.

Load case 1

Young’ modulus = E = 69 x 103 𝑁𝑚2

Length = 19 mm

Thickness = 1.8 mm

𝐵ℎ3
I= 12

19(1.8)3
= 12

= 9.234𝑚𝑚4

Strut Length (mm) Critical Buckling Load, Pcr

Pinned-Pinned (N) Pinned-Fixed (N) Fixed-Fixed (N)
320 61.41 125.32 245.64
370 45.93 93.74 183.74
420 35.4 72.75 142.59
Table 4.2 shows the differences between calculation and laboratory results for pinned-pinned
condition.

Strut Length (mm) Critical Buckling Load, Pcr Percentage Difference (%)
Pinned-Pinned (N)
Calculation Laboratory
320 61.41 33 46
370 45.93 18 60
420 35.4 11 69

𝜋2 𝐸𝐼
Formula = 𝑘𝐿2

k=1

E = 69 x 103 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(1 𝑥 320)2

= 61.41 N

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(1 𝑥 370)2

= 46.93 N
𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)
(1 𝑥 420)2

= 35.4 N

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Percentage difference = x 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦

320

61.41−33
= x 100%
61.41

= 46%

370

45.93−18
= x 100%
45,93

= 60%

420

35.4−11
= x 100%
35.4

= 69%
Table 4.3 shows the differences between calculation and laboratory results for pinned-fixed
condition.

Strut Length (mm) Critical Buckling Load, Pcr Percentage Difference (%)
Pinned-Fixed (N)
Calculation Laboratory
320 125.32 73 42
370 93.74 46 51
420 72.75 32 56

𝜋2 𝐸𝐼
Formula = 𝑘𝐿2

k = 0.7

E = 69 x 103 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(0.7 𝑥 320)2

= 125.30 N
𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)
(0.7 𝑥 370)2

= 93.74 N

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(0.7 𝑥 420)2

= 72.75 N

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Percentage difference = x 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦

320

125.32−73
= x 100%
125.32

= 42%

370

93.74−46
= x 100%
93.74

= 51%

420

72.75−32
= x 100% = 56%
72.75
Table 4.4 shows the differences between calculation and laboratory results for fixed-fixed
condition.

Strut Length (mm) Critical Buckling Load, Pcr Percentage Difference (%)
Fixed-Fixed (N)
Calculation Laboratory
320 245.64 153 37
370 183.74 71 61
420 142.59 74 48

𝜋2 𝐸𝐼
Formula = 𝑘𝐿2

k = 0.5

E = 69 x 103 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(0.5 𝑥 320)2

= 245.64 N

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(0.5 𝑥 370)2
= 183.74 N

𝜋 2 (69 𝑥 103 )(9.234)

(0.5 𝑥 420)2

= 142.59 N

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Percentage difference = x 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦

320

245.62−153
= 245.64
x 100%

= 37%

370

183.74−71
= x 100%
183.74

= 61%

420

142.59−74
= x 100%
142.59

= 48%
GRAPH

PINNED-PINNED
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
320 370 420

Theory Experiment .

PINNED-FIXED
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
320 370 420

Theory Experiment .
 FIXED-FIXED
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
320 370 420

Theory Experiment .

The findings of the computation and laboratory have varied outcomes and patterns based on the
three types of graphs from different strut lengths of 320mm, 370mm, and 420mm, respectively.
It demonstrates that the length of the strut is not proportional to Pcr in a straightforward manner.
Pcr will be decreased as the strut length increases. According to the graphs, the end restraint for
fixedfixed has the greatest Pcr when compared to pinned-pinned and pinned-fixed.
Using the Euler buckling curve, identify the classification of the compression member for each
aluminum strut length at respective end restraint conditions

Strut Length (mm) kL/r

Pinned-Pinned k=1 Pinned-Fixed k=0.7 Fixed-Fixed k=0.5

320 = 61.41

= 125.32 = 245.64
370 = 45.93

= 93.74 = 183.74

420 = 35.4

= 72.75 = 142.59
From the Euler Buckling Curve:

A < 20 = Short post – No buckling

20 < B < 60. = Intermediate column - Inelastic buckling

C > 60.3 = Long column – Elastic buckling

Strut Length End Restraint kL/r Classification Of

(mm) Conditions
Compression Member
320 Pinned-Pinned 61.41 Long column-Elastic buckling

Pinned-Fixed 125.32 Long column-Elastic buckling

Fixed-Fixed 245.64 Long column-Elastic buckling

370 Pinned-Pinned 45.93 Intermediate column - Inelastic

buckling
Pinned-Fixed 93.74 Long column-Elastic buckling

Fixed-Fixed 183.74 Long column-Elastic buckling

420 Pinned-Pinned 35.4 Intermediate column - Inelastic

buckling
Pinned-Fixed 72.75 Long column-Elastic buckling

Fixed-Fixed 142.59 Long column-Elastic buckling

6.0 CONCLUSION

We can infer from the table that, according to the theoretical ratio value, the fixed end is
substantially stronger than the pins end because the experimental ratio does not match the usage
of the connection end. This demonstrates that the joint fixed-fixed end members should be
subjected to greater force than in a pin-pin connection. The ratio doubles when one end is
converted from a pin end to a fixed end; the same thing happened when both ends were
converted to fixed-fixed ends. The experiment's multiple mistakes, including not properly
tightening the screw, the sliding crosshead are not tightened to the experiment apparatus. are the
reason why the experimental ratio does not match the theoretical ratio.
LAB 5 : MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TENSION MEMBER
Please refer to specific code of practice of BS EN ISO 6892-1: 2019 prior to the laboratory
testing of tensile test for a reinforcement bar (rebar) using 1000kN of Universal Testing
Machine (UTM). Please find related technical specification for this UTM machine with the
model number GT-7001-LSU 100.Carry out the following instructions by referring to Figure
5.1 and your laboratory testing. You will be given a specific rebar Ø (mm) and the stress
straincurves to answer all following questions.

Figure 5.1 Tensile test on reinforcement bar

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The tensile test, also known as the tension test, is a fundamental mechanical procedure that
assesses a material’s response to uniaxial tensile stress. During the test, a standardized specimen is
subjected to gradually increasing tension until it fractures. This process produces critical data on the
material's mechanical properties, such as ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, Young's modulus,
elongation, and reduction in area. These properties are critical for understanding how materials
behave under different loads and conditions.

The stress-strain curve generated from the recorded data visually depicts the relationship between
applied stress and resulting strain emphasizing important points such as the proportional limit, yield
point, ultimate tensile strength, and fracture point. The tensile test is widely used in material
selection, quality control, research and development, and failure analysis, making it a critical tool in
materials science and engineering for ensuring that materials meet required specifications and
perform reliably in their intended applications.

2.0 OBJECTIVE

• Assess mechanical properties of Mild Steel specimens under tension load.

• Understanding the mechanical properties of solid materials.
• Investigating the load extension and stress-strain relationships in mild steel.
• To understand the fundamentals of uniaxial tensile testing.
3.0 APARATUS AND EQUIPMENT

Aparatus and Equipment

1. Universal Testing Machines (UTM) 100 ton

2. Reinforcement Bar

3. Vernier Calliper
4. Measuring Tape

5. Extensometer
4.0 PROCEDURE

1) prepare all equipment like reinforcement bar 12 mm,Universal Testing Machine UTM
vernier caliper with a 600mm length and extensometer.Verify the sample to make sure it is
not cracked.

2) Insert the sample into the Universal Testing Device (UTM). The load testing metre and
UTM values are both zeroed out.
3) Secure the sample to the UTM's top and bottom clamps. Attach it to an extensometer
with a gauge length of 50mm that is linked to a controller after that.

4) After activating the data collection and recording program, the details are chosen inthe
software. The result will be recorded as the machine begins to apply load on the sample
(i) Recognize the standard safety operational procedure to be fulfilled before
conducting this testing. Provide any related images or sketches illustrations as
part in your discussions.

The size of the reinforcing bar is the variable used in this LAB 5. Each participant
receives one sample. The sample size we used was a 12 mm reinforcement bar, and the
tensile test results will vary depending on the sample size. This is because the sample's
thickness and size will affect the data and test results. The strength of the reinforcement bar
increases as its size increases.

To conduct this test, we had to be aware of the laboratory's normal safety operating
procedure. To prevent any injuries, there are various risks that we might be
concerned about.

1) Electrical Risk

The installation, operation, and maintenance of electrical equipment are required. There are no
errors or malfunctions on the machine. If the equipment cannot be turned off in an emergency,
do not block the main switch to avoid causing damage or harm.

2) Physical Risk

The machine is drawn to the UTM's wire and hose components. If someone trips over the wires
and hoses, they will be in physical danger. To prevent components from tripping, you must
decide what course of action to take. Observing your surroundings before moving around in the
lab. To avoid creating yet another physical hazard, all test items should be stored away.

3) Mechanical Risk

To prevent hazards, keep your hands, fingers, and clothing away from the Universal
TestingMachine (UTM). On the UTM, the testing device, the fingers may be crushed.
Aside from that, we need to put on personal protective equipment while testing to prevent
further harm (PPE). In accordance with OSHA regulations, it is used and put into practice.
The bare minimum PPE needed to prevent harm is:

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

1) Safety Shoes

2) Lab Coat

4) Glasses
5.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

(ii).Establish the sample preparations prior to sample installation and testing. Provide any
related images, sketches or schematic diagram as part in your discussions.

Control the Universal Testing Machine

Figure 5.1: The Apparatus and Machine that use in this laboratory
Sample Preparation

1. Pick just one kind of sample.

2. Use a measuring tape to determine the sample length.

3. Use a vernier caliper to measure the sample's diameter.

4. 50 mm gauge length was used.

5. After entering the data into the program, the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) reads
zero.
Sample Installation

1. Modify the jaws to meet the sample's size. Then, attach the gauge specimen's decrease
section to it.
2. The sample is loaded into the UTM (Universal Testing Machine) for analysis.

3. Activate the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) and watch the sample fragment before
proceeding.

4. The software on the Universal Testing Machine captured the data (UTM).
(iii).Complete the values in Table
5.1.
Table 5.1

Yield Strength (MPa), σy

570 MPa

Ultimate Strength (MPa), σult

673 MPa

Ratio of σult / σy
1.18 MPa

Elastic region From: 0 MPa to: 570 MPa

Plastic region
From: 570 MPa to: 673 MPa

Ratio Rm/Re
1.18

Agt %
7.65

Ratio of σult / σy = 570 Mpa

= 1.18 MPa
 (iv).Produce a standard testing procedure (SOP) for tensile testing of your rebar
according to BS EN ISO 6892-1: 2019. Provide any related graphical or schematic
diagram if necessary.

1. The measuring tape must be 600 mm long.

2. Use a vernier caliper to measure the diameter of the testing bar.

3. Place the testing bar into the UTM clamp plate.

4. Attach an extensometer with a 50 mm gauge to the center of the testing bar, clamped at both top
and bottom.

5. Enter rebar thickness, testing bar length, and scale height into the UTM controller.

6. UTM tests involve applying force to the rebar and inspecting the x- and y-axis representatives.
7. Use a vernier caliper to measure the diameter of the testing bar to ensure accurate results.

7. Use a vernier caliper to measure the diameter of the testing bar to guarantee the correctness
of the results.

(v)Discuss whether the strength of this steel rebar is satisfied to the standard code of
practice.

The strength of the steel reinforcing bar meets industry standards. While the yield strength is 570 MPa,
the ultimate strength is listed as 673 MPa. The values for ultimate strength and yield strength exceed
the accepted best practices. When compared to mild steel, aluminium reinforcement bar has a higher
ductility rate, which affects how much a structural component sags. There are two methods for
determining whether the steel reinforcing bar's strength complies with the standard code of practice for
strain and stress rate.
6.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION
7.0 DISCUSSION

QEQ: Open Ended Question

OE 1: What are the main purposes to conduct laboratory/ experiment on the structural
members?

The primary goal of the structural member laboratory is to investigate and demonstrate the behavior
of structural components through experimentation. Compare the structural behavior, internal and
external forces, deformation, and appropriate load to the computed calculations. All that can be
derived from a given theory are predictions. Validation of the theory can only be based on actual
experiments if the findings sufficiently verify the theoretical predictions, as it is critical for the
theoretical prediction to match the practical result or slightly diverge from the result due to some
specific inaccuracy. Finally, one can use numerical computation to achieve the desired result.

OE 2: How significant the outcome from the laboratory/experiment is assuredly proven tobe
as a reliable finding? Discuss

Lab tests predicted the final structure. The equipment used in the tests has been approved by
state, federal, national, and international organizations, with public safety and standards in
mind. The testing results give us a clear understanding of what factors to consider when
developing lab tests. Laboratory tests are extremely reliable when starting a project because
they allow us to assess the design's advantages and disadvantages. Every structural design
test is based on the results of a laboratory test and uses technology that costs millions.
Financially, these investments make sense.
OE 3: What are the alternative methods to provide reliable finding without doing
laboratory/experiment? Discuss.

There are several other methods for obtaining accurate results that do not involve conducting
laboratory research or experiments. The first step is a literature review, which involves a
thorough examination of previous studies and research on the subject to gain comprehension and
insight. Furthermore, modeling and simulation, which include creating computer simulations of
real-world scenarios, can produce forecasts and insights that can be compared to experimental
results. Surveys and questionnaires are next, which are a useful tool for data collection without
the need for actual experiments and can produce insightful results. Aside from that, data
collection and observation in real-world settings may provide insights and understanding without
the need for laboratory testing. Finally, data analytics enables the analysis of pre-existing data
sets to generate.

8.0 CONCLUSION

To summarize, the Tensile test is an important and widely used method on materials science and
engineering for determining mechanical properties of materials. By subjecting a specimen to
controlled tensile stress until failure, the test provides comprehensive information about a
material's strength, ductility, elasticity, and overall behavior under load. The results, which
include ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, and Young's modulus, are critical for material
selection, quality assurance, and the development of new materials. Furthermore, the stress-strain
curve generated during the test provides a clear representation of the material's performance,
allowing for a better understanding of its behavior from elastic to fracture. Overal, the tensile test
is critical for ensuring that materials meet specific requirements and perform consistently in their
intended applications, making a significant contribution to technological and engineering
advancements.
9.0 REFERENCES

1. Tensile Testing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/tensile-testing

2. Tensile Test Lab Report. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/university-of-

botswana/material-science-for-engineers/tensile-test-lab-report/5698826

3. Tensile Test Experiment Lab Report.

https://www.scribd.com/document/513669833/TENSILE-TEST-EXPERIMENT-LAB-
REPORT

4. Lab report engineering materials lab - tensile test. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/lab-

report-engineering-materials-lab-tensile-test-91272635/91272635
10.0 APPENDIX