0% found this document useful (0 votes)
87 views17 pages

Warren Truss Statics Experiment Report

The document describes an experiment conducted on a Warren truss to observe forces in its members under an applied load. Strains and deflections at different points were measured and recorded in tables as load was incremented from 0 to 200N. Theoretical member forces were also calculated using the method of joints and found to compare well with experimental results. Key findings included that compression and tension forces acted in the truss members and changed with applied load. The Warren truss design spreads loads across its equilateral triangle members.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
87 views17 pages

Warren Truss Statics Experiment Report

The document describes an experiment conducted on a Warren truss to observe forces in its members under an applied load. Strains and deflections at different points were measured and recorded in tables as load was incremented from 0 to 200N. Theoretical member forces were also calculated using the method of joints and found to compare well with experimental results. Key findings included that compression and tension forces acted in the truss members and changed with applied load. The Warren truss design spreads loads across its equilateral triangle members.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Module: Engineering Mechanics

Experiment: Jointed Frameworks – Warren Truss


GROUP Z

RAPELANG MORAPEDI 19000829


NEO MAHOSI 19000175
AARON ORAPELENG 19001012
BOTSALO HAMU 17001026
MOLEBEDI SETLHAKO 19000778

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………3
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….4
Procedure……………………………………………………………………………….6
Results………………………………………………………………………………….7
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………15
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...16
Recommendation……………………………………………………………………….16
Reference…………………………………………………………………………….....17

2|Page
ABSTRACT
An experiment was carried out on a Warren truss to observe the existence of forces in its
members, mainly compression and tension. A force at a specific point was applied and the
figures were taken for analysis. Theoretical strain values were calculated and compared with
experimental values to check for accuracy. But it is important to note that the Warren Truss
spreads out its loads across members and uses equilateral triangles which mitigate the powers of
compression alone.

3|Page
INTRODUCTION
The Warren Truss design can be found all over the world in the form of bridges. It is constructed
in such a way that the equilateral triangles share the load thus spreading the work throughout the
entire structure of the bridge. Compression and tension forces act on the sides of the triangles
respectively and can change accordingly when a load is applied such as when a truck moves
across a bridge. The sides closer to the centre of the bridge experience tension forces.

In the actually experiment the bars are pin connected, and the aim is to find the reaction of
member forces through the use of free body diagrams and equations of equilibrium to solve the
unknows which are used in methods of truss analysis.

METHODS OF TRUSS ANALYSIS

Method of joints
For each joint, the internal axial force; in every member is calculated through the use of eqations
of equilibrium. (HIBBELER, 2013)

Figure 1 showing an illustration of method of joints (Doughag, 2019)

4|Page
Method of sections

This is the best method used to calculate unknow values as only a few members in a truss are
selected by passing an imaginary line through the structure cutting it into sections. Each portion
is believed to be in equilibrium.

5|Page
PROCEDURE

The Warren truss was assembled as in the following Figure 1.0.

Figure 1.0: Shows an assembled Warren truss.

Loading was done at joint L2 while the deflections were captured from U0 and U1, one after the
other. A small preload of 5N was first added to the truss (joint L2) and the step repeated three
times to ensure that the truss and joints are settled. The dial gauge was zeroed. The loads were
then applied to the joint L2 in increments of 50N from 50N to 200N and the truss member strains
and joint deflections recorded at each load interval. Tables 1a was used to record the strains,
while tables 1b and 1c were used to record joint deflections at joints U0 and U1 respectively.

6|Page
RESULTS

Table 1a showing the results obtained when applying different loads

7|Page
Truss Applied Load (N)
Member 0 50 100 150 200

Truss Member strain (µƐ)

1 0000 -0021 -0068 -0058 -0123

2 0000 0011 0042 0024 0060

3 0000 0023 0080 0062 0144

4 0000 -0021 -0071 -0059 -0128

5 0000 -0025 -0076 -0063 -0144

6 0000 0036 0129 0094 0223

7 0000 0017 0060 0051 0111

8 0000 -0037 -0124 -0101 -0225

9 0000 0043 0155 0126 0286

10 0000 0034 0083 0063 0140

11 0000 -0041 -0135 -0111 -0246

DEFLECTION AT POINT U0 VERSUS


FORCE APPLIED GRAPH
0
0 50 100 150 200

-0.1
JOINT DEFLECTION (mm)

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
FORCE APPLIED (N)

Graph 1.1a showing the truss strain at each member when different loads are applied

8|Page
Table 1b showing the deflections at U0 when different loads were applied
Applied Load (N) Dial Gauge Reading Joint Deflection (mm)
(mm)
0 -1.65 0.00
50 -2.17 -0.52
100 -2.38 -0.21
150 -2.48 -0.10
200 -2.63 -0.15

Graph1.2b showing the deflections at U0 when different loads were applied

DEFLECTION AT POINT U0 VERSUS


FORCE APPLIED GRAPH
0
0 50 100 150 200

-0.1
JOINT DEFLECTION (mm)

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
FORCE APPLIED (N)

Table 1c showing the deflections at U1 when different loads were applied

9|Page
Applied Load (N) Dial Gauge Reading Joint Deflection (mm)
(mm)
0 1.19 0.00
50 -0.17 -1.36
100 -0.62 -0.45
150 -0.80 -0.18
200 -1.27 -0.47

Graph 1.3c showing deflections at U2 when different loads were applied

GRAPH OF DEFLECTION AT POINT U1 AGAINST FORCE


APPLIED
0
0 50 100 150 200
-0.2

-0.4
JOINT DEFLECTION (mm)

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6

FORCE APPLIED (N)

The following are the theoretical values for each member in the warren truss experiment when a
force of 50N was applied.
member 1= 2.2N, compression.
member 2 = 5.4N, compression
member 3 = 2.2N, tension.

10 | P a g e
member 4 = 2.2N, compression
member 5 = 19.1N, tension.
member 6 = 9.55N, compression
member 7 19.1N, compression
member 8 = 38.6N, compression
member 9 = 38.6N, tension
member 10 = 19.3N, compression
member 11 = 38.6N, compression

The following is a free - body diagram of the Warren Truss.

H 4 F 8 C

11

1 3 5 9

10 B

A 2 L 6 D

THEORITICAL CALCULATIONS
Calculation of member forces using method of joints

JOINT B BC
60ᵒ
BD

11 | P a g e
A L D B

Ay By
50 N
AL= X
Therefore from AB= 3X
Moment about point B

50x -Ay(3x)=0
50x=Ay(3x)
50=3Ay
Ay=16.67 N

ΣFy=0
Ay+ By − 50=0
By=50− 16.67=33.4 N

Member 11=BC=38.6N

ΣFy=0
33.4 N + BCsin 60=0
33.4
BC=−
sin 60
=38.6 N

Member 10 = DB

ΣFx=0
BCcos60 − DB =0
−38.6 cos 60=DB
DB=−19.3 N

JOINT C
ΣFx=0
− FC − 38.6 cos 60 −CDcos 60=0
ΣFy=0
−CDsin 60+38.6 sin 60=0
CD=38.6 N
Member 9=CD=38.6N

FC =−38.6 cos 60 −38.6 cos 60


FC =−38.6 N

12 | P a g e
JOINT D
ΣFx=0
− DL − DFcos 60 −19.3+ 38.6 cos 60=0
ΣFy=0
DFsin 60+38.6 sin 60 −50=0
DF =−19.1
Member 7=DF=19.1N(C)
− DL − 9.55=0
DL=−9.55 N ( C )
JOINT F
ΣFy=0
19.1 sin 60− FLsin 60=0
FL=19.1 N
Member 5=FL=19.1N
ΣFx=0
− FH −38.6 −19.1 cos 60 −19.1 cos 60=0
FH =−2.2
Member 4=FH=2.2N(C)
JOINT L
ΣFy=0
LHsin 60 −2.2 sin 60=0
LH =2.2 N
Member 3=LH=2.2N
ΣFx=0
− 9.55− 2.2cos 60− 2.2 cos 60= AL
AL=−5.4 N
Member 2=AL=-5.4N

ΣFx=0
-AHSin60 - 2.2Sin60 = 0
AH = -2.2 N

Member 1=AH= -2.2

13 | P a g e
EXPERIMENTAL CALCULATIONS

SAMPLE CALCULATION

F = EAε
= (-21×10-6) (2500 mm2) (250mm2)
= -13.1 N
That is the force in member 1 when a load of 50N was applied. The same formula was used to
calculate the forces in other members which were found to be.
Member 2 = 6.9 N
Member 3 = 14.4 N
Member 4 = -13.1 N
Member 5 = -15.6 N
Member 6 = 22.5 N
Member 7 = 10.6 N
Member 8 = -23.1 N
Member 9 = 26.9 N
Member 10 = 21.25 N

14 | P a g e
Member 11 = -25.6 N

DISCUSSION

The 50N load values established slight difference between theoretical value and measured values
and other value differed significantly with the theoretically value .Graph 1.1a shows that the
positive relation of applied load and train indicates members which are in tension and the
negative gradient of truss members strain versus applied load shows members in
compression ,each member in the warren trusses experience its own value of force that is
compression and [Link] was found that the forces in member 1 was 13.1
compression,member2 *6.9,member3*14.4, member4*-13.1, member 5* -15.6, member 6 *22.5
,member7 *10.6 ,member8 *-23.1 ,member9* 26.9 ,member10 *21.25 ,member 11* -25.6 and
the was smaller difference between theoretical and measured values . the interval forces applied
at L2 causes deflection at joint u0 and u1 .the deflection of this is based on the vertical movement
from original position when forced is being applied at [Link] average deflection at u1 is 0.492 and
at u0 is 0-196 meaning that the u1 joint has more deflection than [Link] member at at joint u1
experience more strain than those at [Link] values gap difference may have been caused by dial
gauge inaccuracy due to poor calibration ,shaking of warren truss ,and age of instruments

15 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

The experiment was successful as we were able to achieve our goals since we managed to
analyse the member forces and joint deflections of the warren truss using values from both the
HDA200 and the dial gauge, respectively. The relationship between the measured warren forces
in the truss was also determined theoretically. The force values obtained were used to calculate
the strain of members of the truss using the formula for calculating strain noted in the
introduction above.

RECOMMENDATION

Though the experiment was done for different loads, it is recommendable that it be repeated for
the very same loads but at more than just one joint. This will be helpful in determining whether
the results obtained are accurate or not by comparing results from both joints.

Zeroing the HDA200 and the dial gauge for the first load might be easily remembered but for the
rest of the loads it can be forgotten therefore it is very vital to ensure that for the next
experiments, the two measuring equipments are set to zero before engaging every other load.
This will improve the accuracy of the results which otherwise could have been affected by the
zero error.

16 | P a g e
If the experiment was to be repeated, the operators of the warren truss machine must first
familiarise themselves with how the machine works especially the adjustment of load part. This
will ensure that the load applied does not differ greatly from the one initially expected hence
inaccuracy will be minimal.

REFERENCES

Boon, G. (2019). Warren Truss | Garrett's Bridges. [online] [Link]. Available at:


[Link] [Accessed 28 Nov. 2019].

[Link]. (2019). 17th Street Wilderness Road Bridge. [online] Available at:


[Link] [Accessed 28 Nov. 2019].

HIBBELER, R. C. (2013). MACHANICS FOR ENGINNERS. SINGAPORE.

[Link]
sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjSwP7x4I3mAhWoy4UKHWh5Ct4QjRx6BAgBEA
Q&url=https%3A%2F%[Link]%2Fwatch%3Fv
%3DApLOyckf4rQ&psig=AOvVaw01fyo8edu7Sj-NjeOa0-fC&ust=1575059697239372

17 | P a g e

Common questions

Powered by AI

The experiment results displayed both minor and significant discrepancies between theoretical and experimental strain values. For example, theoretical member forces such as member 1 (-2.2 N, compression) contrasted with experimental results showing -13.1 N for the same member. Factors contributing to these differences could include dial gauge inaccuracy due to poor calibration, handling errors, and aging instruments that might have affected precision .

Using a free body diagram was crucial for visualizing forces acting on the truss and aided in setting up equilibrium equations necessary for calculating member forces. By isolating individual joints and analyzing how loads transfer through the system, the diagram provided a clear framework for applying equations of equilibrium to determine specific member forces like compression and tension .

The relationship between applied load and member strain in a truss directly correlates with structural behavior, indicating which members are in tension or compression. Positive strain values show tension, while negative values indicate compression. The pattern of strain under different loads reflects load distribution and helps evaluate the robustness and efficiency of the truss design in supporting dynamic loads, as seen in tension on central members and compression on outer ones .

Joint U1 displayed more deflection compared to joint U0 under the same applied loads. The average deflection at U1 was greater, indicating that the members connected to U1 experienced more strain than those at U0. This suggests that joint U1 may be subject to more significant structural changes under load due to its position or connections within the truss .

The method of sections is advantageous for calculating forces in specific truss members because it involves slicing the truss to isolate and analyze a section. This method is efficient for determining unknown values quickly. In contrast, the method of joints requires analyzing the equilibrium at each joint to find internal axial forces, which is useful for a comprehensive understanding of all forces acting on each member. Methods of sections offer speed in targeted inquiries, while methods of joints provide a detailed member-by-member analysis .

The experiments demonstrated that the Warren Truss design effectively spreads loads across equilateral triangular structures, mitigating compression effects while accommodating dynamic loads like vehicular traffic. This design strategy enhances stability and longevity, proving efficient where both compression and tension dynamically change per load conditions .

To enhance accuracy, it is recommended to repeat experiments with multiple joint loadings rather than relying on a single joint to compare results. Ensuring measurement devices like the HDA200 and dial gauge are zeroed before each load application is crucial, as zero error can skew results. Familiarity with equipment operation, particularly load adjustment, should be ensured to minimize discrepancies and inaccuracy .

The Warren Truss effectively handles forces of compression and tension by utilizing equilateral triangles to distribute loads evenly throughout the structure. The truss design ensures that the compression forces act on the sides of the triangles, while tension forces adjust according to the applied load. This load-sharing mechanism across the truss members mitigates the effects of compression and maintains structural integrity .

Zeroing measuring devices is crucial to eliminate initial offset errors, ensuring accurate measurements of changes in strain or deflection. Failing to do so can lead to cumulative errors that significantly skew results, leading to incorrect assumptions about structural behavior under loads. This can ultimately misguide design evaluations and structural assessments .

Strain was measured using dial gauges and strain gauges, while deflections were recorded at specific joints under different load conditions. These methods allow for precise measurements of how the truss behaves under load, providing data essential for comparing with theoretical predictions. Validating the truss design involves reconciling these measurements with calculated forces and deflections, thus confirming the structural assumptions and effectiveness .

You might also like