Strength of Materials, Georgia Murphy ID: 19105686

EXPERIMENT NO 1
TENSILE TEST TO DESTRUCTION ON A MILD STEEL BAR

Objectives
A mild steel bar is loaded to failure to obtain:
a) Stress/ strain diagrams
b) Young’s Modulus (E)
c) Percentage elongation at failure (measure of ductility)
d) Percentage reduction in cross-sectional area at failure.

Experimental Procedure
1. Measure bar diameter prior to loading (3 readings). Using the average diameter,
calculate the cross-sectional area.
2. Using the punch, mark out two gauge lengths (2” and 8”) on the bar.
3. Attach a dial gauge to the bar.
4. Apply loads in increments of 2.5 kN until the yield stress is reached. For each load
value, measure the deformation over the 2” gauge length.
(Note: 1 division on gauge = 1”/2000)
5. After the yield stress, the deformations of the bar over an 8” gauge length are
measured. This time, the load is slowly increased and the load corresponding to
each 1/8” increment of displacement is read off machine. Continue until failure is
reached.
6. Measure the deformation at failure and diameter at the break.
7. Calculate stress and strain and plot stress-strain curves (i) in the elastic range (ii)
for the entire range of loads.
8. Determine Young’s modulus from slope of graph (i).
9. Calculate the ductility measures. % Elongation & % reduction in section at failure.

RESULTS
Initial readings
Diameter readings= 10.1mm ; 10.98mm ; 10.8mm
Average diameter =10.626mm
Cross-sectional area = 88.6919mm^2

Readings up to elastic limit

Load (kN) Extension (divs) Stress (kN/mm^2) Strain
0 0 0 0
4.6 6 .0519 1.5 x10^-3
5 8 .0564 2 x10^-3
7.5 11 .0846 2.75 x10^-3
10 19 .1127 4.75 x10^-3
 12.5 24 .1409 6 x10^-3
15 31 .1691 7.75 x10^-3
17.5 39 .1973 9.75 x10^-3
20 45 .2255 0.01125
22.5 52 .2537 0.013

Readings after yield

Load (kN) Extension (in) Stress (kN/mm^2) Strain
25.9 1/8 .2920 0.015625
28.9 2/8 .3259 0.03125
30.6 3/8 .3450 0.046875

Final Readings
Extension at failure = 0.026 inches
Diameter at break = 6.9mm

Some calculations
% elongation = 1.3%
% Reduction in cross section = 57.83%
The diameter at the break point decreased from 10.626mm to 6.9mm, a 35.06% decrease.
Therefore, the cross sectional area(pi*r^2) decreased from 88.69 mm^2 to 37.39 mm^2 at
this point, a 57.83% decrease in cross sectional area.

Stress-Strain Curves

Stress Strain Curve in the elastic range

0.3

0.25 y = 18.449x + 0.0208

Stress (kN/mm^2)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Strain

Slope = 18.449
 Young’s Modulus for Mild Steel: E= 18.449MP

Stress Strain Curve for entire range of loads

0.3
Ultimate Strength

---------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure stress
0.25

0.2
Stress (kN/mm^2)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Strain
Elastic Region Plastic Region

Conclusions
In conclusion, this tensile test has given us a thorough grasp of the mild steel bar's
mechanical properties, with useful implications for engineering applications and projects.
The objective of this experiment was to analyse the mechanical properties of a mild steel bar
through a tensile test to failure. Using stress-strain diagrams, Youngs Modulus (E),
Percentage elongation at failure, and percentage reduction in cross sectional area at failure.
Initial measurements, including three diameter readings, allowed us to determine the average
diameter and subsequently calculate the cross-sectional area of the mild steel bar (88.6919
mm^2). With this initial information gathered we could carry out the experiment and
calculate the % Elongation at failure which was calculated to be 1.3%, providing a measure
of the material's ductility. And the % Reduction in cross-sectional area at failure which was
determined to be 57.83%, indicating the extent of deformation and necking observed in the
material. The slope of the linear portion of the elastic curve provided the Young's Modulus
(E) for mild steel, which was calculated to be 18.449 MPa.
The obtained results contribute valuable insights into the mechanical behaviour of mild steel
under tensile loading conditions. The observed % elongation and % reduction in cross-
sectional area offer practical information for material selection and design considerations.
The Young's Modulus calculation gives us a quantitative measurement of the material's
stiffness and ability to withstand deformation.
 EXPERIMENT NO 2 : FORCES IN A ROOF TRUSS WITH A
CENTRAL AND A WIND LOAD

Objectives
Roof trusses of the type we will examine are usually wooden and commonly used in domestic
buildings. Generally, these trusses are built beforehand off site. They form a three-
dimensional once fixed together using longitudinal batons or purlins. In service, a roof truss
has to withstand many forces. We will look at two cases of loading and compare the forces
created in the truss members.
(1) The first loading is central to the frame and acts downwards. This loading could be from
a water tank for instance.
(2) The second loading on the frame is at an angle, as may be caused by a wind, for example.

Figure 1: Idealised Roof Truss

Experimental Procedure
1. Make sure the equipment is set up properly and the Load Cell is setup to the right
position
for the Central Load or Angle Load.
2. Apply a preload of 100 N (in the direction of loading) and zero the load cell.
3. Carefully apply a load of 500 N and check the frame is stable and secure.
4. Return the load to zero.
5. Apply loads in the increments of 100N and record the strain readings.

For both experiments (Central Load and Angle Load) complete:

• Table 1 with the strain readings;
• Table 2 with the corrected strain readings (or true member strains);
• Table 3 (for 500 N load) completed for experimental and theoretical forces.

Assumptions : Rod diameter = 6mm , Esteel = 210 GNm-2

Results of a Central Load
Table 1: Member Strain (microepsilon)
BAR AE AG AH BE BF CI CJ DJ EF FG GH HI IJ
Gauge no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0 -8 4 -30 -31 -20 -44 -35 -14 -26 -35 -41 -12 10
100 -25 -14 -46 -15 -5 -29 -20 -32 -26 -34 -24 -12 10
Load (N)

200 -42 -31 -63 -1 10 -13 -5 -49 -26 -34 -7 -12 10

300 -59 -49 -80 15 25 3 11 -67 -26 -34 10 -12 10
400 -76 -66 -97 29 39 19 26 -85 -27 -34 28 -12 10
500 -94 -84 - 45 54 35 42 - -27 -34 45 -12 11
114 112

Table 2: True Member Strains (microepsilon)

BAR AE AG AH BE BF CI CJ DJ EF FG GH HI IJ
Gauge no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 -17 -18 -16 -16 15 15 15 -18 0 1 17 0 0
Load (N)

200 -34 -27 -33 30 30 31 30 -35 0 1 34 0 0

300 -51 -53 -50 46 45 47 46 -53 0 1 51 0 0
400 -68 -70 -67 60 59 63 61 -71 -1 1 69 0 0
500 -86 -88 -84 76 74 79 77 -98 -1 1 86 0 1

Table 3: Comparison of experimental and theoretical forces

Load (N) Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)
AE -510.56 -25
AG -522.43 -25
AH -498.68 195.6875
BE 451.19 -408.375
BF 439.32 -408.375
CI 469 93.969
CJ 457.13 93.969
DJ -581.8 -108.375
EF -5.94 0
FG 5.94 0
GH 510.56 -195.6875
HI 0 0
IJ 5.94 0
Results of Angled Load
Table 4: Member Strains (microepsilon)
BAR AE AG AH BE BF CI CJ DJ EF FG GH HI IJ
Gauge no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 -9 3 -30 -31 -20 -45 -35 -15 -27 -35 -42 13 9
100 -1 12 -23 -23 -12 -51 -41 -7 -26 -36 -50 5 9
Load (N)

200 -8 21 -14 -14 -3 -57 -49 3 -26 -36 -60 24 11

300 16 29 25 -9 3 -64 -57 12 -26 -36 -67 40 12
400 25 37 4 -4 8 73 -66 20 -26 -37 -76 56 12
500 33 46 12 3 14 -81 -74 30 -26 -37 -84 74 12

Table 5: True member strains (microepsilon)

BAR AE AG AH BE BF CI CJ DJ EF FG GH HI IJ
Gauge no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Load (N)

100 8 9 7 8 8 -6 -6 8 1 -1 -8 -8 0
200 1 18 16 17 17 -12 -14 18 1 -1 -18 11 2
300 25 26 55 22 23 -19 -22 27 1 -1 -25 27 3
400 34 34 34 27 28 118 -31 35 1 -2 -34 43 3
500 42 43 42 34 34 -36 -39 45 1 -2 -42 61 3

Table 6: Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Forces

Load (N) Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)
AE 249.34 -108.375
AG 255.28 -500
AH 249.34 145.6875
BE 201.85 -208.375
BF 201.85 -208.375
CI -213.72 93.86
CJ -231.53 -93.86
DJ 267.15 -108.375
EF 5.94 0
FG -11.87 0
GH -249.34 216.75
HI 362.14 -212.6875
IJ 17.81 0
COMMENTS
Does the simplified pin joint theory predict the behaviour of the truss? There is one
member of particular interest, which one is it and why?
The simplified pin joint theory is a concept used in the analysis of trusses. A pin joint, also
known as a hinge or pivot joint, allows for rotation between connected members but does not
transmit any axial force. The simplified pin joint theory assumes that the joints in a truss are
frictionless, hinge-like connections.
The simplified pin joint theory does not perfectly predict the behaviour of this truss, in both
load cases (central and angled), several members show discrepancies between experimental
and theoretical forces, indicating that the simplified pin joint theory has limitations in
accurately predicting the behaviour of the truss. I think member GH is a member of particular
interest in demonstrating this; For the central load, table 3, the experimental force in member
GH (510.56N) is significantly different from the theoretical force(-195.6875N). For the
angled load, table 6, the experimental force in member GH(-249.34N) is also notably
different from the theoretical force (216.75). Assuming there are no errors in the calculations
these discrepancies could be because the simplified pin joint theory assumes that the joints
are frictionless and that the members are connected by perfectly pinned joints. Real-world
conditions may introduce friction, imperfections in joints, or other factors that affect the
accuracy of the theoretical predictions.

Why is it important we always examine all of the load cases that a structure may be
exposed to?
It is crucial that all possible load cases that a structure may be exposed to are examined to
ensure the safety, stability and functionality of the structure. Analysing multiple load cases
can help to identify critical conditions and potential weak points or vulnerabilities in the
structure that could lead to structural failure. Engineers can then design structures with
alternate load paths to ensure robustness and resilience, reducing the risk of failure in the
event of unexpected conditions. In addition, structural design codes and standards typically
require engineers to assess structures under various load conditions. Compliance with these
codes is essential for obtaining regulatory approvals and ensuring that the structure meets
minimum safety standards.

The roof truss structure may need to carry both of these loads simultaneously.
How would we assess the total load in each one of the members?
When a roof truss structure needs to carry multiple loads simultaneously, the total load in
each member can be assessed by combining the effects of individual loads through the
principles of superposition, the superposition principle states that: the response of a structure
to the combined effect of several loads is equal to the sum of the responses caused by each
individual load acting alone. This principle can be applied to both external loads and internal
member forces. For each member of the truss, you must sum the forces and moments applied
by each individual load case (adding the axial forces, shears, and moments).