DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL

ENGINEERING
BACHELOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BEC303 / CIVE3807
STRUCTURE, HYDRAULIC AND
TRAFFIC LABORATORY

GROUP REPORT - STRUCTURE

REPORT TITLE
THREE HINGED ARCH

GIVEN DATE

SUBMISSION
DATE
LECTURERS Haslina Mohamed
NAME
1. Noor Affendi Bin Dikkir 152015122

2. Muhamed Hafiz Bin Ibrahim 151014220

3. Nabil Zaed Bin Shaiful Nizam 153015510

NAME & MATRIC
4. Muhamad Haziq Harahap B Mohd Azili 153015818

5. Hidayat Ahmad Faiz 151914674

Marks
Table of Contents

1. Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Theory ............................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Purpose of Work............................................................................................ 5
1.4 Objective ........................................................................................................ 5

2. Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Apparatus....................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Procedure ....................................................................................................... 7

3. Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Data Collection and Recording .................................................................... 9

4. Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 9

5. Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................. 11

5.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 11

6. Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................. 12

6.1 References .................................................................................................... 12

7. Chapter 7 ............................................................................................................. 12

7.1 Appendices ................................................................................................... 12

1
1. Chapter 1

1.1 Introduction

In case of beams supporting uniformly distributed load, the maximum

bending moment increases with the square of the span and hence they
become uneconomical for long span structures. In such situations arches
could be advantageously employed, as they would develop horizontal
reactions, which in turn reduce the design bending moment. (Kharagpur,
2015)

For example, in the case of a simply supported beam shown in

Fig. 1, the bending moment below the load is 3PL/16. Now consider a
two hinged symmetrical arch of the same span and subjected to similar
loading as that of simply supported beam. The vertical reaction could be
calculated by equations of statics. The horizontal reaction is determined
by the method of least work. (Kharagpur, 2015)

Now the bending moment below the load is 3PL/16 - Hy. It is

clear that the bending moment below the load is reduced in the case of
an arch as compared to a simply supported beam. It is observed in the
last lesson that, the cable takes the shape of the loading and this shape is
termed as funicular shape. If an arch were constructed in an inverted
funicular shape then it would be subjected to only compression for those
loadings for which its shape is inverted funicular. (Kharagpur, 2015)

2
 a) Cable in Tension b) Arch in
Compression

FIGURE 1: Cable and Arch Structure

Since in practice, the actual shape of the arch differs from the
inverted funicular shape or the loading differs from the one for which
the arch is an inverted funicular, arches are also subjected to bending
moment in addition to compression. As arches are subjected to
compression, it must be designed to resist buckling. (Kharagpur, 2015)

Until the beginning of the 20th century, 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 (Reid, 1984). Now,
arches are mainly used in bridge construction and doorways. In earlier
days arches were constructed using stones and bricks. In modern times
they are being constructed of reinforced concrete and steel. (Kharagpur,
2015)

1.2 Theory

There are mainly three types of arches that are commonly used
in practice: three hinged arch, two-hinged arch and fixed-fixed arch.
Three-hinged arch is statically determinate structure and its reactions /
internal forces are evaluated by static equations of equilibrium. Two-
hinged arch and fixed-fixed arch are statically indeterminate structures.
(Ambrose, 2012)

3
 The indeterminate reactions are determined by the method of
least work or by the flexibility matrix method. In this experiment three
hinged arch is discussed.

a) Three-hinged arch b) Two-hinged Arch

c) Fixed hinged Arch

FIGURE 2: Types of Arches

In this experiment, Three-hinged arch is used. The apparatus is

set up with height of 200 mm, span of 1000 mm, distance of the load
from pin support 125 mm(distance between hanger) x 4 = 500 mm,
thickness of arch 8 mm, and width of arch 40 mm .

4
 FIGURE 3: Typical Three Hinged Arch

To Find the theoretical values, use the formula HA = WkL/(2h),

whereas W is load, h is height, and kL is the distance of the load from
the pinned support.

1.3 Purpose of Work

The purpose is to find the experimental horizontal thrust with

increment of load and compare it with theoretical values of horizontal
thrust. After that, a graph is plotted to compare them and to find the
margin of error from theoretical and experimental values.

1.4 Objective

1. To determine the relationship between applied load and the

horizontal thrust at the support of a three hinge parabolic arch.
2. To compare the value of theoretical and experimental value of
horizontal thrust.
3. To draw and plot graph of horizontal thrust versus load for both
experimental and theoretical value.
4. To find the percentage of error, % between experimental and
theoretical horizontal thrust value.

5
2. Chapter 2

2.1 Apparatus

1. Support Frame
2. Three Hinge Arch assembly
3. A simple support
4. A roller support

FIGURE 4: Support Frame and Three Hinge Arch

Assembly with a Roller and a Simple Support

5. Set of Weights

FIGURE 5: Set of Weights with 5 N each

6
2.2 Procedure

1. Digital indicator is connected to the load cell

2. The indicator is switched on. The indicator is switched on 10

minutes earlier before taking a reading for the purpose of the
stability of the reading.

3. The load hanger is placed (where the load is) 500 mm from the
distance of the load from the pinned support.

4. The initial reading on the indicator is noted. If the initial value is

not zero, the tare button is pressed to make it zero.

7
5. The load is placed on the load hanger.

6. The indicator reading is then recorded. This represents the

horizontal reaction of the pinned support.

7. The load on the load hanger is increased the horizontal reaction is

recorded.

8. Step 7 is repeated for another four load increments.

9. The result is then tabulated.

10. The experiment is repeated for another set of readings.

8
3. Chapter 3

3.1 Data Collection and Recording

Load (N) Horizontal Thrust (N)

Experimental Theoretical
5 5.1 6.25
10 10.3 12.5
15 15.9 18.75
20 21.5 25
25 26.8 31.25

TABLE 1: Tabulated Result from Experiment and Theoretical Value

4. Chapter 4
4.1 Data Analysis

Calculation of the Theoretical value of Horizontal Thrust

By using the Formula of Horizontal Force,

HA = 2
(5 )(125 4)
For Load 5 N , HA= = 6.25 N
(2 200)
(10 )(125 4)
For Load 10 N, HA= = 12.5 N
(2 200)
(15 )(125 4)
For Load 15 N, HA= = 18.75 N
(2 200)
(20 )(125 4)
For Load 20 N, HA= = 25.0 N
(2 200)
(25 )(125 4)
For Load 25 N, HA= = 31.25 N
(2 200)

9
 Then, a graph of Horizontal thrust of experimental versus
theoretical value is produced.

HORIZONTAL THRUST OF EXPERIMENTAL

VERSUS THEORETICAL VALUE
35

30

25
HORIZONTAL THRUST

20 Experimental
Theoretical
15
Linear (Experimental)
10 Linear (Theoretical)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LOAD (N)

GRAPH 1: Horizontal thrust of experimental versus

theoretical value

To calculate the percentage error, %

=| | x 100%

2410
Experimental Value = 22.59.5 = 1.0769 (values obtain from graph slope)

2512.5
Theoretical value = = 1.25 (values obtain from graph slope)
2010

1.07691.25
Percentage error, % = | | x 100% = 13.848 % of error
1.25

10
5. Chapter 5
5.1 Discussion

Based on the result, the experimental value is lower than the theoretical
value. There are many causes of that, such as the digital indicator cannot
detect the remaining load that acted on that arch due to placement of the
digital indicator is not correct enough. The type of arch material may
also affect the distribution of load on its body.

5.2 Conclusion

We can conclude that the relationship between horizontal thrust at the

support and the applied load is directly proportional, the higher the load
the higher the horizontal thrust at the support.

At hinge at the crown, the rotation of the connected structure is

not prevented. Therefore, the moment is zero as it does not resists
rotation. Whereas in fixed supports, the bending moment is nonzero as
it resists rotation of the connected structure.

The probable source of error in this experiment is the human

error; the person who take reading may read the value wrongly or
another group member accidently touch the three hinge arch during
reading the value. Furthermore, the digital indicator is not reset to zero
may make the reading wrong to a minor scale. Moreover, the set of
weights used may not identical in size even though the weight is the
same could contribute some margin error.

11
 6. Chapter 6
6.1 References

1) Kharagpur. (2015). Three Hinge Arch. Retrieved from Online Course

NPTEL: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105105109/pdf/m5l32.pdf

2) Reid, E. (1984). Understanding Buildings. A Multidisciplinary Approach,

12.

3) Ambrose, J. (2012). Hoboken. Building Structures, 32.

7. Chapter 7
7.1 Appendices

APPENDIX I: Support Frame And Three APPENDIX II: Set of Weights

Hinge Arch

APPENDIX III: Digital Indicator

12