ENGRD 2020

Spring 2013
Laboratory I: Analysis of a Truss
By: Timothy Lai

Performed: 2/7/13
Performed with: Sydney Sheridan
TA: Yi Xu
TA signed data on page: 6

Answers to Questions:
1. See attached sheet. Equations used included F = EA to calculate force, as well as sum of
moments in order to calculate the forces in certain components.
Ex.

F = EA
F = (1107)(75)(0.3125)
F = 234.375 N

Ex.

MM = 0
FBC(L) + (

P
)(2L) = 0
2

FBC = - P
2. Our results from the small truss were very accurate. There were very small percent
differences between our measured forces and calculated forces.

Strain v Load at Gauge 1

250
200
150
Strain at Gauge 1 100
50
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Load (lbs)

a.

The
measured strains for the small truss do vary linearly with the applied load as seen
in the below graph. The point (0,0) should be included in the graph since when
there is 0 load, there is subsequently 0 strain.

b. Our measured data does not differ much from my theoretical data. As seen in the
chart displaying measured and calculated force, the percent differences between
the two did not exceed 6%. However, the trend where the calculated force was
greater in magnitude than the measured force did persist throughout all data
points. Simplification in our theoretical values included an approximate value of
Youngs Modulus, E, as well as possible error in the value of the surface area of
the aluminum bar that was given to us. Together, these two may have contributed
to a slight degree of uncertainty in the accuracy of our calculated force. Similarly,
errors in our measurements include the lack of precision in our measured strains,
particularly because when conducting the lab, we noticed that the strain reading
would often fluctuate by 1.
c. The fluctuation of the reading of the strain by the machine most likely had the
largest effect on the data. Compared to the other uncertainties, this one has the
potential to create the largest change. Strain readings that are off by 1 or 2 units
would be amplified in the measured force calculation, resulting in a larger error.
Furthermore, since Youngs Modulus and the surface area of the aluminum bar
were given to us in the lab manual, we can safely say that they were very
reasonable approximations of the actual values.
3. Strain has no units. It is defined as the change in length after a load is applied divided by
the original length.
a. Strain gauges are placed on opposite sides of a bar because the bar is a 3D object.
More often than not, the strain at one side of the bar will be different from the
strain at the other side. For example, when a bar is bent but has no load, the strain
on one side will be significantly greater than the strain on the other side. As a
result, we need to place gauges on both sides of the bar in order to account for
such an occurrence.
b. The strain at gauge 5 is different from the average of those at location 2 because
there is a gauge at only one side. As a result, gauge 5 does not completely
accurately measure the strain at its point, whereas the gauges at location 2 do.
This tells us that the results from the gauges at location 2 are more reliable than
the results from gauge 5.
4. Based on the pre-lab calculations of the truss, we see that only bar AC is in tension, while
1
bars AB and BC are in compression. Since bar ACs tension is equal to
P where P is
2
the load, bar AC will not fail as long as the load is less than or equal to 26,000 lbs. Bars
2 P.
AB and BC are both in compression, and their internal force are both equal to
2
This means that they will not fail as long as the load is less than or equal to 14,142.136

lbs. We thus take the smaller of the two loads, so the maximum load that the truss can
support without failing is 14,142.136 lbs.
5. Our measured and calculated force for the hanging weight experiment was identical.
Even when we calculated the value of the measured force, there were no decimals in the
final measured force. Hence, there as a 0% difference.
6. Our theory and experimental values for the force on bar GF (gauges 1 and 5) were very
close. Our measured force differed from the theoretical force by only 1.25 N and had a
0.38% difference. This slight error could probably be attributed to the inaccuracy of the
machine we used, as well as the issue of maintain perfect balance on the wooden
platform.

Observations and conclusions:

Although previously mentioned in some of the questions, one very noticeable degree of
error was the fluctuation of the strain reading on the digital strain indicator. Even after waiting
for a couple of seconds to see if the number would even out and stay constant, we found that it
didnt. As a result, this definitely had an effect on the results that we calculated.
Another observation that we had was the difference between the initial and final zeros.
While this was not a major issue, it was definitely one that was noticed. On occasion, the initial
and final zeros would not match up simply because the bar hadnt had time to change back to its
original shape. Naturally, if we had waited for the bar to change exactly back to its original strain
values, we wouldve been in the lab for the entire day. Again, this wasnt a large problem, but it
is still one worth noting.
Finally, in the performance of the large truss experiment, we found that perfectly
balancing on the block of wood to be a slight challenge. Although my partner managed to
balance on the platform fairly well, there is always a slight margin of error since she no doubt
had to shift her weight once in a while to maintain perfect balance. As a result, the difference
between the measured and calculated forces was slightly greater than in the previous
experiments.