ESP2109 Design Project I

Mechanical Properties of Materials

and Structural Dynamics

Team 1C
Ardina Lukita Suhamdy
Darwin Hadinata
Goh See Ting
Josephine Ng Li Lin
Loh Hiok Huang Clara
Sim Wei Guang

A0112098J
A0118891W
A0111650X
A0118836X
A0126278Y
A0114645J

Engineering Science Programme

Faculty of Engineering
National University of Singapore
2014/2015 Semester 1

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1
1.2

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................... 2
PROJECT SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 2

THEORETICAL APPROACH ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1
BEAM BENDING THEORY ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Governing equation for Beam Bending ............................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Point Load Mathematical model....................................................................................................... 4
2.1.3 Boundary Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 4

DEFLECTION EXPERIMENT ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.1
SET-UP..................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Results for thick stick ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.2.2 Results for thin stick .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.3
LIMITATIONS OF EXPERIMENT ....................................................................................................................... 9

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 10

4.1
4.2
4.3

PRELIMINARY DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 10

INTERMEDIATE DESIGN.............................................................................................................................. 11
FINAL TOWER DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 11

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................... 13
DIMENSIONS OF THICK STICK.................................................................................................................................... 13
DIMENSIONS OF THIN STICK ..................................................................................................................................... 13
EXPERIMENTAL DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 13

1 Introduction
In real world applications, structures such as buildings and bridges have to be able to withstand
strong winds and earthquakes known as dynamic loads. The study of such forces involves the
objects structural dynamics. This project is therefore aimed at providing a better
understanding of how a structures design affects its ability to withstand dynamic loading.

1.1 Objectives
The first objective of this project is to determine the Youngs moduli of two different types of
wood through the beam bending test. To achieve this, an understanding of the beam bending
theory and its governing assumptions are required.
The second objective is to make use of the Youngs moduli determined to design and construct a
wooden tower which can resist sinusoidal motions of increasing amplitude and frequency. This
is achieved by the usage of software such as SOLIDWORKS and ABAQUS to perform a free
vibration analysis of the proposed tower design before actual testing on a shake table.

1.2 Project Scope

10 unidentified wooden sticks of 24 (thick) and 36 (thin) each are provided. The Youngs
moduli of the sticks are to be obtained experimentally and the values obtained are to be used in
designing the tower. The tower has to be contained within a base area of 80mm x 80mm and
have a minimum height of 400mm. In addition, steel masses of 600g each are to be secured at
heights of 250mm and 400mm on the tower. The entire structure will then be subjected to
sinusoidal motion on a shake table, beginning at an amplitude of 25mm at a frequency of 0.5Hz
and increasing to a maximum of 5Hz before further increasing the amplitude of motion up to a
maximum of 50mm. If the tower survives, addition steel masses will be added to either the
250mm or 400mm mark of the tower.

2 Theoretical Approach
2.1 Beam Bending Theory
To determine the Youngs modulus of the material, the experiment makes use of the beam
bending theory under the Euler-Bernoulli assumption. As such, the following conditions are
assumed to hold true for the experiment:
1) When the beam is curved, the normal to the beams neutral axis will remain straight, thus
the strain at a point can be related to its distance from the neutral axis using the radius of
curvature of the beam. This assumption is valid when the beams length is comparably
larger than its width or height.
2) The stress-strain relationship of the wooden sticks obey Hookes Law. Therefore, during the
experiment, the beam has to be loaded within the elastic region in order for the stress and
strain to be linearly related.
3) Deflections have to be kept small compared to the length of the beam. This ensures that the
moment-curvature relationship of the beam can be simplified.
2

2.1.1 Governing equation for Beam Bending

Based on small deflection theory, the moment curvature relationship can be simplified to

(1)

where is the deflection observed, is the horizontal distance of the load from the beams
boundary, is the bending moment, is the Youngs modulus of the beam, and is the second
moment of area.

Figure 1: Free body diagram of an infinitesimal

length of beam

From Figure 1, by balancing moments about point A,

( + ) + ( ) + ( + ) =

(2)

where is the shear force and is the weight of the load. By ignoring the higher order terms,
the equation can be simplified to:

(3)

By balancing the vertical forces;

( + ) =

(4)

From (1), (3), and (4), the governing equation for the bending of beams under a transverse load
is therefore

(5)

2.1.2 Point Load Mathematical model

For any point load , () can be expressed as
() = ( )
;
() = ( ) = ( ); ( ) = {
; >
where is the horizontal distance of the point load from the boundary.
The relationship between the deflection , transverse load and Youngs modulus can be
determined by integrating () for four times.

= ( ) +

= ( ) ( ) + +

= ( ) ( ) + + +

(6)

= ( ) ( ) + + + +
where constants , , , are to be determined.

2.1.3 Boundary Conditions

The experiment involves the use of a 4-point beam bending model so that the Euler-Bernoulli
assumption is kept true. This is achieved by loading the wooden sticks at two different points so
that each stick undergoes a pure bending moment and its normal remains straight.
Two points on the wooden stick are simply supported at a distance apart, and two equal point
loads are applied at an equal distance from each point. The boundary conditions for a simply
supported beam when = , = , and , are:
= ,

Considering the boundary conditions, the values for the arbitrary constants are
=

= ,

[( ) ( ) ]
,

Solving (6), we get the basic equation for deflection. As the same load F is applied in a
symmetrical manner, on opposite sides and equidistant from each simply supported end, the
same equation is obtained when analysis is carried out from the other end. As such, by the
principle of superposition, the final equation is

(7)

3 Deflection Experiment
To determine the Youngs moduli of the thick and thin sticks, a 4-point beam loading setup is
used as seen below in Figure 2. This setup tries to minimize the curving of the normal to the
beam axis during bending by replacing one transverse point load in the middle with two
different point loads equidistant from each end for more pure bending moments such as to
satisfy Euler-Bernoulli assumption more closely.

3.1 Set-up

Figure 2: Experimental set-up

1) Clamp securely two semi-circular steel supports 12 apart.

2) Place the stick on the semi-circular steel supports with a half-span overhang on both
ends. Level the stick first by using a spirit level and then a dial gauge
3) Place the dial gauge at mid-span.
4) Place hangers at equal horizontal distance from each semi-circular steel supports. The
initial deflection by the hangers will be ignored by zeroing the dial gauge measurement.
This assumes that the initial resistance in compressing the contact point of the dial
gauge is the largest, allowing it to be overcome.
5) Place equal loads onto each hanger and record the sticks deflection from dial gauge.
Loads should be placed gently to reduce the uncertainty of any additional forces.
6) Repeat step 5 until enough data points are taken, ensuring that the deflection is kept
within the elastic region of the stick.
7) Decrease the loads by removing the loads progressively. Record deflection value to
countercheck the deflection at each step.
8) Repeat steps 2-7 with the wooden stick oriented differently.
9) Repeat steps 2-8 for the thin stick.

3.2 Data Collection & Analysis

3.2.1 Results for thick stick

No.

Force (N)

()

No.

Force (N)

()

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

0.3987
0.5950
1.0855
1.5760
1.6741
2.1646
2.3608
2.5570

0
0.06
0.19
0.325
0.35
0.48
0.515
0.59

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

0.3987
0.5950
1.0855
1.5760
1.6741
2.1646
2.3608
2.5570
2.6551

0
0.18
0.68
1.23
1.275
1.76
1.955
2.145
2.26

Table 1: Deflection table for thick stick,

b = 4.8mm , h = 9.63mm

Table 2: Deflection table for thick stick,

b = 9.63mm , h = 4.8mm

Deflection - Force graph (Thick stick)

2.5

y = 0.9998x - 0.3958
R = 0.9991

Defelction (mm)

2
1.5

I = 88.75mm^4

I = 357.22mm^4

y = 0.2667x - 0.1
R = 0.9987

0.5
0
0

0.5

1.5
Force (N)

2.5

The Youngs modulus for the thick stick is determined to be an average of 10.93GPa.
The maximum deflection of the stick was 0.59mm and 2.26mm respectively which corresponds
to 0.19% and 0.74% of the total length of tested stick. As such, relatively small deflection allows
for the Euler-Bernoulli assumptions of small beam deflection to be valid.

3.2.2 Results for thin stick

No.

Force (N)

()

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

0.3967
0.4948
0.6910
0.7891
0.8872
0.9853
1.0834
1.1815

0
0.68
1.52
1.97
2.36
2.98
3.24
3.81

Table 3: Deflection table for soft stick, b = 4.85mm , h = 2.47mm

Deflection - Force graph (Thin stick)

4.5
y = 4.4353x - 1.3971
R = 0.9317

Deflection (mm)

4
3.5
3
2.5

I = 6.09mm^4

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.5

Force (N)

1.5

The Youngs Modulus for thin stick is determined to be 2.48GPa. The maximum deflection of the
stick was 3.81mm which corresponds to 2.5% of the total length of the stick. As such, the EulerBernoulli assumption holds true for this experiment as well.

3.3 Limitations of experiment

i) The thin stick used is only able to stand on its wide side where > as it flips over when
placed in the other configuration. Thus only one side of the stick could be experimented with
and it resulted in significantly less data points being taken.
ii) The thin stick starts to go into its plastic region after loading of the eighth mass, thus 2
from removing the masses cannot be obtained as the wood has already been deformed.
iii) The large denomination of the slotted masses provided limits the increments in which the
mass can be loaded. This makes it difficult to observe if the loading for both sticks has entered
the plastic region. To alleviate the situation, large increments in masses are used at the start of
loading and smaller increments towards the end to prevent overloading of the beam.
iv) The large denominations of masses also prevents measurement of the load-deflection
relationship in smaller intervals. This is especially crucial for the thin stick as small increments
in the load result in a large increase in its deflection. The lack of smaller mass intervals limits
the number of data point that can be used to plot the graph.
v) The dial gauge possesses a resistance from the deflection caused by the weights. However,
after the initial displacement, the increase in resistance decreases with small increments in
deflection. As such, the dial gauge is zeroed after the first deflection.
vi) That sticks provided do not have the same density. This is especially so for the thin sticks
which range in mass from 0.8g to 3.1g. As the value of Youngs modulus is related to the density
of a material, this might eventually compromise the tower design and its strength.

4 Structural Analysis
The towers are modelled in ABAQUS to investigate the relationship between their different
structural features and their dynamic stability. A force is applied at each of the 250mm and
400mm marks where the loads are to be placed. The natural frequency of the tower is obtained
from the software. Additional forces are then applied at the 250mm mark to simulate additional
loading to determine the natural frequencies of the tower with additional loads. This allows for
a better understanding of the towers response to vibrations when it is loaded.
The parameters used in the simulations include a given Poisson value of 0.3 as well as Youngs
moduli of 10.93GPa for thick sticks and 2.48GPa for thin sticks as determined above.

4.1 Preliminary Design

The primary aim is to design a tower which has a natural frequency
that exceeds the frequency of the shake table (5Hz), to ensure that
the tower will not be affected by resonance frequency. In the first
design, four sides bracing with alternating cross and singledirection bracing are introduced. The natural frequency obtained is
27.178 Hz, much higher than 5 Hz.
Thin wood is used for the bracings to allow the structure to be
more flexible when subjected to horizontal forces. Thick wood is
used for the columns in order for the structure to be more stable in
supporting the downward force exerted by the steel blocks.
The next consideration is to design a structure that can withstand
at least 600g of load each on both the top and middle platforms.
Based on a stress analysis performed in ABAQUS, both columns
experience high stress and the upper columns experience
excessive stress as well. This is shown in Figure _, where colours
further up the scale in Figure _ indicate higher stress experienced.
However, as the intention is to add subsequent weights onto the
middle platform, the topmost tier has to have sufficient space to
allow additional weights to be fitted in. Additional weights should
be added to the middle platform instead of the top so as to lower
the overall centre of gravity of the structure. Therefore, in the next
design, additional tiers are introduced to lessen the stress on the
columns while still maintaining a natural frequency above 5Hz.

Figure 3: Preliminary design

Figure 4: Levels of stress

experienced

10

4.2 Intermediate Design

This design incorporates an additional tier as compared to the
initial design. This is achieved by dividing the 250mm mark from
the ground level into two levels and with bracing on each of them,
thus not adding to the height of the whole structure. As observed,
the natural frequency of the building increases to 37.148Hz as
compared to 27.178Hz in the previous setup. This additional
bracing aims to further distribute the weight of the loads that will
be placed. However, as additional weights will be added onto the
middle tier, more stress will be introduced to the bottom tiers. As
such, further bracing to the bottom will be needed in the
subsequent design.

Figure 5: Intermediate design

4.3 Final Tower Design

The final design incorporates yet
another tier of alternate cross-single
bracing; there are now three levels
within a height of 250mm.

Figure 6: Final tower design

A central pillar is also introduced to

further reduce the stress from the
vertical force of the loads
experienced by the four columns.
The alternate cross and singledirection bracing is kept from
previous designs for efficiency while
maintaining its structural stability.
The single bracing on each side
mirrors that of its opposite side to
prevent rotational moments during
the shake table test, while the cross
bracing provide more rigidity and
stability to support more load stress.

The natural frequency of the final tower is 41.100Hz, well above the maximum 5Hz frequency
that will be applied during the shake table test.

11

5 Conclusion
Overall, the project has demonstrated the importance of the Youngs modulus value of different
materials in designing a dynamically stable structure. In order to obtain the most accurate
experimental result of Youngs modulus, the four-point beam bending experiment has been
used to ensure that the wooden stick undergoes pure bending moments. With the aid of Finite
Element Analysis software ABAQUS, the structural dynamics of preliminary tower designs have
then been analysed and improved upon in subsequent designs. In the construction of the final
product, additional factors such as damping and efficiency of the tower have also been taken
into consideration. As such, although a structure is designed largely based on the Youngs
moduli of the materials it comprises, a more comprehensive consideration of other factors will
help to ensure a more stable and successful tower.

12

Appendix A
Dimensions of thick stick
1

Average

Width (b/mm)

9.55

9.6

9.7

9.65

9.65

9.63

Depth (h/mm)

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

Length of beam between supports (L/mm)

304.8

Length of weight from support (a/mm)

101.6

Dimensions of thin stick

1

Average

Width (b/mm)

4.85

4.85

4.8

4.85

4.9

4.85

Depth (h/mm)

2.5

2.45

2.45

2.5

2.45

2.47

Length of beam between supports (L/mm)

152.4

Length of weight from support (a/mm)

101.6

Experimental Data
Force (N)

()

()

()

1.

Total mass on one

hanger (g)
40.65

0.3987

2.

60.65

0.5950

0.06

0.06

0.06

3.

110.65

1.0855

0.19

0.19

0.19

4.

160.65

1.5760

0.32

0.33

0.325

5.

170.65

1.6741

0.35

0.35

0.35

6.

220.65

2.1646

0.48

0.48

0.48

7.

240.65

2.3608

0.51

0.52

0.515

8.

260.65

2.5570

0.59

0.59

No.

Table 4: Detailed deflection table for thick stick, b = 4.8mm , h = 9.63mm

No.

Total mass on one

hanger (g)

Force (N)

()

()

()

1.

40.65

0.3987

2.

60.65

0.5950

0.17

0.19

0.18

13

3.

110.65

1.0855

0.68

0.68

0.68

4.

160.65

1.5760

1.22

1.24

1.23

5.

170.65

1.6741

1.25

1.30

1.275

6.

220.65

2.1646

1.75

1.77

1.76

7.

240.65

2.3608

1.95

1.96

1.955

8.

260.65

2.5570

2.14

2.15

2.145

9.

270.65

2.6551

2.26

2.26

Table 5: Detailed deflection table for thick stick, b = 9.63mm , h = 4.8mm

No.

Total mass on one

hanger (g)

Force (N)

()

1.

40.44

0.3967

2.

50.44

0.4948

0.68

3.

70.44

0.6910

1.52

4.

80.44

0.7891

1.97

5.

90.44

0.8872

2.36

6.

100.44

0.9853

2.98

7.

110.44

1.0834

3.24

8.

120.44

1.1815

3.81

Table 6: Detailed deflection table for soft stick, b = 4.85mm , h = 2.47mm

14