Lab Report S2 Ring Frame Analysis

Kishan Halai, Group M4, kishan.halai.2@city.ac.uk

Introduction
This laboratory investigation looks at the bending deflection of a circular frame under diagonal
tensile load. The finite element method is used to determine the deflection under the load
For a symmetric structure that is subject to a symmetric load, the frames deflection should also act
symmetrically for both vertical and horizontal directions. The finite element method can be used to
investigate the deflective behavior of the structure, but this process can be simplified by utilizing
axis of symmetry. Take a circle for example, which has two axis of symmetry; the vertical and the
horizontal, and can be simplified by observing the behavior of one quarter of the shape. As the load
is taken as symmetric, the simulation can be run for one quarter of the shape, and under one
quarter of the original load, and the deflection should be the same.
To determine the area inside a circle, a determinable shape like a square could be placed inside,
where the area of the shape gives an approximation to the area of the circle. As the number of
sides of the shape increases, the accuracy of the approximation increases as the space between the
sides of the internal shape and the curve decrease. To solve a circular frame problem, the loading
problem can be solved using a 2-Element idealization and a 3-element idealization, and then using
a relationship between the two to approximate the deflection value for the full curve.

RN =R E (1

R E=R3 +

K
)
N2

N 21
( R2R1 )
N 22N 21

Where RE is the exact value, RN corresponds to the value for N members. The second equation
outlines the relationship between the results at two different values for N, and then approximates
the RE value.

Experimental Arrangement

Circular frame of 61cm diameter (rectangular cross section of 2.54cm by 0.635cm)

Load hanger attached to the circular frame
Six 2kg Loads
Digital Deflection gauge (attached to circular frame)

The experimental setup for this investigation consisted of the apparatus listed above, and allowed
the user to apply loads to a circular frame, which produced a deflection against the circular frame.
The deflection was measured by the digital gauge, so a table of load against deflection can be
constructed. Loads of 2kg were added from 0kg to 12kg, then back down to 0kg. From this, the
deflection against load can be plot on a graph and the constant /P can be obtained. This constant
gives us an experimental result for the behaviour for the circular frame.
To obtain a theoretical result to demonstrate the previously defined symmetrical relationship, the
finite element method can be used for a two beam and a three beam approximation. A stiffness
matrix [K] is produced using the beam properties, and is equated using the formula P=K, where
the ratio /P can be obtained by solving the matrix using gauss elimination.
For the beam, a value for EI was pre-determined as 111.3 Nm2, allowing the calculation for E and
other beam property values such as the second moment of area.

Results

0.005

f(x)
f(x) =
= 0x
0x
R
=
R = 1
1

0.004

0.003

Deflection /m
0.002

0.001

0.000

20

40

60

Load P / N

GRAPH 1 - P LOT

Up
Down
Avera
ge

OF

LOAD

D EFLECTION

/P
3.7403E05
3.70221E05
3.72125E05

TABLE 1 - D ATA O BTAINED

FROM

Beam Description
Quantit Unit
y
s
Value
Width
m
0.0254
Height
m
0.00635
Ixx
m4
542.0E-12
0.0001612
Area
m2
9
Length
m
0.2334
E
Pa
205.4E+9
Pam
EI
4
111.3
Pam
EA
2
33.1E+6

G RAPH 1

80

100

120

140

EA/L
EI/L
EI/L2
EI/L3

Pam
Pam
3
Pam
2
Pam

141.89E+6
476.7884
2042.4723
8749.5693

TABLE 2 - B EAM PROPERTIES

FOR

2 B EAM

ANALYSIS

Beam Description
Quant Uni
ity
ts
Value
Width
m
0.0254
Height
m
0.00635
542.0EIxx
m4
12
0.000161
Area
m2
29
Length
m
0.1579
E
Pa
205.4E+9
Pam
EI
4
111.3
Pam
EA
2
33.1E+6
209.80E+
EA/L
Pam
6
Pam
EI/L
3
704.9675
Pam 4465.221
EI/L2
2
8
28282.44
EI/L3
Pam
61
TABLE 3 - B EAM

Graph
2
Beam
3
Beam
Rexp
Rexac
t

PROPERTIES FOR

/P
(m/N)
37.2E-6
33.9E-6
35.9E-6
37.6E-6
37.9E-6

TABLE 4 - R ESULTS

Graph
Rexp

FOR DELTA /P

/P
%
(m/N)
difference
37.21E6
-1.88%
37.56E-0.96%

BEAM ANALYSIS

Rexac
t

6
37.93E6

Discussion
From the experimental data, a plot of deflection against load was made, separating the values for
the loading and unloading. This is because during the load process, there might be some form of
deformation, which can be seen clearly for the last reading taken: 0kg -0.04mm, which shows an
element of deformation. This deformation affects the overall trend the data takes, so to reliably
obtain a relationship between the two, trend-lines were constructed for the two loading procedures,
and the average was taken of the two. The trend-line was set with a (x,y) intercept of 0. A value for
/P was obtained as 37.21E-06 N/m. The overall scatter for the data was low, so the experimental
approach towards obtaining these values were consistent in terms of reliability.
For the 2 beam analysis, a matrix of K was constructed in excel, using beam properties in the form
of the values; A, B, F, G, H, P, Q, which are all ratios between the angle of the member and the
elastic modulus E of the beam. A resultant matrix was created by combining the individual values
for beam (a) and beam (b) together, which produced a 9x9 matrix. As points 1 and 3 were fixed;
x1, y3, 1 and 3 were cancelled out as they were zero, reducing the matrix to a 5x5. The
standard gauss elimination was used and the elimination took 10 steps to complete. The initial and
final steps are shown in the appendix, but the other 8 steps were omitted from the report and can
be observed in the excel file due to the impact of page length. A value for x3 was obtained, and
used to obtain a theoretical value for /P, calculated as 33.9E-06 m/N. For the two beam analysis,
the load was applied to node 3 in the negative x direction (load of -P).
Following this, a 3 beam analysis was also used in the same method as for the two beam, but
produced a 12x12 K matrix, which was then reduced to an 8x8 matrix, due to the fixed values x1,
y4, 1 and 4. A Load of P was applied to node 4 in the x direction, and the value for x4 was
obtained, and then used to calculate a value for /P: 35.9E-06 m/M. To solve this larger matrix, the
Gaussian elimination method had to be done column by column, not row by row. There are two
worked answers for /P, but one is crossed out. The Gaussian elimination for the three beam
analysis consists of 23 steps. The other steps were omitted from the report and can be observed in
the excel file due to the impact of page length.

4
Rexp ( E06 )=35.94+ (35.9433.9 ) =37.6E-06 m/N
5
The above theoretical values equate using the above formula to give a value for R E. An additional
method to calculate RE was given as:
3

R Exact

r 2
=37.9E-06 m/ N
EI 4

In comparison with the values, a percentage difference table between the three values was made,
with RExact being used as the baseline value. The experimental data which used a graph to determine
the deflection constant was fairly accurate, and had a -1.88% percentage difference. 5% is the
threshold for whether a set of data can be considered reliable, and the values obtained were well
within the limit, showing that the graphical/experimental method can be a reliable approach
towards solving for the stiffness of a circular beam.
The matrix based FEA gave a much closer value with a -0.96% difference, and deviated by a
fraction of a mm/N, showing that the FEA using the two and three element comparison gives a good
approximation to the actual deflection property of the circular beam. It should also be noted that
the FEA method was more accurate than the graphical solution, but at the extra cost of calculation

time. The graphical approach took seconds to measure and calculate, while the FEA requires
multiple set-up matrices, which is more time-consuming, suggesting that for small-scale projects,
where % difference of 2% is not significant, the graphical approach may be better for resource
management, although a computer program can be written to optimise the calculation process and
automate it.
In terms of the recorded datas accuracy, the loads were all assumed to be equal to 2kg, and no
error was taken into account for the internal deviation the masses may have had, i.e. the mass
could have been 1.9kg, and although the individual error is small, those individual errors add up
and propagate through. The displacement was also only measured to 2dp, and a more precise and
reliable reading could be taken by apparatus with a higher degree of precision. As the output for
this investigation were values approximately equal to 40x10-6, small errors hold a greater value and
have a greater significance. An error of 2N is nothing to a 400,000 N load, but 2N to a 20N load is a
larger percentage.

Appendix
Recorded Data
Load
Displacement
k
g
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

mm
0.00
0.76
1.45
2.21
2.95
3.67
4.39
3.67
2.94
2.10
1.32
0.71
-0.04

0
19.62
39.24
58.86
78.48
98.1
117.72
98.1
78.48
58.86
39.24
19.62
0

TABLE 5 -

m
0.00000
0.00076
0.00145
0.00221
0.00295
0.00367
0.00439
0.00367
0.00294
0.00210
0.00132
0.00071
-0.00004

RECORDED DATA FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD

Member
Length (m)
Angle
(global)
Cos
Sin

b
0.2334

0.2334

22.5
0.9239
0.3827

67.5
0.3827
0.9239

TABLE 6 - L ENGTH

ANGLE

COS S IN

TABLE FOR

Stiffness Coefficients
a
b
A
1907.15
1907.15
B
953.58
953.58
F 121128207.20
20869295.35

ELEMENTS

G
H
P
Q

50129455.92
-4689.72
20869295.35
11321.99

50129455.92
-11321.99
121128207.20
4689.72

TABLE 7 - S TIFFNESS C OEFFICIENTS

FOR

ELEMENTS

K11a

K12a

121128207
.20

50129455.
92

-4689.72

50129455.
92
-4689.72

20869295.
35
11321.99

11321.99
1907.15

121128207.
20
50129455.9
2
4689.72

K21a
121128207
.20
50129455.
92
-4689.72

4689.72
11321.9
9
953.58

K22a
50129455.
92
20869295.
35
11321.99

4689.72

121128207.
20

50129455.9
2

-11321.99
953.58

50129455.9
2
4689.72

20869295.3
5
-11321.99

K11b

4689.72
11321.9
9
1907.15

K12b

20869295.
35

50129455.
92

-11321.99

50129455.
92
-11321.99

121128207
.20
4689.72

4689.72
1907.15

20869295.3
5
50129455.9
2
11321.99

K21b
20869295.
35
50129455.
92
-11321.99

50129455.9
2
20869295.3
5
-11321.99

50129455.9
2
121128207.
20
-4689.72

11321.9
9
4689.72
953.58

K22b
50129455.
92
121128207
.20
4689.72

TABLE 8 S ETUP MATRICES

11321.99

20869295.3
5

50129455.9
2

11321.9
9

-4689.72
953.58

50129455.9
2
11321.99

121128207.
20
-4689.72

4689.72
1907.15

FOR

ELEMENT

MATRIX

TABLE 9 - F ULL K MATRIX,

20869295.
35
50129455.
92
20869295.
35
11321.99
0.00
TABLE 10 - K

GREY IS CANCELLED OUT LATER ON

50129455.
92

20869295.
35

14199750
2.55

10025891
1.85

10025891
1.85

14199750
2.55

-6632.27
20869295.
35

-6632.27
50129455.
92

MATRIX BEFORE

11321.
99
6632.2
7
6632.2
7
3814.3
1
11321.
99

20869295
.35

20869295.3
5

0.00

21583166.1
2

50129455.9
2

0.00

0.00

4696617.10

20563.9
2
43072.4
1

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

3393.56
0.00

MATRIX AFTER

Member
Length
(m)
Angle
(global)
Cos
Sin

dx2

0
= 0

11321.99

dy2
thet
a2

20869295.
35

dx3

11321.9
9

0.00
20869295.3
5
1658049.30 X
15999.87
29481.34

0.1579

0.1579

0.1579

15.0
0.9659
0.2588

45.0
0.7071
0.7071

75.0
0.2588
0.9659

TABLE FOR

Stiffness Coefficients
b
c

ELEMENT

G AUSSIAN ELIMINATION 2 ND ELEMENT

TABLE 12 - L ENGTH A NGLE S IN COS

dy1

G AUSSIAN ELIMINATION 2 ND

50129455.9
2

TABLE 11 - K

0.00
20869295.
35
50129455.
92 X

ELEMENTS

dy1

dx2

dy2
theta
2
dx3

= 0
0
P

A
B
F
G
H
P
Q

2819.87
1409.94
195767632.
43
52364839.9
1
-6934.11
14370505.9
2
25878.44

2819.87
1409.94
105069069.
17
104729679.
82
-18944.33
105069069.
17
18944.33

TABLE 13 - S TIFFNESS

COEFFICIENTS FOR

K11a

ELEMENTS

K12a

19576763
2.43

52364839.
91

52364839.
91

14370505.
92

-6934.11

25878.44

6934.1
1
25878.
44
2819.8
7

K21a

19576763
2.43
52364839.
91

52364839.
91
14370505.
92

6934.11

-25878.44

6934.1
1
25878.
44
1409.9
4

K22a

19576763
2.43
52364839.
91

52364839.
91
14370505.
92

-6934.11

25878.44

6934.1
1
25878.
44
1409.9
4

10506906
9.17

10472967
9.82

18944.
33

10472967
9.82

10506906
9.17

-18944.33

18944.33

K11b

19576763
2.43

52364839.
91

52364839.
91

14370505.
92

6934.11

-25878.44

6934.1
1
25878.
44
2819.8
7

K12b

18944.
33
2819.8
7

K21b
10506906
9.17
10472967
9.82

2819.87
1409.94
14370505.9
2
52364839.9
1
-25878.44
195767632.
43
6934.11

10506906
9.17
10472967
9.82

10472967
9.82
10506906
9.17

18944.33

-18944.33

18944.
33
18944.
33
1409.9
4

K22b
10472967
9.82
10506906
9.17

18944.
33
18944.
33

10506906
9.17

10472967
9.82

10472967
9.82

10506906
9.17

18944.
33
18944.
33

-18944.33

18944.33

1409.9
4

18944.33

K11c

-18944.33

2819.8
7

K12c

14370505.
92

52364839.
91

52364839.
91

19576763
2.43

-25878.44

6934.11

25878.
44
6934.1
1
2819.8
7

K21c

14370505.
92
52364839.
91

52364839.
91
19576763
2.43

25878.44

-6934.11

25878.
44
6934.1
1
1409.9
4

K22c

14370505.
92
52364839.
91

52364839.
91
19576763
2.43

-25878.44

6934.11

25878.
44
6934.1
1
1409.9
4

TABLE 14 - S ETUP MATRICES

FOR THE

TABLE 15 - K

MATRIX BEFORE

TABLE 16 - K

MATRIX AFTER

14370505.
92

52364839.
91

52364839.
91

19576763
2.43

25878.44

-6934.11

MATRIX

3 RD ELEMENT

G AUSSIAN ELIMINATION 3 RD

ELEMENT

G AUSSIAN ELIMINATION 3 RD ELEMENT

25878.
44
6934.1
1
2819.8
7