Structures 2 Assignment 1 Lab Ghaith PDF

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: .............................................................................................................................. 2
2. TASK 1: ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1. AIM: ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2. APPARATUS: ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3. PROCEDURE: ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.4. READINGS:................................................................................................................................... 4
2.5. CALCUATION: .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.6. RESULTS: ..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.7. GRAPHS: .................................................................................................................................... 10
2.8. DISCUSSION:.............................................................................................................................. 12
2.9. CONCLUSION:............................................................................................................................ 13
3. TASK 2: .......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. AIM: ........................................................................................................................................... 13
3.4. READINGS:................................................................................................................................. 14
3.6. RESULTS: ................................................................................................................................... 16
3.7. GRAPHS: .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.8. DISCUSSION:.............................................................................................................................. 17
4. TASK 3: .......................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1. AIM: ........................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2. APPARATUS: .............................................................................................................................. 18
4.3. PROCEDURE: ............................................................................................................................. 19
4.4. READINGS:................................................................................................................................. 19
4.5. CALCULATION: .......................................................................................................................... 20
4.6. RESULTS: ................................................................................................................................... 22
4.7. GRAPHS: .................................................................................................................................... 22
4.9. CONCLUSION:............................................................................................................................ 24
10. REFERENCES: ................................................................................................................................... 25
EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 1

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
A beam is a structural member designed primarily to support forces acting
perpendicular to the axis of the member [1]. Beams are of different types, the most
common types of beams are:
 Fixed End Beam (indeterminate)

 Continuous beam (indeterminate)
 Simple beam (determinate)
A fixed end beam is a beam that is restricted from movement at both ends. A
continuous beam is a statically indeterminate structure. They are used to increase
structures strength and provide alternate load paths in cases of failure. A continuous
beam has advantages over a simple beam in terms of lesser mid span deflection
which is less and a higher vertical load capacity.
A pinned support is a type of support that can resist both horizontal and vertical
forces. The experiment was carried out on by group 6 members in the structures
laboratory.
THEORY:
For task 1, the analysis of the continuous beam will be carried out using the elastic
theory. Since in a continuous beam there both positive and negative moments, and
in other parts of the beam both negative and positive moments are present. The
stiffness method is used and the moment distribution method to find the reaction at
the supports.
For task 2, the beam is a fixed end beam, and moments will be generated at the
fixed end when a load is applied. The moment distribution method is used in this
case. Since in this experiment we are dealing with a point load there are two general
two formulae for two conditions:
The first scenario occurs when the point load applies

at mid span of the beam. The formula used is:
The second scenario occurs when the point load

is applied at a distance a, from the support. Here
the formula changes to:

2. TASK 1: EXPERIMENTAL SET UP FOR CONTINUOUS BEAM
2.1. AIM:
The aim of the experiment is to determine the reactions at a two-span continuous
beam.
2.2. APPARATUS:
The apparatus used included:
 A support frame
 3 support with load cells attached
 Load hangers
 Beam specimen
 A meter ruler
 Set of weights
2.3. PROCEDURE:
The switch on the digital gauge was turned on 10minutes before the experiment
stable for a stable reading to be obtained.
The reaction piers were clamped to support frame using the plate and bolt at a
calculated distance. We then connected the load cell from the supports to the digital
gauge. The beam specimen was thereafter placed between the two cylindrical
pieces of each support and tightened in place by using screws for the fixed ends.
The positions of the hangers ac and bc were been calculated and the load hangers
were placed at the calculated distances from the supports.
On the right hand span, a constant load of 10N is applied. We kept increasing the
load by 5N until a total load of 25N was loaded on the hanger. The load cell readings
for all the loads were recorded down.
600mm 400mm
480mm 200mm
Weight 1 Weight 2 Load Cell
Figure 1: Experimental setup for continuous beam.

2.4. READINGS
Experimental data:
Weight, W1 Weight, W2 Experimental support reaction

(N) (N) Left (N) Middle (N) Right (N)
0 10 -0.5 5 4.6
5 10 0.1 10.3 3.8
10 10 0.6 16.4 2.9
15 10 1.2 21.6 2.0
20 10 1.7 26.9 1.8
25 10 2.3 31.8 1.2
2.5. CALCUATION:
The following is the experimental values after subtraction from the previous values
has been done
Example:
Given data:
Beam span = 1000m
Width of member = 25mm
Thickness of member = 5mm
Left hand span of beam (L1) = 600mm
Right hand span of beam (L2) = 400mm
Distance of load from left hand support, ac = 480mm
Distance of load from right hand support, bc = 250mm
Calculating the stiffness:
KAB = = = 5EI
KBC = = = 7.5EI

Calculating the distribution factors:
Since the distribution factor is always 1, at the end of the beam
DFAB = 1 and DFCB = 1
DFBA = = 0.4
DFBC = = 0.6
It is to be noted that the distributions factors remain the same for all the
weights applied:
For the 0 N load:
Using the Fixed End Method (FEM):
FEMAB = = 0Nmm
FEMBA = = 0Nmm
FEMBC = = -500Nmm
FEMCB = = 500Nmm
JOINT A B C
Member AB BA BC CB
DF 1 0.4 0.6 1
FEM 0 0 -500 500
Dist 0 200 300 -500
Co 100 0 -250 150
Dist -100 100 150 -150
co 50 -50 -75 75
Dist -50 50 75 -75
Total Moment 0 300 -300 0
Calculating reaction at supports:
Section AB of beam:
0N B1
A
480mm 120mm
mm
Sum of horizontal forces, ΣH = 0
Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VA + VB - 0 = 0…… (1)
Total moment, ΣMA = 0
Section BC of beam:
10N C
B2
N
2 200mm 200mm
Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VB2 + VC - 10 = 0…… (1)
Total moment, ΣMB = 0
4.25N
For the 5N load:
FEMAB = = -96Nmm
FEMBA = = 384Nmm
FEMBC = = -500Nmm
FEMCB = = 500Nmm

JOINT A B C
Member AB BA BC CB
DF 1 0.4 0.6 1
FEM -96 384 -500 500
Dist 96 46.4 69.6 -500
Co 23.2 48 -250 34.8
Dist -23.2 80.8 121.2 -34.8
co 40.4 -11.6 -17.4 60.6
Dist -40.4 11.6 17.4 -60.6
Total Moment 0 559.2 -559.2 0
Section AB of beam:
5N B1
A
480mm 120mm
mm
Section BC of beam:
10N C
B2
N
2 200mm 200mm

3.602N
For the 10N load:
FEMAB = = -192Nmm
FEMBA = = 768Nmm
FEMBC = = -500Nmm
FEMCB = = 500Nmm
JOINT A B C
Member AB BA BC CB
DF 1 0.4 0.6 1
FEM -192 768 -500 500
Dist 192 -107.2 -160.8 -500
Co -53.6 96 -250 -80.4
Dist 53.6 61.6 92.4 80.4
co 30.8 26.8 40.2 46.2
Dist -30.8 -26.8 -40.2 -46.2
Total Moment 0 818.4 -818.4 0
Section AB of beam:
10 N B1
A
480mm 120mm
mm

N
Section BC of beam:
10N C
B2
N
2 200mm 200mm
2.954N
The calculation is repeated for the 15, 20 and 25N loads, the following table
shows the results
2.6. RESULTS:
WEIGHT 1 WEIGHT 2 (N) THEORETICAL SUPPORT REACTION
(N) RA RB RC
0 10 -0.5 6.25 4.25
5 10 0.068 11.33 3.602
10 10 0.636 16.41 2.954
15 10 1.204 21.49 2.306
20 10 1.772 26.57 1.658
25 10 2.34 31.65 1.01

Table : Comparison between Theoretical and Experiment
WEIGHT 1 RA Cal RA exp RB Cal RB exp RC Cal RC exp

(N)
0 -0.5 -0.5 6.25 5 4.25 4.6
5 0.068 0.1 11.33 10.3 3.602 3.8
10 0.636 0.6 16.41 16.4 2.954 2.9
15 1.204 1.2 21.49 21.6 2.306 2
20 1.772 1.7 26.57 26.9 1.658 1.8
25 2.34 2.3 31.65 31.8 1.01 1.2
2.7. GRAPHS:
The following are the graphs comparing the experimental and theoretical reactions
with the loads applied.
Graph showing Reactions at Point A against the Load
RA Manual vs RA Experiment
2.5
1.5
Reaction at RA
1
RA cal
0.5 RA exp
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.5
-1
Load P (N)
Figure 2: RA theoretical vs RA Experiment
Well, figure 2 above shows the experimental and theoretical results. It can be noted that when the
load increases, so does the support reaction. Overall, the theoretical results are proven to be greater
than the experimental.
Well the graph shows two different colours of lines. The green line stands for experimental results
while the red colour line stands for the theoretical results. It can be noted that the line is moving
parallel to each other except at the 5 N of x-axis, which means that there is some sort of

experimental error occurring at this point. At the rest of the points, the experimental line is close to
the theoretical line which means the experiment was conducted successfully with the minimum
error possible.
Graph showing Reactions at B against the Load
RB Manual vs RB Experiment
35
30
Reaction at B (RB) N
25
20
15 RB cal
10 RB exp
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load P (N)
Figure 3: RB Theoretical vs RB Experiment
Well, it can be noted from the figure that the support at the middle has the highest moment among
all the three supports. This is because some of the moment from the right and left support is shared
by the middle support. As it can be seen from the figure above, the line keeps increasing as more
load is placed. The load is shared by the left and middle support and the moment is shared and
distributed among the two loads because the distance of the load wasn’t exactly centered (source of
error).
Figure 3 shows two lines which were parallel to each other and sometimes overlapping. The two
lines were increasing from 0N till 10N. As the load increases the two space between the two lines
was increasing and that is due to errors. However, the error percentage for the results of middle
support was very less, and the largest percentage error obtained was only 20% at AB Beam when no
load was applied.
Graph showing Reactions at C against the Load

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 RC cal
2 RC exp
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4: RC Manual vs RC Experiment
3. From what can be seen, the highest point on the graph was at 5N. After this, the line was
gradually decreasing. The reason for this was that the load was placed on the left and middle
span, the beam which lies on the right span was moving upward creating a moment with a
small support reaction.
4. Figure 4 above shows two different colour lines, one representing the theoretical line and
the other experimental. Both lines were again parallel to each other until it reached the
point of 15N, where the lines began to split showing signs of error during the experiment.
4.1. DISCUSSION
Aluminium has a higher modulus of elasticity than steel and therefore the reaction at
the supports will be lower when aluminium is used.
The theory of young’s modulus is used in this case which is a material’s resistance to
elastic deformation. The elasticity (E) will change here but the moment of inertia (I)
will remain the same since the forces are not acting at an angle.
A thinner beam would affect support reaction since a thinner beam is much less
stiffer than a thick beam. The reaction at the support will be higher with a thinner
beam than with a thicker one.
There is a very small discrepancy between the experimental results and the
theoretical results. The graphs show a similar trend when the two values are
compared. But for RC results from experiment and theoretical have totally
different due the apparatus is not function 100%.
Factors that may have led to discrepancies in the values include:
 Misreading of experimental values by the group members.

 Wrong experimental setup of the apparatus.
4.2. CONCLUSION
In conclusions, the reaction at the two span continuous beam will increases with an
increase in the load. Other factors like the distance of the load from the supports,
type of material and width will also affect the reaction.
Errors in this experiment can be minimised through:
 Careful reading of data from the group members and confirmation from a
second group member.
 Ensuring that a well qualified laboratory assistant guides in the setting up of
the apparatus.
5. TASK 2: LABORATORY TESTING ON FIXED END BEAM
5.1. AIM:
The objective of the experiment is to determine the fixed end moment of a fixed end
beam.

5.2. APPARATUS:
 Two supports with load cells attached
 A steel beam
 Set of weights
5.3. PROCEDURE:
Firstly the distance between the two supports was measured to be 1000mm then the
load cell was secured to the plate. The width and thickness of the beam was also
measured and noted down. The distance from the support A, at which the load was
to be placed was also calculated (ab). The load hanger was after that placed at the
calculated distance and the load of 5N was placed on it. The load cell reading was
then taken. The load was increased by 5N and the corresponding load cell reading
was taken until a total final load of 25N was reached.
200
mm
mm
Weight, Wb
Load Cell A
Load Cell B
Cel
Cel
1000mm
Figure 5: Experimental setup for a fixed end beam.
5.4. READINGS:
Given data:
Beam Span = 1000mm

Distance of Load from support A, ab = 200mm
The following readings were obtained from the experiment for the fixed end beam.
Load W b (N) Load cell A, reading

0 0
5 -11.4
10 -22.7
15 -33.9
20 -43.8
5.5. CALCULATIONS:
Experiment Fixed End Moment:
Calculation of experimental values:
This is done by multiplying the load cell readings by 55(Nmm)
Experiment fixed end moment = Load cell reading x 55mm
Load 1 = 0 Nmm
Load 2 = -11.4 x 55 = - 627 Nmm
Load 3 = -22.7 x 55 = - 1248.5 Nmm
Load 4 = -33.9 x 55 = - 1864.5 Nmm
Load 5 = -43.8 x 55 = - 2409 Nmm
Calculation for theoretical results:
Using the fixed end method:
Section AB of beam:
Weight
EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND B FRAME 15
A
200mm 800mm
For 5N load:
FEMAB = = -640Nmm
For 10N load:
FEMAB = = -1280Nmm
For 15N load:
FEMAB = = -1920Nmm
For 20N load:
FEMAB = = -2560Nmm
Calculating the discrepancy:
This is calculated by:
= 2.03%
= 2.461%
= 2.891%
= 5.898%
5.6. RESULTS:
The table below shows the experimental moments at support A.
Load, W b Load cell A, Moment at support A

(N) Reading (N) Experimental Theoretical Difference (%)
0 0 0 0 0

5 -11.4 -627 -640 2.031
10 -22.7 -1248.5 -1280 2.461
15 -33.9 -1864.5 -1920 2.891
20 -43.8 -2409 -2560 5.898
5.7. GRAPHS:
Graph showing Moment at A versus the applied load
Moment Theoretical vs Experimental

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-500
-1000
Moment Nmm
-1500 Experimental
Theoretical
-2000
-2500
-3000
Load P (N)
Figure 6: Moment theoretical vs experiment
6. The figure above compares the error between the actual results and the experimental
results. From the beginning of the line, the difference can be noted. There is a clear sign of
error at the point of 5N. The difference between the actual values and the theoretical results
is among 2.031% and 5.898%. Well, in engineering experiments, the value of error shouldn’t
exceed 10%. So it can be concluded that since the highest percentage of error obtained is
6%, this experiment can be concluded as accurate.
6.1. DISCUSSION:
It should be noted that the support B was not working and therefore no
reaction could be recorded from it. All the calculation and discussion are
therefore done for only the reaction at support A.
The fixed end moment increase constantly with an increase in the load. This can be
seen from the trend of the graph which is gently sloping but the moment in this case

is negative because it is measured at the support A. The moment is therefore not
decreasing but increasing.
The moment increases with an increase in the distance between the weight and the
support A. The moment will reduce when the weight is moved closer to the support
at A. From theory, maximum loading is found at the centre of the beam, therefore
the further the weight is from the support the greater the moment.
The experimental results had a medium discrepancy with the theoretical results with
the error ranging from 2.031 to 5.898%. This error is not considerably when the
value of theoretical and experimental are more than 5%. These results happen
due the apparatus not working properly needed calibration of the apparatus
before start the experiment.
Factors that may have led to the occurrence of the error include:
 Faulty load cells. The load cell at support B was not working as earlier noted.
And initially, when the distance between the weight and the support at A got
closer, the dial gauge reading would remain constant. This all led to errors in
the experimental results.
 Loose screws of the clamping plates could have led to wrong cell load
readings.
6.2. CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the fixed end moment of a fixed end beam increases with an increase
in the load and distance between the weight and the support. The errors can be
minimised through the following ways:
Replacing the load cells at both supports or properly fixing them to the supports the
next time the experiment is being carried out will improve the accuracy of the results.
Tightening the screws of the clamping plates for better accuracy.
7. TASK 3: EXPERIMENTAL SET UP FOR A PORTAL FRAME
7.1. AIM:
The aim of the experiment is to establish the relationship between applied load and
horizontal reaction at the pin support.
7.2. APPARATUS:
 Support frame
 Portal frame
 Dial gauge
 Vernier calliper
 Tape measure
 Set of weights.
7.3. PROCEDURE:
Initially the load cell is connected to the dial indicator, after which the thickness of the
member is measured using a Vernier calliper. The width and length of the member
were also measured and recorded down. The distance from the right to the vertical
position of the vertical weight was then calculated. The hanger for the vertical
weights was after that placed at the calculated distance and so was the hanger for
the horizontal weights. Next, a horizontal load of 20N was placed on the horizontal
hanger and a vertical force of 5N was consequently added until a final total load of
30N was reached. The load and cell readings were then recorded on a table.
120mm
120mm
600mm
Weight, Wf
600mm
7.4. READINGS:
The following are the readings from the experiment:
Given data:
Length of horizontal member = 600mm
Length of vertical member = 600mm

Distance of Load W f from left hand joints, af =120mm
Distance of load Hf from left hand joint, bf =120mm
Weight Hf = 10N
Table showing readings from the laboratory
Weight, W f Load cell reading

(N) (N)
0 -5.0
5 -5.2
10 -5.4
15 -5.6
20 -5.8
25 -6.0
30 -6.2
7.5. CALCULATION:
Calculating Horizontal Reaction for the horizontal weight, 10N

=
)=
( )
( )
= -11.424
Calculating Horizontal Reaction for the vertical weight, 20N
For 5N:
For 10N:
- 0.75N

For 15N:
-1.125 N
The rest of the calculations are summarised in the table below.
7.6. RESULTS:
WEIGTH
HORIZONTAL REACTION
Wf,
(N) EXPERIMENTAL (N) THEORETICAL (N) DISCREPANCY (%)
0 0 0 0
5 -24.4 -11.799 106.80%
10 -24.6 -12.174 102.07%
15 -24.8 -12.549 97.63%
20 -25 -12.924 93.44%
25 -25.4 -13.299 90.99%
30 -25.8 -13.674 88.68%
7.7. GRAPHS:

Reaction RHA Manual vs RHA Experiment
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5
-10
Reacton RHA
-15 EXPERIMENTAL (N)

THEORETICAL (N)
-20
-25
-30
Load P (N)
Figure 7: Reaction RHA Manual vs RHA Experiment
Figure 7 shown the discrepancy of the experiment and had found out that the errors
were large, but the errors were consistent from one load to another load, ranging
from approximately 88% to 107% and the difference of the largest discrepancy and
lowest discrepancy is just only 88.68%. The errors were large maybe mainly affected
by the inaccurate of the experiment device. Therefore, in the future time, before
conducting any experiment, make sure the equipments are all functioning well.
7.8. DISCUSSION:
From the graph and results obtained, it is observed that the reaction increases with
an increase in the load. But after the 10N load, the reaction maintains a constant
trend until the final load of 30N is added
As the load W f moves further away from the left hand joint, the horizontal reaction
reduces but when the load, W f, is moved closer towards the left hand joint, the
reaction keeps increasing.
Although the experimental results were not perfectly accurate when compared to the
theoretical results, the error obtained is not so significant. The error ranges from 6.8
to 0.6%. The following factors may have affected the values of the experimental
results:

 Faulty equipment. The dial gauge was running out of battery and this would
give us different values or sometimes it would go off while loading the weights
onto the equipment.
 Some of the readings by the group were taken while the load was not yet
settled (weight was still moving back and forth).
 Inaccuracy in the measurement of the position of the weight. We used a
measure tape to determine the position of the weight. This tape could have
been off by a couple of millimetres leading to errors..
7.9. CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the reaction at the support will increase when the load is increased.
Other factors that may affect the reaction also include the distance of the load from
the support.
These errors can be minimised through:
 Taking several readings of every load and finding the average.
Ensuring that the load cells are properly connected to the supports

10. REFERENCES:
Ismail Right (2010), "Experiment 3: Fixed end moment for a fixed end beam".
Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39481794/Experiment-3-Fixed-End-
Moment-for-a-Fixed-End-Beam ( Accessed: 23 October 2013)
Ye, Stress Analysis: Theory, tutorials and example[1]
T.H.G. Megson, Structural and Stress Analysis
Rattan, Strength of materials.


Structures 2 Assignment 1 Lab Ghaith PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Structures 2 Assignment 1 Lab Ghaith PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Table of Contents

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 1

 Fixed End Beam (indeterminate)

The first scenario occurs when the point load applies

The second scenario occurs when the point load

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 2

Weight 1 Weight 2 Load Cell

Figure 1: Experimental setup for continuous beam.

Weight, W1 Weight, W2 Experimental support reaction

Beam span = 1000m

Width of member = 25mm

Thickness of member = 5mm

Left hand span of beam (L1) = 600mm

Right hand span of beam (L2) = 400mm

Distance of load from left hand support, ac = 480mm

Distance of load from right hand support, bc = 250mm

Calculating the stiffness:

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 4

Since the distribution factor is always 1, at the end of the beam

DFAB = 1 and DFCB = 1

For the 0 N load:

Using the Fixed End Method (FEM):

Calculating reaction at supports:

Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VA + VB - 0 = 0…… (1)

Total moment, ΣMA = 0

Calculating reaction at supports:

Sum of horizontal forces, ΣH = 0

Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VB2 + VC - 10 = 0…… (1)

Total moment, ΣMB = 0

For the 5N load:

Using the Fixed End Method (FEM):

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 6

Calculating reaction at supports:

Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VA + VB - 0 = 0…… (1)

Total moment, ΣMA = 0

Calculating reaction at supports:

Sum of horizontal forces, ΣH = 0

Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VB2 + VC - 10 = 0…… (1)

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 7

For the 10N load:

Using the Fixed End Method (FEM):

Calculating reaction at supports:

Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VA + VB - 0 = 0…… (1)

Total moment, ΣMA = 0

Calculating reaction at supports:

Sum of horizontal forces, ΣH = 0

Sum of vertical forces at A, ΣV = VB2 + VC - 10 = 0…… (1)

Total moment, ΣMB = 0

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 9

WEIGHT 1 RA Cal RA exp RB Cal RB exp RC Cal RC exp

Graph showing Reactions at Point A against the Load

Figure 2: RA theoretical vs RA Experiment

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 10

Graph showing Reactions at B against the Load

Figure 3: RB Theoretical vs RB Experiment

Graph showing Reactions at C against the Load

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 11

Figure 4: RC Manual vs RC Experiment

Factors that may have led to discrepancies in the values include:

 Misreading of experimental values by the group members.

Errors in this experiment can be minimised through:

5. TASK 2: LABORATORY TESTING ON FIXED END BEAM

EXPERIMENTS ON INDETERMINATE BEAM AND FRAME 13