Lab 1: ​Stress in Tensile and Compressive Structures

● Goal
○ Section 1a​: Cable Strength
■ The goal of this section was to better understand and observe the way in
which the strength of material and the diameter of a cable affects its
breaking tension and strength. To figure this out, we cut three different
wires of the same length but increasing diameter, and empirically tested
each wire’s ability to hold up a bucket as we added more and more weight
to the bucket. In the end, we are supposed to find that the breaking stress
remains the same for all three steel wires, indicating that the breaking
stress is strongly related to the type of material used.
■ Lab guide: “We find that the stronger the cable material, the smaller the
cable diameter that is needed.”
○ Section 1b​: Washington Monument
■ The goal of this section was to understand the relationship between
cross-sectional area and stress. We are supposed to see through the
model that since stress decreases as you go up the structure, the
cross-sectional area also decreases with it to maintain a relatively
consistent level of stress throughout.
■ Lab guide: “The laboratory shows how the principles learned with respect
to tensile forces in the Cable Strength lab also apply to compressive
structures such as the Washington Monument.”
● Conceptual question from lab: Explain why the cross-sectional
area of the monument at the mid-height is lower than it is at the
base of the monument.
○ Answer: Because the structure doesn’t have to bear as
heavy of a load at the mid-height, the cross-sectional area
required to maintain the same level of stress decreases.
Thus, the cross-sectional area of the monument at
mid-height is lower than at the base.
○ Section 1c​: Cable and Arch Shape
■ The goal of this section is to understand how differing the distribution of
loading can change the way the arch or cables hold up. It is also
supposed to help us understand the relationship between loading and the
tension in the cables, as well between loading and the compression in the
arch. We can then compare the way cables and arches hold up the same
distribution of weights to see how the two types of structures are similar.
■ Lab guide: “The laboratory demonstrates that the proper shape for a
cable structure when under uniform loading is a parabola. It will then
show the extent to which cables and arches can be considered equivalent
structures, with one acting in tension and the other compression.”
Lab 2
● 2a: Menai Straits Bridge
○ Goal
■ The goal of this lab is to understand the forces that act on a cable
suspension bridge, specifically by using the Menai Straits Bridge as a
model to study these forces. We use a scaled-down model of the Menai
Straits Bridge using different loading distributions and measuring the
forces that act at each point on the bridge. We measure the horizontal
and vertical forces, as well as the change in sag for each different loading
distribution. Experimenting with different weights and comparing results
allows us to see what forces affect the bridge, and how they vary.
○ Concepts
■ Since H (Horizontal reaction) depends upon L/d and qL, that for a
constant L, the smaller the sag, the larger the H. Examining the equation
for H, we see how a cable transforms a vertical load (q) into a horizontal
reaction. H = (qL^2)/(8d)
■ The larger the H, the larger the cable area, A, since:
 ○ Procedure: Make sure the bridge is level. Measure the sag. Place 18 small
weights across the bridge. Record the change in sag. Sketch the change in
shape.
● 2b: Quebec Bridge
○ Goal
■ The goal of this lab is to understand the forces that are at play in a
cantilever-constructed bridge, particularly using the Quebec Bridge as a
model for this study. To understand the forces, we used a scaled-down
model of the Quebec Bridge and put varied load sizes, distributed in
several ways. By learning how to theoretically calculate the forces we
came to understand how the loads acted on the cantilevered bridge. In
particular, we theoretically calculated and empirically measured the forces
on the exterior and interior supports, as well as the end of the cantilever
arm without the suspended span attached.
○ Concepts
■ The top chord of the truss is in compression.
■ During construction, the bridge behaves as a large cantilever. If weight is
added to the end of the cantilever arm, it will begin to overturn. This will
create an upward reaction on the interior support and a downward
reaction on the exterior support.

○ Procedure
■ In order to simulate the load due to constructing the suspended span (at
this point the suspended span is not attached to the cantilever arm), we
first use the lead weights to apply a concentrated load of approximately
7-ounces to the free end of the model.
■ Calculate internal bending moment at interior support: M = F*x
■ Find Tension and Compression forces in the upper and lower chords of
the truss: T = M/a
■ Add suspended span and connect the bridge together.
■ Add weights to the suspended span only. These distributed weights are
supposed to be equivalent to the concentrated load we placed on the free
 end of the model before the suspended span was added. We measure
the reactions.
■ Hang weights along the entire bridge to test the bridge as a continuous
beam. Record all four support reactions (two interior and two exterior).
Lab 3​: Steel Reinforced Concrete
● Goal
○ The goal of the lab is to test and analyze how concrete beams and reinforced
concrete beams react to applied forces, with regards to their structural and
strength-related characteristics. To evaluate how these beams hold up under an
applied force, we made concrete mix. We made the mix by putting in cement,
sand, gravel, and water into a concrete mixing machine. We used 25 lbs. of
gravel, 10 lbs. of cement, and 15 lbs. of sand. For each portion of the mix, we
poured the material in little by little, mixing for each addition of the material.
Having poured in the dry materials, we intermittently poured the water into the
mix, estimating how much water was necessary to get the correct consistency.
After making the concrete mix, each group split up and used the mix to fill in
molds. One group made a concrete beam, another made a reinforced concrete
beam, and the other two groups made a total of four concrete cylinders. After
waiting several weeks for the concrete to harden, we returned to the lab and
used a load machine to test the failure points of our cylinders and beams. In
using the load machine, we were able to increasingly apply force until the
structures broke, and we were able to see how each type of structure held up
compared to other structures. This allowed us to compare how the structures
handled tension and compression.
● Concepts
○ Purpose of reinforcing concrete with steel
■ Unreinforced concrete works poorly under tension, meaning that it is
unable to support large amounts of tensile force. To solve this issue, we
reinforce concrete with steel, because steel is a material with high
strength in resisting tension. The steel bar running through concrete helps
to support the structure, resisting the bending and stretching associated
with the application of tensile forces on concrete. The steel bar helps to
resist the bending due to tension on the bottom of the beam. Steel is also
particularly useful because it prevents excessive cracking in the concrete.
Moreover, the relative cross-section of steel needed for reinforcing is
usually small.
○ Why doesn’t the unreinforced beam have any change in stiffness before failure?
■ Unreinforced beams don’t have any change in stiffness before failure
because the force applied is a point load in the middle of the beam.
Because the load is concentrated on one point, the stiffness does not
change and ultimately changes once the beam snaps in half. Reinforced
beam has changes in stiffness before failure because the steel bar allows
the beam to distribute the applied force throughout the beam. As the
 applied force gets stronger and the force is distributed, the reinforced
beam changes in stiffness.
○ Your tests showed that a concrete beam can carry significantly more load after
the first cracks appear. Should engineers therefore design beams so they will
crack (which will allow moisture to more easily reach the steel reinforcement),
thereby using less concrete? Under what circumstances might this be acceptable
or unacceptable?
■ Engineers should not specifically design beams with the intent of having
them crack. Minor cracks, such as those that happen due to changes in
atmosphere and time, do not compromise the structural integrity of the
beam. In fact, they can be good signs that the beam itself is well-built.
However, designing beams with the goal of having them crack seems to
be fixating on a common characteristic of structurally strong beams, not a
cause of structurally strong beams. Designing beams so that they crack
allows more moisture to reach the steel reinforcement, allowing for
greater chance of corrosion, which would also deteriorate the quality of
the beam. Though cracks may in some cases signal a well-made beam,
fixating on beams seems a little dangerous, especially as not all kinds of
cracks are minor. Therefore, engineers should focus on designing beams
that are structurally sound and end up with minor cracks, rather than
designing beams with the goal of having them crack. Though one may
argue that designing beams with the intent of cracking would use less
concrete and be more cost efficient, it seems a little dangerous to
purposely cause these cracks. Perhaps if engineers perfectly understand
the extent to which cracks should be caused, this method could be
desirable.
Lab 4: ​Tall Buildings – Columns and Cantilevers
● Goal
○ The goal of this lab is to show how tall structures need to account for both its
dead load (of the structure) and live load (due to wind) by designing the
structures with those loads in mind. We experiment with two models of the Eiffel
Tower, one being the complete structure and the other being the top half of the
structure. We also experiment with two models of the Washington Monument,
one of the full structure and the other of the top half. We simulate a wind load on
the structure by placing concentrated loads (with a hook) around the middle area
of the structures, having calculated the amount of wind load from the “Wind Load
to Dead Load Ratio” formula. After applying the wind load, we observe the tensile
and compression forces in reaction to the live and dead loads. The value of the
wind load varies based on the size of the structure. However, we use this general
procedure for each of the four models. We also predict these values using the
dimensions of the structures and formulas given in the formula sheet. By
comparing the predicted values and experimental values and analyzing the
 values we can evaluate the extent to which the structures were specifically
designed to handle wind loads.
● Concepts

​T C ​(same concept here)

○ How do your theoretical moments resulting from the wind load change as you
move up the two structures? Do your experimental values agree with your
theoretical values? Does the moment diagram match the form of the structures?
■ As you move up the two structures, the moment decreases. The
experimental values generally agree with the theoretical values, though
they are slightly off in most cases, and significantly off on occasion. The
moment diagrams match the forms of the structures. In the Eiffel Tower
graph, the moment slopes/curves down to fit the general form of the Eiffel
 Tower. The Washington Monument form similarly matches the moment
diagram with a general downward sloping moment diagram.
○ How do your theoretical tension and compression forces resulting from the wind
load change as you move up the structures? Do your experimental values agree
with your theoretical values?
■ As you move up the structures, the tension and compression forces
decrease in magnitude. As we see in the calculations in part 5, the
tension and compression forces decrease in magnitude as the height
increases. The experimental values generally agree with the theoretical
values, though they are slightly off in most cases. We see that the values
are largest at the base.
○ In light of your findings from questions above, discuss how the forms of the
structures are or are not efficient for carrying wind loads. Explain for each
structure whether this matters considering the governing loads on the structure.
■ The Eiffel Tower’s vertical cantilever form allows the structure to efficiently
carry wind loads, as the wind load dominates. As a light structure, its form
allows it to focus on carrying the wind loads with the tensile forces on the
windward side and compression forces on the leeward side.
■ The Washington Monument differs because it is a column. Columns are
much heavier than cantilevers and thus the dominating load is its dead
load. The forces at the base from wind are much smaller, compared to
dead load and is harder to tip over.
■ Both these structures are efficient at carrying wind loads, but for different
reasons. The Eiffel Tower expresses its efficiency by using a light
structure to focus on the dominating wind load. The Washington
Monument expresses its efficiency by using a heavy structure, focusing
on the dominating dead load while taking care of the wind load.