UCL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MECH2005 - Stress Analysis

LABORATORY REPORT
Lecturer: G BURRIESCI

SA2 Laboratory - Beam Failure

through Plastic Hinge Formation
STUDENTS DETAILS
Ahmed Mahmood

MEng

(Dr. Ben Hanson)

Honor Brannelly

MEng

(Dr. Rebecca Shipley)

Douglas Stridsberg

MEng

(Prof. Ventikos)

Yuh-Chih Chen

BEng

(Prof. Bucknall)

Jia Shen Lim

BEng

(Dr. Jayasinghe)

Monzer Filipp Shebbo

BEng

(Dr. Torii)

George Harker-Smith

BEng

(Mr. Selfridge)

LABORATORY DETAILS
Lab Group: 7
Date of Lab: 21/02/14
Date Due: 14/03/14

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Materials ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Test A .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Test B .................................................................................................................................................. 4

3.

RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................... 5

Test A ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Test B ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Test A ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Test B ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Error discussion...................................................................................................................................... 9

5.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 10

6.

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 10

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Tabulated Data .................................................................................................................................... 11
Test A ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Test B ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Relevant Equation Derivations ......................................................................................................... 13
Test A ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Test B ................................................................................................................................................ 14

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 2 of 16

1. INTRODUCTION
This experiment involves investigating the formation of plastic hinges as a beam is subjected
to loading up until the point where it fails by bending. This is done by observing the
relationship between the applied load and the corresponding vertical deflection of the beam.
It is important to do so in order to be able to predict the plastic collapse of a statically
determinate beam. Initially, the deflection increases gradually for a given load. However, after
the plastic hinge formation, the deflection increases significantly over a short time period
before collapse.
Theoretically, the cross-section of the beam is expected to behave plastically up until the
plastic moment, meaning the load applied should have a proportional linear relationship to
the deflection measured. When the plastic hinge forms, the effect is equivalent to the
introduction of a pin joint with a concentrated bending moment, Mp. Collapse will only occur
once the sufficient number of hinges required to reduce the structure to a mechanism have
formed.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the steel beam

2.1 Materials

1. Loading frame is provided to simply support the steel bar at three points A, C, and E.
Points B, D, and F are the loading points on the beam. (a=101.6mm)
2. Steel bars of approximately 360 mm (test A) and 660 mm (test B)
3. Long stroke dial gauges, which is attached to the loading points are used to measure
the deflection.
4. Scale pan to put the load on.
5. Variations of weights (1lb, 2lb, 5lb, 10lb)
6. Small-notched Perspex blocks fixed to the beam in order to provide a seating point for
the loading pan sharp edges.
7. Micrometer
8. Steel rule

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 3 of 16

2.2 Methods
Test A

The 360mm steel bar was used as a simply supported beam across support C and E with its
mid-span at the center, F. (F is 152.4mm away from C and E). The load was then applied
incrementally with 2lb each time at position F on the Perspex block. Before loading, the long
stroke dial gauge was zeroed. From 20lb onwards, the incremental weight was reduced to 1lb
because the steel bar was approaching yielding point and collapse mode. The load was
increased until the beam collapsed. Note that the load was added gently to the scale pan each
time so that no additional force was exerted. The data collected were then plotted into a load
deflection curve, which indicates the load at which first yield and total collapse occurs. In
addition, stress, yield moment, plastic moment and the beams stiffness were determined
using information from the graph plotted.

Test B

The longer steel bar (660mm) was used across support A, C and E. The loading points were
at B and D, which are both 101.6mm apart from the center support, C. Again, before loading,
the long stroke dial gauge was zeroed. The incremental weight was 2lb each time but for
every 20lb, all the 2lb weights were replaced by a single 20lb weight. This was followed with
zeroing the long stroke dial gauge. The incremental weight was reduced to 1lb when the steel
bar had reached its yielding point. Note that two sets of data were collected for each loading
point. The load was increased until the beam collapsed. The graph of load against average
deflection was plotted and the order of plastic hinge was noted from the graph.

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 4 of 16

3. RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS

Test A

Graph of Load against Deflection for Test A

180
160
(0.0181, 156)

140

Load [N]

120

(0.0093, 103)

100
Elastic Region

y = 10087x + 9.1505

80

Plastic Hinge

60

Yielding Region

40
20
0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Deflection [m]

Figure 2. Plot produced using table 1 (in the appendix). Graph of load against mid-span
deflection.
Rearranging equation 1 (from the appendix), to make Young's modulus,

, the subject:

Where:

Rearranging equation 2, to make the plastic moment,

, the subject:

Where:

Similarly, the yield moment,

, was found by rearranging equation 3:

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 5 of 16

Where:

From these two values, the shape factor, , could be found, using equation 4:

Using equation 5, the yield stress of the steel specimen can be found:

Where:

Test B

Graph of Total Load against Average Deflection

for Test B
700
600

580
514

Total Load [N]

500

418

400

Elastic Region
300

Plastic Hinge 1
Plastic Hinges 2 & 3

200
100
0
0

0.002

0.0048

0.004

0.006

0.0085

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.0134

0.014

0.016

Average Deflection [m]

Figure 3. Plot produced using table 2 (in the appendix). Graph of total load against average
deflection.

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 6 of 16

Equation 10 was used to calculate the plastic moment of the beam, based on the figure above:
Where:

Similarly, equation 11 was rearranged to make the plastic moment,

, the subject:

Where:

4. DISCUSSION
Test A
In order to be able to compare the theoretical values and the experimental values of the
[1]
experiment the theoretical mild steel yield strength was found to be
.
The equation for calculating the theoretical plastic moment Mp was:

Therefore, the theoretical plastic moment was found to be Mp = 12.04 Nm.

The percentage error between the theoretical and experimental plastic moment values was
calculated as such:

Therefore,

The equation for calculating the theoretical yielding moment My was:

Therefore, the theoretical yielding moment was found to be My = 8.024 Nm.

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 7 of 16

The percentage error between the theoretical and experimental yielding moment values was
calculated the same way as for the plastic moment as shown below:

The percentage error present when comparing the experimental value to the theoretical
values for plastic moment and yielding moment. The small percentage error indicates that the
experiment was accurate and the behaviour of the beam under the loading can be successfully
predicted by theoretical calculations with a slight inaccuracy.
In the results section the yielding strength was calculated twice for the yielding moment My
and plastic moment Mp which was then compared to the theoretical value of yielding strength
of the beam used. By using the same procedure previously to obtain the percentage error
between the theoretical and the experimental values for the yielding strength was found to be
2.22% and 1.13% calculated for yielding moment and plastic moment, respectively.
The inaccuracies and errors are still present in the experiment due to various factors.
The slight percentage error might have aroused from the procedure of the experiment and the
apparatus used. For example the dead weights had hollow stripe in order to place them on
scale pan which results in causing an offset. The weights might have been placed quickly
opposed to putting them carefully and gently. It was impossible to perform the experiment in
order to be ideal since the point where the load was supposed to be concentrated is locally
distributed therefore the circular bend after failure. In ideal conditions there is no increase in
length of the beam and the beam does not slide from its supports, while in the experimental
case the beams was slightly elongated on both sides of the point of load application.
In addition to the listed errors in the previous paragraph errors that might have been present
were the readings of the gauges by done by students which can be inaccurate which is a
human error. The material itself might have not been homogenous.

Test B

As seen in the graph of total load against average deflection for Test B, there are three
separately identifiable regions of data an elastic region, a region post first plastic hinge
formation and a last region post second and third plastic hinge formation. The three regions
display a linear relationship between deflection and load but have decreasing slopes
suggesting that the rate of deflection accelerated as the hinges formed and the load was
increasing. This was indeed what happened during the experiment: as the second and third
plastic hinges formed, the beam started deflecting by itself after additional load had been
placed on it. This made measuring the deflection difficult, as will be discussed below.
The test scenario in Part B can be approximated to a beam collapse, i.e. when three different
plastic hinges are formed. The bending moment required to form a plastic hinge in this case is
twice as large as in the case of one plastic hinge forming. The experimentally derived value
for Mp shows this clearly.

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 8 of 16

Error discussion

The inaccuracies and errors are still present in the experiment due to various factors.
The slight percentage error might have aroused from the procedure of the experiment and the
apparatus used. For example the dead weights had hollow stripe in order to place them on
scale pan which results in causing an offset. The weights might have been placed quickly
opposed to putting them carefully and gently. In ideal conditions there is no increase in
length of the beam and the beam does not slide from its supports, while in the experimental
case the beams was slightly elongated on both sides of the point of load application.
A problem that was present in both Test A and Test B was the fact that the Perspex blocks
used to fix the load in fact made it act as a slightly distributed load (across the bottom
surface of the block, roughly 1 cm). In our experimentally derived equations we have assumed
the loads to be concentrated but the aforementioned fact meant that they weren't quite
concentrated and this naturally rendered these equations slightly inaccurate. Regardless,
plastic hinges were in all cases observed, despite the fact that the loads were not
concentrated. The crackling layer of anti-corrosive paint on the beam at the points of hinging
were part of the proof of this.
Another major issue that plagued the measurements of deflection, in particular for Test B,
was the fact that the rate of deflection started accelerating as the load was increased and
hinges started forming. After the first hinge formation, but even more so after the second and
third ones formed, the beam started deflecting by itself at a greatly accelerating pace. This
made measuring the deflection in a precise manner virtually impossible. It seems not to have
had a major impact on our results, however, as shown by the good fit of the data to the line
of best fit drawn in the graph for Test B.
In addition to the listed errors in the previous paragraph errors that might have been present
were the readings of the gauges by done by students which can be inaccurate which is a
human error. The material itself might have not been homogenous.

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 9 of 16

5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion we can see that the correlation between our experimental results and the
theoretically expected performance of the beam was strong with the errors in calculations
ranging in the 1-2% region. Considering the somewhat simple apparatus used in this
experiment plus the strong reliance on human reliability, this seems like a sensible accuracy
and reliability for our experiments. Hence we have been able to observe the effects plastic
hinges have on loading systems especially when being loaded to fail. With Test Bs longer
beam and three plastic hinges being able to survive almost exactly double the load as test As
single plastic hinge system.
From the errors discussed above, several improvements/solutions could potentially be
offered and suggested. A digital readout for the long stroke dial gauges for instance would
eliminate the human error generated from reading oscillating analogue gauges, as well as
potentially eliminating the errors induced into the system from basic parallax and re-zeroing
errors. The scale pans the dead weights sit on could potentially be made thinner, so as to
enable the load to act more like a point force and less of the distributed force it has, hopefully
making the system more theoretical. This is obvious from the smooth curves/bends produced
around the load points were we would otherwise theoretically expect sharper edges. Lastly
another improvement could be made to the loading system, which is inherently reliant on the
steady hand of the individual loading the deadweight slowly and in a perfectly horizontal
manner. A potential replacement could be the use of something along the lines of a tension
machine, to ensure a steady and balanced loading of the beam.
Finally we are in the position to conclude with some degree of certainty that this
experiment was successful in completing its aims. As the experiment allowed us to see the
transition from theory reality, this was made most evident when the beams reached their
critical loads, and observe directly as the beams ability to resist deformation rapidly
deteriorated. This will go on to further inform us of the nature of beams deforming in reality
and the importance this carries when designing load bearing devices.

6. REFERENCES
1. Eagle Steel. Carbon Steel Grades.
http://www.eaglesteel.com/download/techdocs/Carbon_Steel_Grades.pdf (accessed
04/03/2014).

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 10 of 16

APPENDICES
Tabulated Data
Test A
Mass

Load

Deflection

[lb]

[kg]

[N]

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

0
0.907
1.814
2.722
3.629
4.536
5.443
6.350
7.257
8.165
9.072
9.525
9.979
10.433
10.886
11.340
11.793
12.247
12.701
13.154
13.608
14.061
14.515
14.969

8.900
17.799
26.699
35.598
44.498
53.397
62.297
71.196
80.096
88.995
97.895
102.344
106.794
111.244
115.694
120.143
124.593
129.043
133.493
137.942
142.392
146.842
151.292
155.741

[0.001
inches]
0
33.5
68.5
103
138
172
207
242
276.5
312
348
363
381
400
419
441
461.5
480
510
540
572
609
662
714

[m]
0.00000
0.00085
0.00174
0.00262
0.00351
0.00437
0.00526
0.00615
0.00702
0.00792
0.00884
0.00922
0.00968
0.01016
0.01064
0.01120
0.01172
0.01219
0.01295
0.01372
0.01453
0.01547
0.01681
0.01814

Table 1. Data collected from Test A. Yielding point highlighted in blue.

Test B
Mass per
Pan

Total Load

[lb]

[kg]

[N]

2
4
6
8

0.907
1.814
2.722
3.629

35.599
53.398
71.197
88.996

Deflection at B
[0.001
inches]
7.5
15
28
32

[m]
0.00019
0.00038
0.00071
0.00081

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

Deflection at D
[0.001
inches]
8
17
25
34

Average
Deflection

[m]

[m]

0.00020
0.00043
0.00064
0.00086

0.00020
0.00041
0.00067
0.00084

page 11 of 16

10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

4.536
5.443
6.350
7.257
8.165
9.072
9.979
10.886
11.793
12.701
13.608
14.515
15.422
16.329
17.236
18.144
19.051
19.958
20.865
21.319
21.772
22.226
22.680
23.133
23.587
24.040
24.494
24.948
25.401
25.855
26.308
26.762
27.216
27.669
28.123
28.576

106.795
124.594
142.393
160.192
177.991
195.790
213.588
231.387
249.186
266.985
284.784
302.583
320.382
338.181
355.980
373.779
391.578
409.377
427.176
436.075
444.975
453.874
462.774
471.673
480.573
489.472
498.372
507.271
516.171
525.070
533.970
542.869
551.769
560.668
569.567
578.467

43
48.5
56.5
65
79
85
88.5
96
107
116
125
130.5
140.5
147.5
159.5
173
185
191
205
218
232
246
262
273
288
297
310
325
346
388
403
425
448
476
511
550

0.00109
0.00123
0.00144
0.00165
0.00201
0.00216
0.00225
0.00244
0.00272
0.00295
0.00318
0.00331
0.00357
0.00375
0.00405
0.00439
0.00470
0.00485
0.00521
0.00554
0.00589
0.00625
0.00665
0.00693
0.00732
0.00754
0.00787
0.00826
0.00879
0.00986
0.01024
0.01080
0.01138
0.01209
0.01298
0.01397

42
51
59.5
68
76.5
84.5
92.5
100.5
109
117
125
133.5
142.5
151.5
160
171.5
183.5
196.5
208.5
219.5
231.5
251.5
265.5
277.5
287.5
297.5
310.5
326.5
339.5
372.5
386.5
403.5
421.5
441.5
475.5
509.5

0.00107
0.00130
0.00151
0.00173
0.00194
0.00215
0.00235
0.00255
0.00277
0.00297
0.00318
0.00339
0.00362
0.00385
0.00406
0.00436
0.00466
0.00499
0.00530
0.00558
0.00588
0.00639
0.00674
0.00705
0.00730
0.00756
0.00789
0.00829
0.00862
0.00946
0.00982
0.01025
0.01071
0.01121
0.01208
0.01294

0.00108
0.00126
0.00147
0.00169
0.00197
0.00215
0.00230
0.00250
0.00274
0.00296
0.00318
0.00335
0.00359
0.00380
0.00406
0.00438
0.00468
0.00492
0.00525
0.00556
0.00589
0.00632
0.00670
0.00699
0.00731
0.00755
0.00788
0.00827
0.00871
0.00966
0.01003
0.01052
0.01104
0.01165
0.01253
0.01346

Table 2. Data collected from Test B. Yielding points highlighted.

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 12 of 16

Relevant Equation Derivations

Test A

Figure 4. Free Body Diagram for Test A.

Using Macaulay's method, the bending moment is given by:

Where

is the reaction force at point C,

is the applied load and

is the beam length.

From a vertical force balance, it is given that:

Since the applied load acts at the centre of the two reaction forces, and the beam is
symmetric:

Integrating this expression gives:

Integrating again gives:
Using the boundary conditions:
It can be found that:

Since deflection at the centre of the beam was recorded, the deflection can be calculated as:

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 13 of 16

The mid-span is the position of maximum deflection as well as maximum bending:

(1)

The plastic hinge begins to form when:

(2)
(3)
The shape factor is defined as the ratio of the plastic moment to the yield moment:
(4)
It is also possible to calculate the yield stress of the specimen:
(5)
(6)

Test B

Figure 5. Free Body Diagram for Test B.

From a vertical force balance, it is given that:
Where:

(7)

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 14 of 16

Taking moments about A:

(8)
With two equations and three unknowns, the system is statically indeterminate.
Applying Macaulay's method gives the following:
Hence:

And:

Using the boundary conditions:

It can be found that:

Additionally:
And so substituting and simplifying yields:

Hence:
(9)
Combining equations 6, 7 and 8 gives the following:

Substituting back into the moment equation:

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 15 of 16

Hence:

The first plastic hinge forms at the centre of the beam (i.e. at point C), since this is the
maximum:

(10)
By sectioning at the centre of the beam, then calculating support reactions, for the case when
(i.e. when the first hinge has formed), and applying Macaulay's method, to find the
bending moment at points B and D, it is given that, for collapse:
(11)

SA2: Beam Failure through Plastic Hinge Formation

page 16 of 16