Curved bars experiment

Introduction
The study of curved bars is mostly used to estimate the total mechanical displacement of structures that
make use of curved sections. That is, they are not encountered as isolated structural members but are
often used in conjunction with other structural elements of varied shapes and dimensions.

Castigliano’s theorem is an effective method for estimation of deflections that occur in curved bars. In this
particular context, the first theorem is pertained (unit-load method).

This experiment puts the unit-load approach to the test. The test apparatus will exhibit the actual manners
of curved bars set up in dissimilar configurations and comparisons will be completed to the unit-load
method’s results. At times, due to the complex nature of the integral involved, a fairly accurate method
such as Simpson’s Rule can be used as an alternative of an analytical integration. Simpson’s rule states that
“an arithmetical rule for estimating the area under a curve where the values of an odd number of
ordinates, including those at each end, are known.” (en.wikipedia.org, nd) However, Simpson’s
rule is not taken in consideration for assessing this practical.

Castigliano’s theorem is used to find the deflections of the bars due to the function of the strain energy of
the structures

Aim and objective

The aim of this experiment is to verify experimentally the deflection of curved bars, having small cross-
sectional dimensions compared with the radius of the bars’ centre line. Both horizontal and vertical
deflections of the bars are to be determined and compared with theoretical estimates – i.e. using strain
energy theories from Castigliano’s theorem.

The objective of this experiment is the verification of deflection of the bars as follows:

 a 40cm diameter circular bar

 a 20cm radius quadrant
 a davit-shaped bar having straight length of 10cm and a quadrant of 20cm radius
Theory
Castigliano’s theorem can be employed to determine the deflection incurred by a force of loading
in a curved beam. Castigliano’s theorem states that the component in a given direction of the
deflection caused by an external force on an elastic body is equivalent to the partial derivative of
the work of deformation with respect to the component of the force in the given direction. The
work of deformation in this case is a moment induced by a loading force on the beam. The
general expression of Castigliano’s theorem is as follows:

where M is the moment induced by the force of loading, E is the elastic modulus of the
beam material, I is the moment of inertia of the beam, dM/dW is the change in moment
with respect to the force of loading and ds is the finite quantity of the beam over which
integration is to take place. Because the modulus E and the moment of inertia I are
constants, they are factored out of the integral.

The work of deformation, or the moment, can be expressed as the product of the
loading force, P, the radius from the center of curvature of the beam R and the sine of the
angle of curvature. The moment can be expressed by the following equation:

The integrating factor ds of the general Castigliano equation can be expressed as follows:

ds = R dθ (Equation 3)
The partial derivative of the work of deformation with respect to the component of the
force is expressed as a function of the radius of the beam and angle of the deflected beam.
For the vertical deflection, the partial derivative is written as:
(dM/dW)V = R sinθ (Equation 4)
and for the horizontal deflection of a curved beam, the partial derivative is written as:
(dM/dW)H = R(1 – cosθ) (Equation 5)
 Figure 1: Diagram of the semicircular beam of the testing apparatus featuring forces
and finite quantities. The light gray member of the diagram is the semicircular beam
before loading and the dark gray member is the beam after the load is applied.

To calculate the vertical deflection of a semicircular beam, substitute Equations 2,

3 and 4 into the general expression of Castigliano’s theorem (Equation 1). The
integration is bounded by zero and π because the beam is a semicircle. This process will
yield the following equation:

The loading force P, the radius R, the elastic modulus E and the moment of inertia I, are
all constants and can be factored out of the integral. Integrating with respect to theta
yields the following equation for the vertical deflection of semicircular beam:

To calculate the horizontal deflection of a semicircular beam, a dummy variable

H must me employed as seen in Figure 1. H represents a fictitious loading force in the
horizontal direction. Inserting the dummy variable allows for the integration in the
horizontal direction. Substituting Equations 2, 3 and 5 into the general expression of
Castigliano’s theorem yields the following expression:
Factoring out the constants P and R, and letting H equal zero, Equation 7 becomes:

(Equation 9)

Integrating Equation 9 with respect to theta yields the equation for the horizontal
deflection of a curved beam.

Figure 2: Diagram of the davit of the testing apparatus featuring forces and finite
quantities. The light gray member of the diagram is the davit before loading and the
dark gray member is the davit after the load is applied
The calculations for the vertical and horizontal deflection of the davit differ
slightly from those of the semicircular beam. The davit consists of a quarter circle curved
beam and a straight leg that connects to the base as seen in Figure 2. This means that the
calculations of deflection must be broken into two parts: one integral for the curved
section of the beam and another for the straight leg of the beam. The integration of the
curved section of the davit is bound by zero and π/2 because it is a quarter-circle and the
integration of the leg is bound by zero at the base of the beam and the length L of the
straight segment of the beam.

To calculate the vertical deflection caused by a force of loading for a davit, the
general equation of Castigliano’s theorem is modified to account for the straight segment
of the beam. Substitute Equations 2, 3 and 4 into the general Castigliano equation and
append an integral that expresses the moment endured by the straight segment
Factoring out the constants P and R yields the following expression:

Integrating with respect to theta and the y direction yields the following expression:

and can be tidied up a little and the equation for the vertical deflection of the davit can be
written as follows:

The straight segment of the davit must be accounted for in much the same way as
it was for the vertical deflection in the formulation of the horizontal deflection
calculation. Substituting Equations 2, 3 and 5 into the general expression of
Castigliano’s theorem and appending an integral to describe the deflection in the straight
segment of the davit yields the following:

Factoring out the constants P and R and letting the dummy variable H equal zero,
Equation 15 becomes the following:

Integrating for the curvature and straight segment yields the following expression:

Distributing the modulus of elasticity E and moment of inertia I into Equation 17 yields:

Tidied up a little further, the equation for the horizontal deflection of a davit can be
written as follows:
Table 1: below shows the different expressions to calculate the theoretical deflection in the three bars.

Procedures

Semi-circular bar

1. A hanger is attached onto the semi-circle and a 2N weight is applied on it.

This serves to stabilize the system and does not count towards the load that will be applied to
the system for which the deflection is obtained and noted.
2. The removable dials are secured onto the semi-circle experimental setup for measuring both
horizontal and vertical displacements.
3. The dials are zeroed and the zero-datum reading is recorded.
4. The member is loaded with weights taken from the range 2N up to 20N. Weight increments are
chosen suitably to obtain reasonable number of readings. For each applied load, the results are
recorded in a table as shown in the next section.

Steps 1-4 are repeated for the quadrant and davit-shaped bar
Recorded data
Table 2 - 40cm radius semi-circular bar

Load / N Vertical Displacement Horizontal displacement

Dial Reading / mm Deflection / mm Dial Reading / mm Deflection mm

2.0 13.07 0 1.58 0

4.0 11.58 1.49 1.78 0.20

6.0 10.94 2.13 2.20 0.62

8.0 8.29 4.78 2.79 1.21

10.0 7.89 5.18 3.40 1.81

12.0 5.32 7.75 3.91 2.33

14.0 4.88 8.19 4.49 2.91

16.0 2.30 10.8 5.08 3.50

18.0 1.59 11.5 5.70 4.12

Table 3 - 20cm radius quadrant bar

Load / N Vertical Displacement Horizontal displacement

Dial Reading / mm Deflection / mm Dial Reading / mm Deflection / mm

2 2.16 0 3.71 0

4 2.02 0.14 3.54 0.17

6 1.79 0.37 3.22 0.49

8 1.50 0.66 3.08 0.63

10 1.26 1.00 2.86 0.85

12 1.05 1.11 2.70 1.01

14 0.79 1.37 2.54 1.17

16 0.52 1.64 2.34 1.37

18 0.29 1.87 2.20 1.51

20 0.00 2.16 2.03 1.68

Table 4 - Davit-shaped bar having straight length of 10cm and a quadrant of 20cm radius

Vertical Displacement Horizontal displacement

Load / N
Dial Reading / mm Deflection / mm Dial Reading / mm Deflection / mm

2 7.16 0 8.05 0

4 6.80 0.36 7.66 0.39

6 6.52 0.64 7.26 0.79

8 6.20 0.96 6.91 1.14

10 5.83 1.33 6.44 1.61

12 5.39 1.77 5.95 2.10

14 5.05 2.11 5.55 2.50

16 4.70 2.46 5.12 2.93

18 4.40 2.76 4.72 3.33

20 4.06 3.10 4.31 3.74

Table 5 - Deflections for all 3 test samples

Semi-Circular Bar Quadrant Bar Davit-shaped Bar

Load / N
𝛿𝑉 / mm 𝛿𝐻 / mm 𝛿𝑉 / mm 𝛿𝐻 / mm 𝛿𝑉 / mm 𝛿𝐻 / mm
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1.49 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.36 0.39

6 2.13 0.62 0.37 0.49 0.64 0.79

8 4.78 1.21 0.66 0.63 0.96 1.14

10 5.18 1.81 1.00 0.85 1.33 1.61

12 7.75 2.33 1.11 1.01 1.77 2.10

14 8.19 2.91 1.37 1.17 2.11 2.50

16 10.8 3.50 1.64 1.37 2.46 2.93

18 11.5 4.12 1.87 1.51 2.76 3.33

20 - - 2.16 1.68 3.10 3.74

Analysis
For the 3 types of bars, graphs of load against deflection are plotted to demonstrate the relationship between
load and deflection.

1. Semi-Circular bar

14

12

10

Linear

8 (Vertical
Deflection)
Linear
(Horizontal
6 Deflection)

4
2

0
0 5 10 15 20

Load applied / N

Fig 1: graph of load against deflection for semi-circular bar

Both lines of best fit for horizontal and vertical deflection follow a linear relationship and pass near the origin
2. Quadrant bar

2.5

1.5

Linear

(Vertical
Deflection)
1
Linear
(Horizontal
Deflection)

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Load applied / N

Fig 2: graph of load against deflection for quadrant bar

Just as the semi-circular bar, a linear relationship is observed here as well with the best fit lines passing closer to all their
respective points
3. Davit-shaped bar
4

3.5

Linear

2.5 (Vertical
Deflection)
Linear
(Horizental
2 Deflection)

1
1.5

0.5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Load applied / N

Fig 3: graph of load against deflection for Davit-shaped bar

Here as well, the same linear relationship is observed with the lines of best fit passing near the origin.
The graphs plotted above are straight lines of best fit with intercept originally set as (0,0). Based
on these figures, it can be observed that:

 For the same set of loadings, the horizontal deflection is always less than the vertical
deflection for the Semi-circular bar and the Quadrant bar. This is infact true because
more displacement is obtained in the direction of the force applied as it is the case here,
assuming the limit of proportionality have not been exceeded.
 On the other hand, for the same set of loadings, the horizontal deflection is always
greater than the vertical deflection for the Davit bar. This might be because the limit of
proportionality had been exceeded.

For the Semi-circular and Quadrant bar, the theoretical values of the horizontal and vertical
deflections were calculated for a load of 8N being applied. For the sake of comparison, the values
of horizontal 𝛿𝐻 and vertical 𝛿𝑉 deflection obtained at 8N from the corresponding graphs of these 2
bars were considered and considered with the approximate values
Likewise, the theoretical values of 𝛿𝑉 and 𝛿𝐻 for the Davit Bar was calculated at a loading condition
of 10N. Therefore the values of 𝛿𝐻 and 𝛿𝑉 were considered at 10N on the Davit Bar graph.

All these values recorded were tabulated in Table 6 below and the percentage error between
each of these values are provided in Table 7.
Table 6 - Comparison of experimental and theoretical deflections

Vertical Deflection 𝛿𝑉 / mm Horizontal Deflection 𝛿𝐻/ mm

Member Load / N
Exact / Approximate Experimental Exact Approximat Experimental
mm / mm / mm / mm e / mm
/ mm
Semi-
8 15.06 4.78 19.18 1.6
circular

Quadrant 8 0.94 0.80 0.60 0.58 0.65

Davit 10 1.93 1.50 1.69 1.66 1.80

Table 7 - Percentage error between experimental and theoretical values

Member Vertical Deflection 𝛿𝑉 / mm Horizontal Deflection 𝛿𝐻/ mm

Semi-Circular 68.3% 91.7%

Quadrant 14.9% 12.1%

Davit 22.3% 8.43%

From the above tables, it can be noted and deduced that:

 The experimental values are always less than the experimental (ideal one). This
deviation was caused by human error but also, apparatus errors.
 The highest inaccuracy was present during the experimentation involving the Semi-
circular bar, having relatively high percentage errors for both the vertical (68.3%) and
horizontal (91.7%) deflection.
Also, the gauge head of each dial indicator used was held against the surfaces of the bars. This
might have slightly hindered the displacement of the bars and thus accounting for the deviation
of the experimental values to the theoretical ones
Sources of errors and limitations
 One of the most evident and impacting source of error is the dial indicator used. Being
over-sensitive and wrongly calibrated (as seen by zero error), the opposite rotation of
the short-hand and long-hand makes it highly difficult to read. Also, the surroundings
(moving table) made the needles fluctuate from time to time.
 The force exerted by the gauge head of each dial indicator might have slightly
restricted the displacement of the curved bars.
 The slots available on the hanger is limited. This prevented us to measure the
deflections at 20N load for the semi-circular bar

Improvement that can be made

 Instead of conventional dial indicators, digital indicators or meters could be used. This will
consequently reduce the errors engendered with the conventional dial indicator and also
save time.
 Hangers with more slots for weights should be available and therefore with sets of heavy
loadings, the same experiment can be used the yielding conditions of the curved bars.
 Before starting the experiment with a particular bar, the dimensions of the structure
should be verified and compared to the original ones as stated by the lab sheet to
ensure that yielding has not occurred.
Conclusion
From the graphs obtained, we have noticed a proportional relationship between the applied load
and the deflection. As the load was increased, the deflections increased accordingly.

The vertical deflections studied from the three specimens were perfectly complementing the
theoretical values except for the vertical deflection of the semi-circular bar. The % difference
between the experimental values and theoretical values for the semi-circular bar was very
significant and was, most probably caused by some serious sources of errors.

The experimental horizontal deflections across the three specimens were pretty consistent with
the theoretical values although those of the quadrant bar and the davit-shaped bar proved to
deviate at a higher percentage from the theoretical values.
References

Anon, (n.d.). [online] Available at: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~kujawski/curved bars

test.pdf [Accessed 22nd Feb 2017].
Beer, F. and Johnston, E. (1981). Mechanics of materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OF ROURKELA. (2013) Analysis of Stiffened
Rectangular Plate[Online]Available from:
http://ethesis.nitrkl.ac.in/4689/1/211ME1180.pdf [Accessed on: 28th February 2017]