Ship Structures I

IMPACT LOAD ON BEAMS

Jorge R. Alcivar C., Cleiner M. Marin B., Andres D. Ortega L.
College of Maritime Engineering, and, Biological, Ocean and NNRR Sciences
Escuela Superior Politcnica Del Litoral

Guayaquil Ecuador
jralciva@espol.edu.ec,cmmarin@espol.edu.ec.anddorte@espol.edu.ec

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cuando sometemos una viga a flexin, sabemos que existir una deformacin elstica debido a la
energa que se acumula en el sistema, y que, si deseamos analizarlo de manera esttica debemos
aplicar la carga en forma cuasiesttica. Pero, Qu pasa cuando tenemos una carga dinmica?, debido
a esto se realiza la siguiente prctica de laboratorio, en la que se hallar la relacin entre la carga
esttica y dinmica, la deformacin, y la deflexin presente. El objetivo de esta experimentacin es
llegar a la conclusin de si esta frmula sirve o no, y confirmar experimentalmente el resultado de
aplicar un enfoque de energa para determinar la deformacin dinmica por impacto elstico en una
viga de aluminio, a la cual aplicamos una carga desde una cierta altura para obtener los datos
experimentales. realizando 3 pruebas nicamente con el objetivo de tener un alto porcentaje de
confiabilidad al momento de hacer los clculos. Los datos son valores de microdeformaciones
unitarias, estas son proporcionales a la deformacin que sufren la roseta al momento de aplicar la
carga dinmica, estos valores son utilizados para luego obtener la deflexin al momento de que existe
el contacto entre la carga y la viga para luego compararlos con los resultados tericos.
Finalmente, debido a que la viga al momento de regresar a su posicin original presentaba friccin
en los soportes, la deflexin se distorsionaba de manera que podan ser mayor o menor a la original,
y por ende los resultados tericos y experimentales presentaron diferencias. Por ltimo, se calcula el
error, y se grfica las curvas para observar la tendencia..
Palabras Claves: Deflexin, Deformacin, Carga dinamica

Abstract
When we submit a beam to bending, we know that there will be an elastic deformation due to the
energy that accumulates in the system, and that, if we want to analyze it in a static way we must apply
the load in a quasi-static way. But, what happens when we have a dynamic load? Because of this, the
following laboratory practice is carried out, in which the relationship between the static and dynamic
load, the deformation, and the present deflection will be found.The general objective is to confirm
experimentally the result of applying an energy approach to determine the dynamic deformation by
elastic impact in an aluminum beam, to which we apply a load from a certain height to obtain the
experimental data. Each test was performed twice only with the objective of having a high percentage
of reliability at the time of doing the calculations.The data are values of unitary microdeformations,
these are proportional to the deformation that the rosette undergoes when applying the dynamic load,
these values are used to then obtain the deflection at the moment of the contact between the load and
the beam. compare them with the theoretical results.Finally, because the beam at the time of returning
to its original position had friction in the supports, the deflection was distorted so that they could be
greater or less than the original, and therefore the theoretical and experimental results presented
differences. Finally, the error is calculated, and the curves are plotted to observe the trend.
KeyWords: Deflection, Deformation, Dynamic loading
GENERAL OBJETIVE DATOS
check the expression for the dynamic load of L[cm] 57.7
the elastic impact of a falling body on a E[Kg/cm2] 7.00E+05
cantilever beam. I[cm4] 0.0048
Tabla 1 main dimension
INTRODUCTION THEORICAL
A load that falls freely on a static structure is Dropping the weight W at different heights h
called dynamic or impact force, that is, this the maximum deformation will be measured
force is equal to the weight of the body that and the unit deformation will be recorded,
falls freely multiplied by a factor: repeating this process for different weights,
the length of the cantilever beam and varying
2 the heights from where it is dropped, we will
= (1 + 1 + ) obtain different results.

In the following figure you can see the scheme
; Dynamic force for the practice
; Free falling weight.
; height from where W drops to the structure.
; Static deformation caused by W
2
(1 + 1 + ); it becomes the dynamic or

impact factor.
This factor arises assuming that any elastic
system can be treated as an equivalent spring.
This expression also serves to calculate the Fig 1 configuration of the system to perform the
maximum deformation it undergoes at the experimentation
moment of impact of the force. This is:
2 The measurements will vary in each attempt
= (1 + 1 + ) that is why they are expressed, the "Ex1 and

Ex2" corresponds to the location of the
The deduction of the expression can be found rosettes that also changes as I varied the length
in the book, Mechanics of Solids - Egor E. L since these are fixed, static and static
Popov, 2nd. Edition Cap 3, p. 116-118. deformations are also observed in an
exaggerated way maximum they will have is
EXPERIMENT DESIGN each test.
To achieve the objective and know if the
impact factor expression works, we will Applying a simple statistical analysis of the
assume a linear relationship between and data obtained we can average the values and
W where the slope should result in the impact being able to graph the curve vs W and
factor. Among the variables of this experiment thus be able to check the value of the slope that
we have: should be the dynamic factor, this compared
Weight that falls freely. with the theoretical for each case.
Height where it is dropped .
Unitary deformation.
Length of beam in cantilver
the main characteristics of the beam with the
experiment
EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE
The equipment available in the laboratory for
practice is:
Aluminum beam
Extensometers (rosettes)
Data acquisition card
Type C jaws
Fig 2 configuration of the system weigth-beam
Fig 3 equipment available
PROCESS
Before starting, it is necessary to take the
necessary precautions to avoid any incident.
The beam is secured at one end to
have the cantilever condition, the
extensometers were already located
before the practice.
A bottle was filled with sand and the
weight was measured on the scale.
Static deflection was measured by
placing the weight on the end and
measuring the initial condition
"without weight" and the final one.
With the bottle full of sand, it was left
to fall freely on the beam through a
tube so that it follows a straight path,
having the initial measurement and
placing a plasticine under the end of
the beam at the moment that the
weight impacts this is deformed, in
such a way that taking the difference
between the initial measurement and
the deformation of the clay we have
the maximum deflection.
Everything described above will be
done in this way: we will have 3
different lengths of L, for each length
we will drop 3 different weights at 3
different heights h, where it will be
repeated 3 times for each height,
giving a total of 81 data. This can be
seen in the following image.
Fig 4 tests to perform
Extensometers recorded the unit
deformations in each test, data that
will be used for the theoretical part of
the practice.
The data is recorded directly in an
electronic sheet at the time of practice
to facilitate calculations.
ANALISIS DE RESULTADOS
Table 2 shows the values recorded for the
different weights of the stactic deformation,
measured from the plasticine that after each
dynamic impact was deformed, we also added
the variance of the data taken which are in a
range of 0.013-0.07, because we perform 3
tests for each height.
 L[cm] 37.9 this generates a greater deformation, being
Deflecion H1[cm] H2[cm] H3[cm]
Pesos[kg] these proportional. In addition, we see that the
estatica 92.5 84.2 70.8
1 [c m] 1.9 1.2 1.4 correlation coefficients of the linear
0.066 2 [c m] 1.7 1.5 1.3
3 [c m] 1.7 1.5 1.2
regression, is between a range of 0.999-0.995,
VAR 0.013333333 0.03 0.01 this means that the values are reliable since
Deflecion H1[cm] H2[cm] H3[cm] there is a high relationship between dynamic
Pesos[kg]
estatica 92.5 84.2 70.8
1 [c m] 3.2 2.9 2.6 deformations and height.
0.124 2 [c m] 3.1 3 2.6
3 [c m] 3.2 2.8 2.5
VAR 0.003333333 0.01 0.00333333
Deflecion H1[cm] H2[cm] H3[cm]
Pesos[kg]
estatica 92.5 84.2 70.8
1 [c m] 3.1 3.22 2.9
0.174 2 [c m] 3.5 3.2 2.91
3 [c m] 3.6 3.244 3.4
VAR 0.07 0.00048533 0.0817
Tabla 2 different weights of the dynamic stactic

After using the formulations for the case of a

beam with one end embedded and the other
free shown in the theoretical introduction, to
estimate the values of the dynamic
deformations theoretically for the different
Fig 5 curves of theoretical and experimental dynamic
weights, we obtain very good values since,
deformation vs the height, for the different weights
when comparing them with the experimental
values we have that the percentage of error is
in a range of 0% -35%, as shown in table 3.
L[cm] 37.5
The highest error percentages were generated Mico- H1[cm] H2[cm] H3[cm]
Pesos[kg] Deformacion
when the length of the beam was 57.7 cm, unitaria
92.5 84.2 70.8
CH3
being a greater length than the initial one this 1 -32.41 -32.21 -33.12
0.066 2 -31.8 -34.27 -32.83
produced, that, when falling the weight on her, 3 -32.17 -32.6 -34.74
the beam more than once hit the plasticine, Mico- H1[cm] H2[cm] H3[cm]
Pesos[kg] Deformacion
92.5 84.2 70.8
altered the values of the dynamic deformation. CH5
unitaria
1 -13.64 -13.69 -13.69
0.066 2 -12.21 -14.32 -14.32
L[cm] 37.5 3 -12.4 -14.2 -14.2
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] STAC W1 dyn [teo] W1 dyn [exp] Error
92.50 0.356 1.571 1.662 6%
Tabla 4 tabulated values of the micro deformations, for
0.066 84.20 0.356 1.502 1.589 6% the weight
70.80 0.356 1.383 1.462 6%

Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] STAC W2 dyn [teo] W2 dyn[exp] Error

92.50 0.670 3.001 3.167 6%
0.124 84.20 0.670 2.871 2.900 1% Table 4 shows the tabulated values of the
70.80 0.670 2.648 2.567 3%
micro deformations, for the weight of 0.066
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm]
92.50
STAC
0.940
W3 dyn [teo] W3 dyn [exp]
3.465 3.400
Error
2%
kg, recorded by the extensometers, the values
0.174 84.20 0.940 3.317 3.221 3% of Canal5 were recorded near the embedment
70.80 0.940 3.063 3.070 0%

Tabla 3 different weights of the dynamic deformation

As it is observed in figure 5, the curves of
theoretical and experimental dynamic
deformation vs the height, for the different
weights, as it is observed for a greater height,
and those of Canal3 near the free end. As
shown in table 5, after applying the
formulation, shown in the annex we have the
experimental dynamic deformations generated
by the extensometers, buying it with the values
of the theoretical dynamic deformations
produce an error between 0% -60%, this value
high of the error is due to the influence of the CONCLUSIONS AND
plasticine on the beam. RECOMMENDATIONS

L[cm] 37.4
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm]
92.50
W1 dyn [exp]
1.670
W1 dyn [teo]
1.571
Error
6%
The experimental result was
0.066 84.20 1.634 1.502 9% confirmed with the theoretical data
70.80 1.680 1.383 21%
the dynamic deformation by elastic
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W2 dyn [exp] W2 dyn [teo] Error
92.50 3.013 3.001 0% impact in beams.
0.124 84.20
70.80
3.085
3.071
2.871
2.648
7%
16%
The deduction between dynamic
force and static force was made by
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W3 dyn [exp] W3 dyn [teo] Error
92.50 5.069 3.465 46% the energy method.

0.174 84.20 5.383 3.317 62%
70.80 4.081 3.063 33% The proportionality constant between
Tabla 5 dynamic deformations generated by the deflection and unit deformation was
extensometers determined.
As shown in Figure 6, the curves of the After performing the experimental
theoretical and experimental dynamic part, based on our results and the
deformation generated by the extensometers correlation coefficient that
vs the height, obtaining a correlation approaches 1, the formulation seen in
coefficient from the linear regression, which is classes is reliable and generates good
in a range of 0.0672-0.997. This means that results
certain data are not very reliable, but others if Control the variables that may
there is a high relationship. influence the calculations, such as in
the acquisition of data and the correct
use of the support.
Verify that the extensometers of the
expected data.
improve the system to measure the
dynamic deformation

Fig 6 curves of the theoretical and experimental dynamic

deformation generated by the extensometers vs the
height,
 L[cm] 48.4
ANEXOS Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] STAC W1 dyn [teo] W1 dyn [exp] Error
Deduction of maximum deformation 0.066
92.50
84.20
0.742
0.742
2.018
1.931
2.033
1.633
1%
15%
formula: 70.80 0.742 1.782 1.550 13%

= Pesos[kg] alturas[cm]
92.50
STAC
1.395
W2 dyn [teo]
3.768
W2 dyn[exp]
3.700
Error
2%
1 0.124 84.20 1.395 3.610 3.333 8%
( + ) = 70.80 1.395 3.338 2.883 14%
2
1 2
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm]
92.50
STAC
1.957
W2 dyn [teo]
4.094
W2 dyn[exp]
4.200
Error
3%
+ = 0.174 84.20 1.957 3.925 4.150 6%
2 70.80 1.957 3.634 4.033 11%
1 L[cm] 57.7
2 / + " / Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] STAC W1 dyn [teo] W1 dyn [exp] Error
2 92.5 1.258 1.975 2.067 5%
2 0.066 84.2 1.258 1.425 1.917 34%
= 70.8 1.258 1.321 1.700 29%

= Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] STAC W2 dyn [teo] W2 dyn[exp] Error
92.5 2.363 2.971 3.183 7%
2
+ 2 + 2 = 0 0.124 84.2
70.8
2.363
2.363
2.850
2.642
3.067
2.983
8%
13%
2
2 2 = 0 Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] STAC W2 dyn [teo] W2 dyn[exp] Error
92.5 3.316 3.927 3.867 2%
0.174 84.2 3.316 3.770 3.750 1%
We apply the general formula to find the 70.8 3.316 3.501 3.540 1%

dynamic deformation: Tabla 6 different weights of the dynamic deformation

2 4 L[cm] 37.4
= Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W1 dyn [exp] W1 dyn [teo] Error
2 92.50 1.670 1.571 6%
0.066 84.20 1.634 1.502 9%

= 2 2 2 4(2 )/2 70.80 1.680 1.383 21%

Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W2 dyn [exp] W2 dyn [teo] Error

92.50 3.013 3.001 0%
2
2 + 2 + 8( ) 0.124 84.20 3.085 2.871 7%
70.80 3.071 2.648 16%
=
2 Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W3 dyn [exp] W3 dyn [teo] Error
2 92.50 5.069 3.465 46%
2
= + ( + 2 ) 0.174 84.20 5.383 3.317 62%
70.80 4.081 3.063 33%
L2
Aplico factor comn 2 lo que est dentro Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W1 dyn [exp] W1 dyn [teo] Error
92.50 1.731 2.018 14%
del parntesis: 0.066 84.20 1.703 1.931 12%
70.80 1.714 1.782 4%

Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W2 dyn [exp] W2 dyn [teo] Error

= (1 + 21 + 2/ ) 92.50 3.347 3.768 11%
0.124 84.20 3.233 3.610 10%
70.80 3.241 3.338 3%

Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W3 dyn [exp] W2 dyn [teo] Error

92.50 4.349 4.094 6%
0.174 84.20 4.455 3.925 14%
70.80 4.390 3.634 21%
L3
Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W1 dyn [exp] W1 dyn [teo] Error
92.50 1.783 1.975 10%
0.066 84.20 1.766 1.425 24%
70.80 1.754 1.321 33%

Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W2 dyn [exp] W2 dyn [teo] Error

92.50 3.305 2.971 11%
0.124 84.20 3.211 2.850 13%
70.80 3.307 2.642 25%

Pesos[kg] alturas[cm] W3 dyn [exp] W2 dyn [teo] Error

92.50 4.523 3.927 15%
0.174 84.20 4.546 3.770 21%
70.80 4.494 3.501 28%

Tabla 7 dynamic deformations generated by the

extensometers