Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education 2020-2021 EG114101 CON3301 Engineering Science for ConstructionA Laboratory Report 1NCO02 Group2 HO Kwok Hin 200107629 Cheung Wai Ming 200219904 Cheung Ka Lok 200073289 Tsang Kam Ho 200193773Experiment 1: Archimedes’ Principle Objective: To study the Archimedes’ Principle Apparatus: Spring balance, displacement can, beaker, balance, metal block Procedures: 1. Fill the displacement can with water up to the level of the spout. 2. Weigh the metal block in air(W1) by using spring balance. Weigh the metal block in water(W2) by using spring balance. Weigh the beaker(W3). Place the beaker under the spout of the displacement can. Immerse the metal block in displacement can and collected the displaced water from the spout. 7. Weigh the beaker with water(W4) ay eye Results: Apparent loss of weight (upthrusts)= W-W2 = 120g-105g = 15g Weight of water displaced= Ws-Ws = 4.89-33.1 179 Compare the apparent loss of weight and weight of water displaced. According to the theory, the apparent loss of weight should be equal to the weight of water displaced by the objec But the apparent loss of weight we measured in the experiment was 15g. And weight of water displaced is 11.7g. The two results are notequal, the percentage difference is 24.71%. An error occurred in our experiment. Discussion and conclusion: An error occurred based on our experimental results. The percentage difference is 24.71%. We have considered that there are several reasons that lead to errors in the experiment. We believe that the main reason for the difference in weight between the apparentloss and water displaced are that the water cup cannotaccurately and smoothly flow the water to the measuring cup, which leads to the error of the data we obtain. Other factors may be that the measuring device is not able to accurately measure the data perfectly, and the rope hanging the object may be immersed in the water and slightly cause more water droplets to flow out of the water cup. Therefore, we should use a cup that can discharge water accurately and smoothly. Behaviorally, experiments should be carried out carefully, for example, try to avoid putting ropes in the water cup. At the same time, the measuring instrument and the value we take must be accurate. In the conclusion, based on the above reasons, the numerical values of our experimental results are wrong. In theory, the apparent loss of weight should be equal to the weight of water displaced by the object.Experiment 2: Law of floatation Objective To study the Law of floatation Apparatus: Spring balance, displacement can, beaker, balance, wooden block Procedures: I the displacement can with water up to the level of the spout .. Weigh the wooden block in air (W1) by using spring balance. . Weigh the beaker(W3) . Place the beaker under the spout of the displacementcan. . Place the wooden block in the displacement can. . Collect the displaced water from the spout. . Weigh the beaker with water(W4) Moyawn Results: Weight of the water displaced = W.-W = 60.2g-33.1g =27.19 Wy = 35g Compare the weight of the wooden block and weight of water displaced. Theoretically, the weight of the water displaced should equal the weigh the wooden block in air. But the weight of the water displaced only accounts about 77.4% of the weight of the wood. The text data ferent by 7.9g. Obviously there was an errorin the expe!Discussion and conclusion: We think that the spring still acts forcefully on the wooden block. Let the wooden don’t completely floating on the water. The wooden block only squeeze water with part of its weight. Thus, the data has the above error. Also, the water in the measuring cup may not be full. When the wooden block pressed on the water, the water will rise early. After, it was overflowed. A part of water was still in the measuring cup. Let the data appear some difference. In the test, we should sure that the wooden block is float completely on the water. For the measuring cup of water, we should avoid that its dons’ have enough water. Thus, we can fill the water into it until the water are overflowed. It can cut down the error in the test.Experiment 3: Static Equilibrium of Beam Objective: To study the vertical equilibrium of a simply supported beam and to determine the reaction of the beam by the experimental set-up and using the principles of statics and method of consistent deformation. Apparatus: TecQuipment SM104 Beam Apparatus MK III Theory: When a plane structure is in equilibrium, any part of the structure satisfies the following three equilibrium equations: ye =0 > x For a statically determine structure, the above equations can be used to determine the support reactions and the intemal force of the structure. For a statically indetermined structure, the above equations plus the additional equations from the consistent deformation can be use d to determine the support reaction and the internal force of the structure. Procedures: Refer to Figure 1, set up the beam AC with a span of 675 mm. Place two hanger equidistant, 100 mm, from the mid-point of the beam. Unlock the knife edges of the load cells. Place a dial gauge over the left-hand support A. Adjust the dial gauge to read zero. Move the same dial gauge to the top of support C, and then adjust the height if the knife edge so that the dial gauge reads zero. 5. Remove the dial gauge. aeyepAdjust the loads cell indicators at the support to read zero. Apply loads shown in Table 1. Record the readings of the load cells in Table 1. Use the calibration charts to obtain the support reaction at A and C and Sars enter the reactions in Table 1. Dial Gauge Dial Gauze 2375200 2375 Niguret Results: W,(N) | W2(N) | Load cell | Reaction | Load Reaction | Ra+Rc | A(N) % A c A Ra(N) | cellB | Rc(N) | (N) Reading Reading (Div) (Div) 15 o 0.30 3.26 0.15 1.82 5.08 0.08 1.6 10 o 0.63 6.50 03 3.60 10.1 0.1 1 15 o 0.96 9.74 0.51 5.37 15.11 | 0.11 0.73 20 o 1.31 13.18 0.69 7.15 20.33 | 0.33 1.65 25 o 1.62 16.23 0.86 8.83 25.06 | 0.06 0.24 2/0 5 0.16 1.89 0.31 3.40 5.29 0.29 5.8 0 10 0.32 3.46 0.63 6.55 10.01 | 0.01 O41 oO 15 0.50 5.22 0.94 9.62 14.84 | -0.16 -1,07 0 20 0.67 6.89 1.28 12.97 19.86 | -0.14 -0.7 0 25 0.85 8.66 1.61 16.72 25.38 | 0.38 1.52 3/5 5 0.48 5.03 0.48 5.07 10.1 0.1 1 10 10 0.98 9.94 0.98 10.01 19.95 | -0.05 70.25 15 15 1.50 15.05 1.50 15.14 30.19 | 0.19 0.63 20 20 2.00 19.96 2.00 20.08 40.04 | 0.04 01 25 25 2.53 25.17 2.52 25.21 50.38 | 0.38 0.76 B=(Ra+Rc)- (Wi +W2),%=100A/(W1.W2)Calculate the support reactions at A and C and compare the theoretical and experimental results. = Fx =0, Ha=0,Hco=0 Take moment about A, Ma = 0, Re (675) = Ws (237.5) + We (437.5) When W1 = 5, Wz = 0 Re (675) = (5) (237.5) + (0) (437.5) Re = 1.76N When Ws =10, Wa=0 Re (675) = (10) (237.5) + (0) (437.5) Rc = 3.52 N = Fy=0, Rat Re 1+ We Ra + 3.52 = 10+0 Ra = 6.48 N (And so forth) According to the values shown in our experimental results. It is almost the same as the value calculated by theory. Take the first set of data as an example (W1 = 5, W2 = 0). We obtain from the experiment that the value of RA is 3.26N and the value of RC is 1.82N. The calculated RA value based on theory is 3.24N and RC is 1.76N. The percentage difference of RA is 0.6% and RC is 3.4%. The difference between this two group of value is very subtle, almost the same.Discussion and conclusion: In this lab, when we put the 5N loads on the 237.5mm and ON loads on the 437.5mm location, the value we obtained is very close to the theoretically calculated number. We think it is assumed that the values set by all instruments remain unchanged. Test different weights at two locations in the experiment. All the resulting reactions are close to the theory. The reason why it is only close to the theory may be the error in reading the value and the instrument could not be set to very accurate. Also, the value of the acceleration due to gravity varies inside the laboratory. Although our obtained is very close to the theoretically calculated number, we may have overlooked some details during the experiment. For example, after each weight change, we need to use a pen to gently tap the beam. This action may be ignored. In the test, we should make sure to tap the beam with a pen every time after updating the reding of the load cell to improve the accuracy of the experiment. Consequently, excluding minor error, this experiment can prove the equilibrium of principle.