OBJECTIVE

1) To establish the relationship between strut length and buckling load.

2) To study the effect of end condition on the buckling load.

LERNING OUTCOMES
1) Able to apply the engineering knowledge in practical application.
2) To enhance technical completely in structure engineering through laboratory
application.
3) Communicate effectively in group.
4) To identify problem, solving and finding out appropriate solution through
laboratory application.

INTRODUCTION
1) A compressive member can fail in two ways. The first is via rupture due to the
direct stress and the second is by an elastic mode of failure called buckling. Short
wide compressive member tends to fail by material crushing.
2) When buckling occurs the strut will no longer carry any more load and it will
simply continue to buckle i.e. its stiffness then becomes zero and it is useless as a
structural member.

THEORY
1) To predict the buckling load Euler buckling formula is used. The critical value in
Euler Formula is the slenderness ratio, which is the ratio of the length of the strut
to its radius of gyration (L/K).
2) The Euler formula become inaccurate for struts with L/K ratio of less than 1.125
and this should be taken into account in any design work.
3) Euler buckling formula for pin struts :
Pe = 2EI / L2
Where ;
Pe = Euler buckling load (N)
E = Youngs Modulus (Nm-2)
I = Second moment of area (m4)
L = Length of strut (m)
PROCEDURE
Part 1
1) Fit the bottom chuck to the machine and remove the top chuck (to give two
pinned ends). Select the shortest strut, number 1, and measured the cross section
using the vernier provided and calculated the second moment of area, I, for the
strut. (bd3/12)
2) Adjust the position of the sliding crosshead to accept the strut using the thumbnut
to lock off the slider. Ensure that there is the maximum amount of travel available
on the handwheel threat to compress the strut. Finally tighten the locking screw.
3) Carefully back-off the handwheel so that the strut is resting in the notch but not
transmitting any load. Rezero the forcemeter using the front panel control.
4) Carefully start to load the strut. If the strut begin to buckle to the left, flick the
strut to the right and vice versa (this reduces any error associated with the
straightness of strut). Turn the handwheel until there is no further increase in load
(the load may peak and then drop as it settles in the notches).
5) Record the final load in Table 1. Repeat with strut numbers 2,3,4 and 5 adjusting
the crosshead as required to fit the strut.

Part 2
1) To study the effect of end conditions, follow the same basic procedure as in part 1,
but this time remove the bottom chuck and clamp the specimen using the cap head
screw and plate to make a pinned-fixed end condition.
2) Record your results in Table 2 and calculate the values of 1/L2 for the struts.
3) Fit the top chuck with the two cap head screws and clamp both ends of the
specimen to make a pinned-pinned end condition. Calculate the new values of
1/L2.
4) Enter the result into Table 3.

RESULT

Strut Length (mm) Buckling Load (N) Buckling Load (N)

Number (Experiment) (Theory)
1 320 -52 94.4604
2 370 -32 70.6556
3 420 -30 54.8342
4 470 -18 43.7879
5 520 -12 35.7720
Table 1

Strut Length (mm) Buckling Load (N) 1/L2 (m-2)

Number (Experiment)
1 320 -156 9.7656
 2 370 -109 7.3046
3 420 -91 5.6689
4 470 -57 4.5269
5 520 -35 3.6982
Table 2

Strut Length (mm) Buckling Load (N) 1/L2 (m-2)

Number (Experiment)
1 320 -82 9.7656
2 370 -80 7.3046
3 420 -75 5.6689
4 470 -56 4.5269
5 520 -43 3.6982
Table 3

Given,
Ealuminium = 69 GNm-2
= 69 x 109 Nm-2

Width and Thick of the Strut ;

Reading Width / b (m) Thick / d (m)
1 19.73 x 10-3 2.10 x 10-3
2 19.65 x 10-3 2.09 x 10-3
3 19.87 x 10-3 1.96 x 10-3
Average 19.75 x 10-3 2.05 x 10-3

DATA ANALYSIS

Given, Ealuminium = 69 GNm-2

= 69 x 109 Nm-2

Width, b = 19.75 x 10-3 m

Thick, d = 2.05 x 10-3 m

bd 3
From Equation, I
12
 (0.01975)(0.00205) 3

12
= 1.42 x 10-11 m4

For Table 1
Length = 0.320 m
2 EI
Buckling Load Theory, N
L2

2 69 x10 9 1.42 x10 11

(0.320) 2

= 94.4604

Length = 0.370 m
2 EI
Buckling Load Theory, N
L2

2 69 x10 9 1.42 x10 11

(0.370) 2

= 70.6556

Length = 0.420 m
2 EI
Buckling Load Theory, N
L2

2 69 x10 9 1.42 x10 11

(0.420) 2

= 54.8342
Length = 0.470 m
2 EI
Buckling Load Theory, N
L2

2 69 x10 9 1.42 x10 11

(0.470) 2

= 43.7879

Length = 0..520 m
 2 EI
Buckling Load Theory, N
L2

2 69 x10 9 1.42 x10 11

(0.520) 2

= 35.7720

For Table 2 and Table 3

For, L = 0.32 m
1
1/L2
0.32 2
= 9.7656 m-2

For, L = 0.37 m
1
1/L2
0.37 2
= 7.3046 m-2

For, L = 0.42 m
1
1/L2
0.42 2
= 5.6689 m-2

For, L = 0.47 m
1
1/L2
0.47 2
= 4.5269 m-2

For, L = 0.52 m
1
1/L2
0.52 2
= 3.6982 m-2

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Part 1
 1) Examine the Euler buckling equation and select an appropriate parameter to
establish a linear relationship between the buckling load and the length of the
strut. Write the relationship below.
2 EI
P
L2
Where ;
Pe = Euler buckling load (N)
E = Youngs Modulus (Nm-2)
I = Second moment of area (m4)
L = Length of strut (m)

2) Calculate the value and enter them in Table 1 with an appropriate title.
Please refer section Analysis for the calculations works.

3) Plot a graph to prove the relationship is linear. Compare your experimental

value to those calculated from Euler formula by entering a theoretical line onto
the graph. Comment on the result.
Please refer to the graph 1 attached.

4) Does the Euler Formula predict the buckling load?

Yes.

Part 2
1) Plot separate graphs of buckling load versus 1/L2 and calculate the gradient of
each line.
Please refer to the graph 2 and graph 3 attached.
2) Fill the table below showing the comparison between experimental and
theoretical ratio by end condition.
Please refer to the table below.

Pinned Pinned* Pinned Fixed Fixed Fixed

Experimental gradient
Experimental ratio
Theoretical ratio

Notes :
1. *Use the experimental gradient from Part 1.
2. Experimental ratio = Experiment Gradient / gradient of pinned-pinned.
3. Theoretical ratio can be obtained from Euler Formula for pinned fixed
and fixed fixed.

i. Comment on the experimental and theoretical ratio.

ii. What conclusion can you made from the experiments.

3) Comment on the different between the theoretical and experimental results.

Referring to the results from the calculation, we can conclude that, the different
between the theoretical and experimental results are very big for both Experiment 1,
 2, and 3. Thus, the percentage (%) of the difference between the theoretical and
experimental results are extremely big and high. From the experiment done, we can
notice that, the span with longer length will give us the bigger value of deflection
when the load is place at the mid span for both theoretical and experimental results.
While for the span with shorter length, the deflection is slightly small compare to the
longer span.

For Experiment 1 (span 400mm), when the load of 100g or 0.981 N was place at
the mid span, test indicator give us the reading of deflection with -0.15. When the
load is increased to 1.962 N and 2.943 N respectively, the deflection recorded by test
indicator are -0.28 and -0.42. The values of the deflection for both theoretical and
experimental results increase proportionally to the load when the load of 100g, 200g
and 300g is place on the mid span.

For Experiment 2 (span 300mm), when the load of 100g or 0.981 N was place at
the mid span, test indicator give us the reading of deflection with -0.07. When the
load is increased to 1.962 N and 2.943 N respectively, the deflection recorded by test
indicator are -0.14 and -0.21. But, the value of deflection for this experiment is
smaller than the experiment 1. This is because the length of the span used, 300mm, is
shorter than experiment 1. The values of the deflection for both theoretical and
experimental results increase proportionally to the load when the load of 100g, 200g
and 300g is place on the mid span.

For Experiment 3 (span 200mm), when the load of 100g or 0.981 N was place at
the mid span, test indicator give us the reading of deflection with -0.03. When the
load is increased to 1.962 N and 2.943 N respectively, the deflection recorded by test
indicator are -0.05 and -0.07. The value of deflection for this experiment is smaller
than the experiment 1 and experiment 2. This is because the length of the span used,
200mm, is shorter than the span used for experiment 1 and experiment 2. The values
of the deflection for both theoretical and experimental results increase proportionally
to the load when the load of 100g, 200g and 300g is place on the mid span.

From the results we get from this experiment, though the different between the
theoretical and experimental results are very big, but the deflection in the span
increase when the load is increase. Besides that, the value of deflection also increase
when the length of span used is longer. Thus, we conclude that, the deflection of span
is proportional to the load we place on it and the length of the span we used.

CONCLUSION
From this experiment, our group managed to determine the relationship between
span and deflection. In determining the deflections of the beams under load, elastic
theory is used. From the experiment and the results we get from this experiment, we
notice that, the span with longer length will give us the bigger value of deflection when
the load is place at the mid span for both theoretical and experimental results. While for
the span with shorter length, the deflection is slightly smaller compare to the longer span
though the load used is same with the longer one. Though the different between the
theoretical and experimental results are very big, but the deflection in the span also
increase when the load is increase. Thus, we conclude that, the deflection of span is
proportional to the length of the span and the load we place on it.

REFERENCES

Yusof Ahamad (2001). Mekanik Bahan Dan Struktur. Malaysia: Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia Skudai Johor Darul Tazim.

R. C. Hibbeler (2000). Mechanic Of Materials. 4th. ed. England: Prentice Hall

International, Inc.