Job#2

To determine Euler critical buckling load for different end conditions using
ST370 Column Buckling Apparatus:

Objective:
Main objective of this job is to study the buckling load for columns with different end
conditions.

1. General Description:
The equipment is used for studying strut buckling under load. It is to be used with ST300
Universal Structural Frame or ST305 Universal Base Frame.

The top frame has loading screw which pushes a cylindrical strut support sliding in a
bushing. The bottom frame has a load cell and a cylindrical strut support in a socket.
Each strut has end condition for knife-edge or build-in. The load reading is by an indicator.
A small lateral load is applied by means of a pulley and a weight hanger. A dial indicator
measures the lateral deflection.
1.1. Technical Data
o Top support with a loading screw: 1 ea.
o Bottom support with a load cell: 1 ea. 2.5 kN
o ST150 Force indicator: 1 ea.
o Strut specimens
o Size: 19 x 3 (approx.) x 400 mm bar with knife edge ends.
o Material: 1 ea. mild steel, brass, aluminum.
o Strut support
o Built in: 2 ea.
o Knife - edge: 2 ea.
o ST131 Dial indicator: 1 ea.
o Horizontal load hanger with pulley: 1 set.
o Weight: 1 lot, total 4 N
o Power supply: 220 V 1Ph 50 Hz

2. RELATED THEORY

2.1 Columns

A column differs from a tension bar in that any non-uniform yielding in the cross section
brings about further yielding. This non-uniform yielding is not serious in short blocks, but
is serious in columns. Columns are divided for analysis into long columns and short
columns, in both of which initial inequalities introduce serious bending. Long columns fail
by buckling at a load less than the elastic limit of the material. Buckling is the sudden
collapse of a long column at or above the critical load at witch equilibrium no longer
obtains. The ratio of length to radius of gyration, or slenderness ratio, at which a long
column begins to fail by buckling, is between 100 and 120. Such columns are computed
by Euler’s formula. Few structural columns fail as long columns.
Short columns with values of (l/k) less than 100 begin to fail when the combination of
direct stress and bending stress reaches the yield point of the material. The actual failure
is dependent upon the homogeneity of the material, the straightness of the column, and
the eccentricity of loading, all of which control bending stresses. Failure of built-up
columns begins with a local crippling at some part of the column. Such elements are not
susceptible of calculation, and short columns of this kind are to be computed by empirical
formulas which are however, modeled on rationally derived forms.
2.2 Buckling
Buckling is a form of deformation as a result of axial- compression forces. This
leads to localized bending in a direction lateral to the applied force. This mode of
failure is quick, and hence dangerous.

2.3 Long Columns with Central Loading (Euler Theory)

We can account for these various end conditions by writing the Euler equation in two
following forms:

The quantity Pcr /A in Eq. (1) is the critical unit load. It is the load per unit area necessary
to place the column in a condition of unstable equilibrium. In this state any small
crookedness of the member, or slight movement of the support or load, will cause the
column to collapse. The unit load has the same units as strength, but this is the strength
of a specific column, not of the column material. Doubling the length of a member, for
example, will have a drastic effect on the value of Pcr /A but no effect at all on, say, the
yield strength Sy of the column material itself.
Example will have a drastic effect on the value of Pcr /A but no effect at all on, say, the
yield strength Sy of the column material itself. Equation (1) shows that the critical unit
load depends only upon the modulus of elasticity and the slenderness ratio. Thus a column
obeying the Euler formula made of high-strength alloy steel is no stronger than one made
of low-carbon steel, since E is the same for both. The factor C is called the end-condition
constant, and it may have any of the theoretical values 1/4, 1, 2 and 4 depending upon
the manner in which the load is applied. In practice it is difficult, if not impossible, to fix
the column ends so that the factor C = 2 or C = 4 would apply, Even if the ends are welded,
some deflection will occur. Because of this, some designers never use a value of C greater

than unity. However, if liberal factors of safety are employed, and if the column load is
accurately known, then a value of C not exceeding 1.2 for both ends fixed, or for one end
rounded and one end fixed, is not unreasonable, since it supposes only partial fixation. Of
course, the value C =1/4 must always be used for a column having one end fixed and
one end free. These recommendations are summarized in Table 2-1.

When Eq. (1) is solved for various values of the unit load (Pcr /A) in terms of the
slenderness ratio (l/k), we obtain the curve PQR shown in Fig. 2-2. Since the yield strength
of the material has the same units as the unit load, the horizontal line through S y and Q
has been added to the figure. This would appear to make the figure cover the entire range
of compression problems from the shortest to the longest compression member. Thus it
manufacture, is likely to contain defects such as initial crookedness of load eccentricities.
The Existence of such defects and the methods of accounting for them will usually involve
a -of-safety approach or a stochastic analysis. These methods work well for long columns
and for simple compression members. However, tests show numerous failures for
columns with slenderness ratios below and in the vicinity of point Q, as shown in the
shaded area in Fig. 2-2. These have been reported as occurring even when near perfect
geometric specimens were used in the testing procedure.

A column failure is always sudden, total, and unexpected, and hence dangerous. There is
no advance warning. A beam will bend and give visual warning that it is overloaded; but
not so for a column. For this reason neither simple compression methods nor the Euler
column equation should be used when the slenderness ratio is near (l/k)Q. Then what
should we do? The usual approach is to choose some point T on the Euler curve of Fig. 2-
2. If the slenderness ratio is specified as (l/k)1 corresponding to point T, then use the Euler
equation only when the actual slenderness ratio is greater than (l/k)1.
Most designers select point T such that (Pcr /A) = (Sy /2) Using Eq. (1) with C = 1, we find
the corresponding value of (l/k)1 to be

2.3. Intermediate-Length Columns with Central Loading

(J.B. Johnson formula or parabolic)
Over the years there have been a number of column formulas proposed and used for the
range of (l/k) values for which the Euler formula is not suitable. Many of these are based
on the use of a single material; others, on a so-called safe unit load rather than the critical
value. Most of these formulas are based on the use of a linear relationship between the
slenderness ratio and the unit load. The parabolic or J.B Johnson, formula now seems to
be the preferred one among designers in the machine, automotive, aircraft, and
structural-steel construction fields.
The general form of the parabolic formula is

Where a and b are constants that are evaluated by fitting a parabola to the Euler curve of
Fig. 2-2 as shown by the dashed line ending at T. If the parabola is begun at Sy, then a = Sy.
If point T is selected as previously noted, then Eq. (2) gives the value of (l/k)1 and the
constant b is found to be

Upon substituting the known values of a and b into Eq. (3), we obtain, for the parabolic
equation,
3. TEST PROCEDURES

Strut specimens of various materials are supplied. Only two types of support are provided
i.e. knife edge and built – in. The built – in support is attached to the end of the specimen.
Procedures for testing specimen on knife edge support are as follows.

● Set up the test device as per Fig. 3-1.

● Insert the V-notch support in the bottom socket.
● Insert the V-notch support and hold in top socket by hand.
● Insert the specimen onto the support and adjust the loading screw such that no
compression is exerted on the specimen. The load indicator should now read zero. If not
the tare load is recorded.
● Install the dial gauge set to measure the deflection at the mid span and set dial gauge
to zero for the specimen.
● Install hanger and small weight (side loading) to hold at the mid span of the specimen
to direct the deflection of specimen to agree with dial gauge.
● Slowly apply the compression load by turning the loading screw and record both load
and deflection on the data sheet.
● Plotted the graph of load and deflection in y-x axis.
● Determine the critical actual load.
𝑃𝑐𝑟
“(Pcr for each specimen and calculate critical actual unit load ( )”.
𝐴

● Determine the critical unit loads (Pcr /A) by Euler Theory.

3 Observations and Calculations:
3.1 Theoretical Calculations
3.1.1 Sample Calculation

Aluminium ( Fix-Fix)

Fixed end constant = c = 1.2

Modulus of elasticity = E = 69 GPa

Breadth of specimen = b = 0.019m

Height of specimen = h = 0.003𝑚

Length of specimen = L = 0.4m

𝑏 × ℎ3
𝐼=
12

0.019 × 0.0033
=
12

I= 𝟒. 𝟐𝟓𝟕 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟏𝟏 𝒎𝟒

𝑐 × 𝜋2 × 𝐸 × 𝐼
𝑃𝑐𝑟 =
𝐿2

1.2 × 𝜋 2 × 69 × 109 × 4.257 × 10−11

𝑃𝑐𝑟 =
0.42

𝑷𝒄𝒓 = 𝟐𝟏𝟖 𝑵
 3.1.2 Table of Theoretical “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A):

MATERIALS C L (m) B (m) H E I AREA Pcr Pcr/A

(m) (Gpa) (m4) (m2 ) (N) (N/m2)
AL 1.2 0.4 0.019 0.003 69 4.275E-11 0.000057 218.3465 3830640
AL 1 0.4 0.019 0.003 69 4.275E-11 0.000057 181.95 3192105
Brass 1.2 0.4 0.019 0.003 113.5 4.275E-11 0.000057 359.1642 6301126
Brass 1 0.4 0.019 0.003 113.5 4.275E-11 0.000057 299.3 5250877.1
Mild 1.2 0.4 0.019 0.003 200 4.275E-11 0.000057 632.8884 11103305
Mild 1 0.4 0.019 0.003 200 4.275E-11 0.000057 527.4 9252631.5

Where,

C=End conditions

L=length of specimen

B=breadth of specimen

H=height of specimen

E=Modulus of Elasticity

I=moment of inertia of specimen

A=Cross sectional area of specimen normal to the applied compressive load

𝑃𝑐𝑟 =Euler;s Critical Load

3.2 Experimental Calculations
3.2.1 Test No:1
Specimen’s Size : 400𝑚𝑚 × 19𝑚𝑚 × 3𝑚𝑚
End condition: Fix-Fix
Material: brass
Side Loading: 2.5N
3.2.1.1 Table of Observations:
Sr. No deflection Dial gauge reading Load
(mm) (div) (N)
1 0 0 0
2 1 100 125
3 2 200 280
4 3 300 343
5 4 400 421
6 5 500 496
7 6 600 531
8 7 700 577
9 8 800 604
10 9 900 612
11 10 1000 625
12 11 1100 633
13 12 1200 646
14 13 1300 649

3.2.1.2 Graph

Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection Poly. (Load vs Deflection)
700

600

500

400
Load (N)

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-100
Deflection (mm)
3.2.1.3. Experimental value of “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A)

Pcr = 649N

Pcr/A =11.38N/mm2

3.2.2 Test No:2

Specimen’s Size:400𝑚𝑚 × 19𝑚𝑚 × 3𝑚𝑚

End condition: Pin -pin
Material: Brass
Side Loading: 2.5N

3.2.2.1 Table of Observations:

Sr. No deflection Dial gauge reading Load
(mm) (div) (N)
1 0 0 0
2 1 100 43
3 2 200 60
4 3 300 98
5 4 400 115
6 5 500 127
7 6 600 136
8 7 700 140
9 8 800 151
10 9 900 156
11 10 1000 165
12 11 1100 169
13 12 1200 171
14 13 1300 175
15 14 1400 179
16 15 1500 182
17 16 1600 185
18 17 1700 188
19 18 1800 190
20 19 1900 190
21 20 2000 191
22 21 2100 192
 3.2.2.2 Graph

Load vs Deflection
250
Load vs Deflection Poly. (Load vs Deflection)

200

150
Load (N)

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection (mm)

3.2.2.3 Experimental value of “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A)

Pcr = 192N

Pcr/A = 3.37 N/mm2

3.2.3 Test No:3

Specimen’s Size : 400𝑚𝑚 × 19𝑚𝑚 × 3𝑚𝑚

End condition: Fix-Fix
Material: aluminium
Side Loading: 2.5N

3.2.3.1 Table of Observations:

Sr. No deflection Dial gauge reading Load

(mm) (div) (N)
1 0 0 0
2 1 100 97
3 2 200 153
4 3 300 205
5 4 400 244
6 5 500 278

3.2.3.1. Graph

Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection Poly. (Load vs Deflection)

300

250

200
Load

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection

3.2.3.2 Experimental value of “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A)

Pcr = 278N

Pcr/A =4.88N/m𝑚2
3.2.4 Test No:4

Specimen’s Size: 400𝑚𝑚 × 19𝑚𝑚 × 3𝑚𝑚

End condition: Pin-pin
Material: aluminium
Side Loading: 2.5N

3.2.4.1 Table of Observations:

Sr. No deflection Dial gauge reading Load
(mm) (div) (N)
1 0 0 0
2 1 100 23
3 2 200 38
4 3 300 56
5 4 400 65
6 5 500 73
7 6 600 78
8 7 700 82
9 8 800 85
10 9 900 88
11 10 1000 90
12 11 1100 91
13 12 1200 92
14 13 1300 92

3.2.4.2 Graph:

Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection Poly. (Load vs Deflection)

100
90
80
70
60
Load

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection
3.2.4.3 Experimental value of “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A)

Pcr = 92N

Pcr/A = 1.61 N/m𝑚2

3.2.5 Test No:5
Specimen’s Size: 400𝑚𝑚 × 19𝑚𝑚 × 3𝑚𝑚
End condition: Fix -Fix
Material: Steel
Side Loading: 2.5N

3.2.5.1 Table of Observations:

Sr. No deflection Dial gauge reading Load
(mm) (div) (N)
1 0 0 0
2 1 100 362
3 2 200 547
4 3 300 668
5 4 400 752
6 5 500 825
7 6 600 901
8 7 700 943
9 8 800 968
10 9 900 976
11 10 1000 982
12 11 1100 990

3.2.5.2 Graph

Load vs Deflection
1200

1000

800
Load

600

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection

Load vs Deflection Poly. (Load vs Deflection)

3.2.5.3 Experimental value of “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A)

Pcr =990 N

Pcr/A = 17.37N/m𝑚2

3.2.6 Test No:6

Specimen’s Size:400𝑚 × 19𝑚𝑚 × 3𝑚𝑚
End condition: Pin-pin
Material: Steel
Side Loading: 2.5N
3.2.6.1 Table of Observations:
Sr. No deflection Dial gauge reading Load
(mm) (div) (N)
1 0 0 0
2 1 100 60
3 2 200 93
4 3 300 130
5 4 400 167
6 5 500 183
7 6 600 200
8 7 700 229
9 8 800 232
10 9 900 242
11 10 1000 259
12 11 1100 268
13 12 1200 279
14 13 1300 284
15 14 1400 289
16 15 1500 294
17 16 1600 298
18 17 1700 301
3.2.6.2 Graph

Load vs Deflection
350
Load vs Deflection Poly. (Load vs Deflection)
300

250
Load (N)

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection (mm)

3.2.6.3 Experimental value of “Critical Load” (Pcr) and “Critical unit load” (Pcr/A)

Pcr = 801 N

Pcr/A = 5.28N/m𝑚2

3.3Comparison Graphs:
3.3.1 Comparison Graph of Aluminium :

Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection Load vs Deflection
Log. (Load vs Deflection) Poly. (Load vs Deflection)
Poly. (Load vs Deflection)
300

250

200
Load

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection
3.3.2 Comparison Graph of mild steel :

Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection Load vs Deflection
Poly. (Load vs Deflection) Poly. (Load vs Deflection)
1200

1000

800

600
Load

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-200
Deflection

3.3.3. Comparison graph for brass

Load vs Deflection
Load vs Deflection Load vs Deflection
Poly. (Load vs Deflection) Poly. (Load vs Deflection)
700

600

500

400
Load

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-100
Deflection
3.4 Table of Results
Theoretical Experimental
End %
Specimen Pcr Pcr/A Pcr Pcr/A
Condition Difference
N N/mm2 N N/mm2
Brass 359.16 6.301 649 11.38 80.69
Fix-Fix Steel 632.9 11.103 990 17.37 55
Aluminium 218.34 3.831 278 4.88 27.8
Brass 299 5.2 192 3.37 35.85
Pin-Fix Steel 527 9.2 301 5.284 42.93
Aluminium 181 3.1 92 1.61 48.6

Pcr(th) − Pcr(exp)
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = [ × 𝟏𝟎𝟎]
Pcr(th)

4 Comments and Conclusions

From the above table we can conclude that the percentage difference between
theoretical and experimental values of critical load with end conditions as fix-fix
for brass, steel and aluminium are 80.69%, 55% and 27.8% respectively. And for
the pin-fix for brass, steel and aluminium are 35.85%, 42.93% and 48.6%
respectively. The error may be the human error or faulty apparatus