ECS426: STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS LABORATORY

EXPERIMENT 2: INSTABILITY OF STRUTS AND CRITICAL EULER LOAD

GROUP: 2A2

GROUP MEMBERS:
NAME STUDENT ID

NIK IRFAN AIMAN BIN MOHAMMAD 2016209466

MUHAMMAD ALIFF BIN AFFANDI 2016209462

MUHAMAD IZDIHAR BIN ABU 2016209464

HANIPAH
AERNEMASNI BINTI SULAIMAN 2016209402

BATRISYIA ALYA BINTI RUSLI 2016209432

NUR AIN BINTI SHAMSUDDIN 2016209452

NUR SYAHIRAH BINTI ROSHADI 2016209434

Introduction

Compressive members been used in many structures nowadays, where it can

form part of framework such as for roof truss and bridge truss. Generally,
short wide compressive members are called as column and long thin
compressive member called as struts. This compressive member can fail in
two ways. For column its will rupture due to direct stress and for struts via
elastic mode of failure or buckling. When buckling happen, strut no longer
able to carry the load, and result to displace. Later on its stiffness become
zero and useless as a structural member.

Objectives

The objectives of this laboratory works are:

i To study the effect of the length of strut toward the buckling.

ii To predict the buckling load based on Euler formulae.
APPARATUS

1 Buckling of Struts experiment apparatus

2 Structures Test Frame (STR1)

3 Vernier
PROCEDURE

PART A: PINNED-FIXED ENDS

1. Both the top and bottom chunk are removed.
2. The shortest strut (number 1) is chosen and its diameter is measured using a
Vernier and its moment of Inertia, I is calculated.
3. Strut 1 is fit to the V notch at the top and it is clamped using the cap head
screw and plate at the bottom.
4. The position of the sliding crosshead is adjusted to accept the strut using
thumbnuts to lock off the slider and the locking screws are tightened.
5. The hand wheel is backed off so that the strut is resting in the notch but not
transmitting any load. The forcemeter is reset to zero using the front panel
control.
6. The strut is loaded carefully and is flicked to its straight position using the tip
of a finger if the strut begins to buckle to the left or right.
7. The handwheel is turned till no more increase in the load. The final load is
recorded in Table 1 under buckling load. The value of 1/L 2 of the strut is
calculated.
8. The experiment is repeated with struts 2,3,4 and 5 by adjusting the
crosshead, by sliding it up or down, to fit the strut.
9. A graph of buckling load versus 1/L 2 is plotted and the gradient of the graph
is calculated.

PART B: FIXED-FIXED ENDS

1. The top chunk is fitted with the two cap head screws and the top end of Strut
1 is clamped. The bottom end is clamped using the cap head screw and plate.
2. Step (2) to step (7) of part A are followed. The result is recorded in Table 2
and the value of 1/L2 for the strut are calculated.
3. The experiment is repeated with struts 2,3,4 and 5.
4. A graph of buckling load versus 1/L 2 is plotted and the gradient of the graph
is calculated.
5. The Euler buckling formula is examined for each end condition.
RESULTS

Table 1: Results of the effect of the end conditions on the buckling load (pinned-
fixed)

Strut Length Buckling Buckling 1/L (m) Length of

number (mm) load load theory buckling
experiment (N) (cm)
(N)
1 320 -184 181.38 9.766 2.3
2 370 -137 135.67 7.305 2.9
3 420 -97 105.29 5.669 3.7
4 470 -85 84.08 4.527 4.1
5 520 -65 68.69 3.698 5.3

Table 2: Results of the effect of the end conditions on the buckling load (fixed-
fixed)

Strut Length Buckling Buckling 1/L (m) Length of

number (mm) load load theory buckling
experiment (N) (cm)
(N)
1 300 -309 403.46 11.111 2.80
2 350 -260 296.42 8.163 3.40
3 400 -176 226.94 6.250 3.60
4 450 -135 179.31 4.938 3.65
5 500 -115 145.24 4.000 3.80

List of formulae:

1) Moment of inertia (I) = bd/12

Bbase, d-thickness of the struts

2) Euler formulae:
i) pinned-fixed; Pcr = 2.046(3.142)EI/ L
ii) fixed-fixed; Pcr = 4(3.142)EI / L

E-Youngs modulus (69x10^9)

I-moment of inertia
L-length of the struts

DISCUSSION

Based on the result produced by our Buckling of Struts experiment, graphical

presentation as well as discussion among team members with reliable sources as
reference, we have obtained several points of discussion:

1. The critical(maximum) buckling loads bears by the struts are inversely

proportional to the length of the struts. This means that a shorter strut will
need larger buckling forces to deflect compared to a longer strut.

2. The length of buckling(deflection) of a strut is directly proportional to the

length of the strut. In relation to the first point, it means that although a
shorter strut need a larger buckling load, it only deflects a little compared to
a longer strut.

These 2 points of discussion above are true for both experiments which shows a
clear indication that the shorter a strut, the stronger it is no matter what the end
condition are for the tested struts. The struts represent various mankinds
constructed structures such as deformable columns and vertical supports for
bridges structures.

3. The theoretical gradient of the pinned-fixed Strut is 18.4 Nm^2 while its
actual gradient obtained from hands-on experiment is -18.7 Nm^2. The
different in magnitude are negligible but the negative sign obtained on the
actual gradient is because we take into consider the direction of the buckling
load during the experiment which is acting downward on the struts.

4. The theoretical gradient of the fixed-fixed Strut is 36.6 Nm^2 while its actual
gradient obtained from hands-on experiment is -28.1 Nm^2. The steeper
gradients of fixed-fixed struts compared to pinned-fixed struts show that
fixed-fixed struts can tolerate larger buckling load with smaller length of
buckling; indicating that it can resist failure better.

5. The error that could have occurred during our experiment is systemic error.
This error could have occurred on the Buckling Structures Frame equipment.
We noticed that during our experiment one of the cap head screw cannot be
screwed in tightly and this may cause the reading of the Buckling Load to be
differs from the theoretical value.

6. Another error would be on the struts themselves because the set of struts we
use already have permanent deformation on it due to past experiments with
another student. This error could affect the buckling length and the present
deformation could have weakening the structures of the struts.
Conclusion

The critical buckling load for a pin-end strut is compared to the critical buckling load
for a fix-end strut. Fix-end strut buckled at twice the axial force compared with the
pin-end one because of the fix-end. This is due to the fact that the joint is prevented
from moving freely when strut was loaded by axial load.

Effect of length of the aluminum struts on the length of buckling is the longer the
aluminum struts, the longer the buckling. However, the buckling load theory will be
smaller as the aluminum struts get longer.

Consequently, the designer must always avoid elastic or plastic buckling. Plastic
squashing will be a stable mode of failure predicted by knowledge of the yield
stress.

REFERENCE

1. David J. Grieve. (1st March 2004). Buckling of Slender Struts. Retrieved from
http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/desnotes/buckling.htm
2. Bob McGinty. (2013). Column Buckling. Retrieved from
http://www.continuummechanics.org/columnbuckling.html
3. Kurt Gramoll. (n.d). Mechanics Theory- Column Buckling. Retrieved from
https://www.ecourses.ou.edu/cgi-bin/ebook.cgi?
doc=&topic=me&chap_sec=09.2&page=theory