LAB EXPERIMENT 1

BUCKLING OF COLUMNS
1. OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the laboratory experiment are as follows:

a. To determine the critical buckling loads of axially loaded slender columns

(e.g. wooden dowels) of varying diameter, length, and boundary or end
conditions (i.e. pin-pin, pin-fixed, and fixed-fixed).

b. To find the correlation between experimental values of the critical buckling

of axially loaded columns and the values predicted by the Eulers buckling
formula.

2. BACKGROUND
The physicist and mathematician Leonhard Euler first derived a series of
equations to determine the deformation of columns under loads. The following
procedure attempts to verify one of these buckling equations for steel
columns.Euler determined the following expression for determining the critical
load.
 Compression Members: Structural elements that are subjected to axial

compressive forces only are called columns. Columns are subjected to axial

loads thru the centroid.

Stress: The stress in the column cross-section can be calculated as

P
f (2.1)
A
where, f is assumed to be uniform over the entire cross-section.

This ideal state is never reached. The stress-state will be non-uniform due to:

- Accidental eccentricity of loading with respect to the centroid

- Member out-of straightness (crookedness), or

- Residual stresses in the member cross-section due to fabrication

processes.

Accidental eccentricity and member out-of-straightness can cause bending

moments in the member. However, these are secondary and are usually

ignored.

Bending moments cannot be neglected if they are acting on the member.

Members with axial compression and bending moment are called beam-

column
P
(a) Pcr (b)

What is buckling?

Buckling occurs when a straight

column subjected to axial

P
Pcr
compression suddenly undergoes bending as shown in the Figure1(b). Buckling

is identified as a failure limit-state for columns.

The critical buckling load Pcr for columns is theoretically given by Equation

(4.1)

2 E I
Pcr = (4.1)
K L 2

where, I = moment of inertia about axis of buckling

K = effective length factor based on end boundary conditions

2.1 Euler Buckling Formula

The following assumptions are made in deriving the formula for critical
buckling load (Euler Buckling Load).

1. The compressive loads are applied at the ends of the column without
eccentricity.

2. The column is perfectly straight before the loads are applied.

3. The ends of the column are frictionless pins (or hinges), which allow the
column to buckle about any axis of the cross-sections.

4. The column is made of homogeneous and isotropic material.

5. The self-weight of the column is ignored

The critical buckling load (Euler Buckling Load) Pcr for an ideal pin-ended
column is given by:-

=

where E = the modulus of elasticity of the material (MPa)

I = the least moment of inertia of the cross-section (mm4

) L = the length of the column from pin-end to pin-end (mm)

= constant pi (= 3.1416)

The above formula applies to long column with both ends pinned.

The Eulers Formula gives the buckling load for an ideal column with both ends
pinned.

The formula may be extended to columns with other end conditions through
the concept of an effective length.

The effective length is the distance between points of inflection

(contraflexure) on the deflected shape of the column.

These are points of zero bending moment. The effective length is often
expressed in terms of an effective length factor K,

where Effective Length

Le = K*L

in which, K = effective length factor (Its value depends on the support

conditions) L = actual unbraced column length.

The critical buckling load is then given by

Pcr=

Radius of Gyration
The measure of slenderness of the cross-section of the column is its
radius
of gyration, r, defined as:-

r*r =

Slenderness Ratio

A column has been described as relatively long, slender member loaded in

compression. This description is stated in relative terms and is not very useful
for analysis. The measure of the slenderness of a column must take into
account the length, the cross-sectional shape and dimensions of the column,
and the manner of attaching the ends of the column to the structures that
supply loads and reactions to the column.
3. LABORATORY TASKS
1. The device was set up in vertical position.

2. The thrust piece with V notch into attachment socket and fasten with
clamping screw was inserted.
3. Long thrust piece with V notch into the guide bush of load cross-bar was
inserted and was been hold firmly.
4. The S2 rod specimen with edges in the v notch was inserted.
5. The load cross-bar was clamped on the guide column in such a manner
that there was still approximately 5mm for the top thrust piece to move.
6. The rod specimen was aligned in such a manner that its buckling
direction points in the direction of the lateral guide columns.

7 The rod specimen with low, non-measurable force was retightening.

7. The measuring gauge was aligned to the middle of the rod specimen
using the supporting clamps. The measuring gauge was set at a right
angle to the direction of buckling.
8. The measuring gauge was pretighten to 10mm deflection with the
adjustable support.
9. The rod specimen load was slowly subjected using the load nut.

10. The deflection was recorded from the measuring gauge. The deflection
was read and recorded at every 0.25mm up to 1mm.
DATA

Aluminium Oak Pine

1 15
Length 36 36 35
16 16
(inch)
Diameter 0.36 0.5 0.5
(inch)
Area 12.96 54.0937 17.9687
(square inch)
Imperfections
Moment of 0.0008295 0.2485 0.00306
Inertia
Modulus of
Elasticity
Buckling Load 72 29.73 49.2
(lb)
4. Report
Human errors are inescapable whenever an experiment is carried out. Tackling
this however, would be best done by tasking individuals to certain tasks and
repeating those tasks three or more times. Hysteresis error is visible on the
strut machine which was slow to react to initial inputs of force. There is a 4.5%
error between the theoretical modulus of elasticity and the experimental
value, reduction of this error would be achieved by repeating the experiment
three or more times also using a more sensitive dial. Errors of 0.12% and 2.76%
were recorded for the moment of inertia of the 550mm and 750mm beams
respectively. For the 550mm beam such an error is within reason but
increasing the points where the readings are taken would certainly lower the
error. A 4.75% and 2.77% error was obtained for the critical loading of the
550mm and 750mm beam. Again such errors are acceptable, but however, it is
important to note that for the 750mm column the elastic modulus was
assumed to be 200GPa and not calculated

From all the errors that are obtained the results are overall with reason and
solidify that the experimental methods used are a good way in obtaining the
critical loading. The small error of 4.75% for the 550mm column also reinforces
the fact that different elastic modulus do not play much of an effect to the
critical loading. The modulus that was obtained from Figure (7) was very good
and coincides with those in Table (1). To add Figure (8) and (9) produced an
even more accurate estimate of the critical load. Figure (6), shows that
buckling will occur if the material is long and remain with the elastic limits.
Shorter columns have higher buckling ratios than longer, slender columns and
the relationship between the critical stress and length2 is inverse which means
there is an accelerated fall in the critical stress as the length increases
assuming that the radius of gyration stays constant and the graph obtained is
hyperbola. It is also worth noting that Euler buckling does not act as a safety
factor but just the maximum load a column a beam can take before bowing
out.
Conclusion
Upon starting this experiment the demonstrator had mentioned that the
elastic modulus of both columns was 200GPa, and Case 1 gave a result which
was very close to the actual value of the modulus. All the measurement errors
from instrument calibrations were in cooperated in the calculations. Ideal
conditions were assumed for the columns although this is not possible in
reality, from these calculations however the small percentage errors between
the theoretical and experimental values were still very reasonable.
Improvements can be definitely made to the experiment starting by using
more modern instrument that have no hysteresis errors due to over use, or
maybe even laser dials can be used to measure the deflection in that way the
possibility of the dial falling off will be eliminated.