ECS 258 BASIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY

Lab No: 1

Date: 10th Dec 2015

Lab Title: Critical Load On Struts

Level Of Openness: Level 0

Group Leader:

Student No:
Group Members

No

Student Name

1.
2.
3.
Lecturers Name: Mohd Shahrul Hisyam B. Mohd Sani

Remarks:

Student No.

Signature

1.0 TITLE
CRITICAL LOAD ON STRUTS

1.1 OBJECTIVE
The objective of the test are:
1. To determine the buckling load of struts with different length and types of supports.
2. To compare the experiments results with theoretical values from Euler buckling
formula.

2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Determination of the buckling load of struts with different length and types of
supports (pinned-pinned, pinned-fixed and fixed-fixed). As a group we are required to record
the buckling load of struts using appropriate apparatus in laboratory.

3.0 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this experiment we will load struts until they buckle investigating the effect of the
length of the strut. To predict the buckling load we will use the Euler buckling formula.
Critical to the use of the Euler formula is the slenderness ratio, this is the ratio of the
length of the strut to its radius of gyration (l/k).
The Euler formula become inaccurate for struts with an l/k ratio of less than 125 and
this should be taken into account in any design work.
The struts provided have an l/k ratio of between 520 and 870 to show clearly the
buckling load and the deflected shape of the struts. In practice struts with an l/k ratio of more
than 200 are of little use in real structures.
We will use the Euler buckling formula for a pinned strut:

Pe =2EI/L2
Where;

Pe
E
I
L

= Euler buckling load (N)

= Youngs modulus (N/m1)
= Second moment of area (m4)
= Length of strut (m)

3.1 APPARATUS

Figure 3.1: Buckling of Struts Set up and Schematic

3.2 PROCEDURES
3.2.1 BUCKLING LOAD OF A PINNED-END STRUT
1. The bottom chuck was fitted to the machine and the top chuck was removed (to give 2
pinned ends). The shortest strut number 3 was selected and the cross section was
measured using the vernier provided and the second moment of area I, for the strut.
2. The position of the sliding crosshead was adjusted to accept the strut using the
thumbnuts to lock off the slider. The maximum amount of travel was ensured
available on the handwheel thread to compress the strut. Finally the locking screws
was tightened.
3. The handwheel was carefully backed off so that the strut was resting in the notch but
not transmitting any load; the forcemeter was rezeroed using the front panel control.
4. The strut was started to load carefully. The strut was flick to the right and vice versa
if the strut begins to buckle to the left (this reduces any errors associated with the
straightness of the strut).
5. The handwheel was turned until there was no further increase in load (the load may
peak and then drop as it settles into the notches).
6. The final load in Table 1.1 was recorded under buckling load. The experiment was
repeated with strut 4 and 5 by adjusting the crosshead as required to fit the strut.
Shorter struts were taken with more care as the load are quite low. Each strut was
loaded several times until a consistent result for each strut was achieved.
7. The Euler Buckling equation was examined and an appropriate equation was selected
to establish a linear relationship between the buckling load and the length of the strut.
(Hint: remember , E and I are all constant).
8. The values were calculated and were entered into Table 1.1 with an appropriate title.
A graph was plotted to prove the relationship is linear. The experimental value was
compared to those calculated from Euler formula by entering a theoretical line onto
the graph.

3.2.2 THE EFFECT OF END CONDITIONS ON THE BUCKLING LOAD

(PINNED-FIXED CONDITION)
1. The same basic procedures was followed as Experiment 1a, but this time the bottom
chuck was removed and the specimen as clamped using the cap head screw and plate
to make a pinned-fixed end condition.
2. The results were recorded in table 1.2 and the values of 1/L 2 were calculated for the
strut. The test length of the struts was shorter than Experiment 1a due to allowance
made for clamping the specimen.

3.2.3 THE EFFECT OF END CONDITIONS ON THE BUCKLING LOAD

(FIXED-FIXED CONDITION)
1. The same basic procedures were followed as Experiment 1a and 1b. Then, the top
chuck was fitted with two cap head screws and both ends were clamped, this had
reduced the experimental length and new values for 1/L2 were calculated.
2. The results were recorded in Table 1.3 and the values of 1/L 2 were calculated for the
strut.

3.3 DATA ACQUISITION

All data collected from the test may be recorded in to the table given below.

Deflection: _10_mm
(

Table 1.1: Result of test for _pinned-pinned_ support

EI/L2)

(mm)

Buckling
Load
Experiment
(N)

Buckling
Load
Theoretica
l
(N)

420

55

49.42

5.67

470

45

39.46

4.53

520

38

32.24

3.70

Length

Thickness

(mm)
1

Strut
Number

Table 1.2: Result of test for _fixed-pinned_ support

Strut
Number

Length
(mm)

Buckling
Thickness
Load
Experiment
(mm)
(N)

(2

1/L2
(m2)

EI/L2)

Buckling
Load
Theoretical

1/L2
(m-2)

(N)
-

400

93

108.96

6.25

450

60

86.09

4.99

500

53

69.73

4.00

Table 1.3: Result of test for _fixed-fixed_ support

Strut
Number

Length

Thickness

(mm)

(mm)

Buckling
Load
Experiment
(N)

(4

EI/L2)

Buckling
Load
Theoretical

1/L2
(m-2)

(N)
-

380

220

241.46

6.93

430

166

188.57

5.41

480

141

151.33

4.34

3.3.1 CALCULATIONS
Table 1.1 (Pin-Pin)
Ixx =

bd3
12
3

(0.0192)(0.002)
=
12

= 1.28 x 10-11
Pcr 3

Pcr 4

Pcr 5

2 EI
L2

2 EI
L2

2 EI
2
L

2 (69 G)(1.28 1011 )

(0.42)2

= 49.42N

2 (69 G)(1.28 1011 )

(0.47)2

= 39.46N

(69 G)(1.28 10
(0.52)2

11

= 32.24N

Table 1.2 (Pin-Fixed)

Pcr 3

Pcr 4

Pcr 5

2 2 EI
2
L

2 2 EI
L2

2 2 EI
L2

2 2 (69 G)(1.28 1011)

( 0.4)2

= 108.96N

2 2 (69 G)(1.28 1011)

(0.45)2

= 86.09N

2 2 (69 G)(1.28 1011)

(0.5)2

= 69.73N

Table 1.3 (Fixed-Fixed)

Pcr 3

Pcr 4

Pcr 5

4 2 EI
L2

4 2 EI
L2

4 2 EI
2
L

Calculation for 1/ L

2 (69 G)(1.28 1011 )

(0.38)2

= 241.46N

2 (69 G)(1.28 1011 )

(0.43)2

= 188.57N

2 (69 G)(1.28 1011 )

(0.48)2

= 151.33N

1) Pinned pinned condition

1
=5.67 m 2
2
a.
0.42
b.

1
2
=4.53 m
2
0.47

c.

1
=3.70 m2
2
0.52

2) Pinned fixed condition

a.

1
=6.25 m2
2
0.4

b.

1
2
=4.94 m
2
0.45

c.

1
=4.00 m2
2
0.5

3) Fixed fixed condition

a.

1
=6.93 m2
2
0.38

b.

1
=5.41 m2
2
0.43

c.

1
2
=4.34 m
2
0.48

Calculation for gradient

1) Pinned end struts graph
y
Experimental = x
=

Theoretical

450
4.530.5

= 11.17 N/ m
y
x
=

3511.5
41.5

2
= 9.4 N/ m

2) Fixed pinned struts graph

y
Experimental = x
=

9353
6.254.0

2
= 17.78 N/ m

Theoretical

y
x
=

10470
6.04.05

2
= 17.44 N / m

3) Fixed fixed strut graph

y
Experimental = x
=

2200
6.934.27

= 82.71 N / m

Theoretical

y
x
=

238150
6.84.25

= 34.51 N/ m

4.0 GRAPH
(refer to graph)

5.0 ANALYSIS
The relationship between the length and the buckling load is the shorter the length,
the bigger the buckling load. From the graph of buckling load versus 1/L 2, it is inversely
proportional.

6.0 DISCUSSION
Based on the graph that we plotted, the difference

of

gradient

for

pinned-end

experiment is 11.17 and the slope of the theoretical calculation result is 9.4. Difference to the
fixed-pin end

of

the

gradient

experiment

result

is

17.78

and gradient theory results of the calculation is 17.44. In addition, the differences for fixedfixed end conditions are for the gradient experiment results is 82.71 and theoretical
calculation of the slope is 34.51. This experiment result shows that the slope is greater than
the slope of the calculation results. In practice, the buckling of the experiment is higher than
theoretical.

7.0 CONCLUSION
The experiment was carried out successfully and the expected results were achieved.
The behavior of action of load on a strut was studied . Based from the experiment of
Buckling of Strut, we can conclude that fixed-fixed end is much stronger than the pinned-end
and fixed-pinned end. More force should be imposed on the member of the joint fixed-fixed
end connection, but in other criteria the usage in fixed-fixed end connection usually apply for
concrete beam or column connection.
The pinned-end is used for steel connection because, usually fixed-fixed end
connection is for permanent connection. For example, usage of bolt and nut steel for pinnedend and weld fabricating for fixed-fixed end. The value of buckling load was calculated using
two different ways and was compared to its theoretical values which were found to have a
slight error. These errors could be caused due to various reasons such as defect in dial gauge,
defect in weights and incorrect method of applying weights.

8.0 REFERENCE
1. https://www.scribd.com/doc/177192718/BUCKLING-OF-STRUTS