EMA 3702L Mechanics and Materials Science Lab

Dr. Yu Zhong

Column Buckling Test

Experiment 4

Group 4B

Juan Cuervo
Yetsey Suero
Ramon Orge

January 27, 2016

Table of Content
Table of Content ...................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Nomenclature ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Data, Results, and Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 7
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 11
References ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A: Apparatus ...................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix B: Procedures..................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix C: Calibration Data ............................................................................................................. 14
Appendix D: Experimental Data ......................................................................................................... 14
Appendix E: Sample Calculations for Beam #1.................................................................................... 14

List of Figures
Figure 1. Beam with both ends fixed. ....................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Critical Buckling Stress vs. Slenderness Ratio for Steel. .............................................................. 6
Figure 3. Figure 3. Slenderness Ratio vs. Critical Buckling Stress. .............................................................. 8
Figure 4. Beam Length vs. Experimental Maximum Deflection. ................................................................ 9
Figure 5. Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental Critical Loads. ......................................... 10
Figure 6: Experimental Apparatus .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7. Experimental Data Collected in Class. ...................................................................................... 14

List of Tables
Table 1. Data Gathered in the Experiment. .............................................................................................. 7
Table 2. Percentage of Error between Theoretical and Experimental Critical Load. .................................. 7
Table 3. Theoretical and Experimental Critical Stress. .............................................................................. 8

2
Nomenclature
Symbol Description SI Units
E Youngs Modulus of Elasticity Pa, N/m2
A Cross Sectional Area m2
I Moment of Inertia m4
r Radius of Gyration m
Le Effective length m
Pcr Critical Load N
cr Critical Stress Pa, N/m2
Ymax Column's Deflection m

Abstract
This experiment tested steel beams with different lengths and same cross sectional area
in order to find their critical buckling load. To do this, an Euler buckling testing apparatus was
used to find the beams deflection at which the critical buckling load was present. Theoretically
and experimentally, the critical load and critical stress were calculated for each beam. Among
other data, the critical load vs. the slenderness ratio is plotted and showed an Euler curved, as
expected. Finally error analysis was conducted and error % proved to be below 10%.

Introduction
A column is a beam whose length is significant larger by several magnitudes than its
width and thickness and is subjective to compressive loads. When such a beam is under
compressive loads, its axial displacement is smaller in comparison to its lateral deflection, also
known as buckling. If not well design, a beam under certain conditions could lead to a suddenly
catastrophic failure; hence the study of buckling becomes fundamental for a safe design.

There are several boundary conditions that can be applied to a column. In the case of
this experiment, the steel beams were fixed at both ends, as shown in figure 1.

3
 Figure 1. Beam with both ends fixed.

These boundary conditions allow only longitudinal displacement in one axis from one
end, while constraining translations and rotations elsewhere. The compression load was
adjusted by rotating the jack screw from the buckling testing apparatus until buckling was
visually detected as shown in figure 1.

The critical load of a column is defined as the compressive load that will make the
column buckle and it can be calculated as follows:

2
=
2

As easily seen by inspection of the formula, the longer the column the smaller the
critical load, meaning the column will buckle easier. Moreover, as the moment of inertia gets
larger the critical load will increase. Ultimately, the critical load is greatly affected by the
materials properties embodied by the Youngs modulus of elasticity.

Taking into account the boundary conditions on the beam, the effective length Le is
replaced as follows.

4

=
2

Therefore; the critical load for a column fixed at both ends becomes,

4 2
=
2

Furthermore, by defining the radius of gyration as

The critical load can be finally given as

2
=
(/)2

In this instance, the quantity in the denominator (/)2 is a measure of the columns
flexibility, and it is named the slenderness ratio of the column. The slenderness ratio becomes
important to specify the formulas to be used when designing a column. For instance, for long
columns with large slenderness ratios, the previous formula is suitable to find the critical load;
however, for medium to short columns, empirical approximation formulas are needed.

As usual, axial stress is defined as the applied force normal to the cross sectional area
over the elements cross sectional area. Consequently, the critical stress of a column is given as,

2
= =
(/)2

Calculating the critical stress is indispensable to determine if the columns will fail under
buckling or yielding. With the aim of clarifying the mechanics of failure, a critical buckling stress
vs. slenderness ratio graph is plotted. Figure 2 shows the previously mentioned graph
pertaining to steel.

5
 Figure 2. Critical Buckling Stress vs. Slenderness Ratio for Steel.

As far as the applied stress stays under the yield stress and critical stress lines, the
column will not fail.

Lastly, due to equipment calibration needs, the experimental critical load can be calculated
by the following equation:

, = 2800( )

Likewise, the experimental critical stress is:

,
, =

Since we decided to work with the SI system of units, the experimental critical load was
changed to:

, = 490355( )

6
Objectives
In the experiment we will investigate the mechanical behavior of a column, fixed at both
ends, and under an applied axial stress. Upon successful completion of the experiment, the
following objectives will be accomplished:

1. To study the buckling failure of materials.

2. To determine the critical buckling load and stress for different beams with an uniform
cross sectional area.

Data, Results, and Analysis

Table 1. Data Gathered in the Experiment.

Moment of
Bar Length Thickness Width Area E, steel Pcr
Inertia
# (m) (m) (m) (m2) (Pa) (N)
(m4)
1 0.274 0.0015 0.018 0.000027 5.06E-12 2.10E+11 559.034
2 0.323 0.0015 0.018 0.000027 5.06E-12 2.10E+11 402.286
3 0.373 0.0015 0.018 0.000027 5.06E-12 2.10E+11 301.663
4 0.475 0.0015 0.018 0.000027 5.06E-12 2.10E+11 186.017

In Table 1, the data collected in the experiment is displayed. The measured data was
used to calculate the area, moment of inertia, and theoretical critical load using Microsoft Excel
2010.

Table 2. Percentage of Error between Theoretical and Experimental Critical Load.

Bar Length Pcr Ymax Pcr,exp Error

# (m) (N) (m) (N) (%)
1 0.274 559.034 0.0011 539.391 3.514
2 0.323 402.286 0.00082 402.091 0.048
3 0.373 301.663 0.00058 284.406 5.721
4 0.475 186.017 0.0004 196.142 5.443

7
 Table 2 shows the measured beams maximum deflection and the percentage of error
between theoretical and experimental critical loads. As mention in the introduction section, the
maximum deflection, Ymax, is used in the given calibration formula to find the experimental
critical load and the experimental critical stress as presented below in Table 3. In addition, the
data in Table 3 is used to plot the Slenderness Ratio vs. (theoretical and experimental) Critical
Buckling Stress from Figure 3.

Table 3. Theoretical and Experimental Critical Stress.

Bar cr cr,exp L/r

Error
# (Pa) (Pa) (%)
1 2.07E+07 2.00E+07 632.776 3.514
2 1.49E+07 1.49E+07 745.937 0.048
3 1.12E+07 1.05E+07 861.407 5.721
4 6.89E+06 7.26E+06 1096.966 5.443

Slenderness Ratio vs Critical Buckling Stress

25.0
Critical Buckling Stress (MPa)

20.0

15.0
Theoretical
Critical Load
10.0
Experimental
5.0 Critical Load

0.0
600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00 1000.00 1100.00 1200.00

Slenderness Ratio, L/r

Figure 3. Slenderness Ratio vs. Critical Buckling Stress.

Figure 3, Slenderness Ratio vs. Critical Buckling Stress represents the main relationship
studied in this experiment. As previously mentioned in the introduction section, this graph is
fundamental to determine the mechanical behavior of a column under compressive stress in
order to know if the column is more likely to fail through buckling or yielding. As seen in the
graph, the shorter the column the greater the critical load needs to be for the column to buckle.

8
Thus, short columns are more likely to fail due to yielding. In contrast, long columns generally
fail due to buckling because of lower critical loads and larger slenderness ratios. It is worth
mentioning that the steel specimens used in this experiment will buckle first than yielding.
Thats because the minimum yield stress of steel is about 250 MPa, which is roughly 8 times the
maximum critical buckling stress related with the shorter beam #1.

Beam Length vs Experimental Maximum Deflection

0.0012
Beam maximum deflection

0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004 Ymax (m)
(m)

0.0002
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Beam length (m)

Figure 3. Beam Length vs. Experimental Maximum Deflection.

As expected by now, Figure 4. Beam Length vs. Experimental Maximum Deflection

confirms that the amount of deflection, experienced by the column right before buckling, is
inversely proportional to the length of the beam.

Finally, Figure 5, Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental Critical Loads,

clarifies the difference between the theoretical and experimental critical loads. This notion is
also reflected in Table 2. Percentage of Error between Theoretical and Experimental Critical
Load, by examining the error percentage column.

9
 Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental Critical
Loads
700
Theoretical and Experimental

600

500 Pcr (N)

400
Loads (N)

300 Pcr,exp (N)

200

100

0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Beam Legnth (m)

Figure 4. Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental Critical Loads.

Discussion
One of the objectives of this experiment was to measure, calculate and compare
practical results to theoretical ones of critical loads applied to steel beams using Euler's
buckling equation. As it can be seen from the data in the tables, four steel beams varying only
in length were tested in order to create and establish a relationship which would set a trend
that could be compared to theoretical values.
Using Euler's buckling equation in Table 1, the theoretical critical load was calculated for
each of the four steel beams. This value was then compared to the experimental critical load
which is recorded in Table 2. A percentage error value was calculated which related both
theoretical and experimental values. As can be seen in Table 2, the percentage error values
ranged from 0 - 6% throughout the four steel beams. These results obtained affirmed that the
objective of the experiment has been achieved, and that the results are considered to be
reliable.
The results were obtained in a practical lab setting under certain constraints. Under real
world application scenarios, one would have other factors to account for that may contribute to
changes in data such as changes in temperature, and other external atmospheric factors.

10
Overall, the data and results obtained from the experiment proved to have been reliable and
successful.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of this report was to study the mechanical behavior of a column (or a
beam) fixed at both ends in order to understand the failure of materials (in this lab only one
material, steel, was used) by buckling. To this end, the theoretical and experimental critical
buckling load and critical stress were calculated, as well as the slenderness ratio of the beams,
and the following results were obtained. We first appreciated, as Fig. 3 shows, that the shorter
the beam, the greater the critical load needs to be for the column to buckle. Therefore, it was
concluded that short columns are more likely to fail during yielding. For long beams, the
opposite results were obtained: the longer the column, the easier for them to fail due to
buckling since the critical loads are lower and the slenderness ratios are larger. Figure 4 also
confirmed, as expected, that the amount of deflection experienced by a column before buckling
is inversely proportional to the length of the beam. Finally, by plotting the theoretical and
experiment results obtained against the length of the beams, we were able to visualize the
small difference between the theoretical and experimental results, where the errors are due
mainly to difficulty in reading accurately the value of the beams maximum deflection since the
exact point where it started to buckle was not very clear.

This experiment was done with only four different beams. It is highly recommended to
increase the number of beams to at least six so a more informative graph can be obtained. Its
also recommended that each student write down individually the beam maximum deflection
and then take the average value to minimize human errors. Finally, the use of different beam
materials would be beneficial to this experiment and will give greater insight.

11
References
Beer, Ferdinand P. "Chapter 8." Mechanics of Materials. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Print.
Beladi, Mechanics of Materials Lab Manual, EMA 3702L, Spring 2015 Florida
International University. 2015. Web. 20 Jan. 2016
Hibbeler, R. C. Chapter 13. Mechanics of Materials. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall,
2014. Print.

12
Appendices

Appendix A: Apparatus
Figure 5: Experimental Apparatus

- Euler Buckling Testing Apparatus.

- Deflection dial indicator.

- Vernier caliper.

- Ruler.

Appendix B: Procedures
1. The beams material is examined, and the width and thickness is measured with a
Vernier caliper.
2. The beam is mounted in the Euler buckling testing apparatus and secured in placed by
turning the knob.
3. The dial deflection indicator is installed and zeroed.
4. The screw jack is gently rotated until a slight deflection is detected by the dial indicator.
5. The dial indicator is zeroed, and the beams length is measured.
6. The dial indicator is turned slowly until buckling in the beam is detected.
7. The deflection Dy (max) is recorded. By using the calibration formula, the critical buckling
load is calculated.
8. The beam is removed from the testing apparatus.
9. The entire procedure is repeated with different beam lengths.

13
Appendix C: Calibration Data
The deflection dial indicator needs to be calibrated at the beginning of each test. In
order to calibrate it, the dial gauge is placed on the testing equipment and is set to read zero
when no load is applied.

Also, the following calibration formulas are used to calculate the critical load and stress.

, = 2800( )

,
, =

Appendix D: Experimental Data

Figure 6. Experimental Data Collected in Class.

Appendix E: Sample Calculations for Beam #1

Moment of Inertia (min):

3 (0.018)(0.0015)3
= = = 5.06 1012 4
12 12

Radius of Gyration:

5.06 1012 4
= = = 4.33 104
(0.018 )(0.0015 )

14
Theoretical Critical Load:

42 EImin 42 2.0 1011 5.06 1012 4

= = = 559.034
2 (0.274 )2

Experimental Critical Load:

= 2800 = 2800 0.0011 = 539.391

Slenderness Ratio:

0.274
= = 632.776
4.33 104

15