Title

Material strength under compression.

Objectives

1. To investigate crippling of beams of a range of slenderness ratios.

2. To compare measurements with theoretical calculations.

Introduction

Crippling of beams is measured using compression test. Compression test is a test in

which beam materials experience opposing forces applied inward to test specimen leading

to compression, crushing, and flattening (Szczerba, Gajewski, & Giżejowski., 2018).

Specimens are generally placed between plates that are compression test fixtures and load

is distributed on the test surfaces of samples. The compression is carried out the Capstone

material testing machine. The test specimen material experiences reduction in length in

the direction of applied forces and expansion in the direction perpendicular to the applied

forces (Fung, Tong, & Chen, 2017).

Compression test allows for the determination of beam behavior when it

experiences the compressive load by measuring the variables such as variation of force
against slenderness ratio (Bittencourt, 2014). The experiment used uni-axial tension-
compression test to determine the failure mechanism of the beams.

Figure 1 Compression test

1|Page
 Figure 2 Pasco materials testing machine

Equipment and Materials

Pascoe materials testing machine

Pascoe I-beams of length 119mm, 118mm, 66 mm.

Calipers

Pascoe capstone software

Pascoe data acquisition interfaces

Method

1. Beam was installed into testing rig

2|Page
 2. The effective length of the beam was measured. The length was the distance
between upper and lower fixtures.
3. The recording was initiated and the crank was turned counter-clockwise to
compress the beam. This was continued until the beam failed and critical force at
which the beam failed, 𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 , was recorded.
4. The failure method of the beam was observed. The failure type whether buckling
or crush was noted. Axis of buckling as noted for those that buckled.
5. The steps 1-4 were repeated for each of the samples of the beams.
6. Calculations of effective length, area radius of gyration and slenderness ratio were
carried out and results recorded.
7.

Calculations and Results

Data from the experiment were as shown in the Table 1. Table 2 illustrates the
mechanical properties of ABS. The mechanical properties were flexural yield strength,
flexural modulus and tensile strength.

Table 1: Specimen dimensions

Specimen Initial Final Flange Flange Depth, Web

length length base, bf thickness, d, of thickness,
(mm) (mm) (mm) tf (mm) cross- tw (mm)
section
(mm)

1 118 108 10.16 1.70 10.16 2.54

2 119 82 10.15 1.70 10.15 2.55

3 66 51 10.15 1.71 10.15 2.54

4 66 62 10.16 1.71 10.16 2.55

Table 2: Mechanical properties of ABS (Source: Test Standard Lab, ABS Datasheet)

Property Value

Flexural modulus 2.3 GPa

3|Page
 Flexural yield strength 50 MPa

Tensile strength 44 MPa

Young’s Modulus 1400MPa

1. Cross-sectional Area, Moment of Inertia and Radii of Gyration

Cross-sectional area of specimen 1, 𝐴1 , is given by:

Where,

b𝑓 - base of flange;

𝑡𝑓 - thickness of flange;

𝑡𝑤 - thickness of web;

𝑑- depth of cross-section.

𝐴1 = b𝑓 × 𝑡𝑓 × 2 + 𝑡𝑤 × (𝑑 − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 )

= 10.16 × 1.70 × 2 + 2.54 × (10.16 − 2 ∗ 1.70) mm2

= 51.7144 mm2

4|Page
 = 5.17144 × 10−5 m2

Moment of Inertia of the specimen 1

𝑡𝑤 𝑏𝑓 3
𝐼𝑥 = (𝑑 − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 )3 + (𝑑 3 − (𝑑 − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 ) )
12 12

3
𝑡𝑤 𝑏𝑓3
𝐼𝑦 = (𝑑 − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 ) + (2 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 )
12 12

2.54 10.16
𝐼𝑥 = (10.16 − 2 ∗ 1.70)3 + (10.163 − (10.16 − 2 ∗ 1.70)3 )
12 12

𝐼𝑥 = 691.79886 mm4

2.543 10.163
𝐼𝑦 = (10.16 − 2 ∗ 1.70) + (2 ∗ 1.70)
12 12

𝐼𝑦 = 306.38347 mm4

Area radius of gyration, k, is given by:

Along x-axis

𝐼𝑥
𝑘𝑥 = √
𝐴1

691.79886
𝑘𝑥 = √
51.7144

𝑘𝑥 = 3.6574 𝑚𝑚

Along y axis

306.383473
𝑘𝑦 = √
51.7144

5|Page
 𝑘𝑦 = 2.4340 𝑚𝑚

Using perpendicular axis theorem,

𝑘𝑧2 = 𝑘𝑥2 + 𝑘𝑦2

𝑘𝑧2 = 3.65742 + 2.43402

= 19.30093

𝑘𝑧 = 4.39328 𝑚𝑚

The process was repeated for each sample of the beams. The results were presented in

Table 2 below:

Specimen Cross- 𝐼𝑥 (mm4) 𝐼𝑦 (mm4) 𝑘𝑥 (mm) 𝑘𝑦 (mm) 𝑘𝑧 (mm)

sectional area

(mm2)

Specimen 1 51.71 691.80 306.38 3.6574 2.4340 4.39328

Specimen 2 51.72 689.69 305.60 3.6516 2.4307 4.3867

Specimen 3 51.81 691.16 307.21 3.6525 2.4351 4.3899

Specimen 4 51.9 693.79 308.21 3.6550 2.4361 4.3925

3. Effective Length of Beam Specimens

Effective length is found by multiplying the measured length by the effective length

constant, K. The beams were fixed at both ends as shown in the image below:

6|Page
 𝐿𝑒 = 𝐾 ∗ 𝐿

Where,

L- Initial length, mm;

For specimen 1,

𝐿𝑒 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐿

Table 3 presents initial length and calculated effective lengths of the specimens.

Table 3: Initial and effective lengths

Specimen Length, L (mm) Effective Length (mm)

Specimen 1 118 59.0

Specimen 2 119 59.5

Specimen 3 66 33.0

Specimen 4 66 33.0

7|Page
4. Slenderness ratio of Beam Specimens

Slenderness ratio, 𝜆, is given by the ratio of effective length, 𝐿𝑒 , and the least radius of

gyration, 𝑘𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 .

𝐿𝑒
𝜆=
𝑘𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡

For specimen 1, slenderness ratio is given by:

59
=
2.4340

= 24.2399

Critical load at buckling, Pcrtical, for specimen 1 is given by

𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 𝜎𝑦 ∗ 𝐴1

= 50 × 106 ∗ 5.17144 × 10−5

= 2587.2 𝑁

Table 4: Effective length, critical load and slenderness ratio

Specimen Effective Length Critical load at Slenderness ratio

(mm) buckling (Pcritical) N

Specimen 1 59.0 2587.20 24.2399

Specimen 2 59.5 2586.13 24.4781

Specimen 3 33.0 2590.36 13.5517

Specimen 4 33.0 2596.71 13.5461

8|Page
5. Graph of Fcritical against slenderness ration

Critical load versus slenderness ratio

2598

2596

2594
Critical load (N)

2592

2590

2588

2586

2584
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Slenderness ratio

5. Graph of Fcritical versus slenderness ration (le/k)

Critical load points for each specimen Critical load at

buckling (Pcritical) N
2598
specimen 4
2596 (13.5461, 2596.71)

2594
Critical load (N)

2592

specimen 3
2590 (13.5517, 2590.36)

2588
specimen 1
(24.2399, 2587.2)
specimen 2
2586 (24.4781, 2586.13)

2584
10 15 20 25 30
Slenderness ratio

9|Page
6. Euler, Rankine-Gordon and Standard Curves

Data points for Euler and Rankine curves was estimated in Excel as shown below:

le/k 0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1

Euler 138174.5 1141.938 313.3208 143.782 82.19778 53.12359 37.13369 27.41013
Rankine-
Gordon 49.98191 47.90258 43.11905 37.09894 31.08899 25.75729 21.3085 17.70453
8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1
21.05997 16.68572 13.54519 11.21455 9.437502 8.051656 6.950076 6.060018 5.330599
14.81849 12.51075 10.65795 9.160064 7.939038 6.934929 6.101923 5.404956 4.817061
17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1
4.725367 4.217651 3.787573 3.420075 3.103579 2.829067 2.589428 2.378996 2.193211
4.317361 3.889569 3.520875 3.201126 2.922205 2.677576 2.461937 2.270953 2.101057

Euler, Rankine-Gordon and Standard Curves

300.00

250.00

200.00
Pcritical/A

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
le/k

Euler Rankine-Gordon

Discussions

Beams specimens of higher slenderness ratio were found to buckle at lower critical loads
compared to those with lower slenderness ratios. Specimens 1 and 2 had high slenderness

10 | P a g e
ratios and therefore buckled with loads of 2.587 and 2.586 kN, respectively. Specimens 3
and 4 had low slenderness ratio and buckled at slightly higher critical loads of 2.597 and
2.590 kN, respectively.

Buckling occurred approximately in the middle of the beam’s length (Fung, Tong, &
Chen, 2017). This is the region with highest deflection on compression due to high
bending moments. One beam fractured in the middle while the other three buckled.
Buckling occurred along the y-axis possibly because it had lower area moment of inertia
of the two axes, x and y.

The specimens buckled at higher critical loads than theoretical loads. Theoretically, a
𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
beam with slenderness ratio of 13.55 buckles at of 7.53MPa by Eurler’s equation
𝐴

and at 6.54MPa by Rankine-Gordon equation. The specimens 3 and 4 buckled at about

50MPa.

Conclusion

The objectives of this experiment were achieved. Variation of buckling effects across
beams of different slenderness ratios was also studied. Measurements were compared
with theoretical values.

References

Bittencourt, M. L. (2014). Computational solid mechanics: Variational formulation and

high order approximation. CRC Press.

Fung, Y. C., Tong, P., & Chen, X. (2017). Classical and computational solid mechanics

(Vol. 2). World Scientific Publishing Company.

Szczerba, R., Gajewski, M., & Giżejowski., M. (2018). On modelling of the buckling

resistance of welded I-section columns. MATEC Web of Conferences. 219, p.

02003. EDP Sciences.

11 | P a g e