Column Buckling

AERSP 305: Aerospace Technology Laboratory

047 Structures-Lab, Hammond, 10/7/2019
Section S-03
Author: Edouard Buisson
Lab Partner’s: Jeremy Mcgovern, Jaykumar Patel, Michael Allan, and Chenyu Wang
TA: Saptarshi Biswas
Instructors: Benjamin Beck, Richard Auhl, and Tyler dare

Abstract
The purpose of this experiment is to experimentally determine the critical buckling load for a
sample of mild steel columns that are similar to the designed component that will be used for
a landing gear. Six beams of different lengths were tested in clamped-clamped and pinned-
pinned configurations. It was found that the beam with the highest critical load would be the
shortest in length that was in a clamped-clamped configuration. The experimental values were
mostly always lower than the theoretical due to one error that was performed before a test.
After the lab was conducted, graphs with experimental data were created to show the buckling
load behavior of each beam. With these graphs, the experimental critical load values are
calculated and can also be compared to each other for each boundary condition. Since there
were no beams of the same length used to compare the buckling load between both boundary
conditions, theoretical and experimental graphs were also created to show and compare the
critical stress and slenderness ratio for each test.

I. Introduction
The main goal of this experiment was to compare the experimental critical load value of a
buckling beam found using three different methods. The first method uses the Euler Bernoulli
beam buckling equations. The second method used the experimentally collected data to find
the critical load by visually seeing the point at which the load reaches a constant value on the
load vs displacement graph. This is called the asymptotic method. The third method used the
experimentally collected data to create a linear graph of displacement vs displacement/load of
which the slope is equal to the critical load. This is called the imperfection accommodation
method. These samples were tested on an apparatus specifically used for compressing beams.
This experiment was done on six columns of different lengths. Three (19, 22, and 25 inches)
 were clamped at both ends and another three (18, 21, and 24 inches) were pinned at both ends
to verify the theory that a clamped-clamped boundary condition will withstand four times the
load of a pinned-pinned specimen of the same length. The apparatus used to conduct the
experiment is helpful in ensuring that a load is applied to the specimen vertically into the
beam’s cross section. The prediction for this lab was that the critical buckling load would
increase with increasing beam length. It was also predicted that the pinned-pinned boundary
conditions would have a lower critical buckling load and stress than with a clamped-clamped
condition because it won’t be as restricted to deflect.
After the experiment was completed and the dimensions of the beams were recorded, some
theoretical calculations were made to match with the measured data. Equation 1 was used to
solve for the theoretical critical buckling load of each beam. Since the same beams were not
used for both clamped and pinned configurations, equations 2 and 3 were used to solve for the
critical stress and slenderness ratio in order to compare buckling for beams of different sizes.

π2
Pcr = c L2 EI Equation 1
Pcr
𝜎𝐶𝑅 = Equation 2
𝐴
𝐿
𝑆𝑅 = 𝑟 Equation 3
√𝑐

Variable c in equation 1 is a constant that depends on the boundary condition used. When using
a pinned-pinned configuration, c = 1, and when using a clamped-clamped configuration, c = 4.
After applying the boundary conditions, the critical load for the pinned-pinned condition is
given in equation 4.
π2
𝑃𝑐𝑟 = EI Equation 4
L2

The critical load for the clamped-clamped condition, is given in Equation 5.

π2
𝑃𝑐𝑟 = 4 L2 EI Equation 5

II. Experimental Procedure

Due to first use of the buckle measuring apparatus, a step by step procedure is written below
to use as a reference for future lab work and also to show how the experiment had been
conducted. It is important to note that after recording the necessary data, the recorded load
must be multiplied by four in order to compare experimental values with theoretical
calculations.
1. To start off the experiment, the LVDT must be calibrated in order to translate the
voltage to inches. This was done before the lab and the calibration equation was coded
into LabVIEW in order to directly output the displacement of the beams in inches.

2. Before inserting a beam into the support blocks, the cross bar must be adjusted so that
it is able to fit and accommodate the correct beam length. This can be done by loading
the corresponding link to the cross bar and S-beam load cell in a way that the link and
S-beam are both fully extended vertically.

3. The cross bar must then be adjusted in a way that it will be perfectly horizontal when
applying the weights onto the balance hanger. This is done by vertically fixing the left
and right side of the cross bar so that a small portion of the bubble on the level indicator
is on the right side of the center. The reason for this orientation is so that when applying
counter weights onto the device, the bubble will reposition itself in the middle.

4. The device must then be balanced. To do this, weight must be added onto the balance
hanger until the cross bar is essentially ‘floating’. This ensures that there is no
additional load applied on the beam from the weight of the loading apparatus.

5. Since buckling load is very sensitive to loading condition, it is very important that the
applied load remains balanced throughout each test. Which is why after balancing the
cross bar, the bubble on the level indicator was verified to be perfectly centered. If not
level, the vertical position of the left and right side of the cross bar must be readjusted
to ensure this.

6. The tested beam may then be installed and the LVDT can be positioned against the
center of the beam which should be indicated with a mark beforehand. If performing a
clamped-clamped test, the clamps must be set on both supporting fixtures. If
performing a pinned-pinned test, the support blocks must be flipped over and
reinstalled.

7. The LVDT can be zeroed by sliding away from or towards the beam.

8. An increasing load can then be applied to the installed specimen by turning both wheel
handles in opposite directions while checking that the level indicator on the upper bar
stays centered. It is important to verify that the cross bar is level while increasing the
load so that only an axial load is applied to the beam. It is also important to note that in
order to increase the load, the right handle must be turned counter clockwise and the
left handle must be turned clockwise at four times the speed in which the right wheel
is turned.
9. While loading the beam, LabVIEW is used to collect load and deflection data by
clicking on the record button at the desired increments.

10. Once LabVIEW shows that the load stops increasing with displacement, the data is
saved and the load is removed from the specimen.

11. Repeat the process for each beam with clamped and pinned fixtures.

Figure 1: Columns Tested

Figure 2: General Setup

III. Results and Discussion

0.5

0.4

0.3
Deflection (in)

0.2
y = 331.22x - 0.0795

0.1

0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 0.0018

-0.1
Deflection/Load (in/lb)

Figure 3: Clamped-Clamped 19” Beam

Figure 3 shows the imperfection accommodation method being used for experimentally finding
the critical load. The slope of this graph is the critical load value. The Asymptotic method and
imperfection method give very similar results, but are both much different than the theoretical
value. Since this beam is the shortest in length that was tested on a clamped-clamped boundary
condition, this configuration holds the most weight before buckling. Not only is this due to being
the shortest beam out of the clamped ones but it is also because the specimen was clamped on both
ends instead of pinned which greatly increases its load capabilities. The experimental critical load
was found to be lower than the theoretical value of 373 pounds which was calculated using
Equation 5. This is due to not actually reaching plastic deformation which is when the critical
buckling point is reached in order to preserve the beam for future testing.
 0.6

0.5

0.4
Deflection (in)

0.3

0.2
y = 238.31x - 0.0161
0.1

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
-0.1
Deflection/Load (in/lb)

Figure 4: Clamped-Clamped 22” Beam

Similar to Figure 3, Figure 4 shows the imperfection accommodation method being used for
experimentally finding the critical load. The asymptotic method and imperfection method give
very similar results, but are both very different from the theoretical value. Out of the clamped
beams tested, the 22-inch column had the median length. It can be seen from both Figure 3 and 4
that a longer beam will cause it to have a smaller critical buckling load. The experimental critical
load was found to be lower than the theoretical value of 278 pounds which was calculated using
Equation 5.

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Deflection (in)

0.3

0.2
y = 174.71x - 0.0411
0.1

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004
-0.1
Deflecion/Load (in/lb)

Figure 5: Clamped-Clamped 25” Beam

Similar to the graphs above, Figure 5 shows the imperfection accommodation method being used
for experimentally finding the critical load. Out of the clamped beams tested, this one was the
largest in length. It can be seen from all the figures above representing clamped-clamped
conditions, that the longer the beam, the smaller the critical buckling load it will have. The
experimental critical load was found to be lower than the theoretical value of 215 pounds which
was calculated using Equation 5.

0.5

0.4

0.3
Deflection (in)

0.2
y = 96.74x - 0.0367

0.1

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005

-0.1
Deflection/Load (in/lb)

Figure 6: Pinned-Pinned 18” Beam

Like the graphs above, Figure 6 shows the imperfection accommodation method being used again
but on a pinned-pinned boundary condition. The asymptotic method and imperfection method give
very similar results, but are both very different from the theoretical value. Out of the pinned beams
tested, this one was the smallest in length. Even though this beam was the shortest for both clamped
or pinned boundary conditions, it shows to have a smaller critical buckling load than all of the
clamped beams tested. This suggests that the strength of a beam between the two boundary
conditions differs significantly. This is due to the fact that a clamp support resists a specimen from
bending as it is supported at more than one point on each side as opposed to a pinned-pinned
boundary condition. The experimental critical load was found to be lower than the theoretical value
of 104 pounds which was calculated using Equation 4.
 0.5

0.4

0.3
Deflection (in)

0.2

y = 82.984x - 0.0715
0.1

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006

-0.1
Deflection/Load (in/lb)

Figure 7: Pinned-Pinned 21” Beam

Figure 7 shows the imperfection method being used with a pinned-pinned boundary condition. Out
of the pinned beams tested, the 21-inch column was the median for length. It can be seen that
because this specimen is longer than the column used in Figure 4, it will buckle at a lower load. In
this instance, the experimental critical load was found to be higher than the theoretical value of
76.3 pounds which was calculated using Equation 4. This is believed to be due to accidentally
disassembling the top part of the left load wheel before the test was conducted. Even though the
device was easily reassembled, it may have affected this data by not screwing the wheel back
tightly enough.
 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Deflection (in)

0.3

0.2
y = 46.493x - 0.0065
0.1

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
-0.1
Deflection/Load (in/lb)

Figure 8: pinned-Pinned 24” Beam

The last specimen tested was the 24-inch column. Figure 8 shows the imperfection method being
used with a pinned-pinned boundary condition. It can be seen from the graph that this specimen
supports the smallest buckling load out of all the beams. The experimental critical load was found
to be lower than the theoretical value of 58.4 pounds which was calculated using Equation 4.
It was noticed that pinned-pinned configurations gave experimental results that were the closest to
the theoretical values, this could be a result of the beams not being pre-yielded possibly because
they are not subjected to as much load force as the clamped-clamped beams are. It is also important
to note that each test was conducted while trying to avoid applying enough weight to commence
plastic deformation of the beams. Because critical buckling is reached when permanent
deformation begins, the tests always ended before permanently bending the column in order to
preserve each beam for future testing. This causes the measured values to be lower than the
theoretical critical buckling points calculated.
 0.7

0.6

0.5
Deflection (in)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Load (lb)

Figure 9: Load vs. Deflection Graph of Clamped -Clamped Beams

Figure 9 uses the asymptotic method to experimentally show the deflection of the beam in
clamped-clamped boundary conditions for an increasing load. The Asymptotic method and
imperfection method give very similar results. It can be seen from each set of values how each
critical buckling load presented in the imperfection method is reached. However, only the data
points for the 19-inch column doesn’t fully reach the critical buckling load calculated before. It is
believed that this is due to ending the test too early since the graph hadn’t reached its vertical
asymptote for critical buckling load yet.

0.7

0.6

0.5
Deflection (in)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Load (lb)

Figure 10: Load vs. Deflection Graph of Pinned -Pinned Beams

Figure 10 uses the asymptotic method to experimentally show the deflection of the beam in
pinned-pinned boundary conditions for an increasing load. The Asymptotic method and
imperfection method give very similar results as each data series reaches its critical buckling
value.

19" CC 22" CC 25" CC 18" PP 21" PP 24" PP

4.50E+03
3.98E+03
4.00E+03
3.50E+03
2.97E+03
Critical Stress (psi)

3.00E+03
2.50E+03 2.30E+03

2.00E+03
1.50E+03 1.11E+03
8.14E+02
1.00E+03 6.23E+02
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Slenderness Ratio

Figure 11: Critical Stress vs. Slenderness Ratio (Theoretical)

19" CC 22" CC 25" CC 18" PP 21" PP 24" PP

4000
3533.013333
3500

3000
2541.973333
Critical Stress (psi)

2500
1863.573333
2000

1500
1031.893333
885.1626667
1000
495.9253333
500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Slenderness Ratio

Figure 12: Critical Stress vs. Slenderness Ratio (Experimental)

Figure 11 and 12 show that the theoretical values calculated for critical stress are always higher
than the measured values except for the 21-inch pinned beam which is believed to be due to an
experimental error mentioned above. As critical load increases, critical stress of the beam
increases. And when the critical stress of a beam increases, its slenderness ratio decreases. The
only data that is experimental in Figure 12 is critical stress. The slenderness ratio values depend
on constant variables that do not change throughout each test.

IV. Conclusion

Throughout this experiment, it has been observed that there are a number of factors that greatly
affect the critical load of a beam. This includes, boundary conditions, length of the specimen
and initial displacement. The pinned-pinned configuration gives more accurate results when
compared to theoretical values, which is due to a variety of reasons. First the boundary
conditions on the pinned-pinned are more ideal because there are less variables that the beam
could depend on as opposed to over or under tightened clamps. Second is that the pinned-
pinned tests were subjected to less overall loads during the experiment, which may result in no
minimal permanent deformation, unlike the clamped-clamped cases. The shortest clamped-
clamped beam was found to have the highest critical buckling and stress points along with the
lowest slenderness ratio. The most accurate test was done with the 21-inch pinned beam which
is when the experimental critical points were higher than the predicted values. The clamped-
clamped boundary condition gave experimental results that are much different than the
theoretical values calculated. This could have been caused by non-ideal boundary conditions
and pre-yielded beams. One experimental error that may have affected the data was the
accidental removal of the top portion of the left load wheel. Even though the apparatus was
reassembled, it is possible that the part was not screwed back on tight enough thus affecting
the experiment in some way. Although it is not known how this would have affected the data,
it was recognized that the recorded data on LabVIEW would appear to be less consistent with
its usual graphical behavior. Some recommendations for future labs would be to test a set of
used beams but then conduct the experiment on one that has never been tested, in order to
compare results. Another suggestion would be to continue loading the beams past their critical
load point in order to acquire a more accurate experimental buckling load value.