Lebanese American University

School of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Byblos Campus

CIE 305 – Stress Analysis LAB

Instructor: Dr. Gebran Karam

Spring/Summer 2020

A study on Eccentrically Loaded Steel Plate with Fixed-Free End Conditions

And of a Crack Size in a Plexiglas Beam

Deeba Joe

201801261

Date of Submission: Thursday 16th of July

Table of Contents
Table of tables ..................................................................................................................... 3
Table of figures ................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 4
Experiment 1: A study on Eccentrically Loaded Steel Plate with Fixed-Free End
Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5
Objective ......................................................................................................................... 6
Apparatus ........................................................................................................................ 7
Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 7
Collected Data ................................................................................................................. 8
Calculations..................................................................................................................... 9
Sample Calculations...................................................................................................... 11
Results ........................................................................................................................... 12
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17
Experiment 2: A Study of a Crack Size in a Plexiglas Beam ........................................... 18
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18
Objective ....................................................................................................................... 19
Apparatus: ..................................................................................................................... 19
Experimental Procedure: ............................................................................................... 19
Collected Data ............................................................................................................... 20
Calculations................................................................................................................... 20
Results ........................................................................................................................... 21
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 24
References ......................................................................................................................... 25

2|Page
Table of tables
Table 1- steel sheet dimensions .......................................................................................... 8
Table 2- collected data ........................................................................................................ 8
Table 3- loads .................................................................................................................... 12
Table 4- results .................................................................................................................. 13
Table 5- results .................................................................................................................. 21

Table of figures
Figure 1 approximate values of K ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 2- P vs Y max ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 3- P critical vs Y max ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 4- 3 modes of failure.............................................................................................. 18
Figure 5- K1 vs a............................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6- P vs a ................................................................................................................. 22

3|Page
 Abstract

Fracture mechanics, buckling and bearing capacity are recent topic of interest to

researchers. All of these are critical type failures in design. Fracture mechanics is an important

aspect to consider in design. In fact, every element or structure contains multiple cracks and

imperfections that weaken it and lead to failure before the ultimate capacity of the material is

reached. Thus, most of the failures that occur are due in fact to certain fractures or cracks.

Moreover, A slender column is said to buckle when it fails to handle the load. In order to study

the behavior of the material during fracture and buckling two experiments were conducted. First

one is the buckling of a steel plate under a fixed-free condition and the other one is the behavior

of a cracked beam under a central loading. these tests and experiments are a necessity for a

proper and safe design. Further details are covered in the introduction and discussion parts.

4|Page
 Experiment 1: A study on Eccentrically Loaded Steel Plate with
Fixed-Free End Conditions
Introduction
A structure is said to buckle when is subjected to compression causing it to undergo a

visibly large displacement in the other direction of the load. Buckling is a form of failure of a

material that simply occurs because of instability. In other words, buckling can be considered as

a sudden deflection of structural materials. Buckling can be either local or global. If the structure

buckles or deforms outside its own axis, it can be considered as global; the opposite is local.

In a proper design an engineer takes both strength and buckling safety constraints into

consideration. This is due to the fact that an element could simply fail under a load which is less

than the maximum load its strength could withstand.

Steel structure differ in shape however, its buckling depends on the boundary conditions

whereby the element can be with fixed ends, one fixed end and one pinned end, both pinned

ends, and one fixed end and one free end.

In this experiment, a steel plate with fixed-free end conditions subjected to an increasing

eccentric load will be studied. The eccentric load applied is another way of a central load with a

moment acting together. When a steel plate is subjected to eccentric loading, it will also

experience bending moment. These, among many other factors, can cause the steel plate to

undergo buckling.

This eccentricity can be due to the slight initial curvature, the non-homogeneity of the

material and the existence of initial material stresses due to fabrication or construction.

5|Page
 Leonhard Euler studied buckling and establish a formula for the critical load Pcr. Pcr is the

axial force after which buckling occurs. The transition between stable and unstable conditions

occurs at the critical load Pcr. If the axial load is less than Pcr, the structure returns to its vertical

position after a small disturbance – stable condition. If the axial load is larger than Pcr , the effect

of the axial force predominates and the structure buckles – unstable condition.

Objective
The objective of the following experiment is to study the behavior of a steel plate under

axial loading. A compressive eccentric force is applied to the steel plate which is a steel ruler in

this case with a fixed-free end condition. Buckling occurs as a result of a sudden increase in

loading. The load under which the steel plate will buckle is called P critical. This experiment will

help in representing the behavior of some steel columns in real life.

6|Page
 Apparatus
• Caliper

• Metallic ruler

• Weight holder

• Weights

• Wood support

• Plastic ruler

• Measuring tape

Procedure
• The width and thickness of the plate (metallic ruler) were measured using a caliper.

• The metallic ruler was then attached vertically to a wood support and the effective length

was determined.

• At an eccentric distance, a weight holder was attached to the plate.

• The eccentricity was them measured using a ruler.

• 5 different loads (0g, 10g, 20g,40g, 60g, 80g, 100g,120g, 140g, 160g) were applied on

the plate at a constant eccentricity.

• Deflections were then obtained.

7|Page
 Collected Data

Table 1- steel sheet dimensions

t(cm) 0.1
b(cm) 2.8
L(cm) 72.5
K 2.1
e(cm) 2.5

Table 2- collected data

load (g) Ymax (cm)

0 0

10 0.4

20 0.9

40 1.7

60 2.8

80 4.6

100 7.5

120 13.2

140 27

160 38

8|Page
 Calculations
- The critical load which is called the Euler Buckling Load for a pin ended column is
 2 EI
PCrit = 2
Le
Pcrit: is the critical or maximum axial load on the plate just before it begins to buckle

E: youngs modulus of elasticity assumed to be 200,000 MPa

I: moment of inertia of the cross-sectional area.

𝑏𝑡 3
𝐼=
12

b: width in cm

t: thickness in cm

Le : unsupported length (effective length) of the steel plate and depends on the boundary

conditions. 𝐿𝑒 = 𝐾𝐿 where L is the length of the plate.

Figure 1 approximate values of K

9|Page
 - Experimental P critical:

𝜋 𝑃
𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑒 ⌈𝑠𝑒𝑐 (2 √𝑃 ) − 1⌉
𝑐𝑟

P
Thus , 𝑃𝑐𝑟 =
𝟐 𝟏
( ×𝒄𝒐𝒔−𝟏 (𝒀𝒎𝒂𝒙 ))𝟐
𝝅 +𝟏
𝒆

The load P or L can be calculated by using

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑁 = 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑘𝑔) × 𝑔(𝑁 /𝐾𝑔)

Where, g =10 M/Kg.

- The percent error can be computed using the following formula

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

𝑷 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍−𝑷 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍
So, % 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100
𝑷 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍

10 | P a g e
 Sample Calculations

𝐿(𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒) = K × L = 2.1 × L = 2.1 × 72.5 = 152.25 𝑐𝑚

b𝑡 3
I= = (1\12) × 2.8 × 0.13 × 104 = 2.33 𝑚𝑚4
12

𝜋 2 × 200000 × 2.33 𝑚𝑚4

𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = = 1.99 𝑁
(152.25 × 10)2

for 10 g loading,

𝑃 = 𝐿 = 10𝑔 × 10𝑁\𝐾𝑔 × 10−3 = 0.1

𝟎. 𝟏
𝑃𝑐𝑟 = = 0.87 N
𝟐 𝟏
(𝝅 × 𝒄𝒐𝒔−𝟏 (𝟎. 𝟒 ))𝟐
+𝟏
𝟐. 𝟓

|1.99 − 0.87|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100 = 56 %
1.99

11 | P a g e
 Results

Table 3- loads

load (g) P (N)

0 0

10 0.1

20 0.2

40 0.4

60 0.6

80 0.8

100 1

120 1.2

140 1.4

160 1.6

12 | P a g e
 Table 4- results

load (g) P critical Error (%)

experimental

0 0 0

10 0.87 56

20 0.89 55

40 1.13 43

60 1.27 36

80 1.35 32

100 1.42 29

120 1.49 25

140 1.56 21

160 1.73 13

p vs y max
1.8 1.6
1.6 1.4
1.4 1.2
1.2 1
1
P [N]

0.8
0.8 0.6
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Y,max [cm]

Figure 2- P vs Y max

13 | P a g e
 p critical vs y max
2.00
1.73
1.80 1.56
1.60 1.42 1.49
1.35
1.40 1.27
1.13
1.20
P,crit [N]

0.89
1.00 0.87
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20 0.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40
Y,max [cm]

Figure 3- P critical vs Y max

14 | P a g e
 Discussion

This experiment’s objective was to calculate the experimental and theoretical values of P.

It also aimed to understand the behavior of real-life columns so that an engineer could reduce the

tendency of a column to buckle.

Errors in this experiment ranged 13% to 56% under different loadings. This difference

can be due to many reasons. One of those reasons can be due to manufacturing imperfections

thus making the ruler non-homogenous and such imperfections change the exact value of the

modulus of elasticity used. The theoretical critical load also considers the material as uniform.

So, imperfections increase the errors of this experiment. Moreover, human errors should also be

considered for misreading the exact value can be difficult, and properly fixing the ruler to the

support causes changes in the end conditions of the ruler. This being said it can be clearly seen

that taking a safety factor is beneficial and increases safety of the design for example here the K

factor is taken to be 2.1 and not 2.

As seen by the collected data and the results, the deflection and the applied load have a

positive relation. For example, as the load increased from 10g to 20g then 40g the deflection

increased from 0.4cm to 0.9cm then 1.7cm, respectively. As seen by the equation of y max, it is

inversely proportional to P critical. Thus, y max is proportional to the effective length of the

plate since P and L effective are inversely proportional. This explains why longer structures tend

to buckle at low loads. However, the length is not the only reason for failure because boundary

conditions affect the K value thus affecting P critical.

15 | P a g e
 Regarding the values of P critical and P experimental it can be noticed that the applied

force was always less thus preventing the ruler to buckle. From the graph of P critical vs y max,

the graph shows a steeper slope than the one between P vs y max. However, both graphs tend to

reach a plateau at the end meaning that after a certain P value the increase in deflection is non-

significant.

After removing the loads, yielding of the plate towards permanent deformation is

expected. This permanent deformation is when the steel plate reaches the state of plasticity thus

being in the non-elastic region contributing to an irreversible deflection. Assuming no final

deflection was recorded in this experiment and P critical was not reached, it can be said that that

the plate has buckled and did not yield.

The steel plate in this experiment resembles a real-life electricity column. Both columns

have the same fixed-end conditions and subjected to a compressive force. The testing of such

columns and increasing the safety factor is crucial for any small error could lead to the failure of

the electricity column thus causing a catastrophe.

So, preventing buckling is an essential aspect of design. Preventing buckling can be

through shortening and joining columns thus decreasing L which in turn decreases y max. Also,

increasing the size of the member (width and thickness) which increases the moment of inertia

could be a possible solution for buckling. Increasing the modulus of elasticity can be a solution

whereby the material used should have a relatively high E. finally, changing the factor K could

be a solution and this change is reached by changing the end conditions of the element.

16 | P a g e
 Conclusion

Buckling is a natural phenomenon that can not be controlled. However, it can be

lessened. Buckling is related to the dimensions of the column, its material properties, and its

boundary conditions. Thus, reducing buckling can be done by the modification of the factors that

control it. An engineer should always calculate the yielding and buckling critical loads of the

element under study and should always relatively increase the factor of safety. The experiment

conducted was not devoid of errors, however that did not prevent reaching clear and proper

conclusions. Furthermore, attention and precautions should be ensured while doing an

experiment to ensure a proper accuracy and precision of the results.

17 | P a g e
 Experiment 2: A Study of a Crack Size in a Plexiglas Beam
Introduction
fracture mechanics is the field of solid mechanics that deals with the mechanical behavior

of cracked bodies subjected to stresses and strains. And after several analysis, it was observed

that any element failing at a load less than its ultimate load is due mainly to fatigue or occurrence

of cracks that were not predicted. Therefore, it is necessary to not only study the tensile strength,

yielding points and buckling stresses but also to design based on a criterion to predict the crack

size and its type before failure.

Fracture mechanics is apart from the mechanics that studies the effect and mechanism of

the growth of cracks. This branch used to be ignored in the past, but cracks played a huge role in

the failure of some structural facilities, so the study of such cracks became a major interest in the

engineering world. A lot of information is needed to be able to study these types of failure such

as: the stress applied, magnitude of the load and the size, orientation of the crack. Three main

modes of failure due to crack have been observed: tension, shearing and tearing.

Figure 4- 3 modes of failure

It is important to determine the stress intensity factor “K” of aa material. K is a property

which describes the ability of a material containing a crack to resist fracture, and is one of the

most important properties of any material for virtually all design applications.

18 | P a g e
 Objective
This experiment aims to study the effect of the crack size on the maximum carrying capacity of a
Plexiglas beam.

Apparatus:
• 7 Plexiglas pieces
• Ruler
• Marker
• Saw
• Fixed support
• Universal testing machine UTM

Experimental Procedure:
• Obtain 7 Plexiglas elements.
• Measure their length, depth and thickness using a ruler.
• Mark the span length and load position.
• Using the saw, make on each of the beams a crack size of 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm
and 6mm, respectively.
• Perform the three points bending test on the six elements using the UTM.

19 | P a g e
 Collected Data

B= 0.45 cm

W= 1.5 cm

S= 11cm

Crack size (mm) P (kN)

0 0.6
1 0.38
2 0.22
3 0.18
4 0.17
5 0.12
6 0.1

Calculations

𝑃𝑆
K1= 3 *[2.9𝑥 0.5 − 4.6𝑥 1.5 + 21.8𝑥 2.5 − 37.6𝑥 3.5 + 38.7𝑥 4.5 )
𝐵𝑊 2

Where x=a/w

a is the crack size

B is the thickness

W is the depth

S is the span

20 | P a g e
Results

Table 5- results

Sample a/w Crack size B W S P K1

(mm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (kN) (kN/m^1.5)
1 0.00 0 0.45 1.5 11 0.6 0.00
2 0.07 1 0.45 1.5 11 0.38 3498.57
3 0.13 2 0.45 1.5 11 0.22 2776.27
4 0.20 3 0.45 1.5 11 0.18 2798.92
5 0.27 4 0.45 1.5 11 0.17 3161.14
6 0.33 5 0.45 1.5 11 0.12 2649.49
7 0.40 6 0.45 1.5 11 0.1 2635.96

K1 vs a
4000.00
3500.00
3000.00
K1 (kN/m^1.5)

2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Crack Size, a (mm)

Figure 5- K1 vs a

21 | P a g e
 P vs a
0.7
0.6
0.6

0.5
0.38
0.4
P

0.3 0.22
0.18 0.17
0.2 0.12 0.1
0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a

Figure 6- P vs a

22 | P a g e
 Discussion

A material property is a property known to be constant and a characteristic of the

material. Every material has its own critical stress intensity factor and fracture toughness. K1C is

a material property representing the highest value of stress intensity that the material can

withstand before fracture. Thus, A material does not break if the stress intensity factor is below

the critical one. Once the critical value is reached fracture is certain.

In this experiment the K calculated is not the material property since as the crack size

changed the k factor fluctuated. This K factor calculated represents the level of stress at the tip of

the crack in the beam under study.

Regarding the relation between P and a, it is noticed by the graph that as the crack size

increases the critical load for failure decreases. K1 also decreases as a increases as seen by the

graph of K1 vs a. Thus, there exist a proportional relation between the load and the stress

intensity factor. For example, as the crack size increases from 4mm to 5mm, the critical load

decreases from 0.17kN to 0.12kN and the K1 factor drops from 3161.14 (kN/m^1.5) to 2649.49

(kN/m^1.5).

Experiments as are never devoid of errors. Some errors are due to human errors, for

example, not perfecting an exact crack size while cutting. Further, material imperfections reduce

the accuracy of the experiment. Despite these errors, clear conclusions were established.

23 | P a g e
 Conclusion

This experiment explained the difference between the stress intensity factor and fracture

toughness or the critical stress intensity factor of the material. K1C is a material property

independent of the crack size and the applied load while the K1 factor is a factor that depends on

them. Critical crack sizes and fracture toughness of the material should be always considered for

a proper design with no fracture failure.

24 | P a g e
 References
hoyek, T. A. (2018). Lab Handout: Eccentrically Loaded Steel Plate with Fixed-Free End
Conditions. Byblos.

Hoyek, T. A. (2018). Lab Handout:Study of Crack Size in a Plexiglas Beam. Byblos.

25 | P a g e