Course Code

UEME1263 Solid Mechanics I

& Name
For internal info:
Practical No i) Buckling Test – Pr1
Practical 1: Buckling Test ii) Tensile Test – Pr2
& Title
in EI system

Practical P1
P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7
Group (D)
(Please circle) P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Instructor Dr. Yew Ming Kun
Date & Time
7th January 2022
of Practical

Group Members:
No Student Name Student ID Programme

1 Wingates Voon 1701174 BI

2 Wong Yi Jie 1703758 BI

3 Wong Zhai Yong 2000222 BI

4 Wong Zi Hau 1702377 BI

5
*Penalty will be imposed on report submitted without sufficient and clear information.

Practical (Psychomotor Skill - 30%)

Report (Analytical Skill - 70%)

Total
Practical (Psychomotor Skill - 30%)
Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Taxonomy 1 (Perception) 2 (Set) 3 (Guided 4 (Mechanism) 5(Complex Overt
Level Response) Response) Score
(b)
Criteria Weightage Poor Fair Acceptable Good Excellent
(a)
Unfamiliar Fair knowledge Acceptable Good knowledge Excellent knowledge
knowledge
A. NOT able to Able to answer Able to answer Able to answer Able to answer ALL
Understandi answer any PARTIAL MOST question(s) ALL question(s) question(s) with
ng of 15% question(s). question(s) with with BRIEF with BRIEF DETAIL and
Practical BRIEF elaborations elaborations CLEAR
elaborations elaborations
Need intensive Need little Fairly involvement Full involvement Fully involvement with
encouragement encouragement Good Leadership
NOT committed PARTIALLY MODERATELY FULLY FULLY committed
and NOT co- committed and committed and committed and and HIGHLY co-
B. Involvement operative with PARTIALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY co- operative with team
/ Leadership / team members in co- co- operative with members in identifying
Precautions identifying and operative with operative with team team members in and solving problems
15% solving problems. team members in members in identifying and with GOOD
identifying and identifying and solving problems. leadership quality.
solving problems. solving problems.

I. Report (Analytical Skill - 70%)

Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Limited Partial limited Demonstrate usage Almost mastery Mastery of tools Score (b)
C. Style, of tools
Formatting and Contents contain Contents contain Contents contain ALMOST ALL Contents contain
grammar/spelli numerous some ERRORS a few ERRORS or contents contain NO ERRORS or are
ng
15 ERRORS or are
SIGNIFICANTL
or
are poorly
are SLIGHTLY
poorly formatted
NO ERRORS or
are
CORRECTL
formatted.
% Y poorly formatted. with acceptable CORRECTLY
formatted. errors. formatted.
Inadequate Fair Sufficient Good Accomplished
Unable to provide Able to provide Able to provide Able to provide Able to provide clear
background of the minimal introductory/ clear introductory and detailed summary
D. study/experiment introductory/ procedure in own / summary of each of each of the steps
Introductio procedure. procedure in words without of the steps taken taken in completing
n/ 10 Objectives NOT words but attempt of brevity. in completing the the lab. It is NOT an
Objective stated. contains Objectives are NOT lab but contain exhaustive
Procedu % SIGNIFICANT clearly stated. MINIMUM description
re errors in terms of errors. Objectives containing minute
sentence structure. are ALMOST well detail. Objectives are
Objectives are stated. clearly stated.
poorly stated.
Unorganized Partial organized Fairly organized Almost organized Well organized
Figures, graphs, SOME data, SOME data, ALMOST all ALL data, figures,
E. tables contain figures, graphs, figures, graphs, data, figures, graphs, tables are
Results ERRORS or are tables are tables are presented graphs, tables are correctly drawn, are
: data,
figures,
15 poorly
constructed, have
presented with
SIGNIFANT
with MINIMUM
missing important
correctly drawn,
are numbered and
numbered and
contain
graphs, % missing titles, missing or required features. contain titles/captions.
tables, captions or important or titles/captions.
etc. numbers, units required features.
missing or
incorrect, etc.

Analysis of Analysis of Analysis of results Analysis of results Analysis of results

results with results with with MINOR with MINIMUM WITHOUT error.
SEVERE errors SIGNIFANT errors. Able to errors. Able to provide
or omissions. errors or provide Able to provide EXCELLENT
UNABLE to omissions. ADEQUATE IMPORTANT insight.
F. Analysis /
Discussion
20 provide insight of Able to provide insight but missed insight but results Results and
% the experiment. little insight with SOME important and discussion discussion well
UNABLE to SIGNIFANT points. NOT well focused.
interpret data or missing important Able to Interpret focused. Able to interpret data
over- interpreted points. Able to data correctly but Able to interpret complete and
data. Interpret SOME INCOMPLETE. data complete but APPROPRIATELY.
data correctly. OVERINTERP Not overinterpreted.
RETED.
Inadequate Fair Sufficient Good Accomplished
Able to provide Able to provide
UNABLE to Able to provide Able to provide
conclusion but conclusion which
provide conclusion but conclusion which
G. Conclusions WITHOUT describes experimental
conclusion or is in CONFLICT with PARTIALLY
theoretical basis for results
10% conflict with the experimental
the lab.
describes
COMPLETELY.
experimental results. experimental
results. results.
 OBJECTIVE

1.To observe the deflection shape of columns of three different configurations.

2. To compare experiment value with theoretical value (based on Euler’s formula)

INTRODUCTION

The WP 120 test stand can exhibit all essential buckling concerns. Buckling is largely a stability
concern, as opposed to basic strength problems like pulling, pressure, bending, and shearing. One of
the most well-known technical examples in stability theory is the buckling problem number. Buckling
is an integral part of practically every technological sector. Examples of this are:

• Columns and supports in construction and steel engineering

• Stop rods for valve actuation and connecting rods in motor construction

• Piston rods for hydraulic cylinders and

• Lifting spindles in lifting gear

APPARATUS
 PROCEDURE

1. The apparatus was placed on a level table

2. The force sensor (C) cable was later connected to the force meter (D).

3. The force meter (D) console box was connected to laboratory 240 VAC power supply. The power
supply was later switched on.

4. The width, depth and length of the columns were measured. The measurements were recorded and
use for calculate the column second moment of area, I.

5. The lower and upper bar test specimen holder screw (G) were both loosen and the test specimen
was placed to the lower and upper bar. The Allen key provided later will be used to tighten the screw

6.The configuration was set to pined-pined. (Ensure the screws F are loosened).

7. The max/min button soft button was tared zero for three second.

8. The load was applied to the specimen by rotating the loading mechanism once the force reached
the maximum point and start decreasing.

9. The load was applied to the test specimen by rotating the loading mechanism.

10. Eyes were kept close on the force meter. The loading mechanism stops loading once the force
reached the maximum point and start decreasing.

11. The deflection shape of the column were observed and sketched out.

12. The max/min button of the meter was pressed. The maximum force which would be the critical
load were recorded.

13. The experiment on the remaining configuration were repeated. For fixed end, the screws were
ensured to be tightened.
 EXPERIMENTAL FORMULAE & CONSTANT

The followings are the formulas and Young Modulus of the column specimen that were used in the
result calculation section for this experiment:

Table 1: Formula of Experimental Parameters

Experimental Parameters Formula

Moment of inertia 𝑏𝑑3
𝐼=
12
• b = width of specimen
• d = depth of specimen
Euler critical load for a 𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
pinned-pinned column 𝐿2
• E = Young modulus of the specimen,
• I = moment of inertia
• L = length of specimen
Euler critical load for a 4𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
fixed-fixed column 𝐿2

Euler critical load for a 𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼

𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
pinned-fixed column 0.49𝐿2

Percentage difference/ error |[𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒] − [𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒]|

× 100%
[𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒]
Average measurement [𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 1] + [𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 2] + ⋯ [𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁)
𝑁

Table 2: Young Modulus of Column Specimen

Type of Column Specimen Young Modulus (GPa)

Steel 200
Aluminum 70

Figure 1: Types of ends condition for the column

 RESULT & CALCULATION
As the procedure is repeated on different test configurations and column types, the dimension of the
specimen column was measured separately for each test configuration, giving three sets of measurement
for each column type. Thus, there are six sets of dimension columns for two column types.

A) Aluminium
Table 3: Dimension for pinned-pinned aluminium column

Dimension Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width, b (m) 0.01932 0.01941 0.01951 0.01941
Depth, d (m) 0.00342 0.00324 0.00326 0.00331
Length, l (m) 0.3 0.301 0.3 0.3

Table 4: Dimension for fixed-fixed aluminium column

Dimension Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width, b (m) 0.0194 0.01932 0.01924 0.01932
Depth, d (m) 0.00342 0.00324 0.00326 0.00331
Length, l (m) 0.301 0.301 0.299 0.3

Table 5: Dimension for pined-fixed aluminium column

Dimension Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width, b (m) 0.01924 0.01937 0.01943 0.01935
Depth, d (m) 0.00323 0.00325 0.00325 0.00324
Length, l (m) 0.301 0.3 0.3 0.3

Table 6: Test data of aluminum column

Test Configuration Pinned-pinned Fixed-fixed Pinned-fixed

Average Width, b (m) 0.01941 0.01932 0.01935
dimension (m) Depth, d (m) 0.00331 0.00331 0.00324
Length, l (m) 0.3 0.3 0.3
Experimental Critical load, F (N) 314 325 317
Theoretical Critical load, F (N) 450.3966 1793.2325 859.4267
Percentage error (%) 30.2837 81.8763 63.1149
Second moment of inertia, I (m4) 5.8658 X 10-11 5.8386 X 10-11 5.4845 X 10-11
Young modulus of aluminum, E (GPa) 70

Table 7: The second moment of inertia for each test configuration of the aluminum column

Pinned-pinned Fixed-fixed Pinned-fixed

𝑏𝑑3 𝑏𝑑 3 𝑏𝑑3
𝐼= 𝐼= 𝐼=
12 12 12

(0.01941)(0.00331)3 (0.01932)(0.00331)3 (0.01935)(0.00324)3

= = =
12 12 12
= 5.8658 × 10−11 𝑚4 = 5.8386 × 10−11 𝑚4 = 5.4845 × 10−11 𝑚4
Calculated theoretical load (pinned-pinned):
Le = L

𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐿2

𝜋 2 (70 × 109 )(5.8658 × 10−11 )

=
(0.3)2

= 450.3966𝑁
Calculated theoretical load (fixed-fixed):
Le = 0.5L
4𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐿2
4𝜋 2 (70 × 109 )(5.8386 × 10−11 )
=
(0.3)2
= 1793.2325𝑁
Calculated theoretical load (pinned-fixed):
Le = 0.7L
𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
0.49𝐿2
𝜋 2 (70 × 109 )(5.4845 × 10−11 )
=
0.49(0.3)2
= 859.4267𝑁
Percentage error:
|[𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒] − [𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒]|
× 100%
[𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒]

Percentage error (pinned-pinned):

450.3966 − 314
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 30.2837%
450.3966
Percentage error (fixed-fixed):
1793.2325 − 325
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 81.8763%
1793.2325

Percentage error (pinned-fixed):

859.4267 − 317
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 63.1149%
859.4267
B) Mild steel
Table 8: Dimension for pinned-pinned mild steel column

Dimension Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width, b (m) 0.0175 0.0173 0.0177 0.0175
Depth, d (m) 0.0024 0.0023 0.0022 0.0023
Length, l (m) 0.301 0.301 0.3 0.3007

Table 9: Dimension for fixed-fixed mild steel column

Dimension Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width, b (m) 0.01745 0.01742 0.01766 0.0175
Depth, d (m) 0.0025 0.00256 0.00253 0.0025
Length, l (m) 0.3 0.301 0.3 0.3003

Table 10: Dimension for pined-fixed mild steel column

Dimension Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average

Width, b (m) 0.01746 0.01749 0.01754 0.0175
Depth, d (m) 0.00253 0.00252 0.00255 0.0025
Length, l (m) 0.301 0.3 0.299 0.3

Table 11: Test data of mild steel column

Test Configuration Pinned-pinned Fixed-fixed Pinned-fixed

Average Width, b (m) 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175
dimension (m) Depth, d (m) 0.0023 0.0025 0.0025
Length, l (m) 0.3007 0.3003 0.3
Experimental Critical load, F (N) 378 385 352
Theoretical Critical load, F (N) 387.4601 1995.537 1020.1684
Percentage error (%) 2.4416 80.7069 65.4959
Second moment of inertia, I (m4) 1.7744 X 10-11 2.2786 X 10-11 2.2786 X 10-11
Young modulus of aluminum, E (GPa) 200

Table 12: The second moment of inertia for each test configuration of the mild steel column

Pinned-pinned Fixed-fixed Pinned-fixed

𝑏𝑑3 𝑏𝑑 3 𝑏𝑑3
𝐼= 𝐼= 𝐼=
12 12 12

(0.0175)(0.0023)3 (0.0175)(0.0025)3 (0.0175)(0.0025)3

= = =
12 12 12
= 1.7744 × 10−11 𝑚4 = 2.2786 × 10−11 𝑚4 = 2.2786 × 10−11 𝑚4
Calculated theoretical load (pinned-pinned):
Le = L

𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐿2

𝜋 2 (200 × 109 )(1.7744 × 10−11 )

=
(0.3007)2

= 387.4601𝑁
Calculated theoretical load (fixed-fixed):
Le = 0.5L
4𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝐿2
4𝜋 2 (200 × 109 )(2.2786 × 10−11 )
=
(0.3003)2
= 1995.537𝑁
Calculated theoretical load (pinned-fixed):
Le = 0.7L
𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐹𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
0.49𝐿2
𝜋 2 (200 × 109 )(2.2786 × 10−11 )
=
0.49(0.3)2
= 1020.1684𝑁
Percentage error:
|[𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒] − [𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒]|
× 100%
[𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒]

Percentage error (pinned-pinned):

387.4601 − 378
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 2.4416%
387.4601
Percentage error (fixed-fixed):
1995.537 − 385
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 80.7069%
1995.537

Percentage error (pinned-fixed):

1020.1684 − 352
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 65.4959%
1020.1684
 Figure 2: Aluminum (left) and mild steel (right) condition before and after applying load

Table 13: Experimental shape of deflection for all four configurations

Pinned-pinned column Pined-fixed column Fixed-fixed column

Mild steel

Aluminum
 DISCUSSION

In this experiment, two different materials, aluminium and steel were analyzed to enquire the maximum
load on specimen before it fails in three different cases, which are (i) pinned-pinned column, (ii) fixed-
fixed column and (iii) pinned-fixed column. Theoretically, the critical load of the aluminium column
for the 3 different cases are 450.3966 N, 1793.2325 N and 859.4267 N, respectively. Meanwhile, the
theoretical value calculated for the critical load of the steel column for the 3 different cases is 387.4601
N, 1995.5370 N and 1020.1684 N, respectively. The theoretical values are compared with experimental
values, and the percentage errors are obtained. The comparison is shown in Table 14 and Table 15
below.

Table 14: Experimental and Theoretical Critical Load for Aluminium.

Test Critical load (N) Percentage difference
Configuration Theoretical Experimental (%)
Pinned-pinned column 450.3966 314 30.2837
Fixed-fixed column 1793.2325 325 81.8763
Pinned-fixed column 859.4267 317 63.1149

Table 15: Experimental and Theoretical Critical Load for Steel.

Test Critical load (N) Percentage difference
Configuration Theoretical Experimental (%)
Pinned-pinned column 387.4601 378 2.4416
Fixed-fixed column 1995.5370 385 80.7069
Pinned-fixed column 1020.1684 352 65.4959

One of the major causes of the difference between our measured and calculated results is the
inelastic deformation of the specimens. This could be contributed by the residual stresses and any
retained plastic deformation because of its repetitive prior use. Similarly, the uneven dimensions of the
columns such as the lengths, widths and depths, could also contribute to the inaccuracy of results.
Besides, the poor calibration of the equipment could be another reason causing the high percentage
error. For instance, the clamps may not be aligned properly to place the force parallel along with the
test specimens. Other than that, the modulus of elasticity we used in the calculations may not be the
actual value of the aluminium and steel used in the experiments. As a result, the observed deflections
showed an exaggerated point of contra flexure at the apex of the specimens than could be expected of
an exact half sine wave deformation. Lastly, Euler’s method is a fairly basic demonstration of buckling,
and is not commonly used in practice. Thus, the effective length constants are different in practice and
theory.
 The fixed-fixed configuration is considered the best column design among the three types of
end conditions for columns (pinned-pinned, fixed-fixed, and pinned-fixed). The fixed-fixed
configuration column has an effective length factor (K) of 0.5. Thus, this configuration can withstand
about four times heavier load than the pinned-pinned column and is approximately two times heavier
than the pinned-fixed column based on Euler's formula. The theoretical critical load calculation showed
that the fixed-fixed configuration could withstand the highest load (1793.2325N and 1995.537N)
compared to the other two configurations in aluminium and steel columns. Moreover, the aluminium
and steel fixed-fixed columns were able to resist the heaviest load in the buckling test compared to the
other configurations. The experiment demonstrated that the fixed-fixed aluminium and steel columns
could withstand up to 385N before suffering from permanent deformation. Therefore, the fixed-fixed
configuration is considered the best column design to prevent buckling failure attributable to its highest
critical load resistance.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the objectives of this experiment, which is to observe the deflection shape of columns of
three configurations and to compare experimental values with theoretical values based on Euler's
formula are achieved. The aluminium columns could withstand the critical loads of 314N for pinned-
pinned, 325N for fixed-fixed, and 317N for pinned-fixed configurations before suffering from buckling
failure. The percentage errors for each configuration were 30.2837%, 81.8763% and 63.1149%,
respectively. The steel columns could resist critical loads of 378N for pinned-pinned, 385N for fixed-
fixed, and 352N for pinned-fixed configurations before permanently deformed. The percentage errors
for each configuration were 2.4416%, 80.7069% and 65.4959%, respectively. The high discrepancy in
percentage error is caused by the inelastic deformation of the specimens, uneven dimensions of the
columns, poor equipment calibration and inaccurate theoretical value of the modulus of elasticity.
Among the three configurations, the fixed-fixed column is considered the best configuration reputable
to its highest critical load resistance compared to the other two configurations. Besides, the result
demonstrated that the steel column could withstand heavier loads than its aluminium counterparts. The
steel column suffered lesser bend compared to the aluminium column. Hence, a steel fixed-fixed column
is considered the best column design.
 REFERENCE

ITEM INDUSTRIECHNIK. (2015) Euler Buckling cases. [Online] 2015. Available from:
http://glossar.item24.com/en/home/view/glossary/ll/en%7Cde/item/euler-buckling-cases/
[Accessed: 10th February 2022].