FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

EXPERIMENT NUMBER 2 : CRITICAL CONDITION OF STRUTS

OBJECTIVE
1. To determine the buckling load of struts with different length and types of supports.
2. To compare the experiments results with theoretical values from Euler buckling
formula.

APPARATUS
The apparatus comprise of:
1. Strut apparatus with specimen holders
2. Deformation measurement
3. Dial gauge
4. Lateral load digital device
5. Venier caliper
Figure 1: Strut Apparatus
 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

THEORY
In this experiment we will load struts until they buckle investigating the effect of the length
of the strut. To predict the buckling load we will use the Euler buckling formula. Critical to
the use of the Euler formula is the slenderness ratio, this is the ratio of the length of the strut
to its radius of gyration (1/k). The Euler formula become inaccurate for struts with an /k ratio
of less than 125 and this should be taken into account in any design work. The struts provided
have an l/k ratio of between 520 and 870 to show clearly the buckling load and the deflected
shape of the struts. In practice struts with an l/k ratio of more than 200 are of little use in real
structures. For the theoretical calculations, the equation to determine the critical buckling
load, Pe for a pinned ended strut is given by;
Pcr = π2 EI / L2

Where;
Pcr = Euler buckling load (N)
E = Young's modulus (N/m1)
I = Second moment of area (m4)
L = Length of strut (m)

Figure 2: Free Body Diagram of the Strut Buckling

 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

PROCEDURE
BUCKLING LOAD OF A PINNED-END STRUT
1. The bottom chuck was fitted to the machine and the top chuck was removed (to give 2
pinned ends. The shortest strut number 3 was selected and the cross section was
measured using the vernier provided and the second moment of area I, for the strut.
2. The position of the sliding crosshead was adjusted to accept the strut using the
thumbnuts to lock off the slider. The maximum amount of travel was ensured
available on the hand wheel thread to compress the strut. Finally the locking screws
was tightened.
3. The handwheel was carefully backed off so that the strut was resting in the notch but
not transmitting any load; the forcemeter was rezeroed using the front panel control.
4. The strut was started to load carefully. The strut was "flick" to the right and vice versa
if the strut begins to buckle to the left (this reduces any errors associated with the
straightness of the strut).
5. The handwheel was turned until there was no further increase in load (the load may
peak and then drop as it settles into the notches).
6. The final load in Table 1.1 was recorded under buckling load'. The experiment was
repeated with strut 4 and 5 by adjusting the crosshead as required to fit the strut.
Shorter struts were taken with more care as the load are quite low. Each strut was
loaded several times until a consistent result for each strut was achieved.
7. The Euler Buckling equation was examined and an appropriate equation was selected
to establish a linear relationship between the buckling load and the length of the strut.
(Hint: remember π, E and I are all constant).
8. The values were calculated and were entered into Table 1.1 with an appropriate title.
A graph was plotted to prove the relationship is linear. The experimental value was
compared to those calculated from Euler formula by entering a theoretical line onto
the graph.

THE EFFECT OF END CONDITIONS ON THE BUCKLING LOAD (INNED-FIXED

CONDITION)
1. The same basic procedures was followed as Experiment la, but this time the bottom
chuck was removed and the specimen as clamped using the cap head screw and plate
to make a pinned-fixed end condition.
2. The results were recorded in table 1.2 and the values of 1/L2 were calculated for the
 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

strut. The test length of the struts was shorter than Experiment la due to allowance
made for clamping the specimen.

THE EFFECT OF END CONDITIONS ON THE BUCKLING LOAD (FIXED-FIXED

CONDITION)
1. The same basic procedures were followed as Experiment 1a and 1b. Then, the top
chuck was fitted with two cap head screws and both ends were clamped, this had
reduced the experimental length and new values for 1/L2 were calculated.
2. The results were recorded in Table 1.3 and the values of 1/L2 were calculated for the
strut.

RESULT
 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

Graphical Representation:
FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2
 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

NMBK
 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

SAMPLE CALCULATION
FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2
FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2
FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2
 FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2

DISCUSSION
According to the graph we created, the theoretical calculation's result's slope is 9.4, and the
gradient difference for the pinned-end experiment is 11.17. The gradient experiment result
differs from the fixed-pin end by 17.78, and the calculation's gradient theory conclusion
differs by 17.44. Additionally, the variances under fixed-end conditions are 82.71 for the
results of the gradient experiment and 34.51 for the theoretical calculation of the slope. The
outcome of the experiment demonstrates that the slope is higher than the slope of the
numerical results. The experiment buckles more frequently in actuality than it does in theory.
CONCLUSION
The experiment was effectively completed, and the desired outcomes were obtained. The behaviour of
the load acting on a strut was investigated. We can infer from the Buckling of Strut experiment that
the fixed-fixed end is significantly more powerful than the pinned-end and fixed-pinned end.
Although in other criteria the usage in fixed-fixed end connection typically apply for concrete beam or
column connection, more force should be applied to the member of the joint fixed-fixed end
connection. Because fixed-fixed end connections are typically made for permanent connections, the
pinned-end is employed for steel connections. Use of bolt and nut steel for pinned ends and welding
fabrication for fixed-fixed ends are two examples. Two alternative methods were used to compute the
buckling load value, which was then compared to theoretical values and found to have a small
inaccuracy. These mistakes may have been made for a number of reasons, including dial gauge
problems, weight problems, and improper weight application techniques.
REFRENCE:
1. https://www.scribd.com/doc/177192718/BUCKLING-OF-STRUTS
FEIT / Civil Engineering Lab 2