Buckling of Struts

(Lab Report)

Contents

1
1. Objectives……………………………………………………3
2. Apparatus……………………………………………………3
3. Procedure…………………………………………………….3
4. Theory………………………………………………………..4
5. Results………………………………………………………..5
6. Discussion…………………………………………………….7
7. Conclusion……………………………………………………8

2
Objectives
1. To compare theoretical buckling loads with actual buckling loads of pinned end struts from
experiments, thereafter prove the theory and show its limits.

2. To examine the effort of end conditions on the buckling load, thereafter compare with theoretical
values (e.g. effective length, buckling load).

Apparatus
 Vernier caliper
 Compression Machine
 Ruler
 Notch plates
 Steel struts

Procedure
The dimensions of each and every strut were measured using a vernier caliper and the second moment of
area was calculated.

A strut is selected and placed between the notch plates, the notch plates are fixed into the digital
compression machine by steel plates. The steel plates are fixed concerning the end conditions.

The display of the compression machine was made zero and the strut was loaded. The load was applied
gently. Eventually after some time the reading becomes negative (deflection occurs) after this the load is
released.

The strut is released and the value is noted down.

This procedure is repeated for the rest of the struts and the results are noted down.

3
Theory

P E=Euler buckling load

E = Modulus of Elasticity of the material

I = Moment of Inertia of the cross Section of the strut

L = Effective length of strut.

4
 Strut in compression machineSlight buckling can be seen

Results

Strut Details Recorded Peak Theoretical

Second Moment (Buckling ) Load Buckling Load
Number Length (mm) (kN) (kN)
of Area (mm4)
01 80 152.22 17.2 46.942

02 119 145.65 19.55 20.309

03 159 149.60 15.13 11.681

04 199 158.06 7.7 7.881

05 239 117.71 9.68 4.067

06 158.4 156.48 8.62 25.127

07 197.4 145.65 9.42 15.124

08 157.8 140.19 10.96 44.342

09 196.8 149.74 9.72 30.456

5
 Strut Details

Second Peak Theore

Fixing 1
Number 2 Length (mm) moment Buckling Buck
Condition L
of area (mm 4) Load (kN) Load

01 156.3 80 152.22 17.2 46.9

02 70.6 119 145.65 19.55 20.3

Pinned-Pinned 03 40 159 149.60 15.13 11.6

04 25.2 199 158.06 7.7 7.88

05 1.8 239 117.71 9.68 4.06

06 4 158.4 156.48 8.62 25.1

Pinned-Fixed
07 2.6 197.4 145.65 9.42 15.1

08 4 157.8 140.19 10.96 44.3

Fixed- Fixed
09 2.6 196.8 149.74 9.72 30.4

6
 Experimental Values

Discussion

In the above graphs the gradients are not equal, this is because of the errors made during the
experiment.

Human errors are inescapable whenever an experiment is carried out, the solution is to repeat the
experiment several times and get the best test result out of them.

According to the results the theoretical buckling loads are less than the experimental values.
Another significant finding is that the shorter strut has the higher buckling resistance, and fixed
struts performance better in resisting buckling.

The experimental values and theoretical values are not the same. This is due to several factors-

The ends of the struts are not even and they do not fix appropriately to the notch. When
measuring the dimensions of the struts there can be variations since the struts are not perfect in
shape. The temperature may have an effect on the test results. When applying the load
sometimes a larger load might be given.

7
Conclusion

According to the analysis of results, it can be predicted that the strut with the high ratio of
second moment of area and length can performance better when its ends are both fixed under
the compression.