ABSTRACT AND SUMMARY

Experiment 4, Buckling Test completed on 26 th of July 2005. In general,

the experiment was performed to determine critical buckling loads for columns
with various supports, as it is the main objective of this experiment. With the WP
120 test stand as the equipment, all relevant buckling problems can be
demonstrated.
In short, this experiment is implemented where a test specimen is placed
on the test device. It was held by V-notch, tightened, and clamped at both sides.
The force is applied on the test specimen based on the value of deflection given.
The load is given by the rotation of load spindle. The deflection is displayed in the
dial gauge and force is in force gauge. The rotation stops when the deflection
reached to the value given.
From the experiment, relevant values have been produced. Compare from
the measured and the theoretical the force and elasticity values is not far away.
The only problem is a value for the brass material. During the experiment, the
value of force for brass is the lowest compare to the other materials. Logically,
the force should be more for brass to deflect since the material is stiffer than the
rest. It may due to an error that will be mentioned more details in discussion part.
At the end of this experiment, we achieved the goal of this experiment. In
addition, we experienced and faced a problem that should be noticed during the
experiment. Finally, based on this experiment, we could see aluminum is the
hardest material where force acting with respect to the deflection is the highest
although it should be brass. Second harder is fiberline and the lowest is brass
(due to a mistake).

OBJECTIVES
A test was performed to fulfill the main of objectives, which are:

To determine critical buckling loads for columns with various support.

To examine and explore of the Euler theory of buckling

The influence of different buckling rod mounting conditions

The influence of the rod length and diameters

The influence of material parameters

During the experiment implementation, and based on the main objectives of the
experiment it can be concluded that this experiment is to find out:

The buckling strength of a typical core subassembly section. The

appearance of the subassembly section before and after buckling is
shown.

To find out the deformations of different material specimen.

To compare the values collected in measurement and theoretical values

especially for foce.

THEORY
a) Applying the buckling Theory
According to the buckling Theory, if a rod is subjected to longitudinal forces, it
can fail in two ways. First is, it can be plasticized and flattened if its admissible
compressive strain is exceeded. Second is, the rod shift to one side and buckle
before attaining the admissible compressive strain. It is called buckling. Two
cases will occur based on the shape of the rod as the factor determines.
b) Euler Formula
Buckling happened suddenly without warning when a certain limit load is
attained. Buckling is considered as a dangerous type of failure, which must be
avoided by all means. Once, a rod begins to buckle it will become deformation to
the point of total destruction. Since, the buckling is about stabilization, as the
critical limit load Fcrit is dependent on both the slenderness of the rod. It happens
if a rod which has been subjected to axial force buckles before attaining the
admissible compressive strain.
c) Influencing Factors
The influence of various characteristic values that will be examined using Euler
Formula are:
i) Youngs Modulus, E:
E modulus is a measure of the rigidity of a material. A stiffer material where E is
higher than the other is sensible for high resistance to buckling.
materials with higher of E modulus should be used.

Practically,

ii) Geometric moment of inertia:

The geometric moment of inertia represents the value of resistance against
deflection resulting from the cross-sectional shape of the rod. Hollow sections
with small wall thickness are more favorable at the same weight than the solid
cross sections. In addition, double symmetrical cross-sections such as tubes or
quadratic cross sections should be used since their geometric moment of inertia
is the same in every direction.
iii) Buckling Length:
The length of the rod as well as the type of mounting determines the buckling
length, lk.

the influence of the length is quadratic.

At twice the length, the

admissible load is only one-fourth the original value.

d) Estimation of Buckling Force and Deformation
The buckling force can be determined using Euler formula:
Fcrit

= 2 [EIy / l2]

= modulus of elasticity

Iy

= moment of inertia

= length

T, geometric moment of inertia Iy is calculated as follows for a square

cross section:
Iy = bh3 / 12

APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT

1.Table-top experiment on the investigation and testing of all relevant buckling

problems.
2. Force Gauge for measuring displacement and force
3. Can be operated horizontally or vertically
4. 11 test bars, length max. 700mm
5. Test force up to 2000N, load spindle
6. Hydraulic load sensor
7. Shear loading using set of weights 0...20N
8. Bar bearing articulated or clamped

PROCEDURE
Testing Procedure
1. All dimensions of the bar or test specimen is taken and double-checked it
with the dimension given in the lab manual.
2. The test device was set up in horizontal positions. The load cross bar in
the test device can be adjusted in order to put the test specimen on the
device. Thrust piece and V-notch are inserted into attachment socket and
fastened by clamping screw.
3. The long thrust piece with V-notch into the guide bush of the load crossbar
and be held firmly.
4. Then, the test specimen is inserted to the V-notch. The load cross bar was
pushed to make sure the end of the test specimen is firmly hold by the Vnotch.
5. Then, pushed for a while a load bar before the load bar is clamped by
clamping screw on the guide columns. Give a distance around 5 mm for
the top thrust to move.
6. The dial gauge was set up and hanged on the guide column. Make sure
the dial gauge is properly clamped. Before proceed to next step, set the
display to zero.
7. After all have been done; by using load spindle, slowly apply a
compressive load. Make sure the rotation is correct. The testing machine
will slowly apply either an increasing load or displacement to the bar.
Carefully watch the bar to see when it starts to displace to the side.
8. Based on the given value of displacement, stop the rotation and read the
display at force gauge. The display on the dial gauge is noted and be
recorded. After each value of deflection, continue again the rotation
without changing the dial gauge displayed. Apply more forces until the
value of forces are constant.
9. Take the specimen out by rotate the clamping load to anti-clockwise
direction. Do the same step to the other bars.
6

DATA AND OBSERVATIONS

Table 1: Table data For Fiber, Aluminum and Brass
Deflection
(mm)
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5

Force For Fiber (N)

Force For

Force For

360
480
550
560
590
630
630
630
640
640
640

Aluminum (N)
600
750
820
850
875
900
905
920
923
925
925

Brass (N)
150
310
400
450
560
560
560
560
560
560
560

Graph 1 : Fiberline (Force against Deflection)

Graph 2 : Aluminum ( Force against Deflection)

Graph 3 : Brass (Force against Deflection)

Graph 4 : Aluminum, Brass and Fiberline (Force against Deflection)

Observations

Data showed that the relationship between force and deflection. For each
deflection, as it is increasing, the force is also increase.

At 1.5mm deflection, the force applied to aluminum is around 875N,

fiberline is 590N and brass is 560N.

From graph 4, the force is constant at 1.5mm for brass. For aluminum, the
value of constant force is 925N at 4mm deflection and for fiberline the
force is going constant at 640N at 3.5mm deflection.

When the force is constant, the material is stop to buckling.

ANALYSIS AND RESULT

9

Sample Calculation to Find Theoretical Value of Forces :

For Fieberline.
Dimension : 25 x 10mm
Length : 600 mm
Moment of inertia : Iy = bd3 / 12
= (25)(10)3 / 12
= 2083.33 Nmm2
Note* E : 10 x 103 N/mm2
Fcrit = 2 [ Ely / l2]
= 9.872 [ (10 x 103)(2083.33) / 6002]
= 571.3049 N
~ 571.3 N (Theoretical value)
From the graph that we plotted, measured value for force:
Maximum force = 640 N
%error

= theoretical value measured value x 100

theoretical value
= 571.3 640 x 100
571.3
= 12%

For Aluminum
Dimension : 25 x 6 mm
Length : 600mm
Moment of inertia :
Iy = bd3 / 12
= (25)(6)3 / 12
= 450 Nmm2
Note* E : 70 x 103 Nmm

10

= 2 [ Ely / l2]

Fcrit

= 9.872 (70 x 103 )(450) / 6002

= 863.8 N (Theoretical)
From the data plotted, measured value for force:
Maximum force = 925 N
%error =

theoretical value measured value x 100

theoretical value

863.8 925 x 100

863.8

7%

For Brass
Dimension : 25 x 6 mm
Length : 600mm
Moment of inertia :
Iy = bd3 / 12
= (25)(6)3 / 12
= 450 Nmm2
Note* E : 104 x 103 Nmm
= 2 [ Ely / l2]

Fcrit

= 9.872 (104 x 103 )(450) / 6002

= 1283.36 N (Theoretical)
From the data plotted, the measured value for force;
Maximum force = 560 N
%error =

theoretical value measured value x 100

theoretical value

1283.36 560 x 100

1283.36

56%

DISCUSSIONS
11

From data and graph, showed that the error in measurement occurred for
brass material. The value of force for brass should be the highest compare to the
other test specimen. It is because the material of brass is harder, rigid and stiffer
from the others. Aluminum should stand at two while, the lowest force in every
deflection is fiberline. For example, lets take a value of force for 1mm deflection.
From the data, it shows fiberline needs force around 560 N to deflect in 1mm,
aluminum needs 872N and brass needs only 450N. In this case, brass should be
the highest one because the stiffness for brass is higher than the other materials.
So in order for brass to deflect, more forces should be applied on the
brass. From calculation also showed that the percentage error between
theoretical and measured value of force for brass is the highest, which is, 56%,
whereas aluminum is only 7% and fiberline is only 12%.
No mistakes are in expectation before. During the experiment, we never
noticed of such problem. After some discussions, we assumed that the factors
that caused this problem are:

The physical of the test specimen, which is, deflected and distorted
already. It may because after a few lab experiments have been done on
the test specimen, it may cause the deflection on the test specimen.

The error of dial gauge reading and setting. We realized that we just take
an average of reading whereas we should set it up 10mm for initial
condition.

The measure gauge is not 90 perpendicular to the buckling, so the

reading is not precise enough.

CONCLUSIONS
12

In conclusion, from all data and graph, we may conclude the deflection
and force applied are related to each other. For aluminum, fiberline, and brass
the graph is increasing to one point to another point. It shows that for each
increment of deflection, the force is increasing too. Unless when the material
is stop to buckle the force is going constant. The aluminum is the hardest to
deflect. It needs more forces than the other material.
Unfortunately, during the experiment, we failed to produce the correct
value for brass due to the some errors and mistakes. From our observation,
the errors are due to the physical of the test specimen, which is, deflected
and distorted already. The error also is involving of dial gauge reading and
setting. We realized that we just take an average of reading whereas we
should set it up 10mm for initial condition. The last one is the positioning of
dial gauge and the measure gauge is not 90 perpendicular to the buckling,
so it resulted the non-exact value.
Generally, from the experiment, it shows in practical way how does the
force give an effect to the material deformations. Before this, we could only
manage the value of deflection or force applied by calculation. So that, after
this experiment we can understand clearly in both ways, practical and
theoretical ways. Finally, all mistakes and weakness of this experiment could
be learned well by our group members. Perhaps, for the next experiment we
will do very well and be more alert than before.

REFERENCES
13

1. Ferdinand P. Beer, E.Russel Johnston, Jr, John T.Dewolf. 2004. Mechanics of

Materials.3th Ed. McGraw Hill Inc. pp607-617.
2. Materials Laboratory Handbook. 2005/2006. Department of Mechanical
Engineering. College of Engineering,UNITEN.pp19-29.

14