AEROSPACE 305W STRUCTURES & DYNAMICS

LABORATORY
Laboratory Experiment #2
Column Buckling
February 11th, 2015
047 Hammond Building
Wonsik Nam
Lab Partners:
Raja Akif Raja Zahirudin, Jenna L. Jurich, Kevin D. Riddle,
Theodore W. Steinhart
Course Instructor: Dr. Stephen Conlon
Lab TA: Andrew Goodyear
Section: 007
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to understand how the different column
lengths and end fixity affected the flexural instability of the columns when
under a certain compressive load. This experiment was conducted on an
apparatus that included a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) to
calculate the buckling displacement, a load cell to measure the force acting
on the column, a load wheel to conduct the application of the compressive
force on the column, and support blocks with different weights to create the
boundary conditions. The experimental determination of this experiment was
through the horizontal load asymptote method and the imperfection
accommodation method. After gathering the data, the calculations from the
experiment showed that as the length of the column increased, the value for
the critical load decreased. The clamped column validated the theoretical
data by proving to have higher critical loads than the simply supported
column by a factor of 4. In addition to the comparison, the clamped columns
proved to have a higher value of percent error than the simply supported
columnswhen comparing the experimental data to the theoretical data.
This was validated after analyzing the relationship between the critical stress
and the effective slenderness ratio in both the clamped columns and the
simply supported columns from the experiment. All in all, this experiment
1

confirmed that to maintain a high compressive buckling load on a certain

column, a clamped column with minimal length would be more efficient than
a simply supported column with minimal length.
I.

Introduction

In the field of aerospace engineering, it is essential that engineers

understand the principles of structural stability. It is more likely that certain
structures fail because of compressive instability or buckling than an
exceedance of material strength limits. Thus, it is imperative that engineers
are concise and accurate without mistakes because the structural
component of aircrafts could endanger a large amount of lives. Although
there are other imperative parts in designing an airplane, the structures
aspect of the airplane cannot get any more important in comparison to the
other aspects of the airplane. The structures aspect of the airplane is the
core reason for its success. Next, this experiment focused on column
buckling due to its instructional study as it had simple governing equations
as well as relative accessibility from previous experiments. The experiment
used three columns of stainless steel with varying lengths of 18 inches, 21
inches, and 24 inches which were put under a compressive load. The
behavior of the column buckling was analyzed by utilizing different kinds of
boundary conditions, such as the different loading blocks, and the different
clamps of the simply supported and clamped conditions. The difference in
the configurations of the simply supported column and the clamped
supported column can be seen in figure one. Furthermore, the LVDT was
used to measure the deflection value at the center of the column when
under a compressive load.
The essence of column buckling is a disproportionate increase in
displacement resulting from a small increase in load. Column buckling is
essentially nonlinear as it is entirely geometrical, representing the influence
of rotations on structural behavior. Also, column buckling essentially occurs
once the critical load has been reached.
The distributed load in terms of the applied load and the column properties
can be seen in equation one below:

Eq. 1

Eq. 2

In this experiment, the P variable was the fixed value of the compressive
load applied to the columns, the Youngs modulus had the value of E =
28x106 psi and the moment of inertia had the value of I = 1.221x10-4 in4.
Both the Youngs modulus and the moment of inertia values were assumed
to be constant. By combining equation one and equation two, the
deflection of the column could be calculated through equation three below:
w ( x )=c 1 sin ( kx )+ c 2 cos ( kx ) +c 3 x+ c 4

Eq. 3

Next, the theoretical calculations for this experiment were completed by

using the appropriate boundary conditions for all the six different columns.
The applied boundary conditions for each end fixity of the columns used in
this experiment can be seen below in figure two:

Figure 2. Boundary conditions for the end fixity of the simply

supported column and the clamped supported column, respectively

The theoretical values for the critical loads (Pcr) applied to both the simply
supported configuration and the clamped supported configuration were
calculated using equation four and equation five. The critical loads
3

depended on the variables of length L, column flexural stiffness EI and the

mode shape c. The constant value c for the simply supported configuration
was equal to one (c=1) and the clamped supported configuration was equal
to four (c=4).
Pcr =c

2 EI
2
L

Eq. 4

With all the calculations completed, the theoretical data calculated from
equation four and equation five was then compared to the experimental
data. The main comparison was how much the columns deflected under an
applied load. In the experiment, two methods were used to obtain the data.
The first method used was the asymptotic method, where the critical
buckling load was the asymptote point on the force-displacement graph. The
second method was the imperfection accommodation method where the
buckling loads on the columns were estimated from the slope of a
displacement-displacement/force graph.
The critical stress was expressed in terms of the slenderness ratio, which was
expressed in terms of the radius of gyration (r) and the length of the columns
(L). Equation five and equation six below show the steps in calculating the
slenderness ratio:
r=

s=

I
A

Eq. 5

Eq. 6

r c

Lastly, the experiment was conducted in order to prove that the theoretical
data was correct. This was essentially done in order to calculate and predict
the properties of the given columns of different lengths and end fixities in
this experiment. Thus, by analyzing the experiment, it will help determine
which columns were essentially affected by the subjected loading conditions
in this experiment. In equation seven, the percent error is calculated in
order to determine the primary different between the theoretical and
experimental values. In this experiment, it was inevitable to have human and
mechanical errors, therefore resulting in inaccurate data.
4

%Error

II.

Theoretical Experimental
Theoretical
Eq. 7

Experimental Procedure

This experiment was essentially designed to measure the buckling loads for
stainless steel column specimens that varied in length. There were a total of
six stainless steel specimens, where three specimens were simply supported
configurations and three specimens were clamped supported configurations.
To begin with, the top of the column was leveled with the support blocks
attached to a counter weight (balance mass) to balance the system. Figure
3 below shows the experimental apparatus used in this experiment.

Figure 3. The Experimental Apparatus

After setting up the first part of the experiment, the fixture points of the
columns were measured. For the clamped supported columns, they were one
inch longer than specified as the clamps needed some surface in order to be
fixed onto. A load cell was used to calculate the load applied at the tip of the
columns (Figure 4).
5

Figure 4. Load cell used to calculate the load applied to the columns

Next, a LVDT was placed at the center of the apparatus in order to measure
the deflection of the column during the buckling phase. It is imperative to
position the LVDT perfectly horizontal and perpendicular to the column
surface as possible in order to gather accurate data. With the experiment all
set up, LabView (Figure 5) was the computer software used to measure the
displacement of the column and the load that was applied onto the column.
When starting to calculate the data, the load was increased at a gradual rate.
The LVDT recorded the displacement value of the columns at constant
increments. The process of recording the data eventually stopped until the
column buckled. When transitioning between the simply supported
configurations to the clamped supported configurations, the support blocks
were rotated loose to remove the configuration and then rotated tight again
with another configuration. For the clamped support configurations, the
support blocks were more tightly fixed to the columns. This procedure was
then repeated for each of the six specimens tested in this experiment.

Figure 5. LabView screen shot

III.

Results and Discussion

After calculating the theoretical values for all the six specimens, it was
hypothesized that the column of stainless steel with 18 inches in length
would have the highest Pcr value while the column of stainless steel with 24
inches in length would have the lowest Pcr value. The column of stainless
steel with 21 inches in length had the 2nd highest Pcr value. The Pcr is higher
for the clamped supported configuration than the simply supported
configuration due to the clamped supported configuration having a better
resistance in not letting the column rotate in comparison to the simply
supported configuration. This can be seen by how the length of the column is
inversely squared in relation to the critical load. Essentially, when the length
increased, the value of the Pcr decreased with all the other variables held
constant. The thicknesses of all the six columns were assumed to be 0.125
7

inches and the area of the stainless steel configurations was calculated to be
0.0938 in2 when calculating the theoretical values seen below in table one.
Table 1: Theoretical values for the critical loads for the
simply supported and clamped supported columns
Length (in)

P Critical of Simply Supported P Critical of Clamped-

18
21
24

(lbs)
104.117
76.494
58.566

Supported (lbs)
416.469
305.977
234.214

The experimental data gathered from this lab supported the theoretical data
calculated, but some discrepancies were obviously seen in the graphs. In all
of the graphs, the premature data points resulted when the load wheel was
essentially loose and was turning without actually applying a force to the
column. The critical loads were calculated by taking the highest force point
where the columns could essentially be seen buckling.

The relationship between the applied force load and the displacement for the
simply supported configurations can be seen below in graph one, graph
two, and graph three:

140
120
100
80
Force (lbs)

60
40
20
-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

Displacement (in)

Graph 1. Force vs. Displacement of Simply-Supported 18 inch column

120
100
80
60

Force (lbs)

40
20
-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

Displacement (in)

Graph 2. Force vs. Displacement of Simply-Supported 21 inch column

90
80
70
60
50
Force (lbs) 40
30
20
10
0
-0.05

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Displacement (in)

Graph 3. Force vs. Displacement of Simply-Supported 24 inch column

Each of the three graphs shown above showed where the critical load was
reached on the columns. For the 18 inch column and the 21 inch column, the
column buckled towards the LVDT, causing the displacement readings to go
in a negative direction, while the 24 inch column buckled away from the
LVDT, causing the displacement readings to go in a positive direction. By
observing the data, the simply supported columns had an inverse
relationship between the displacement and the force. Intuitively, a shorter
column will be much harder to buckle than a longer column. Thus, the
longest columns had the smallest critical load value while the shortest
columns had the biggest critical load value.

The relationship between the displacement and the applied force for the
clamped supported configurations can be seen in graph four, graph five,
and graph six.

10

250
200
150
Force (lbs)

100
50

-0.14 -0.12

-0.1

-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02

Displacement (in)

Graph 4. Force vs. Displacement of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

160
140
120
100
80

Force (lbs)

60
40
20
0
-0.22 -0.2 -0.18-0.16-0.14-0.12 -0.1 -0.08-0.06-0.04
Displacement (in)

Graph 5. Force vs. Displacement of Clamped Supported 21 inch column

11

200
180
160
140
120
100

Force (lbs)

80
60
40
20
-0.18-0.16-0.14-0.12 -0.1 -0.08-0.06-0.04-0.02

Displacement (in)

Graph 6. Force vs. Displacement of Clamped Supported 24 inch column

Each of the three graphs shown above also showed where the critical load
was reached on the columns. For all three of these columns, the column
buckled towards the LVDT, thus causing the displacement readings to go in a
negative direction. By observing the theoretical data, the clamped supported
columns were supposed to have an inverse relationship between the
displacement and the force. However, for this experiment, the 18 inch
column proved to have the highest critical load value, but the 21 inch column
was the lowest critical load value in this experiment. Obviously, the
theoretical calculation showed that the 24 inch column was supposed to
have the lowest critical load value in this experiment. Due to multiple human
and mechanical errors, the data for the clamped configuration proved to be
misleading.

12

In table two below, it shows the results of the percent difference between
the theoretical values and the experimental values of all six columns using
the horizontal asymptote method.

Table 2. Percent Differences of the Simply Supported and Clamped Supported Columns using the
Horizontal Asymptote Method

Leng

Theoreti

Experime

Simply

Theoreti

Experime

Clampe

th

cal

ntal

Supporte

cal

ntal

(in)

Simply

Simply

d % Error

Clamped

Clamped

Support

Support

Supported

Support

Supported

ed %

ed Pcr

Pcr (lbs)

ed Pcr

Pcr (lbs)

Error

108.1
100.9
73.09

(lbs)
416.5
306.0
234.3

190.8
144.2
166.6

54.19%
52.88%
28.89%

18
21
24

(lbs)
104.1
76.50
58.57

3.842%
31.90%
24.79%

For the simply supported columns, each of the critical loads was either
slightly higher or lower than the theoretical critical load values. Therefore,
the percent error turned out to be pretty small in comparison with the
clamped supported columns. For instance, the 18 inch column that was
simply supported had a very low 3.842% error while the 18 inch column that
was clamped supported had a big 54.19% error. Just by seeing the percent
error for one of the columns, it was obvious that the clamped supported
columns had critical load values that were a lot lower than the theoretical
critical load values. While the theoretical values showed that the values of
the Pcr for the clamped supported columns were supposed to be 4 times
larger than the simply supported columns, the experimental data was not
close to the factor of 4.
The use of the imperfection accommodation method was to obtain more
accurate results since it was supposed to give an analytic value by
calculating the slope of the displacement-displacement/force graph, while
the asymptote method was more of an observation of where the column was
to be seen buckling. Graph seven, graph eight, and graph nine below
13

illustrate the simply supported configurations of this experiment using the

imperfection accommodation method.

0
0

f(x) = - 149.9x - 0.53

R = 0.94

-0.05
-0.1

Displacement (in)

-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Displacement/Force (in/lbs)

Graph 7. Displacement vs. Displacement/Force of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

14

0
0

f(x) = 173x + 0.14

R = 0.98

-0.05
-0.1

Displacement (in)

-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Displacement/Force (in/lbs)

Graph 8. Displacement vs. Displacement/Force of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

0.2
0.18

f(x) = 77.32x - 0.01

R = 0.97

0.16
0.14
0.12
Displacement (in)

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

Displacement/Force (in/lbs)

Graph 9. Displacement vs. Displacement/Force of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

15

Graph ten, graph eleven, and graph twelve below illustrate the clamped
supported configurations of this experiment using the imperfection
accommodation method.

0
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06

Displacement (in)

f(x) = - 124.31x - 0.18

R = 0.24

-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14

Displacement/Force (in/lbs)

Graph 10. Displacement vs. Displacement/Force of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

0
0
-0.05
-0.1

Displacement (in)
f(x) = - 226.56x - 0.51
R = 0.7

-0.15
-0.2
-0.25

Displacement/Force (in/lbs)

16

Graph 11. Displacement vs. Displacement/Force of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

0
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08

Displacement (in)

-0.1
f(x) = 250.72x + 0.06
R = 0.94

-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18

Displacement/Force (in/lbs)

Graph 12. Displacement vs. Displacement/Force of Clamped Supported 18 inch column

In the imperfection accommodation method, experimental values were

obtained and plotted by having the graph be the displacement versus the
displacement over the force. The slope of the graphs represented the critical
load point of the configuration. The y-intercept of the equation also
represented how much the configurations were pre-bent prior to the actual
commencement of the experiment. Thus, this method proved to be more
analytical due to the calculations coming directly from the data, rather than
the asymptote method of just observing where the column buckled on the
curve of the graph. The experimental data obtained using the imperfect
accommodation method was compared to the theoretical values and the
percent errors were determined in order to determine the overall success of
the experiment. The percent errors can be seen below in table three:
Table 3. Percent Differences of the Simply Supported and Clamped Supported Columns using the
Imperfect Accommodation Method

Leng

Theoreti

Experime

Simply

Theoreti

Experime

Clampe

th

cal

ntal

Supporte

cal

ntal

17

(in)

18
21
24

Simply

Simply

Support
ed Pcr
(lbs)
104.1
76.50
58.57

d % Error

Clamped

Clamped

Support

Supported

Support

Supported

ed %

Pcr (lbs)

ed Pcr

Pcr (lbs)

Error

149.9
173.0
77.32

(lbs)
416.5
306.0
234.3

124.3
226.6
250.7

70.16%
25.95%
7.000%

44.00%
126.1%
32.01%

As seen in table three, other than the 18 inch configurations, the simply
supported configurations proved to have more of a percent error than the
clamped supported configurations. For instance, the 21 inch simply
supported configuration proved to have a 126.1% error while the 21 inch
clamped supported configuration proved to have a 25.95% error. Although
the asymptotic method proved that the simply supported configurations had
a lower percent error than the clamped supported configurations, the
imperfection accommodation method proved that the clamped supported
configurations had the lower percent error in comparison to the simply
supported configurations.
The relationship of the slenderness and the critical load value helps to
understand the behavior of the column configurations under a certain
buckling load with end fixities on both sides, which can be seen below in
graph thirteen. For the graphs, the experimental and theoretical critical
stresses were plotted against the effective slenderness ratio which were
calculated from equation five and equation six.

18

450
400
350
300
SS Asymptote Exp

250

CL Asymptote Exp

Stress (psi) 200

SS Imperfection Exp

150

CL Imperfection Exp

100

SS Theory
CL Theory

50
0
200

300

400

500

600

700

Slenderness Ratio

Graph 13. Critical Stress vs. Slenderness Ratio for all six configurations

The errors involved in this experiment came from the theoretical calculations
of the critical load of each column because of the assumptions made when
considering the boundary conditions. In reality, human cannot model an
infinitely rigid clampwhich is essentially why the critical load readings turn
out to be different from the theoretical values for the clamped support
configurations. This could have been a big reason why the experimental data
regarding the clamped supported configurations was misleading. When
experimenting with the simply supposed columns, the columns were angled
at the ends to ensure that there was no reaction moment. For this
experiment, it could be seen that the columns were angled well enough
obtain data that was similar to the theoretical data. The errors involved in
this experiment could have been from the experimental apparatus itself as
well as the pre mature buckling of the columns from previous experiments.
All in all, the experiment was more successful for the simply supported
configurations but less successful for the clamped supported configurations.

IV.

Conclusion
19

To begin with, theoretical values were obtained after deriving the governing
equations from the column buckling theory. After experimenting on three
different clamped support configurations and three different simply
supported configurations, significant data was collected that showed how
certain variables affected the critical load values. This would essentially help
in predicting the buckling behavior. The variables that were in this
experiment included the lengths, the column flexural stiffness, and the end
fixity. After finding the critical buckling load, it was then used to determine
the asymptote and imperfection accommodation methods. For this
experiment, the lateral deflection of numerous columns under compression
was analyzed, and the effects of imperfections in load alignment and column
straightness were also analyzed. During the experiment, tools such as
LabView and the experimental apparatus were used to determine the
experimental values.
Based on the data gathered from the experiment, it can be observed that
when the length of the column increased, the critical load decreased. This
inverse relationship was because of the increase in internal instability when
the length increased. The relationship between the clamped support and the
simply supported configuration in both the theoretical and experimental
values was by a factor of 4 in the critical load equations. Based on both the
methods used in this experiment, it was difficult to understand the
relationship in calculating the critical load value. For the imperfect
accommodation method, the clamped supported configuration proved to
have a lower percent error at the highest critical buckling load in comparison
to the simply supported configuration. However, for the asymptote method,
the simply supported configuration proved to have a lower percent error at
the highest critical buckling load in comparison to the clamped supported
configuration.
One reason for an error could have been the bent columns. Before even
starting the experiment, the columns were pre-bent due to cyclical loading
from previous experiments. Another source of error could have been from
how the specimens were tightly positioned into the support blocks of the
experimental apparatus. If the support blocks werent tightly fixed, it would
have caused the specimens to move during the experimentessentially
20

causing error. Also, the LVDT configuration could have been a source of error
due to it actually applying a small force on the column even without any of
the applied loadingsthus creating inaccurate deflection measurements. Just
based on the data obtained from the experiment, it was not clearly evident
enough to say which method of determining the critical load was better due
to errors and discrepancies from the data. The extreme error seen in the data
of the experiment was due to the prior yielding of the columns as well as the
imperfections throughout the length of the columns.
For future experiments, the LVDT should be replaced with a laser
displacement sensor in order to avoid any forces pre mature to the actual
applied load from the load cell. This would measure more accurate
deflections of the column buckling. Also, it would be much better to have two
pairs of support blocks rather than just one pair of support blocks in order to
experiment at the same time to reduce errors as well as acquire a same
scope of the column buckling behavior in the experiment. Finally, acquiring
new column specimens that have not been previously yielded would have
improved the data by an extreme amount. BIAS

Appendix

21