DEPARTMENT OF

ENGINEERING MECHANICS
SOLID MECHANICS II
LABORATORY

LAPORAN MAKMAL/LABORATORY
REPORT

BDA37601 ENGINEERING
LABORATORY III

EXPERIMENT TITTLE: BUCKLING OF STRUT

FARIZ SYAUFIQ No
Nama pelajar/Name of Student
BIN SADALI Matrik/Matrices
DD210051
2 Seksyen/Section
Kumpulan/Group
12
1. Ts. Hanani Binti Abd Wahab
Nama Pensyarah/Pengajar/Tutor/
Lecturer/Instructor/Tutor’s Name 2.

Nama Ahli Kumpulan / No.

Penilaian / Assesment
Group Members Matrik
DIVANATHAN A/L CD200227
1. Teori / Theory 10 %
SURESH
JIVAAN A/L DEVENDRAN CD210306
2. Keputusan / Results 15 %
JOEL JOHN SOOSAI CD200226
3. Pemerhatian /Observation 20 %
MUHAMMAD MUNIB ABID AD200204
4. Pengiraan / Calculation 10 %
AQEEL

5. Perbincangan / Discussions 25 %
Tarikh Ujikaji / Date 18/5/2023
Kesimpulan / Conclusion 15 %
of Experiment
Tarikh Hantar / Date 24/5/2023
Rujukan / References 5%
of Submission
 THEORY

The axial compressive force required to begin buckling in a long thin strut is predicted by Euler's theory.
When subjected to a solely compressive load, a perfectly straight strut should compress rather than buckle.
Buckling is thus caused by flaws that prohibit the load from being delivered correctly axially, such as
eccentric loading and a lack of starting straightness. When long struts work under elastic conditions, the
combined effects of these defects on total buckling behaviour are predictable. We merely need to deduce
an instability criterion from the lateral deflection. This method is credited to Leonhard Euler (1707-83). It
can be attached to a long strut using the following method.

The solution for equation (1) is:

= μ + μ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(3)
For the boundary conditions
When x = 0, y = 0, A cos 0 = 0, hence A = 0
When x = L, y = 0, 0 + B sin μL =0

Hence either B = 0 or sin μL = 0

If B = 0, B becomes indeterminate hence buckling is indeterminate
If sin μL = 0, B is determinate and strut buckling is determinate

When sin μL = 0

μL = π, 2π, 3π…

Or μL = nμ with n = 1,2,3…

From the above equation: μ = n / L

From equation (2): 2

= 2 2
/ 2
= /

2 2..................................
Which gives: = / (4)

Hence from equation (4) for buckling to occur the smallest value is n = 1

................. which is known as the Euler Load

Where:

E: Modulus of Elasticity of the material

I: Moment of Inertia of the cross Section of the strut (mm4)

L: Effective length of the strut which is equal to total length of the strut (L) when both ends
are hinged, 0.5L when the ends are fixed, L/(2)^0.5 when one end fixed and other end hinged,
and 2L when one end is fixed, and the other end is free.
RESULT

Table 1: Results for Experiment 1 (pinned-end)

Buckling Buckling 1/L2

Strut Length
Load (N) Load (N)
No. (mm) (m-2)
Experiment Theory
1 320 75 88.65 9.77
2 370 57 66.16 7.30
3 420 43 31.35 5.67
4 470 32 41.00 4.53
5 520 21 33.50 3.70

Table 2: Results for Experiment 2 (pinned-fixed)

Buckling Buckling 1/L2

Strut Length
Load (N) Load (N) (m-2)
No. (mm)
Experiment Theory
1 300 166 201.27 11.11
2 350 111 148.87 8.16
3 400 95 113.22 6.25
4 450 75 89.46 4.94
5 500 59 72.46 4.00

Table 3: Results for Experiment 3 (fixed-end)

Buckling Buckling 1/L2

Strut Length
Load (N) Load (N) (m-2)
No. (mm)
Experiment Theory
1 280 220 463.20 12.76
2 330 163 332.68 9.18
3 380 155 250.90 6.93
4 430 140 195.94 5.41
5 480 133 157.24 4.34
OBSERVATION

The strut was configured to have a pinned end in the first section. The strut with the least length was used.
The output display was set to zero because no force was applied to the strut. As the loading handwheel
was spun to apply a load to the strut, the value of the output display began to rise, and the strut could be
seen slowly bending with the naked eye. More strength was required to turn the handwheel as the load
approached its buckling load theoretical value. The value abruptly plummeted at one point. The buckling
load was calculated using the maximum value obtained. The maximum value obtained fell as the length
of the strut utilised increased, and turning the loading handwheel got easier.

The strut was scheduled to be pinned fastened in the second part. As it was secured with a cap head screw,
the strut length fell by 20mm. The experiment revealed that as the length of the strut rose, the maximum
value attained decreased. The strut was configured to be fixed end for the third component. The clamping
technique shortened the strut length by an additional 20mm. Similarly to the preceding section, the
highest value attained decreased as the length of the strut rose. As the strut length increased, so did the
turning of the loading handwheel. However, when comparing the difficulties in turning the handwheel,
strut with fixed end setup was found to be the hardest to turn while pinned end to be the easiest.
CALCULATION
DISCUSSION

1. Plot separate graphs of buckling load versus 1/L 2 to prove the relationship is linear and
calculate the gradient of each line. Compare your experimental value to those calculated
from the Euler formula by entering a theoretical line onto the graph. Does the Euler
formula predict the buckling load?

Yes. The buckling load can be predicted by the Euler formula since it is represented by a linear
graph in both the theoretical and experimental graphs. The gradient of the graph based on the
line of best fit for both the theoretical and experimental data is remarkably close, despite the
experimental graph not being consistent with the theoretical results.
2. Calculate the gradient of each theory and experimental, fill up table 4 and establish
ratios between each end condition (taking the pinned-pinned condition as 1). Finally
examine the Euler buckling formulae for each end condition and confirm that the
experimental and theoretical ratios are similar.

Pinned-pinned Pined-fixed Fixed-fixed

Experimental 32 - 21 75 - 59 195.94 - 157.24

gradient 4.5 - 3.7 4.94 - 4 5.41 - 4.34

= 13.25 =17.02 =
36.168
Theoretical 41 - 33.5 89.46 - 72.46 140 - 133

gradient 4.53 - 3.7 4.94 - 4 5.41 -4.34

= 9.036 = 18.085 = 6.542

Experimental 13.25 36.168

17.02
13.25
= 1.00 13.25 = 1.28 13.25= 2.72

Ratios

9.036
Theoretical = 1.00 18.085
= 2.00 = 0.72
6.542
9.036 9.036
9.036
gradient
 3. Write down the relationship between strut length and collapse load, and also the
relationship between various end-fixing conditions and collapse load. Explain your findings.

The collapse load reduces as strut length increases. This can be explained using the Euler formula.
According to this formula, increasing the strut length reduces the buckling stress because the two
variables are inversely connected. Furthermore, we can see from the experiment that as strut length
increases, buckling stress decreases. Even if we change the endfixing conditions, the scenario remains
unchanged. As a result, as the strut length grows, so does the buckling stress when Pinned-End. When a
repair is pinned, fixed, and then fixed-end, the same thing happens when it occurs again. for the link
between distinct end-fixing circumstances and collapse load.

4. Explain the importance of understanding the collapse load of framework for instance in
a buildings structure.

Understanding the collapse load of the structure is critical for calculating the maximum load a framework
can withstand. Understanding the collapse load simplifies the maintenance and management of the
framework so that it does not exceed it and becomes safe to use. Collapse loads for building structures,
for example, are critical because they affect the lives of those who occupy the structures. By estimating
the collapse load of the framework, we can also decrease or totally avoid financial loss caused by
structural collapse, which demands maintenance and reconstruction work. Understanding collapse load is
critical for tracking the inelastic earthquake performance of framed structures in earthquake-prone areas.
CONCLUSION

Finally, we investigated slender column buckling and the relationship between length,
end-fixing circumstances, and buckling load. We also learned about deflection and
deflected slopes using different end-fixing conditions. The buckling load (N) is
affected by the length of the strut and the end-fixing, which might be pinned-end,
pinned-fixed, or fixed-end. As a result of this experiment, we were able to obtain a
deeper understanding of the experiment, and the goal was met. One of the difficulties
encountered during this experiment was inconsistency in outcomes when compared to
theoretical values. To address this issue, we must guarantee that the experiment
apparatus is carefully maintained. For more reliable and consistent findings, we can
repeat the experiment numerous times and take average readings
APPENDIX