Struts
Struts
GROUP: 2A2
GROUP MEMBERS:
NAME STUDENT ID
Objectives
3 Vernier
PROCEDURE
Table 1: Results of the effect of the end conditions on the buckling load (pinned-
fixed)
Table 2: Results of the effect of the end conditions on the buckling load (fixed-
fixed)
List of formulae:
2) Euler formulae:
i) pinned-fixed; Pcr = 2.046(3.142)EI/ L
ii) fixed-fixed; Pcr = 4(3.142)EI / L
DISCUSSION
These 2 points of discussion above are true for both experiments which shows a
clear indication that the shorter a strut, the stronger it is no matter what the end
condition are for the tested struts. The struts represent various mankinds
constructed structures such as deformable columns and vertical supports for
bridges structures.
3. The theoretical gradient of the pinned-fixed Strut is 18.4 Nm^2 while its
actual gradient obtained from hands-on experiment is -18.7 Nm^2. The
different in magnitude are negligible but the negative sign obtained on the
actual gradient is because we take into consider the direction of the buckling
load during the experiment which is acting downward on the struts.
4. The theoretical gradient of the fixed-fixed Strut is 36.6 Nm^2 while its actual
gradient obtained from hands-on experiment is -28.1 Nm^2. The steeper
gradients of fixed-fixed struts compared to pinned-fixed struts show that
fixed-fixed struts can tolerate larger buckling load with smaller length of
buckling; indicating that it can resist failure better.
5. The error that could have occurred during our experiment is systemic error.
This error could have occurred on the Buckling Structures Frame equipment.
We noticed that during our experiment one of the cap head screw cannot be
screwed in tightly and this may cause the reading of the Buckling Load to be
differs from the theoretical value.
6. Another error would be on the struts themselves because the set of struts we
use already have permanent deformation on it due to past experiments with
another student. This error could affect the buckling length and the present
deformation could have weakening the structures of the struts.
Conclusion
The critical buckling load for a pin-end strut is compared to the critical buckling load
for a fix-end strut. Fix-end strut buckled at twice the axial force compared with the
pin-end one because of the fix-end. This is due to the fact that the joint is prevented
from moving freely when strut was loaded by axial load.
Effect of length of the aluminum struts on the length of buckling is the longer the
aluminum struts, the longer the buckling. However, the buckling load theory will be
smaller as the aluminum struts get longer.
Consequently, the designer must always avoid elastic or plastic buckling. Plastic
squashing will be a stable mode of failure predicted by knowledge of the yield
stress.
REFERENCE
1. David J. Grieve. (1st March 2004). Buckling of Slender Struts. Retrieved from
http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/desnotes/buckling.htm
2. Bob McGinty. (2013). Column Buckling. Retrieved from
http://www.continuummechanics.org/columnbuckling.html
3. Kurt Gramoll. (n.d). Mechanics Theory- Column Buckling. Retrieved from
https://www.ecourses.ou.edu/cgi-bin/ebook.cgi?
doc=&topic=me&chap_sec=09.2&page=theory