AEROSPACE 305W STRUCTURES & DYNAMICS

LABORATORY

Laboratory Experiment #2

Column Buckling and Critical Load Analysis

February 9th, 2015
Christian OToole

Lab Partners: Steve Himelfarb, David Irizarry, Matt Flaig, Garret Kolmer

Course Instructor: Dr. Stephen Conlon

Lab TA: Ko Basu Section 2
Location of Experiment: 047 Hammond Aerospace Engineering Lab

Abstract
Six stainless steel columns were placed under an increasing applied load in clamped-clamped
and simply-supported end fixity conditions to test column buckling. The specimens varied in
lengths of 18 inches, 21 inches, and 24 inches. The purpose of the experiment was to determine
how length and end fixity of a column affects its critical buckling load. The consequence of
imperfections on lateral deflections was also studied. Understanding of these concepts is
important in the aerospace industry, since columns are present in many applications. Insight on
what causes buckling helps determine how to minimize the flexural instability of a structure. To
run this experiment a specimen was fitted into the support blocks with the proper end fixity
conditions. A compressive load originated from the load cell and was applied at the top of the
column. A LVDT measured the displacement at the center of the column which was tabulated in
LabVIEW. Additional hardware used was a balance mass, spring loaded controller, bubble level,
and load wheel. Once the displacement grew with a decrease in force the critical load had been
reached. Trends in the data were analyzed and it was concluded that as the column length
increased, the critical load decreased. Additionally, it was observed that ridged end fixity such as
the clamped condition withstands higher critical buckling loads compared to a simply-supported
case. Finally, column imperfections from lateral deflections were found from analysis of the
imperfection accommodation method.
 I. Introduction
Six stainless steel specimens with lengths ranging from 18 inches, 21 inches and 24 inches
long were placed in two loading arrangements. Half the columns of each length had simply-
supported end conditions while the remaining three had clamped end conditions. All the specimens
were placed under a compressive load. The purpose of the experiment was to determine how the
length and end fixity of a column affects its critical load. The consequence of imperfections on lateral
deflections in the column was also studied. It was hypothesized that as the length of a column
increased then it would take a lower applied load to buckle. Additionally, it was suspected that the
clamped-clamped end fixity would reinforce the column to a greater degree over the simply-
supported boundary conditions. These two propositions were based off the analysis of equation 1, the
formula for the critical buckling load of a specimen.
For an engineer designing aerospace components, stability of a structure is particularly important.
An example of an application related to column buckling, is shell-type structures such as a fuselage
on an aircraft. Information from buckling experiments helps determine the amount of material
necessary for a design. It also helps evaluate where the material should be placed to get the
maximum structural benefit. Ultimately, this will help meet the design criteria of a structure and cut
cost while still producing a safe aerospace component.
Column buckling follows a nonlinear relationship between the displacement of the column and
the applied load. As the force acting in compression on the column gets closer to the critical buckling
load the displacement increases at a greater rate than before. The value of the critical load depends on
a variety of a columns material properties. Flexural stiffness is one property which is a factor of the
specimens Youngs Modulus, E, and second area moment of inertia, I. The second area moment of
inertia is calculated based off the cross-section of the specimen. Additionally, the length of the
column, L, and the end fixity type, c play a role in the determining the critical load. For the
experiment in both the simply-supported and clamped end conditions, c is calculated based off the
first mode of buckling. Equation 1 displaces the relationship between the critical buckling load of a
column and its structural properties which are c, E, I, and L.

2 EI
Pcr c
L2

Equation 1: Critical Buckling Load

2
 If a column is simply-supported at the ends then c is equal to 1. This value is based off the
boundary conditions of the specimen. In a simply-supported cause the displacement at the column
ends are equal to zero. Additionally, the moments are equal to zero at the top and bottom of the
column as well. With these boundary conditions the displacement, w(x) can be determined. A full
derivation of finding the critical buckling load for a simply-supported column is included in
Appendix A.
If a column is clamped at the ends, then c is equal to 4. The boundary conditions of a specimen in
this arraignment also determine its critical load. The displacement and slope at the ends of the
column is equal to zero. With these boundary conditions the displacement, w(x) for a clamped
column can be determined. A full derivation of finding the critical buckling load for a clamped
column is included in Appendix A.

II. Experimental Procedure

In the experiment six, stainless steel specimens were tested. Each column was the same in cross
sectional area of 0.75 inches by 0.125 inches, but varied in lengths ranging from 18 inches, 21 inches
and 24 inches as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, three of the columns had simply-supported end
fixity as seen in Figure 2. While the other three had clamped end conditions visible in Figure 3.

Figure 1: Six Stainless Steel Specimens Tested Figure 2: Simply-Supported Figure 3: Clamped

Additionally, an apparatus with various components displayed in Figure 4, was used to perform
the test. The apparatus contained a balance mass that operated based of a pulley system seen in
Figure 5, which offset the weight of the bar that translated the compressive load onto the specimen.
This compressive load originated from the load cell which was increased and decreased in force by
the load wheel seen in Figure 6. A digital interpretation of the applied force in the load cell was read
by the Omega equipment in Figure 7. One end of the loading beam contained a spring-loaded
controller for fine adjustments of the bar as seen in Figure 8. The bubble level shown in Figure 9

3
determined how much compensation was necessary. A LVDT positioned horizontally with the ground
measured displacements at the middle of the specimen as seen in Figure 10. The specimen was held
in place using support blocks which contained simply-supported and clamped end fixity conditions
on opposite sides as represented in Figure 11. To accurately record data, LabVIEW was utilized as
seen in Figure 12.

Figure 4: The Experimental Apparatus

Load Cell

Load Wheel

Figure 5: Balance Mass Figure 6: Load Cell and Load Wheel Figure 7: Omega Load Display

Figure 8: Spring-Loaded Controller Figure 9: Bubble Level

4
 Figure 10: LVDT Horizontally Orientated

Clamped End Fixity (top)

Simply-Supported End Fixity (Bottom)

Figure 11: Support Blocks Figure 12: LabVIEW

To perform the experiment the support blocks were orientated in a clamped end fixity manner and
screwed into the top beam and apparatus as seen in Figure 13. Once the top beam was level with the
ground, distances from the pin to the counter weight pulley, center of the load wheel and support
block were measured using the tape measurer in Figure 14. Based on the moment arm at the pin, the
applied compressive load in the column was calculated from the relationship between these
distances. This calculation was placed into LabVIEW to accurately measure the applied load of the
column. The 18 inch long, clamped end fixity column was secured into the support blocks and the
LVDT was aligned perpendicular with its center as seen in Figure 15. Once the top beam was
horizontal to the ground according to the bubble level, the LVDT was zeroed in LabVIEW. With the
columns theoretical critical load kept in perspective, the load was progressively increased by turning
the load wheel. At the same time another lab member recorded data points in short intervals as the
compressive force on the column increased. These data points included information about the applied
force and the midspan transverse displacement measured by the LVDT. Once the column began to
buckle as seen in Figure 16 by showing an increase in displacement for a decrease in applied load the
test was complete. The force was unloaded by turning the load wheel in the opposite direction. After
unloading, the column was removed and the 21 inch long column was replaced in the same
orientation. The experiment was repeated in this same process for the rest of the clamped end fixity
specimens and then on the simply-supported specimens. To test the next specimens the support
blocks were unbolted, flipped over and reattached to the apparatus as illustrated in Figure 17. The
alternative, simply-supported column was placed into the apparatus as seen in Figure 18 and the
experiment was repeated in the exact same manner as before.

5
 Figure 13: Clamped End Fixity Support Block Figure 14: Tape Measurer

Figure 15: Clamped End Fixity Test Setup Figure 16: Clamped End Fixity Specimen Buckling

Figure 17: Simply-Supported Support Block Figure 18: Simply-Supported Test Setup

III. Results and Discussion

The measured critical load from each test was compared against the theoretical critical load
calculated by equation 1. This data was used to determine the percent error between each specimen in
the experiment. The exact critical load values for measured and theoretical data are listed along with
their corresponding degree of percent error in Table 1. Since the LVDTs data acquisition method for
determining the columns displacement is only reliable to a certain degree, the experimental results
were truncated to two decimal places. Additionally, the percent error was truncated to two decimal
places since it is a function of the measured critical load. The percent error ranged from 4.5% to

6
22.0%. Although this error was undesirable, it was expected due to the nature of performing the
experiment. Many variables went into running the tests and some were difficult to eliminate even in a
controlled environment.

Table 1: Percent Error in Measured and Theoretical Critical Load

In order to determine the variation in data between the specimens with clamped end fixity, the
load-deflection experimental data was plotted against one another as shown in Figure 19. Similarly,
the three simply-supported specimens were plotted by means of displacement vs applied force
represented in Figure 20. In each of the six specimens as the applied load got closer to the critical
buckling load, the column began to increase in displacement at a greater rate. Once each hit the
experimental critical buckling load it represented a logarithmic style in the data and showed increases
in displacement for a decrease in applied load. Between both graphs there was a direct relationship
between the length of the column and its critical buckling load. As the length increase from 18 inches
to 21 inches and eventually 24 inches, it is evident that the 304 stainless steel specimen buckled at a
lower critical value. Finally, from the comparison of Figure 19 and Figure 20 the clamped-clamped
column was able to resist changes in displacement for a larger applied load. The simply-supported
specimens buckled at critical values around a fourth less than the alternative configuration, which
was expected.

Figure 19: Clamped-Clamped Displacement vs Force Figure 20: Simply-Supported Displacement vs Force

7
 The asymptotic technique was used to determine the measured critical buckling load. Figure 21
represents the 18 inch specimens, Figure 22 displays all the 21 inch specimens and Figure 23
represents the 24 inch specimens. Each of these plots contains simply-supported and clamped end
fixity columns of the same length. The results were plotted as displacement in inches against the
applied force in pounds. Dashed lines represent theoretical critical buckling loads are and are
included to compare measured to expected results. In five instances the theoretical buckling load
wasnt reached. The simply-supported, 18 inch specimen withstood a value greater than the
theoretical buckling load. However, the percent error in this experiment was close to the expected
value by a margin of about five percent. As evident in the three figures, the clamped end fixity beam
had a critical load, both in theory and as measured in the experiment that was about four times higher
than the simply-supported critical load. There were two instances where the theoretical and measured
results varied and signified error in the experimental results. This was present in the date plotted by
the clamped-clamped test of a 21 inch and 24 inch specimen in Figure 22 and Figure 23, respectively.

Figure 21: C-C and S-S Asymptotic Technique (18 in.) Figure 22: C-C and S-S Asymptotic Technique (21 in.)

8
Figure 23: C-C and S-S Asymptotic Technique (24 in.)
 The imperfection accommodation technique was plotted for both specimens of the same length.
The imperfection accommodation deflection in the column against this deflection over the applied
load for each specimen was graphed. The imperfection accommodation deflection in the column is
related to the initial displacement, applied force and critical buckling load as seen in equation 2.

w wo
P / Pcr
1 P / Pcr
Equation 2: Imperfection Accommodation Deflection
As a result, this provided a linear graph where the slope of each simply-supported and clamped
end fixity line was the critical buckling load. A straight line of best fit was applied to find the average
of the data and the value of the corresponding critical load. The imperfection accommodation of the
clamped and simply-supported specimens is represented by Figure 24 for the 18 inch columns,
Figure 25 for the 21 inch columns and Figure 27 for the 24 inch columns. Figure 26 includes data on
the clamped, 21 inch imperfection accommodation and has been included to clarify Figure 25, since
the data is difficult to see. The slope values in all four of the plots below correspond with the
measured critical values given by the asymptotic technique above. These two values are similar since
they are based off the same calculations with the imperfection accommodation accounting for the
initial displacement already in the column to offset the slope.

Figure 24: C-C and S-S Imperfection Accommodation (18 in.) Figure 25: C-C and S-S Imperfection Accommodation (21 in.)

9
 Figure 26: C-C Imperfection Accommodation (21 in.) Figure 27: C-C and S-S Imperfection Accommodation (24 in.)

The experimental and theoretical critical stress was plotted against the slenderness ratio for all six
specimens as seen in Figure 28. The slenderness ratio is based off the length of the column, its radius
of gyration and its end fixity as seen in equation 3. The radius of gyration is a function of the
columns second area moment of inertia and cross sectional area as seen in Equation 4.
L
s r I
r c A
Equation 3: Effective Slenderness Ratio Equation 4: Radius of Gyration
As illustrated by Figure 28, the experimental and theoretical results varied, but overall were
similar with minimal error. Five specimens had higher theoretical critical stress values compared to
the measured result. A trend in the data is that as the specimens slenderness ratio increases then its
critical stress decreases. Additionally, the simply-supported end fixity took on lower critical stress
values and higher slenderness ratios in comparison to the clamped-clamped column.

10
 Figure 28: C-C and S-S Critical Stress vs Effective Slenderness Ratio

The intention of the experiment was to determine how length and end fixity affect the critical load
of a column. The consequence imperfections have on lateral deflections in the column was examined
as well. All figures are helpful in answering that question, but its important to note there is error
associated with them. Error stems from the fact that the compressive load applied to the column was
not always directly at the center. This resulted in unwanted torsion of the beam which hinders results.
Additionally, column straightness is inevitable and there were imperfections in the load alignment.
The top bar wasnt perfectly level as seen by the bubble level with a change in the force applied at
the load cell. The balance mass also did not perfectly counter the top beams weight which did not
make it appear massless. Finally, the clamped mechanism was assumed to have a finite stiffness
when in reality it is not infinitely ridged. An overview of the error associated with conducting the
experiment is shown in Table 2.

11
 Table 2: Table of Errors in the Experiment

IV. Conclusions
In conclusion, the goals of the experiment were achieved. After six columns ranging from three
different lengths were loaded in two different end fixity conditions, conclusions can be made about
their flexural instability. After analyzing the data it was evident that as the length of the column
increased then the critical buckling load decreased exponentially. This inverse relationship was
expected due to the L2 term in the denominator of equation 1. Additionally, the end fixity of the
column has an effect on its critical buckling load. If the end conditions of the column are more ridged
such as the clamped case then the column will take on a higher critical buckling load. As predicted,
this result stems from the c term in equation 1. With a simply-supported end condition this
parameter is lower at a value of 1 and thus takes on a lower critical buckling load.
Conclusions on the effects of imperfections on lateral deflections can also be drawn from this
experiment. These imperfections were from the fact that the column was not perfectly straight. It also
stems from the compressive load alignment placed on the column. These results were visible since all
six specimens displayed an initial displacement value as seen in the imperfection accommodation
graphs.
Sources of error originated for a variety of reason. As seen by the bubble level, a source of error
originated from the fact that the top bar was not horizontal with the ground throughout the entire
experiment. This caused the load to misalign at data points with the column which hindered the
results. Another source of error was due to the fact that the clamped mechanism has a finite stiffness.
Its not infinitely ridged as assumed in theory. Additionally, the column was not perfectly straight and
there were imperfections in the compressive load alignment of the column.
In order to improve the accuracy of the lab Id recommend using an alternative loading scheme
that ensures the top bar stays level. Id also recommend using a better method to counter the top bars
weight. The moment arm at the pin was not exactly zero which can cause an unaccounted load to be

12
applied to the column. Id also suggest having the specimens swapped out regularly. Unloading and
loading a column past its critical value can affect the results of its measured critical value. Finally, Id
suggest improving the way in which the load cell is incremented. Turning a load wheel doesnt allow
an individual to apply an exact desired force, which would have been preferred to improve the
precision of the data points tabulated into LabVIEW.

13