10 1 1 1024 231 PDF

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive
Theses and Dissertations
Thesis and Dissertation Collection
1967-05
The lateral instability of a simply supported deep

beam subjected to a concentrated load at its centroid
Way, Edward R.
Stanford University
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/12543
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIF. 95940
THE LATERAL INSTABILITY OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED
DEEP BEAM SUBJECTED TO A CONCENTRATED
LOAD AT ITS CENTROID
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

AND THE COMMITTEE ON THE GRADUATE DIVISION
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF

ENGINEER
by
LCDR Edward
Way, USN
R.
>)
May 1967
J*L
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The investigation of the lateral buckling of a simply sup-
ported deep beam was conducted as a portion of the general research

of the behavior of structural members being performed by the De-
partment of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University.

For the opportunity to pursue an advanced education, ap-
preciation is hereby extended to the United States Navy and its

Professional Development Program.
Principal acknowledgement is expressed to Professor Wilfred H. Horton, who initially conceived the research herein described, and whose advice, inspiration and assistance made possible the successful completion of this work.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
introduction
discussion of the problem
equipment
test procedures
13
discussion of results
18
conclusions
26
references
27
tables
2?
FIGURES
51
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
Test Data for Buckling of Euler Column (Individual Tests)
29
Test Data for Buckling of Euler Column (Individual Tests
30
lc.
Averaged Data for Buckling of Euler Column
31
2a.
Lateral Buckling of Been Beam Without Elastic Restraint (Test No. 1)
32
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam Without Elastic Restraint (Test No. 2)
33
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Soring Constant = 0.0 lb/in)
3U
la.
lb.
2b.
3a.
3b.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = 1.17 lb/in).... 35
3c.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Soring Constant = 3.18 lb/in).... 36
3d.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = U.6U lb/in).... 37
3e.
Lateral Buckling of Been Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = 9.75 lb/in).... 38
3f .
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = 12.5 lb/in).... 39
3g.
Lateral Buckling of Deer ^team With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Soring Constant = 15.U lb/in).... U0
3h.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Soring Constant = 20.0 lb/in)....
I4.I
3i.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = 23.9 lb/in).... k2
3j.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = 3U.0 lb/in).... U3
3k.
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Soring Constant = 50.5 lb/in).... kh
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

Page
Table No.
31.
3m.
3n.
Ua.
lib.
5,
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = 97. h lb/in)
U5
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = l5 lb/in)
1*6
Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam With Elastic Restraint at Centroid (Spring Constant = oo lb/in)
U7
Deflection Data of Fibreglass Beam Measured at

Centroid
U8
Deflection Data of Fibreglass Beam Measured at

Top Fibre
1*9
Deflection Data of Snring Steel Beam
!>0
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Page
Sketch of Test Rig Used to Experimentally Determine Buckling Load of Simply Supported Euler
Column
2a.
Load-Deflection Curve for Euler Column
52
2b.
Southwell Plot for Buckling of Euler Column
53
2c.
Large Deflection Plot for Euler Column
5U
3.
Apparatus Used for Small Deflection Tests of

Lateral Instability of Deep Beam
55
Close -Up Views of Small Deflection Apparatus

Showing End Supports, Loading Device and Method
of Measuring Centroid Deflections
56
View of Small Deflection Apparatus Showing Device

Used to Impose Elastic Restraint at Centroid
57
Beam Buckled in First Mode (Spring Constant

0.0 lb/in)
58
1.
h..
5.
6a.
Beam Buckled in Combination of First and Second

Modes (Spring Constant = 20 lb/in)
58
Beam Buckled in Second Mode (Spring Constant =

50.5 lb/in)
58
Apparatus Used for Large Deflection Tests of

59
7b.
First Mode Large Deflection Shape of Deep Beam
59
7c.
Vibrating the End Supports to Achieve Equilibrium

in Large Deflection Tests
60
Load-Deflection Curves for Small Deflection Tests

of Deep Beam With No Elastic Restraint
6l
Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of Deep

Beam With No Elastic Restraint
62
Load- Deflect ion Plots for Small Deflection Tests

of Deep Beam (Spring Constant = 0.0 lb/in)
63
Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Deep Beam (Spring Constant = 0.0 lb/in)
6h
6b.
6c.
7a.
8a.
8b.
9a.
9b.
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.

Figure No.
9c
9d.
9e.
9f
9g.
9h.
9i.
9j.
9k.
91.
9m.
9n.
9o.
9p.
Page

Deep Beam (Spring Constants = 1.17 lb/in and
3.18 lb/in) (Deflections Measured at Centroid)
65

of Deep Beam (Spring Constant = U.6U lb/in)
66

Deep Beam (Spring Constant = U.6I4 lb/in)
67

68
Expanded Southwell Plot for Deflections of Left

Quarter-Point of Deep Beam (Sr>ring Constant =
9.75 lb/in)
69
Southwell Plot for Small Deflection Tests of

Deep Beam (Deflections Measured at Centroid)
(Spring Constant = 12.5 lb/in)
70

Deep Beam (Spring Constant = 15. h lb/in)
71
Expanded Southwell Plot for Deflections of Left

Quarter-Point of Deep Beam (Spring Constant =
15. h lb/in)
72

73

of Deep Beam (Soring Constant = 23.9 lb/in).
7h

75

of Deen Beam (Spring Constant = 3U.0 lb/in)
76

(Spring Constants = 3u.O lb/in and 50.5 lb/in)
77

(Spring Constants = 97. h lb/in and 155 lb/in)
78
viii
LIST CF FIGURES (Cont.
Figure No.
Page

Deep Beam (Deflections Measured at Left Quarter)
(Spring Constants = 3U.0 lb/in, $0,$ lb/in,
97. k lb/in, 155 lb/in and oo lb/in)
79
Effect on Lateral Buckling Load of Various

Elastic Restraints at Centroid of Deep Beam
80
Load-Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

(Deflections Measured at Centroid)
81
Southwell Plot for Fibreglass Beam

82
Large Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

83
Load-Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

(Deflections Measured at Top Fibre)
8I4
Southwell Plot for Fibreglass Beam

(Deflections Measured at Top Fibre)
85
Large Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

Measured at Top îbre )
( Deflections
86
11a.
Load-Deflection ^lot for Spring Steel Beam
87
lib.
Southwell Plot for Spring Steel Beam
88
lie.
Large Deflection Plot for Spring Steel Beam
89
9q.
9r.
10a.
10b.
10c.
lOd.
lOe.
lOf
ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
lateral deflection
Young's Modulus
torsion modulus
moment of inertia
polar moment of inertia
spring constant of elastic restraint
length
applied load
^cr
critical load
P
Ocr
critical load of deep beam with no elastic restraint at

centroid
AX
inverse slope of Southwell plot
I.
INTRODUCTION
Although the theoretical solution to the problem of the

lateral buckling of a simply supported deep beam subjected to a
concentrated load at its centroid has existed for many yearsj*
experimental investigation to substantiate the theory has not

been entirely definitive.
Bromley and Robinson^ in fact, were
unable to achieve agreement between theory and experiment.
Trayer
and Marchâttempted to analyze this apparent discrepancy and ob-
tained satisfactory agreement with theory in their own tests.

Further experimental verification is shown in a paper by Dumont
and Hill?
In recent years Mas sey showed that it is possible to de-
termine the theoretical critical load for lateral buckling of an

I
beam by interpreting data obtained from tests on a realistic
beam using a technique which results in a linear plot.
He also
showed that the method could be altered to include the deep beam.
Although, strictly speaking, Massey's development did not produce
a true Southwell plot as he indicated, a later study by Horton'
reduced the mathematical analysis of the deep beam to one in which

the Southwell technique was applicable.
Southwell developed his basic theory in 1932 as a means of
verifying the theory of buckling of -nerfect columns.
The Southwell
plot depends upon the fact that the deflection at an appropriate
point can be expressed as the sum of a series of terms which are

associated with the initial irregularities and the actual and
critical loads for the structure.
Under appropriate conditions,
that is, when the load on the structure approaches the theoretical
critical value and the deflection is recorded at a point in which
only one harmonic is significant, only the first term of the series
is of importance.
In these cases, the relationship between load
and deflection approximates to a rectangular hyperbola.
Southwell
points out that by a simple change of variable this curve can be
presented as a straight line, the inverse slope of which has a

value equivalent to the classical critical load and that the intercept of the line with the appropriate axis is a measure of the
initial imperfection.
The mathematical analysis which Southwell made was performed
only for the simple column but a more general analysis made by
Westergaard^gave clear indication of much wider applicability.
This wider applicability is of greatest importance in studies of
stability.
In theory, buckling takes place when the deflection of
the body increases indefinitely without further increase in load

and, for an initially perfect specimen, no motion will occur un-
til the critical load level is reached.
In practice, however,
neither of these conditions are met in real structures.
Deforma-
tions occur from the very onset of loading and increase continuous-
ly with increasing load until collapse takes place.
It is diffi-
cult from such load-displacement data to define a critical load
and indeed it is often questionable as to whether or not such a

value exists unless one becomes concerned with questions of in-
elastic behavior.
Correlation between theory for the ideal body
and actual experimental results can only be made on the basis of
an implicit relationship such as that contained in the Southwell
formulation.
Just as a consideration of the behavior of a column with
a small displacement analysis leads to the Southwell method of data
reduction, so an examination of the elastica leads to a potential

large displacement technique.
It can be shown mathematically1
that the equation of the elastica can be approximated very closely
by a parabola and, as a consequence of this relationship, when the

square of the deflection is plotted as a function of load, a linear
relationship is obtained.
This line intercepts the load axis at
a point which is defined by the theoretical critical load value
for the ideal column.
There is much practical evidence to indi-
cate that this large displacement law may be as general as that of
Southwell.
Queinec
has demonstrated its applicability in certain
problems of buckling due to thermal stress and in researches made
concurrently with those described here, Willey12 successfully established its applicability to flat plates under uniform axial compression.
With this background in mind, the approach to the research

that comprises this paper emerged.
Initial experimentation with
a simply supported Euler column was undertaken because complete
theoretical analyses of all phases of the problem are available.

Timoshenko ^presents the classical buckling theory for the column.
Southwell and Horton 10analytically justify, respectively, the

small and large deflection determinations of critical load.
Too,
testing procedures for a simply supported Euler column are elementary, and this lends itself particularly well to the initial probe
of a concept intended for expanded application in a more difficult
problem.
Experimental correlation of the predicted buckling loads
of the perfect column by these three independent means, therefore,
would support the idea that a similar correlation might apply to

the case of the lateral instability of the deep beam.
Given that the outcome of the tests on the column were favorable, the deep beam would be tested in a like manner.
Southwell
data would hopefully predict the critical load of the un-
restrained beam and permit the determination of the stability
boundary for the elastically restrained beam.
These results
could then be compared with available theoretical analyses.
Large
deflection measurements on the unrestrained beam would next answer

the question of the validity of the hypothesis that large deflec-
tion data can be applied to the problem of lateral instability of

the deep beam.
was begun.
With this approach in mind, the experimental work
II.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBIEM
A certain amount of experimental work has been done on the
problem of the lateral buckling of deep beams-?'^, 6 The results

obtained are, in general, rough verifications of the elementarycase of first mode buckling of the simply supported beam.
But the
early studies of the 1930's^ , ^ , ^give no indication of the means
by which buckling was defined.
At the time these papers were
published Southwell's work was new and all but unknown, and several
diverse and unrelated ideas existed which supposedly enabled the
experimenter to pinpoint the onset of buckle in a structure.
The
top of the knee method and the strain reversal method are good examples of two of the more widely accepted of these devices.
How-
ever, these and other methods in use at the time give, at best,
highly scattered results and in many instances can produce meaningless conclusions.
Further, none of these ideas were ever sub-
stantiated by any legitimate theoretical development.

Massey's paper, written in 196U, developed the use of a
linear plot by which one could predict the lateral buckling loads
of I beams and deep beams.
This was a significant step forward
because the approach introduced a consistency of results that was

not possible with the earlier methods.
But when Horton'was able
to show analytically that the Southwell plot was applicable to the
lateral instability of deep beams he introduced a device which, if

it could be demonstrated experimentally, would not only predict
the theoretical buckling load of a deep beam, but would have the
added virtue of being a method already proven to be applicable to
a diversity of buckling problems.
The efficacy of such a demonstra-
tion is clear in that it would lend further credence to the generality of the Southwell technique.
Establishing positive results for a simple problem as the

basis for methods of solving more difficult cases has proven by
experience to be a logical experimental approach.
This concept
was used to twofold advantage in the work that comprises this

thesis.
First, if complete correlation of analytic, Southwell and
large deflection predictions of the buckling load could be estab-
lished for an Euler column, where experimental procedures are quite

simple, it would not be wholly unreasonable to expect a similar
result for the deep beam.
Second, by doing initial deep beam ex-
periments on a specimen which was not elastically restrained, (es-
sentially a repeat of work done by Massey") the validity of application of the Southwell plot to this problem could be shown.
This
contribution would be significant since Massey's paper, in the

strict sense, does not do this.
also emerge.
By-products of such tests would
It could be determined what effect, if any, the pro-
cess of repeated tests on a given specimen had upon the critical
load prediction.
Also, if meaningful results were to be obtained
in later tests where elastic restraints were imposed, it was nec-
essary to know that the apparatus used could give good accuracy
in the simpler case of the unrestrained beam.
In devising a test rig for experiments on the deep beam,
considerable care was necessary to avert foreseeable difficulties.

If the beam were loaded, as shown in Ref
13, in a standard hy-
draulic testing machine, side loads could develop which might in-
duce sizeable errors in any results obtained.
beam this drawback was eliminated.
By dead loading the
The beam was made of sufficient
length to avoid any problem involving transverse shear and con-
struction of the end supports was done with great care because even
small deviations from the simple support condition could introduce
intolerable errors in the test results.
Another source of possible
error was eliminated by measuring deflections by optical means,

forestalling any difficulty that would result from the use of contact measuring devices.
Measurements of displacement at different
points along the beam made it possible to determine what effect,

if any, the location of measurement has upon the prediction of
buckling load.
Overlooking any of these factors could seriously
affect the outcome of the test results and a dramatic demonstration

of this statement is evident when a comparison is made between the
predicted buckling loads that result from the deflection measurements at the centroid of the deep beam and those made at the quar-
ter length points when an elastic restraint of large spring constant is imposed at the centroid.
III.
EQUIPMENT
Three separate test rigs were used to perform the experi-
ments that comprise the heart of this work.
Fig. 1 is a sketch of
the basic equipment used to acquire the data for the buckling of
the Euler column.
Figs. 3a through b depict the apparatus which
yielded the bulk of data for the deep bean, restrained and unrestrained, in the small deflection region.
And, in Figs. 7a
through 7c, the equipment which produced the large deflection in-
formation on the deep beam is shown.

The first tests to be run were performed on an Euler
column of dimensions 6.000 X 0.275U X 0.01665 inches.
The column
was of steel and the ends were ground to knife edges to approximate
the simple support condition.
The essential element of the test
rig, shown in Fig. 1, was a simple chemical balance which rested
on the lower (fixed) loading head of a compression test machine.
A measuring scale, consisting of a metal plate covered with graph

paper graduated in millimeters, was attached to the upper (movable)
head of the test machine and was used to read lateral deflections
of the column under load.
The column was magnetized so that it
would cling to the upper loading head.
By doing this the specimen
was easily positioned and alignment was automatic because the
column hung vertically under the force of gravity.
Metric weights
were then used to apply the load to the column through the mechanism of the chemical balance.
Snail deflection measurements were next taken on a deep
steel beam 30.69 inches long, 1.95 inches deep and 0.0^91 inches
Figs. 3a and 3b depict the overall arrangement of equip-
thick.
ment.
The essential parts of the foundation upon which the beam
was mounted were a pair of large steel blocks, the surfaces of
which had been ground smooth to provide minimum rolling resistance

to the end restraints of the beam which were to be placed upon the
The optical collimator used for the measurement of de-
blocks.
flections and the weight cage which constituted the method of load
application are also apparent in these figures.
The small hook on
the bottom of the weight cage, visible in Fig. 3b, provided a means
of continuous load application at any desired rate.
A container
was placed on the hook and water could then be piped into the container, the rate of flow of the water, of course, governing the
loading rate.
Figs. Ua and
i^b
are close-up views of the apparatus.
Fig. Ua the method of measuring displacement is clear.
From
Mounted
upon the loading yoke is an ordinary six inch metal ruler, graduated in hundredths of an inch.
As the load was applied, the beam
deflected and, since the loading yoke was mounted at the centroid
of the beam, a measurement of the deflection of this yoke was also
a measurement of the motion of the centroid of the beam.
By sight-
ing through the collimator onto the ruler, it was possible to
measure deflections to an accuracy of one or two thousandths of

an inch.
The loading yoke is evident in Fig.
clearly shown in Fig. b.
i^b
but it is much more
it consisted merely of a prong shaped
aluminum piece through which two holes were made.
A pin inserted
through these holes passed also through a hole at the beam's cenAt the base of the yoke a shaft was attached which extended
troid.
to the load transducer, which can be seen most clearly in Fig.
l^b.
It is the ring shaped device at the center of the picture and upon
this ring were mounted four strain gages.
The gages were wired
into a bridge and then connected to a Model 1^0-1100 Sanborn Car-
rier Amplifier and a Sanborn
15>1
Single Channel Recorder.
The
electronic equipment is not shown in the figures, however.

The method of supporting the ends of the beam can be seen in
Figs. Ua,
lib
and 5a.
On each end of the beam were situated two
aluminum blocks, held together by three bolts.
On the inner side
of each block, a groove was cut in the vertical direction and in
each groove was fitted a steel rod of round cross section and of a
length equal to the height of the blocks.
The beam was placed so that
it was restrained by the rods about one quarter of an inch from the
end of the beam, the bolts were fastened so that they were finger
tight and then the combination of blocks and beam were mounted on
four more rods of round cross section, two at each end, as can be
seen in Figs. Ua, Ub and a, which acted as rollers for the entire
apparatus.
A reasonably heavy weight was then placed on each end
The result was a support which gave very little restraint
block.
to end motion of the beam in any form except that all tendency of
the end to twist was restrained.
The method gave a very close ap-
proximation to the simple support condition of the theoretical

problem.
In Figs. a and
3>b,
the mechanism used to impose the elas-
tic restraint at the beam center is visible.
10
The restraint used
was a rigidly mounted cantilever spring, the length of which was

made adjustable so that various spring values could be imposed.
The spring can be seen, in Fig b, to be placed against the loading yoke.
Since the yoke moves with the beam centroid, restrict-
ing yoke motion obviously restricts the motion of the center of
the beam.
Not shown in the figures is the device used to measure de-
flections at the quarter length points of the beam.
When such
measurements were needed, depth micrometers were mounted at the

appropriate locations, and adjusted as necessary to measure the
desired displacements.
The equipment used in the large deflection measurements
is depicted in Figs. 7a through 7c.
The beam shown is of fibre-
glass but the same set-up was used when measuring the deflections
of a similar beam made of spring steel.
long and l.0 inches in depth.
Both beams were 20.91 inches
The glass beam had a thickness of
0.03U5 inches and the spring steel beam a thickness of 0.01ii8 inches.
When a beam was to be tested, it was first clamped into end supports which are visible in Figs. 7b and 7c.
The supports were
round aluminum rods, slotted to receive the ends of the beam, and
pointed at the lower ends to provide simple support conditions.

The entire large
deflection apparatus was mounted on two
heavy steel blocks, one at each end of the beam, the blocks pro-
viding the stationary foundation for the rest of the rig.
Onto
each large block were clamped two smaller steel blocks, positioned
so that a space existed between them just large enough to allow
free motion of the beam end supports.
11
To reduce the frictional
resistance to end shortening of the beam as it was deformed, four
roller bearings were inserted between each of the two pairs of

small steel blocks, and then a plate was laid atop the roller
bearings.
Onto the plate, then, was placed the pointed end of the
beam end support previously described.
Measurements of deflection
were made optically with the use of a ruler graduated in hundredths

of an inch, but this is not shown in the figures.
This relatively crude device provided a rough approxima-
tion of a simple support and could allow considerable beam distortion.
The motion of the end support in the gap between the
small steel blocks, after friction had been overcome, was such that
only twisting of the beam was prevented, and this approximated the
theoretical simple support condition to an adequate degree of accuracy.
12
IV.
TEST PROCEDURES
Preliminary experimentation began with tests on a steel

column 6.000 X 0.02751 X 0.01665 inches in dimension and knife-
edged at the ends to simulate simple supports.

the column magnetically from the upper (movable
machine, shown in Fig.
1,
By suspending
)
head of a test
and lowering the head until the lower
end of the column just touched one of the tables of the chemical
balance, proper positioning and alignment were assured.
Metric
weights were then added to the other table and, with each increment of weight, the upper head of the test machine was adjusted
so that the deflection needle of the chemical balance was re-
positioned to zero.
This procedure, of course, insured that the
load on the column was exactly equivalent to the weights on the

balance table.
At each step, a record was made of the load on the
column and its maximum lateral deflection.
Seven tests were run
and the data from the tests is recorded in Tables la and lb.
The
data was then averaged in Table 1c and load-deflection, Southwell
and large deflection plots were constructed from the averaged data.
These plots are shown in Figs. 2a through 2c.
Small deflection theory for the deep beam was verified

using the test equipment shown in Figs. 3a through 5b.
A steel
beam of dimensions 30.69 X 1.95 X 0.0591 inches was used and initial
measurements were taken to check the theory for lateral buckling of

the beam with no elastic restraint imposed.
The load on the beam
when the initial displacement reading was taken totaled 7.7 pounds.
This initial load consisted of all the parts of the loading device;
13
the yoke, the load transducer, the cage on which the discrete
weights were placed and the container used when the load was incremented by the use of running water.
In the case where the beam was buckled without an elastic
restraint at the centroid, the loading method used was one utilizing running water.
Load readings were determined by interpreting
load cell readings on the Sanborn equipment.
These loads were read
at predetermined increments of displacement as measured by the
optical collimator.
A physical restriction was placed on the
maximum deflection of the beam so that it would not exceed the

elastic limit.
Ten initial tests were performed in the manner described,
so that reliability of the experimental data might be evaluated by
examining the repeatability of the experimental evaluation of critical load.
The data from all ten tests was virtually identical and,
therefore, only the data of the last two tests is presented.
Tables
2a and 2b are the results of these two tests, while Fig. 8a is the
resultant load versus displacement plot.
Fig. 8b is the Southwell
interpretation of the data and the consistency of the results is

self evident.
After these initial tests, various elastic restraints were

imposed at the centroid of the beam.
method of imposing the restraint.
Figs. 5a and $b show the
A steel cantilever spring of
variable length was used to restrict the motion of the yoke and,
since the yoke moved with the beam centroid, the centroid of the
beam was thereby elastically restrained.
The various spring values
were experimentally determined by averaging a series of load-
Hi
deflection measurements at chosen increments of spring length.

The large initial load of 7.7 pounds, which was tolerated
when the deep beam was tested without elastic restraint, introduced no essential difficulty.
The collimator was zeroed with the
initial load on the beam and readings commenced from this zero
setting.
All that was necessary to compensate the data for the
initial load was to determine the displacement of the beam due to

this load by extrapolation of the load -displacement curve through
the first few loading points to the point of zero load.
Then the
initial displacement value was added to the displacement reading
for each increment of load.
But the size of the initial displace-
ment due to a load of 7.7 pounds might have proved intolerable in

the case of the elastically restrained beam because the beam would
have been slightly distorted before the spring came in contact with
Thus, in order to approach zero deflection when the
the yoke.
spring was initially placed in contact, the initial load had to be

reduced.
By removing all loading components except the yoke and
load cell, the initial load was reduced to about 1.20 pounds, a
force which caused a negligible initial deflection in the un-
restrained beam.
The spring was then moved toward the yoke until
it barely made contact.
Then the measurement system was zeroed
and readings commenced.

It was discovered that, at low values of spring constant,
measurements of motion of the centroid gave valid data with which

to calculate critical buckling load.
However, as the spring value
increased, the motion of the centroid decreased and became difficult

to measure.
For these higher spring constants, measurements of
15
deflections at the quarter length points of the beam were made,

in addition to measurements at the centroid, by the use of depth
micrometers placed at the quarter points of the beam.
Tables 3a
through 3n and Pigs. 9a through 9r provide a means of comparison

of data resulting from the various points of measurement.
An attempt was made to obtain large deflection readings

for the deep beam on which, to this point, only small deflection
data had been compiled.
However, because the steel of this beam
was not of highest quality, it was found that the material entered
the region of plastic deformation soon after the beam departed
from the realm of small deflections.
A fibreglass beam was tried
and although some deceptively consistent data emerged from these

tests, it was apparent that the non-linear characteristics of the
fibreglass material caused the predicted critical loads from the

large and small deflection data to differ widely.
A beam made of high quality spring steel was tested next
and gave satisfactory results.

simple.
The test procedure used was quite
Utilized was the test set-up shown in Figs. 7a through 7c.
Discrete weight increments were applied to the beam centroid, and
measurements of deflection were taken for each weight increment.

It was discovered early in the tests of the glass beam that, whether
the measurements of deflection were taken at the beam's centroid or

at the top fibre, the critical load resulting from the data was the
same, as can be seen from Figs. 10b and lOe and from Figs. 10c and
lOf .
This valuable information was used when testing the spring
steel beam.
Because it was much easier to do so, the displacements
of this beam were measured at the center of the top fibre.
16
The
data for the spring steel beam is presented in Table and in Figs.
11a through lie.
It should be mentioned that, because the large deflections
of the fibreglass and spring steel beams induced considerable
friction forces at the end supports, it became very difficult to

determine the equilibrium position for each increment of load.
The
method used, as motions became increasingly restricted by friction,

was to first load the beam, to then manually displace it to a state
of deflection in excess of what would occur because of the load im-
posed on it, and finally, to manually vibrate the ends until the
beam receded to an equilibrium position, as shown in Fig. 7c.
Be-
cause the equilibrium position was not easily detectable, each
test required between three and six hours to perform.
For this
reason, if further studies in the realm of large deflections of a
deep beam are undertaken, it would be well to consider a more
elaborate end support device, operating perhaps on ball bearings,

so that end support friction can be made less of a problem.
This
one improvement would remove a great deal of tedium from the test-
ing procedure.
17
V.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The theoretical critical load for a simply supported Euler
column is given by the equation

2
tt
Per -
EI
-r-
(1)
where
E b Young's Modulus for the material of the column (3x10^
psi for steel in the case of the column tested)
I b moment of inertia about the axis of least bending re-
sistance
L = length of the column.

The equation yields a theoretical buckling load of
P cr = 0.8695 lb = 395.0 gm
for the column tested, which had dimensions of 6.000 X 0.01665 X

0.275U inches.
From the data of Table lc, which is the averaged data for
the tests on the Euler column, Figs. 2a through 2c were drawn.
The
inverse slope of the curve of Fig. 2b, the Southwell plot of the
small deflection data for the column, yields a critical load of
k09 grams.
The deviation of this value from theory is about 3.$%.
The large deflection plot of Fig. 2c provides an indication
of critical load when the straight segment of the curve is extrapo-
lated to the load axis, or, to the line of zero deflection.

curve gives a critical load value of 395.6 grams.
This
The deviation
from the Southwell determination is about 3.5$ and from theory it

is almost zero.
The result, then, is a simple experimental demonstration

18
that measurements in the pre- and post-buckled regions can be used

to determine the critical load of a column.
The Southwell and
large deflection curves combine with the analytical solution to
provide a three way verification of buckling load.
Of prime im-
portance now is whether the same results can be obtained in the

case of the deep beam.
Timoshenko develops the equation
16.9VEIGJ
cr
"
(2)
L2
which yields the first mode lateral buckling load of a simply sup-
ported deep beam of rectangular cross section when subjected to a

concentrated load at the centroid.
The terms of the equation are:
a critical buckling load of beam in first mode

P_
cr
= Young's Modulus of beam material
E
I
= moment of inertia of beam cross section
G
J
torsion modulus of beam material

s polar moment of inertia of the cross section
length of beam
By altering the development presented by Timoshenko so that it conforms to the second mode shape, equation (2) becomes
cr-~
UU.^/EIGJ
0)
The deep beam used in the small deflection research had
dimensions of 30.69 X 1.9 X 0.0591 inches.
The beam was of steel
and the values for E and G were taken as 3xl0 7 psi and 1.1x10? psi
respectively.
With these values, equation (2) produces a theoreti-
cal first mode buckling load of 22.0 pounds.
Equation (3) yields
$7 9 pounds as the second mode critical load.
If the Southwell approach is valid when applied to the
lateral buckling of a deep beam, the inverse of the slope of the

19
Southwell plots for the first and second mode cases, that is the
cases where the beam is without lateral restraint at the centroid
and where the lateral restraint is infinitely stiff, should equal

the theoretical buckling loads for these conditions.
Tables 3a and 3n and Figs. 9b and 9q show that the Southwell
plots yield values of
21.1*
pounds and 8. pounds for the first and
second mode critical loads, respectively.
The respective devia-
tions from theory are 2.8 percent and 1.0 percent.

The addition of a finite elastic restraint at the centroid
of the beam, so that the lateral buckling motion is thereby re-
stricted was expected to alter the buckling of the beam, the
magnitude of the effect of the spring being a function of the

strength of the spring.
Hayashi^showed that an elastic restraint
at the center of an Euler column had just this effect.
Small values
of spring constant yielded critical loads close to, but higher than,
the first mode critical load.
As the spring value increased, the
critical load increased until a point was reached where further
increases in spring value failed to cause any increase in buckling

load.
The buckling load at large values of spring constant corres-
ponded to the second mode critical load.
A similar behavior was
expected for the buckling of the deep beam and, indeed, was predieted in a theoretical study by Flint.
Flint's equation reduces to
17.27telGJ(l +X)
P cr -
~
2
(U)
If
when a one term approximation to the deflected shape is used.
All
terms of this equation are the same as those given for equations
(2) and (3), except that A is defined as
20
kL3
U8EI
and
k = spring constant of the elastic restraint.
Tables 3a through 3n and Figs. 9a through 9r show that the
elastically restrained deep beam does, in fact, behave as expected.

Fig. 9r shows a comparison between a one term approximation to the
deformed shape in Flint's equation and the experimental results

achieved
An interesting piece of information evolved as the experi-
mentation using elastic restraints progressed.
Although the mo-
tion of the centroid became quite small as the spring constant
reached values higher than about 20 pounds per inch, the Southwell presentations of this data continued to appear as indisputable straight lines even with springs with constants as high as
97. h pounds per inch, as can be seen in Figs. 9b through 9p.
But, as the spring constants exceeded 20 pounds per inch, the
critical loads obtained from the Southwell plots resulting from

the deflections of the centroid began to surpass the theoretical
It was visually observed that,
value predicted for second mode.
beginning with spring values of about 10 pounds per inch, the beam
began to deform, under loading, not in a pure first mode shape, but
in a shape that suggested a combination of first and second modes.
The transition from first mode, through this combination of first
and second modes, to pure second mode is visible in Figs. 6a

through 6c.
By constructing Southwell plots of the data measured at
21
the quarter points and comparing the critical loads determined from
these plots with the data measured at the centroid, it became apparent that, as the value of the spring constant of the elastic re-
straint exceeded about 20 pounds per inch, the values of critical
load determined from the quarter point data began to diverge con-
siderably from those determined from the deflection data of the

centroid.
Whereas the buckling loads from the quarter point data
leveled off at the theoretical critical value for second mode, the
instability loads from the centroid deflection plots continued to

increase to a high but erratic and indefinite value considerably
in excess of the second mode critical load value.
Representative load-deflection curves for the centroid

and quarter point measurements are shown in Pigs. 9a, 9d, 91 and
9n, to show the effect of increasing spring value on deflection
data.
The corresponding Southwell plots appear in Figs. 9b, 9e,
9m, 9o and 9q.
The measurements at the quarter points were selected as
the meaningful data for determining the critical loads of the elas-
tically restrained beam because of several basic reasons.
First,
the critical loads determined from the quarter points level out
at the theoretical second mode value as the spring constant ap-
proaches infinity.
Second, the motion of the centroid is zero
when the spring becomes infinitely large and therefore cannot be

measured.
The critical load cannot, then, be determined by meas-
urements at the centroid when an infinite spring is present.
Third,
the fact that the Southwell presentation of data measured at the
22
centroid with relatively large spring values remains linear in form

can be reasonably well explained by considering that the beam is
locally deformed by the spring, and that the high critical load
determinations from this data are probably higher mode tendencies
of the beam in the vicinity of the local deformation.
Fourth, if
the development of mode shape is examined, it becomes apparent
that with a predominant first mode deformation, the midpoint and
quarter points of the beam exhibit a preponderance of first mode

But, when the beam is deformed primarily in second mode,
motion.
the quarter points move considerably but the centroid alters posi-
tion but little, if at all.
Therefore, as the beam nears second
mode, measurements at the centroid should not be expected to give
adequate results since little or no second mode motion occurs

Note, however, that if third mode motion is present to any
there.
degree, it will reveal itself to the greatest extent at the beam

This is also true of all higher odd numbered modes.
center.
The
effect of these modes is considered to be making itself evident in

the data taken at the centroid when the springs of high strength
are used.
Fig. 9r presents a graph of the ratio of buckling load
divided by the critical load value of the unrestrained beam,

P cr/P
wX
versus the spring constant, k, of the elastic restraint
imposed at the centroid.
The results obtained by measuring the
deflections at the centroid and at the quarter points are shown.

The consistency of the data resulting from the latter measurements
is evident.
The experimental and theoretical stability boundaries
23
are shown in this figure and the comparison between theory and ex-
periment for the case of the elastically restrained beam is clearly
presented here.
Experimentation in the large deflection range produced the
final link in the verification of the buckling equation (2).
The
large deflection hypothesis proposes that, if load is plotted
against the square of deflection in the large deflection region

(where the end of the beam assumes an angle of from five to thirty
degrees from its undistorted position) a straight line will result

in the post-buckling region, and that the intercept of this line
with the line of zero deflection will yield the theoretical buckling
load of the member tested.
As has been mentioned before, the theory
has been verified for an Euler column, for some thermal buckling
12
problems, and for various flat plates.
The first tests for large deflection data on the deep beam
were performed on the beam used for small deflection data.
It be-
came apparent immediately that two major difficulties existed.

First, the end supports, although adequate for small deflections,
would not allow sufficient freedom for large deflection readings.

Second, the beam material, a relatively low grade steel, entered
the region of plastic deformation as soon as any appreciable de-
flection was attained.

The test apparatus shown in Figs. 7a through 7c provided
an acceptable solution to the problem of the end supports.
The
beam first tested in this rig was made of fibreglass and had dimensions of 20.91 X 1.50 X 0.03U5 inches.
The advantage of the fibre-
glass material was that it possessed a high yield strength and
2U
therefore remained elastic throughout considerable distortion.

Tables Ua and Ub, and Figs. 10a through lOf indicate the results
of the tests on this beam.
The perplexing part of these results is
that, for the glass beam, the small deflection buckling load ob-
tained from the Southwell presentations is roughly 16 percent

different from that resulting from the large deflection plots.
The cause is believed to be the non-linear characteristics of
the fibreglass material.
Indeed, an appreciable amount of creep
was observed when performing the tests, but it was also learned
that the fibreglass material had a definite change in modulus as

the stress passed a given value, this value lying between the
stresses experienced by the material in the small and large de-
flection regions.
One observation, however, proved of value,
despite the obvious difficulties encountered in the tests of the

glass beam.
The same large deflection results were obtained
whether the measurements were made at the centroid of the beam

or at the top fibre.
Since the deflection of the top fibre was
much easier to measure, this knowledge was used on subsequent

tests.
The next beam to be tested had dimensions of 20.91 X 1.50 X
0.01U8 inches and was made of high grade spring steel.
By using
the moduli of the steel as E = 3x10' psi and G = 1.1x10? psi respec-
tively, and calculating the theoretical critical load for first mode
buckling by use of equation (2), a value of 0.573 pounds or 260

grams was obtained.
Table 5 and Figs. 11a through lie show the reThe buckling load by Southwell
sults of the tests on this beam.
plot is seen to be 260.5 grams and by large deflection data to be

252 grams.
The correlation is within about three percent.
25
VI.
CONCLUSIONS
The work contained in this thesis experimentally verifies
the theoretical determination of the lateral buckling load of a
deep beam with a concentrated load at the centroid.
The Southwell
presentation of data is proven to be an excellent method of analysis of lateral instability in this case.
In addition, as a means
of further verification of both the purely theoretical and the
Southwell arguments, the large deflection method is shown to produce an excellent three way correlation.
All experimental data
contained herein is within about three percent of theory, which is
considered completely adequate.

To obtain suitable experimental accuracy, however, it was
found that extreme care had to be exercised in imposing end conditions, in applying loads and in ascertaining that the beam materials possessed adequate elastic characteristics.
Relatively small
deviations from these requirements could result in considerable
errors in experimental results.

The work, therefore, provides experimental verification of
the theoretical equation for lateral instability load for a deep
bean by using two methods which make a definitive prediction of

buckling load.
26
REFERENCES
1.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. : Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, N. Y.,
1961, pp. 2l - 272.
2.
Flint, A. R. : The Influence of Restraints on the Stability

of Beams, Structural Engineer, vol. 29, no. 9, Sept. 193>1,
pp. 235 - 2U6.
3.
Bromley, S. and Robinson, W. H.

The Lateral Failure of Spars,
NACA Technical Note No. 232, Mar. 1926.
U.
Trayer, G. W. and March, H. W. : Elastic Instability of Members

Having Sections Common in Aircraft Construction, NACA Technical
Report No. 382, 1931.
Dumont, C. and Hill, H. N. :

The Lateral Instability of Deep
Rectangular Beams, NACA Technical Note No. 601, May, 1937.
6.
Massey, C. : Southwell Plot Applied to Lateral Instability of

Beams, Engineer, vol. 218, no. 666, Aug. 196^, pp. 320.
7.
Horton, W. H. , Cundari, F. L. and Johnson,

of the Applicability of the Southwell Plot
tion of Test Data Obtained from Studies of
Plate Structures, SUDAAR No. 296, Stanford
1966.
8.
Southwell, R. V. :
On the Analysis of Experimental Observations in Problems of Elastic Stability, Proceedings of the
Royal Society, A, vol. 135, 1932, pp. 601 - 6l6.
9.
Westergaard, H. If.t Buckling of Elastic Structures, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 8,
1922, pp. 576 - 6&.
R. W. :
A Review
to the InterpretaElastic Column and
University, Dec.
10.
Horton, W. H. , Tenerelli, D. J. and Willey, B. T.: The Use

of Small and Large Displacement Data from Essentially Elastic
Buckling Tests on Columns and Plates as a Means of Correlating
Theory and Experiment, a paper presented at the SESA Spring
Conference Ottawa, May 1967.
11.
Thermal Buckling of Centrally Heated Circular

Queinec, A.:
Plates, SUDAAR No. 1^3, Stanford University, June 1961.
12.
Willey, B. T.: The Instability of Glass Fibre Reinforced

Plastic Panels Under Axial Compression, Engineers Thesis,
Stanford University, 1967.
27
13.
Horton, W. H., Bailey, S. C. and McQuilkin, B. H. :

An Introduction to Instability (A Pictorial Survey of the Stability of
Bars, Plates and Shell Bodies), a paper presented at the SixtyNinth Annual Meeting of the American Society for Testing and
Materials, Atlantic City, N. J., June 1966.
1U.
Hayashi, T. and Kihira, Iff. 3 On a Method of Experimental Determination of the Buckling Load of an Elastically Supported
Column, a paper presented at the Japan Congress on Testing
Materials, Kyoto, Japan, Sept. 1966.
28
TABLE
la
TEST DATA FOR BUCKLING OF EULER COLUMN

(INDIVIDUAL TESTS)
LOAD
(m)
0.0
77.5
159.0
259.0
309.0
329.0
3U9.0
369.0
389.0
39U.O
399.0
hoo.o
1*02.0
U03.0
U03.5
iiOU.o
I05.0
U06.0
U08.0
Uio.o
U12.0
hlh.O
DEFLECTION
Test
Test
(mm
Test
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.0
U.9
0.6
0.9
1.1
2.1
5.h
7.9
12.0
13.1
15.1
16.1
16.7
17.2
18.1
19.1
20.9
22. h
0.6
0.9
1.2
2.1
5.U
8.1
12.2
13.2
15.3
16.2
16.8
17.2
18.2
19.1
7.3
11.8
12.8
15.0
15.9
I6.3
17.0
18.0
18.9
20.6
22.ii
21*. 1
25.U
29
2I4.I
21.0
22.6
23.9
25.5
25.ll
TABLE
lb
(INDIVIDUAL TESTS)
LOAD
DEFLECTION
(gm)
Test
Test
(mm)
Test
Test
0.0
77.5
159.0
25?.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
309.0
329.0
3U9.0
369.0
389.0
391.0
393.0
395.0
395.5
396.0
397.0
399.0
Uoi.o
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.9
1.3
2.3
5.8
6.9
7.9
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.5
2.6
6.1
7.0
Hi.
1;06.0
19.2
W.O
20.1
21.8
U09.0
hii.o
U13.0
Ulh.o
0.9
1.2
2.1
5.6
6.3
7.6
8.9
9.3
9.8
10.5
12.3
23-3
2U.7
25.U
l.ii
2.5
6.0
6.8
8.0
9.U
9.6
10.1
11.0
12.7
lh.6
19.3
20.3
21.8
23.3
2U.8
25.5
9.1
9.6
10.0
10.8
12.7
Hi.
19. a
20.2
21.8
23.3
2Ji.8
25.6
30
8.1
9.5
9.8
10.1
11.0
12.9
Hi.8
19.5
20.3
21.9
23.5
2U.9
25.6
TABLE
lc
AVERAGED DATA FOR BUCKLING OF

EULER COLUMN
P (gm)
0.0
77.5
159.0
259.0
309.0
329.0
(ima)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.068
0.395
0.81
1.5U
5.0
31.3
U5.5
1*00.0
O.63
0.90
1.2U
2.2h
5.60
6.75
7.90
7.78
9.22
10.0
10.8
12.7
13.2
U01.0
Hi.
1*02.0
1*05.0
1*06.0
1*07.0
1*08.0
1*09.0
1*10.0
1*11.0
15.1
16.1
17.1
18.1
19.2
20.2
20.8
21.8
22.5
23. h
U12.0
21*.
1*13.0
21*.
1*11*.
25.5
31*9.0
369.0
389.0
391.0
393.0
391*.
395.0
396.0
397.0
399.0
1*03.0
Uou.o
4x
0.0
0.0
0.27xlO" 3
1.28
2.1*6
l*.l*
6.1
1U.U
17.3
20.1
19.7
23.3
25.2
27.2
31.8
33.0
36.7
37.6
62.2
60.5
8i*.9
100.0
117.0
162.0
171*.
216.0
228.0
260.0
293.0
327.0
369.0
1*0.0
1*2.3
1*1*.
1*9.7
51.0
53.
503.0
Sk.9
56.9
58.3
60.0
6l.6xl0~ j
51*9.0
576.0
615.0
650.0
18.0
=
1*1*.
Oxio-
31
-3
nO gm
crm
**uy
)
1*7.3
1*08.0
1*32.0
1*75.0
ay
0>
_- P
rcr
TABLE
2a
LATERAL BUCKLING OF DEEP BEAM WITHOUT ELASTIC RESTRAINT

(TEST No. 1)
LOAD
P (lb)
DEFLECTION OF CENTROID
6 (inches)
0.0
7.70
12.13
/P
0.0
0.001
0.006
0.011
0.016
0.021
0.026
0.031
0.036
o.oia
0.0^6
0.051
0.056
0.061
0.071
0.077
0.081
0.086
0.092
0.101
0.112
0.126
lii..30
l$.h9
16.85
17.614
18.18
18.57
18.99
19.29
19. U7
19.72
19.86
20.07
20.16
20.26
20.1*1
20.51
20.58
20.70
20.79
20.90
20.99
21.01
21.03
21.05
1.299xlO" u
U.95
7.70
10.33
12.U8
lh.lh
17.07
19. ho
21.60
23.83
26.20
28. UO
30.72
35.36
38.20
U0.00
U2.1
UU.9
1*9.1
5U.2
60.7
67.5
76.8
86.1
95.5
o.na
0.161
0.181
0.201
0.221
Ax
0.28
21. U lb - P c
Ay
1014.9x10-**
130.7x10-^
32
*cr
TABI
2b
lateral buckling of deep beam without elastic restraint

(TEST No. 2)
LOAD
P (lb)
0.0
7.70
12.17
lk.59
15.85
17.10
17.85
18.28
18.70
19.11
19.32
19.62
19.79
19.90
20.05
20.11
20.25
20.32
20.1*2
20.50
20.55
20.58
20.60
20.67
20.71
20.79
20.81
20.89
20.92
20.93
20.99
21.01
21.02
DEFLECTION OF CENTROID
6 (inches)
0.0
0.001
0.006
0.011
0.016
0.021
0.026
0.031
O.O36
/P
""
1.30x10"^
U.93
7.55
9.1*7
12.29
58
16.97
19.25
11*.
o.oia.
21.1*5
O.0U6
0.051
0.056
0.061
0.066
0.071
0.076
0.081
0.086
0.091
0.096
0.101
0.106
0.116
0.126
0.137
0.151
0.171
0.191
0.211
0.231
0.2U1
0.261
23 . 80
33
26.00
28.30
30.65
32.92
3U.80
37.50
39.9
1*2.1
W.li
1*6.8
1*9.1
51.5
56.2
60.9
66.0
72.5
81.9
91.1*
100.9
110.0
111*. 7
12U.0xl0-^
co
>
g
M
iH
_=t
H
1AO fn\A C _^r V\ rH CM <n O m-d'-d'-^ OX
0<n0\0 OlANOd J\AO\c\|COChrl
X
Ô
Mh
1A
nnn-3 J^j^Jv\\AKMn\AvOvovo
1A
CO
PS
Eh
^
(0
S X
5,
c
O"
Eh
ta
Eh
H
v.-'
CNnf-Wt^f^Jt^Hrl nrlCO C\lV\CM>

mMD CM -=J CM On H m
Q cm <n cm O^coH-^nt"Q -^-^"^S? vOr-r--qpco onOn O cm cm cm
^ Q w Q
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi-HrHrHrHi-H
rn\A-d"CM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WO
rn
en
HenovrNOiAiAH-H/iAtrvm
fni-r\CNO\vo
osO m
fn_d-_d-vrNir\vOvO r c^- p- r-- c^- 00 0\C\0 O
u\
On
O.
1
-o
-o
u
P-
rH
rn
C\i
On On O- O MO
O 0N"Lr\O\nt--_H/CM'UMf\M0
OiHHm^CÔcoo\o\0
r-jc\jcNjmrn_d Lr\c--coco
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHrHrHrHrHrHHrHH
OnU\
O
H
CM
\A
en
On
,,
11
CD
rnc\J
r4
O
O
m
m
CM
CO
.c
fl
cm cm
c
M
O
Eh
^
HiACKt^-ovOvo
<-<
(5
,0
Eh rH
I s-
C*-
w
g
M ^
Eh
*a
P
H
-4
H
CM
II
55 CO
CQg
CO
o
o
,c
o~\
B
M
Eh
st
Q

I
s X
K3
Of
5
Eh
ft
CNJ
<nfnm-=f-^t-5-3 -^/-=J"iAiAvOvovo
-
c\j
rn
CM
-zr t wH H co h vn r r
<nr cMfniAUMAcj cm
O
HrllAOC04CNO
rH \A
m m-^/CO
mlAHCNJ rH
vo ^r-cocoo\CKOH h
O O O H h <n rniAUNiAS?
t^- rt>
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH
3
O
(lb
r-t
II
cm
LOAD
r-i
COCNjCOCvJCVjQUNrHOcOOOOvOOOmO
v\co miA-rto rH _ct ia r- ao cm u\ H cm -^/
CO
CO
Eh
r^\
O XAIA rncNiiHcOCVioDrHr^vOcOOiHr^vOooCNO
\A
OCMXACOO
VO
ririrtrlHHHriHHHHHrlHHH
P-4
3U
O
rH
8
-3
CM
rH
Os
On
Ph
1
II
>
*3
*J
TABLE
3b
LATERAL BUCKLING OF DEEP BEAM WITH ELASTIC RESTRAINT AT CENTROID

(SPRING CONSTANT 1.17 lb/in)
LOAD
CENTROID DEFLECTIONS
P (lb)
(inches)
S/P
0.021
0.061
0.091
0.126
0.161
0.203
0.251
19.07
2ii.U5
25. UO
26.16
26.67
27.00
27.18
4X
35.81
U8.22
60. k3
75.20
92.140x10-^
2.5X10- 1
j-
Ay
11.01x10"^
214.96
8 9.1xlO"
= 28.06 lb
P cr
28.06
Po cr
21.14
J..JJ.
35
Per
TABLE
3c
LATERAL BUCKLING OF DEEP BEAT! WITH ELASTIC RESTRAINT AT CENTROID

(SPRING CONSTANT - 3. 18 lb/in)
LOAD
P (lb)
(inches)
25.72
29.33
31.95
32.52
33.31
33.73
33.90
0.031
0.051
0.091
0.111
0.151
0.191
0.211
AX
2.5xio-i
4y
70x10-h
or
35.7 lb = P cr
35.7
* 1.67
Po
Cr
21
36
/P
12.06x10-^
17.39
28. UC
3li.l3
1*5.32
56.70
62.25x10"^
ca
CO
52
o
M
B
3
Cm
^
D
&
R
ca
O
H
O
'd
OvOco jvo\aOcooo o
HH nHOvO F-CO rH
i
O
co
OJ
ia co
mO
OO
HHH Hc\l
wni^
co on iH
cn.
_=t r>- cm
T
o
H
1
(0
t>
JC
H
.p
Qg o go hhw n-îAooa\Hcvj
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHH
oooooooooooooooo
^
o
CD
1A
CM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
o
iH
1
II
U
o
O
II
>>
"3
rj
M
o
cu
p.
la
OO
T*
CM
O
|
o
Q
CM
1
a
o
\A
>s
"a
On
ca
r-i
r-1
d.
fVN
>
cr\
C\J
37
On
CA
rH
CM
ON
CA
||
u
O
O
Ph
Ph
r*\
co
II
?o
CM
a
LA
o
o
1
h
O
CM
1A
>>
^J
-*J
-=J
ON
CA
rH
CM
eu
II
ii
II
HCOrlCD
NNOvO rH W
O -=f C VA
O VTiO\0 O O
0\_a _CfC^CO'tr\\AC\JvO H
O wJco Hr^vOC
H H H CM rAMDONrHrA-M
W W CA CA -d'"LA
CA CA
t-
^^
jo
n
<
O
vO
NO
.O
rH
_c*-3-\/\r-ONOxnr--H'm
OOQQOOriHw
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
c
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
II
&
rH
Fh
1
ia
cAfArA'LArAOrA'LA
fAlAMO l*- ON
II
o
H
cm co co
CO
rH
OOOOOrHHrHcMCM
(0
CP
LA
fn
ex.
X
wOr>-rn-^wQOO
nX
OcoOcvj H\0 OcojJt^-
h
O
rH
CM
Ph
CA
<A
Cm
On
o
_3
O
OlAJpJ 0\0v0 ca
r^-ÛNt^-ONCxjinr^-O
QOOHHw
OOOOOOOOOOOOrHHrHcNi
CM "LA CO CM
10
52
C\J
r>-
i ^
p
H
O 43O
C
Eh
S H
8 o
CM
f;r3
'T*
o
o
rH
H
r- O vD co cm "laco co co
O
o^-H/r-o-ÔNCo fnO
H H rH cm CM CM ca^ÂIA
O
B
II
CO
CO CO "LAmD
CO C\jU\H>-
T*
co
CA
>
O_3 r~-_ztost -t^-v0 rH CO

rlw f^NtO ncOVfMAÔ
,
o
M
B
II
C\J
co
52
CO
CO
-3-
CM
U
o
(X
In
O
O
Ph
s
o
M
E?
ca
JQ
,o
r-i
o
rH
o
H
r-l
-3- -d
OHCO OcoJH canO CA m ia
<n\AU\u\ i^c^ckH -^jno O
CO
1A
CO
t^-
cnj
OOOOOOOHHHcvjWWCM
C=m
ca
?O
C\J
M
O
1
S
a
o>
CD
CD
JC
Ec
8
4
c
M
CA CNJ
ca ca
o
jj
o
CM
CNJ
/"v
\AO\0-^00
"LAnO
t^-r^H nfr\fnc\lOO
OvOco fH
CA-=t1ANO CO 0\ rH
OOQQOHHHn
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHH
ooooooooooooooooooo
rHc\j-zfVr\r-Or^co ca
c*-
CNJ
\A
CNJ
ON
o
H
1A
-=r
U
C
r-i
CNJ
II
II
>
"^
U
O
O
U
O
PU
P-
XI
M
O
a
E-<
T*
o
o
a
fl
"lAHOCNJCNJCOOOOCOCNJCOCNj'lA
_j-zt-^tA o nnw wo c^-cj o\
vOCOCOOOc\J-3't -C\iÔc\lvOC\j\A
CO
cnj
cr\
CNJ
ca
OOOOHHrlrlwNr^ r, J J
CNJ
x
0)
o
M
O
Eh
53
to
a>
je
o
c
H
^^
o
H
s
II
O CO \D
OOQOHrHcNiCNj nJÔcOOJvOcoO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHiHcj
-ZfvQ f- 0\-Zt D
CNJ
CO vO
r^CMC^CO
r-t
ooooooooooooooooooo
CA
X
oo_^C^-_^(H_^_d-0 O caT-A O
CO Os O 1A r O r-t^-_^coco CNJ
O O rl H H N W (n3lT>\0 CO
0,
II
>>
-<J
\A
CNJ
II
o
O
u
o
vO
co
CO
CO
CO
-^

OOOOOOOOOOOOO
fcn
rA
-^
>,
t-i
Os
<A
X
r-
CM
co
2
O
M
B
g
vO
"LA
cCNJ
CA
CNJ
o
H
CNJ
^s
CO
en:
<J
t=>
or
O
c
e
a
lACNVAHHr-CMAHOQlACO
O
_^1AvO On-ÔO 1A O NO ON
O
H tAMO
QQ
OQOOOOQOQQQrHHcvjmrô^
C\J
.c
o
H
r-l r-H C\l
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CNJ
(lb
LOAD
OolAvO
O\A0OO
C\jU\XA-^r~
N1ACO
O-OnOcnjcanOcOCO OHHCNcOV\0\
OCM-ctco O rAt OoanOONcnjnOOnHcnj ca -3 -d
p-
38
U
o
CO
O
U
II
>>
-O
CO
-3
0II
vO
CNJ
II
U
o
Pw
o
o
P-,
TABLE
3f
LATERAL DUCKLING OF DEEP BEAM WITH ELASTIC RESTRAINT AT CENTROID

(SPRING CONSTANT - 12.5 lb/in)
LOAD
P (lb)
0.0
16.60
22.09
29.18
35.53
38.62
(inches)
0.0
0.012
0.022
0.037
0.063
0.081
0.107
0.118
0.127
0.137
0.LU7
0.157
hi. 1*0
U2.90
U3.63
UU.oo
UU.50
U5.20
1.77xlO -3
2.10
2.59
2.75
2.91
3.12
3.30
3.U8xlO"J
19xlO- 2
4x
- 5b. 5 lb
3.U3xlO"3
Ay
I
'cr
'o C r
S5.S
21
= 2.59
39
P cr
g
o
M
e
i
a
^D
H
LA
rA-^-T'LA'LnvO
C--
On rH
1A CO
CM vO
vO
\A
t*-
OOOOOOOHHrioiww
g
g
^-^
Gf
CO
0)
E-i
EC
c
H
^^
l-l
o
H
o
w
QcdCJ
0 ^tOCr 00 rH"LAO\cAr-IO\_rj-CM ^^^c^J-d-^
QO
OO
OOO
O
rlHHoo
fnnÂNO\Hn4
o
OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH
CM CC
0_d-H r^vOvO
fAÔ
oooooooooooooocoooooo
CM
T^
r>-vO_3CMvC'LAt/\r-0\0
-d
vO
CM
,c
,D
(Dlnr^co NO-a'vO o o "la o o

C-_-tO MACONCOCCOHHCX
fei
7o
To
3
1A
CM
\A
-d-
vO
iH
LA
CM
U
o
Oh
II
II
ct;
>
"3
rj
U
O
O
U
o
Oh
PL.
To
o
H
Eh
a c
O 43
HH
E-t
co -=r
wh
X u
M Eh
E-i
CO
5S
O
M
6
3
Oh
CO
CD
x:
HOvOinOUM^nOlA
OvClAWÔO
O m O OnOvO
0\ O CM vO OlAO\\A>O OOOHHHCM wconn CM
o
H
O
H
CA--?--J
mMO OlAP^CM-d-rACO'LACMO'LA
OOQQOHHHw
n-3U\NO\cvU\CO CK
W
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHiH
On CO
\AvO
^"^
e
o
rH
Oh
rn
vO
CM
f>-
?o
iH
_rt
\A
t*~
ooooooooooooooooooooo
rH
"LA
fA
CM
SO
_d
-CJ
H
CM
vO
"LA
"LA
n
n
II
>>
Oh
o
o
Oh
6
rA
CO
o
o
g
O
M
8
a
vO
X
<ACO cm C- c^ cacc vO
"LA
/*"N
E-J
0
Q>
Eh
Q
3
H
iH
r-l C?\
\A
CO
LA
"LA
-g
c
H
N~^
II
CM
CM
Eh
C-
Oh
53
5,
ooooooooooo
M
O
>
o
H
X
rA
O nHlAONlAOMHlA
C^-OnOn
O OHHcvi
nJÔ
<
o
P>H
pa
o
rH
1
o
r-jvOvO r-_ztrH H O
H _3
rH
fA
CM CA-d
OOO
rlHwnÔwO
JcvjO t--c>> X
Q
OOOOOOOOOOHcm o^-zt_-t_r}- 1A
o
3
MO
H
-^
CO
r>-
C-
ct
Oh
f-
"LA "LA
0\AO\0\0 rH
H
rÔ-d'C^COCM CvjoOXA
cm
VMA t O
fA cm r~\\0
H O co TA co
OsOHrH
_-t_Cj_ZtlTv'lA'Lr\
OCM-Cjr-rH-^t^-O fAMO 0\n\0 0\C\jXACO

P~\0-\<n_H
H H H CM
C\J
CM CM
Uo
-q
>>
_d
U
o
VA
LA
CM
Oh
1
II
"ô
a
^H
u
o
Oh
o
o
Oh
CO
SB
r^
o
M
13
.
s
B
r^
rH
O
O
HX
HX
Nr-HiAnô
on cm O O xa
ia r
HvOCvlO\HVf\HM t--4rlrl\A-3
_zr_dvo c- o nô JvnniAvo vo 0\

1
liN
t^-
fr,
CO
1A
r-
CM
<?
g
S3
C
E-h
O
M
PE
o
HO\WO^JH-^JCNwCON\AnCO(nO
a,H
rH CM m1AOTA\AfnvO\ArHvO lAC*-C^-_c*vO_J
H
OQQO O HrlcvK^^ÔO w mMD O\0\H
1
CO
^*
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHrHrHrHrHrHCM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
1A
_zr
3
<n
CO
"LA
CM
Ph
||
U
o
o
II
II
CM
-=t
CM
CM
t-i
x:
II
O
H
CM
^-v
OOOOHHHNtMrifînoro
F-4
ri
>
p.
p.
<n
H C
O rH
X
M
H
_
CO O
3d
W
cm
CO
CD
o
M
6
3
X
OsvC4wOrlM^CN
">OcoO(\i JO rH
UWO vO t-OO
a
E
S
q
M
o
fl
CM?\0 O
OOrHrHrHHCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
^
CO
Q)
X!
C
H
\A
vO
On
ia
C-
CM
H
On m t C
1A c\
m
CM
m
rl
Jl^>a3
H
O
O
(^
H
ri
r^44\A
3
O O H w
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHrHrHHrHrHrH
CM
m-JvO O
vO
fA
1A
_d-
C^-
<n
co
s
o
en
P,
CO
H-
i
^>
cy
>>
-^
vO
Ph
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHHHrHrHrH
co
1A
1l
CM
i
o
H
o
ni
X
o
CM
rn
Ph
nmao
ON_d"u\
OnO O-JnO O
XACO
r-iT^ CM CM
Oncn
fn vO vO CO 1A cm C^Cvl r^NO
m m_3/_d-_4tA1AVA1A\A'A LAlA
,
ia
II
<^
VC
rj
u
o
r-i
-=r
H
CM
^
"O
XA
TJN
P-.
|l
II
II
o x"
<5 H
O w O
^
P,
o
o
rH
CM
c-'iAcMvOtAONONC--\A
^^
OOOOgHoJ^rl^t-nt^Jcs/^^M
m,4l.(\VMA
OgOOOOQOrlHw4U\0\O
Ft
U
O
1A
UN
OOOOOrHrHrHCMCMCMCMCM
c\j_z3-r^'Lr\ONONNO'Lr\co'Lr\0
H
CM
H
CO
CO
-J
o
vO
X
H
HO
X
CM vO CO -J t CO On
rH On On m On_JvO niACN J
rH t^-OW\r-COCO On
nJ\ACO
HO
B
S
CvO
f\
r-
II
*3
rr\
||
rH
CM
II
o
H
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
Ph
||
I6
o
Io
2;
M
K
-3-
fn
[^rlCNXAt^JN
O
P-,
U
o
o
Ph
CO
52
cr\
JO
6
3
fe
s
rH
O
M
Co
CNJ
CN.
OvOlAJ
X
rH NO _d"LT\ rH nO NO
CD _=T
CM
-=JVf\ CO H On CO On rH in On
-d
r--
1A
C--
CnI
CO
NO
i-H
OOOO rHrHcMCMO"\r"\C'-N_=t_d
?O
CM
o
M
^N
CO
CD
9
E3
O
c
t_
Cc!
83
H
O
M
On
CO
C\J
o
^^N.
3.
w
CO
0)
rA
II
II
1A
CNJ
II
fH
u
o
o
p-
Ph
-a
CVJ
r-i
C*-
t*- t>-
T*
1
O
H
UN
O
H
CM
O
- cm in co
H cm n^jt^w cîr\ô^) O
8
OOOOOHHwminvOOcoocoCNCAa
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
r-i
CNJ
o
c
fn
P-,
S
^
r-i o-\ I
38
_d
.c
i>-
C\i
^~"
-d
CO
r \r\
oOw
*
QOOOHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH
-d-
3
ONincM-zfiAiAO-dco Q co
JrlÂlAW
NCNO
nO
_zjtAvo
-^vrNtfNvc no
|3J
S
c
o
H
O
r-i
|l
3
NO
c\
<V\
CO
o
M
g
B
M
nOco
OQOOQQHW
i^\A CN\AU\vO Ov H w J
OOOOOOOOOOOOOrHHrHrHCMCMCM
J2
O"
r^cococo_3-\0'ir\t*-\0-3-0 o-no co
rOQHcjlACOnHajvO
OvcÔ\C0rHC*-0\._3-
CM
rA
u
o
Pu
t>
-<J
II
XA
"LA
_d
_d
NO
CM
_d
nB
II
CA
u
o
O
Ph
P-
w
So
s
o
M
6
3
T\
1
tanw
nO
O
r<~\
rr\
x>
r-i
O
H
O
H
*>
oow\pju\nO
CM U\ m O On -d H cm cm MO
rîAO
rHCM_d'C--OCOCOCOO.-=tCO
co
1A
CM
CM
OOOOHrlNwnfr\f044
&-.
r-
||
fA
CM
W
g
S
9
O
JNiAnH join3vr\0\HXA
QOH
Q
OOO
OQQHr^XAONlAXAvOCOOcg
OOOOOOOOOOOOOrlHHrlwWW
x:
r-\
c
H
'
'
o
H
3
CM
Q 3
S H
PH
X
rA
-3
||
o
O
Q1A1AO
O 1A
mvo ooco\o o\04no w
o H-d-cô
rH c^ CA -d -d -d TA V\
H O NO CACO 1ACO iArr\'iAtAiAtA>-A'iA
H *
O\CÔn-4^)0OCO
\a o\ on
CM -=3
C*- r-j
cm cm
rACA_d-d
k2
f\
*>>
<]
r]
CO
1A
P-,
CM
II
fn
II
-rt
CM
.c\
||
rH
CO
5,
CM
^"^
o
P-,
O
O
Pu
o
H
CO
s
o
M
B
a
is
p^r^CNlAOsrÔ
t.
r-|
Os On
ON On OS
C*-_ct
o^fnc^-îArcoco
ooooooooooo
II
X3
r-i
Re*
O
M
o
t-
\A
iH
II
s~^
it
r^
(0
X
o
8 Hc
r-
-=r
H
CM
0)
N Cs O m CO
OOOQQQQHrHHCNJ
r-i
rl
IT, Is-
(\i
t*-
CVJ
r^
CO CN \C vO
r\-4-31A^\f\
o ooooooooooooooooooo
s
I
r-i
rH
CO
-3
U
o
o
^
O
eu
a.
II
O
M
En
CO
f
c-\
O
X)
r-i
2Urn
C
3
*>>
<J
,^-s
43
t-1
O
O
r"-c^c\j
"UAOO On
cm -=f
r-
cnQ onOia
OO
C
iH-^-^r-0\0_^'Lr\--3-_^C--rH\AvO
O r>-\NO 0\mo\V\0 m-CfvO vO MO
-n* r>-
r-(HHc\Jc\)C\jc\jo~\r^\_^'Lr\\rN'LrvVf\'Lf\\r\
Pi
E-t
a
5
H
5? CO
S
W
S
o
c3fc
r^
O
H
1
CO
52
O
M
&
a
&H
9
O
1
vO eg vO trwO UN
0\At-0\(\J tÔJ P~\vO

P^-^t^-OwO rH MO -j- rH MD
lnc\l
C\J
HX
CO On On CGO
P~\_^
Pn
OOOOOHCMCM
roJ4-31A\A\A
rH
CO
S
%
to
Cf
E-;
UN
II
11
CO
(P
CO
QrHrHc>j3cor^c\J-^'Lr\OcJ
O
O
o Ou\vo
OcQON_d'Cvl-=l'C7N
OOO ON^tvO-^rH-LTN-^r-XAO
v
p-\CO
OQQOQOrl^4COHJcOw\Ah-0\00
OOOOOOOOOOOHHrlwWNW^n
r*N
CM
O
H
3
r^
|
V\
-^
XA
\r\
II
U
o
a.
11
,,-s
,Q
iH
w
P,
f-
r>-
cm
OsO
o\
O t^-OIAMD-^Cg-Ct-Cf-dT^H CMr\M0
r^ mo
xr\ O cm c^_d-tr\"u-\NOvOvOvO
O cm -3 c^ O _^
r^^J-^XAIA'lA'LfNIA'LfMrvXA'LAXA
H rH CO mc\j
OVncO
On On
r-i
r-i
1i3
C\J
r-i
P
<
CO
"*3
>*
"O
*H
o
o
P.
o
rH
CO
2
o
M
rr\\Q
rH
S
M
II
ooooooooooooo
X
rH
XA
CM
o
CO
CA
II
II
CA
(0
0)
CJ
u
o
tÔOt^COOO
OH
n
O CM XA
OO
O ON r-t-d-cooso
CA-d'-d'-d'XAXAXAXAvO
nnnn
6
a
E
S
n
M *
Q
K
E
s X
8 He
'o
rH
CM
O
rH
ry
nc\i
rn^lACO CKO
J-t^-CMAt^- On
CM
n^J
OQOOOQOQOQHHHHHcvjC^CJr^r^r^
OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooooooo
fvi
CVJ
CM
1
o
rH
C\
o\
_d
-=}
o
co
rH
CM
II
U
o
o
u
o
(X
P-.
ii
M
Eh
r*
<]
rH
COXA
(lb)
LOAD
o
W1A
-3
t^-
C\J
vO
_ZJ
CM
OIAO>OnO
O r-_a-\Af>0\OvC
O -d s- H -^MO O CAMO On nO
I
HH
rH CM CM CM CM
XA XA -^ rH r>- CM r-- rH
XA O CM CAVAIAmO
fAcr\CA-Zt_d'XAXAXAXAXAXA
CM
0\ CM
E-<
T>
8
o
2
U
O
rH
CO
o
(H
^
o
En
13
fc
O
HX
O
fH
OO H
CA-^XAXA
l
En
25
CN
XA
<A OvO
0\ On f fA r>- CM On CA C-XA
cm -dco r- xa cm co r r>- cm
rH
t*-
CM CM
>
XA
I
s
a
OP
XA
^m
a
CO
CM
II
II
vOvOlAOvO t H CM rH-dT>-\0
O CNMD CM
OOHCMfA_CtMOvOtv-(HvOfAr^\CMCMCM
0)
Xo
CA
f
vO
On
OOOOOOOrHcAXAt^rHXAOvOCNrH
OOOOOOOOOOOOHrHcMCMCMfA
oooooooooooooooooo
XA
rA
CM
O
H
1
rH
XA
g
CA
XA
^-N
O ,D
H
5$ ~
Dh
MO
CM
OXAOsOxO
OCM-ÔXAXAt-r>-
CM -=J
C--
rH
rH
_d
C--
<H CM
CM ON
-d
rH
s
I
rACMXAcO rH CM _d XA XT* vO
CA-d-d-d XAXAXAXAXAXA
hh
>
-n
CM
II
u
o
ex,
-d-
CO
1
I
^
o
o
CU
X
X
-zfvo vao 0-^0
cm in-diaxa
<OconiAc\j-3corofloOco n\A-3\o c\
nmo
O ONr-fcNllAO^-J-Vr.l^VfWfWA
OOOOOOHHHriHHrlrlriri
_Cf _Z*
to
MD r- CO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
g
M
O
rH
tA
e
M
i
i
CO
en
fII
CO
N com f^vO
w
H UN CM CM -^CM MD
OO
OH
H ncMAO
t^-Nt^cococococo
HH w nr^^JVvvO
COOOQQQOOOQQQQOQOQCQ
11
in.
cmw
CO
i X
<!
CM
O
O
000000000000000000000000
oocooooooooooooooooooooo
O
H
l
CM
O
1
_zr
CM
rH
CM
P-
CO
rH
*n
CU
P-.
o
H
,0
On
||
rH
(lb)
LOAD
f v> vQ
CO
On
CM CM
H(îaoocoo cM_j--^fr-rôr lAf^cocM r--co H
O iaoncnO
O CNj-^t^rH_rtf~-0
O m\o On cm mD CNO Hcmoj nr^f^J
H HH W mvO
CM nnr\ rn-J-^-ÎA'LAUMA'UMAUWA
C\i
E-
CO
pq
CO
$
-5cm -dr^vr\\Ac\jO\fHOr^_ctr^\\AlA'Lf\
co H -cf rH vO Hco Jco r^vO
OHrHcNCNj rn -^ -^ V\ tr\
mm
OO
O
O
55
M
O
II
85
en
i.r\
20
Lf\
1
1
CO
CO
CO
-8
HcovOfHO O m-d-fHOUN-^rHP-O-ZfrHCM
N
O O
CM m-^MO r~-OOvOHo~\cot - coc?\ojC*-covO
_^md o\ rH
QQQQQQriw
mvr\ r O c^vo
Q
O OO OOOOOOOOOOOrHrHrHcMCMCMCMrn
rH MD
CO
O
H
r-i
en
H
CM
CO
1/\
1
h
O
O
P-.
-q
Os-=tO MD
JnvO NCOCOt^NOlf\CO r
O \AOO\O
CM P- iH
fr\-3
-3V\\f\\0
O CM -^J P- rH
-=f C O OA MD MD C\l1AO\H(M
Lf\'UN
r^3_d--=r\A\A"Lr\tA
rH H H CM
l_r\ f-
Oh
CVJ
LfN1-f\
CVI
US
*?
CO
'o
u
o
cn nif\r-H Hcjcocvj-^ffsNnOco
rH <A _h- \A \A C^- r- CO
-^?-^?t* On rH
O
OOOOOrlHHriHriHHHH
o
H
Eh
O
ft.
II
ooooooooooooooo
CO
-LA
B
o
M
o
S
h
PA
r--
pa
II
o
c
H
II
pa
CO
HHCJOJ rA-^-CflAvO C^cooj On On O m

OOOOOOOOOOOOCOpH o
ooooooooooooooooooocoo
ooooooooooooooooo ooooo
O
rH
CO
_3
en
H
CM
CM
CM
On
II
u
O
o
U
o
ft.
ft.
II
Eh
CO
*i
H
E-
jC
rH
CO
\A
M "LA
W rH
6
3
<tf
3
~
_ rÔc\jc\)-d'vO
cm -cf t
f^c\j
o-O
On
H rH
cm
rH
ft.
cm
c-\mo o*
cm cm
o^vO Ommiaco O H m c\j

rA<vNo^_3 _H;_H iA\A'iAlA LA
-
II
Eh
B|
^
CO
cc
o
o
T*
1
M
OA <M CO
MD GO TA 1A -3/ On
O On rH On O O K
c^vOO\C\jvOO\c\j-h/0-H;c\jOvOO
t^-
_d-
Cm
OOOrlrlrlCMN^
r\_J\AUWO
13
||
rH
PA
va
1
I
3
3
CO
CM
II
II
^-v
(0
CO
.G
O On-S/O
0\HU\OvO OvOIA rA"A O CM H O \A O
On
Q
id fATAIA 5- CO _=t O t- Os O 1A On On r- On fOOOQQQQQc^^VArÔriCM'lACOCMt^rHcA
OOOOOOOOOOOOOHr-lrHHrHcMCMfnr^
"LA
r-i
<Z*
pa
CM
o
3
CA
1A
"LA
-5
f-<
Cm
NOOJlA
OIAOnOnOnO Hw-3CVJ^tXAC^- JCJ O

Ocg-a-r-O-^r-o cano cm iago o Hcvi
t-\
r-\
CM CM
oo C-nO
OvO
On
xa ia ia
rA-=t-d -Cj 'lA\A LAlA'lAtA'LA'LAtA
,
U6
cm on _3
>>
^3
"O
Cvl
II
u
o
ft,
/-*
CO
3
II
9
<;
o
_H/
"LA
U
o
o
&,
TABLE
3n
LATERAL BUCKLING OF DEEP BEAM '.7TTH ELASTIC RESTRAINT AT CENTROID

(SPRING CONSTANT = co lb/in)
LOAD
LEFT QUARTER DEFLECTIONS
P (lb)
(inches)
0.0
2.57
U.92
7.97
11.01
11*. 11
0.0
0.0001
0.0005
0.0015
0.0025
0.0035
17. XU
20.1*
0.001*8
0.0061*
23.5
26.7
29.9
33.0
36.2
39.2
0.009U
0.0120
0.0LU5
0.0190
0.0238
0.0325
1*2.5
0.01*15
U5.5
U8.7
0.0555
0.0810
0.1000
50.1*
51.1
52.0
52.9
53.3
53.7
5U.2
55.0
55.2
55.5
55.7
56.0
56.2
0.2022
3.
71*
0.21*02
1*.
37
0.2530
1*.59
0.261*0
h.76
U.97
0.2765
0.2988
0.3106
Ay
58.5 lb = P cr
$.' L3xlO"J
P 3r
Po
cr
58.5
=
=
21.1*
1*7
2.73
-3
0.1*50
0.181*1
0.1608
0.1683
3 DxlO"
0.1*00xl0
O.U85
0.575
0.658
0.829
0.977
1.220
1.665
1.986
2.16
2.58
3.0U
3.16
3.U8
0.1101*
0.131*2
AX
#/P
5.33
5.53x10-3
JcoiAjr^soONco
O co m r-_3CO
O CM
-^M3
ia O o
OÔO C\jVf\0\ACO O^XAOO O^vO
CM
o
C"-
\AlAvO\O f-C^-NcOOOooa\0\0
iH
o
rH
ooo
H o
H
iH rH
^--^
O
M
CO
(1)
e
W
-s
"LAO O^COOCO Ot^-OOCOXAOIACOCOCjOUN

rH iH CNIAvO J-OCO CMvOVr\Hr OnC"\nOCO On
<nJÛ\vO r-COCOOsÔHHHWCVjCNJCO
C\J
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM (\ICMfr\rr\Cr\r-\Crs\fr\rr\cr\
^-n
s
B
< w
M
COCOCOOGCOCOCOCOCOOOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
vO r- ao On
O H
CM c\._3T-f\vC
NccOsOHw
(^
^
o
o
CM
as
O
O
O
CnJ
_=t
C\l
i
o
Ow
CACO nXAvOvC CM HJ
O
0^
O _ct co
OHwoj
m(nj^j
vO cm
UN
_r}
c^y
II
?o
CO
rH
3
\o
O
rH
-P*
^s^
H
X
r-VN r^-tAvO
HiHCOC^-^-OnOOCMX
\AÔr>-OcMvO H Oncm
CM
II
OOOHHHwwm
s
O
HH
g
*-*-
io
Q)
-s
OcOlAOOoj6o<n^^cocO\AOQ
-=} CO >~ ~3 \J\ CO CM r^r^CM On_cJ-vO O O O

O OOOHCMC^^r>-COr-l_3\nC^-COOiHCM
cr\
OOOOOOOOOOHiHHiHHcmcmCM
a ^
^~>>
a
a
o ^
i-^
COCOCOCOCO COCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
CM o^_d-\A
CM -d "LA C On O
rlHrlCJCgWCMCVI^fn^CMnnn
UM^-OlACO O
t~\
P-.
U8
rj
>>
xq
rÔOvOOOCsJrHOOt^CNCOpÔQOOO^-t^-cjr^
h t^-nr^ O c^voco n^-CNO
-J-T-rwD MD r oo co On O O rH
cm r^r^_^t_H;_H-_H-'LfMf\ Lf\vO
o\vO_H-t^-rô On-^cm CMr\
CM
c\i
HrHrHHHiHrHHiHHV-lrHrHfHrH
O
M
Eh
O
co
JC
OOOOOOOOOOQO-tf\OOOOOOOOOl/\
OO
O O ONt -'LAO-CtCOC\j'LAC\lt^-CNO
CM C^- ON
0^ On r On
CM c^-CTnO r- co On
r-i
cvj
c\j
www
c\j
r^\ _ct
-h-vcnnO
Nt^-t^-coco On On On
nnn^n^r^nnnnnnnn J
CQ
b
Eh
(gm)
c c r r r c^-c^-t^-t^-c^-r^-r r^-r
OnO iH cm
J\avO f- ccj On O H cm cr\^t
r^r^p^r^r^r^r^r^_ct_^_zt-^3^J_^_H;_H;_H;\A xA LA'Lr\U>
c^-r
LOAD
c^
c^
CM rr\_=tl/\MD f- co
Eh
<
o
O
a,
5=>
CO
ii
&
vO
On
O
o
O
CM
O
r
ON
P-C^-conOnO
s
r-j
o\
ii
CO
CO
CO
cn t^
r-i c\j
CM
c^_d-
II
O
H
CO
On
NO
?O
1
1
2
H
h
>i
4wW\covOooOOOrf\r^SMACO
X
CO VOi -^ V\ rH CO V\
m
CM CO
CM VO CC -Tt "UN C^
vCNOO\0 OHM(nJ\At>-CNH JooOn
tr\
CM
1
"LfN
OOOOHHHHHHrlHrlwNNî^
Eh
M
[ACTION
Inches)
OsCOCMCMOnOnOnp-\CMCMnOm2>0\0'Un._h;OnOnOOV\.00
r^XACO
OncmIAOn-ÔnC^nO
OOOOHHHHHwPJW^
r-CM-d"NO
C rÔ\ONC'\,CM-d'ON
Ov
a,
p-x_a"Lr\vO
fa
N-^
(gm)
c- r
r~- c
U\ f- On
LOAD
NN
mN
f~- c*-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHiHiHCM
r--r--r^-r--r*-c^-C"~t^-c-- f-r~-t*-c\i t
crH CM nJIAO
CO ONO rH CM n-^^VM^CKO H
r\
HHHrlrlHHHH(vjOJPJC\JNMNCVlW(n(
c
C--
U9
r>-
b
^j
[^-OOtAOvO O\Op0(Orr\W0DvOfjO\AOv0OOsJO
lAHlAHvOOlA0\JOs-^0\wNCJK)0J-3v0K)0\Hfn
CM nn-4^JlAU\\AvOÔ t^C--COCO 0\0\O O O O O H
ririHHHrlH
CM
r-i
55
"-<
O
M
B
9 5
OvC
U\ M3 r^_ct_d-c\J CMCOvO-dTÔ CM vO On rH _3mD
^NCOO
Hc\) n-4V\vO CÔCOONOrlOJCJWOjnni^
COffiCSCGOOCOCOCOCOOOCOOOCOCOCOCOOOCDOOOOCOCOOO
(0
<D
si
9
o
1-3
XAOrÔCÔrÔOOcoOOOOrîHr-coOooOcvj
_g- -3t^-
HrlHcXjCNJWCMWCvjMCOCMOJOjnnf^nnnnnn
OH
CM
f^_3"lA\0 C--CO CN
Hcv)
nJUwO
C^-cO
OnO
U
o
O
iH cm
Ph
1
en
rH
c
in
O
O
O
O
CM
3
3
r-
O
O
O
83
GO
r-
_Cj
rÔ\JO
O MD
JNO JCDH
OOOHHriw
-3
vO mD
O
O
\A
cm cm lr\
vO
cm
CM
II
T>
ES
I
g
M
B
o
H
C^
CT\
"O
"LA
II
OOO OOOOOOOOOHrHH
sz;
O m
M
B 1
a
a
^
&4
a -
HrHcM r^_d-vO r co O H^fr-HcocoHco-3na\ uwo

OOOOOOOOOrHHHHCMCMfmAvOcOOiHo^-^
n
<
O
cococococococococoaacococooocococococococDoo
1A r- On H CM cr\_=}\r\\0 t*-CO 0\Orlt\Jn-^lAvO t^-CO CA
Q)
'a
v_^
CM
"LTN
C^CM
0\(^^vOONH(\J
ON
_=f
UN CÎA
OO
OV\
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHiHrHrH
iHrHrHHrHfHHHHCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
Ph
50
MO
CA
O
NWlArlOJvO O^JIACOO O HHCO
O0Nnl"-03lAO4C\U\U\NlAOcO
CM H CM CM O^-Xj-'LA'Lrv'lAvO O- CO O mvO
-Cf
<3
r-J
-q
51
H
s
A
a
u
o
c
o
H
-P
O
CD
H
H
X!
CO
CO
w
H
U-
52
\0
a
u
W
o
p*
to
c
H
O
H
+3
HO
vO
Oh
-3
IO
.O
CM
Id
J
-3
o
a.
to
S3
c
o
H
Po
3
3
o
CM
ei
SU
Fig. 3a,
Fig. 3b.
Fig. 3.
Apparatus Used for Small Deflection Tests of

Fig. Ua
Fig.
Fig. U
lib.
Close Up Views of Small Deflection Apparatus Showing

End Supports, Loading Device and Method of Measuring
Centroid Deflections
56
Fig. a.
Fig. 5b.
Fig.
5>
Views of Small Deflection Apparatus Showing Device

Used to Impose Elastic Restraint at Centroid
57
I
I
H -H
xi
0)
XO
qoa
CO
\A
(D
3-D
PQ
II
-P
C
O
-P
g
iS
CO
E
o
S c
CD
H
-P
-.
"'o
CO
0)
-B
18 H XI
c/>
<
-p
CO
H
Ef<
^
g
o
II
-P
B c
CO X)
O -P
58
ccj
C -P
O CO
O C
<B
o
CD -H
PQ ,o
CO
CM
So CO
O
0>
-rl
^>
00 rH
CO
05
;3fc
Fig.
7a.
Fig.
Apparatus Used for Large Deflection Tests of

7b.
First ?.fode Large Deflection Shape of

Deep Beam
59
Fig. 7c.
Vibrating the End Supports to Achieve

Equilibrium in Large Deflection Tests
60
CO
PO
H
tfl
fc
+>
dig
-a
o o
Mw
CO
CO
o
C
2o
o
H
PO
3
I
3*
cfl
oo
5!
PL,
61
o
3
to
C
o
H
Po I
P2
CO
as
nJ
&
<H
P
CO
CO
PO 42
hP
yj
I
no
to
CO
62
p.
CD
A
o
to
p
to
d)
E-"
C
o
H
+3
(75
-H
^
O
,0
O
Po O
H
0}
II
^P
C C
O
cfl
tiO
^S
3*
On
bo
co
vO
CO
CsJ
vO
CsJ
cvi
cu
63
CO
O
NO
B
H
p.
0)
a
M
o
CO
CO
C
o
H
+3
o
(H
CD
c
H
o
oo
o
O
H
Ch<^>
5
a\
H ,0
^H
i.
h
O
H
O
II
C
o-p
iH co
(X C
co
-P
vO
O
o
cfl
h6
rH
0)
UO
5
-^
o
o
-P
3
o
to--'
on
6U
*-i
Pco
NO
CM
d
-^
CM
d
1
CVJ
CM
1!
Ph
<d
CM
co
H
o
vO
-H
(0
,o
co
CD
CO
E-
en
H
o
<->
H T3'->
CO
-H
eO
HChO
*S8
Hsp
(1)
9
O
O
^
c
w
cO
iH
o
m
CO
n}
3
co
PC
+3 3
O -P
en
CO
CD
CO
o
O
CD
?
CO
MD
CM
65
O
CD
-r\ r-i
JH
g&3
CO^^
-3
o
o
bfl
I C
Xi
-P
On
H
fc
a
m
-P
CO
o
H
P
O
0)
66
p-
a
O
CO
-p
eo
0)
Eh
C
O
H
+3
0)
<M
r-l
<g
fn
H
CO
-p
Ho
*
II
PC
n)
+>
15
o
to
CO*-'
On
67
o
d
Co
A
CO
ex
iH
Q)
A
<n
(0
+3
E-
3
d
G
o
H
PO
?1
o
'1-
o
.
o
q
H*^
<H
H
iH
rH
<
,0
c\A
CO
o
d
l^
On
U
O
<H
-P
o
o
_^
o
d
w C
O P
+5
ClJ
H
H OO
tg
i-l
-H
l
"
O W
Wv^
fe
s
d
<M
On
bO
68
p.
a
a
$
H
O
(0
o
H
P
Ho
(X,
On
sso
CO
o
c
-g
-H
ft
o
do
69
t-i
O
e
flj
-d-
p.
0)
a
*
C\J
l-H
to
+3
(0
0)
-
oo
H TJ
+ H
o
H
O O *""*
k
iH -P C
H C -H
0)
c$>
r-i
H o\n
co
o
o
^C
H
v-^
ca
3|l
u B u
o to
rt +s
0)
C
+j S nl
45
O
a a s
h
nScS
-P
r-i
hwe
lee
P <H
o
o
?o
C\J
70
A W9OB
CO^^
2
On
s
o
ing
U)
p.
CO
a
H
o
CO
03
c
o
H
-P
O
Q>
H ^~x
a
H
,
HH
H
-J2
M
b
o
<H
10
II
PC
01
Ho P3
c3
3 M
C
co
i
x
-p
mP-
CO
On
hO
(X,
71
o
P.
d>
a
o
1
H
<v
P
H
3
CO
O
o
<H
CO
c
o
^-^
c
H
o
o
o
sy
PO
H
"^
0)
*5
fn\
, -5
H
p-=*
O
rHXA
H
H
HP
| d
X!
p2 p
P-.
II
cd
r-i
to
o c
wg
a
a)
td
On
vO
72
u)
a
u
-H
-1
B
-
v\
-o
\\
>
rH
UN
t^
o
\0
V\
1A
co
II
u
o
S-i
CJ
Oh
P-
p.
jO
rH
U\
-3
cfl
0)
oo
H
d
\A
CO
+3
p-
CO
CD
\>
rH
(0
"
Eh
_3
H
P
C
o
**
^\
PO
ro
TO.
^\
H
a
91
>-
\
\
^%
^1
+>
as
&
rH
3~C
<
<H
p
M
Si
>
9
d
-p
M
**
C
Y\_
PO
HV
<H
a
rH H
H
O
x:
gj
rH
^"
o
ft,
+2
o
o
%%
.*
On
bO
CJ
o
d
\\
73
tU)
C
U
-H
co^-^
-3
CO
H<S
iH
CO
-P
o
o
CD
-
II
<M
4J
o
o
O
C\J
00
2
C/5
El
<8
p.
a
o
CO
-P
CO
CP
E-
C
O
H
+5
H
.
.5
C\J
H +3
OO
a 9
CD
vO
O
o
rH
H
X>
15
Os
8
o
7U
U)
H
fa
III
o
d
C\J
_
Yk.
\
x>
rH
\ \
V
UN
.3
"
\\
~"
^^
JO
rH
l*"\
-3
CO
**
CO
l>-
(0
U\
u\
+3
II
.O
rH
h
o
CO
h
o
a.
ft,
c
o
rH
G
O
10
\\ \\
\\ \\
\\ \\
1-1
T3
-H
\\
\\\
-P
1
&
CO
rH
-H
x>
3^
ctf
o
rH
o
u
o
vO
o
d
PO
<D
O $"
cM
b0
%a
1
7*
tuD
J -H
" "
CO
H +3w
o
H O
H
<3
h
CO
On
tn r^
s<
^
5
<t
ID
&
\\ \\
*-<
\\
\\ \
fl
rH
a>
rH
<H
<tl
\\ \\
Po
"H
+>
H
+3
h
+>
w
S
A
PL
A
<n
o
o>
+a
(0
Q>
a
O
H
PO
H
<M
A
H
<D
p
H
-
>0
AS
v
h
O
rQ
H
O
w
<H
o)
_a-
fc^
o^
ii
-p
o
H -P
$so
0)
HO
H
A H2
1
T3
S3
CK
M
El
ph
76
o
bO
77
CD
8
o
CO
-p
CO
C
O
PO
CD
T3
H
C0
cfl
H
ctj
&
*d on
u
o
CO
CO
CO
ct)
-p
CD
CO
CO
Sp
c c
o
H
CD
PP
*H
CO
Oh
78
-P
CkO
ad'
o
r"N
Q
J
C
6
cfl
<
,q
rH
CX
01
"*
r^
ON
03
\
-H
-P
<D
En-
C in
o -p
O
CM
o
CO
UN
CO
UN
II
II
(h
Cu
Ph
CO
CO
II
II
u\
UN
U
o
H
+3
<u
fi
rV
o
C
rl
*v
X>
X>
i-H
XI
rH
UN
.3
ro\
-3
u\
c\
II
II
-P
P
PS
10
to
\
Xi
rH
II
p
c
p
(
cfl
q
H
UN
UN
rH
II
crj
s
o
g>
H
3h
(4
c
U
P.
P.
P-
P-
Ctn
CD
rH
C/T
o
H
O
<u
C
(3
h
o 3
II
s
o
IIS
,q
ii)H
-P _
5*15
O
H
Ph
r-j
io
(0
Q)
-P T3
ra
(0
C C
C
crj
-H <S C
H
-P
O U)\
rO
H-rlH
L
4j^
Q,V\
3
O O OT 1A
M^^H
0)
t,
<D
o\
&0
J
OT T3 f^
-P
05
crj
(D
XI
rH
CD
H
H+iO
-P
1A
c? *
H
H -P tH
CO
rH
crj
O 3
UN
h
0-
P-
rO
iH
?o
79
fl
(0
g
H
o
CO
p2
H
+3
o
(0
w
(0
-3
o
H
CD
>>
-P
H
,0
a)
TJ
a)
H
-P
Po
B
o
tuO
C
H
H
ID
AS
o
CO
<
p.
r-i
g
-P
3
H
c O
-s
-a
p
5-
0
o
Oh
o
I
Oh
80
ciS
A
en
(0
H
HbO T3
O
ctf
(D
tt
.O
U
a
-p
E2
(-.
-p
ol
cx.
-a
0)
CO
03
CD
c
o
5s
H
-P
CO
O C
O
(1)
rH H
<M -P
a
1
TJ
,3
81
Hm
<H
&
CO
At
vO
Centr
eglass
t
\A
S|
c
-=f
u B
O CO
Q
O
H
P
co
lection
hwell
-P <H
8
H
CM
t>0
id
CM
*.
.s
82
CO
V)
aJ
XI
HMH
O o
^
&K +c
8
Sh
+3
to
Po
H
T3
P.
fl)
f,
P
(/)
<^
0-
C
o
03
CD
to
H
+s
C
o
H
<H H
a>
p
a o
&H
3a
<D
o
rH
83
A
CO
9 2
>
,0
p.
^
o
p
CTJ
H
X)
P
<p
C)
fj
Ph
(0
od
Q)
25
H
-P
(0
<D
O C
H H
P
a H
Ti
H
i
as
T3
O
rH
tn
0i
8U
t^
CD
NO
CO
CO
H EhO
M -P
<ti
CO
\A
jO
^.^
-H
v_.
CO
Cj
u
u 3
O CO
CO
-p as
H
tx,
w
c
o
rH
H
-H
-P
rry
CM
0)
CO
J3
-P H
<Z)v_^
5
H
bo
85
ca
a
10
3
MX>
Z
>
&
U
o
H
8
E-<
P
CtJ
-p 73
Ho
0)
0-
c
o
in
a)
<D
H
P
Q)
rH O
H H
-P
rS
bOH
as
H
id
86
e
CTJ
A
H
C
H
O
H
-P
o
c
o
H
-P
a
I
TJ
cfl
bO
87
-3
%
U
o
I
s
5!
CD
IX
&
88
vO
-=J
bO
u
CO
o
-P
Ho
-P
O
0)
H
a
5
o
0\
co
89

10 1 1 1024 231 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1 1 1024 231 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Theses and Dissertations

Thesis and Dissertation Collection

The lateral instability of a simply supported deep

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

THE LATERAL INSTABILITY OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED

DEEP BEAM SUBJECTED TO A CONCENTRATED

LOAD AT ITS CENTROID

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

The investigation of the lateral buckling of a simply sup-

ported deep beam was conducted as a portion of the general research

partment of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University.

preciation is hereby extended to the United States Navy and its

discussion of the problem

Test Data for Buckling of Euler Column (Individual Tests

Averaged Data for Buckling of Euler Column

Lateral Buckling of Been Beam Without Elastic Restraint (Test No. 1)

Lateral Buckling of Deep Beam Without Elastic Restraint (Test No. 2)

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

Deflection Data of Fibreglass Beam Measured at

Deflection Data of Fibreglass Beam Measured at

Deflection Data of Snring Steel Beam

Load-Deflection Curve for Euler Column

Southwell Plot for Buckling of Euler Column

Large Deflection Plot for Euler Column

Apparatus Used for Small Deflection Tests of

Close -Up Views of Small Deflection Apparatus

View of Small Deflection Apparatus Showing Device

Beam Buckled in First Mode (Spring Constant

Beam Buckled in Combination of First and Second

Beam Buckled in Second Mode (Spring Constant =

Apparatus Used for Large Deflection Tests of

First Mode Large Deflection Shape of Deep Beam

Vibrating the End Supports to Achieve Equilibrium

Load-Deflection Curves for Small Deflection Tests

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of Deep

Load- Deflect ion Plots for Small Deflection Tests

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Load-Deflection Curves for Small Deflection Tests

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Expanded Southwell Plot for Deflections of Left

Southwell Plot for Small Deflection Tests of

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Expanded Southwell Plot for Deflections of Left

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Load-Deflection Curves for Small Deflection Tests

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Load-Deflection Curves for Small Deflection Tests

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

LIST CF FIGURES (Cont.

Southwell Plots for Small Deflection Tests of

Effect on Lateral Buckling Load of Various

Load-Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

Southwell Plot for Fibreglass Beam

Large Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

Load-Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam

Southwell Plot for Fibreglass Beam

Large Deflection Plot for Fibreglass Beam