Lehigh University

Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering
1-1-1953
Compression tests on short steel columns of
rectangular cross-section, 1953
G. Haaijer
Follow this and additional works at: htp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-
reports
Tis Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
preserve@lehigh.edu.
Recommended Citation
Haaijer, G., "Compression tests on short steel columns of rectangular cross-section, 1953" (1953). Fritz Laboratory Reports. Paper 35.
htp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/35
VffiLDED CONTINUOUS AND THEIR COMPONENTS
... __---.-......... .... ............... __...... ... ............
PROGRESS REPORT S
COMPRESSION TESTS ON SHORT STEEL COLUMNS
OF RECTANGULAR CROSS-SECTION
By
Gaerhard Han1jer
(Not for publication)
This work has been carried out aa a part of an investigation
sponsored jointly by the Welding Research Council and the De-
partlnent of the Navy wi th fund_s furnished by the folJ.. ovJing:
American Institum of Steel Construction
American Iron and Steel Institute
Insti tute of Research" Lellig11 Uni 'v'erst ty
Column Council (Advisory)
Office of Naval Research (Contract No. 39303)
Bt1.reau of Ships
Bureau of Yards and Docks
Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics
University
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
June 15.. 1953
Fritz Laboratory Report NO. 205E-2
205E-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II. of Theory
III. Scope of Tests
IV. Test Set-up and Procedure
V. Results
VI. Summary
li'igu:re a

1
2
3
3
5
6
205E.2
COMPRESSION TESTS ON SHORT STEEL COLUMNS
OF RECTANGULAR
- -_.... -
I. Introduction
__ ..... _-..._
Sj.nce 1947 a reses..ccl} on Continuous
Fran16s Rnd Components
il
has been under wa.y at Fritz En-
gineeril:lg Laboratory. Multiple tests on beams, C01Un1l1S and
connections sllowed that some TI1Glnbers reached the calculated
plastic hinge value and sustained it for a considerable
tion. In contrary, other sl)eclmens fla.iled prematl1.rely dll.e to
local buckling.
The seriousness of such premature was empha-
sized in Progress Report Q* and a study was proposed on local
inelastic buckJ..ing of structur1al steel members. The original
program was modified following the ffilggestions of Research
Committee C of the Column Research Council. Hence, tests on
plate assemblies were included from the beginning.
Testing proceeded along two lines:
(a) Tests of short conlpression coupons
as proposed in Report Q
(b) Tests. of angle specimens
In thi's present report the results of tests (a) are
presented and compared with theoretical predictions.
j' Progress Report Q, "Inelastic Looal Buckling of lNF-Secti ons II ,
by Ching Huan Yang and Lynn S. Beedle
Fritz Laboratory Report 205E-l
205E-2
of The ory
-2
J?or slender co].umns, whi ch bucl{le in the elastic range,
the critical load is given by the Euler fornmla:
P
e
=
1T 2 EI
KL is th.e eQ.'.1.ivalent lengtb.
i
, the factor K. depenc1ine on the
end COllCliti
r
)11S. (For pin ell:.1s I\: = 1.0; for fixed 611d IC =O.5)
Iil 131'16 plastic the critical strength llas been
described, theoretically, by two loads:
(a) the tangent modulus load, obtained by replacing
the modulus of ele.stic;lty, E, in EUler's formtl1a
by the tangent 1110dulus of elast:1.c1 ty
Pt = IT 2 EtI
(KL)2
(b) the reduced TIloc1.l11us load, deri.ved under the as"
sumption that \lnloading occurs on some fibers
of the or-oss-section l1\11'1i11g; b\lCkling. Then the
modulus of elasticity is replaced by the reduced
modulus
E
r
::
_UEt
(
E . +;Et) 2
and P
r =
rr
2

(KIJ) 2
Shanley cleared up the problem and came to the foloQwing prin-
cipal
1. Bending commences at the tangent modulus load with
an increase in load.
2. The maximum load lies between Pt and P
r
, P
r
being
the upper limit.
205E"'2
Shanley indicated that the formulas for computing the
modulus load do not apply when Et = 0, tr since the limiting
column load is then determined by the stress at Wlich this
occurs".
Yang (Progress Report Q) emphasized the application
of the to the strength of very short
specimens .for Pt also applying to the
strain--ha:rc18Yl:1.:ng p.nd, suggesting reasons for the in....
crease in st::
i
engt11 abo''lG tllG yield load without the necessit,Y
for lateral
Bleioh discusses the problem on pages 21 and 22 of
his book "Buckling Strength o:C 1fetal structures".
tIl. Se ope_ '2f.. Te st s
The scope of these tests on short columns is to inves-
tigate the behavior of the column at and beyond the point at
which bending starts, especially with regard to the tangent-
modulus load
l
as computed from the stress-strain curve in the
strain-hardening range.
. 'Test Set "up and Procedure
t b........,... _M__ _
The short compression specimens were cut from the
flange of an 8WF40 section as sketched in Fig. 1. Dimensions
are shown in Table 10
All specimens were precisely aligned by means of
strain readings taken on two sides of the specimen with
genberger strain s (1"inc11 gage length). At a load eqtla1.
to one ...half of the yield load the I-Iuggenberger gages were r8""11
205E--2, -4
placed by a Pater's gage (2-inch gage length) and a wire was
attached to the specimen connecting centerline of the col-
umn with an 0.001 inch Ames dial in order to measure the lateral
deflection of the centerline.
This set-up is shown in Fig, 4.
As the test continuously, Sim\lltaneous load,
strain and deflection readings were taken.
Ta.bI.e 1
18.-9
8.80
6.90
0.545 06
05
cs
C7
I in ..1 .. r..
; _.
I 03 II' 0.745 0.543 I 3.20 II' 5.90 100 2 !
I I I
I 04 I 0.745 0.543 I 3.65 I 6.72 11.6
I
t I
0.745 0.545 4.33 7.94
1
I 0.745

0.750 , 0.527
0.750 0.527
I
b =width, t =thickness and L = length of specimens
Test conditions simUlate fixed ends, therefore
l

: 1
r = radius of Gyration __b__ =
" i b t
:;:: slenderness ratio \!
205E--2
V. "Results
-5
Fig. 1 shows a stress-strain curve which is an average
curve obtained from tests on the shortest specimens (C2 and 03)
which showed practically identical results. These specimens
were sUfficiently stocky so that the stress-strain diagram
would not be affected 81gnificantly by the length.
Iilr om t;hi s a stre s s -s train curve, tangent ....rnoc1ulus
and rec1\.lced.:Jmodl7tlus v!ere and plotted in Fig. 2
as a function of the slenderness ratio. The lower curve gives
tlle tangent-modulus and the higher one is a plot of the roduced-
modulus relationship. The plotted points indicate the ultimate
strength of the specimens. In Fig. 3 curves giving the load as
a function of the deflection of the centerline are plotted.
The arrows indicate the tangent -modulus load as com-
puted from the strain-hardening range of the stress-strain curve.
Fig. 5 shows the specimens after being tested.
205E"2 -6
Sulm11ary
From the load-deflection curves it is seen thAt
il1g innned.lately after reaching the yieJ.d point (except
for specimens 07 -and 08 which start to bend somewhat earlier).
IIoV'le,ter" this is not tile loac1 at Wllich bending to in-
crease rapidly and is) thus, not a Ucritical load
lf
Consistent
\rvi tlJ. tl'lo ory and with ear'} ier te sts the lnaximum 1 cads are smaller
than the reduced-lnodulus I.oads and greater than the tange11t ..
modulus
Considering the load vs. deflection curves of
Fig. 3, it is evident tha.t UIJ to the tb.eoretical tange11t-modulus
load (see the lateral de fle cti on remains q t1i te sY11all.
In the region of this load, however, the defle6tion starts to
increase more rapidly. Thus, as nearly as can be dBtermined in
tests, bending in the critical sense starts at the
modUlUS load, the tangent"modulus being de-termined in the strain-
harden:tng range.
The project "Welded. Continuous F'ralue's and COln-
ponents
U
is being carried out at Lalloratory und,erthe
general dire.ction of L'JTnn Stt Bo,o'dle C) Br'uno is pro-
ject of the study on Inelastic
,-"
i .../

80--
I
\
60
1
Stress I
kips!in
2
I
I
41-r
1
-I
I
2
------------
I
I
f/


-t
,
compress l.on
COUpOllS
_I
i
('0
o
(n
t:.J
1
ro
\_,
o 10 20 30
strain in/in
40 50 60
3
X 10-
Fig 6 1, Average Stress-&t:::2.i.-" tJU:""'3 (Spec.imen8 C2 and C3)
J:,
to
o
( ....,

b
3Q
o
o
I
........
Nf'odulus

_ .---.-"!- _ I
5
o
f
I
f
, "- I
J ,-I
I I
---r-- -- f
I I
j
I
f
I I I
L
1
I
il ! II _KL_ =n\ _E_t_s L
l
I
I t! , r I ._..:- ....... l' _ i I . _ _vd.-""",- --' .....--.:.__
10 15 - 20 25
effective slenderness ratio CK =0.5)
r
Column Curve and Observed Ultimate Strength of Specimens (inelastic range) Figo 2
o
lOOJ:-----T-----r----I------r----=-----.-----
I I I I i
1_ I P6rtio;-1 I ;
T 6
\ 9 I \ \ In i
80, ,I IL I II \ -; I
rt t . r i I I
u . I () --'- ii't
kips/iI1
2
J I . .:/!/ /1 I : i I I . f 1 I i 1 -I
601 (:] ---T-- -..- I
I -..J ""J
t 1
t
/- Tangent Modulus /./
40L
- I
I_
I C) ul :;imate strength
I

I
j
I
!
I
ot
...III" ..
Stress I
kips!in
2
!
t
1
1
N
t".)
o
Ol
I!
1,:-J
stress at theoretical
tangent-modulus/load
r--" C8"" j- ------ l
i"- ---...
l
1 \
C4
C3

C2

t
l
1
,I

L
J
!
t
i
!
i
I

.
20
60
40
80
lOO

Deflection of Centerline
tes t point
\ \ ; -
)
__I_
i
_t ' , I __I
, C''-" i _.__ _.' -_._ -L,_--L._-L.. _ I
] r ,
.; f
in --""1
o
Fig. 3
Average Stress vs. Lateral Deflection Curves
205E-2
Fig. 4 Test Set-up ( speo1melj':,C8:. ')
-10
Fig. 5 Specimens af'ter tes1;1bg