Civil Engineer needs help getting head round a graph

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding a graph plotting Critical Buckling Load against 1/L^2, derived from Euler's Buckling Theory. The user is confused about the gradient's units, initially thinking they are N.m^2 instead of N/m^2, and seeks clarity on what these units represent. The graph features three linear lines that increase with 1/L^2, indicating different behaviors in the elastic and inelastic buckling regions. It is noted that Euler's equation predicts higher critical loads than those observed experimentally, primarily due to factors like initial column imperfections and residual stresses in materials like steel. Overall, the conversation aims to clarify the relationship between theoretical predictions and actual measurements in structural mechanics.
funkydunky20
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi, new to the forum, although i have read some posts before.

I am in the process of completing a structural mechanics report based upon buckling of a slender column.

In the brief they asked us to plot a graph of Critical Buckling Load derived from Euler's Buckling Theory and actual (all in Newtons) against 1/L^2.

I am trying to understand what this graph shows us, however firstly i thought i would look at the units of the gradient. in my mind the gradient of the graph will have units of N.m^2 (not (N/m^2). I can't for the life of me think what these units represent and this is confusing my understanding of the graph.

The graph basically has three linear lines which increase as 1/L^2 increases.

Can anyone shed any light on this?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
What do you mean by "and actual"? Could you list the three functions you are plotting?
 
Euler buckling equation predicts higher than experimentally observed critical buckling loads. In the elastic buckling region this is due to initial out of straightness of the column. In the inelastic buckling region, the lower than expected load is predominately caused by residual stresses left in the metal from forming (for steel). That is most likely what the question is driving at.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top