How Do J.B. Johnson and Tetmajer's Buckling Formulas Differ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MatsNorway
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
J.B. Johnson and Tetmajer's buckling formulas differ primarily in their approach; Johnson's method is empirical and focuses on small slenderness ratios, while Tetmajer builds on Euler's work to provide a more theoretical framework. The discussion highlights a lack of accessible, non-technical resources on the topic, despite the presence of extensive information online. The user expresses a desire for insights from mechanical and building engineers familiar with both formulas. Additionally, the mention of shellbuckling.com indicates a wealth of resources, albeit overwhelming in volume. Understanding these differences is crucial for engineers dealing with buckling in structural applications.
MatsNorway
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Hi Guys.

I was wondering if anyone had any info about buckling and the different formulas used. My school book had Tetmajer referenced but it seems a J.B. Johnson is also used a lot. So..

1. What are the difference in the formulas they use?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The most comprehensive ever resource on buckling in the whole internet is there: shellbuckling.com
 
That is a messy page! But the /links page got more than i can look over in a day.. so thanks.

But i would prefer ofcs some non math talk about the topic. I see very little discussion around it with google.
 
I am still curious about this if there is any mechanical engineers/building engineers out there that has experience in the field
 
J.B. Johnson I know; Tetmajer I've never heard about.
 
J. B. Johnson is an empirical approach to dealing with buckling for small values of the slenderness ratio.
 
Back
Top