DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF STANDARDS
Ceorge K. Burgess, Director

TECHNOLOGIC PAPERS OF THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

No. 258

[Part of Vol. 18]

STRENGTH OF STEEL TUBING UNDER

COMBINED COLUMN AND TRANSVERSE
LOADING, INCLUDING TESTS OF
COLUMNS AND BEAMS
BY

TOM W. GREENE, Assistant Engineer Physicist

Bureau of Standards

May 23, 192.4

PRICE, 15 CENTS
$1.25 PER VOLUME ON SUBSCRIPTION
Printing Office
Sold only by the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Washington, D. C.

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1924
 .

STRENGTH OF STEEL TUBING UNDER COMBINED

COLUMN AND TRANSVERSE LOADING, INCLUDING
TESTS OF COLUMNS AND BEAMS.
By Tom W. Greene.

ABSTRACT.

This investigation was made for the purpose of determining whether experimental
data confirmed the theory of struts subjected to combined column and transverse
loading. A number of tests were made on steel-tubing struts ranging from that of a
column with no transverse load to that of a beam with no column load.
A study was made of the conditions contributing to the strength of a strut and a
method devised for measuring eccentricity. It was found that the eccentricity due
to variation in wall thickness and to deviation from straightness is an important
factor and should be taken into account. The results show that the commonly used
formulas, which neglect the effect of eccentricity of loading, do not represent actual
strut condition and are liable to give dangerously high results.
A modified rational formula based upon consideration of the effect of eccentricity
was found to fit experimental results very closely and is the preferable one for design.
Failure of a strut will occur when the maximum compressive stress computed by this
modified formula is approximately equal to the yield point. The modified rational
formula also applies to columns as it reduces to the "secant" column formula when
the transverse load is equated to zero. Failure of a column will occur when the
extreme fiber stress computed by the secant formula is equal to the yield point of
' '

' '

the material.
A reasonably accurate computation of the stress for a strut under transverse load
can be made by summing the bending stress due to the transverse load and the column
stress obtained by the "secant" formula if for the latter the effective eccentricity is
taken as the sum of the original eccentricity, due to tube irregularities, and the deflec-
tion of the strut at the center resulting from the transverse load.

CONTENTS.
Page.
I. Introduction 244
1 Purpose of the investigation 244
2 Acknowledgments 244
II. Test procedure 244
1. Physical properties of the material 244
2 Beam tests 248
3 Column tests 249
4. Combined column and transverse tests 249
III. Results of strut tests , 2 50
IV. Theory and application of formulas 256
1. Application of formulas for combined loading 256
2. Modified rational formula for combined loading 260
3. Eccentricities 262

43
 .

244 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. is

IV. Theory and application of formulas— Continued.

3. Eccentricities —
Continued.
(a) Causes of eccentricity 262
(b) Determination of eccentricity 262
1. Eccentricity due to variation in wall thickness 262
2. Eccentricity due to deviation from straightness . . 264
(c) Discussion 265
(d) Accuracy of method
determining eccentricity
of 268
4. Application of modified rational formula 269
5. Application of "secant' column formula
' 271
(a) To columns 271
(b) To struts with transverse loading 272
V. Conclusions 275
VI. Recommendations 276

I. INTRODUCTION.
1. PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION.

In airplane construction there are many members, such as

struts,which are subjected to a lateral or transverse loading in
addition to an axial or column loading. This investigation was
made at the request of the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Depart-
ment, for the purpose of determining whether experimental data
confirmed the approximate theory of struts subjected to com-
bined axial and transverse forces or whether it would be necessary
to devise new formulas.
A large number of tests were made on steel-tubing struts of
different lengths with various intensities of transverse loading.
The tests included different ratios of direct compression to trans-
verse loading, ranging from that of a column with no transverse
load to that of a beam with no column load.

2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
The funds and material for this investigation were furnished by
the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department. Acknowledg-
ments are also due Lieut. McCarthy, Bureau
C. J. of Aeronautics,
for his assistance, cooperation, and suggestions.

II. TEST PROCEDURE.

1. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE MATERIAL.

Steel tubing made in England of i^-inch diameter, 20 gauge,

and 1 ]/2 -inch diameter, 16 gauge, was used for all struts and beams
in this investigation. The physical properties of the material
were accurately determined by tensile and compression tests of
Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 245

short specimens cut from every 15 -foot length or section of tubing.

The physical properties of each section of tubing used are given
in Table 1 , and a few typical stress strain curves are shown in
Figure 1.

^ <s <i <a *

i
§ S % I 3 §
5 1 § ? 5

A comparison of the yield point values in tension with the

ultimate compressive stress at crinkling shows considerable
variations. It is believed that a more accurate determination of
the- ultimate compressive stress to cause failure for a short column
is given by the "secant" column formula in which the effect of

eccentricity of loading is considered.

246 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. 18

TABLE 1.—Physical Properties of Each Section of Tubing.

VA INCHES, 20 GAUGE.

Tension. Compression.!

Section number. Propor-

Yield Propor- Ultimate
Ultimate
tional tional stress
point. strength.
limit. limit. (crinkling).

Lbs./in.* Lbs./in.» Lbs./in. 2 Lbs./in.* Lbs./in.*

7 66,000 72, 100 78, 900 58,500 67 700
15 64, 000 69, 900 76, 400 54,000 65 800
13 66, 000 68, 900 74, 900 56,500 65,000
11.... 67, 500 69, 000 74,000 58,000 64,800
17 66,000 67, 400 73, 400 56,000 68,400

9 64,000 66, 800 73,400 56,000 64,800

4 54, 000 63, 400 70,800 53,000 65,200
1 59, 000 61,200 69,600 53, 500 59,000
16 61,500 62, 200 68, 700 52,600 66,200

VA INCHES, 16 GAUGE.

3 67,000 71,300 75, 300 59,000 75,500

8 66, 000 70, 200 74, 600 54, 000 71,800
5 66,000 70,000 73, 800 55, 000 67,800
9 65,000 69,100 73,400 55, 000 69,500

7 62,000 67,500 71,400 54,000 67,400

14 63,500 64,600 69, 600 51,000 65,300
10 59,000 61,300 67, 100 51,000 65,800

1
L/r= 10 for short compression specimens.

2 are given the eccentricities due to variation in wall

In Table
thickness, which will be explained later, and the effect of these
eccentricities on the ultimate compressive stress for the short
compression specimens. The values in the last column are the
ultimate or maximum compressive stresses at failure S c obtained
by the "secant" column formula,

ec
-5( 1 +,

-5 sec
VSr/)
where
e = eccentricity in inches due to variation in wall thickness,
P = maximum compressive load in pounds,
A = area in square inches,
= radius of gyration in inches,
r
= distance from neutral axis to extreme fiber
c in inches,
—
L length in inches,
/ = moment of inertia,
E = modulus of elasticity (29,000,000 lbs./in. ). 2
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 247

TABLE 2. —Ultimate or Maximum Compressive Stresses for Short Compression

Specimens.

VA INCHES, 20 GAUGE.

Ultimate
Variation in Eccen- compres-
Section number. thickness of tricity. sive stress
wall. c at failure.
1
5c

Inches. Inches. Lbs./in.2

15... 0. 0325-0. 035 0. 0153 68,800
13 . 033 - .037 .022 69,300
11 . 0325- .035 .014 67,600
172. .035 .000 68,400

9 . 0345- .0355 .0083 66,400

42 .035 .000 65,200
. 034 - .040 .032 64,700
16 2 .036 .000 66,200

VA INCHES, 16 GAUGE.

3 0. 059 -0. 066 0. 0215 80,400

8 . 0595- . 064 .014 74,800
5 . 059 - . 066 .0215 71,600
7 . 060 - . 063 .0095 69,300
14 . 061 - . 067 .018 68,800

P / ec I PL 2
\
due to variation in wall thickness and P
1
Se =-j ( iH — 2 sec -\/ ~~
Wj ) where e is eccentricity is the maxi-
mum compressive load (crinkling).
2
Short compressive specimens crinkled near end.

It will be seen that for tubes with eccentricity of loading the

values for the ultimate stress in compression are raised and
approximate very closely the yield point of the material in ten-
sion. Although the "secant" column formula is not exact above
the proportional limit, it is believed that for the material used,
in which the proportional limit and yield point are nearly the
same, the ultimate compressive stress value S c in the table is
probably the yield point in compression and represents very
closely the stress to cause failure in compression for any strut cut
from these sections.
The type of failure
effect of eccentricity is also indicated in the
for the short columns. In specimens Nos. 17, 4, and 16, where
the eccentricities were zero, the specimens failed by crinkling
near the ends. In the other short columns the crinkling occurred
on the thin side at the center where the maximum compressive
stress occurs from bending due to the eccentricities. Figure 2
shows a few of the typical failures.
 —

248 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. 18

2. BEAM TESTS.
To obtain conditions where the bending stress is a maximum
with no column load, transverse tests were made on three speci-
mens of each gauge thickness. The tubing was tested as a simple

30060

90000

70000

40000

50000

4 00 00

30000

eoooo

10000

*— 0.1 '
' » Deflect ien at center 0/ span
Fig. 3. Stress-deflection curves, transverse test.

beam of 3 6 -inch span. The load was applied at the center of the
span by means of a wooden block one-half inch thick cut to fit
the tubing. The results of the beam tests are given in Table 3,
and the stress deflection curves are shown plotted in Figure 3.
"t3

oq
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 249
TABLE 3.—Beam Test (Span 36 Inches).

13^ INCHES, 20 GAUGE.

Sectional
Specimen
Variation in Moment modulus.
Propor-
Modulus Modulus of
thickness 0! Area. of inertia. tional
number. wall. / J limit.
of rupture. elasticity.
e

Inches. Sq. inch. In.< In.3 Lbs./in.» Lbs./in.* Lbs./in.«

15-B 0.032-0. 035 0. 1566 0.0421 0.0562 64,000 88,080 28, 400, 000
11-B .033- .035 .1566 .0421 .0562 70,000 85,670 29, 020, 000
16-B .035- .037 .1656 .0444 .0592 65,000 82,080 29, 140, 000

1J4 INCHES, 16 GAUGE.

8-B.. 0.061-0.063 C.2803 0.0725 0.0966 61,000 92,600 28,080,000

5-B.. .061- .065 .2846 .0735 .0980 68,000 91,800 27, 500, 000
10-B. .062- .064 .2846 .0735 .0980 62,000 83,560 28, 080, 000

3. COLUMN TESTS.

Some were tested as round end columns without

of the tubes
transverse loading. Free end conditions were insured by special
ball-bearing end supports. Figure 4 shows the ball-bearing end
supports used for all the compression tests. The small balls
minimized the frictional resistance developed during the loading
of the struts and permitted the struts to deflect freely in any
direction, thus approaching ideal "free end" conditions.

4. COMBINED COLUMN AND TRANSVERSE TESTS.

The tube was mounted as in the column test for the combined
beam and column tests. These tests were made in a horizontal
position in an Emery hydraulic testing machine. Extreme care
and precaution was exercised in the application of the side load.
A small initial end load was first applied to the strut. The trans-
verse load was then applied. For uniform transverse loads of 1,
5, io, and 20 pounds per linear inch weights of 1, 5, 10, and 20
t

pounds, respectively, were suspended 1 inch apart throughout

the length of the struts. For loads of 1.25, 3, and 6.05 pounds
per linear inch weights were suspended in bags attached to the
tubing. Thus, a very uniform distribution of lateral loading was
obtained in all the tests.
Measurements of the original straightness of the tubes and of
the vertical deflection under load at the mid length of the test
piece were taken for all the tests by means of a micrometer dial
reading directly to 0.00 1 inch. Figure 5 shows the test of one of
the struts and the method of measurements.
90893°—24 2
250 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. 18

III. RESULTS OF STRUT TESTS.

The number assigned to the struts tested in this investigation,
together with the length, Ljr ratio, kind of test, the transverse
load, and The dimensions of
properties, are given in Table 4.
each strut tested were determined from a large number of microme-
ter measurements of wall thickness made at each end. Measure-
ments of the end sections showed that while the wall thickness
was quite variable (see Table 4) it was practically the same for
corresponding points at the two ends of a tube, so that the end
measurements fairly represent the wall thickness throughout the
length of a strut.
The ultimate loads of the columns and of the struts with trans-
verse loading are given in Table 5 The table also includes the effect
.

of the transverse loading that is, the bending stress, the computed
;

and measured deflection at the center of the strut produced by

the transverse load alone.
The shown in Figures
stress-deflection curves for the struts are
6 to 9, The effect of increasing the transverse loading
inclusive.
in decreasing the column strength and increasing the rate of
deflection are shown in these curves.

TABLE 4.— Outline of Tests and Properties of Struts.

1H INCHES. 20 GAUGE.

Maximum Distance
L
Trans- and mini- Moment to com-
Strut number. 1
Length. Kind at test.
verse mum wall Area. of pressive
t load. thickness A Inertia. extreme
ratio. w (average of / fiber.
both ends). c

Lbs. per
linear Square
Inches. inch. Inch. inch. In.* Inch.
11-70-C 36.3 70 Column 0. 0335
035 -0. 0. 1577 0.0424 0.743
17_70_C 36.3 70 do . 0365- 0355
. .1656 .0444 .745
Combine 034 -
'

13-70-1 36.2 70 "i.'25 . 036

. .1588 .0427 .75
9-70-1 36.2 70 do 1.25 . 034 - 035
. .1597 .0429 .755
13-70-5 36.3 70 do 5.0 . 033 - 037
. .1611 .0432 .770

15-70-5 36.3 70 do 5.0 . 0325- . 035 .1552 .0418 .764

13-70-10 36.2 70 do 10.0 . 033 - . 036 .1579 .0424 .763
15-70-10 36.2 70 do 10.0 . 034 - . 0337 .1556 .0419 .749
1-110-C 57 110 Column . 034 - . 038 .1656 .0444 .75
7-110-C 57 110 .do . 032 - . 036 .1566 .0421 .75

4-110-1 57 110 Combine 1.0 . 035 - . 036 .1633 .0438 .755

17-110-1 57 110 do 1.0 . 036 - . 035 .1633 .0438 .745
9-110-3 57 110 do 3.0 . 0355- . 036 .1647 .0442 .752
16-110-3 57 110 do 3.0 . 035 - . 0375 .1667 .0447 .763
1-110-6 57 110 do 6.05 . 0393- . 0337 .1678 .0450 .723

11-104-6 53.8 104 do 6.05 .0345 .1588 .0427 .75

15-B 36 Bend
11-B 36 do
16-B 36 do...

1 First number denotes the section of tubing from which the strut was cut, second number denotes the
Ljr ratio, and the third number the transverse load.
Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 251

ft

•Uf6sJ9d-q/ ft/ £ SS3VAZ

252 Technologic Papers of the Bureau o) Standards [Vd. 18

'Ut b$ j*dyj to £ SSJ&JLS

Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 253

ui bi J3<Jff ui £ g? j#x$"
254 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. is

tit Si U9dqf ui £ SS3V1S

 . . 5

Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 255

TABLE 4. — Outline of Tests and Properties of Stmts —Continued.

1}4 INCHES, 16 GAUGE.

Maximum Distance
I Trans- and mini- Moment to com-
Strut number. 1 Length. Kind of test.
verse mum wall Area. of pressive
r
load. thickness A inertia. extreme
ratio. w (average of / fiber.
both ends). c

Lbs. per
linear Square
Inches. inch. Inch. inch. In. 4 Inch.
8-70-C 35.7 70 Column 0.0635-0. 061 0. 2822 0.073 0.744
5-70-C 35.7 70 do . 0655- 0605 . .2832 .0735 .739
5-70-1 35.7 70 Combine ""i'.o . 060 - 065 . .2822 .0730 .763
8-70-1 35.7 70 do 1.0 0623- 063
. . .2844 .0735 .755
5-70-5 35.7 70 do 5.0 . 066 - . 060 .2844 .0735 .734

7-70-5 35.7 70 do 5.0 . 064 - . 060 .2801 .0725 .740

8-70-20. . . 35.7 70 do 20.0 .063 .2846 .0735 .74
7-70-20 35.7 70 do 20.0 . 059 - . 065 .2803 .0725 .766
10-110-C 56.2 110 Column . 062 - . 065 .287 .074 .75

9-110-C 56.1 110 do . 058 - . 064 .2803 .0725 .75

3-110-1 56.1 110 Combine ""i.'o" . 0655- . 061 .2855 . 0738 .738
14-110-1 56.1 110 do 1.0 . 0615- . 0685 .2920 .0754 .767
14-110-5 56.1 110 do 5.0 . 062 - . 056 .2887 .0745 .762

7-110-5 56.1 110 do 5.0 . 063 - . 060 .2780 .0720 .742

5-B... 36 Bend
8-B 36 .. ..do
10-B 36 do ..

1
First number denotes the section of tubing from which the strut was cut, second number denotes the
£/r ratio, and the third number the transverse load.

TABLE 5.—Results of Column and Combined Loading Tests.

VA INCHES, 20 GAUGE —-70.

Effect of transverse load.

Com-
Trans- Ultimate pressive
load.
Strut number. verse Bending, Com- Meas- end load. stress.
TfiEl
load. stress at puted de- ured de- P P Pk
extreme flection flection A jy
fiber.i at center. 2 at center.

Pounds. Lbs./in.» Inch. Inch. Pounds. Lbs./in.» Pounds.

11-70-C Col. 8,340 52,900 9,230
17-70-C Col. 8,600 51,900 9,665
13-70-1 1.25 3,600 0.023 0.023 6,540 41,200 9,300
9-70-1 1.25 3, 600 .0215 .020 7,100 44,500 9 370

13-70-5 5.0 14,600 .090 .097 4,850 30,100 9,435

15-70-5 5.0 14,950 .093 .099 4,800 30,900 9,130
13-70-10 10.0 29,400 .183 .192 3,620 22,900 9 261
15-70-10 10.0 29, 200 .196 .198 3,500 22,500 9,151

INCHES, 20 GAUGE =110.

1-110-C. Col. 3,840 23,200 3,910

7-110-C. CoL 3,770 24,000 3,710
4-110-1 1.0 7,000 0. 1085 0.113 3,170 19,400 3,858
17-110-1 1.0 6,900 .111 3,250 19,900 3,858

9-110-3. 3.0 20,700 .322 .340 2,360 14,300 3,894

16-110-3 3.0 20,800 .318 .340 2,260 13,550 3,938
1-110-6. 6.05 39, 500 .638 .666 1,380 8,200 3,964
11-104-6 6.05 38,100 .534 .566 1,640 10,300 4,222

1
Bending stress at extreme fiber S-b ==-jt
—j~-

* Deflection at center of strut J B = ~—

384 h.1
•
 ' '

256 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards ivoi. 18

TABLE 5. —Results of Column and Combined Loading Tests — Continued.

VA INCHES, 16 GAUGE --70.

Effect of transverse load.

Com-
Trans- Ultimate pressive
load.
Strut number. verse Bending, Com- Meas- end load. stress.
load. stress at puted de- ured de- P P
extreme flection flection A
fiber.i at center. 2 at center.

Pounds. Lbs./in. Inch. Inch. Pounds. Lbs./in. Pounds.

8-70-C Col. 14,900 52, 800 16,390
5-70-C Col. 13,500 47,650 16,510
5-70-1 1.0 1,660 0.010 [Link] 12,100 42,900 16,390
8-70-1 1.0 1,630 .010 .010 12,950 45,500 16,510

5-70-5 5.0 7,900 .049 .051 12,100 42,500 16,510

7-70-5 5.0 8,100 .050 .053 11,000 39,300 16,280
8-70-20 20.0 32,500 .199 .214 6,620 23,250 16,510
7-70-20 20.0 33,700 .201 .213 5,540 19,780 16,280

iy3 INCHES, 16 GAUGE 110.

10-110-C. Col. 6,740 23,500 6,730

9-110-C.. Col. 6,300 22,500 6,593
3-110-1.. 1.0 3,930 0.059 6.062 6,020 21,100 6,715

14-110-1. 1.0 4,000 .059 .062 5,800 19,870 6,855

14-110-5. 5.0 10,100 .299 .302 4,050 14,050 6,775
7-110-5. 5.0 20,300 .309 .318 3,960 14,250 6,548

Bending stress at extreme fiber Sb=^

i
—wL* j~

5 wl*
1
Deflection at center of strut * » = I^: /FT

IV. THEORY AND APPLICATION OF FORMULAS.

1. APPLICATION OF FORMULAS FOR COMBINED LOADING.

The theory and generally applied formulas for determining the

strength of struts subjected to combined axial and transverse
loading are given by the following equations. The ultimate
strength of the strut is reached when the maximum compressive
stress at the extreme fiber

fc
= -j2 -
+ -j approximates the yield point of the material (i)

where
/c
= maximum compressive stress at the extreme fiber,
M = maximum bending moment at the center of the strut,
J = moment of inertia of the strut cross section,
c = distance of extreme fiber in compression from the
neutral axis,
P = ultimate end load,
A = area of cross section of the strut.
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 257

In the above equation -y2 is the maximum bending stress in

c
p
compression 5b, and -x- is the mean compressive stress on the sec-

tion. The sum maximum compressive

of these stresses is the
stress acting on the
provided the stress remains propor-
strut,
tional to the strain at these high stresses. It is to be expected
that when this maximum intensity of compressive stress is about
equal to the yield point of the material the strut will fail.
The value of M
Q has been commonly computed by the rational
'
formula
.. WEI / [P
-M =--p~ (KC^p- 7T
-I \
,
(2)
.

)
or by Perry's approximate formula *

iwL 2

M„ = 8 pfb) «
where
w = uniform transverse load in pounds per linear inch,
L = length of strut,
E = modulus of elasticity,
P = ultimate load,
7T
2
EI
Pe = j 2
> Euler's limiting value for ideal column.

If different values of ratios P/Pe be substituted in the for-

mulas (2) (3) above, the results show that Perry's approxi-
and
mate formula agrees very closely with the exact formula for
ratios of P/P E up to 0.75.
The results obtained by application of the experimental data
to the above formulas are given in Table 6. The table shows that
the exact formula for computing the bending moment and Perry's
approximate formula give practically identical results.

1
"Morley's Strength of Materials, 1916," p. 282. In this edition Perry's formula is incorrectly written.

Itshouldread,-Mo=i/8wL 2 (p^p)
90893°— 24 3
 —

258 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards \Voi. 18

TABLE 6. —Results by Commonly Used Formulas for Combined Loading.

IV2 INCHES, 20 GAUGE -=70.

Exact formula. Perry's formula.

Trans-
Maximum Ratio.
Yield
point of
Strut number. verse 5B material
load.
Com- Com- /o (tension).
Bending Bending
pressive pressive
stress. 1 stress. 3
stress. 3 stress. 3
5B 5B
/c

Pounds. Lbs./in. 3 Lbs./in. 3 Lbs./in. 3 Lbs./in.3 Lbs./in. 3

13-70-1 1.25 12,350 53, 550 12,100 53, 300 0.227 68,900
9-70-1 1.25 15,100 59,600 14,900 59, 400 .25 66,800
13-70-5 5.0 30, 450 60, 550 30, 050 60,150 .50 68,900
15_70_5 5.0 32,000 62,900 31,500 62,400 .505 69,900
13-70-10 10.0 48,700 71,600 48,300 71,200 .68 68,900
15-70-10 10.0 48,300 70, 800 47, 400 69, 900 .68 69,900

INCHES, 20 GAUGE

4-110-1 1.0 39, 600 59,100 39, 300 58,700 0.67 63,400
17-110-1 1.0 44,870 64,770 43, 800 63,700 .68 67,400
9-110-3 3.0 53, 300 67,600 52,700 67,000 .78 66,800
16-110-3 3.0 49, 570 63,000 48,800 62,350 .78 62,200
1-110-6 6.05 61,160 69,360 60,600 68,800 .88 61,200
11-104-6 6.05 63,200 73, 500 62,900 73.200 .86 69,000

Wi INCHES, 16 GAUGE -=70.

5-70-1. 1.0 6,500 49,400 6,400 49, 300 0.13 70,000

8-70-1. 1.0 7,740 53,200 7,600 53,100 .14 70,200
5-70-5. 5.0 30, 300 72,800 29, 500 72, 000 .41 70,000
7-70-5. 5.0 25, 600 64,900 25,030 64,350 .39 67, 500
8-70-20 20.0 54,400 77 650 54,200 77,450 .70 70,200
7-70-20 20.0 51,900 71,670 51,000 70,800 .72 67,500

Wi INCHES, 16 GAUGE :
110.

3-110-1 - . .' 1.0 38, 300 59, 400 38,000 59, 100 0.64 71,300
14-110-1. . 1.0 26,550 46,420 25,950 45, 800 .57 64,600
14-110-5. . 5.0 50,940 65,000 50.100 64,150 .78 64,600
7-110-5 5.0 52,290 66, 540 51,300 65,600 .78 67,500

. _ Moc wEc ( * f~P \

fc ~7 + A
c

A
comparison of the maximum compressive stress values at
failure, obtained by the commonly used formulas for struts with
transverse loading with the yield point of the material, shows
extreme inconsistency and wide variation. This variation is
shown graphically in the left half of Figure 10. In this figure the
maximum compressive stresses at failure computed by either of
 h

Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 259

the commonly used formulas are plotted as ordinates. The plot-

ted values represent either of the formulas shown on the figure,
the difference between results obtained with each being too
-co -ere as: — **\ *> I
2
N D

A "S
8°
l ^
1
a

& £>s * 2 5 s -£
1

11 -ft .
s *1$
5
I* 1 1 .? U Wi i/F "S

^ + <tfjs*
s

*k n

6 3

Vi os J90 f/l u 1 1/0/ IPJ IP JK 3/ fSi SJC UJO 0* ew

±Sr*

-03] -e-t *eey

%

n
B "> .$»
"5

4
cc 00 Si - 1 5 -

c )

c
i* * i 5 ^5
s + + °c
s *s
— s 5 5
G
« »
| 5

« II
s

Ivy/ is-. 30 7 u K sjn nej p SSi 995 31 f?= u4

J

WJ 'XB[ V

S
~ }

small to need separate designation. The ratios of bending

h
stress to maximum compressive stress are plotted as abscissas,
the ratio unity being the condition of pure transverse loading
260 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards \voi. 18

(modulus of rupture) and the axis of coordinate values o.o repre-

senting pure compression on short lengths. The maximum com-
pressive stress (ordinate values) for the latter are practically the
yield-point values obtained by tensile tests of the material.
This figure shows that the commonly used formulas do not
accurately determine the load which will cause failure. For a
large number of the tests, especially for short struts and for struts
with small transverse load, these formulas give dangerously high
values and should not be used for design.
The wide variation of the results and the possible danger in
applying these formulas lead to a very detailed study of the con-
ditions contributing to the strength of struts. A modified rational
formula was found that willmore accurately and safely represent
stress conditions of struts subjected to combined axial and trans-
verse loading.

2. MODIFIED RATIONAL FORMULA FOR COMBINED LOADING.

Let L
be the length of a round or free end column carrying a
transverse load of w pounds per unit length. The end load P
has an eccentricity e relative to the centroidal axis of the column.
Assume the ©rigin O midway between the ends, the line joining
the centroids being taken as the coordinate axis X. (See fig. II.)

k
zs
Fig. ii. —Figure for derivation offormula.
W (U \
The bending moment at anysection is -
Q ( x2 due to the
J

transverse load and P (y + e) due to the end thrust P. The eccen-

tricity e is positive or negative, depending on whether the end
thrust P is above or below the center of gravity of the section.

EI 3--" (?-*)-**«
.

4 ">
<Py ,Py__ t^*
2
(wV Pe\
+
dx* EI~"*"2EI \8ErEl)
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 261

The solution of this differential equation is

wx 2
wL 2
wEI
-- ..
/ P P
_
x+Bsm \Ei . /
e+Acos
y-^P~w~-p 2
^m x '

The condition ~- = O for x = and y = for x =— gives B =0

ax 2

. (wEI \ L [~P

hence,

wx* wU wEI -' r/wEI

+ +
\ L fP [P~ 1
y-^p-w—w [v-p^ v 9ec 2 yiEi^vm*]
and at the origin or point of maximum moment where * =

tvU (WEI \( L fPX .

»

The maximum moment at is

-M.-P(y. + e)+iwL' (3)

-M„ = Pc-[^ + Pe
]
[1 -sec \ ^]
'

-1 T /P" TO E// /P \
-M =Pe sec -
y^ + -p~ (sec - y/p-^l)
7T
(4)

IT
2
EI
where Pe = —ft~> Euler's limiting value for ideal column.

Therefore, to cause failure of a strut subjected to combined

column and transverse loading, the maximum compressive stress
at the extreme fiber is

U +
I_ A
c

approximates the yield point of the material, or

P
'

h-j + -Y
Pec
sec
it
-
% yp
IP
£
+ ^
wEc /
(sec -
it fP
fa-i)
\
(5)

•See Church's Mechanics of Engineering, p. 382; 1908.

262 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. is

An examination of formula (4) for the bending moment shows

that the first term takes account of the bending moment due to

the eccentricity of the end load, and that the second term is the
expression for a column with a transverse load combined with an
axial end load. The formula also explains why the two commonly
used formulas are undesirable for short struts and struts with
small side loads. For short struts the end load P is very large, so
7T l~P
that for a given eccentricity the factor Pe sec - •% / p- becomes a very

large and important factor in computing the bending moment and

consequently the bending stress. Also, when w is small this factor
is relatively large and important. On the other hand, when the
struts are long P is very small, making the factor Pe relatively
lessimportant. Likewise, when the transverse load w is large, the
second factor of the formula is large, and the eccentric factor has
a relatively less influence on the strength of a strut.

3. ECCENTRICITIES.

(a) CAUSES OF ECCENTRICITY.

The modified rational formula indicates the importance of

eccentricities. Such eccentricities are chiefly caused by the fol-
lowing conditions found in commercial tubing: (1) Deviation of
the shape of the tubing from a circular section, (2) variation in
and (3) deviation from straightness.
wall thickness,
Measurements made of the external diameters of tubing used
—deviation
in the investigation indicated that the first condition
from circular shape — comparatively
is and cause, con-
small, this
sequently, was not considered. The other two conditions —varia-
tion in wall thickness and deviation from straightness are per- —
ceptible to the eye, and the eccentricities resulting from these
conditions proved to be important factors in determining the
strength of struts. Figure 12 shows the variation in wall thick-
ness of three of the struts tested.

(*) DETERMINATION OF ECCENTRICITY.

1. Eccentricity Due to Variation in Wall Thickness. —

Consider a cross section of the tube in which the wall thickness
varies from an average minimum thickness of t min to an average
maximum thickness of * ma2 . (See fig. 13.)
 LO lO
cr> co
to m to to
O CO oo
o •
^o
•
qoo
M
•

o *Ho O&
1

•
rH •
H^ Eh
-P
-P
•
Qlj
H HPrQ
j t-5

O O 3

H •
O OJP-P
•^

3
£z; ^ . oj a5 ?3

•§

CO
<£>
kO
o /i

|5

m o» •
^
'§
d>
Q
1
1 r—i -

o
J>
o
-H
•
•
g-
1
<o

i ^
LO EH P^-P
•

o o ^O
W

o H
HP• r^>
<a

s^.
O"
-q -P -PCO
^ cd o3
"3

LO LO 1

rH CO
H
r-4 CO <£> <i3
1 OO CO 6
O o
rH a O O
• • £

H jy ••g
i o
^t* -H • O
H& E-«
•
0<-P
-P

• o o
OH-P-Q
S3 rH
ct5 -p -p
^ a5 o5
 —

Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 263

Let
D = outside diameter of tube,
k = distance from center of outer circle to center of inner
circle,

y = distance from center of outer circle to center of gravity

of the section,

y=A —A
Q 1
-^'k
where
7tD 2 IT
^0 = and A =- [D - (tm& * +
x
t min
)Y
4 4

Fig. 13. Method of determining eccentricity.

Section of tubing showing eccentricity due to variation in wall thickness.

In these tests the center of thrust was at the center of the

inner circle, due to the fact that the lug on the hemispherical ball
placed on the end of the strut filled the inside of the tubing.
Therefore the eccentricity e w due to variation of wall thickness
is

= fc+ =kfi
\
1
Al
^o~^i/
\= kA
^o~^l
°

2 -D (t mgLX
—
+t min ) ~ (*max + £min) 2
 :

264 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Link]

Should the minimum thickness be at a point other than at the

top or bottom of the tube, the eccentricity about the horizontal
axis is

ew = {k + y) sin a= A —V sin a

where a is the angle that the diameter connecting the points of

minimum and maximum wall thickness makes with the horizontal
axis. In this investigation practically all of the specimens had
the minimum thickness either at the top or bottom when tested.
In the few cases where this condition did not exist the value of
sin a was considered as unity and the average thickness at the top
and bottom used for 2 min and t max in the formula to determine the
eccentricity about the horizontal axis.
2. Eccentricity Due to Deviation from Straightness. —
To determine the eccentricity due to deviation from straightness
of the tube a micrometer dial was used to measure the deflection
at the center of the column or strut, as shown in Figures 5 and 14.
A small initial load was applied to the column, and before any
side load was applied the tube was revolved in its ball-bearing
ends. The maximum and minimum readings of the dial were
noted, indicating the dotted and heavy position shown in Figure
14. In all the tests the tubing was tested in the lower position illus-
trated —that is, where the dial reading was a minimum. The deflec-
tion of the tube from a straight line was, therefore, downward in
all the tests. If the tubing was of uniform wall thickness and
diameter, the eccentricity due to deviation from straightness
would be one-half the range of original deflection R indicated by
the dial when the strut was revolved. The effect of the variation
of wall thickness can be determined as follows
Consider the cross-sectional area of the tube to be as shown in
Figure 14 when the strut was concave upwards, as indicated by
the micrometer dial.
Let
R = difference in maximum and minimum deflection, as in-
dicated by micrometer dial,
ex = distance from center of thrust to center of inner circle.
d
R = -+e vd .

x + k
] 2£ x + 2&
2 2
2k
the eccentricity due to deviation from straightness
2

of the tube
 — —

Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 265

The total eccentricity e —that is, the distance from the center
of thrust to center of gravity of the section — is the sum of the
eccentricities due to variation in wall thickness and deviation
from straightness, or

e=e w +e* = {k+y)

,*
+e x = k / i+ 7
I
A* \ R-2k
A _A + -
J
—
Should the maximum thickness of the wall Z max be up when the
tube was tested, k is negative and the eccentricity is

= — (k + y) + e
R + 2k
e z
l + A^Aj +
(

Fig. 14. Method of determining eccentricity due to deviation from straightness.

(c) DISCUSSION.

Measurements of the eccentricities in the tubing showed that

practically in every case the diameter connecting the minimum
and maximum wall thickness was in the plane of deflection or
warping of the tubing. Thus, the total effective eccentricity is
either the sum or difference of the eccentricity due to variation in
 :

266 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards \Voi. 18

wall thickness and eccentricity due to variation in straightness.

This to be expected, because any condition during the drawing
is

of the tube that would cause the wall to be thin on one side and
thick on the other would tend to warp the tube in the plane of
symmetry; that is, the plane of minimum and maximum wall
thickness. Moreover, any heat treatment that would relieve the
unequal stresses in a tube of varying wall thickness would tend
to produce warping in the plane of symmetry.
In Tables 7 and 8 are given the eccentricities resulting from wall
variation and deviation from straightness, together with the total
effective eccentricities for all the struts. The effective eccentrici-
ties varied from —0.008 inch to +0.039 inch, with an average of
+ 0.021 inch.
A comparison of these eccentricities with those allowed in speci-
fications for steel tubing shows that these values are not high.
The aeronautical Navy Department for mild
specifications of the
carbon-steel seamless tubing, Specification No. 58-B, January,
1920, specifies the following for variation in wall thickness and
straightness
Par. 8. The variation in wall thickness of the tubes may be plus or minus 10 per
cent of the dimensions specified. In no part of any tube shall the departure from
straightness exceed i in 600.

Assuming that the wall thickness on one side of a i^-inch

16-gauge tubing is 0.065 mcn (normal thickness) and the other
side 10 per cent less, or 0.0585 inch, the resulting eccentricity due
from this variation in wall thickness is about 0.018 inch. A de-
parture from straightness of 600 for a 3 6 -inch length, the
1 in
length of a strut with and L/r ratio of 70, would give an eccen-
tricity due to deviation from straightness of 0.060 inch. Should
these eccentricities be additive in a strut, the resultant eccentricity
is 0.078 inch. In any lot of tubing complying with specifications
the eccentricity would probably vary fairly uniformly from 0.0
to the extreme case above, so that the average eccentricity would
be approximately 0.039 inch. This value is about twice the general
average of 0.021 inch for the struts tested in this investigation.
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 267

TABLE 7.—Eccentricities.

1H INCHES, 20 GAUGE —=70.

Average wall Eccen- Eccen-

thickness. tricity Dial tricity Total
y*
from deflec- due to eccen-
Strut number. *
l
wall tion. crooked- tricity.
Top Bottom variation. R ness. e=e w +e»
side. side.

Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch.

ll-70<-C 0.035 0.0335 -0. 0007 -0.007 -0. 0077 0.025 0.0132 0.0055
17-70-C .0365 .0355 -.0006 -.006 -.0066 .029 .015 .008
13-70-1 .0347 .0347 .000 .000 .000 .070 .035 .035
9-70-1 .034 .0347 + .0004 + .0041 + .0045 .031 .015 .019

13-70-5 .033 .037 + .0020 + .020 + .022 .033 .0145 .036

15_70_5 .0325 .035 + .0013 + .0135 + .0148 .030 .0137 .0285
13-70-10 .033 .0355 +.0012 + .012 +.0132 .010 .0035 .016
15_70_i0 .0339 .0337 -.0001 -.001 -.0011 .026 .013 .012

Average + .0050 .0154 .0290

1J4 INCHES, 20 GAUGE— =110.

4-110-1 0.035 0.036 +0.0005 +0.005 +0.0055 0.044 0.0215 0.027

17-110-1 .036 .035 -.0005 -.005 -.0055 .031 .016 .911
9-110-3 .0355 .036 + .0002 + .002 + .0022 .068 .034 .036
16-110-3 .035 .0375 + .0013 + .0125 + .0138 .034 .0157 .0295

1-110-6 .0393 .0337 -.0028 -.0267 -.0295 .050 .0275 — .002

11-104-6 .0345 .0345 .000 .000 .000 .017 .008 .008

-.0022 .0205 .0182

\y% INCHES, 16 GAUGE - = 70.

8-70-C 0.0635 0.0615 -0.001 -0. 0052 -0.0062 0.028 0.015 0.009
5-70-C ,. .065 .0605 -.0022 -.011 -.013 .054 .0295 .017
5-70-1 .060 .065 + .0025 + .0131 + .0156 .045 .020 .0356
8-70-1 .0623 .0630 + .0003 + .0015 + .0018 .052 .0255 .027

5-70-5 .066 .060 -.003 -.0156 -.0186 .015 .0105 — .008

5-70-5 .064 .060 -.002 -.0106 -.0126 .022 .013 .0004
8-70-20 .063 .063 .000 .000 .000 .025 .0125 .0125
7-70-20 .059 .065 + .003 + .0150 + .0180 .023 .0085 .026

-.0019 .01«68 .0149

W INCHES,
2 16 GAUGE -=110.

3-110-1 0.0655 0.0610 -0. 0023 -0.0121 -0.0145 0.088 0.046 0.031
14-110-1 .0615 .0685 + .0036 + .0182 + .022 .040 .0166 .039
14-110-5 .062 .066 + .002 + .0105 + .0125 .043 .0195 .036
7-110-5 .063 .060 -.0015 -.008 -.0095 .048 .0255 .016

+ .0026 .0269 .0305

-Anii
i--

R-2k
268 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Vol. 18

(«/) ACCURACY OF METHOD OF DETERMINING ECCENTRICITY.

From the elastic theory one may express the relation between
the lateral deflection at the middle of a column y m and the initial
eccentricity e for round end columns, as follows:

(
sec
V^ _i
)
It can be shown that when the load 4/9 P E —that P 4/9 ofis is,

Euler's maximum load — the deflection at the center of the column

is equal to the initial eccentricity, provided P does not stress the
material beyond the proportional limit. In Table 8 are given the
and the deflection at a load of 4/9 Euler's load for
eccentricities
the eight columns tested. There is practically exact agreement
in all except column 9-110-C, indicating that the method of
determining the eccentricities was very accurate.

TABLE 8.—Eccentricities of Columns.

V/2 INCHES, 20 GAUGE i:«110.

Average wall Eccen-

Eccen- Deflec-
thickness. tricity
tricity Total tion of
from Dial de-
due to eccen-
Strut number. k y wall flection.
crooked- tricity. at load.
• varia- R
Top Bottom
tion.
ness. e=e w +«x
side. side.

Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch. Inch.

1-110-C 0.039 0.036 -0.0015 -0.0144 -0.0159 0.104 0.0535 0.038 0.040
7-110-C .035 .035 .00 .00 .00 .016 .008 .008 .009
1

VA INCHES, 16 GAU( JE A = H0.

r

10-110-C 0.0637 0.064 +0.0004 + 0.002 +0.0024 0.037 0.018 0.020 0.019
9-110-C .060 .064 +.0020 + .010 +.012 .100 .048 .060 .051

iy2 INCHES, 20 GAU( JE i:=70.

T

11-70-C 0.035 0.0335 -0.0007 -0.007 -0.0077 0.025 0.0132 0.0055 0.004
17-70-C .0365 .0355 -.0006 -.006 -.0066 .029 .015 .008 .006

iy2 INCHES, 16 GAU( IE 1=70.

r

8-70-C 0.0635 0.0615 -0.001 -0. 0052 -0. 0062 0.028 0.015 0.009 0.003
5-70-C .065 .0605 -.0022 -.011 -.013 .054 .0295 .017 .017
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 269

4. APPLICATION OF MODIFIED RATIONAL FORMULA.

The results obtained by applying the eccentricities caused by

tube irregularities to the modified rational formula

. P Pec w [P wEc/ T [P \
t° = A + -T seC 2

are given in Table 9. The maximum compressive stress /c to

cause failure of the struts subjected to combined column and
transverse loading are in very close agreement with the yield
point of the material. The small discrepancies that exist are on
the side of safety. In the next to last column in the table are
given the ultimate compressive stress SCy approximately the yield
point in compression for the material, determined from the com-
pression test of short specimen (see Table 2) The maximum .

compressive stress at failure fc for the struts are in extremely close

agreement with these values. The general average of the maxi-
mum compressive stress at failure for the struts is 70,600 lbs. /in. 2
and the average ultimate compressive stress for short column, or
approximate yield point in compression for the material, is 69,700,
an error of about 1 per cent, which is remarkably close for experi-
mental data involving so many variables.

TABLE 9. —Results Obtained by Use of Modified Rational Formula for Combined

Loading.

iy2 INCHES, 20 GAUGE -=70.

Maxi- Ultimate
Maxi- Com- mum Yield
compres-
Trans- mum pressive compres-
point of
Ratio. sive Ratio.
Strut number. verse bending stress sive
material /o stress U
load. stress. 1 P stress at
(tension). YP (short So
5B A failure. 2 column).
h S

Pounds. Lbs. /in. 2 Lbs./in. 2 Lbs./in. 2 Lbs./in.2 Per cent. Lbs./in. 2 Per cent.
13-70-1 1.25 26, 550 41,200 67, 750 68, 900 98 69,300 98
9-70-1 1.25 26, 800 44,400 71, 200 66, 800 106 66,400 107
13-70-5 5.0 37, 700 30,100 67,800 68, 900 98 69, 300 98
15-70-5 5.0 38,000 30, 900 68, 900 69,900 99 68,800 100
13-70-10 10.0 50, 700 22,900 73,600 68,900 107 69,300 106
15-70-10 10.0 49, 700 22,500 72, 200 69, 900 103 68,800 105

Average 70, 200 69,000 102 68,600 102

1H INCHES, 20 GAUGE —=110.

4-110-1 1.0 50, 100 19,400 69, 500 63, 400 109 65, 200 106
17-110-1 1.0 49,600 19,900 69, 500 67, 400 103 68, 400 101
9-110-3 3.0 57,500 14,300 71, 800 66,800 107 66,400 108
16-110-3 3.0 52,560 13, 550 66,110 62, 200 106 66, 200 100
1-110-6 6.05 61,090 8,200 69, 300 61, 200 113 64,700 107
11-110-6 6.05 63,600 10, 300 73, 900 69,000 107 67,500 109

Average 70,000 65,000 107 66, 400 105

See footnotes on p. 270.

 .

270 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards \y i. 18

TABLE 9. —Results Obtained by Use of Modified Rational Formula for Combined

Loading Continued —
1H INCHES, 16 GAUGE - = 70.

Maxi- Ultimate
Maxi- Com- mum Yield
compres-
Trans- mum pressive compres-
point of
Ratio. sive Ratio.
Strut number. verse bending stress. sive
material h stress
load. stress, i
P stress at
(tension). YP (short So
5B A failure.? column).
/c So

Pounds. Lbs./in.2 Lbs./in.2 Lbs./in.2 Lbs. /in.* Per cent. Lbs./in.J Per cent.
5-70-1 1.0 27,040 42, 900 69, 940 70, 000 100 71,600 98
8-70-1 1.0 27, 700 45, 500 73,200 70, 200 104 74,800 98
5-70-5 5.0 25, 960 42, 500 68, 460 70, 000 98 71,600 96
7-70-5 5.0 25, 780 39,300 65, 080 67,500 96 69, 300 94
8-70-20 20.0 56, 000 23, 250 79, 250 70,200 113 74, 800 106
7-70-20 20.0 54, 240 19, 780 74,000 67, 500 109 69, 300 107

Average 71,650 69,200 103 71,900 100

\y2 INCHES, 16 GAUGE -=110.

3-110-1 1.0 60,200 21, 100 81,300 71,300 114 80, 400 101
14-110-1 1.0 44,770 19, 870 64,700 64,600 100 68, 800 94
14-110-5 5.0 54, 740 14, 050 68,800 64,600 106 68,800 100
7-110-5 5.0 53, 810 14, 250 68, 060 67, 500 100 £9,300 98

Average 70, 700 67,000 105 71, 800 98

„
Sb= —
Mo =— Pec
sec
tv f~P
7 -y/p-^-p-
, wEc /
\
sec
it

t -\pir
I P
x
\
)

Mo

The accuracy and safety with which this modified rational

formula determines the stress and strength of struts subjected to
transverse loading is graphically shown in the right half of Figure
io. In this figure the same values for abscissas are used as in
the left half of the figure. The ordinate values fc the maximum ,

compressive stresses at failure, were computed by the modified

formula. It will be seen that the small variations which exist are
less than the variations in the short compression tests. The two
high values are for tubing Nos. 3 and 8, which had a high yield
point in compression.
The between the maximum compressive stress at
relation
failure determined by the formula and the yield point of the
material is shown in Figure 15. The numbers assigned to the
different sections of tubing used in these tests are plotted as
abscissas and the maximum compressive stress at failure for the
struts cut from these sections as ordinates. The heavy line con-
nects the value of ultimate or maximum compressive stress,
approximate yield point in compression obtained from short
Greene] Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 271

compression tests of each section of tubing. This figure also

shows the variation in per cent of maximum compressive stress
from the yield point of the material. It will be noted that the
failing stress of struts computed by the formula agrees very closely
with the failing stress of the short compression pieces.
Theoretically, the modified formula is not exact above the pro-
portional limit, as the formula involves the modulus of elasticity
E. In this investigation the material used had very nearly the
same proportional limit and yield point values. The assumption
of strict proportionality between stress and strain up to failure,
although not theoretically exact, gives results that agree within a
very small percentage error with actual conditions, and for all
practical purposes can be used in design.

>

60000
ss >

V
!

s. 1

im a te
1

pre *»> is
70000 >* Ull >orr to a It.
?
I
b c 1 >- Jl \
I
^jj ul £T
imi res SJ0J. iJ^s

60000

£ S00QO
< 1
C 1 < 1 \ k 3 . >
HOX
> 3

1 44000 6
c

J am
<
i
1
\ 1

Pe ltd 1? 'Sff/i 9f Fa (in Q$

/-" rrr
1
\\ n Kf'p d f fin t -/0%
£ 30000 lot IPd nst n
of
Yie 4 ,°on ir 1 n C am f A sii on
W'i t

A lax mu rn < 'on pri '.55 ve St, ess at Fai bn

r 10000
fc- £
i4 km
rft
£ t
P ?c MC
ffi I* "j tt UC mh )

$t ru! 5 H ith in AS er ;e I .oa dm 9

1

Section No. of Tubinq

7
13 11 5 II 15 If 3 f I 16
esuqe A/o.
16 20 20 lb 20 20 a "20 20 20 20

Fig. 15. Comparison of the maximum compressive stress at failure by modified rational
formula with the yield point of the material.

5. APPLICATION OF "SECANT" COLUMN FORMULA.

(a) TO COLUMNS.

The modified rational formula may be readily applied to col-

umns to determine the maximum compressive stress to cause
failure. By this formula the maximum intensity of compressive
stress is

P P
, Pec
U wEc(
l\p\^)
272 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [vu. 18

For columns the transverse load w is zero, so that the above

formula becomes
I P PeC 7T

^=A + -r sec 2

or
ec L
-
'-U 1+ -22
r
sec
2

which is the well-known "secant" formula for columns with

eccentric loading.
The results of the Table 10. The
column tests are given in
eccentricities about the horizontal axis have been used to deter-
mine the maximum compressive stress for the shorter columns.
The long columns with an Ljr ratio of no failed at Euler's maxi-
mum load. The results indicate that there is fairly close agree-
ment between the maximum compressive stress at failure computed
by the " secant" column formula and the yield point of the mate-
rial with the exception of column 5-70- C. This column failed by
deflecting sideways, indicating that the eccentricity was greater
than the value taken about the horizontal axis.

TABLE 10.— Results of Column Tests.

m INCHES, 20 GAUGE.

Eccen- Maxi- Ultimate

Column Euler tricity e mum com-
L unit
about com- pressive
Strut number. r
stress.
hori- pressive stress 5.
ratio. P P 7r2£
zontal stress. 1 (short
A 7r axis. /« column).
W-
Lbs./in.a Lbs./in.* Inch. Lbs./in.<> Lbs./in.*
11-70-C 70 52,900 58, 500 0.0055 71, 400 67,600
1 7-70-C 70 51, 930 58,400 .008 72,400 68,400
1-110-C 110 23,200 23,600
7-110-C 110 24,000 23,700

1V2 INCHES, 16 GAUGE.

8-70-C 70 52, 800 58,100 0.009 72,300 74,800

5-70-C 70 47, 650 58, 300 .0017 63,600 71,600
10-110-C 110 23,500 23, 500
9-110-C 110 22,500 23,500

I+ SeC
( r^ lVfc)'
( b ) TO STRUTS WITH TRANSVERSE LOADING.

The "secant" column formula can be applied to struts sub-

jected to transverse loading with safety and a reasonable degree
of accuracy if certain modifications in the determination of the
effective eccentricity are made. Consider, first, a strut to be
 .

Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 273

under a very small end load and subjected to a uniform transverse

load of w pounds per linear inch. The strut, by the deflection
formula for a uniform transverse load, will be deflected at the
center a distance

384 EI }

and the bending (flexual) stress Sb in the extreme fiber at the

mid-length section resulting from the transverse loading will be

c 1 wUc
Sb = s~T (2)

On application of the end load the section at the mid length of

the strut will have an effective eccentricity e with reference to
the line of load of
= e° + e * = e° +
e
^E7 (3)

where e is the original eccentricity of the strut in the plane of

deflection due to irregularities in the tube, and e# is the deflection
of the tube produced by the transverse loading. The maximum
column stress Su in the extreme fiber of the section at the middle
of the strut is by the " secant" column formula

S.-^i+Jsec^g) (4)

where e is the effective eccentricity given in equation (3)

The maximum compressive stress at the extreme fiber of the
mid section is the sum of the maximum column stress 5 U and the
bending (flexual) stress SB . It is to be expected that the strut
will fail when the sum of these stresses is approximately equal
to the yield point of the material.
The maximum compressive stress at failure is therefore

}c=S u +Sb = yield point (approximately)

or
ec w
tA{ J+^^^fel'Q -7- (5)

the effective eccentricity e to be taken as the sum of the original

eccentricity and the deflection of the strut resulting from the
transverse load.
The
results obtained by applying the above formula to the
combined tests are given in Table 1 1 The table shows that this
.

method of computation gives values that are, on the average,

about 6 per cent higher than those determined by the more exact
274 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards [Voi.18

formula. The however, is on the side of safety. Where

error,
extreme accuracy not required, this formula can be safely used
is

and is more reliable for designing than Perry's formula, which

neglects the effect of eccentricities.

TABLE 11. —Results Obtained by Applying "Secant" Column Formula for Com-
bined Loading.

\y2 INCHES, 20 GAUGE -=70.

Bending Maxi- Ultimate

Effective
Maxi- stress mum compres-
Trans-
eccen-
mum due to compres- sive Ratio.
Strut number. verse
tricity.
column trans- sive stress /o
load. stress. verse stress at (short
W load.
Sb S
failure.
/.<
column).
S„
So

Pounds. Inch. Lbs./in.2 Lbs. in. 2 Lbs./in.2 Lbs./in.* Per cent.

13-70-1 1.25 0.058 67, 700 3,600 71, 300 69, 300 103
9 70-1 . . 1.25 .0405 69, 300 3,600 72, 900 66, 400 110
13_70_5 5.0 .126 55, 400 14, 600 70, 000 69 300 101
15-70-5 5.0 .121 56, 200 14, 900 71,100 68, 800 103
13_70_10 10.0 .198 46, 100 29,400 75, 500 69, 300 109
15-70-10 10.0 .199 44,700 29, 200 73, 900 68, 800 107

72,400 68,600 105

\y2 INCHES, 20 GAUGE — -110.

4-110-1 1.0 0.135 69, 400 7,000 76, 400 65, 200 117
17-110-1 1.0 .119 70, 800 6,900 77, 700 68, 400 113
9-110-3 3.0 .358 56, 200 20, 700 76, 900 66, 400 116
16-110-3 3.0 .347 49, 500 20, 800 70, 300 66, 200 106
1 HO-6 6.05 .644 31,900 39, 500 71,400 64, 700 110
11 104-6- - 6.05 .542 38, 200 38, 000 76, 200 67, 600 113

74, 800 66, 400 112

I r
1H INCHES, 16 GAUGE

5 70-1 . . 1.0 0.045 68, 900 1,660 70, 560 71,600 98

8 70-1 1.0 .037 73, 800 1,630 75, 400 74, 800 101
5_70_5 . . 5.0 .042 65, 000 7,900 72, 900 71,600 102
7-70-5 . . 5.0 .050 59, 650 8,130 67, 800 69, 300 98
8-70-20 20.0 .212 49, 400 32,500 81,900 74, 800 109
7_70_20 20.0 .225 41,400 33, 700 75, 100 69, 300 108

72, 300 71,900 102

\y2 INCHES, 16 GAUGE - = 110.

3-110-1. . . 1.0 0.091 85, 700 3,900 89, 600 80, 400 111
14-110-1 1.0 .099 66, 200 4,000 70, 200 68, 800 102
14-110-5 5.0 .337 54, 100 20, 100 74, 100 68, 800 107
7-110-5 5.0 .327 53, 300 20, 300 73, 600 69, 300 106

76, 800 71,800 106

e = original eccentricity due to tube irregularities.

= _5_ WL*
384 E I

Su
-K i+ ^ sec
fV£)'
1 wL*c
s
Sb =

'/c=5u+5b.
Greene) Strength of Struts Under Transverse Load 275

V. CONCLUSIONS.
The results of this investigation warrant the following con-
clusions :

1. For determining the strength of a strut account must be

taken of the effect of eccentricity. For steel tubing struts the

eccentricity resulting from (a) variation in wall thickness and
.(b) deviation from straightness are very important factors in
determining the strength.
For struts subjected to combined column and transverse load-
2.

ing it is assumed that failure occurs when the maximum compressive

fiber stress approximates the yield point of the material. The com-
monly used formulas which neglect the effect of eccentricity are
P M P wEc ( ir l~P \

h A+ I A + /8 \Pv-P/
c

These do not represent actual strut condition and are not con-
firmed by experimental data. The use of these formulas for design
purposes is shown by the data of this investigation to be inadvis-
able and possibly dangerous, especially for short struts or struts
with small transverse loads.
3. A modified rational formula based upon consideration of the
effect of eccentricity of loading,

=P+ M = P + Pec IP wEc / t [P \

^
, it
/c
A T~
c
A seC
2 V^ + "^V SeC
2VPE "V
was found to fit the experimental results very closely, the agree-
ment being such as to indicate that it is the preferable formula
for design where accuracy and safety are essential.
4. Failure of a strut subjected to combined column and trans-
verse loading will occur when the maximum compressive stress

/c computed by this formula is approximately equal to the yield

point of the material.
5. The results of thefew tests made on tubes as columns indi-
cate that failure of a column will occur when the extreme fiber
stress is equal to the yield point of the material. For column
loading the modified rational formula also applies, as it reduces
to the "secant" column formula
.

/c
= P ^i+
( ec it
,sec-y
l~P\
z r F-J
for such conditions of loading, since the transverse load w is zero.
 .

276 Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards \V0i.18

6. A safe and reasonably accurate computation of stress for

strut under transverse loading can be obtained by summing the
bending stress 5b due to the transverse load as computed by the
(1= —
Sb ~
ivTJ*c\
j— ) and the column stress 5U obtained

by the "secant" column formula. For failure

wUc P ( ec
=SB + 5 u = g —r + ? (^i+-
1 tt
/c sec-
-
2

approximates the yield point of the material, where the effective

eccentricity e is the sum of the original eccentricity e c due to tube

irregularities, and the deflection at the middle of the strut e B due

to the applied transverse load, the latter for a uniformly distributed

load being eB = -^- -^y The results obtained by this formula

are shown by the data to be on the average about 6 per cent too
high the error, however, is on the side of safety.
;

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS.
1 The results show that there exists quite a wide deviation from
straightness and wide variation in wall thickness in commercial
tubing. Differences in wall thickness may cause variation in the
area of two different pieces of tubing of the same gauge and
diameter of 8 per cent, with corresponding variation in other
properties. The data also show that
produced by eccen-
stresses
tricities resultingfrom these variations are in some cases very
high and unless known and considered are liable to be dangerous.
These variables should, therefore, preferably be limited to as nar-
row a range as possible in the specifications for commercial tubing
and enforced by careful and rigid inspection.
2. A new empirical formula for steel-tubing struts under trans-

verse loading may be obtained by assigning a numerical value to

the effective eccentricity in the modified rational formula. This
value may be determined either by average measurements of
commercial tubing or from the limits stated in the specification.
With this procedure, the formula would probably be of assistance
for design purposes when the actual eccentricity can not be
determined.
3. The same numerical value for eccentricity, determined and
corroborated by further experiments on columns, when applied
to the " secant" formula, would probably give a satisfactory and
accurate column formula for design purposes.
Washington, February 10, 1924.