INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10, pp.

1829-1836 OCTOBER 2012 / 1829

DOI: 10.1007/s12541-012-0240-y

A Study on the Prediction of Lateral Buckling Load

for Wind Turbine Tower Structures
Kang-Su Lee1 and Hyung-Joon Bang2,#
1 Green & Industrial Technology Center, Korean Register of Shipping, 23-7 Jang-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejon, South Korea, 305-343
2 Distributed Power Generation and Energy Storage Center, Korea Institute of Energy Research, 152 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejon, South Korea, 305-343
# Corresponding Author / E-mail: bang@kier.re.kr, TEL: +82-42-860-3485, FAX: +82-42-861-6224

KEYWORDS: Wind turbine, Tower, Buckling load, Lateral, Nonlinear, Finite element method, Dynamic effect

A method to evaluate the structural safety of lateral buckling load is presented, using FEM analysis for a wind turbine tower
with a thin circular wall. Europe, the U.S., and Japan already have long histories of research into wind power due to its
high efficiency. The tower structure that supports a wind turbine is one important research area. There are three types of
tower that vary by structural composition: a cylindrical tower with a circular cross-section, a jacket tower with a truss
structure, and a hybrid tower. This paper investigates an accident involving a 600kW wind turbine that occurred in JeJu,
Korea in October of 2010. The results from a numerical analysis are compared with the actual collapse mode observed at
the accident. Some buckling modes and wind speeds at which non-linear buckling response occurs are predicted via the arc-
length method for a land-based cylindrical stationary tower. The evaluation method is used accident (experiment),
analytical, linear and nonlinear finite element method (beam and shell) to analyze the result of predicted buckling load of
tower. The result of nonlinear FEM shell model was found to exhibit similar behavior to the accident situation during
buckling. It is concluded that this paper provides buckling analysis process and method used for the slender shell structures:
the predicted buckling load and analysis methodology. In this paper, The results from the numerical estimation show good
agreement with those of the analytical calculation, indicating that the arc-length method effectively improved the
convergence. We found out buckling limit load of the accident wind turbine tower and wind speed at buckling point. The
result of nonlinear FEM shell model was found to exhibit similar behavior to the actual accident (experiment) situation
during buckling. The presented buckling evaluation method will be useful for both static design and dynamic performance
evaluation of land-based wind turbines, as well as sea-based wind turbines.

Manuscript received: January 10, 2012 / Accepted: June 3, 2012

1. Introduction
NOMENCLATURE
Awareness of the coming global energy crisis has been
M z = Total lateral buckling moment facilitating the search for alternative sources of energy. Wind power
M = Buckling moment is one of the renewable energies that many researchers in Europe,
E = Elastic modulus the U.S., and Japan have been pursuing for a long time because of
G = Shear modulus its high efficiency. One of the structures that support the wind
I y = Moment of inertia turbine is the tower, which may cause serious physical and
L = Beam length economical loss when it is collapsed or damaged. The failure of a
J = Torsion coefficient wind turbine tower is usually due to lateral buckling, because the
K T = Tangent stiffness matrix tower is a long slender structure and the main loads occur in a
λ = Load factor lateral direction. The lateral loads acting on a wind turbine tower
F a = Force convergence are wind pressure on the tower structure and thrust generated by the
F nr = Newton-Raphson residual rotor. However, most tower collapses are the result of damage from
r = Radius of convergence typhoons, hurricanes, lighting, and cyclones. Typhoons and
hurricanes are not taken into consideration for wind turbines in

© KSPE and Springer 2012

 1830 / OCTOBER 2012
Table 1 Statistics data of invasion in Korea
Period(year) Occurrence(avg.) Invasion
100(1904-2004) 31.5 3.1
30(1971-2000) 26.7 3.4
10(1911-2000) 26.2 3.8
Fig. 1 Buckling accident of wind turbine tower in India due to a
cyclone
Europe because there is virtually no occurrence of these extreme
weather conditions. However, as the statistics in Table 1 show,
Korea is under the influence of typhoons, and therefore they should
be considered as a factor in structural integrity evaluations as well
as design. A cyclone is another source of damage. 129 of 315 wind
turbines had structural damage due to cyclones in September, 1998.
Fig. 1 shows an example of a cyclone’s destructive power. A wind
turbine tower was collapsed by a cyclone in India.
Lateral buckling behaviour of slender-tall structures as like
wind turbine tower and substructure is of fundamental importance
in the design of structures subjected to heavy transverse loading.
This slender-tall beam lateral buckling analysis becomes much
more complicated in the case the cross section’s centroid does not
coincide with its shear center (monosymmetric or asymmetric
beams). Several researchers (Sapountzakis 2009, Cyrilus 2008,
Minger 2009) have dealt with the lateral buckling of beams
employing numerical solutions or analytic approximate techniques.
More specifically, Sebastian et al (2005) presented a finite element
model for the stability analysis of beams employing linear
expressions for deformation. Trahair et al. (2009) presented a
comprehensive state of the art about boundary conditions effects on
the stability of thin-walled elements. Mohri et al. (2008) studied the
lateral post-buckling analysis of simply supported thin-walled open
section beams employing the Galerkin method after applying
sinusoidal functions. Finally, Mohri et al. developed a large torsion
finite element model for elastic thin-walled Bernoulli beams
without any assumption for the torsion angle amplitude and any
approximation for the trigonometric terms. This paper presents a
generally applicable procedure and technique to the evaluation of
plastic-section capacity for cylindrical cross sections as like
slender-tall wind turbine tower and internal forces and this study
investigates the collapse case of the VESTAS V42-600kW wind
turbine with shear deformation, which occurred in Hangwon, Jeju,
Korea on October 25, 2010, resulting in a fire and the buckling of
the tower. A buckling analysis method is presented based on the
FEM using ANSYS v12.0. The numerical results are then compared
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10
with the actual location of the buckling observed in the accident.
The main trigger is identified from the loads that contribute to
lateral buckling. In addition, the load and wind speed at the critical
point are predicted.
2. Nonlinear Buckling Analysis
Structural stability indicates how a structure withstands
buckling. Buckling of a column occurs when its length is greater
than its cross-sectional dimension and the column is under a
compressive load. Critical load, Pcr, can be defined as a
compressive force at which the deformation of a material is
regarded as an unstable elastic equilibrium. Any force greater than
the critical load will result in an elastic collapse of the material.
This kind of buckling can be found in cases of an Euler column
under an axial load, a thin film tube under an external pressure, and
a thin panel under side pressure. The lateral elastic buckling
moment M of a simply supported beam is calculated via Eq. (1).
M = π 2 EI y GJ / L2 (1)
Where, E : Elastic modulus, G : Shear Modulus, I y : Moment of
inertia, L : Beam length, J : Torsion Coefficient
If any section have a non-symmetric, it can be rewrite as Eq. (2).
Mz = M { (1 + ( β x Py / 2M ) 2 + β x Py / 2M } (2)
Where, M z : Total Buckling Moment, M : Buckling Moment,
1
I x ∫A
Py = π 2 EI y / L2 , β x = y ( x 2 + y 2 )dA − 2 y0
(x and y coordinate axes : in-plane direction of cross section for
tower, z coordinate axes : longitudinal direction of tower)
The Equation (1) and (2) can be generally applied to the beam
structure beam-like wind turbine tower having torsion and bending
moment of the structure simultaneously. The lateral torsional
buckling capacity depends upon a variety of material and geometric
properties, support conditions, location of applied load relative to
the shear centre and bending moment distribution along the length
of the member. Generally, the consideration of non-uniform
bending moment diagram is taken into account by means of
equivalent uniform moment factor. The elastic critical moment of
simply supported beam with uniform moment is multiplied by this
factor to obtain the elastic critical moment for any bending moment
diagram. Critical stress is applicable to Euler columns because it is
influenced by the proportional elastic limit, and the stress has to
remain lower than the yield stress. From a conservative point of
view, failure can be defined as a compressive yield of the material.
Buckling can be classified into three types: bifurcation buckling,
large deformation buckling, and limit load buckling. Fig. 2 show
the dynamic response behavior of each buckling type.
In cases of bifurcation buckling, if the column is ideally fixed at
the end, both a sudden lateral deflection and an axial deflection
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10
(a) Bifurcation buckling
(b) Large displacement buckling
(c) Limit load buckling
Fig. 2 Dynamic response behavior of buckling
appear when the axial load surpasses the critical point. In cases of
large deflection buckling, again if the column is ideally fixed at the
end, there exist two load-deflection relationships under the critical
load: the column may buckle toward either the left or the right. On
the other hand, in cases of limit load buckling, the column
continually deflects as long as it is under a load, until the load
reaches the limit load or maximum load. Once the load reaches the
limit point, the structure experiences a drastic change in geometry,
and the equilibrium path turns into an unstable state.
2.1 Pre-Buckling Analysis
The analysis for evaluation of buckling strength consists of pre-
buckling and post-buckling cases. The analysis of pre-buckling
consists of two branches: an eigenvalue problem that predicts
eigenmodes and theoretical buckling limit load from a linearized
process, and a nonlinear buckling problem that predicts buckling
limit load based on the actual geometry of the structure.
OCTOBER 2012 / 1831
Fig. 3 Nonlinear buckling strength point
2.2 Solution Method of Nonlinear Buckling Analysis
The overarching purpose of nonlinear buckling analysis is to
find the load at which the buckling occurs. To obtain stable analysis
results with better convergence behavior, the arc-length method is
used in this study. The arc-length method adopts an unknown load
factor λ (-1 < λ < 1) and solves the problem for both load and
deflection at the same time. It can be implemented as a modified
Newton-Raphson method by multiplying Eq. (3) by the total load
factor λ, thus yielding Eq. (4).
[ K T ]{∆u} = {F a } − {F nr } (3)
[ K T ]{∆u} = λ{F a } − {F nr } (-1 < λ < 1) (4)
Fig. 3 illustrates the arc-length method applied to an iterative
convergence. As shown in the figure, this method controls the load
increment and displacement increment simultaneously. The
convergence path follows the arc of the load-deflection curve so
that the behavior at which KT becomes 0 or negative can be
controlled. However, when this method is used in an analysis model
to converge for applied force, it may cause difficulties with
convergence in the analysis of post-buckling phenomena such as
snap-through. In such a case, because the tangent stiffness matrix
[K]T is unique (KT = 0 or KT < 0) at an unstable point, the iteration
fails to converge. Therefore, in order to secure the convergence of
the iteration, this study lets the solution method converge for
deflection.
The converged solution at each step repeatedly passes the
instability point to reach the post-buckling state. The load increment
factor ∆λ and displacement increment ∆u at each convergence step
of the arc-length method are shown in Eq. (5).
{∆u } = ∆λ {∆u
i
I
i } − {∆u }
II
i
(5)
3. Finite Element (FE) Analysis and Experimental
Material Test
3.1 Analysis Model
ANSYS version 12.0 is used for the evaluation of lateral
buckling strength and the prediction of buckling limit load. The
geometric model and FEM model of the wind turbine tower are
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The VESTAS V42-600kW wind turbine,
 1832 / OCTOBER 2012 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10

Fig. 6 Loading and boundary condition of wind turbine tower

Fig. 4 Measured Dimension of WT tower

Fig. 7 Shape of elastic shell element

Fig. 5 FE model of wind turbine tower

Table 2 Test result of tension strength for tower specimen
which has a nacelle weight of 17900kg, including the rotor and total Elastic Yield Tensile
Poisson’s
Specimen modulus strength strength
tower weight of 33 tons, is modeled as a lumped mass. The ratio
[Mpa] [Mpa] [Mpa]
dimensions of the model, which are determined by measurement of #1 219.7 0.262 304.7 458.2
the actual tower, are as follows: The total height is 45m. Its 3m- Arc-Dir. #2 201.4 0.274 308.6 459.2
diameter bottom tapers linearly to a 2m-diameter top. It has a 0.8m Avg. 210.6 0.268 306.7 458.7
#1 246.1 0.293 308.1 451.4
by 2m door with a corner radius of 0.05m.
Longi-Dir. #2 215.7 0.292 311.1 460.0
Avg. 230.9 0.293 309.6 455.7
The following assumptions apply to the analysis model: Total Average 220.8 0.281 308.1 457.2
- The loads are in a static state.
- The foundation of the tower does not deform. 3.2 Material Properties from Specimen Test
- The bottom of the tower is a fixed support. The tower is made of S335 steel. However, its material
- The effect of inertia is ignored. properties may not be the same as those made from standard
- All components other than tower itself are lumped masses. materials, because 15 years of operation can weaken the structure.
Therefore, the actual material properties are obtained by tensile
The applied loads and boundary conditions of the FEM model tests of specimens taken from the tower. The results of the specimen
are shown in Fig. 6. The coordinate system is established in such a tests are shown in Table 2. The material properties are determined
way that the load is applied in the x direction, the tower stretches up from the averaged values of the test results.
in the z direction, and rotating the x-axis 90 degrees in-plane
defines the y direction.
The geometry model is a 4-node elastic shell which has 6 DOF, 4. Prediction of Buckling Limit Load
i.e. Ux, Uy, Uz, Rotx, Roty, and Rotz, as shown in Fig. 7. The shell
thickness is given as an input. The upper body of the wind turbine is 4.1 Investigation of Buckling Strength
modeled as a lumped mass that includes the nacelle and rotor The loads are applied to arbitrarily chosen sections of the tower,
weight components. The lumped mass is connected to the tower and the reaction forces are examined. The calculated deflection and
structure via a rigid multi-point constraint (MPC), a non- stress distributions of the tower when buckling occurs are shown in
deformable beam element that takes only mass into account. Fig. 8. The maximum deflection reaches about 2.1m.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10
(a) Displacement distribution
(b) Stress distribution
Fig. 8 Displacement and stress result of wind turbine tower
Fig. 9 Actual buckling location of accident wind turbine tower
However, the stress values may not be meaningful because the
analysis is about the instability of the model geometry. The analysis
shows that the buckling occurs at 14.2m above the bottom, which is
close to the actual measurement of 13.5m. The locations of
buckling for actual case are illustrated in Fig. 9.
The buckling limit load, the load that results in buckling of the
structure, is determined from the fully converged reaction force in
the x direction. In this case, it is 1,355,200 N. This limit load is
used backwards to predict the wind pressure on the tower, rotor
thrust, and wind speed that resulted in the failure of the tower.
OCTOBER 2012 / 1833
Fig. 10 Loading and reaction force acting on wind turbine tower
Table 3 List of loading and reaction force acting on WT tower
No. Loading & Reaction Forces Type
1 Wind pressure Loading
2 Gravity(Inertia) load Loading
3 Thrust force Loading
4 Rotational force Loading
5 Overturning moment Loading
6 Axial stress Reaction
7 Bending stress(out and in-plane) Reaction
8 Shear stress(xy, yz, zx) Reaction
4.2 Prediction of Buckling Load and Limit Wind Speed
The loads acting on a wind turbine are generally evaluated
according to the International Electrical Committee (IEC) 61400
series. However, this method ignores the inertia effects of time-
varying loads on buckling strength. Furthermore, the accident case
lacks detailed information about the failed wind turbine system.
Therefore, all the active forces are listed and applied: the
aerodynamic force due to wind pressure on the tower from the
bottom to the top, the body force of the tower due to gravity, the
rotor thrust, rotational inertia force of the rotor, and the overturning
moment due to the rotation of the rotor. The complete list of forces
is shown in Table 3, and Fig. 10 depicts the loads as well as reaction
forces. The active forces are applied at the top of the tower as a
concentrated load.
The buckling wind speed is calculated backwards by matching
the sum of the main horizontal forces, i.e. the wind pressure force
and rotor thrust, to the buckling limit load estimated in the previous
section. As a result, it is estimated that the buckling of the failed
tower occurred at a wind speed of 34.68m/s. The rotor thrust and
wind pressure force at this wind speed are calculated as follows: We
tried to calculate critical wind speed at the buckling point of tower
structure considering thrust force of wind turbine blade. The
measured maximum wind speed of the day of collapse accident for
wind turbine was about 31 m/s. we could forecast the gap between
the analysis result and measurement value of wind speed and
forecast as its dynamic effects contributed to collapse for the tower
structure.
 1834 / OCTOBER 2012 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10

Fig. 11 Thrust coefficient curve due to wind speed

Table 4 Typical power law exponents (Building standard of Korea,

2011)
Terrain description Exponent
Smooth, hard ground, lake or ocean 0.10 (a) Wind pressure distribution
Short grass on untilled ground 0.14
Level country with foot-high grass 0.16
Tall row crops, hedges, a few trees 0.20
Many trees and occasional buildings 0.22-0.24
Wooded country-small towns and suburbs 0.28-0.30
Urban area with tall buildings 0.4

● Estimation of the rotor thrust

Because of the large thrust from the rotor, the wind turbine
structures deflect horizontally in the same way that the cantilever
beam does vertically. Fig. 11 shows the variation of Ce and the
thrust coefficient CT with wind speed. In normal cases, CT is kept
under the cut-out value by a controller. However, in the case of this
accident, it makes sense to assume that the controller failed. This
would have allowed CT to reach the maximum of 0.83 at the (b) Overturning moment
specified wind speed, as found in the published data of the Fig. 12 Wind pressure distribution and overturning moment
VESTAS v42-600kW shown in Fig. 11. Given the value of CT, the according to wind speed
rotor thrust is estimated via Eq. (6), which yields 1,283,604 N for
this case. The value of α is determined to be 0.20, based on Table 4. The
calculation yields an aerodynamic force of 68719 N at the specified
1
F= ρ CTV 2 A (6) wind speed of 34.68m/s. The aerodynamic force and overturning
2
moment according to wind speed are shown in Figs. 12.
Where, F : Thrust force, CT : Thrust coefficient, ρ : Air density,
V : wind speed, A : Swept area of blade 4.3 Comparison of Tower Deflection Calculations
The numerical results are compared with the analytical
● Estimation of aerodynamic force due to wind pressure calculations. Assuming that the cross-section is uniform, the
The aerodynamic force is estimated by the power law, using the maximum deflection of the tower is investigated with the constant
wind pressure estimate based on the wind speed and the tower moment of inertia I, which is measured at the top, middle, and
height, as shown in Eqs. (7) and (8). bottom. The calculation is conducted using Eq. (9), and the total
α deflection is found to be the sum of the deflections at each location.
 z 
V ( z ) = Vhub   (7) The calculated total deflections are 1.112m, 2.052m, and 4.722m
 zhub  for I values from the top, middle, and bottom, respectively. These
Where, V ( z ) : Calibrated wind speed due to power law, Vhub : Wind values are close to the results of the numerical analysis, so it is
speed at hub height, z : critical height of WT, zhub : Hub height, α : confirmed that the numerical analysis is reliable.
exponent value(refer to Table 4).
Pa 2
δ max = (3L − a ) (9)
1 6 EI
Q = CD ρV 2 A (8)
2
Where, δ max : displacement, P : Applied load, L : Tower length, a :
Where, Q : Wind pressure, CD : Cylindrical drag coefficient, ρ : distance from support point to applied force location, I : moment of
Air density, V : Wind speed, A : Swept area of tower inertia, E : Elastic modulus
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10 OCTOBER 2012 / 1835

Table 5 Result of Predicted buckling load

Total Buckling Error Difference
Method
Moment (N-m) (%)
Analytical 34,869,029 19
Beam 650,354,400 2,121
Linear
Shell 59,853,600 104
Beam 31,363,200 7
Nonlinear
Shell 29,272,320 0

The evaluation method is used actual accident (experiment),

analytical, linear and nonlinear finite element method (beam and
shell) to analyze the result of predicted buckling load of tower and
the result is shown in Table 5. The result of nonlinear FEM shell
(a) 1st (0.864 Hz)
model was found to exhibit similar behavior to the actual accident
(experiment) situation during buckling.

4.4 Investigation of Eignevalues and Eigenmodes

The calculated natural frequencies and four eigenmodes, from
the first to the fourth are shown in Fig. 13.
The first and second mode shapes are very similar to the
buckling mode of the wind turbine tower. This fact indicates that if
the rotor freely rotates at its rated speed of 30RPM (0.5Hz) without
a controller, it surpasses the natural frequency, causing resonance of
the dynamic response.

(b) 2nd (0.878 Hz)

5. Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn from this study.

Analytical prediction indicates that the buckling limit load Pcr
is 1,355,200 N. The two dominant sources of horizontal load, i.e.
rotor thrust and aerodynamic force, are estimated to be 1,283,604 N
and 68,719 N, respectively. These forces cause the buckling of the
tower at a wind speed of 34.6 m/s.
The thrust of a rotating rotor is the greatest horizontal load that
needs to be controlled. A plausible trigger for the accident of the
VESTAS V42-600kW is failure of the rotor speed control at its cut-
out speed of 25 m/s. As the rotor rotates at an excessive speed, it
generates a thrust beyond the limit load, resulting in buckling of the
(c) 3rd (5.356 Hz)
tower and eventually total system loss. If the rotor is stopped, the
effect of the thrust will be negligible and the only load that applies
to the tower will be the aerodynamic force due to the wind shear.
Under these conditions, the wind turbine tower may able to survive
even higher wind speeds, up to 50 m/s.
The results from the numerical estimation show good
agreement with those of the analytical calculation, indicating that
the arc-length method effectively improved the convergence.
The natural frequencies fall within 0.86 Hz for the first mode
and 8.72 Hz for the 8th mode. Because the V42 wind turbine’s rated
rotor speed is 30RPM (0.5Hz), there is ample opportunity for the
rotor speed to approach any one of the natural frequencies as it gets
faster. Therefore, it is inferred that the accident occurred as the rotor
speed abruptly increased, passing through one of the resonant (d) 4th (5.382 Hz)
frequencies. Fig. 13 Mode shape of WT tower from 1st to 4th mode
 1836 / OCTOBER 2012 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 13, No. 10

It is also concluded that the inertial force of the rotating rotor 9. Oh, Y. S., “Analysis of Structural Buckling Stability,” Korea
and the harmonic vibration components approached the tower’s Society of Steel and Construction, 2009.
natural frequency, causing a direct impact on the amplitude of
10. Kim, M. S., “Ultimate Strength Analysis of Stiffened Plate and
dynamic displacement.
Shell Structure Using Non-Linear Finite Element Procedures,”
Taking into account all the effects of the exciting force of the
Dep. of Civil Engineering, Sungkyunkwan Univ., Suwon, 1998.
rotor, the amplitude of the tower’s dynamic response, the harmonic
vibration of the rotor, and the resonance, it is reasonable to 11. Trahair, N. S., “Multiple Design Curves for Beam Lateral
conclude that buckling and failure of the tower could happen at a Buckling,” Proc. of 5th International Colloquium on Stability
wind speed of lower than 34.6 m/s. The conclusion of this study and Ductility of Steel Structures, Nagoya, pp. 33-44, 1997.
will be valuable for future design and estimation of buckling limit 12. Jung, D. W. and Lim, S. Y., “Elastic Finite Element Analysis for
load and buckling wind speed of wind turbines for both land-based a Flexible Beam Structure,” Korea Society Mechanical
and sea-based applications. Engineers Journal, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 3441-3453, 1996.
The evaluation method is used accident (experiment), analytical,
13. Park, H. K., Kim, S. B., Kim, M. Y., and Chang, S. P., “Lateral-
linear and nonlinear finite element method (beam and shell) to
torsional Post-Buckling Analyses of Thin-Walled Space Frames
analyze the result of predicted buckling load of tower. The result of
with Non-symmetric Sections,” Korea Society of Steel and
nonlinear FEM shell model was found to exhibit similar behavior to
Construction Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 153-165, 1999.
the actual accident (experiment) situation during buckling. It is
concluded that this paper provides buckling analysis process and
method used for the slender shell structure: the predicted buckling
load and analysis methodology.

REFERENCES

1. Sapountzakis, E. and Dourakopoulos, J., “Lateral buckling

analysis of beams of arbitrary cross section by BEM,” Int. J.
Computational Mechanics, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 11-21, 2009.
2. Kurniawan, C. W. and Mahendran, M., “Elastic lateral buckling
of simply supported LiteSteel beams subject to transverse
loading,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 109-119,
2009.
3. Wu, M., “Analytical method for the lateral buckling of the
struts in beam string structures,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 30,
No. 9, pp. 2301-2310, 2008.
4. Kim, J. W., “Inelastic Lateral Buckling of Reinforced H-Section
Beams,” Architectural Institute of Korea Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp. 177-185, 2007.
5. Machado, S. P., “Interaction of combined loads on the lateral
stability of thin-walled composite beams,” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 3516-3527, 2010.
6. Machado, S. P. and Cortínez, V. H., “Non-linear model for
stability of thin-walled composite beams with shear
deformation,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 43, No. 10, pp.
1615-1645, 2005.
7. Osterrieder, P. and Kretzschmar, J., “First-hinge analysis for
lateral buckling design of open thin-walled steel members,”
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 62, No. 1-2, pp.
35-43, 2006.
8. Mohri, F., Bouzerira, C., and Potier-Ferry, M., “Lateral buckling
of thin-walled beam-column elements under combined axial
and bending loads,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.
290-302, 2008.